Assumption 1: The basis for teaching is the spoken, not the
written language
One of the keynotes of the nineteenth-century revolution in teaching was the
emphasis on the spoken language, partly because many of its advocates were pho-
neticians.
The English curriculum in Cuba, for example, insists on ‘The principle
of the primacy of spoken language’ (Cuban Ministry of Education, 1999). The
teaching methods within which speech was most dominant were the audio-lin-
gual and audio-visual methods, which insisted on
presenting spoken language
from tape before the students encountered the written form. Later methods have
continued to emphasize the spoken language. Communication in the commu-
nicative method is usually through speech rather than writing. The total physical
response method uses spoken, not written,
commands, and storytelling, not story
reading. Even in the recent task-based learning approach, Ellis (2003: 6) points
out: ‘The literature on tasks, both
research-based or pedagogic, assumes that tasks
are directed at oral skills, particularly speaking.’ The amount of teaching time that
teachers pay to pronunciation far outweighs that given to spelling.
The importance of speech has been reinforced by many linguists who claim that
speech is the primary form of language, and that writing depends on speech. Few
teaching methods in the twentieth century saw
speech and writing as being
equally important. The problem with accepting this assumption, as we see in
Chapter 5, is that written language has distinct characteristics of its own, which
are not just pale reflections of the spoken language. To quote Michael Halliday
(1985: 91), ‘writing is not speech written down, nor is
speech writing that is read
aloud’. Vital as the spoken language may be, it should not divert attention from
those aspects of writing that are crucial for students. Spelling mistakes, for
instance, probably count more against an L2 user in everyday life than a foreign
accent.
Dostları ilə paylaş: 
