MODULE 2:

CURRENT ISSUES
IN SECOND LANGUAGE
TEACHING
(A Reaction Paper)

MEARIE JEAN A. AMBA

M.Ed.-TESL I
 CURRENT ISSUES IN SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING

The world of second language acquisition is indeed complex and sensitive;

complex in the sense that there are different issues and concerns revolving around such
field, and sensitive, as these issues are not to be disregarded if we want to make a
good second language teacher.

According to Orwell (1946), if thought corrupts language, language can also

corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people
who should and do know better.

Jacobs, G. M., & Cates, K. (1999) in their article Global Education in Second
Language Teaching propose an optimistic view on the impact of second language
teachers on what is going on in the world rather than concentrating solely on improving
our students’ language proficiency. They believe that …second language teachers can
play a role in making the world a ‘better place’ at the same time that we improve our
students' language proficiency.

The succeeding notes in three different partitions would show my reflection on

the major issues of second language teaching discussed by Tupas in the second
module of his book.

NATIVENESS VS. COMPETENCE

I can attest to the gripes of those professional language instructors who were
‘deprived’ of equal rights and opportunities with those native speakers who were but ‘by-
standers-turned-instructors’ in general. I once worked as a freelance ESL teacher in a
private Korean residence and I had co-workers who were both native and non-native
speakers of the language taught. Apparently, instructors like me who is a learned
individual but not a native speaker of the language would have to struggle from
discriminations and prejudices of our clients. From our daily pay to our students’
‘respect’, there was a palpable difference between that of ours and the other instructors
who were native speakers of the language. ‘The reason? Well, there wasn’t formal
documents of any sort explaining the difference between our pay and the number of
hours we have to work in a day versus that of our American, Australian and British
counterparts, but we (non-native speakers) have to accept the fact that it was our
employers’ preference and we have to work up to their standards.

Though it may appear degrading on our part, the aforementioned instance seems
to be something most non-native instructors have learned to accept despite years of
assumed sentimental protests. The need to acquire a job that pays- though it may not
have paid them equally well with their native speaker counterparts- is what counts in the
most realistic side.

Interestingly though, I could also not keep my own bias when it comes to paying
attention to native speakers on seminars. I seem to become more interested and
engaged when the speaker is a blonde, well-dressed, prestigious Westerner compared
to a local who may have even better skills and characteristics than the former. I think
this has something to do with the sprigs of colonial mentality imbibed in our culture. It
doesn’t always have something to do with the language or the way they speak, as
again, we now have many non-native speakers who can speak as fluently as the native
ones, but it sometimes has to deal with our idea of which is more genuine, more
powerful, more acceptable, more influential and more appropriate in almost every
aspect of our lives. The inclination to something Western has tend to have gained roots
in our culture which has been gravely contaminated with the same concepts during the
many years our country has spent under the hands of our colonizers.

Going back to the relationship between ‘nativeness’ and second language

teaching competence, I agree that these two do not directly correspond to each other. It
indeed takes a lot of things to make a good language teacher and being a native
speaker does not automatically guarantee one to be so. The world calls for competent
teachers who do not only promote efficient language learning inside the classroom but
also respects his/her learners’ culture and heritage, and it’s about time for us to put this
calling into practice. We need not wait until we become employers who could draw rules
and employment standards under our own discretion as we can in our own selves
employ this awareness in our own teaching practices. We need not get overwhelmed by
the existence of native speaker-instructors but acknowledge and live up to the major
objective of our being second language teachers, that is, to produce learners who can
not only speak and understand the target language fluently, but also know how to
respect and recognize their respective cultural and social backgrounds and that of the
one/s they are communicating to.

LANGUAGE VS. DIALECT

Another undeniably high-flying issue in SLT is how we define language and

dialect.

The Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, who defined the modern discipline of
linguistics, first explicitly formulated the distinction using the French word langage for
language as a concept, langue as a specific instance of a language system, and parole
for the concrete usage of speech in a particular language (Lyons, 1981).

On the other hand, around the turn of the 20th century, thinkers began to wonder
about the role of language in shaping our experiences of the world – asking whether
language simply reflects the objective structure of the world, or whether it creates
concepts that it in turn imposes on our experience of the objective world. The debates
about language in relation to meaning and reference, cognition and consciousness
remain active today (Devitt and Sterelny, 1999).

Different definitions and characterization has also been given to our

understanding of what a dialect is. The Oxford English dictionary gives one usage of the
word—the more common among linguists— which refers to a variety of a language that
is a characteristic of a particular group of the language's speakers. The term is applied
most often to regional speech patterns, but Merriam-Webster Online dictionary declared
a dialect may also be defined by other factors, such as social class. The other usage
refers to a language that is socially subordinated to a regional or national standard
language, often historically cognate to the standard, but not derived from it (Maiden and
Mair, 1997)

Tupas, in his book, has clearly provided demarcations on the different definitions
based on whether it is a linguistic or political/ideological perspective. Sadly though, we
cannot do away with the latter dimension as from which started off the existence,
selection, and characterization of ‘language’ and ‘dialect’.

I believe there would always be divergence when it comes to setting a standard

definition or classification between a language and a dialect; it doesn’t seem to matter
much as to how either falls within the said standards set, but what seems to be the
issue is what language should prevail as a unifying medium in a country and why.

One concrete example for me is our own Filipino language. Our national
language can be perceived as one in Tagalog origin concealed behind a more collective
name. I understand that incorporated in the vocabulary of this engineered language are
some loaned words from the different dialects across the archipelago. However, the
language of origin remains to be Tagalog, the sentence structures and other grammar
rules of which remained most dominant in the teaching of the ‘new’ language formed.
‘So why ‘Tagalog’? Was it the country’s language of power and prestige back then? If
so, what were the bases used by the language committee to brand it the same? Are
there more speakers of the said language in the country? Could it be because such is
the language used by people in the NCR?

One could throw mountains of questions to these choices but such opportunity
has nonetheless reigned, perhaps because we too are a pragmatic people who can
adapt to changes fluidly when deemed necessary.
AGE VS. ABILITY

I agree with Tupas saying there has been a seemingly infinite argument as to
whether or not age directly corresponds with one’s ability in learning a language. I too,
used to believe that the younger a person is, the easier it would be for him/her to learn a
language. I used to think that such is the case in language acquisition because a child’s
mind is not yet ‘too occupied’ to be bombarded with the many rules and complexities of
language learning. And this is the ‘common belief’ in language learning that Ron Unz in
Tupas’ example articulated.

The contradictory statements in the later part of the article showed though that
when we look into the smaller details of language learning and the deficiencies of the
previous studies conducted, the statement which so generalizes that children learn a
language faster than adults is over generalized and is empirically flawed.

I got interested in this matter and I’m hoping that indeed, sometime and in some
other way, researches may find a way to conduct studies of ‘brain activation processes’
among both young and adult learners who have SIMILAR proficiencies in a second
language. I believe that such would be really necessary as our educational programs
must be tailor-fit to learners’ readiness and ability. But as there hasn’t been definite
conclusion for this issue yet, I believe nothing is lost when we grab each single
opportunity to resourcefully teach an interested individual. Just as Marinova, Todd and
others (2000) have it, “… even though teachers can do little to ‘improve’ a student’s
age, they can do much to influence a student’s learning strategies, motivation and
learning environment”. And that’s what we teachers are for-to aid our learners and
develop among them the conditions necessary for successful (language) learning.

REFERENCES:

Devitt, Michael; Sterelny, Kim (1999). Language and Reality: An Introduction to

the Philosophy of Language. Boston: MIT Press.

Jacobs, G. M., & Cates, K. (1999). Global education in second language

teaching. KATA, 1(1), 44-56.

Lyons, John (1981). Language and Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.

ISBN 0-521-29775-3.

Maiden, Martin & Mair Parry. 1997. The Dialects of Italy. London: Routledge.
Nativeness Language vs.
vs. Dialect
SLT
Competence

Age
vs.
Ability

SLT