I was graciously loaned a copy of Bill VanPatten's While we're on the topic: BVP on language, acquisition, and classroom practice, which describes and advocates for communicative language teaching. I read it straight through, but I'm working through it again to take down my thoughts, reflecting on it piece by piece.
Other than context, the component of BVP's definition of "communication" that I am still weighing is "purpose." Not whether purpose is necessary, because I agree it is. Without a purpose for speech, no real meaning is being exchanged; it would just be gibberish. I have questions about the definition, however. BVP constrains "purpose" to one of two domains (p.9):
That said, I return to something I mentioned in my last post on incorporating transactional language into the dialogue of narrative stories rather than role-plays. BVP's reaction to stories (specifically in the context of co-created stories ala TPRS) is that "how this outcome fits within the psychosocial or cognitive-informational purpose of communication remains to be seen" (p.71). This perspective kind of surprises me. The act of telling a story, especially co-created with the input of students, could easily be argued to develop relationships (psychosocial). In the book, there are many comparisons of L2 instruction to parent/child talk. Is there no purpose to parents telling/reading stories to their children? I cannot imagine he would make that argument. Regarding the cognitive-informational purpose of stories, BVP asks "Do learners know something about themselves and the world around them that they didn't know before?" (p.71). Which makes me wonder, does speech need to be objectively true to be informational? Can't we learn from a story, even if it's entirely fictitious? I don't see why not, but even if one were to argue that only nonfiction can inform, that would make it even more crucial to honor entertainment as a valid purpose. For example, consider fiction novels, tv, movies, etc. I can't imagine anyone would argue they not communicative input just because they're not biographies. I have some more questions about what counts as purposeful as well as the differences between communicative questions, display questions, and parent/child talk, but I'll save that for a separate post.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorThis is a place where I record thoughts on second language research and pedagogical theory Archives
June 2019
Categories |