A Traffic Light or a Car Horn?

[kellogg]

I think that Wittgenstein's point was that "ostensive" teaching is NOT possible. Ostensive teaching (which is the kind of "point and say" teaching that people use to teach reading in America as well as to teach vocabulary here in Korea) is not possible because it assumes that man lives in a world only of nouns and that language is simply a means of naming the things in this noun-filled world.

Perhaps, when adults look back at language learning, that seems to be true. But that just shows how lazy they are. A child who does not know that names exist, or even that nouns exist, is not at all interested in names for nouns. We do not want things which we do not know about.

Wittgenstein's view of language is really very different. Using language is a way of DOING things, not a way of naming things. If we say that language is a kind of code, what is the message like BEFORE it gets put into the code? What language are thoughts in BEFORE they are put into language?

Wittgenstein's idea is that there ISN'T any pre-existing message. We don't really know what we are going to say until we actually say it, and sometimes (very often in fact) we start a sentence without any clear idea of how it will end. So there ISN'T any pre-existing "message" in the mind. People use language to do things, and the meanings of language are simply equal to the uses that language has in the real world.

This is a Whole Language view. It STRONGLY suggests that language is not made up of dictionary meanings, rules of grammar, or decontextualized codes. Language is made up by people in situations, and that is the only way it can be understood. It follows that it is also the only way it can be learnt as well.

   유아의 언어는 훈련과 반복의 방식으로 가르쳐질 수 있다. 그러나 모든 '의미'가 그 말에 대응하는 사물을 뜻한다고 할 수 없다. 예를 들어 ‘사랑’, ‘행복’ 같은 추상명사를 배울 경우에는 자신이 감정적으로 느끼거나 타인과 상호작용을 통해서 겪은 경험을 통해서 배울 수 있다. 야생아의 관찰에서 보면 어떠한 환경에서 자라나느냐에 따라 언어의 사용이 결정된다. 따라서 모국어를 처음으로 배우는 아동들은 ‘사회적 관계’를 통해서 언어를 배운다.

In Liberia, there is a group of people called the Vai. They are Muslims, so they have to learn the Koran. But the Koran is in Arabic, and Arabic is very different from their language.

The way they learn the Koran is simple: they simply memorize the whole thing, without learning any grammar or vocabulary. They memorize the way it sounds (it DOES sound very beautiful; I learned a book of the Koran that way). Then they memorize a translation of it. Then they figure out which part of the book they are looking at, and they remember the translation.

Now--are they understanding the Koran...or are they simply understanding a translation? Can we say such a person can speak Arabic? Aren't they really just like the Chinese "killers" who memorized leaked answers to the TOEIC and managed to get perfect scores without even reading the questions?

Imagine little girl who learns our English book in exactly this way...from "Hi, I'm Minsu" through "It's snowing", she simply memorizes the translation of each sentence, recognizes the sentence, remembers the translation, and does not bother to learn ANY vocabulary or ANY grammar. Is she learning the language, or simply learning the translation?

Imagine a little boy who CANNOT do this. Instead, he looks at the pictures in the books, and thinks of the situation. Because he is a very good guesser (and also has a good memory for situations) he is able to understand all the dialogues in the book. Is he learning the language, or just making a series of lucky guesses?

Let's go back to Wittgenstein for a minute. Wittgenstein says that when you "mean" something it is like walking up to somebody and tapping them on the shoulder. We get someone's attention and then we use words to negotiate what we actually mean. And what we mean is ALWAYS different, so it ALWAYS has to be negotiated.

Here's a practical problem. Look:

T: Hello, everybody. My name is Jeon Eun Jeong

S1: Hello, Ms. Jeon.

S2: Hello, Ms. Jeong.

S3: Hello, Teacher Jeon.

S4: Hello, Teacher Jeong.

Foreigner1: Hello, Jeon-eun!

Foreigner2: Hello, Eun-jeong!

Foreigner3: Hello, Ms. Jeon-eun!

Foreigner4: Hello, Ms. Eun-jeong!

How can we cope with all these DIFFERENT mistakes? Of course, it's perfectly POSSIBLE to teach this using EXAMPLES:

T: Listen! "Hello, Ms. Jeon!" Repeat!

But when we use examples, they do not help us to meet the NEXT teacher:

T: Hello, everybody. My name is Jang Ho Jin.

S: Hello, Ms. Jin!

(etc.)

So it's possible to teach this using RULES:

T: Listen, everybody. NEVER use a last name WITHOUT a title. NEVER use a first name WITH a title. ALWAYS say "Ms. Jang". NEVER say "Jang". ALWAYS say "Ho Jin". NEVER say "Ms. Ho Jin".

Notice that the rule is really not much good without the examples. There's the problem of understanding what "first name" and "last name" refer to (because in Korean the first name is last and the last name is first). But even if there were'n't this problem, it would be very hard to apply the rule unless we see the example first. What does it mean to use a name with or without a title? Show us!

Even with the examples, the kids have a big problem. The rule is NOT TRUE. It's a lie! We DO use last names without titles:

체육선생님: Kellogg! Late again! Fifty push-ups!

And small children do use first names with titles when they address their teachers:

S1: Mr. David! Mr. David! Can I go to the bathroom now?

And servants use first names with titles when they are showing respect to the children of their masters.

BUTLER: Master David! It's time to go to school!

In other words, there are so many exceptions the rules are almost useless. So what do we TEACH?

Try this:

T: What do I call you? Ms Jeon or Ms. Jeong? Ms. Jeon or Eunjeong?

Notice that by doing this we REPLACE RULES WITH NEGOTIATIONS. Here's another example.

T: Where are you from? (Sixth Grade Lesson)

S: I'm from Korea.

T (laughing): Of course. Me too! But WHERE in Korea are you from?

S: I'm from Seoul.

T: Yes, I'm from Seouil too. But WHERE in Seoul do you live?

S: ...

Wittgenstein is right. Utterances have NO fixed rules and NO set meanings. They ONLY have uses. And in order to use them, you have to tap somebody on the should and NEGOTIATE.

제 2언어를 배우는 학습자의 경우

  언어 습득에 더 어려움을 겪게 된다. 언어에서 소리를 배운다는 것은 소리가 어떠하고, 귀를 통해 뇌가 어떻게 받아들이는가를 알려 주는 것이다. 모국어를 습득하는 경우에는 태어나면서부터 같은 소리들만 주입되기 때문에 저절로 습득이 된다.

Notice that Mikyeong is using the SAME trick that Eunjeong used! The question is NOT about acquisition. It's about BUILDING a language. If I live in a one story house, and I win the lotter and decide that I want to build a second story on my house, it doesn't make much sense to say I will (involuntarily, and perhaps even unconsciously) ACQUIRE a second story.

Mikyeong's example of phonology is a particularly GOOD example. When we start  BUILDING another language, it makes no sense to try to simply relabel Korean sounds with English sounds. How can we teach /f/ or /v/? How can we teach /l/ and /r/? We have to consciously BUILD these sounds, or the children will NEVER be able to make them.

But isn't the SAME thing true of vocabulary? When we use the word "dolphin" in English, it DOESN'T mean a whale. But in Korean, the word 돌고래 DOES mean a whale. When an American teacher says "How are you?", he or she means "Are you sick or well?" But when a Korean teacher says this, it means something like "오늘은 기분이 어때?" Don't these differences have to be CONSCIOUSLY NEGOTIATED?

And what about grammar? Can we REALLY expect children to simply "acquire" the article? What if they just don't hear it? Doesn't article use have to CONSCIOUSLY NEGOTIATED? Look:

T: Marriage is a market.

S: What do you mean? A marriage is a market? Who is the marketing manager?

All marriages are markets? Or any marriage is a market? Or your marriage is a market? Or DUO is a market? All of this CAN be negotiated. In fact, all of it MUST be negotiated. That is the ONLY way language works.

Part of the problem is that people think of English as a kind of traffic system. You know:

Red = Stop

Green = Go

Orange = GO REALLY FAST!

This makes it easy to teach (so people think, anyway!) All you have to do is to map words onto meanings, and those meanings will be the same wherever you go—anywhere in the world. That’s the beauty of having English as a world language.

But in fact NO language works like this. Wittgenstein is RIGHT—language begins by going up to someone and tapping them on the shoulder and getting their attention “Hey, you!” is language (though of course it has no grammar and no fixed lexical meaning).

English is NOT a traffic system. In fact, it’s more like a CAR HORN. When you hear a car horn, you don’t really know what it means. You have to look around, over your shoulder, and around you and see who is honking and where and why. Then you will know what it means.

That is why, whether we are teaching “Look and Listen” or “Let’s Play”, whether it’s “What this?” or “What day is it today?” or “Is this your boat?” or “Where are you from?”, whether we are teaching 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th or 6^th grade, we have to constantly be asking and answering this question:

WHO is saying WHAT to WHOM? WHERE? WHEN? And above all…WHY?

하지만 외국어는 이미 모국어소리가 뇌 속에 (in the brain? Really? Are there sounds in the BRAIN?) 형성된 후 다른 소리가 들어오기 때문에 그 소리들을 쉽게 구분할 수 없다. 제 2 언어 학습자는 모국어와 외국어 사이에서 학습자 자신의 중간언어(interlanguage)를 만들고 여러 가지 시행착오를 통해서 언어를 배우게 된다.

The word "interlanguage" suggests that your language is NOT whole, but is moving between one language and another language. But children who are learning their first language do NOT speak an interlanguage. They speak a small language, but they are small people and they live in a small world.

Wittgenstein writes:

“2) (...) A는 돌로 빌딩을 짓고 있다. 벽돌, 기둥, 석판, 들보 등이 있다. B는 A가 원하는 순서대로 그 돌들을 전달해야 한다. 이것을 위해서, 그들은 벽돌, 기둥, 석판, 들보 등의 단어들로 구성된 언어를 사용한다. A가 소리 내어 부르면, B는 그 소리에 맞는 돌을 갖고 간다. 이것을 완전히 원시적인 형태의 언어라고 생각해 보자.” (1958:3e)

“2)언어가 확장된 것을 보자.  벽돌, 기둥 등 4개의 단어들이 숫자로 사용되는 일련의 단어들을 포함하도록 해보자. (연속적인 알파벳 문자들일수도 있다) 그 다음, 가리키는 제스쳐와 연결되어 쓰이는 ‘there, this’라는 2개의 단어를 더 첨가해 보자. 그 다음, 여러 개의 색깔 샘플을 더해 보자. A는 ‘d-slab-there’와 같은 명령을 한다. B는 석판 더미에서, 제시된 색깔 샘플과 같은 색깔의 석판을 알파벳 a, b, c, d에 하나씩 가지고 온다. 그러고 나서, A가 가리키는 장소에 그것들을 가져간다.” (1958: 7, 5e)

This is a small language too. We ALL speak small languages. For example, I don't use words like "acquisition" to describe learning, and I don't use the word "interlanguage" to describe the language that my students speak. Does that mean that my language is in some sense incomplete?