Chapter4英语教育史课件language teaching in the nineteenth century 1

null History of English Language Teaching 英语教育史 History of English Language Teaching 英语教育史 李银玲Part 1 English language teaching in Britain 英语教育在英国Part 1 English language teaching in Britain 英语教育在英国Chapter4 Empriricism & Mentalism conflict: GT Chapter4 Empriricism & Mentalism conflict: GT 3: language teaching in the nineteenth century 3: language teaching in the nineteenth century Empriricism & Mentalism conflictA: Three major strands in the development of language teaching in the nineteenth centuryA: Three major strands in the development of language teaching in the nineteenth century1.the gradual integration of foreign language teaching into a modernized secondary school curriculum. 2. The expansion of the market for utilitarian language learning related to practical needs and interests. Ahn and Ollendorff. 3.the early history of reform. Jacotot, Marcel, Gouin in France; Prendergast in Britain, null1.The gradual integration of foreign language teaching into a modernized secondary school curriculum. The process whereby modern languages ‘infiltrated’ the traditional preserves of the classics varied from one country to another but it was a tough struggle everywhere. null2.The expansion of the market for utilitarian language learning related to practical needs and interests . The schools and universities took little if any interest; they were preoccupied with other things. In Britain there was more concern for the social implications of suitable education for ‘gentlemen’. The utilitarian market existed, however, and it was growing. Ahn and Ollendorff’s books folded on to the market in all the leading European languages. They were not used in schools, or not extensively anyway, because they were too easy and practical. null3.The early history of reform throughout the century . Interest in improved methods of language teaching in the nineteenth century was not confined to the Reform Movement of its last two decades. However, the work of the pre-reform movement writers is virtually unknown today. Nevertheless, in spite of their shortcomings, they are worth discussing and four of them in particular –Jacotot, Marcel, Prendergast, and Gouin- had important contributions to make to the field. nullAs the status of Latin diminished from that of a living language to that of an subject in the school curriculum, the study of Latin took on a different function. The study of classical Latin and an analysis of its grammar and rhetoric became the model for foreign language study from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries. School learning must have been a deadening experience for children, for lapses in knowledge were often met with brutal punishment.nullAs “modern” language began to enter the curriculum of European schools in the eighteenth century, they were taught using the same basic procedures that were used for teaching Latin. Textbooks consisted of statements of abstract grammar rules, lists of vocabulary, and sentences for translation. Speaking the foreign language was not the goal, and oral practice was limited to students reading aloud the sentences they had translated. These sentences were constructed to illustrate the grammatical system of the language.nullBy the nineteenth century, this approach based on the study of Latin had become the standard way of studying foreign languages in schools, and in modified form it continues to be widely used in some parts of the world today. This approach to foreign language teaching became known as the Grammar Translation Method.B: The Grammar-translation MethodB: The Grammar-translation Method1.Some misleading1.Some misleadingThe ‘grammar-translation’ label is misleading in some respects. 1.The origins of the method do not lie in an attempt to teach languages by grammar and translation, these were taken for granted anyway. The original motivation was reformist. null The grammar-translation method was an attempt to adapt these traditions to the circumstances and requirements of schools. Its principal aim, ironically enough in view of what was to happen later, was the make language learning easier. null2. The central feature was the replacement of the traditional texts by exemplificatory sentences. It was the special status accorded to the sentence at the expense of the text that attracted the most outspoken criticism of the reformers later in the century, not the use of grammar as such. 2. Adult language teaching: the ‘practical approach’ of Ahn and Ollendorff2. Adult language teaching: the ‘practical approach’ of Ahn and OllendorffMarket for ‘method’ textbooksMarket for ‘method’ textbooksLanguage, as a means of communication itself, is sensitive to change elsewhere in the network of human communications A new role for English :The expansion of railway system has created a new role for English as a world auxiliary language during the nineteenth century. If people were to exploit the opportunities offered by the railways, they had to learn the languages spoken down at the end of the line.null One result was an increase in demand for travelers’ phrasebooks. But there was also a need for textbooks that offered a more thorough grounding while at the same time keeping at least half-an-eye on the practical needs of the adult learner. The outcome was a growing market for ‘method’ textbooks which established a basic design that was repeated from one language to the next. Ahn was the first to exploit this market in 1834, followed by his rival Ollendorff a year later, and between them they dominated the scene for almost half a century, until the emergence of specialist language schools like Berlitz in the 1880s and 1890s.nullA new class of language learner :More generally, the industrialization of the second half of the nineteenth century created a new class of language learner, one that had not followed an academic ‘grammar school’ education and therefore could not be expected to learn foreign languages by traditional methods. nullA new approach was needed which would suit their particular circumstances and it eventually emerged in the form of ‘direct’ methods which required no knowledge of grammar at all. Ahn and Ollendorff were in some respects a ‘halfway house’. Both included grammar rules in their courses, but they adopted a grading system that ‘rationed’ the learner to one or two new rules per lesson and generally tried to keep the detail of explanation under some control. Franz Ahn(1796-1865)Franz Ahn(1796-1865)Ahn ‘s work was modest, compact, and useful. It was also immensely successful and it deserved to be. The public got what it was promised, a simple introduction to a foreign language, taught through a ‘new, practical, and easy method’.nullFranz Ahn was born in 1796. He came from the north-west of Germany, and was a schoolmaster on the German-Dutch border when he published his first textbook in 1827 at the age of thirty-one. It was a French reader for German learners and the first of a series of readers and conversation books. Two years later he brought out a Dutch course for Germans. It went through six editions in the next fifteen years, no small achievement for a minority language textbook. nullIn 1834, at the age of 38, he published a French course, the first example of his famous A New, Practical, and Easy Method and courses appeared in German, English, Spanish, Italian and Russian over the next twenty years. He also applied it to the two classical languages. His principal market was the private learner for whom a grammatical description and a bilingual approach were essential.nullAhn `s method lives up to its title. It is both practical and easy. After a brief introduction to the pronunciation, the basic learning materials begin. In his first course there are sixty-eight lessons in the space of only sixty-six pages, plus a set of twelve areas of vocabulary and twelve pages of ‘easy dialogues’ (phrases like ‘are you hungry? It is foggy. What can I offer you? And so on. ) H.G.Ollendorff (1803-1865)H.G.Ollendorff (1803-1865)Heinrich Gottfried Ollendorff was born in 1803, which makes him seven years younger than Ahn. He was less versatile, and having launched his method in 1835, devoted all his energies to exploiting it.nullThe earliest examples of the Ollendorff Method, called A New Method of Learning to Read, Write, and Speak, a Language in Six Months, taught German to French and English speakers. His book are massive, two-volume affairs and the Ollendorff industry must have been a large-scale international publishing operation. All the courses were originally published by Ollendorff himself in Paris, each copy being individually numbered and sighed. Thereafter his work appeared in London, New York, Berlin, Frankfurt and ,in authorized adaptations, in many other cities. nullAn approach of this kind encourages the construction of sentences on a word-by-word basis, each word ‘arithmetically’ added to the one before. Henry sweet christened this the ‘arithmetical fallacy’, it is the main cause of the strangeness of grammar-translation examples like the infamous pen of my aunt; the philosopher pulled the lower jaw of the hen. nullThe impression that one derives from contemporary comments on both Ahn and Ollendorff is that their practical aims were appreciated, but a number of reviews criticized their lack of profundity. As kroeh said: “ their leading idea is practice before theory, and although they have been subjected to much well-deserved ridicule for the puerility of their examples, they mark an important advance in the art of teaching language…no grammatical aid is given except what may be gathered from an appendix and a few footnotes. The reaction against grammar was evidently too great. Sound instruction in language cannot be divorced entirely from grammar.”nullOther textbook writer ,for example,Seidenstucker and Ahn, in each coursebook, chapter, or “lesson”, combined rules, vocabulary, text, and sentences to be translated as the typical pattern of the grammar-translation method. In the mid-nineteenth century, Ploetz in Germany adapted Seidenstucker`s French textbook for use in schools and thus grammar-translation became the principal method of teaching modern languages in schools. In the final decades of the nineteenth century grammar-translation was attacked as a cold and lifeless approach to language teaching,and it was blamed for the failure of foreign language teaching.AssessmentAssessmentDefect 1.It is a method for which there is no theory. There is no literature that offers a rationale or justification for it or that attempts to relate it to issues in linguistics, psychology, or educational theory. null2. The major defect of grammar-translation lies in the overemphasis on the language as a mass of rules (and exceptions) and in the limitations of practice techniques which never emancipate the learner from the dominance of the first language. 3. In addition, the sheer size of the task of memorization and the lack of coherence with which the language facts have been presented to the learner invalidate the claim, made in the nineteenth century, that this method provides a safe, easy,and practical entry into a second language. null In spite of many attacks, grammar-translation is still widely employed today. 1. Although the grammar –translation method often creates frustration for students, it makes few demands on teachers. It is still used in situations where understanding literary texts is the primary focus of foreign language study and there is little need for a speaking knowledge of the languagenullA glance at many currently used textbooks, particularly the less commonly taught languages, confirms the strong hold of grammar-translation. Contemporary texts for the teaching of foreign languages at college level often reflect Grammar-translation principles. these texts are frequently the products of people trained in literature rather than in language teaching or applied linguistics. nullIn language programmes in the universities in English-speaking countries translation of texts from and into the foreign language has remained a standard procedure. In the early sixties Dodson (1967) reaffirmed teaching techniques based on a grammar-translation strategy under the name of “bilingual method”. The cognitive code-learning theory has taken up again some of the features of the grammar-translation method. null2.The first language as a reference system is indeed very important for the second language learner. Translation in one form or another or other crosslingual techniques can play a certain part in language learning. 3. Moreover, some learners endeavour to understand the grammatical system of the second language. Hence grammar teaching ,too, may have some importance for them. null4. Furthermore, thinking about formal features of the second language and translation as a practice technique put the learner into an active problem-solving situation. In the terms of the basic strategies already set out ,it forms part of the “academic”learning strategy. 5.Finally,grammar-translation appears didactically relatively easy to apply. C. Individual ReformersC. Individual ReformersLanguage teaching innovations in the nineteenth centuryIgnorance to pre-reform Movement writersIgnorance to pre-reform Movement writersInterest in improved methods of language teaching in the nineteenth century was not confined to the Reform Movement of its last two decades. It rose steadily as the practical need for foreign languages. nullHowever, the work of the pre-Reform Movement writers is virtually unknown today. Their ideas were either ignored by the Reformers or condemned along with the traditional school methods as ‘out of date’ . Nevertheless, in spite of their shortcomings, they are worth discussing and four of them in particular-Jacotot, Marcel, Prendergast, and Gouin- had important contributions to the make to the field. Why are they called Individual Reformers?Why are they called Individual Reformers?all the pre-reform approaches were known by the names of their originators rather than by any intrinsic characteristic of the methods themselves. This individualism was a serious source of weakness that the Movement avoided. Why?nullThere was no coherent foreign language teaching profession out of which new approaches could brow and to which they could relate. Training in the modern sense was unknown, and none of the modern networks of professional communication existed. Only the market-place was powerful, and the writers we know most a bout are those whose books sold in large numbers (Ahn, Ollendorff). None of the Individual Reformers made much of commercial impact.(except Gouin). Why were they ignored?Why were they ignored?All the early reformers were essentially ‘loners’. Each of them produced a ‘method’, and each wrote a background thesis to justify the ideas which it represented. None of them attracted a following or founded a school of thought with a potential for further development. Jacotot, Prendergast, and Gouin, in particular, devised teaching methods which were so tightly specified and constrained that they discouraged further exploration by other teachers. They were, in a sense,’dead ends’ that had to be accepted or rejected as they stood. nullThe failure of Marcel, on the other hand, is more difficult to explain. His work ought to have become the principal point of reference for the serious discussion of language teaching methodology in the second half of the century, but for some reason, it was ignored.nullPerhaps the simplest explanation for their isolation is that all of them, produced teaching methods and materials which implied a more radical change than the majority of ordinary language teachers were prepared to contemplate. However, it has to be remembered that when the reform movement actually got under way in the 1880s it was not wholly without precedent. Brief introduction to the four reformersBrief introduction to the four reformersJean Joseph Jacotot, saw language teaching as one dimension of a philosophy of universal education. He was a romantic idealist of the Revolution who believed in the equality of man and in the ability of each individual to attain any goal to which he aspired. His work drew attention to the Ideological significance of education generally and of language teaching in particular. nullClaude Marcel took a longer look at the role of language teaching in a general system of national education. Of the four writers, Marcel was intellectually the most impressive. He was the first to develop a coherent and educationally responsible methodology of language teaching derived from an analysis of the activity itself and its relationship to other branches of knowledge. Also, his reputation suffered because he promoted the teaching of reading only a decade or so before it was displaced in favour of the spoken language by the excitingly ‘modern’ claims of phonetics as a scientific discipline. nullThomas Prendergast : the only Englishman in the group. His Mastery’ system was the first attempt to elaborate a psychological theory of child language acquisition and apply it to the teaching of foreign language. Prendergast observed what children were doing and the learning processes they appeared to be using. The teaching techniques he derived from these observations were radically appeared to share many of the unfortunate characteristics of the traditional grammar-book methods. He used detached sentences as his basic learning data which was anathema to the reformers with their concern for texts. nullFrancois Gouin also studied the way in which children use language. Both Prendergast and Gouin achieved insights into the processes of language acquisition and development which have only become central to theoretical discussions of the subject in the last ten or fifteen years. Gouin’s emphasis on the importance of the structure of experience in the organization of language was totally original. It was unfortunate that his addiction to the belief that all experiential organization was sequential blinded him to the true significance of his insight, and its practical effect in the famous ‘series’ method was particularly disappointing. nullThe mid-nineteenth century did not lack ideas, all of them seriously intended and some of them worth exploring in detail. But these individualistic methods suffered from the over-zealous application of rather narrowly-conceived principles. The reform movement which succeeded them enjoyed a much firmer theoretical foundation, and hence a richer and more varied practical methodology. “All is in All”:Jean Joseph Jacotot“All is in All”:Jean Joseph Jacototlife (1770-1840) life (1770-1840) Jacotot became a language teacher by accident. A native of Dijon in central France, he became deeply involved in revolutionary politics in his teens and was a professor of Latin briefly in 1789 at the age of nineteen. He organized a local youth movement in support of the revolution and, at twenty-two, was a captain in the army. In 1794 he returned home to Dijon to become Deputy Director of the newly established polytechnique in the city. nullIn 1815 the old order was restored after the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo, and Jacotot was exiled to what is now Belgium, where he took up a post teaching French at the university of Louvain in the Flemish-speaking north of the country. He was not a Flemish-speaker and his students were beginners in French. Confronted by this challenge, he devised the earliest example of monolingual methods for the language classroom. nullUnable to translate or explain, Jacotot read the first sentence, and then returned to the opening phrase and read it again. He asked his students to hunt through the rest of the book for further examples of the words he had just read. Then Jacotot returned to the beginning of the text and added the