专贴：About Language Teaching and Learning （请勿跟帖，谢谢！！！）

cbzhang307

Acculturation
Acculturation is the process an individual needs to go through in order to become adapted to a different culture. For this to take place there will need to be changes in both social and psychological behaviour. Where the target culture involves a different language, a key part of the acculturation process will involve language learning. Research has concentrated on the acculturation of immigrant workers to their host country. The fact that many of the learners in this category fail to master the target language is associated with their isolation and lack of social contact with the host population. This lack of progress and the FOSSILISATION of their language SKILLS has been linked to pidginisation (Schumann, 1976). Acculturation is not generally associated with foreign language learning because this can take place without any direct contact with the target country Where pupils do have contact with the target language and culture, for example through a pupil EXCHANGE, some of the features of acculturation could be seen to have relevance for foreign language learning.

Acculturation requires the learner to adjust their social and psychological behaviour in order to become more closely integrated with the target culture. This distance which separates the learner from the target culture is a measure by which acculturation can be assessed. Byram (1989) talks about the outsider beginning to become an insider, and how critical the move is ‘…from noticing the boundary markers to appreciating the whole complexity of the way of life’. The initial contact in this process of adaptation may be associated with CULTURE SHOCK as the learner discovers that they need to accept differences in behaviour from those with which they are familiar from their own culture. The learner’s MOTIVATION to become more closely integrated with the target culture will be associated with their individual NEEDS.

Acculturation theory originated with the ethnographic work of Linton (1960), who studied the changes Native Americans needed to make in order to become more integrated into mainstream American society. He identified the notion of the distance separating the two cultural groups and the social and psychological changes which would be necessary for closer integration to take place. Social distance would be associated with the actual contact which was available between the two cultures, while psychological distance represented the extent to which the learner wanted to become more closely adapted to the dominant culture. Where differences in language existed between the two cultures, language learning was clearly an important part of the acculturation process.

For Schumann (1978), acculturation theory provided an explanation for individual differences in second language learning and represented the causal variable in the second language ACQUISITION process. In his model of the factors determining social and psychological distance, Schumann established the positive and negative elements of acculturation. So, for example, the ATTITUDE of the learner to the target social group could be a positive or negative factor while, psychologically, MOTIVATION would be seen as a key factor. For him, the first stages of language acquisition are ‘characterised by the same processes that are responsible for the formation of PIDGIN languages. When there are hindrances to acculturation—when social or psychological distance is great—the learner will not progress beyond the early stages and the language will stay pidginized’ (McLaughlin, 1987). The learner’s language will therefore fossilise due to the lack of contact with the target language group. Further research (Andersen, 1981), has described in more detail these characteristics, identifying a number of different stages in the process of pidginisation and creolisation (development of a more complex form of pidgin). So, nativisation ‘involves assimilation as the learner makes the input conform to an internalized view of what constitutes the second language system’, while denativisation represents the next stage when the learner adjusts this early language to external input. The first stage of second language learning involves, therefore, simplification and regression, while later learning is concerned with replacement and restructuring. McLaughlin (1987) describes nativisation as ‘perhaps the most interesting aspect of Acculturation/ Pidginization theory as it relates to the mechanisms of learning’.

The theory of acculturation as developed by Schumann is proposed to explain the factors affecting ADULT second language ACQUISITION taking place without formal instruction, in naturalistic situations. As the theory stands, then, it would appear to have little to offer instructed second or foreign language learning (McLaughlin, 1987; Ellis, 1994). However, McLaughlin has pointed to the probable relevance of the notion of psychological distance for foreign language learning in the classroom. Attitude to the target culture and pupil motivation are likely to be key factors in classroom foreign language learning. Moreover, where pupils have the possibility of direct contact with the target country through a period of exchange or work experience abroad, they are in a situation where they will need to adapt to new and different cultural situations. The extent to which they are able to become integrated with the family with whom they are staying approximates, even for a limited period, the kind of changes emphasised by the acculturation theory. The theory provides, therefore, a useful means of assessing the adaptation of exchange pupils to their new environment which could be measured through the use of questionnaires.

Acculturation theory clearly matches, in a number of important areas, the fossilisation theory of Selinker (1972), which pre-dates it. Both theories seek to explain incomplete language learning and the fact that most learners do not achieve mastery of the target language. In their descriptions of simplified and reduced forms of speech not matching target language norms, they are describing similar phenomena. However, whereas fossilisation theory is based on a linguistic analysis of second language development as identified through examples of usage, acculturation begins with the notion of a single external factor—relationship to the target culture—which leads to these recognised limitations in learner INTERLANGUAGE. Acculturation, centred on the degree to which learners are in contact with the target culture, is largely, in contrast with the fossilisation theory, concerned with naturalistic and not instructed language learning. While they differ in the learning environment they describe, both theories have concentrated on the permanence of the language features identified. This is a point which McLaughlin takes up in his EVALUATION of the acculturation theory: ‘…relatively little attention has been given to the possibility of changes in individual motivation and attitude as they relate to second language acquisition’ (McLaughlin, 1987). Changes in fossilisation theory have begun to address this problem and Selinker (Selinker and Lakshmanan, 1993), recognising the difficulties of identifying a point when language development stops, no longer sees the process as necessarily permanent and identifies the concept of ‘plateaus in L2 learning rather than cessation of learning’.

The acculturation/pidginisation theory provides a powerful means for assessing a learner’s involvement with the target culture. By extending the scope of the theory to include instructed language learning, it would certainly have, as McLaughlin (1987) suggests, ‘…something to say to teaching practitioners’.

cbzhang307

Acquisition and teaching

When considering the relevance of SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION THEORIES (SLA) to language teaching, in addition to the fact that theories are just theories, not ‘the truth’ about SLA, there is a question of focus. The scope of many SLA theories does not extend to the L2 classroom at all. Moreover, even the minority of SLA theories that aspire to classroom relevance focus on instructed SLA, not language teaching per se, which involves acquisition plus a number of situational variables, and so is far more complex. Furthermore, whereas the goal of most SLA theorists is to discover the least powerful theory that will handle the known facts, i.e., to identify what is necessary and sufficient for language acquisition, the language teacher and the language teaching theorist alike are interested in the most efficient set of procedures, the combination of conditions and practices that will bring about language learning fastest and with least effort, whether strictly necessary or sufficient or not.

Supporters of a current proposal for language teaching known as focus on form (not forms) (see, e.g., Doughty and Williams, 1998a; Long, 1998; Long and Robinson, 1998) advocate drawing students’ attention to language as object—GRAMMAR, VOCABULARY collocations, etc.—in context, with the linguistic sequence and timing determined by the students’ internal SYLLABUS, not an externally imposed one, during otherwise meaning-based lessons of some kind, e.g., TASK-BASED or CONTENT-BASED classes. Their position is based not only on theoretical grounds but also on empirical findings (see Doughty and Williams, 1998b; Long and Robinson, 1998; Norris and Ortega, forthcoming; Spada, 1997), a growing number of researchers having reported intentional learning to be more efficient (e.g., to occur faster) than incidental learning.

This embryonic language teaching theory of which focus on form is a part is already more powerful than, say, Krashen’s theory (e.g. 1981), because (among others) it has recourse to a mechanism, focus on form, to induce acquisition that MONITOR Theory does without. This would be important when evaluating the claims as part of a theory of SLA, but it is immaterial in the classroom context, since the relevant theories against which to judge a theory of language teaching will be other theories of language teaching, not theories of SLA. A relevant comparison, for example, would be between a theory of language teaching that invoked focus on form, on the one hand, and on the other, one which claimed that such interventions were unhelpful, or one which held that an externally imposed linguistic syllabus, explicit grammar rules, TRANSLATION, structural pattern drills, etc., were either necessary or more efficient ways of inducing learning of some or all grammatical structures and lexical items.

Almost every theory ever invented in any field has turned out to be wrong, at least in part, and there is no reason to expect that current SLA theories will fare any better. That is not a license for so-called ‘eclecticism’ in language teaching, however. ‘Eclectic methods’ (sic) are usually little more than an amalgam of their inventors’ prejudices. The same relative ignorance about SLA affects everyone, and makes the eclecticist’s claim to be able to select the alleged ‘best parts’ of several theories absurd. Worse, given that different theories by definition reflect different understandings, the resulting methodological mish-mash is guaranteed to be wrong, whereas an approach to language teaching based, in part, on one theory can at least be coherent, and, subject to the previously discussed caveats, has a chance of being right. That said, theories are what people rely on in the absence of anything else. They are attempts to make sense of experience, and where data are lacking, as is massively the case in SLA and in SL teaching, they go beyond the putative facts of the matter, using logical inference, imaginative speculation and other ingredients. Therefore, while they are one potential source of crucial insights about language learning, which language teaching is trying to induce, SLA theories should always be treated with caution—as one or more theorists’ current best shot at explaining language learning, never the truth about it—and with downright suspicion whenever advocated as a recipe for success in the classroom, which will always require consideration of other factors, not ‘just’ SLA, however important a component of a theory of language teaching that may be.

Most SLA theories, and most SLA theorists, are not primarily interested in language teaching, and in some cases not at all interested. So, while SLA theories may be evaluated in absolute terms and comparatively in a variety of ways—parsimony, empirical adequacy, problem-solving ability, and so on—it makes no sense to judge them solely, as some have suggested, or in some cases at all, on the basis of how useful they are for the classroom or how meaningful they are to classroom teachers. Theories of the role of innate linguistic knowledge in adult SLA, for instance, should be judged on their own terms, e.g., according to how well the predictions they make are borne out by empirical findings, not as to whether they say anything about how teaching should proceed (most do not). By the same token, even when not saying anything about how to teach, SLA theories may provide the classroom practitioner with useful new ways of thinking about, for instance, the varied sociolinguistic milieu learners inhabit outside the classroom, the need for negative feedback, and different kinds of structural differences between the learners’ L1(s) and the L2. The theories themselves might not say anything to teachers about how to teach, but perhaps something about who and what it is they are trying to teach, e.g., about whether drawing students’ attention to some contrasts is essential, facilitative, or not needed at all.

SLA theories may provide insight into putatively universal methodological principles, in other words, while saying little or nothing about the inevitable particularity of appropriate classroom pedagogical procedures, in which the local practitioner, not the SLA theorist, should always be the expert. An SLA theory might hold provision of negative feedback to be necessary or facilitative, for example, i.e. to be a universal methodological principle; but it will be up to the teacher to decide which pedagogical procedures, ranging from the most implicit corrective recasts to the most explicit forms of ‘error correction’, are appropriate ways of delivering negative feedback for a particular group of learners. Whatever the precise relationship, given that SLA theorists and language teachers share a common interest, L2 development, it would clearly be self-defeating for either group to ignore the other’s work.

cbzhang307

Action research

Action research is part of a broader movement in education associated with the concepts of ‘reflective practice’ and ‘the teacher as researcher’. It involves a self-reflective, systematic and critical approach to enquiry by participants who are also members of the research context. The aim of action research is to identify problematic situations or issues the participants consider worthy of investigation, and to intervene in those situations in order to bring about critically informed changes in practice. For example, researchers may decide to investigate particular aspects of TEACHER TALK, TASK-BASED learning, the classroom culture or CLASSROOM LANGUAGE. RESEARCH METHODS for collecting action research data are primarily qualitative and include, for example, CLASSROOM OBSERVATION and JOURNALS.

Several essential features distinguish action research from other forms of educational research. First, it is small-scale, contextualised and local in character, identifying and investigating teaching—learning issues within a specific situation. Second, it involves EVALUATION and reflection aimed at bringing about continuing changes in practice. Third, it is participatory, providing for communities of participants to investigate collaboratively issues of concern within their social situation. Fourth, it differs from the ‘intuitive’ thinking that may occur as a normal part of teaching, as changes in practice are based on systematic data collection and analysis. Finally, action research is underpinned by democratic principles; it invests ownership for changes in curriculum practice in those who conduct the research.

Action research typically involves four broad phases, which form a continuing cycle or spiral of research:

planning a problem or issue is identified and a plan of action is developed in order to bring about improvements in specific areas of the research context;
action the plan is put into action over an agreed period of time;
observation the effects of the action are observed and data are collected;
reflection the effects of the action are evaluated and become the basis for further cycles of research (based on Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988).

Action research has its roots in a complex mixture of educational and social reform movements reaching back into the nineteenth century. Amongst these influences are:
1   the Science in Education movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries which considered how scientific methods could be applied to educational problems;
2   progressive and experimentalist educational thinkers, notably John Dewey (1929), who argued that educational practices should be tested by inductive scientific methods of problem solving;
3   the Group Dynamics Movement in social PSYCHOLOGY and human relations of the 1930s and 1940s, which included social psychologists such as Kurt Lewin who was interested in the concept of action in group settings and stressed the importance of democratic and collaborative involvement in experimental enquiry;
4   the emergence of curriculum as a field of enquiry, in which the role of teachers as key participants in curriculum reform and the social organisation of learning were acknowledged by educational philosophers such as Schwab (e.g. Schwab, 1969);
5   the teacher as researcher (Stenhouse, 1975), and reflective practitioner movements (Sch鰊, 1983), which gave prominence to the enquiry-based nature of teaching and the role of teachers in studying classroom practices as a way of identifying the problems and effects of curriculum implementation.

Lewin’s contribution, in particular, is important, as he was amongst the first to construct a theory and develop descriptions of action research processes (1946). He is often credited with being the ‘founding father’ of action research, although there is evidence that the concepts and terminology were first used by Collier, the US Commissioner on Indian Affairs (1945).

Three broad phases of development characterise the application of action research in educational contexts. The first, a scientific-technical approach, emerged in the UNITED STATES in the 1950s championed in the work of both Stephen Corey (1953), and Taba and Noel (1957), as a way of involving teachers in large-scale curriculum design. This movement was rapidly overshadowed, however, by more scientifically oriented research and development models. The second approach grew from Lawrence Stenhouse’s concepts of the teacher as researcher and adopted a practical orientation involving scrutinising personal practice and acquiring improved teaching SKILLS as the basis for curriculum development. Stenhouse’s work in Britain through The School Council Humanities Curriculum Project (1967–72) and that of his successors, John Elliott and Clem Adelman, in the Ford Teaching Project (1972–5) represent major initiatives of this phase. A third phase, associated with the work of Carr and Kemmis in AUSTRALIA, Winter and Whitehouse in the UK and Fals Borda in Colombia, has taken an emancipatory-critical approach which proposes that action research has its base in social movement and political action, which must inevitably underpin collaborative movements for educational reform.

Criticisms of action research have generally focused on questions relating to its rigour and its recognisability as a valid research methodology. Corey’s work soon suffered from comparisons with positivist experimental research which placed value on criteria of objectivity, rationality and generalisability. Hodgkinson, in a paper published in 1957, criticised action research for its ‘sloppy’ methodological approaches, the lack of research training by those who conduct it and its inability to contribute to theoretical developments. Others (e.g. Halsey, 1972) have pointed to the fundamental tension between ‘action’ and ‘research’ and to the differing, and inherently incompatible, orientations taken by teachers and researchers to educational questions. Winter (1982) and others have drawn attention to the lack of rigour in INTERPRETATION and the restricted nature of the data that characterise much action research. Issues of a more pragmatic nature highlight the resistance of teachers to becoming researchers, suspicion on the part of other staff and principals towards practitioners who adopt a research stance, the complexities of collaborative teacher-researcher partnerships and the risk that the research could be co-opted by academic researchers. The relative newness of action research in the language teaching field means that there is a limited literature and uncertain professional status associated with action research, so that its potential benefits as a research method and the ways in which it may contribute to professional development are yet to be fully understood.

However, the broad scope and flexibility of action research mean that its applications to the field of language teaching are potentially numerous (Crookes, 1993). They include:
•   to provide an impetus for individual and group action and to elucidate immediate teaching or learning problems (Nunan, 1990; Wallace, 1998);
•   to facilitate continuing professional development and TEACHER EDUCATION (Richards and Nunan, 1990; van Lier, 1996; Freeman, 1998);
•   to underpin educational change and innovation (Goswami and Stillman, 1987; Markee, 1997);
•   to play a role in the EVALUATION of teaching and learning programmes (Murphy, 1996);
•   to stimulate school and organisational renewal (Elliott, 1991; Burns, 1999);
•   to promote researcher and teacher partnerships (Somekh, 1994);
•   to support broad educational trends towards school-based curriculum development (Hopkins, 1993).

As the research focus is on the classroom and on immediate practical concerns in teaching, action research holds promise as a site for building theories about language teaching which are potentially of value and interest to other teachers.

cbzhang307

Adult language learning

Adult language learning (ALL) occurs either as an independently organised process—although still too rarely so—or in an institutional framework, for example in publicly accredited or private or workbased institutions. ALL attempts on the one hand to bridge the gap, large or small, between the outcomes of school learning and needs and wants in the world outside school, or on the other hand to build up the language competencies needed for the new challenges which appear in adult life, for example professional, social or cultural challenges.

Whilst in the following we shall consider such questions as ‘Who learns languages in ALL?’; ‘Who teaches languages in ALL?’; ‘Where does ALL take place?’; ‘What do people learn in ALL?’, there are a number of points to bear in mind. Whereas discussion of the concept of ALL leads to consideration of the specificity of the language learning of adults, it should not lead to the isolation of this kind of learning but should rather take note of the links with the language learning of young people—or of senior citizens—in order to contribute to the aim of lifelong learning.

ALL has begun to play a more and more important role in the modern world, as shown by examples from AUSTRALIA (literacy programmes for immigrants), CANADA (social integration and cohesion of a bilingual country) and the Scandinavian countries (the importance of ALL in Denmark, Sweden and Finland). In the USA, adult second language learning is most important in the teaching of ENGLISH to non-English speaking immigrants, who need some thirty hours of English instruction in order to qualify for citizenship. There is a similar case in the teaching of the Estonian language to Russians living in Estonia, who need language competence in order to be integrated in the vocational and social life of the country.

Characteristics of the language learning of adults
In the light of current thinking it is not possible to define concepts of language learning which are uniquely adult in nature. It is more sensible to accept a degree of uncertainty, because one thereby gains a fruitful flexibility in methodological and didactic terms. This uncertainty is caused by the fact that various criteria more or less overlap with each other.
1 The distinction of ADULT LEARNERS is made partly in terms of age, although this criterion is only partly valid since learners in school are often of the same age as learners in adult education who have already left school for the world of work or for VOCATIONAL TRAINING. The distinction is better made in terms of:
2 the daily rhythm determined by professional life;
3 personal characteristics, which may be less developed in young people, such as independence, responsibility for one’s own learning, cognitive insight, capacity for comparison, ability to self-evaluate;
4 social responsibilities, for example towards children, family, employer;
5 economic conditions, which for example oblige learners to acquire (additional) qualifications;
6 biographically based characteristics: for example MOTIVATION—for example a desire for social contacts through participating in a language course; previously acquired competencies such as languages acquired earlier; previous—positive or negative—experiences of the teaching and learning process, for example anxieties about learning;
7 adult-oriented learning resources as opposed to learning conditions and aims which are determined by the school curriculum. The school should prepare the path from one phase to the other if it is to contribute to lifelong learning. This preparation for ALL is above all crucial in the area of LANGUAGE AWARENESS and in communicative and CULTURAL AWARENESS;
8 tourist, cultural and other interests, often in connection with planned activities such as travel;
9 professional demands, for example the acquisition of additional qualifications for applications for jobs or specific activities such as a sojourn abroad;
10 NEEDS which arise from particular social situations and which can influence the aims and contents of language teaching for adults in specific ways. A notable example is the opening of the Iron Curtain, which had political, economic, social and also cultural effects on the integration of Europe. Other examples are INTERNATIONALISATION and globalisation, which we shall return to later in this entry;
11 social, vocational and cultural integration of immigrants into the society of many countries, often in connection with literacy programmes;
12 the ‘voluntary’ participation of adults in a language course, as opposed to the largely obligatory teaching of language to school pupils—a central and difficult question. The problem lies in the question whether all or almost all of the criteria mentioned above are obligations, internal or external, which lead to participation in language courses.

These criteria are relevant for adult learners in different degrees and quantities, and it is this which creates increased demands on teachers in adult education. It is evident that the methodology of language teaching has to take into account the characteristics which have been listed here. There are certain consequences for teaching:
• on the one hand, teachers and institutions, i.e. those who offer languages, attempt to cater for the average, in order to serve as many learner groups as possible and to offer something for everyone;
• on the other hand, it is necessary to consider whether learners with specific characteristics should be offered specific help, i.e. by differentiated teaching or through specific externally differentiated courses.

Characteristics of language courses for adults
Language teaching for adults is organised in specific ways, although here, too, it is not possible to give a unique definition but rather to identify particular emphases.
1 From an institutional point of view, language learning for adults is basically designated as ‘post-school’, and is therefore institutionally part of further education.
Language courses for adults which are organised outside school are offered by various providers. In certain countries there are evening schools that teach the secondary school programmes; in others there are citizens’ and workers’ institutes; higher education institutes often offer language courses to citizens (in their language centres); in the USA, most cities offer their citizens adult education programmes that include foreign languages. The market usually includes, in addition to public or publicly accredited providers and language courses internal to firms, a large, unquantifiable number of private institutions, although this is not the case in the USA, for example. This situation, which is characterised by multiplicity and competition, has been described for a specific region and is regularly up-dated.
The difficulties of allocating this kind of learning to further education are evident and include the following:
• there are pupils who take up language courses in further education whilst still at school;
• certain forms of school-based course could in fact be described as adult education, for example teaching in vocational schools which may for institutional reasons be defined as ‘school’ courses.
2 The teaching and learning of languages in adult education have specific characteristics on account of the learner characteristics mentioned above, at least in theory. ALL is fundamentally characterised by the following facts:
• in adulthood there are possibilities, which scarcely exist in schools, of determining aims, methods and contents autonomously, taking into consideration the needs and wants of the learners and also the conditions of the institution;
• this basic premise is realised in various ways: for example by developing curricular approaches which are offered to learners to make their own choice. This is the case, for example, with the ‘European Language Certificates’ which are offered in the member countries of the ‘International Certificate Conference’. The alternative is that in a particular language course specific learning programmes are agreed on the basis of the participants’ interests.
This independence with respect to learning content exists, however, in practice only to a limited degree, and has not existed for very long or indeed everywhere.
• The work of the COUNCIL OF EUROPE is closely linked to the publication of the THRESHOLD LEVEL, Niveau seuil, Kontaktschwelle Deutsch and so on, and the foundation of this work, besides the innovative ways of describing language, was above all the methodological description of needs and wants analysis. This was the basis for adult education to free itself from definitions of learning OBJECTIVES, determined by the curriculum and widely seen as imposed from outside. The difficulty of realisation in practice is less in the approach to the individuality of needs and wants—which is not a basic problem due to the nature of the analyses—but rather in the variability or dynamic of the results of analyses. These results have to be continuously updated on account of the unstable and scarcely predictable changeability of the needs situation, i.e. they have to be changed to fit a given constellation of factors. In practice, however, this goes beyond what is apparently feasible. Furthermore, the diagnosis which is possible on the basis of such analyses creates the need for another large step, namely the transfer into a ‘therapy’ of lesson planning and practice.
• The limitations in terms of content and ethodology include the fact that language teaching in adult education in the twentieth century has been very dependent for its methodological concepts on school-based language teaching. The exceptions are commercial schools which use only NATIVE SPEAKERS, just to mention one example of a very progressive approach, albeit of limited extent. The situation in further education began to change mainly in the 1960s and 1970s, partly through the work of the Council of Europe and also as a consequence of other influences such as learning theory, psycholinguistics, approaches to language description, vocational orientation, changes in the ways of thinking about language and education, and emphasis on practice. This has brought considerable success in the emancipation of adult education, and was the basis for further developments which in turn have influenced schools. None the less there remains a strong link between school and further education, particularly in language teaching, which for further education has been both fruitful and inhibiting. This difficulty is increased by the fact that many teachers in adult education simultaneously work in schools, although these numbers are falling, and they bring their school teaching approaches into adult education unless they are prepared and given the opportunity to acquire and experience the specificity of language teaching adapted to adults.
•   Despite the realisation that linguistic competence is a necessity, it has not yet been possible to professionalise the training of teachers for ALL or to anchor it institutionally in academic activity. The widely used alternative of offering in-service instead of pre-service courses cannot provide the qualifications which are required for teaching and learning appropriate to adults.

cbzhang307

The science of language teaching for adults

Institutional aspects
The systematic concern with language teaching and learning for adults is a scientific activity, but it cannot be said that a scientifically established discipline has emerged from this, which might for example have a place in HIGHER EDUCATION. To illustrate this from the Federal Republic of Germany, there have been considerable efforts on the part of the German Institute for Adult Education (Deutsches Institut für Erwachsenenbildung—DIE), although this is not a university-type institution, and the ‘variety’ of the higher education sector was described by Quetz and Raasch in 1982 and has not changed essentially since. In FRANCE the situation is different, although similar. There came significant developments from organisations such as CR蒁IF (until 1998) and CRAPEL, and from universities in more or less haphazard ways, for example on the basis of the founding of chairs in French as a Foreign Language at the Universities of Besan鏾n, of Paris III etc., which train students in FRENCH as a Foreign Language (FLE—Fran鏰is langue étrangère) and whose graduates in many cases later teach in ALL institutions. In certain countries (e.g. in France) the law obliges employers to organise courses for employees as part of their continuing education (or to pay for such courses organised by specialised institutions).

Content and subject aspects
The important contributions of the scientific discipline of ALL to the discussion of foreign language teaching are in the following areas:
•   AUTONOMOUS LEARNING
•   NEEDS ANALYSIS
•   DISTANCE LEARNING
•   QUALITY assurance, quality control and auditing
•   target group orientation
•   modular courses
•   certification of learning
•   professional orientation of language teaching
•   teaching LANGUAGE FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES
•   PRAGMATIC-functional language descriptions instead of emphasis on morpho-syntax
•   development of international cooperation (e.g. RELC Singapore, the EUROPEAN CENTRE FOR MODERN LANGUAGES) in Graz (Austria).

Some of these can be described in more detail:
Certification One of the interesting specific aspects of ALL is the development and implementation of examinations and certificates. The statistics of the major examining bodies demonstrate the extent of the need; examples include the Cambridge English examinations, the DELF/DALF French examinations and the Goethe-Institut German examinations. The need that adults have to take examinations is doubtless largely attributable to the increasing requirement for professionally valid certificates, but this cannot be the only explanation. Self-motivation, self-discipline and learner autonomy are other explanations, and in the European context there is an approach to portfolio assessment at school level (the EUROPEAN LANGUAGE PORTFOLIO) which is being transferred into further education, together with the COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK. This approach gives a decisive impulse to lifelong, or life-accompanying, learning which is particularly characteristic for language learning. Certification is of great indirect significance for foreign language teaching and learning because it contributes to the development of modular forms of teaching, allows learning to be organised in approachable stages, sanctions what has been achieved, and thereby creates motivation to continue. These are some of the advantages of certification practices independent of the professional significance of certificates.
Modular learning and definition of learning aims For professional purposes more than traditionally for learning which is independent of a professional purpose, it is important that the results of learning can be read concretely from the certificates of achievement. Both employees applying for jobs, and employers or personnel officers selecting from among the applicants, rely on this. Certification thus does not mean simply giving a mark, it should also provide a detailed account of what has been achieved. This produces a pressure on further education institutions to describe their courses in much more transparent ways than has hitherto been the case. It may also have some influence on schools. This transparency in the description of learning aims, which also of course has methodological implications, is an important step in the realisation of adult-specific learning, and corresponds to one of the most important demands characteristic of adults. It is the pre-condition for the organisation of language courses according to target groups.
Professional language courses A significant step in ALL is made through the professional orientation of language learning. What has been achieved here includes also, in part, vocational schooling, although the effect on general education and higher education language teaching is limited. In professional activity, it is not formal (‘systemic’) or educationally oriented competencies which are required, so much as capability for INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION abroad or with speakers of the target language. In this context there is a need for a theory of CULTURAL STUDIES/ LANDESKUNDE teaching oriented to adults which should take place in the following steps, each building on the previous ones:
1   knowledge about the culture of the target country and its inhabitants;
2   ability to compare knowledge of the target country with one’s own culture;
3   capacity for accepting the other/the foreigner (empathy competence);
4   capacity to act together with others on the basis of the previous steps (INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE) whilst taking into account the otherness of other cultures;
5   capacity to create, in common with other cultures, a new mutually organised and validated over-arching culture.
This progression leads to the pre-conditions for public political action as it is needed, for example, in Europe (integration of the European Union) or in South America (development of a free trade area ‘Mercosur’/‘Mercosul’). This kind of planning for cultural learning is particularly oriented to adults, i.e. to the challenges which adults in particular have to meet, whether in their professional life or in their ordinary life as responsible active citizens. In this theory of cultural learning, there is an assured place for contemporary language description (with an orientation to language for action) as the basis for methodology, including autonomous learning and open teaching. These aims are also especially served by attempts at innovative approaches which are the central aims of language developments by
the European Union and its programmes such as LEONARDO and SOCRATES.
Autonomous learning Self-directed learning and SELF-ACCESS which can offer those in employment the necessary flexibility are not yet much developed in practice. The pre-conditions which determine self-directed learning above all are that, besides the theoretically adequate description of learning strategies, there should be practical realisations of these in the form of thoroughly concrete learner counselling by the teaching institutions, and learning materials, in an appropriate introduction to the use of these strategies, in the creation and use of user-friendly, comprehensive self-assessment processes. Since these pre-conditions are still largely absent, and furthermore are not visibly developed in school foreign language teaching, there is still in practice a lack of the desirable combination of institutional and self-directed learning. The corresponding expectations of technology, especially in software development (for example in multimedia courses and authoring systems) have so far been only partially fulfilled. In this sense, autonomous learning has not yet become a characteristic of ALL. What are today considered to be the priority communicative skills are in fact difficult to handle and have so far only been developed singly rather than as a comprehensive whole. It has to be emphasised that the development work needed for autonomous learning does not concern only technology, but is inseparable from psychological, psycholinguistic, linguistic and pedagogical-methodological aspects of self-directed learning. Until this work becomes a central concern of RESEARCH, rather than that of individual initiatives and publishing houses, the situation will not change fundamentally. One of the consequences is that language learning among adults cannot yet be differentiated from the school learning scenario.

Conclusion
Language learning for adults has the opportunity through quality control and QUALITY MANAGEMENT to make a major step forward.
Quality assurance is so far limited to organisations in adult education. This is explained by the fact that quality control has become usual in the economy. Schools have so far avoided these controls but many further education institutions, especially publicly accredited ones, are also holding back. Perhaps this is because of the fear-inspiring term ‘control’ which should be replaced by ‘management’ in order to gain more acceptance.
The pre-condition for quality assurance is to have an appropriate instrument. A model proposed here (see Figure 1) includes the various factors and their interrelationships. The model has eight ‘corners’ to which the factors are attached.
Teaching must always be seen in relation to other factors, and we have used this model as a basis for the presentation here and discussed all the factors, although not all equally. We have also shown that there lies around the model’s octagon a circle which we can call ‘society’, and influences from this circle penetrate the system. These include, for example, changes in the integration of Europe or South America, or the professional situation of many people who need qualifications for certain activities, including qualification in linguistic competence. This becomes particularly clear through phenomena such as internationalisation—defined as intentional effort towards international cooperation; and globalisation—defined as unintentional, worldwide developments such as environmental catastrophes or uncontrolled movements of capital. Adults experience these developments either as opportunities or as threats or challenges, and it is here that language learning for adults has an increasingly important role. This task is a characteristic of ALL, although as yet a missing characteristic.

cbzhang307

Adult learners

In general the capacities of adults to learn seem to remain relatively stable under conditions of continuous use and absence of diseases and time pressure. With respect to SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION we find that FOSSILISATION is quite normal, although there appear to be adult second language learners who attain perfect performance. There are many factors that influence the success of second language ACQUISITION. In the case of adult migrants learning the language of the dominant community, sociopsychological factors play an important role.

Adult learning in general
‘The’ adult learner does not exist. Capacity to learn is the result of personal APTITUDE and learning history and may differ from individual to individual (Bolhuis, 1995). This distinction reflects the distinction that has been made by psychometrists between fluid and crystallised intelligence. It is suggested that the former seems to decrease after the AGE of 20 while the latter continues to increase (Sternberg and McGrane, 1996). Fluid intelligence is neurophysiological in nature whereas crystallised intelligence depends on sociocultural influences, among which education plays an important role. All learning processes that adults have experienced are relevant for their actual learning.

The effects of physical and psychological changes with increasing age and the effects of sociocultural factors, let alone the interaction of these factors, are largely unknown. Physical changes that affect learning most are (brain) diseases. Prior knowledge and experience in learning are the dominant factors that influence cognitive changes (Merriam and Caffarella, 1991). Elderly learners are able to compensate for age-related declines in cognitive skills, such as the ability to retrieve information and the efficiency of information processing, by their expertise and knowledge in certain domains (Sternberg and McGrane, 1996). Sociocultural factors, such as social roles or ethnic differences, may affect development in adulthood as much as individual maturation. Participation in adult education is predominantly influenced by social status. The social environment may impede the act of learning and disuse of learning capacities is known to be of negative influence.

The major difference between child learning and adult learning is attributable to the larger extent of prior knowledge and learning experiences of adults, their mental models, which are socioculturally and historically determined. This prior knowledge influences the learning process at all stages. Prior knowledge seems to be rather resistant to new information and may consist of concepts as well as of misconceptions. In the case of language learners there may, for example, be ideas about what language is, how language should be learned, or previously learned language rules. Adults’ mental models are generally more developed and more stably fixed than those of children. Adult learners seem to be particularly inclined to try to fit new information into existing models. In other words they strive more after cognitive assimilation, whereas children seem to be more inclined for cognitive accommodation, which is, in most cases, needed for effective learning. Prior knowledge may both benefit and hinder learning (Bolhuis, 1995). It can be concluded that age-related changes are no obstacle to learning, but that the learner’s prior knowledge, self-perception and ideas about how to learn have strongly to be taken into account in adult education.

Adult language learning
Does the above apply to the learning of all subject matters; in other words, are there any reasons to assume that language learning is different from other learning? Among linguists there does not seem to be much doubt that language learning is different where first language learning is concerned. They assume the existence of an innate language learning capacity, CHOMSKY’s Language Acquisition Device, later referred to as UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR, which seems to operate highly independently from general cognitive abilities. The question whether or to what extent this innate capacity plays a role in postpuberty second language learning is subject to much debate in Second Language Acquisition research.

Of more practical relevance are findings from research into AGE FACTORS and second language learning. The findings are far from conclusive, but in naturalistic settings a general tendency emerged: in the beginning, older learners outperform younger ones, but ultimately those who started learning a second language in childhood outperform learners who started later (Harley and Wang, 1997). ‘The younger one starts, the better’ seems to be the adage for native-like attainment of second language. Hypotheses about a critical or sensitive period for second language acquisition were countered by showing that non-natives with first exposure to the target language after the critical period could not be distinguished from natives. Bialystok (1997:134) concludes in a review that perfect mastery by late learners is possible when conditions are favourable. Nevertheless, it has to be born in mind that in the case of adult learners fossilisation is much more common than native-like mastery (Klein, 1996). Explanations for this phenomenon are manifold, and as yet rather speculative in nature, a rather straightforward one being that it may take many years of exposure and practice to gain skills necessary for the highest levels of performance.

Adult migrant learners
The situation of adult immigrants, especially of immigrants with low social status, differs in many ways from that of adult learners learning a foreign language in their home country. Schumann (1978) draws attention to the fact that sociopsychological factors play a very important role in the acquisition of the language of the host country. Immigrants, for whom language and ACCULTURATION are the keys to success in the host country, find themselves in the paradoxical situation that they must both learn and use the language at the same time. Differences in social and linguistic behaviour often consolidate STEREOTYPED or sometimes racist ideas in the dominant language community. The perception of this behaviour may contribute to considering second language learners as persons with a low level of communicative SKILLS, socially inadequate behaviour and low intelligence. This, in turn, can lead to demotivation, low self-esteem and feelings of incompetence in migrant learners (Perdue, 1982). The vulnerability and powerlessness of migrants often makes them teacher-dependent learners, which in turn adds to their feelings of powerlessness. The best way to break this cycle is to tackle the linguistic and pedagogical dependency (Wajnryb, 1989). In most cases society in the host country expects high standards of language ability and does not allow much (educational) time to reach these standards. Therefore it is most important that migrants know or learn how to profit from the linguistic environment outside the classroom. Although Willing (1988) found that self-directedness is one of the least favoured learning preferences among migrant learners, he and Janssen-van Dieten (1992) consider ‘LEARNING TO LEARN’ as important an educational target as language learning for this particular group.

cbzhang307

Africa

The foreign languages most widely taught in Africa are ENGLISH, FRENCH, PORTUGUESE, SPANISH, Italian, and GERMAN. ‘Foreign’ in this context refers to languages that are not indigenous to sub-Saharan Africa. The teaching of these languages stems from the colonial era when the British, the French, the Belgians, the Portuguese and the Spanish had possessions on the continent (Spencer, 1971). The 1884–5 Berlin Conference stratified these possessions. The foreign language policies of the European powers placed emphasis on the ACQUISITION of the appropriate European language, which became the official language and the MEDIUM OF INSTRUCTION in the colonies. TEXTBOOKS that were based on Latin GRAMMAR models were used as the primary tools of instruction. Language instruction began in elementary schools, continued in secondary schools and teachertraining colleges, and culminated at the university level.

The social significance of language learning
Proficiency in the European language during the colonial period was seen as a measure of one’s academic, professional and social advancement and sophistication. In fact, if a student passed all the subjects required for a particular diploma/ certificate, but failed the required test in the relevant European language, that student did not earn the appropriate certificate or diploma. Conversely, passing the required test in the European language with distinction could yield a particular certificate/diploma without the need to pass all of the other subjects. While the assimilation policies of the French and Portuguese were aimed at making Africans acquire the phonetic proficiency of European NATIVE SPEAKERS, those of the British did not. This paralleled differing colonial policies, including policies for education, whereby FRANCE, for example, integrated its colonies into its administrative system and installed a French education system, whereas Britain did not tie its colonies as closely to the home administration, allowing each colony to evolve its own education system. The result was that anglophone Africans who achieved structural expertise in English did not necessarily acquire English phonetic proficiency to parallel the phonetic proficiency in French of their francophone counterparts. As colonial-influenced institutions taught the colonial language to one generation of African students, those students in turn became the instructors of future generations.

The era of independence
The struggle for independence and the movements that followed in the 1960s saw radical changes in the various colonies. But changes in foreign language instruction lagged behind the changes that occurred elsewhere in society Nationalist fervour called for a de-emphasis of European languages and a broadening of instruction of indigenous African languages. Instruction in the indigenous languages was broadened, but instruction in the colonial language remained very strong (Le Page, 1964; Whiteley, 1971; Bamgbose, 1991). A notable achievement was the successful replacement of English by Swahili as the official language of Tanzania. However, for the bulk of the continent, a European language remains the de facto official language.

The newly independent African nations continued the grammar-based approach to instruction in the official foreign language. Meanwhile, political calls for African unity in the 1960s also led to a greater emphasis on the instruction of European and non-European languages that were used in other independent African nations. Thus, Spanish, Portuguese, French and English, as well as Swahili and ARABIC, were taught in African nations where these languages were not commonly used. When independent African nations established close ties with CHINA and the Soviet bloc during the Cold War era, foreign language instruction in Russian and CHINESE also became available to Africans in Africa. With the end of the Cold War and the diminished influence of the Soviet Union, serious instruction of Russian and Chinese as foreign languages all but disappeared from the continent.

The advancement of modern pedagogical approaches to foreign language teaching and learning has not yet flooded foreign language instruction in Africa. Few institutions have the resources to provide learners with simple viable tape recorders, let alone LANGUAGE LABORATORIES, or sophisticated computer-based language laboratories and MEDIA CENTRES for interactive video and audio instruction. Foreign languages are still taught with a heavy orientation towards a grammatical structure-based approach. This emphasis sometimes slows proficiency in other aspects (e.g. SPEAKING and LISTENING) of the target language. With the exception of the official languages, instruction in a foreign language is still not mainly undertaken in that foreign language, but rather through another foreign language. Hence, in an English speaking area, most institutions teach French, Spanish or German by using English as the medium of instruction rather than the target language. At the university level, this handicap may be supplemented by sending selected learners for immersion in the target language in nations where the target language is predominantly used.

African languages as official languages
Tanzania, Burundi and Rwanda are the only African nations that cite African languages as official languages (Mann and Dalby, 1987). In African nations, the period preceding independence was also a period of strong nationalist sentiments. Such surges of nationalism become dormant periodically; when they re-emerge, nationalism often manifests itself as a desire to replace the colonial official language with an indigenous African language (Bamgbose, 1991; Bokamba and Tlou, 1977). Those who argue for the retention of the status quo feel that the colonial language is widely used and accepted, and therefore that there is no need to replace it. Senegal, Burundi and Rwanda are often cited as examples of this pro-colonial language ATTITUDE. Over 80 per cent of the Senegalese population speak Wolof, but French is the official language of Senegal. Burundi ‘uses’ French and Kirundi as official languages, and Kirundi is spoken by 99 per cent of the population. In Rwanda, Kinyawanda—spoken by over 95 per cent of the population—and French are the official languages. In all three countries, French is not the MOTHER TONGUE of Africans, yet the language is so popular that citizens actually prefer to retain it as the official language.

Those who support the retention of the colonial language point out that the colonial language is an international LINGUA FRANCA, has international prestige, and that the choice of an African language will lead to unrest in nations like Nigeria where ethnic feelings are very strong (Arasanyin, 1998), and where the major languages have millions of native speakers. They also observe that replacing the colonial language with an African language will constitute LINGUISTIC IMPERIALISM: an African language will be imposed on those who do not know, use, or speak that language. Furthermore, they contend that it is not economically viable or practical to allocate scant national resources to the conversion and reproduction of national documents, textbooks, etc., into an African language at a time when the economies of African nations are suffering. The proponents of replacing the colonial language respond to these arguments by declaring that if an African nation has the will, that nation should begin PLANNING now to replace the colonial language eventually. They argue that a nation cannot truly be independent if it still depends on its colonial language for official deliberations, medium of instruction, language of government, and for official commercial transactions. An African language, they note, is capable of being as expressive as any Western language. But, should the appropriate scientific, legal or other useful terms be lacking, the void should be filled by the creation of new terminology (as Tanzania has done with Swahili), or the terminology should be borrowed from elsewhere, as other international languages have done. These proponents admit that, since many African nations have many different ethnic groups and many languages, it is indeed true that in some instances it would be difficult to agree on which African language should be selected. But then, they are also quick to point out, with proper preparation and education citizens will accept the language that is selected. The manpower and fiscal allocation for the selection and conversion to an African language should be part of a country’s broad national economic development strategy.

The official language debate is not likely to lead to a resolution soon. But, hopefully, the technological advances in foreign language teaching and learning will soon saturate Africa.

cbzhang307

African languages

Interest in learning and teaching African languages outside AFRICA pre-dates the colonisation of the continent. This interest falls into three broad phases:
1 the period prior to the 1884–5 Berlin Conference;
2 the period between 1885 and the end of World War Two;
3 the Cold War era and its aftermath.

The first phase is characterised primarily by early attempts to record aspects of African languages. The second phase is marked by active colonisation including missionary activity. Books on African languages showed a greater appreciation for the intricacies of the structure of those languages. European powers increasingly involved native Africans in missionary and governmental activities. PEDAGOGICAL GRAMMARS were used to teach and learn African languages.

During the third phase, i.e. the Cold War and its aftermath, Africa offered an attractive set of colonies, and later, a group of independent countries, to be wooed by both the West and the East. Citizens of Cold War powers went to Africa to assist the emerging nations. As these citizens learned African languages, their home governments provided support for such endeavours. Linguists intensified their efforts towards understanding, describing, analysing and classifying various African languages. In the early sixties, the AUDIOLINGUAL and AUDIO-VISUAL methods were used to teach African languages. Major strides in research on SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION were made in the seventies and eighties. The nineties have seen an expansion into computer-generated interactive multimedia technology. The target in the study of African languages is now the acquisition of COMMUNICATIVE and performance competency and proficiency.

Earliest works on African languages
Moslem scholars used ARABIC to produce the earliest known written records of African languages between the tenth and twelfth centuries. During the fifteenth century, as the Portuguese explored an ocean route to INDIA, their contacts with Africa led to the first European record of Karanga, a Bantu language, in 1506. In 1624, Doutrina Christaa, a 134-page Roman Catholic catechism attributed to Mattheus Cardoso, became the first book to use an African language, because, although the book was written in Portuguese, it contained an interlinear TRANSLATION into Kongo. Portuguese success in contact with Africa caused other European nations to undertake their own exploration of the continent. The first known grammar of an African language is the 98-page grammar of Kongo written by the Italian Giacinto Brusciotto in 1659. The title of this book is Regulae Quaedam Pro Difficillimi Congensium Idiomatis Faciliori Captu Ad Grammaticae Norman Redactae. Several other European publications on different African languages preceded, and followed, this first grammar book (Sebeok 1971:1).

The fifteenth-century Portuguese exploration of Africa and the subsequent European interest in the continent culminated in the 1884–5 Berlin Conference. This Conference partitioned the continent primarily into British, French, Portuguese, Spanish, Belgian, German and Italian possessions. The solidification of colonial administration was accompanied by an intensification of missionary activities, which led to a quest for orthographies to be used in translating the Bible and other scriptures into indigenous African languages.

Learners of African languages
Learners of African languages outside Africa may be categorised into three main groups:
1 academic;
2 professionally driven;
3 neo-cultural.

Academic learners These learners are primarily associated with institutions of higher learning. Some institutions require students to take a certain number of hours in a foreign language prior to graduation. Some academic learners simply enjoy learning an African language without using it for an academic programme. Academic learners are mostly non-Africans. They may also be guided by a desire to undertake fieldwork in the area where the African language they study is used, or they may use their knowledge for research in LINGUISTICS.

Professionally driven learners Such learners study an African language to assist them in their professions (academic, governmental, religious etc.) in an African country. Professionally driven learners may have developed an interest in an African language as academic learners. They are also mostly non-Africans.

Neo-cultural learners Neo-cultural learners are those who have at least one African immigrant parent, or who are themselves African immigrants. As Africans migrate to Britain, the US, CANADA, Germany, FRANCE and other European countries, Westernised transplanted African ethnic communities have begun springing up in cities outside Africa. In an effort to maintain aspects of their culture, such communities encourage their offspring to learn their ethnic language. Adults who feel that they are forgetting their ethnic languages also make efforts to learn those languages.

Languages taught outside Africa
Among the many African languages regularly taught in institutions of higher learning outside Africa are: Amharic, Bambara, Fulfulde, Hausa, Lingala, Shona, Somali, Swahili, Twi, Wolof, Xhosa, Yoruba and Zulu. One or more of these may be taught by one institution. Other languages are taught on demand coupled with the availability of instructors. Instruction at institutions is available at the BEGINNER, intermediate and advanced levels. The languages offered for professionally driven learners and neo-cultural learners depend on the requirements of the professions, and the NEEDS of the transplanted ethnic group.

Languages are taught by either fluent NATIVE SPEAKERS, non-native speakers who have acquired native speaker or near native speaker fluency, or instructors of limited fluency who know the structure of the language. If a fluent native speaker is available, such a person may assist the instructor of limited fluency by handling SPEAKING proficiency. This third group of instructors, understandably, has dominated instruction in African languages outside Africa.

Language Materials
Computer-based interactive multimedia materials now point to the trend in the development of instructional materials for African languages. Efforts are being made to produce Africa-oriented clip art for language instruction, content of materials is being redesigned, and considerations are being made for DISTANCE LEARNING. This trend will enable language instruction materials to be more easily accessible anywhere in the world. The new emphasis is on the acquisition of speaking, listening, READING and WRITING proficiency The aim is to empower the learner to acquire native or near native competency and proficiency. The seamless incorporation of AUTHENTIC cultural materials into the instructional materials, and the inclusion of native speaker-generated authentic samples of the language, are integral to this new emphasis. Learners are assessed on three proficiency levels: novice, intermediate and advanced; and appropriate ASSESSMENT tools are being devised to evaluate learner proficiency. Hard-copy-based instructional materials still dominate the market, however, in spite of the shift towards electronic media.

During the first part of the Cold War era, the US Foreign Service Institute published audio-lingual-based instructional materials on several African languages. Similar efforts were made in Britain, Canada and France. But some instructors still use pedagogical grammars to teach African languages. Language instruction in such cases emphasises grammatical knowledge.

Institutions offering African languages
The US-based African Language Teachers Association (ALTA) plays a leadership role in teaching and learning African languages. ALTA has five Language Task Forces for Yoruba, Swahili, Hausa, South African languages and West African languages. ALTA organises annual conferences on African language teaching, and workshops for language teachers. It is affiliated with the National Council of Organisations of the Less Commonly Taught Languages (NCOLCTL), and produces its own newsletter, Lugha. ALTA members are affiliated with the various National Foreign Language Centers.

The US Federal Department of Education, through its Title VI programmes, has designated some institutions as National Resource Centers (NRCs) and Foreign Language and AREA STUDIES (FLAS) Fellowship Programmes. These institutions receive competitive three-year renewable grants. FLAS institutions include Boston University, Columbia University, Indiana University, Michigan State University, Ohio University, University of California at Berkeley and at Los Angeles, Stanford University, University of Florida, University of Illinois, University of Pennsylvania, University of Wisconsin at Madison, Yale University, and University of Maine. These institutions award post-bachelor degree fellowships to support the study of various African languages, and they serve as the focus of the bulk of African language instruction in the US.

The School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London has played a pioneering role in teaching African languages. Among other institutions that teach African languages are the University of Oslo, NTNU-University of Trondhjem, Norway, Norwegian Aid Agency (NORAD), Cambridge University, Britain, Goteborg University and Uppsala University, Sweden, the Institut National de Langues et Civilisations Orientales (INALCO—the National Institute of Languages and Oriental Civilisations) in Paris, the School of Oriental and African Languages at the University of Paris, and the Langage, Langues et Cultures d’Afrique Noire (LLACAN—the Speech, Languages and Cultures of Black Africa) in Meudon, France, the Institute Universitano Orientale, Italy, Warsaw University, Poland, Leiden University, The Netherlands, and McGill University, Canada. Several German institutions also teach African languages. Prominent among these are the University of Hamburg, University of Frankfurt, University of K鰈n, University of Bayreuth, University of Leipzig, Humboldt University of Berlin, and the University of Mainz. The German Foundation for International Development and Cooperation (DSE) at Bad Honnef also offers short-term intensive courses in African languages. The Osaka University of Foreign Languages at Kyoto, JAPAN also offers courses, as do Sydney University Language Centre and Melbourne University, Australia.

In addition to African language instruction outside Africa, some organisations send learners to Africa to be immersed in a language. For example, the US Department of Education, through its Fulbright-Hays Group Projects Abroad Program, provides grants for students to travel to Africa to take part in organised eight-week INTENSIVE LANGUAGE COURSES in Hausa (Nigeria), Yoruba (Nigeria), Swahili (Kenya and Tanzania) and Zulu (South Africa).

cbzhang307

Age factors

It is popularly believed that the age at which an individual begins to be exposed to a language has a determining influence on how quickly and/or efficiently the ACQUISITION/learning (the terms will be used interchangeably here) of that language proceeds. The general assumption is that the earlier learning begins the more successful it will be. This notion has been explored within the language sciences under the heading of the critical

age or critical period hypothesis, which in its strongest form posits that unless language acquisition gets under way within a particular maturational phase (usually thought of as ending around puberty) it will never take place. As far as L2 development—referring here to both second and foreign languages—is concerned, the somewhat weaker claim made by many SLA researchers is that L2 learning which begins after a particular age will typically fail to deliver native speaker levels of COMPETENCE.

There is widespread acceptance among language acquisition researchers that age is a factor in language development, although the strong form of the critical period hypothesis is treated more sceptically. One indicator of age playing a role is the way in which the major ‘milestones’ of normal L1 development appear to follow a maturational timetable (cooing beginning between 1 and 4 months, babbling between 4 and 8 months, 1-word utterances around 12 months, and 2-word utterances between 18 and 24 months, etc.—see Singleton, 1989: chapter 2). Another body of pertinent evidence comes from studies of SIGN LANGUAGE acquisition. The profoundly deaf are frequently deprived of access to an L1 in early childhood because, on the one hand, they are cut off from auditory stimuli and, on the other, owing to anti-sign language prejudice, they are often not provided with opportunities to learn sign language until later in life. Studies of later signers suggest that some aspects of sign language systems are typically not mastered unless exposure to sign language begins before age 6. Individuals who begin to acquire a sign language in their childhood years show marked advantages in terms of control of morphosyntax over those who start learning sign language in adulthood (see, e.g., Long, 1990:258–9).

With regard to L2 acquisition, the balance of evidence favours Krashen et al.’s (1979) conclusion that in situations of ‘naturalistic’ exposure, while in the initial stages of learning, older BEGINNERS tend to outperform their juniors—at least in some respects—in terms of long-term outcomes. Generally speaking, the earlier exposure to the L2 begins the better. Support for the Krashen et al. position comes, for instance, from the research of Snow and Hoefnagel-H鰄le (1978) on the learning of Dutch as an L2 by English speakers residing in the Netherlands. This provides clear evidence of more rapid initial learning on the part of ADULT and adolescent subjects, but also of younger beginners catching up with and beginning to overtake the older beginners after about 12 months of L2 exposure.

As far as instructed L2 learning is concerned, the consistent finding (see, e.g., Burstall et al., 1974; Oller and Nagato, 1974) is that learners exposed to an L2 at PRIMARY school who then at secondary level are mixed in with later beginners do not maintain an advantage for more than a modest period over these latter. The apparent discrepancy between such evidence and the naturalistic evidence can probably be accounted for in terms of the de-motivating effect on children who have had some early experience of an L2 of being put into classes where most pupils are starting from scratch (see, e.g., Singleton, 1995; Stern, 1976), and also in terms of the vast differences in exposure time between naturalistic and instructed learning (see Singleton 1989:121, 235ff.).

Whereas in recent years the question of age and language acquisition has been approached with a high degree of empirical rigour, discussion of this matter in the past was based largely on anecdote and assumption. For instance, the psychologist Tomb (1925) refers to hearing English children in Bengal (in the days of the British Raj) fluently conversing in English, Bengali, Santali and Hindustani, while their parents barely had enough Hindustani to issue instructions to the servants. Science appeared to loom larger in the 1950s, when the neurologist Penfield took an interest in the discussion (Penfield and Roberts, 1959). However, in fact, Penfield’s advocacy of early L2 instruction owed much more to his personal experience of bringing up his own children than to his work as a scientist (see Dechert, 1995). Even the neurolinguist Lenneberg based part of his contribution to the age debate on folk wisdom rather than science. For Lenneberg the critical period was a by-product of the lateralisation process, by which one hemisphere of the brain (usually the left) was thought to become specialised for language functions, and which Lenneberg posited as ending at puberty. One of his arguments in this connection (1967:176) was that after puberty L2 learning required ‘labored effort’ and foreign accents could not be ‘overcome easily’—a claim for which he offered no hard evidence whatsoever.

To return to current research and thinking in this area, as has already been indicated the idea that age plays some kind of role in language acquisition is seen by most researchers in the field to be validated by the available empirical evidence, while absolutist versions of the critical age hypothesis are widely criticised. In relation to this latter point, the sign language studies mentioned above do not demonstrate that L1 acquisition is impossible outside of a putative critical period. Moreover, with regard to L2 acquisition, a number of researchers have reported on L2 learners whose first contact with their L2 was in adolescence or adulthood and who, despite their late start, succeeded in attaining to native-like levels of proficiency in various domains (see, e.g., Bongaerts et al., 1997; Ioup, 1995). Nor is there any real consensus on how one might explain the influence of age on language acquisition, accounts on offer ranging from an age-related decrease in cerebral plasticity to a diminution with age of quality language input.

Clearly, the age issue is not something which is of academic interest only. It is a major element in the debate about the point at which L2 programmes should be introduced into formal education. However, it is important to emphasise in this connection that age is not the only relevant issue. After all, the early introduction of mathematics in schools depends not on any notion of a critical period for numeracy acquisition but rather on the general idea that this is such an important area that it needs to be broached as soon as possible. On the other hand, the question of when an L2 component should begin to figure in the curriculum obviously cannot be divorced from that of the availability of resources (suitably qualified personnel, appropriate materials, etc.).

cbzhang307

Anthropology

Anthropology refers to a domain which was constituted as a scientific discipline in the nineteenth century in the West. It responds to every society’s need to know the culture or cultures of which it is composed and to know those which are foreign to it. In this sense, anthropology occupies a border position between two or more cultures. Although it takes a global perspective by sometimes seeing its task as bringing together all the disciplines in the study of man, its least controversial findings are those established on the basis of the study of primitive or rural societies. In the European context, this latter domain is sometimes termed ethnology.

Anthropology and languages
Anthropology adopts a multi-disciplinary perspective and is related to the following domains: economics, history, politics, religion, and LINGUISTICS. Despite the diversity of these, they have methodological assumptions in common which underpin the field of study of anthropology and distinguish the anthropological approach from the sociological. Anthropology prefers restricted social units which are accessible to direct observation, and which are studied by qualitative analysis. This involves anthropologists at a personal level and requires of them the ability to overcome the effects of their own subjectivity. By explaining the functions of values which have been acquired implicitly by the individual in a given society, the anthropologist shows that behaviours which are experienced empirically as natural are not universal but the product of cultural learning. They are thus part of the identity of a community.

Countries which had a policy of foreign conquests (leading, for example, to the colonies of Ancient Greece, the Great Discoveries of the sixteenth century, colonialism in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries) created the foundations for the confrontation of different cultures, on the basis of military and economic interests and spheres of cultural influence. The Other was seen from the double perspective of threat and wonder (Greenblatt, 1991). The need to have access to the language of the foreigner was immediately recognised as being indispensable for military knowledge of the terrain, and for commercial exchange, to overcome the limitations of the simple language of gesture and exchange. INTERPRETERS, the conquerors who lived with indigenous women, or these women themselves, were the first to experience the multiple functions of the linguistic and cultural intermediary, as was for example the case of Malinche, also called Do馻 Marina, the mistress of the Spanish conqueror Cortes, described by Diaz del Castillo in the sixteenth century.

In the face of linguistic difference in the field, anthropologists overcome their lack of language and check their data by using intermediaries who serve as guides, informants or interpreters, and ascertain the correctness of their assertions. (For an account of daily practices in the field, see the New Guinea journal of Malinovski which he kept from 1914 to 1915 and again from 1917 to 1918, and the work of his pupil Firth). Anthropologists thus developed skills focused on the relationship to the Other which can compensate for what, seen from a language teaching perspective, seems to be a linguistic handicap. In the course of the twentieth century it has been recognised that the competence of the anthropologist includes mastery of the language, but that this competence is not sufficient to guarantee the scientific value of their work. The skills of anthropologists do not consist only in the ability to suppress their subjectivity, which is inevitable, but also to recognise its existence, and to overcome the effects of exoticism, by becoming involved in the daily life of the society being observed. The complexity of the relationships between anthropologists and their field, in the continuum between the two poles of involvement and distancing, can be described as a paradox (Clifford, 1988) and the basis for the process of taking an objective view.

For those countries which during the nineteenth century developed a policy of disseminating their language abroad, linked to a policy of colonisation (Britain, Germany, Russia and the USSR, FRANCE, Italy etc.), the relationships between anthropology and education are influenced above all by the national interest of the colonisers. The dissemination of French and German cultures beyond their national frontiers reflects two different interpretations of national feeling, influenced by the three wars between these two countries in less than one hundred years (1870, 1914–18, 1939–45). German Kulturkunde incorporated the particularity of the German spirit (Elias, 1969), whereas the dissemination of the FRENCH language was linked to the dissemination of the CIVILISATION fran鏰ise, the bearer of universal values. These cultural models created a relationship of political, economic and cultural dependency in the countries where the language was disseminated. ‘LINGUISTIC IMPERIALISM’ is linked with cultural imperialism (Phillipson, 1992).

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the recognition of cultural and linguistic diversity is one of the points on which there is agreement between the claims made on behalf of the findings of anthropology and those made in the name of politics. The concept of HUMAN RIGHTS, which is fundamental to a pluralist vision of democracy and concerned with minorities and the respect for cultural identity, plays a mediating role between the human sciences and educational and political interests. The use of the term ‘ethnic group’ provides for a positive categorisation of cultural diversity and the development of an official policy of multiculturalism, linked to the defining of identity and national citizenship. This is what happened in the 1970s in the USA, CANADA and AUSTRALIA, which recognised the role of indigenous minorities (‘First Nations’ in North America, and aborigines in Australia) in the definition of their national identity, although they did not recognise officially the linguistic pluralism which is its equivalent. The contrast between MOTHER TONGUE and culture and foreign language and culture is not deemed to be relevant in this case. The fundamentals of multi-ethnic education, in which reduction of prejudice, anti-racist education, CULTURAL AWARENESS, equality and equity of rights are relevant to language teaching, were institutionalised in the context of courses designated as multicultural.

These approaches, also evident in Europe, ensure continuity between a pluralist interpretation of citizenship, the national identity of each European country, and the recognition of the multi-ethnic dimension of a society One of the aims of the COUNCIL OF EUROPE, stated in 1949, is to ‘favour the recognition and valuing of European identity whilst combating all kinds of intolerance’. The 1992 Treaty of the European Union uses for political purposes concepts borrowed from the field of anthropology such as cultural values and heritage. The development of the European dimension in education is related directly to the learning and the dissemination of the languages of the Union’s Member States. The language field is seen, at the level of the whole education system, as being appropriate for the diffusion of a message of tolerance.

Anthropology and language learners
As it was developed from the study of so-called primitive societies, anthropology initially focused on a naturalist approach to mankind in particular, based on the study of anatomic variation. This starting point, called physical anthropology and similar to the interests of archaeology, aimed to classify populations in terms of biological, cultural and sociological factors, and to measure physical differences by anthropometric classification. Today the description of the influence of physical factors on social factors is only a marginal aspect of the discipline. These theories were invalidated scientifically, after World War Two, by the recognition of symbolic systems, the attack on the reductive effects of cultural evolutionism based on a Western view of progress (Lévi Strauss, 1958), but also politically by the political fallout of racial ideology, decolonisation and the acceptance of humanist values by international organisations such as UNESCO and the Council of Europe. Anthropology rejected a unitary vision of the development of humanity, asserted the equality of cultures in the scientific approach to comparison, and contributed to the popularisation of its knowledge by attacking threats to identity and the ethnocentrism of prejudice towards foreigners. The implications of this for language teaching are important: the notion of the native, borrowed from anthropology and re-used in the expression NATIVE SPEAKER, neutralises the ambiguous and pejorative values contained in the term ‘foreigner’, especially when this notion was preceded by such notions as ‘the barbarians’, ‘the bedevilled’, ‘the enemy’ and ‘the colonials’. However, the anthropologist relativises the ability of the native to describe the culture to which he/she belongs, giving him/her the status of informant, whereas in a traditional mode of thinking in language teaching, the native is generally an absolute model whom the foreigner is encouraged to follow.

In the context of the INTERNATIONALISATION of the economy, the requirements created by geographic mobility also make the debates and discussions in anthropology relevant to language teaching, in connection with expatriation and immigration. The issues of short- or medium-term residence abroad have arisen in different geographic contexts and structures according to the social categories involved. On the one hand there are managerial staff who have to leave their own country in order to export the technological knowhow of their company. On the other hand, there are the migrant workers who bring their labour to countries richer than the ones where they were born. For example, as the US policy of economic expansion was established, work was developed to respond to the NEEDS of the commercial world. This had to take into consideration the constraints of efficiency and economic viability, whilst developing the skills of negotiation and persuasion of those sent abroad. It involved, for example, the raising of awareness of the unconscious models which in every culture structures the concepts of time (Hall, 1959) and space (Hall, 1966), of cultural misunderstandings which trouble communication between interlocutors socialised into different cultures, and of the effects of the length of the period of residence abroad, in particular the concept of CULTURE SHOCK.

A quite different direction was taken in the 1970s in Europe with the beginning of a common European linguistic policy, focused on ADULT and child migrants who needed to be educated in their host country. The response to this in linguistic terms was accompanied by a critical analysis of the concept of ACCULTURATION, which had direct implications for family structures, relationships between men and women, and the question of citizenship. For example, in France the terms ‘integration’, ‘assimilation’ and ‘insertion’ were used to designate the measures taken with respect to these groups, measures which devolved from the French conception of the universality of values, whereas in Britain the focus was on ‘differentiation by class as opposed to differentiation by race’ (Todd, 1994), and Germany preferred to maintain the identity of the ethnic groups it hosted, as the terms Ausl鋘der or Aussiedler imply, designating respectively immigrant and foreigner with German forebears.

Language teaching attempts to systematise the description of the difficulties arising from the movement from one culture to another by using the term ‘INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE’, and is beginning to focus on the resolution of these difficulties. This term provides a common perspective on all those who are involved in the relationship between two languages: those who learn a language in which they have not been socialised, and those who belong to the culture whose language is being learned. The creation of European mobility programmes creates a new area of interest, in particular with respect to EXCHANGES of university and school students. The aim that every European should in the long run speak three languages of the European Union (European Commission, 1996) can be related to the globalisation of information, to flexibility in education and employment, and to the construction of a European identity.

Wherever such mobility exists, for example between North America and East Asian countries, it requires language teaching to recognise the reciprocity of identities and the valuing of linguistic and cultural pluralism. This means, for example, that in the context of a period of residence abroad, when they participate in new ways of life and become involved in a different education system, students should move beyond the status of a foreigner and not relate to the country as a tourist. Their position is comparable to that of the anthropologist.

Anthropology and language teaching
The dissemination of anthropological knowledge in language teaching can be envisaged on two levels. On the one hand, there is the question of the nature of the information about the culture whose language is being taught. On the other hand, there are the processes used in anthropology which are relevant to teaching.

In the first case there is an obvious use for work related to the anthropology of the body—studies of the perceptions of illness, health, ill-luck and death—and historical anthropology which studies the evolution of mentalities in the form of a history of national emblems, of eating habits, of religious thought, of living conditions, of private life, of taste, of hygiene, of the family and of sexuality. A second source of interest are the accounts of discoveries and voyages, autobiographies of explorers and migrants, and travel diaries. These are important documents through which it is possible to study how over the course of the centuries an analysis of the relationship to the Other has been developed. On the basis of such documents it is possible to make explicit intercultural misunderstandings and to begin a process of analysing the notion of the universality of values which is unthinkingly experienced by learners as natural. The quality of the anthropological information in these areas is now beginning to influence the content of TEXTBOOKS.

There is a parallel and often complementary development linked to the ethnography of communication, which studies the social distribution of linguistic SKILLS and the linguistic variation evident in different societies. Here, anthropology sensitises the teacher to the social diversity in any group of learners, to the variety of cultural practices which co-exist in any educational environment. It also contributes to the raising of learners’ awareness of the complexity of a culture which initially they often see in a reductive way.

The transfer of methods from anthropology to language teaching can contribute to the modernisation of the foundations of the teaching of languages which were established in the middle of the twentieth century. The anthropologist’s purpose is to develop a description of the way of life and the system of values of a given cultural community. It is also to systematise a RESEARCH METHOD based on an inside knowledge of the society arising from long-term contact with the community being studied, and on the principle of openness to the Other which ensures the anthropologist’s own independence of thought. The anthropologist’s work is characterised by the collection of information on foreign cultural products and values, the comparison of this information with another cultural system, and the relationships between the known and the unknown. There is, then, a parallel between the anthropologist, the teacher and the learner.

Although teachers and learners are most often valued in terms of their linguistic COMPETENCE, they none the less share with the anthropologist their position of being on the borders between several cultural systems. The social role of the teacher, like that of the anthropologist, is to describe a foreign society in a way which is free of prejudice, which takes into consideration cultural distance between the society being described and the one producing the description, and which is part of the process of understanding of this distance. There are several theoretical models to underpin the process of comparison. First, use of the notion of the cultural bridge takes into account the issue of intercommunication between groups and the difficulties involved. Second, the analysis of mutual perceptions of two cultures in a specific domain—for example, the media or school textbooks—emphasises the possibility of changing these perceptions. Third, and more broadly, the study of images of the foreigner in different sections of a given society shows how the sense of proximity and distance between cultures depends on the way information is received, and on the international geo-political context. Fourth, the analysis of practical situations of language teaching, where the focus is on issues of mobility rather than strictly educational OBJECTIVES, is linked to the methodology of anthropology in so far as such analysis is concerned with relationships in the field and with confrontation with cultural Otherness.

The relationships between anthropology and language teaching are, however, surrounded by ambiguity, since they are both political and academic. The impact of anthropology on the field of language teaching varies according to the languages and culture in question, and according to the geographic and historical realities within each national context. The impact varies also according to the level of learning. There is anthropological awareness linked to early language teaching, but it is especially at university level that the discipline is taught in its own right. In the Anglo-Saxon context, this disciplinary domain contributes to the teaching of CULTURAL STUDIES or AREA STUDIES. In this case the name of the course is linked to a national designation (a course in German literature, for example) or to a linguistic area (French Studies, for example) which often includes several cultural areas. In fact, this kind of alignment is determined by academic requirements:

the same cultural area might be designated in one situation as ‘Romance’ or ‘European’, and in another as ‘Cultural Heritage’. If there is explicit reference to anthropological terminology in the administrative organisation of university language departments, it is usually in parallel with linguistic terminology.

Conclusion
In the expression of public opinion, the term ‘language barrier’ tends to be used indiscriminately to describe all the difficulties of communication with a foreign language and culture. Often, communication by gesture is seen as a simple but universal response, and cultural difference is spontaneously interpreted in terms of human progress, in a linear and ethnocentric perspective. This is especially so in a tourist context. When the findings of anthropology are transferred to the field of language teaching, they confirm the significance of the cultural dimension of language teaching by identifying the limitations of purely linguistic competence and performance in a foreign language. There are certain areas, otherwise marginalised by a strictly linguistic approach—NON-VERBAL COMMUNICATION, for example—or certain kinds of competence, such as attitudinal competence, which can be based on this and acquire academic legitimation. Contrary to the ideological discourses which idealise or reject the Other, the findings of anthropology offer a differentiated reading of difference, between universality and particularity (Geertz, 1973) and allow us to choose between several levels of interpretation—political, economic, historical, linguistic, educational—through which to approach a foreign culture.

cbzhang307

Applied linguistics

The role of applied linguistics as a source discipline for language teaching is not one which is easy to define. This is partly due to the fact that the term ‘applied linguistics’ has changed its meaning several times since it was first used in the 1940s as an academically respectable way of talking about language teaching theory. As a result of this, the relationship between applied linguists and language teachers has not been a stable one, and has itself undergone many changes. Nevertheless, it is possible to distinguish three main periods during which Applied Linguistics has impacted on language teaching.

The emergence of ‘applied linguistics’
The emergence of ‘applied linguistics’ as a formal discipline can largely be traced to World War Two. There was at the time considerable interest in teaching languages quickly and effectively, as part of military training, and many professional linguists became involved in this work, in both the US and the UK. Since many of these people had been involved in the development of STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS in the 1930s, it was natural that they should attempt to use the insights that structural linguistics provided to inform the way they thought that languages should be taught. Linguists trained in structuralist techniques were able to produce good, usable descriptions of these languages, and were able to use these descriptions to make contrastive analyses of the target language and the learner’s L1. These linguistic descriptions were soon linked together with training methods derived from behavioural PSYCHOLOGY, and teaching aids made possible by the rapid development of sound recording technology. The combination proved to be a very effective one, and underlies much of the AUDIOLINGUAL teaching methodology that emerged in the 1950s.

Of course, the combination of good linguistic descriptions, good teaching practice and exploitation of technological developments was not a new one: the best language teachers had been doing this long before the emergence of ‘applied linguistics’. A good example of this would be the work of Harold PALMER (e.g. Palmer, 1922), who never described himself as an applied linguist but published work which would certainly be classed under that heading today (see Bongers, 1947, for a full description of Palmer’s work).

Sridhar (1993) suggests that the growth of applied linguistics as a formal discipline owes much to the desire of language teachers to upgrade their formal academic status by associating their work with Linguistics, which was considered at the time to be the most rigorous, and most successful, of the social sciences.

Applied linguistics in the United States is particularly associated with Charles Ferguson, and the work of the Center for Applied Linguistics in Washington (Ferguson, 1975). In the United Kingdom, the emerging discipline crystallised around a number of important figures, notably Pit Corder and Peter Strevens, who were influential in setting up university departments that specialised in ‘applied linguistics’. In practice, these departments were mainly involved in advanced training for ENGLISH Language teachers, particularly teachers of English working outside the UK. Corder’s views on the relationship between applied linguists, linguists and language teachers are explicitly laid out in his book Introducing applied linguistics (Corder, 1973), which is probably the classic text of this school of thought. Corder believed that there was a clear hierarchy of responsibility between three groups of people. Linguists produced descriptions of languages. The immediate consumer of these descriptions was the applied linguist, whose job was to mediate the work of the linguist, by producing PEDAGOGICAL GRAMMARS. These pedagogical grammars were turned into TEXTBOOKS and teaching MATERIALS, and eventually reached the teachers whose job it was actually to teach the language to learners. Corder’s model allowed for little, if any, feedback from teachers to applied linguists, and little interaction between linguists and applied linguists; the information flowed only in one direction: ‘The applied linguist is a consumer, or user, not a producer of theories’ (Corder, 1973:10). In practice, of course, this hierarchy was not as rigid as it may have been in theory. Many people worked as both linguists and applied linguists, many teachers moved into applied linguistics, and many people who thought of themselves as applied linguists also taught languages.
For many years, this relationship appears to have worked well, although inevitably there were tensions between linguists and applied linguists—Strevens refers to applied linguistics being ‘tolerated’ as long as it was narrowly interpreted as ‘linguistic theory applied’ (Strevens, 1992). In practice, this narrow definition was not closely adhered to, and ‘applied linguistics’—at least as taught in British universities—soon came to encompass a lot more than the mere application of linguistic theory. A glance at the contents of the four volumes of the Edinburgh Course in Applied Linguistics (Allen and Corder, 1974; Allen and Davies, 1977) soon reveals how wide the boundaries of the discipline had begun to be. By this time, the scope of applied linguistics had come to include course design, practical phonetics and phonology, pedagogical grammar, ERROR ANALYSIS, contentanalysis, language testing, READING and WRITING, STYLISTICS and experimental methods, as well as broader applications of educational technology in the form of LANGUAGE LABORATORIES, programmed learning techniques and the use of audio-visual materials.

A period of tension
Relationships between theoretical linguistics and applied linguistics began to become increasingly strained in the 1970s. At this time, linguistic theory, particularly the theories associated with the work of Noam CHOMSKY (e.g. Chomsky, 1965a) rapidly moved into a dominating position in academic linguistics. At first, these formal theories seemed to strengthen the position of applied linguistics. They were not easy for lay readers to understand, and needed to be interpreted before they could be used for practical purposes. This seemed to reinforce Corder’s idea of the applied linguist as mediator, and a number of pedagogical grammars based loosely on Chomskyan linguistics appeared (e.g. Thomas, 1965). Chomsky himself, however, made it clear that he did not think his theories had anything to say about language teaching, and that he was ‘rather sceptical about the significance, for the teaching of languages, of such insights and understandings as have been attained in linguistics and psychology’ (Chomsky, 1965b). This made it increasingly difficult for applied linguists to argue that they were ‘applying linguistics’ in any obvious way. Gradually, theoretical linguistics became increasingly more formal, particularly after the development of Government and binding theory, and more recently of Minimalist theories of syntax, (cf. Radford, 1997), and, with these developments, it became ever more difficult to argue this position with conviction.

Paradoxically, however, the complexification of theoretical linguistics seems to have increased the temporary importance of ‘applied linguistics’ as an academic discipline. As linguistics became increasingly closely identified with abstract syntactic theory, many researchers working in areas that lay outside this central field seem to have become disaffected, and applied linguistics seems to have provided a temporary home for them. Many people who identified themselves as linguists were not primarily concerned with the formal tenets of linguistic descriptions. These people shared a common belief in language as communication and interaction, rather than language as formal system, and, for a short time, applied linguistics served a sort of refuge discipline which provided a framework for these people to work in and a set of shared assumptions about the social function of language. Sridhar (1993) calls this ‘extended linguistics’. It was not uncommon at this time to find meetings of applied linguists discussing a much wider range of topics than would have been common during the earlier period. Sociolinguists, speech therapists, child language specialists, translators, discourse analysts, lexicographers, neurolinguists, as well as the traditional language teachers, would all have been considered active applied linguists at this time. When AILA, the International Association for Applied Linguistics, decided to organise its work through a series of scientific commissions, all these subject areas were considered to be part of its formal remit.

As a result of this broadening of boundaries, interactions between language teachers and applied linguists working in other areas seem to have been particularly fruitful at this time, and it is possible to see the benefits of this contact in a whole range of textbooks which appeared in the 1970s and 1980s. These texts dealt with the problems of teaching languages, but they were no longer constrained by narrow linguistic concerns—see, for example, Gardner and Lambert (1972), Krashen (1982) and Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1982). Paradoxically, perhaps, the result of this increased collaboration was that applied linguistics tended to lose its coherence as an area of study. The term came to be used as an umbrella description, distinguishing between a rather narrow view of language that built on Chomsky’s ideas about linguistic COMPETENCE, and a broader view that focused on language as both text and interaction, or, more generally, on language as problem. The defining characteristic was, however, a negative one. Applied linguistics became a broad coalition that defined itself in negative terms—anything to do with language which wasn’t theoretical linguistics. What it did not develop was a clear set of shared methodologies, or a shared set of theoretical assumptions of its own.

Recent developments
Inevitably, this broad coalition has turned out not to be a very stable one. By 1980, one of the major figures in British applied linguistics was commenting: ‘It is possible—even likely—that linguistics, as it is customarily conceived, may not be the most suitable source for a practical teaching model of language’ (Widdowson, 1980). As areas of research developed their own bodies of theory, they tended to define themselves out of applied linguistics, or even in opposition to it. What became known as ‘hyphenated linguistics’—socio-linguistics, psycholinguistics, neuro-linguistics, computational linguistics, etc.—became increasingly AUTONOMOUS and independent. Language teaching, too, was affected by this fragmentation, as applied linguists interested in SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION began to develop their own independent theories about how languages are learned. International learned societies specifically concerned with second language acquisition began to spring up in the late 1980s, and to run conferences separate from those of applied linguists. At the same time, SLA (second language acquisition) theory rapidly developed into a coherent set of theoretical ideas about language acquisition. Only a fraction of this work owed much to contemporary linguistic theory (e.g. White, 1989); most of it was much more broadly based in the psychology of perception and communication—see, for example, McLaughlin (1987), Ellis (1994) and Skehan (1998).

These ideas are beginning to affect the way languages are taught, or at least the way teachers are taught to teach languages. The irony here is that, as SLA develops, it becomes increasingly technical, and—like the linguistic theories it replaced—increasingly difficult to explain to lay readers. What we have here is a sort of ‘theoretical applied linguistics’, more broadly based than the linguistic theories of the 1940s or the 1960s, but something that still needs interpretation and elucidation before it can be easily applied.

The current situation seems to be that few people expect modern theoretical linguistics to make a serious contribution to language teaching. Modern linguistics deals with language at an abstract level, and tends to ignore language as interaction or performance, and this means that the claims it makes have little immediate relevance and cannot be applied in any obvious way. However, the insights of structural linguistics—particularly contrastive linguistics—are still with us, and they still inform the way we teach languages. In a way, the enduring legacy of applied linguistics is that it has preserved, and continues to make use of, a body of knowledge about language which was in danger of being lost to mainstream linguistics. These ideas are no longer at the cutting edge of research, but they still form part of the basic training of most language teachers—particularly TEFL (English as a Foreign Language) teachers, though perhaps less so for teachers of other languages. In a way, the fact that these once-radical and innovative ideas are now part of basic training—a set of shared assumptions that professional language teachers and textbook writers can usually take for granted—is a measure of the impact that applied linguistics has made on language teaching.

Conclusion
Mackey (1966) noted that: ‘In one form or another, both language analysis and psychology have always been applied to the teaching of foreign languages. In fact, the history of language teaching could be represented as a cyclic shift in prominence from the one to the other, a swing from the strict application of principles of language analysis to the single-minded insistence on principles of psychology… today’s interest in applied linguistics represents another swing toward the primacy of language analysis in language teaching.’ The peak of this swing seems to have been relatively short-lived, but its legacy survives as what Sridhar (1993) describes as ‘a common thread that runs through the various areas of research: a commitment to empirical data, a contextualised view of language, a functionalist emphasis, and an interdisciplinary openness’. Applied linguistics may no longer be a formally defined source discipline for language teaching, but the attitudes that developed during its heyday continue to influence language teachers in a fundamental way.

cbzhang307

Arabic

Arabic has been taught in the Islamic world since the early centuries of Islam; the central impetus for both the development of Arabic GRAMMAR and the teaching of Arabic was the desire to preserve the purity of the language of the Qur’an following the Islamic conquests and the subsequent mixing of Arabs with other peoples. Arabic is currently taught as a university subject in most Western countries, and as a religious language throughout the Islamic world. This article covers the historical development of Arabic, phonology and script, grammar, VOCABULARY, STYLISTICS, diglossia and trends in Arabic teaching.

Historical development
The most widely held view among modern scholars is that in pre-Islamic Arabia there existed alongside a number of different tribal-based dialects a panArabic koiné (cf. Holes, 1995:7–24). This was used mainly for the composition of POETRY, which had a central place in pre-Islamic culture. The koiné is believed to have differed from the dialects in a number of ways. The most striking of these were its retention of ancient Arabic case endings for nouns and adjectives, and mood endings for verbs.

With the emergence of Islam, Qur’anic Arabic became the exemplar for formal written Arabic (hereafter referred to as Standard Arabic). The language of the Qur’an is essentially that of the poetic koiné with its case and mood endings. Throughout the Arab world, however, local dialects continued to develop, based largely on ancient Arabic dialects, and apparently lacking case and mood endings from the outset.

During the Ottoman period, Standard Arabic underwent an eclipse, Turkish being used as the language of administration and much non-religious culture in the Arab world. In the nineteenth century, however, Standard Arabic was revived. Today, it is the language of almost all formal communication—novels, poetry, formal DRAMA, newspapers, news broadcasts, academic WRITING and formal debates, etc. The colloquial dialects are used in informal contexts—everyday conversation, informal drama, some poetry, and sometimes for dialogue in novels.

Everyone in the Arab world speaks a local dialect as their MOTHER TONGUE. Standard Arabic is taught in schools, and different speakers have differing degrees of command of it depending on their level of education.

Phonology and script
The phonology of Arabic may present problems for some learners. From the perspective of the English-speaking learner, for example, the best known among these are the emphatic phonemes. These are a series of pharyngealised phonemes (i.e. sounds involving constriction of the pharynx in the throat), contrasting with non-pharyngealised phonemes.

Arabic script is not difficult to learn, and is well fitted to the phonology of Standard Arabic. There are twenty-eight letters. The script is cursive, and most letters have variant forms, depending on their position in the word. Short vowels are not normally written, although they may be added as diacritics.

Grammar
The morphology of Arabic is extremely rich. Words are derived from a combination of what are known as roots and patterns. This can be illustrated by the following examples: kitaab ‘book’, katab ‘he wrote’, kitaaba ‘writing’ (noun). These examples share the root k-t-b which has a general sense of ‘to write/writing’. Affixed into and around this is a pattern; thus the pattern i-aa is combined with the root k-t-b to give the word kitaab ‘book’. This type of morphology is sometimes called non-concatenative morphology (see Watson, forthcoming). Arabic also has a large amount of inflectional morphology, mainly involving suffixes.

Parts of speech are not problematic. For pedagogical purposes, it is possible to use traditional notions such as verb, noun, adjective, adverb, preposition and conjunction. Arabic has a high degree of agreement, and complex agreement patterns. Other syntactic features, however, are relatively straightforward, and standard Western notions such as subject and object fit the language relatively easily.

Vocabulary
Standard Arabic has an extremely large vocabulary, with a large number of synonyms and near-synonyms. Historically, this is partly due to the incorporation of words from different ancient Arabic dialects or from other languages into Standard Arabic. In the modern era, however, Standard Arabic (unlike the colloquial dialects) shows a strong and officially sanctioned tendency to avoid loanwords. Where such words have come into the language, an attempt is often made to replace them by neologisms formed from existing Arabic roots and patterns, or by existing Arabic words which are given an extended sense to cover the new meaning.

Stylistics
Standard Arabic exhibits a number of stylistic features which differ markedly from those of ENGLISH. In particular, there is a tendency towards repetition of various kinds, such as the repetition of near-synonyms to provide emphasis. One frequently comes across phrases in Arabic such as tahallul al-qiyam wa-l-axlaaqiyyaat, literally ‘the dissolution of morals and values’, where in English it would be more normal to restructure the doublet ‘morals and values’ into a noun-adjective phrase and perhaps add an element such as ‘all’ for additional emphasis, to give something like ‘the dissolution of all moral values’.

Diglossia
Diglossia, i.e. the co-existence of Standard Arabic and dialect throughout the Arab world, presents learners with a number of choices. If they require limited oral communication SKILLS for a particular area, they need only learn the dialect of that area. If they want to deal with official written communication, it is sufficient for them to learn Standard Arabic. Anyone who wants a general command of Arabic, however, needs to learn both Standard Arabic and at least one Arabic dialect. Here two general teaching strategies can be identified. The first involves teaching Standard Arabic and the chosen dialect separately. Students typically learn to read, write, listen and speak in Standard Arabic, and to listen and speak in a dialect. This engenders a number of register anomalies. For example, students learn to engage in everyday conversation in Standard Arabic—something which even highly educated Arabic speakers may not be able to do. The approach does, however, allow the four basic language skills to reinforce one another, and gives students a sense of confidence in using Standard Arabic.

The alternative strategy of teaching Standard Arabic and a dialect together has the advantage of allowing teachers and learners to reproduce register norms in Arabic directly. Students read a passage in Standard Arabic, but discuss it in a dialect. They also learn to develop a proficiency in mixing dialect and STANDARD LANGUAGE when appropriate. The potential disadvantages are twofold. First, students may fail to get sufficient oral reinforcement in Standard Arabic, leaving them with a command of the language which is over-oriented towards the written form. Second, they are required to learn two languages at once, with a correspondingly greater likelihood of confusion.

Trends in Arabic teaching
It is possible to distinguish three main phases in the development of MATERIALS for teaching Standard Arabic over the last thirty or forty years (Alosh, 1997:88–90). During the first phase, Arabic language teaching was based around the GRAMMAR-TRANSLATION METHOD. A good example of this approach is A new Arabic grammar of the written language (Haywood and Nahmad, 1962). Each chapter in this book deals with one or more grammatical points, for which written practice is provided by translation sentences from and into Arabic. The second phase begins with the publication of Elementary modern Standard Arabic (Abboud et al., 1968). Here, chapters are organised around a basic text, and a wide variety of EXERCISES are provided, including oral and aural exercises. The prevalence of substitution drills of various kinds strongly reflects the influence of the AUDIOLINGUAL METHOD. Most recently, there has been a shift to a more COMMUNICATIVE approach to the teaching of Arabic, making use of techniques adopted from ELT. One of the first books of this type was Mastering Arabic (Whightwick and Gaafar, 1990). A more recent book, adopting the same approach, is Al-Kitaab fii Ta‘allum al-‘Arabiyya: A Textbook for Beginning Arabic (Brustad et al., 1995). It is striking that both Elementary modern Standard Arabic and the more recent communicatively-oriented works maintain a strong formal grammatical element. Given the complexity of Arabic morphology in particular, it is difficult to see how this could be avoided.

At the more advanced level, there has been something of a dearth of standard Arabic teaching materials. The first attempt at a comprehensive course was Modern Standard Arabic: intermediate level (Abboud et al., 1971), which was designed to follow on from Elementary modern Standard Arabic. A revised version of this is currently being produced. A more recent work is Standard Arabic: an advanced course (Dickins and Watson, 1999), which adopts a topic-based structure.
Courses in colloquial Arabic dialects have been produced for many decades, initially mainly by academic publishers or for colonial authorities. Since the 1980s in particular, mainstream publishers have begun to publish colloquial courses.

cbzhang307

Area studies

Area studies is one of the terms for a complex domain of study also called CULTURAL STUDIES, LANDESKUNDE (German), CIVILISATION (French), and has been defined from various perspectives. It has its origin(s) in the developmental context of the national philologies of the nineteenth century and is part of the present state of affairs in which modern foreign languages are regarded as academic subjects in their own rights.

The field of area studies has been one of the most contentious ones in the debates around foreign language learning and teaching, because many (perhaps too many) prospectors have staked their claim to it: representatives of academic disciplines (first and foremost modern languages, but also political science, geography and sociology), specific courses of study (concerned with the training of teachers, businessmen, diplomats etc.), educational institutions (at almost all levels with different types of learners) and, last but not least, politicians, administrators, bureaucrats and journalists. Moreover, the always implicit—but most often also explicit—political nature of this field has added to its controversial status.

In systematic terms, area studies has been a part or a dimension of four different groups of disciplines/subjects/studies (see Figure 2).

Modern (national) philologies and European languages
In the European context (Figure 2:1), an interest in the study of modern languages and literatures and their establishment as academic disciplines developed more or less concomitantly with the rise of the nation states, the consolidation of their centralised political power structures and their production of nationally unified cultures in the nineteenth century. In most of the cases, the subjects of study, the theoretical and methodological frameworks and the human/social interests of these modern (national) philologies were modelled on those of the classics which set the standards of this part of the scientific community: historical linguistics, the editing of early LITERARY TEXTS and philological analysis were given precedence over the attainment of practical language COMPETENCE, the discussion of more recent (or even contemporary) texts and a comparative approach to the different cultures in question. Although the university departments of modern (foreign) languages were primarily set up to meet the growing need for professionally trained foreign language teachers, the actual training was more suitable for philologists concentrating on LINGUISTICS and/or literary criticism. Paradoxically, language practice and foreign language teaching methodology were regarded as secondary; and area studies came last, if it was taught at all.

Despite a number of educationally and politically motivated debates foregrounding the relevance of the study of culture, particularly towards the end of the nineteenth century and between the two World Wars, above all in Germany (see Landeskunde), but also in FRANCE (see civilisation) and other countries, this situation remained essentially unchanged until after World War Two, when, first for the USA (because of the conflicts arising from their military and political engagements in many parts of the world), and then in Europe (because of the beginning process of European integration, the growing influx of migrants, and the problems arising from these developments), the social, political and educational relevance of cultural differences could not be ignored any longer. They demanded a certain space and specific place in the training of those who had to deal with them for professional reasons: psychologists, social workers, teachers and, first and foremost, teachers of the indigenous and foreign languages. The slow and uneven but irreversible development of, for example, CULTURAL STUDIES in Britain, regarded first as a critique and later as a necessary enhancement of English studies, and Interkulturelle Germanistik in Germany, testifies to this transformation which soon spread to and included the respective foreign modern philologies. In Germany, for example, until the late 1980s Landeskunde (which was also called Kulturkunde or, more specifically, Englandkunde or Frankreichkunde) had either occupied a more (English studies) or less (Romance studies) marginal place in the university departments (of the Federal Republic of Germany) or been, at least to a certain extent, instrumentalised by party politics (in the German Democratic Republic). Since the early 1990s a discernible change of attitude in favour of area studies within the philologies has taken place: the cultural dimension of the modern national philologies is in the process of being given the same status as the linguistic and literary ones (see Kramer and Lenz, 1994). As a consequence, these philologies are being transformed into studies of particular cultures. Similar developments can be observed in many other countries (cf. British studies now, 1992-present day; Byram, 1994; Journal for the study of British cultures, 1999).

The central objective of area studies in its modernised or reformed version (see Kramer, 1997) is to understand (to study, learn about, do research into) a particular culture and society and, by doing so, to learn to understand cultures in general. At the same time, it is intended that the process of understanding a culture which differs from one’s own should also lead to a better understanding of one’s own culture. In this context, a culture is understood as a ‘particular way of life’ (Williams, 1965:57) in a society which is usually composed of a number of different ones. A culture includes elements of a society’s relations of production (and, by implication, distribution and consumption), power and communication, as well as one or more of its ways of experiencing, structuring and making sense of them: a culture is socially produced and symbolically made sense of. If a culture that differs from one’s own, particularly a foreign culture, is to be understood, it has to be reconstructed: its social reality and its symbolical interpretation have to be represented in one’s own language (as do its concepts). Thus, from the very start, understanding a foreign culture implies making use of and, thereby, exposing and reflecting one’s own culture while studying the other. This process entails comparing both cultures and, by doing so, transforming them and oneself.

Other disciplines
In other academic disciplines (Figure 2:2), which are not related to foreign language learning, the term ‘area studies’ has been used to characterise either primarily descriptive accounts of specific cultures and societies with an almost encyclopedic claim to completeness (as, for example, in geography or the political sciences), particular fields of specialisation within the discipline (as, for example, in history or sociology), or optional rather than constitutive elements of a discipline (as, for example, in economics or business studies). In most of these contexts, the chosen term has been ‘area studies’ (or, in German-speaking contexts, ‘Landeskunde’), while ‘civilisation’ (or ‘Kulturkunde’) has been associated with foreign language studies.

In recent years, a particular ‘linguistic paradox of culture studies’ (Seeba, 1996:404) has developed in the United States and, to a certain extent, in CANADA: ‘the more academic programs in the humanities’ have embraced ‘the cultural turn of their disciplines, with special emphasis on multicultural paradigms and intercultural approaches, the more they [have] tend[ed] to move away from the particular language whose instruction was their original raison d’être’ (Seeba, 1996:404). At the moment, it is not clear if this trend can be reversed (cf. Seeba, 1996:405–6; Prokop, 1996), if the loss in foreign language competence can be offset against the relative gain in culture studies, or if a new theoretical integration of language practice and culture studies may prove to be a viable alternative (Michel, 1996; Altmayer, 1997).

Interdisciplinary studies
Various kinds of interdisciplinary studies (Figure 2:3), which may or may not be related to foreign language learning (European, Asian, African Studies, Jewish Studies etc.), have defined their particular forms and functions of area studies by drawing on the concepts of either philologies or other disciplines depending on the nature and direction of their OBJECTIVES, theories and methods.

Academic subjects in their own right
Over the past three or four decades three interdependent developments have led to the conceptualisation and institutionalisation of modern languages as foreign languages and academic subjects in their own right, whose objectives, theories and methods decisively differ from those of the related philologies and, consequently, entail a transformation of the traditional form of foreignlanguage teacher training. The three developments are as follows:
1 Increasing international cooperation and communication have made the expansion of foreign language learning at all levels a socially desirable goal: foreign language competence may not be able to guarantee a job, but in most contexts it is certainly regarded as an asset.
2 The expansion of foreign language learning at all levels has entailed a (related) transformation of the learner population. This has not only been a quantitative problem, but also a question of methodology and curriculum development: formulating attainable learning goals for groups of learners which may widely differ with respect to their AGE, ability and MOTIVATION, the fact that this particular foreign language is the first, second or third they are learning, and the context in which the language is learned and/or used, etc.
3 As the qualifications of foreign language learners left much to be desired and were in urgent need of improvement if learners were to be enabled to meet their most urgent communicative NEEDS, two paradigmatic shifts have taken place in the attempts at theorising foreign language learning and teaching since the 1960s.

The first shift was away from producing linguistic competence only, towards developing what was then called communicative competence. While the former was thought to be attained through the traditional teaching of GRAMMAR, syntax and semantics, the acquisition of the latter required that a great deal of attention be paid to either developing model phrases which then could be learned through imitation (as in the AUDIOLINGUAL METHOD) and/or establishing (and learning) certain utterances serving specific functions in particular situations/contexts (as in the NOTIONAL-FUNCTIONAL APPROACH). The model to which the learners were supposed to orientate themselves, before and after this shift, was the NATIVE SPEAKER.

The second shift was away from concentrating on speech patterns and/or situations in which the utterances of a foreign language are used, towards the people who use them as means of communication, negotiation and interaction. These latter terms already indicate the nature of the shift: instead of being seen as the relatively passive ‘victims’ of determining situations to which they have to adapt themselves (either through mimicking and memorising patterns or conforming to alien situations), the learners were envisaged as people who actively negotiate the meanings of their utterances within certain situations of which they and their interlocutors are in fact constitutive parts. The new focus was on the negotiation of meaning between speakers of different cultures. Moreover, rather than regarding these three accentuations of the linguistic, communicative and interactive/intercultural dimensions of the foreign language learning process as excluding each other, they have come to be seen as complementary: the need to develop the learners’ INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATIVE competence which enables them to understand what they need to understand and to say what they want to say (to each other and to their foreign interlocutors) in certain situations in relation to specific topics has become the central tenet of the foreign language learning process. As a consequence, the native speaker is no longer regarded as a model.

If foreign language learners have intercultural communicative competence, they should be regarded as ‘heteroglossic language user’ (Nolden and Kramsch, 1996:64), or as intercultural speakers who are able ‘to interact with people from another country and culture in a foreign language’ and ‘to negotiate a mode of communication and interaction which is satisfactory to themselves and the other’ and ‘to act as mediator between people of different cultural origins. Their knowledge of another culture is linked to their language competence through their ability to use language appropriately…and their awareness of the specific meanings, values and connotations of the language’ (Byram, 1997:71).

These developments resulted in the necessary transformation of the traditional, philologically oriented form of foreign language teacher training. Put simply, the central (and transformative) insight was that the qualifications of philologists differ from those of foreign language teachers. Where the former focus on the critical analysis and balanced interpretation of texts, images, etc. of a foreign culture (which include, but do not necessarily foreground, the foreign language), the latter primarily concentrate on the initiation, implementation and EVALUATION of language learning processes of which the cultures involved form an indispensable part.

But what exactly is the character and function of area studies in the training of foreign language teachers and, by extension, in foreign language education? The following two models mirror the current state of affairs: one was developed in the context of GERMAN as a Foreign Language (GFL), emphasising the communicative aspect of language learning and the exemplary role of the native speaker; the other is a combination of ideas developed in the context of ENGLISH as a Foreign Language (EFL), stressing the intercultural dimension of language learning and introducing the intercultural speaker.

In the first model, the core of the discipline is defined as the theory and practice of teaching and learning GFL (see Henrici, 1994, 1996): the function of research is to steadily advance our knowledge and understanding of language learning processes, while that of teaching is to make what we already know as transparent as possible to future teachers so that they can build on it in their teaching practice. Of the many qualifications future teachers need, the most important ones are:
1 general and specific didactic (i.e. educational and methodological) know-how concerning the initiation, implementation and evaluation (observation, analysis/diagnosis and therapy) of language learning processes, media and MATERIALS;
2 the ability to apply this know-how in various contexts, taking into account their diverse (pre)conditions (cognitive, affective, social and other variables; institutional, medial factors, etc.) and thereby to teach, always in relation to particular contents (or subject matters), linguistic competence, COMMUNICATIVE STRATEGIES, knowledge about—and certain ATTITUDES towards—the foreign culture;
3 knowledge of the history of the discipline and the development of its particular profile.
In order to acquire these qualifications, students have to study and make interdisciplinary use of certain disciplines: basic; contents-related; and neighbouring. In this model, SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION research, L2-CLASSROOM RESEARCH and APPLIED LINGUISTICS are regarded as the basic disciplines whose interests and results determine, at least to a certain extent, the ways and forms in which the contents-related disciplines (LINGUISTICS, literary criticism, Landeskunde) and the neighbouring disciplines (sociology, PSYCHOLOGY, education, etc.) are being made use of: the latter two are functionally related (i.e., more or less subordinated) to the former.

In this model of GFL, area studies is present as one of the (three) component parts of the (modernised version of the) related philology (Germanistik), but in the language learning processes it is mainly reduced to the role of providing the contents of and information or subject matters for these processes. Although this function is not negligible (and is certainly more pertinent than simply supplying ‘contextual’ knowledge), it does not extend to the (inter)cultural character of the language learning processes themselves.

This problematic is foregrounded in a second model (Figure 3) which is here (re)constructed from suggestions for teaching EFL and, by implication, the training of professional teachers (cf. Vielau, 1997:208–14; Zydati

cbzhang307

Assessment and testing

The term ‘assessment’ is generally used to cover all methods of testing and assessment, although some teachers and testers apply the term ‘testing’ to formal or standardised tests such as the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), and ‘assessment’ to more informal methods. In this entry, however, the terms ‘assessment’ and ‘test’ are used interchangeably.
Recent history

In Britain, assessment of foreign languages was mostly conducted by means of traditional examinations until well into the twentieth century (Spolsky, 1995). However, in the USA, influences from the field of PSYCHOLOGY, together with concerns about the fairness of subjective EVALUATIONS, led to the wide use from the 1920s onwards of objectively marked tests. Such tests were ideally suited to the structural language SYLLABUSES of the 1950s and 1960s with their emphasis on the teaching of separate elements of language, and discrete point multiple choice questions became common in many parts of the world (Lado, 1961). Objective tests had many advantages: apart from being easy to mark, the internal RELIABILITY of the tests could be calculated, and item analysis could tell test constructors not only how difficult individual items had been for their examinees, but also how well these items discriminated between the strong and the weak students. (See Alderson, Clapham and Wall, 1995, for information about item analysis and reliability indices.)

In the 1970s, however, concerns that the answers to these discrete point items provided no evidence of students’ more global linguistic SKILLS led to Oller’s unitary competence hypothesis, and the wide use of integrative tests such as CLOZE and DICTATION to assess general linguistic proficiency (see Oller, 1979). Although Oller later concluded that language proficiency consisted of more than one underlying factor (Oller, 1983) and although cloze tests were later shown to be less valid and reliable than had originally been thought (Cohen, 1998), cloze tests have remained a popular method of testing around the world.

In recent years, the move towards the COMMUNICATIVE approach to teaching has encouraged testers to make their test items more integrated (less discrete), and the tasks more AUTHENTIC in both content and purpose. Interest has swung from reliability to validity, and more researchers are turning their attention once again to direct tests of SPEAKING and WRITING (see McNamara, 1996). In recent years, too, differing test philosophies have moved closer together: American test constructors are more concerned with test content than they were, while British examination boards use statistical procedures to analyse the validity and reliability of their tests.

Theories of language testing
Test content is linked to theories of language learning and testing, and at present such theories relate to communicative principles. Canale and Swain (1980) included sociolinguistic and STRATEGIC COMPETENCE in their description of the domains of language knowledge, and Bachman (1990) added psychophysiological mechanisms. Bachman and Palmer (1996) elaborated on this model further to include both affective and metacognitive factors. This model of communicative language ability is used as the theoretical basis for tests such as the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) test, and also provides the theoretical basis for many current research projects. (See McNamara, 1996, for a discussion of recent language testing models.)

Test purpose
The overall purpose of a test inevitably affects its contents. Tests where much is at stake for the examinee are generally based on a set of specifications (see Alderson, Clapham and Wall, 1995) which set out the main features of the test, and describe the test’s aims, as well as describing its potential candidature, its content and the theory of language teaching on which it is based. The specifications vary according to whether they are designed to be read by students, teachers, item writers, or administrators, but in all cases these specifications state the test’s overall purpose (whether it is to assess the students’ linguistic APTITUDE, progress, achievement or proficiency, or whether it is to be used for placement or diagnostic purposes). The specifications also list other reasons for taking the test, such as the demonstration of an ability to communicate in a foreign language (for example, the International Baccalaureate language examinations) or to speak a language for a specific purpose (for example, the Finnish Foreign Language Diploma for Professional Purposes (FFLDPP)). Such Language for Specific Purposes (LSP) tests contain language and tasks similar to those the students will encounter in their future career (see Douglas, 1997, 2000).

Test types
Test types, too, are affected by the test’s purpose, and any detailed set of test specifications will describe the methods of assessment to be used (Alderson, Clapham and Wall, 1995). Since it is now accepted that students differ in the types of task in which they excel (Wood, 1991), test batteries generally include a range of test types, so that a test is not biased according to test method effect. Similarly, test constructors attempt to prevent their tests being biased against students according to factors such as GENDER, first language or background knowledge (Wood, 1991).

Discussions of different test types are given in Buck, 1997, Alderson, 2000, Fulcher, 1997, HampLyons, 1990 and Brindley, 1998a. One type of test which is widely used at present is the C-TEST, which is easy to construct and is supposed to assess a wide range of skills. However, it may have many of the same weaknesses as the cloze test (see Jafarpur, 1995). (For useful descriptions of different test methods, see Heaton, 1988, and Weir, 1993.)

Rating scales
With the increasing use of subjectively marked writing and speaking tests, rating scales have been devised to help raters assess students’ performances. Examples of these are used in the Oral Proficiency Instrument (Lowe and Stansfield, 1988), and in the speaking and writing components of the English as a Foreign Language examinations of the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (UCLES). Such scales may be ‘holistic’, where the assessor judges the student’s performance as a whole, or ‘analytic’, where the performance is marked according to a range of separate criteria such as content, organisation, GRAMMAR and VOCABULARY (Weir, 1993; Alderson, Clapham and Wall, 1995). The validity of such marking scales may be questionable—few attempts have so far been made to design analytic scales using samples of actual performance (see, however, Fulcher, 1997)—but the accessibility of computer programs such as FACETS (see Cushing Weigle, 1998) have made it possible to assess how such scales work in practice. In addition, it is possible, using generalisability studies (Bachman, 1997) to investigate the reliability of the marking. How such scales work needs to be investigated because, in spite of training, raters do not always mark consistently and sometimes give marks that are not in line with those of other markers (Brindley, 1998b).

Methods of test validation
Other advances in statistical analysis have enabled test researchers to use complex methods such as multiple regression, analysis of variance, factor analysis and structural equation modelling to assess the construct validity of their tests. Not all of Messick’s (1989) theories about validity are universally accepted, but his views have had a profound effect on language testing. His 1989 article is long and complex, but many authors have explained his views more simply (see, for example, Moss, 1994, and Shepard, 1993). (For a more traditional view of test validity, see Alderson, Clapham and Wall, 1995.)

Technological advances
So far, the expected impact of personal computers on language assessment has not materialised. Computer testing has tended to fossilise existing objective testing methods, because multiple choice items and gap filling tasks are straightforward to answer on the computer, and are easy to mark mechanically. However, the comparative ease with which videos and listening extracts can now be downloaded from the Internet, the increasing ability of the computer to recognise sounds and letters, and advances in the uses of language corpora for teaching and testing, are all steadily increasing the scope of computer-administered tests.

One project which has the potential to produce interesting tests which are easy to deliver and mark is DIALANG, a project supported by Lingua in Europe. This project aims to produce diagnostic tests in fourteen different European languages (DIALANG, 1997). Students will be tested on their grammatical knowledge and on their READING, WRITING, LISTENING and SPEAKING skills, and the tests will be computer adaptive, i.e. they will adapt to each student’s level of linguistic proficiency. After taking their chosen test, students will receive instant diagnostic information about the strengths and weaknesses of their performance.

The fact that DIALANG will be able to adjust to the student’s level is possible because of advances in test analysis. Unlike classical item analysis, which can only report the difficulty of an item for a particular group of test takers, Item Response Theory (see Bachman and Eignor, 1997) also takes account of the ability of the students, so that it is theoretically possible to report the difficulty of any test item regardless of the students on whom the item has been trialled. Items can therefore be banked according to their level of difficulty, and can be used as required in computer adaptive tests.
In addition, the increasing sophistication and ease of use of computer programs such as NUD*IST, the Ethnograph and ATLAS have made it more possible to analyse large amounts of qualitative data, and many researchers now use qualitative methods such as in-depth interviews and verbal introspections and retrospections to investigate the validity of a test or a test method (Banerjee and Luoma, 1997).

Alternative assessment
‘Alternative assessment’ refers to informal assessment procedures, such as writing-portfolios, learner diaries or interviews with teachers, which are often used within the classroom. Such assessment procedures may be more time-consuming and difficult for the teacher to administer than ‘paper-and-pencil’ tests, but they have many advantages. They produce information that is easy for administrators, teachers and students to understand; the tests tend to be integrated, and they can reflect the more holistic Teacher methods used in the classroom. One problem with methods of alternative assessment, however, lies with the reliability of such assessments. Their marking schemes may not have been validated, and raters have often not been trained to give consistent marks. As Hamayan (1995) says, such alternative methods of assessment will not be considered to be part of the mainstream of language assessment until they can be shown to be both valid and reliable.

It is difficult to draw a line between ‘testing’ and ‘alternative assessment’, and many test batteries include examples of each. However, it is perhaps fair to say that while ‘tests’ are often ‘norm referenced’, with the student’s score being compared to that of other students, ‘alternative assessment’ is generally ‘criterion referenced’, with the student’s performance being compared not to that of other students but to a set of performance OBJECTIVES or criteria. Similarly, it is often the case that teachers use ‘tests’ for ‘summative assessment’ at the end of a course or the school year, and ‘alternative assessment’ for ‘formative assessment’ that is carried out by teachers during the learning process, with the intention of using the information to decide what needs to be taught or reviewed in the next stages of a course.

Impact and washback
In the last ten years there has been an upsurge of interest in the impact of tests on education, and the effect of tests on teaching (see Alderson and Wall, 1993; Wall, 1996). In their 1993 article, Alderson and Wall bemoan the lack of research into whether tests do actually affect teaching and, if they do, what form such ‘washback’ might take. Since then there have been many empirical studies into washback (Wall, 1997).

Ethics and accountability
There is also increasing concern with issues relating to ethics and accountability in assessment. This concern relates partly to questions of fairness and equity, and partly to the uses that might be made of test results. Many testing organisations adhere to the AERA standards (American Educational Research Association, 1999) and ILTA (International Language Testing Association) has prepared its own Code of Ethics for language testers (ILTA, 2000) and is preparing its own Code of Practice. Other testing organisations, too, such as the Association of Language Testers in Europe (ALTE) and Educational Testing Service (ETS) in Princeton, New Jersey, have their own codes of practice. (For more about this, see Davidson, Turner and Huhta, 1997; Hamp-Lyons, 1997; and Norton, 1997.)

Current trends
It seems likely that the competing requirements of test validity and financial practicality will maintain the distinction between tests which can be administered reliably to large numbers of students, and more holistic tests which can potentially reveal all aspects of the candidates’ language proficiency While testers are likely to experiment with complex and time-consuming methods of testing language, the expense of such methods will prevent many large testing organisations from adopting them. Current research in different areas of language assessment is discussed in Clapham and Corson (1997), and current concerns about language testing are described by Douglas (1995), Shohamy (1997), Bachman (2000) and Brindley (in press).

It is impossible to cover all aspects of language assessment in this entry, but the Dictionary of language testing by Davies et al. (1999) and the Multilingual glossary of language testing terms (ALTE, 1998) have concise explanations of most of the concepts related to the field. In addition, the International Language Testing Association (ILTA) has produced twelve five-minute videos on the most frequently discussed aspects of language testing. These videos introduce the novice language tester to test specifications, item-writing, pre-testing, statistics, testing for specific purposes, validity, reliability, test impact and ethics, and the assessment of the skills of reading, writing, listening and speaking (ILTA, 1999).

cbzhang307

Attitudes and language learning

Language does not consist only of forms, patterns and rules but is simultaneously bound up with the social, subjective and objective world, since it also carries the attitudes, habits and cultural characteristics of its speakers. The child already internalises in first language ACQUISITION the values of its environment, and identifies with those people who appear to it to be authorities. If it is confronted with an unknown sign system, this can undermine its ways of perceiving hitherto. As Wilhelm von HUMBOLDT says, this may be ‘one of the best mental exercises’ because ‘on account of this, thought becomes more independent of one particular kind of expression, its true inner content appears more clearly, depth and clarity, strength and lightness meet each other in a more harmonious way’ (Humboldt, 1907:193).

The Humboldtian way of thinking has left its traces in the context of the justification and aims of foreign language teaching, as has that of the SAPIRWHORF HYPOTHESIS, according to which belonging to a language community determines the mode of human perception (Sapir, 1970:68).

It is for this reason that foreign language teaching sees its task, for educational, practical and political reasons, as that of leading pupils from primary age onwards out of its tried and tested conventions, with the help of a new language and its contents; of making them conscious of the limits of their own ways of seeing as determined by their MOTHER TONGUE. It aims thereby not only to teach the cultural context of the other language but also to create a certain distance from pupils’ own culture. In this way it is hoped to establish an approach to the understanding of Otherness which will contribute to changes in attitudes, to the breaking down of prejudices and STEREOTYPES. Concepts such as ACCULTURATION, CULTURAL STUDIES and INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION are concerned at a theoretical level with the relationship between understanding of self and understanding of the Other. Empirical research into the connection between attitudes and language learning leads to two viewpoints, which as the resultative hypothesis and the MOTIVATIONAL hypothesis continue to be discussed in polarised terms, even though the data (here discussed selectively) and current theoretical work suggest a quite different interpretation.

The resultative hypothesis
The resultative hypothesis is based on the assumption that experience of success influences attitudes to language, country and people. The first systematically collected data were provided by a study at the beginning of the 1940s of 11–15-year-old boys learning FRENCH in London (Jordan, 1941:28–44). A survey of Welsh as a second language a few years later also showed that progress in learning goes hand-in-hand with improvements in attitudes (Jones, 1949:44–52; 1950:117–32). However, there was also evidence among all informants of a worsening of attitudes with increased age.

From the different studies it is possible to surmise possible reasons for this. Thus, at the end of an 18-week French course at an American college which had the purpose of evaluating the efficacy of different methods of teaching, it was suggested that ‘it is achievement which influences attitudes towards French study…’ (Savignon, 1972:63). However the dissatisfaction of the learners with the exercise in the LANGUAGE LABORATORY, which seemed so bereft of content, i.e. without information about the target language culture, could be an explanation for the fact that their attitudes deteriorated.

Even if the longitudinal study in Great Britain between 1964 and 1974 of approximately 17,000 8–16-year-olds learning French came to similar conclusions (Burstall, 1974:244), the high number of dropouts among the 13-year-olds is cause for scepticism. The dropouts refer to difficulties in learning as their reasons. Examination of the data shows that boys give up French much more frequently than do girls, that the size of the school, insufficient individual attention and recognition in lessons, no opportunity to travel to FRANCE, also contribute to the resistance. Further, poor social environment also leads to a lack in confidence in one’s own potential for achievement. A study of German informants shows how the way in which teachers and learners relate to each other accounts for 25 per cent of the total variance in foreign language achievement (Geisler, 1978:254–5).

The assumed ‘linear’ relationship between learning success and attitudes seems to become entangled in a number of influence factors. As the comments on the efficacy of the language laboratory show, background knowledge is one of these. Language teaching without a conscious inclusion of information about the target language and its representatives apparently ends just as little in understanding of Otherness as it does in success in language learning. In a group of 750 German secondary school pupils aged 11–16, those in the top third in the learning of ENGLISH had a number of differing opinions about the speakers of the target language (Hermann, 1978:211). Either they prefer the English over other nations, or they value them to the same degree, or they even have negative views about them. On the other hand, those of the group who know a lot about English culture are positive towards it. The situation is different among the weakest third of the sample. Here it seems that failure has created such a rejection of everything English that Portuguese or Turks, who in social perceptions have very low status, are favoured much more highly. Lack of knowledge, in comparison, is not as destructive.

Those negative consequences of learning difficulties which are assessed are related statistically to other variables, as the results of a Franco-German study of 975 pupils in the eighth year of schooling show (Candelier and Hermann-Brennecke, 1993). As in other school contexts where data have been gathered, carefully prepared EXCHANGE programmes or ethnographic studies seem to have a particular significance for attitudes: 75 per cent of pupils in the lower streams of SECONDARY EDUCATION who see no purpose in English say they are disappointed that they cannot go to England at least once in their period of schooling. Their disillusionment transfers not only onto the speakers of the target language but also onto their interest in any other languages. Perhaps the destructive effect of failure in foreign language learning could be countered if those who have to struggle with it received more support from TRANSLATION, DICTATIONS and VOCABULARY tests, as they expect from their classes. As is evident from other research (e.g. Heuer, 1976), they would like more explanations in their mother tongue, i.e. less use of the target language only. The importance of comprehensible input, transparency and awareness raising in the process of language learning does not exclude for these same pupils the need for poems, myths, songs, games and ‘interesting things’, and underlines the link between cognitive and affective learning processes.

Despite the multiple variants on the relationship between attitudes and language learning which have become evident here—a summary of potential factors notes 200 individual variables (Geisler, 1987)—data collection and interpretation continue to be seen in a resultative way, and to be accepted as such in the scientific community (e.g. Crookes and Schmidt, 1991). This seems to be explicable only because of antagonism towards and a strong rejection of the motivational hypothesis.
The motivational hypothesis

The motivational hypothesis switches the direction of influence. It is based on the belief that attitudes as stable, motive-like constructs decide how successful language learning will take place (Gardner and Lambert, 1972:3). It is the integrative orientation or the interest in the other ethnic group for its own sake which is significant, as with the child who seeks communication with its environment and the assimilation of its ways of behaving. The instrumental orientation, or a concern with usefulness of a professional or subject-related kind, is considered to be a lesser motivating force. Attempts to support this hypothesis empirically have met with problems since the beginning of the 1970s. When, among a group of Canadian pupils in their ninth, tenth and eleventh years of schooling, the integrative orientation increased among successful learners of French (a result which should not really happen, since it should remain the same from the beginning), the change was explained in terms of the reward-giving and strengthening effect of language acquisition. The fall in integrative orientation observed simultaneously among those who want to drop out of French and to reject French-Canadians is, however, not similarly accounted for in terms of unsatisfactory learning experiences (Gardner and Smythe, 1975).

The observation that, in the course of an exchange programme, on the one hand the participants’ attitudes towards the French improve to a highly significant degree while on the other hand their integrative orientation lies much below that measured before their intercultural contact, this is described as ‘paradoxical’. At the same time, contrary to all expectations, there occurs no significant change in the wish to learn French and in attitudes towards the target language (Gardner, 1974:270–4). There is a lack of critical EVALUATION of the affective and cognitive processing of the experience of Otherness, even though there are sufficient indications that visits to the target language community have to be well prepared from a geographic, historical, and contemporary political and everyday culture perspective if they are not to become a source of misunderstandings and disappointments, strengthening or even making worse existing attitudes (cf. Amir, 1969).

It seems to be just as problematic to maintain the priority of integrative over instrumental orientation. Indian Marati-speaking high school students learn English for utilitarian reasons above all, and report no need to identify with English-speaking compatriots (Lukmani, 1972), and Chinese students residing in the USA clearly have no intention to stay in the country longer than necessary, despite their excellent knowledge of English (Oller et al., 1977).

The contradictory data led to a fundamental debate about the interrelation between success and attitudes, verbal intelligence and linguistic COMPETENCE. For the time being it ended in the socio-educational model. Clearly, motivation is still considered to be a central driving force whose social dimension mirrors the reactions of the individual to out-groups in general and to the target language country in particular. However, in the final analysis, it is still the attitudes of the learners to the target language community which count (Gardner, 1985:146).

In comparison to the position taken by Gardner and Lambert in 1972, which has strongly been adhered to (e.g. Crookes and Schmidt, 1991:469–512), this is more moderate and differentiated in so far as attitudes are no longer an unchangeable constant but can develop within a complex of factors. This emerging interactive view requires a closer look at the concept of attitudes itself.

The holistic hypothesis
In social PSYCHOLOGY, two basic positions can be distinguished. One can be traced back to the BEHAVIOURIST approach and sees attitudes as learned stimulus-response relationships which correspond with a person’s observed behaviour. The other refers to an intervening variable between stimulus and response, to a hidden inner psychological process, which cannot be observed and which influences behaviour in the form of a disposition to act. Attitudes as preconditions or readiness for behaviour can exist in all shapes and forms, from the most hidden traces of forgotten habits to the impulse which immediately provokes action.

The still-valid definition of attitude as ‘…a mental and neural state of readiness, organized through experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon the individual’s response to all objects and situations with which it is related’ (Allport, 1971:13) raises similar issues to those raised by empirical research designs. To what extent are attitudes linked to learned experiences? Do they have a direct-cognitive, or rather a dynamic-motivational, influence? What organisation underpins them? Do they represent readiness to respond, or reactions? Do they belong to the mental or the neural system? Or do they represent a continuous system of motivational, emotional, perceptual and cognitive processes with respect to a quite specific aspect of the perceptual world of the individual? There are no conclusive answers to these, any more than to the question of a reliable measurement of this hypothetical construct.

Thus, existing methods of testing attempt, on the one hand, to measure the direction of attitudes as acceptance or rejection of an object (person, group or institution), and on the other to establish their intensity. Furthermore, those methods attempt to establish the status of attitudes within the personal hierarchy of values, their function within individual perception, their consistency with dominant collective opinions, and their susceptibility to social desirability. Moreover, they are multidimensional. They consist of three components: an affective, feeling-based evaluative component; a cognitive, epistemological component affecting beliefs; and a conative component affecting readiness for action. None the less they can only be justified in terms of belief statements and actions. Thus it cannot be said with absolute certainty to what extent they reflect temporary sets, or firmly anchored attitudes, to what extent they are self-determined or Other-determined, represent personal maxims for action or social role expectations, and whether they coincide with actual behaviour. Given the manifold content and multi-level integration of attitudes, it seems that the processing of them can only be holistic so that:

During a task its states of satisfaction, of disappointment, of enthusiasm, just as feelings of tiredness, exertion, boredom etc. play a role. At the end of a task, there can arise feelings of success or of failure, or even aesthetic feelings. There is no such thing as a purely affective state free of cognitive elements(Mandl and Huber, 1983:17) .

In the individual, who functions as a psychological unit, affective and cognitive processes are complementary to each other, as was already noted in Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Piaget (1953) deals with this idea from a developmental perspective. Taxonomic research takes it over with respect to the debate about learning OBJECTIVES (Krathwohl, Bloom and Masia, 1967). In psychological, linguistic and anthropological research the ‘cognitive turn’ begun in the 1960s has given way to an increased interest in the role of the affective domain in group interactions, and in its place in feats of memory, expectations, self-evaluations and attributions. Meanwhile it has reached its apogee in the thesis of the inseparability of the rational and the emotional mind (Goleman, 1996:10).

Either/or thinking, such as that which has dominated the research designs concerned with the interrelation between attitudes and language learning for decades, can only lead to a dead end. It should at last make way for an interdependent perspective, as was already suggested in 1980:
A pupil, starting with a foreign language at school, approaches his new subject with certain attitudes. In the course of his language study, his level of achievement and the acquisition process itself can have their repercussions on his attitudinal system, particularly if failure or success is involved. These attitudes, which need not remain affective but may overlap with the cognitive domain and may even become conative—thereby ceasing to be set only—could at the same time act as stimuli for certain phases within the learning process and thus function again as a kind of instantaneous orientation. Accordingly, it seems justifiable to argue that the development of real competence in a second language depends to a certain degree on a dialectic interrelationship between the acquisition process and permanent as well as short-term values (Hermann, 1980:250) .

The mutual dependence dynamic of attitudes and language learning requires, in its affective and cognitive synergy, a holistic interpretation. This affects the learner not only with respect to the processing of information and identification with people or groups, but also with respect to motives and the relationship between language and culture, and their place within the existing linguistic and cultural diversity. If the focus is on increasing one’s knowledge, then it is to be expected that there will be changes in attitudes as a consequence of the need to understand relationships. If it is a question of adaptation, then it will be the avoidance of punishment and the desire to be rewarded which will be foregrounded. If the issue is self-assertion, then everything which makes the individual’s feeling of well-being the centre of interest will tend to modify persuasions. If it is a matter of self-representation, then elements of knowledge which correspond with one’s own beliefs, and thereby create a sense of satisfaction, are more likely to be accepted (Triandis, 1975:254ff).

None of this happens without forms of social influence such as compliance, identification and internalisation (Kelman, 1970). Attitudes only have a chance of becoming permanent if cognitions are experienced as personally relevant and become a part of the personality, instead of getting stuck in the system of social role expectations. This kind of processing takes place at the level of internalisation, where affective and cognitive processes blend together and mark human action. Language and content are similarly inseparably interwoven. Communicative competence as the key to the understanding of Otherness presupposes familiarity with linguistic means, but also requires an intimate knowledge of genetic, territorial, linguistic, economic, religious, cultural and political entities. Each target language community can only be grasped in the context of cultural and linguistic diversity. This serves ‘to make systems on the one hand more multifaceted and on the other hand more stable and less prone to disruption’ (Huschke-Rhein, 1989:219). The insight that, in the macrocosm and in the microcosm, everything is intertwined with everything else may help to escape an uncritical linguicism which falls prey only too easily to the dominant perception of English. It could also, in a multicultural language landscape, contribute to making the ambivalent relationship between attitudes and language learning less disruptive.

cbzhang307

Audiolingual method

A method of language teaching developed in the United States and dominant in the 1960s, based on STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS and BEHAVIOURIST psychology, audiolingual language teaching emphasised the learning of spoken language (it was initially called the aural-oral method) and the presentation of language in the order ‘hearing-speaking-reading-writing’. The A-L method was associated with the introduction of the LANGUAGE LABORATORY.

The procedures of the A-L method typically involve (see Brooks, 1964; Rivers, 1964):
• the presentation of a short text, usually a dialogue, with a parallel text in the learners’ language; this text is modelled by the teacher and repeated by the learners until memorised;
• learners are presented with drill EXERCISES or ‘pattern practice’, consisting of a number of sentences with the same grammatical structure but different lexical items, and they are required to repeat and modify these sentences, receiving immediately the correct version against which to compare their suggestion. These drills are often provided in the language laboratory;
• learners are provided with a substitution table where they can see the parallels in the sentences they have drilled and the underlying grammatical structure involved. This may also provide grammatical terminology;
• learners are invited to role-play dialogues similar to the original one, but they are required to modify the language they have memorised according to the circumstances of the role-play;
• exercises in READING and WRITING are introduced using the same grammatical constructions and lexis as they have been using in the spoken mode.

The origins of the A-L method are usually traced to the introduction of the Army Specialized Training Program’ from 1943 in the United States, in response to the need in the armed forces to communicate with the Allies and other foreign peoples. The American school system had provided very little foreign language teaching and had concentrated on introducing learners to written texts rather than spoken language. The ASTP called upon well-known linguists, such as Leonard BLOOMFIELD (1942), who developed intensive courses in some fifteen languages taught to selected and highly motivated personnel in groups of ten over 9-month periods with fifteen hours of instruction a week. The methods used included, initially, twelve hours of oral work with NATIVE SPEAKERS and three hours of GRAMMAR work with professional linguists, with use of audio-visual aids. The success of ‘the AMERICAN ARMY METHOD’, as it came to be known, cannot be attributed only to the methods involved, which were in any case eclectic, but rather to the conditions of learning and the nature of the learners, whose MOTIVATION was high and who concentrated almost exclusively on language learning during the intensive period.

Interest in changing language teaching in the general education system began to develop in the early 1950s (Rivers, 1964:3) but was given a major boost by the general response to the launching of the satellite Sputnik by the Soviet Union. This created a fear that the US education system was inadequate with respect to science and language teaching, and led to the National Defense Education Act which included the Language Development Program. The Army Method’ served as a model with respect to the emphasis on the spoken language, the use of mechanical aids, the analysis of language in structuralist terms, and the reference to behaviourist psychology for a theory of language learning. Language teaching theorists, such as Brooks (1960 and 1964), promoted what became known as the A-L method, arguing that language is behaviour, that learning a language is learning how to behave rather than learning how to explain its grammar, that behaviour is best learned through the formation of appropriate habits which can be ‘overlearned’ to the point of becoming automatic by frequent imitation of the teacher or a recorded voice and memorisation of dialogues or key sentences. This was called the ‘mim-mem’ method. The language laboratory, being developed in the early 1960s, offered a useful means of providing ‘mimmem’ exercises. Dialogues and key sentences were chosen to represent significant syntactic structures of the language, and to anticipate the structures which CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS of the foreign language and the learner’s own had shown to be difficult because different.

Criticisms of the A-L method by language teaching theorists focused on its psychological foundations. RIVERS published a review in 1964 which, whilst not rejecting the A-L method, argued against too much reliance on the behaviourism of B.F.Skinner, and advocated the introduction of the work of ‘neo-behaviourists’ such as Osgood and Mowrer, in order both to take account of learners’ perceptions of their goals and ensure that language be learned in a rich cultural context, and ‘to do justice to “meaning” in the foreign language as well as to manipulative skill’ (Rivers, 1964:139).

Rivers also suggested that there was little support for the taboo on the written word in the first stages of the learning process, imposed by the order of ‘hearing—speaking—reading—writing’.
A much stronger criticism of behaviourism as represented by Skinner came from Noam CHOMSKY at a large meeting of language teachers in 1965, in which he dismissed the theories of language learning on which the A-L method was founded (Chomsky, 1966). Chomsky argued that behaviourist theory, with its explanation of language acquisition in terms of habit formation through stimulus from children’s linguistic environment and reinforcement of correct response, could not possibly account for the ability to generate an infinite number of utterances from a finite grammatical COMPETENCE. Behaviourism could not account for the ‘creativity’ of human language.

Other criticisms of a more pragmatic nature were put forward: learners became bored with drills and pattern practice; the move from repetition and closely guided re-use of learned structures to spontaneous re-use of those same structures was not clearly specified; contrastive analysis did not anticipate and eradicate all the errors learners made; MATERIALS and the method itself appeared to provide only for the first few years of learning, and not for intermediate and advanced learners.

The influence of the A-L method beyond the United States was felt in Western European countries to differing degrees, and was modified by the parallel development in FRANCE of the AUDIO-VISUAL method, and the combination of the tenets of audiolingualism with other techniques and principles. In Britain, for example, the two methods are often treated as similar and related in procedures, whatever differences there might be in origins and theories of language and language learning (Bennett, 1974; Hawkins, 1987). The decline of the A-L method and of A-L TEXTBOOKS can be traced to the attacks on its psychological base in the mid-1960s, and the development of COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING from the 1970s. The lasting influence of the A-L method can be traced, like that of other methods, in the rules-of-thumb handed down in the teaching profession, such as the order of presentation of new language, but no systematic use of the method is to be found any longer.

cbzhang307

Audio-visual language teaching

Audio-visual language teaching is a method which is based on the coordinated use of visual and auditive technical media. It exists in ‘strong’ versions in which the simultaneous use of pictorial and auditive material is dominant, and in ‘weak’ versions in which pictorial and auditive materials are used only as a component within language instruction or, more frequently, with both elements dissociated from each other. The best-known implementation of the ‘strong’ variant is the Méthode Structuro-Globale Audio-Visuelle (SGAV) which was developed in the 1950s simultaneously at the University of Zagreb (under the direction of Petar Guberina) and at the Ecole Normale Supérieure in Saint Cloud, France (in the institution which was predecessor to the CR蒁IF, under the direction of Paul Rivenc). The prototype is the audio-visual course Voix et Images de France (1961). This classical form of the audio-visual method is strictly MONOLINGUAL and puts great emphasis on basic oral SKILLS, whereas READING and WRITING are only introduced after a considerable time delay. The choice of VOCABULARY and grammatical structures is based on LE FRAN茿IS FONDAMENTAL.

The audio-visual method is often linked to the audiolingual method because both methods use tape-recorders, work mainly with dialogues and were presented as scientifically-based methods during the 1960s. This affinity exists, however, only in a certain number of courses. Most SGAV methodologists reject pattern practice, and some even have a sceptical attitude towards the LANGUAGE LABORATORY. The A-V method not only has a closer relationship to the DIRECT METHOD, but it can even be seen as an offshoot of this approach. The common ground between the direct method and the A-V method consists not only in the use of visual media together with the monolingual principle, but also in similarities in the typical procedure of a particular teaching unit. There are none the less some differences. The direct method is, above all, descriptive, whilst the A-V method is oriented towards dialogues. The direct method frequently uses complex single pictures, whereas the A-V method uses sequences of pictures in which a single picture corresponds to only one sentence or even to part of a sentence. Furthermore, the picture-based direct method is a relatively open methodological variant which can be complemented by real or artificial objects and by the reading of lesson texts, whereas the classic A-V method represents a closed method with precisely stipulated teaching techniques (Besse, 1985; Puren, 1988; Reinfried, 1992).

The typical procedures of the ‘strong’ version of the A-V method can be traced back to the prototype A-V course Voix et Images de France (CR蒁IF, 1961):
•   Each teaching unit is introduced by a presentation phase, in which dialogue with approximately 30 pictures is presented twice to the learners. The pictures are projected onto a screen as slides for about one second before the corresponding verbal text. Then there can be a first repetition of parts of the text by the learners.
•   In the following explanatory phase the pupils’ general and incomplete understanding is deepened and improved by the teacher using monolingual semanticisation techniques (e.g., pointing at details of the picture, the use of mime and gesture, paraphrase). This should not be given just in the form of a presentation by the teacher but should be made as interactive as possible by taking the form of a classroom conversation. The lexical understanding of learners was made more difficult in the 1960s and 1970s because many audio-visual methodologists refused to give not only translations but even analytical monolingual explanation procedures.
•   The tape-recorder is used again in an imitation phase. The learners repeat the passages of dialogue (singly or in chorus), and their PRONUNCIATION is corrected.
•   During the exploitation phase the learners continue to absorb the dialogues. The teacher asks questions about individual pictures or the learners ask each other questions. Finally, the learners attempt to present the dialogue in roleplay, during which the pictures are at first still used as stimuli.
•   At the end of the teaching unit there is a transposition phase. The learners are supposed as
far as possible to use the language material in new situations. This can be, for example, free conversation or the creation of a new dialogue.

Shorter picture sequences with familiar vocabulary can be added for grammatical or phonetic EXERCISES (Renard and van Vlasselaer, 1976; Schiffler, 1973).

The linguist Petar Guberina (1964, 1984) developed approaches which were directed towards a structural-global learning theory. He starts with a concept of structure as developed in the first half of the twentieth century (especially in Germany and FRANCE) within the context of a holistic theory of language and the psychological gestalt theory. The act of linguistic understanding is for Guberina primarily a holistic process, from which the valeur of the individual structure is interpreted. At the level of expression, suprasegmental factors (intonation, prosody, intensity) become superimposed onto the phonological information, and, at the level of content, lexical meanings and sentence meanings are both complemented and modified by the context (speech situation, interpersonal relationships, mime, gesture). It is for this reason that the presentation of language should always have its starting point in the whole situation (including affective components) whereby the external speech context is conveyed by an illustration. This emphasis on globality applies to both the reception and the production of all the structures: linguistic units (whether sounds, lexemes or grammatical structures) should be presented to learners only in a situational or textual context, i.e. they should neither be isolated nor analysed in the classroom.

The principle of globality together with the monolingual approach can, however, hinder the processing of language. Empirical investigations of A-V courses have shown that a holistic, situationrelated semanticisation is not sufficient to explain linguistic statements clearly. A correct understanding of the meaning was attained for only about a third of foreign language sentences, and elements which were missing or provided by the learners themselves were demonstrated in a further third, whereas gross distortions of meaning were found in the final third (Guénot, 1964:133ff; Germain, 1976:53ff). These results demonstrate the limitations of picture sequences as means of semantic transmission. In order to increase the semanticisation potential in the pictures, ‘pictures within pictures’ like speech bubbles were used in almost every second picture, even during the early period of A-V methods. Then, at the beginning of the 1970s, several language courses appeared with numerous coded pictures which were enriched with symbols or even took the form of picture puzzles. The A-V FRENCH course Le fran鏰is et la vie (Mauger and Bruézière, 1971) represents the apex of this development. Thus, in the picture presented here (Figure 6), Henri on the left (who, as the speaker, is highlighted with a darker silhouette) asks Michel in the middle whether his wife works at the JAL company. The hammer is used here as a general symbol for work (though in fact Michel’s wife is a typist), the schematic representation of the house symbolises the firm, and the rectangular shape of the ‘speech bubble’ symbolises the reference to the present in the verbal statement (there are other shapes of speech bubble used in the course for future and past). However, attempts of this kind to change pictures to ideograms were not successful in the longer term because they failed to improve on the comprehensibility of the verbal statements (Reinfried, 1990).

SGAV methods reached the peak of their international recognition in the 1970s. Empirical investigations of the CR蒁IF courses and other A-V courses were carried out in several countries to study their feasibility in state schools. The school experiments carried out in the Federal Republic of Germany came overwhelmingly to the conclusion that, despite some advantages in A-V methods, there were major disadvantages caused by the following four factors: the inadequate support of oral teaching by the lack of written materials; the exclusive limitation to dialogues in BEGINNER classes; the neglect of writing skills; and in part also the failure to develop grammatical awareness in learners. Furthermore, there were a number of critical voices raised against the rigidity of the sequencing of the courses, which left no room for creativity in learners and teachers (Firges and Pelz, 1976; Schiffler, 1976).

Some A-V methodologists reacted to this criticism by varying the sequencing, and no longer beginning the lesson with the A-V presentation phase but by encouraging pupils to express hypotheses about the contents of the pictures. Moreover the COMMUNICATIVE revolution of the 1970s led to a structured progression based on communicative functions in A-V courses, and to a stronger emphasis on free expression. Role-play with physical actions was now introduced more often into A-V courses; writing as an independent skill was given greater value; and the purely oral phase of the course was reduced. In the 1980s, American alternative methods became an important influence on some A-V courses. The pressure on learners to express themselves from the very beginning of the first teaching units was rejected on the basis of the concept of delayed oral practice, and grammatical progression was made more flexible. Some A-V courses now recommended that the imitation phase should be abandoned and suggested instead the introduction of group activities, games and TOTAL PHYSICAL RESPONSE. Some methodologists also re-defined SGAV methods, in the context of these re-orientations, in constructivist and interactionist terms.

Despite all these efforts at reform, A-V methods did not manage, on the whole, to maintain their foothold in state schools. There is no doubt that in the 1970s they contributed significantly to the priority of dialogues over descriptive and narrative texts in newly published textbooks. Furthermore, many textbook publishers made an effort at the time to produce visual and audio media as additional and optional materials for foreign language teaching. However, on the whole, A-V methods in their ‘strong’ version were limited to intensive courses for all age groups and ADULT education. Courses following SGAV methods appeared in 13 languages.

In 1978, Paul Rivenc founded an international SGAV association which still organises seminars and methodology publications. Its members are mainly in France, Belgium, AUSTRALIA, Spain, CANADA, Yugoslavia and Germany. Although the A-V method persists, it has disappeared from the centre of the methodology agenda. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, it exists only in a ‘weakened’ form in textbooks and courses, in which picture sequences and LISTENING dialogues no longer have a key role. Moreover, listening and visual material written for teaching purposes has been complemented by AUTHENTIC materials in A-V courses. The semanticising function of the picture has decreased in importance, whereas the intercultural-situational function of the picture and the creative verbal element with picture sequences has gained in relevance. Video films compete with static picture sequences. None the less, the A-V method in a developed form may yet experience a renaissance in the context of (CALL) COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING.

cbzhang307

Australia

Language teaching in Australia has been linked, since European settlement in 1778, with fluctuations in the political climate, and characterised by the country’s geographical location, its cultural diversity, and inherent tensions between monolingualism and multilingualism (Lo Bianco, 1997). Clyne (1991) identifies four phases marking different periods of Australian language policy, whether implicit or explicit, and their concomitant implications for language education: the laissezfaire (up to the mid-1870s); the tolerant but restrictive (1870s to early 1900s); the rejecting (circa 1914 to circa 1970); and the accepting—even fostering (from the early 1970s). These phases encompass educational changes in ENGLISH as a second language for immigrant groups, Languages Other Than English (LOTEs), Aboriginal languages and Australian English. Language policy developments in Australia culminated in the publication of the National Policy on Languages (Lo Bianco, 1987) and The Australian Language and Literacy Policy (Department of Employment, Education and Training, 1991), both of which have had a major impact on language education in Australia in the 1990s.

Phase 1: Up to the mid-1870s
Clyne (1991:4), notes an ‘accepting but laissezfaire’ attitude during this period towards the use of languages other than English. The Australian colonies varied in the extent to which they perceived themselves as mono- or multilingual, but there was little political interference in the use of their own languages by different ethnic groups—GERMAN, FRENCH, Gaelic—for educational, business and cultural purposes. Such acceptance, however, did not extend to Aboriginal languages which were persistently viewed negatively (Fesl, 1988, cited in Clyne, 1991).

Phase 2:1870s-early 1900s
With the establishment in the latter part of the nineteenth century of English-medium schools, a ‘tolerant but restrictive’ (Clyne, 1991:5) ATTITUDE towards the use of languages other than English emerged. Limitations placed on the teaching of languages in some states were paralleled by increasing Australian identification with English monolingualism, especially in the face of growing world political tensions.

Phase 3: circa 1914–circa 1970
The aftermath of World War One brought a ‘xenophobic’ and ‘rejecting’ phase, during which an ‘aggressive monolingualism’ (Clyne, 1991:5) was in evidence. Australia was intent on affirming its political status as a newly independent nation and part of the British Commonwealth. The assimilationist ‘White Australia’ policies, which persisted throughout the periods of mass immigration post-World War Two and into the early 1970s, meant that non-English-speaking groups entering Australia during this time faced considerable restrictions on their ability to maintain and teach their own languages.

Lingering Education Act legislation dating back to World War One prevented BILINGUAL education in some states, while a pro-British bias sustained political and social preferences for monolingualism. Such languages as were taught in secondary schools, primarily French and German and, to a lesser extent, classical languages, were viewed as part of a liberal education modelled on the British system and as academic disciplines for the purpose of university entrance (Ozolins, 1993:15). Little attempt was made to introduce the teaching of the languages of major immigrant groups and the language SKILLS they brought were largely overlooked. Large-scale facilities were, however, set in place for the learning of English by ADULT immigrants through the Commonwealth government-funded Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP), a national settlement programme established in 1949 which continues to the present time.
Clyne (1991) estimates that, of approximately 250 indigenous Aboriginal languages, 100 were lost during this period, which saw forced assimilation and ‘a stolen generation’ of Aboriginal children removed from their communities (National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families, 1997).

Phase 4:1970–2000
This period saw a major shift away from assimilation to multiculturalism and the embracing of a growing Australian linguistic identity. The use of more than 100 ‘community languages’, a term which emerged in 1974 (Clyne, 1991:6; Kipp, Clyne and Pauwels, 1995) by various Aboriginal and immigrant groups was widely recognised at both government and community levels, and Australia increasingly regarded itself as a multicultural and multilingual society.
A telephone INTERPRETER service (TIS), the multicultural Special Broadcasting Service (SBS), and government and public ethnic radio stations were set up, reflecting the greater diversity and acceptance of multilingualism. In the 1990s, up to thirty-eight languages (including Australian SIGN LANGUAGE [AUSLAN] and Australian Indigenous Languages) were taught and examined at high school matriculation level, and twenty or more LOTEs at primary school level across different states (Clyne, 1997). The strong associations with Britain gradually eroded and the Australian variety of English was given credence through the work of linguists such as A.G.Mitchell and Arthur Delbridge. The Macquarie Dictionary, first published in 1981, legitimised this work and has provided the standard for Australian English since this time.

Seventeen ‘transitional’ bilingual Aboriginal programmes were also initiated in the Northern Territory (Fesl, 1988), providing instruction in Aboriginal languages as well as English up to Grade 5. Despite its widely acknowledged success, a political decision in 1999 saw the abolition of this programme by the Northern Territory government and, although pressures to reverse this decision continue, the development signals a broader movement back to monolingual values at the Commonwealth government level (Lo Bianco, 1999).

Accompanying this latter phase of multiculturalism from the mid-1970s was widespread support for a powerful push from ethnic, academic and educational groups for a national language policy which would reflect social justice, access and equity, cultural diversity, and ‘ethnic rights’. Lobbying for a national policy accelerated throughout the 1970s through migrant education conferences, which gave rise to the Migrant Education Action Committee, the newly-established Ethnic Communities Councils and alliances of ethnic groups, academics, teacher organisations and trade unions (Clyne, 1991; Wren, 1997).

In response to this lobby, in 1982 the Commonwealth Government commissioned a bipartisan Senate committee to consider the need for a national language policy. The committee’s report, A national language policy (Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, 1984), established four guiding principles:
• competence in English for all;
• maintenance and development of languages other than English, both community and aboriginal languages;
• provision of services in languages other than English;
• opportunities for learning second languages.

These principles laid the foundations for the National Policy on Languages (NPL) (Lo Bianco, 1987), which affirmed the pre-eminence of English while stressing the significance of other languages to Australia in terms of social justice, economic strategies and external relations, and cultural enrichment (Kipp, Clyne and Pauwels, 1995:4).

While the NPL was underpinned politically and ideologically by responses to ethnic community concerns, the late 1980s saw a shift towards economic and vocational imperatives. The impact of the world recession in Australia was accompanied by a political realignment towards the growing economic power of the Asian region and Australia’s location within this region (Nicholas et al., 1993). Following a government review, funding for NPL initiatives ceased, and in 1991 a white paper, Australia’s language: the Australian language and literacy policy (ALLP) (Department of Employment, Education and Training, 1991). The ALLP set directions for language policymaking, particularly in the teaching of languages in Australia, throughout the 1990s. While it is acknowledged as signalling ‘Australia’s ongoing commitment to a formally articulated language education policy’ (Ingram, 1994:77), it has also attracted continuing criticism and resistance from educators in comparison with the NPL.

A major criticism arises in relation to the realignment of language teaching towards short-term vocational and economic rationalist goals, which diminished the focus of the NPL on linguistic pluralism, multiculturalism and social equity as well as on economic arguments (Lo Bianco and Freebody, 1997; Ingram, 1994). Whereas the NPL gave broad recognition to community languages and ‘languages of wider teaching’ (Lo Bianco, 1987:125), the ALLP required state/territory Ministries of Education to prioritise eight LOTEs from a list of fourteen, including Aboriginal languages, ARABIC, CHINESE, French, GERMAN, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Modern Greek, Russian, SPANISH, Thai and Vietnamese (Clyne, 1997; Ozolins, 1993).

The ALLP also laid greater stress on English and, as its title implies, on literacy, a shift which is perceived as leading to decreased recognition of ESL and LOTE programmes and a diminution of funding to these programmes, particularly in the schools sector (Clyne, 1997; Kipp, Clyne and Pauwels, 1995; Wren, 1997). A change of Commonwealth government from 1996 increased the policy emphasis on (English) literacy and introduced benchmarking of literacy achievement in schools (see the papers in Burns and Hammond, 1999). Issues such as language maintenance, BILINGUAL EDUCATION and language services, foregrounded in the NPL, have increasingly been played down at the political level in the 1990s, while the relevance of language learning—particularly of Japanese, (Mandarin) Chinese, Korean and Indonesian—to the competitiveness of the business community is given prominence (Liddicoat, 1996).

Despite these criticisms, among English-speaking nations Australia is generally regarded as unique in developing a national policy that informs and gives official status to language education (Hamilton, 1996; Lo Bianco and Freebody, 1997; Ozolins, 1993; Romaine, 1991). Fishman (1988:137) comments from a US perspective that ‘We are a long way from a positive language policy, such as the one the Australians have…adopted calling for an active second language, either English or a Community Language Other Than English, for every Australian’; and Romaine (1991) regards Australia as leading the way in language policy development.

cbzhang307

Autonomy and autonomous learners

Autonomy in language learning depends on the development and exercise of a capacity for detachment, critical reflection, decision making and independent action (see Little, 1991:4); autonomous learners assume responsibility for determining the purpose, content, rhythm and method of their learning, monitoring its progress and evaluating its outcomes (see Holec, 1981:3). In SELF-ACCESS language learning this may entail learners devising their own learning programmes to suit their particular NEEDS; in classrooms it is likely to be a matter of teachers helping learners to become reflective managers of their own learning within the constraints imposed by official curricula and public examinations. Pedagogical measures calculated to foster the development of learner autonomy have much in common with those adopted by collaborative learning and HUMANISTIC methods.
Autonomy is the means by which learners in any domain transcend the limitations and constraints of their immediate learning environment. In the case of foreign language learning, this means that autonomous learners are able to apply their learning SKILLS in contexts beyond the classroom or other environment in which learning has taken place, but also that they are able to deploy their target language knowledge and skills in autonomous target language use. In other words, the development of autonomy entails the development of a capacity for independence in language use as well as in language learning. In principle these two capacities should interact with one another in a mutually enhancing way.

Learner autonomy engages the metacognitive but also the affective domain. The pedagogical procedures by which its development is fostered give sustained attention to the metacognitive processes of planning, monitoring and evaluating the performance of individual learning tasks and the progress of learning overall. Yet at the same time the learner is engaged affectively, since learning is repeatedly reflected upon and evaluated in terms of individual needs, interests and capacities. Positive MOTIVATION is thus central to the development of learner autonomy.

As a general pedagogical concept, learner autonomy accommodates a wide range of teaching and learning techniques. Nevertheless, language pedagogies that are intent on fostering the development of learner autonomy tend to have certain practices in common. For example, to the extent that they recognise the importance of autonomy in language use as well as language learning, they use the target language as the principal channel of teaching and learning. Similarly, their concern with reflection and critical evaluation means that they tend to assign a central role to learner journals and group discussion.

The ideas that cluster around the concept of learner autonomy have also been promoted under other banners—for example, ‘humanistic language teaching’, ‘collaborative learning’, ‘experiential learning’, ‘the learning-centred classroom’. What distinguishes ‘learner autonomy’ from these terms is the fact that it necessarily implies a holistic view of the learner as an individual. It thus reminds teachers that learners bring to the classroom a personal history and personal needs that may have little in common with the assumed background and implied needs on which the curriculum is based. It also reminds them that the ultimate measure of success in second or foreign language learning is the extent to which the target language becomes a fully integrated part of the learner’s identity.

Learner autonomy is never absolute. The freedom it entails is always constrained by the interdependence that in part defines the human social condition and thus the nature of human learning. Learners can only ever be autonomous to the extent that their achieved knowledge and skills permit. The capacity for autonomous learning behaviour inevitably varies according to context and task, and learners exercise their autonomy with varying degrees of conscious awareness.

Autonomy was first introduced into discussion about language teaching and learning by Henri Holec’s Autonomy and foreign language learning, published by the COUNCIL OF EUROPE in 1979 (cited as Holec 1981). Holec took his immediate inspiration from the Council of Europe’s work in ADULT education, which emphasised the importance of equipping adult learners with the knowledge and confidence to participate in the democratic process: ‘From the idea of man ‘‘product of his society”, one moves to the idea of man “producer of his society”’ (Janne, 1977; cited in Holec, 1981:1). The general educational arguments that lie behind Holec’s treatment of autonomy in foreign language learning have much in common with radical theories of education current in the 1970s (e.g., Illich, 1971; Freire, 1972).

A second source of ideas important for the development of thinking about learner autonomy is work on language and communication in the classroom undertaken in the UK in the 1970s. Douglas Barnes’s From communication to curriculum (1976) is representative of this movement. Although it fits into the same general political picture as Holec’s Council of Europe report, the immediate sources for Barnes’s book are psychological. Essentially, he argues that if schooling is to have long-term benefits, pupils must be fully engaged in the learning process; this can happen only if they can make connections between the knowledge presented to them in the classroom (‘school knowledge’) and the knowledge by which they lead their lives outside the classroom (‘action knowledge’).

A closely similar concern with the relation between learning and forms of discourse arises in studies of child language ACQUISITION, especially those that emphasise the social-interactive dimension (see Tizard and Hughes, 1984; Wells, 1985). This encourages the thought that autonomy is central to the process and the outcome of developmental learning; it also provides support for the argument that autonomy develops out of social interaction and interdependence. The exploration of the socio-historical psychology of Vygotsky by educational psychologists is another rich source of insight into the processes that underlie the development of learner autonomy (see, e.g., Tharp and Gallimore, 1988; Moll, 1990).

The concept of learner autonomy is subject to two widespread misinterpretations. First, it is often taken to be a synonym for self-instruction or self-access learning. This is due partly to the historical conjunction of self-access and autonomy in discussion about language learning, and partly to the common-sense assumption that autonomy means independence and independence means learning without a teacher. The second misinterpretation is that autonomy requires learners to work in isolation from one another; this arises in discussion of autonomy in relation to both classroom and self-access language learning.

Perhaps the most frequently voiced criticism of learner autonomy as a general goal in foreign language learning is that it derives from liberal traditions in Western education and thus may be inappropriate in non-Western educational cultures. Attempts to respond to this criticism appeal at once to the universal and the relative in human culture and society, arguing that autonomy is a hallmark of all truly successful learning, but that the discursive practices by which it is developed are culturally conditioned and thus endlessly variable.

As a general educational ideal, learner autonomy has a long history that has rarely moved far from the liberal mainstream. Perhaps under the impact of radical educational theories, the 1980s saw an increasing tendency for national and regional curricula to include the development of learner autonomy among their core goals, though terms like ‘independent learning’ and ‘critical thinking’ are more often used than ‘autonomy’ itself. Yet the development of learner autonomy is among the most acute challenges that teachers can face, and its thoroughgoing pursuit is likely always to remain a minority interest.

cbzhang307

Behaviourism

Behaviourism as a psychological theory can be traced back to the early twentieth century, and a basic premise is that most human behaviour is learned through a continual process of responding to stimuli. Reinforcement of stimulus and response patterns leads to repetitious behaviour or habits, which are to some extent predictable, based upon previous experience. Behaviourism’s central notions were linked to a positivist view of the scientific method, which accepts only phenomena that are observable and measurable as worthy of serious attention. Empirical methods were the only creditable means of conducting research. This rather unequivocal view of science was a characteristic feature of behaviourism and, initially, an appealing one. Behaviourism became the dominant theory in American PSYCHOLOGY immediately before and after World War Two, and its influence extended into many academic fields, including APPLIED LINGUISTICS. Through the works of psychologists and linguists such as Watson, BLOOMFIELD and Skinner, the behavioural approach to the teaching of languages developed which then dominated American linguistics in the 1950s and 1960s.

Behaviourism developed a ‘broad and diverse character’ (Mann, 1983:19) but this article will focus on the general notions and applications, its views on the nature of human behaviour, its scientific method and the application of behaviourist principles to language teaching theory and methodology. Behaviourism, often associated with AUDIOLINGUALISM, was subsequently heavily criticised, notably by CHOMSKY (1959). Other theories and related methods have since come to the fore, but behaviourism can be viewed as a key stage in the development of language learning and teaching methodology.

Behaviourism claimed to have found the key to human behaviour, which is viewed as no different to that of other, simpler, living organisms. Behaviour results from stimuli presented to us in our environment, including internal ones such as hunger, and can be observed as responses to these stimuli. If the result is positive, such as obtaining food to satisfy our hunger in a particular manner, it is reinforced and is likely to be repeated, eventually becoming a habit which is carried out unconsciously.

In behaviourism, we see the search for the understanding of stimuli and related responses and how reinforcement and the potential for controlled learning occurs. The early theorists built on the work of Pavlov, the Russian physiologist who looked at the process of stimuli and response in experiments on dogs. He focused on reflex mechanisms and how these can be turned into learned or conditioned behaviour. The result of the dogs being conditioned to salivate (response) to the ringing of a bell (stimulus) is a classic example of this early stimulus-response (S—R) psychology.

Behaviourism concentrated on the S-R in human behaviour and, at its most extreme, adherents claimed that any stated type of behaviour could be produced in an individual through the conscious manipulation of the process of stimulus, response and reinforcement or conditioning.

The work of J.B.Watson, the ‘founder of the socalled “behaviourist” approach in psychology’ (Lyons, 1991:30) was central, and he and his followers did not feel the need to concern themselves with anything that fell outside the positivist, empirical framework. Objectivity was to be the key rather than subjective hypothesising about unobservable phenomena. The existence of the mind, for example, or the subconscious was not important, because these were considered as postulates which may or may not exist and were not directly observable. In this sense, behaviourism was a reaction against Freudian psychology and its notions of a submerged subconscious affecting, even controlling, our behaviour. Stimuli, responses and habits, on the other hand, were open to the empirical method. Speech could be observed directly, with thought being, in Watson’s view, inaudible speech.
Watson’s writings on behaviourism from 1913 onwards influenced the work of Bloomfield (who subsequently set up the ‘“Bloomfieldian” tradition of “autonomous” LINGUISTICS’) and his book Language (1935) contributed significantly to behavioural linguistics. Bloomfield ‘explicitly adopted behaviourism as a framework for linguistic description’ (Lyons, 1991:30–1). He believed we could predict or hypothesise what might cause a person to speak and what they might say in certain circumstances. The more detail we obtain about a given situation, the more specific will be our prediction of the speech behaviour based upon knowledge about the stimuli and the previously observed patterns of language habits or behaviour.

The work of Skinner was also pivotal in this field. His influential, if not controversial, Verbal behaviour (1957) made the claim that language is no different to any other type of non-verbal behaviour and there is no need, therefore, for any new principles or theories to explain it. Behaviourism could be applied just as well to language learning as anything else.

It was accepted that second language (L2) learning had many similarities to first language (L1) learning, with foreign language instruction largely viewed as a process of ‘imitation and reinforcement’ (Crystal, 1987:372). Just as suitable habits of speech have to be encouraged in children, so too is the case with second language learners. Listening to patterns and drills and repeating these, as with the audiolingual method, with correction when necessary, assists the development of good L2 habits. It was accepted that properties from L1 might lead to interference in L2, but these would have to be dealt with in order to promote the correct patterns. According to Crystal, ‘the main aim of behaviourist teaching is thus to form new, correct linguistic habits through intensive practice, eliminating interference errors in the process’ (1987:372).

Language behaviour, therefore, can be seen as a response to many stimuli, including communication NEEDS. Conversations may be based on this premise, or different stimuli may be seen, such as one person talking to another in a particular way Ideas of positive and negative reinforcement enter the equation with certain behaviour more likely to be deterred by the latter, as with punishment. Reinforcement is central as it increases the chances of behaviour recurring and becoming a habit. Manipulation of stimuli can lead to different patterns of response and certain language habits can be produced with others changed. Drilling and repetition is considered as a key method for instilling L2 language behaviour patterns.

Behaviourism’s dominance seemed to be appropriate for the post-war period, but it declined as its limitations became increasingly hard to suppress and new theories and methods were developed. Its restricted applicability was seen in language learning, which cannot always be reduced to drilling and patterned behaviour. It was also seen as failing to predict patterns of linguistic behaviour with other factors involved outside the S-R equation.

Its theoretical basis was criticised as it reduced human behaviour to a series of learned habits and had a problem in explaining creativity. It was also attacked for offering an extremely mechanistic and atomistic view of human behaviour with its implications of passivity and manipulation. Various refinements were made in order to counter the main criticisms, but these could not save the paradigm. The relegation of disputed phenomena such as the mind and the subconscious to the category of ‘unscientific’ was always problematic and became increasingly the subject of critical focus.
CHOMSKY provided both direct and indirect critiques, claiming that language is not a habit and that it may be free from stimulus-control. Differences between linguistic and other behaviour were recognised, with the implication that language learning and teaching required special consideration. Chomsky’s theory of transformational GRAMMAR and the related view of innate cognitive and not just physiological abilities contributed to behaviourism’s final demise. Human beings do not just react, but think, reflect and draw upon abilities that may not be learned but innate. These are difficult to account for within the empirical method. ‘Sentences are not learned by imitation and repetition but “generated” from the learner’s underlying “COMPETENCE’’’ (Richards and Rod-gers, 1986:59 [editor’s emphasis]). Such views gained favour from the 1960s onwards and, although behaviourism retained some importance in language theory and practice, its reign was over.