For a detailed but conscise description of British writers in the XIX century, visit:
British Romanticism (Writers):
Victorian Prose (Writers):
miércoles, 28 de mayo de 2014
American Literature, 19th Century
For a detailed but conscise description of American writers in the XIX century, visit:
American Romanticism (Writers):
American Writers in the 19th Century:
The importance of Morphology in Language Learning
The
importance of Morphology
in Language Learning
in Language Learning
by O. G. P.
Subject: English Morphology
In this essay, I will talk about the importance of morphology for English-Language Learning, on the understanding that ‘learning’ is intrinsically related with acquisition and involves a central topic of interest for teaching itself.
First of all, I would like to express that, as I see it, to ponder about the importance of morphology is to ponder about the purposes of studying this level of language, which we have studied along the course. One of such purposes is the creation of words and another is the modification of the existing ones (Fasold ,2006).
But before this, morphology must also have an overall purpose which would be the understanding of a language per se. In this line of thought, it is greatly helpful for teachers because, when words have identifiable parts (such as prefixes or suffixes), they can be predictable at some extent.
In context, therefore, morphological analysis can help anybody to infer the meaning of some words, and, at the same time, to learn new words easier than without it. Whether they are words we see in signs on the street, or read in a written text, or hear in spoken messages. Knowing the terminations of the words and its meanings can come in handy for English Teachers – and for students – when we don’t know exactly the meaning of some words or when we don’t have a dictionary at hand.
Hence the importance of being used to affixes and suffixes and the role they play in words. It helps us see the flexibility of language. With morphological knowledge, students can take the notion of the meaning in the word “like” and transform it into a number of possibilities (unlike, likely, unlikely, likable, unlikable, likeness, unlikeness) to express their message more accurately and precisely.
Eventually, morphological awareness can help language students to familiarize with lexical derivations and with the meaning or morphemes. They will be able to distinguish, for instance, that the suffixes “-ment” or “-ness” form a noun, or that the suffix “-ly” forms an adverb. Ultimately, the will be able to realize that, at some extent, the English language has a certain morphological logic people follow to know and produce new words. These new words, reminds us of what we could call, in Chomsky’s words, the transformational-generative morphology (:25), on the ability that we humans would have to perfectly produce and understand words we’ve never hear before if we already understand the roots.
Broadly speaking, morphological competence is also one of the essential elements that determine a higher level of proficiency in ESL or EFL. That is one of the reasons why word-formation exercises (which work on derivational morphology) and conjugation exercises (which work on inflectional morphology) are very used in advanced levels and often incorporated in English international examinations such as Cambridge ESOL’s TOEFL, FCE and CAE.
Another utility of morphology is that it helps us to have better writing skills. Being aware that there are certain morphological irregularities in English language is important to speak the language properly, and, in addition, it may even have an beneficial effect in auditory skills insofar as the phonological aspect is related with morphology in spoken language. The relation between morphology with syntax and phonology is so strong that it led the renowned linguist Kenneth Lee Pike to reject the division between them in his Tagmemic theory (see Pike 1949; Auroux & Koerner 2001:1991). This is because, in the words of Richard Saunders Pittman, they have “inescapable interdependence” (Pittman, 1954:239, in Pike, 1967:189), which in my view is the reason why morphology can improve syntax.
Finally, another aspect (often diminished by some people, but very interesting for language students and linguists), is that the study of morphology helps us see the relation that English has with other languages. When we talk about the roots, for example, we can notice that some words have their origin in Latin, German and French language and understand how this affected the pragmatic aspects of words, in regard to their degree of formality and informality.
In conclusion, the study of morphology is not only an option but a “must” for any language student, provided that it is indispensable to fulfill adequate abilities to understand the target language, and to be able to communicate successfully.
References
First of all, I would like to express that, as I see it, to ponder about the importance of morphology is to ponder about the purposes of studying this level of language, which we have studied along the course. One of such purposes is the creation of words and another is the modification of the existing ones (Fasold ,2006).
But before this, morphology must also have an overall purpose which would be the understanding of a language per se. In this line of thought, it is greatly helpful for teachers because, when words have identifiable parts (such as prefixes or suffixes), they can be predictable at some extent.
In context, therefore, morphological analysis can help anybody to infer the meaning of some words, and, at the same time, to learn new words easier than without it. Whether they are words we see in signs on the street, or read in a written text, or hear in spoken messages. Knowing the terminations of the words and its meanings can come in handy for English Teachers – and for students – when we don’t know exactly the meaning of some words or when we don’t have a dictionary at hand.
Hence the importance of being used to affixes and suffixes and the role they play in words. It helps us see the flexibility of language. With morphological knowledge, students can take the notion of the meaning in the word “like” and transform it into a number of possibilities (unlike, likely, unlikely, likable, unlikable, likeness, unlikeness) to express their message more accurately and precisely.
Eventually, morphological awareness can help language students to familiarize with lexical derivations and with the meaning or morphemes. They will be able to distinguish, for instance, that the suffixes “-ment” or “-ness” form a noun, or that the suffix “-ly” forms an adverb. Ultimately, the will be able to realize that, at some extent, the English language has a certain morphological logic people follow to know and produce new words. These new words, reminds us of what we could call, in Chomsky’s words, the transformational-generative morphology (:25), on the ability that we humans would have to perfectly produce and understand words we’ve never hear before if we already understand the roots.
Broadly speaking, morphological competence is also one of the essential elements that determine a higher level of proficiency in ESL or EFL. That is one of the reasons why word-formation exercises (which work on derivational morphology) and conjugation exercises (which work on inflectional morphology) are very used in advanced levels and often incorporated in English international examinations such as Cambridge ESOL’s TOEFL, FCE and CAE.
Another utility of morphology is that it helps us to have better writing skills. Being aware that there are certain morphological irregularities in English language is important to speak the language properly, and, in addition, it may even have an beneficial effect in auditory skills insofar as the phonological aspect is related with morphology in spoken language. The relation between morphology with syntax and phonology is so strong that it led the renowned linguist Kenneth Lee Pike to reject the division between them in his Tagmemic theory (see Pike 1949; Auroux & Koerner 2001:1991). This is because, in the words of Richard Saunders Pittman, they have “inescapable interdependence” (Pittman, 1954:239, in Pike, 1967:189), which in my view is the reason why morphology can improve syntax.
Finally, another aspect (often diminished by some people, but very interesting for language students and linguists), is that the study of morphology helps us see the relation that English has with other languages. When we talk about the roots, for example, we can notice that some words have their origin in Latin, German and French language and understand how this affected the pragmatic aspects of words, in regard to their degree of formality and informality.
In conclusion, the study of morphology is not only an option but a “must” for any language student, provided that it is indispensable to fulfill adequate abilities to understand the target language, and to be able to communicate successfully.
References
- Auroux, Sylvain; Koerner, E.F.K.; (2001). History of the Language Sciences [Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaften / Histoire des sciences du langage. 2. Teilband. Walter de Gruyter. Pike's Tagmemic Syntax. ISBN: 9783110194210.
- Fasold, R. and Connor-Linton, J., (2006). An Introduction to Language and Linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- P.H. Matthews (2014). Generative Grammar and Linguistic Competence (RLE Linguistics B: Grammar). Routledge. Volume 19 of Routledge Library Editions: Linguistics. ISBN: 9781317933625
- Pike, Kenneth L. (1949). ‘A’ Problem in Morphology-Syntax Division. Acta Linguistica 5, 125-138.
- Pike, Kenneth Lee (1967). Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior. Issue 24 of Janua linguarum: Series maior. 2nd edition. Mouton. University of Michigan.
Task-Based Language Learning: Possible Inadequacies in its application
Possible Inadequacies in the application of the Task-Based Language Learning
by O. G. P.
Subject: Teaching English as a Foreign Language: Methodology I
In this essay, I will talk about some considerations (often overlooked) during the application of the Task-based language learning (TBLL) in English teaching. On the things I like about the TBLL, is the principle that teacher will attend the mechanics of the language after a meaningful language interaction has taken place. (TBLSIG, 2014). This way, there will be some linguistic topic that will come to attention and the post-task activities will be very useful because Ss will be predetermined to pay attention to what they have just communicatively experienced. Ss then may learn from their errors and may correct themselves or remember the aspects of language with more significance. I understand that there are many more advantages in this approach, but this time I want focus more on the critiques against TBLL.
TBLL is supposed to promote student-centered learning, so that the teacher only be a facilitator, and the students work to solve a problem or perform a task. I cannot resist, however, recalling in my experience, and highlighting some of the possible problems which my acquaintances and I have faced while studying under this approach. In my humble opinion, one of these is that, very often, the student’s feelings are not really taken into account. Some tasks may increase the level of Ss’ frustration if these are very difficult. I have seen how SS with better proficiency, are the only ones who sometimes have more facility to perform the tasks, but not everybody is able to learn the same way. Sometimes the Ss with lower levels of proficiency, are the very ones who are left behind when the tasks demand more than what they can do. So tasks should also use the principle “i + 1”, not to ask Ss to solve things they are not yet ready to solve.
Another thing is that when tasks are just too many, they may overburden the SS. At times, Ss end up seeing the teacher as the one who only assigns tasks and leaves all the work to the students, and does not do almost anything. So the amount of work should also be reasonable. Many times I have known teachers who only assign a huge amount of tasks, projects, or presentations. Then they evaluate subjectively the task performance, but Ss end up seeing them as teachers who just assigned tasks and raised judgments of tasks that they never modeled or taught before. In addition, many times, when presentations or explanations about tasks are given by a group of Ss, I’ve seen that if they are too long, many of the other Ss are passive or uninterested because they are not having real interaction and production at that moment.
Finally, the so-called “fossilization” may be a problem if we totally deviate the attention from language learning itself and instead focus only on the delivery of tasks. Some Ss’ may prepare “a short oral or written report to tell the class what happened during their task; then practice what they are going to say in their groups," but for experience, I have seen that many SS with just memorize what they are going to say in their short-term memory, or read it without caring about the language use. After that, some of them forget the use of that language because their focus was not on it, but only in the task.
In conclusion, I recognize that the TBLL might be very useful for students who want to communicate and have the chance to be assigned tasks they are prepared to achieve, but one should also see that the assignment of tasks by itself does not secure the language learning of the SS. As TBLL advocators propose, I believe that we “learn by doing” tasks when we want to learn to do them, but there are other factors that should be taken into account not to apply the approach in a wrong way.
TBLL is supposed to promote student-centered learning, so that the teacher only be a facilitator, and the students work to solve a problem or perform a task. I cannot resist, however, recalling in my experience, and highlighting some of the possible problems which my acquaintances and I have faced while studying under this approach. In my humble opinion, one of these is that, very often, the student’s feelings are not really taken into account. Some tasks may increase the level of Ss’ frustration if these are very difficult. I have seen how SS with better proficiency, are the only ones who sometimes have more facility to perform the tasks, but not everybody is able to learn the same way. Sometimes the Ss with lower levels of proficiency, are the very ones who are left behind when the tasks demand more than what they can do. So tasks should also use the principle “i + 1”, not to ask Ss to solve things they are not yet ready to solve.
Another thing is that when tasks are just too many, they may overburden the SS. At times, Ss end up seeing the teacher as the one who only assigns tasks and leaves all the work to the students, and does not do almost anything. So the amount of work should also be reasonable. Many times I have known teachers who only assign a huge amount of tasks, projects, or presentations. Then they evaluate subjectively the task performance, but Ss end up seeing them as teachers who just assigned tasks and raised judgments of tasks that they never modeled or taught before. In addition, many times, when presentations or explanations about tasks are given by a group of Ss, I’ve seen that if they are too long, many of the other Ss are passive or uninterested because they are not having real interaction and production at that moment.
Finally, the so-called “fossilization” may be a problem if we totally deviate the attention from language learning itself and instead focus only on the delivery of tasks. Some Ss’ may prepare “a short oral or written report to tell the class what happened during their task; then practice what they are going to say in their groups," but for experience, I have seen that many SS with just memorize what they are going to say in their short-term memory, or read it without caring about the language use. After that, some of them forget the use of that language because their focus was not on it, but only in the task.
In conclusion, I recognize that the TBLL might be very useful for students who want to communicate and have the chance to be assigned tasks they are prepared to achieve, but one should also see that the assignment of tasks by itself does not secure the language learning of the SS. As TBLL advocators propose, I believe that we “learn by doing” tasks when we want to learn to do them, but there are other factors that should be taken into account not to apply the approach in a wrong way.
Bibliography
- Council of Europe and European Commission, July 2000. Methodology in language learning T-Kit. Council of Europe publishing. http://youth-partnership-eu.coe.int/youth-partnership/documents/Publications/T_kits/2/tkit2.pdf
- Task-based Learning Special Interest Group (2014). “What is TBL?” http://www.tblsig.org/what-is-tbl
- British Council BBC. 26 April, 2004. A Task-Based Approach. Teaching English. http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/a-task-based-approach
The Natural Approach
The Natural Approach
by Omar G. P.
Subject: Teaching English as a Foreign Language: Methodology I
In this essay I will discuss Stephen Krashen and Tracy Terrell’s Natural Approach. Even though this was thought to be for second language acquisition rather than for foreign language learning, it still holds useful principles that can be used for any English Language Teacher in their lessons.
In my opinion, the most important or representative principle from the Natural Approach is the “input + 1”, which has been widely considered as a necessary contemplation in language teaching. The emphasis on comprehensible input is something that is necessary if students are to progress and improve their language skills. It is curious enough, but sometimes teachers forget that in their lesson planning. I had a friend, for instance, who had been studying English for a considerable time, but she felt frustrated because she told she felt as if she was not progressing anything in their English. When I told her about Krashen’s principle (in simple words of course) she just could realize that she need a little bit more of new linguistic forms if she wanted to reach an advanced level of proficiency. I think that there is therefore something that any learner can notice and consider in order to maximize autonomous learning and monitor themselves by means of self-correction.
Maybe one of the problems that the Natural Approach also can solve is the deficiency in the students’ communicative skills, as it creates a class environment when students are immersed in the language completely, and are not discouraged or made anxious. The affective filter, and thus, motivation is another thing that every language teacher should take into account, because each student is to be seen as a whole person who should not be forced to do what they are not ready to do.
I agree with the idea that speech comes through natural stages (yes/no replies, one word answers, lists of words, phrases, questions), though I don’t think that it is always the case, especially when grown up learners have already the cognitive ability to reproduce fixed sentences or longer phrases that can be used communicatively since the beginning.
Finally, I am more on the side of Terrell than of Krashen in what respects to grammar. I agree with Terrell that grammar can be helpful to improve the skill of the learners (Dhority, 1991:32), whereas I consider that Krashen’s claim that grammar has no effect upon language acquisition, is totally false.
In conclusion, the Natural Approach holds some principles that are useful for language acquisition and learning, and its use can be effective for any type of learners who want to improve their communicative skills.
In my opinion, the most important or representative principle from the Natural Approach is the “input + 1”, which has been widely considered as a necessary contemplation in language teaching. The emphasis on comprehensible input is something that is necessary if students are to progress and improve their language skills. It is curious enough, but sometimes teachers forget that in their lesson planning. I had a friend, for instance, who had been studying English for a considerable time, but she felt frustrated because she told she felt as if she was not progressing anything in their English. When I told her about Krashen’s principle (in simple words of course) she just could realize that she need a little bit more of new linguistic forms if she wanted to reach an advanced level of proficiency. I think that there is therefore something that any learner can notice and consider in order to maximize autonomous learning and monitor themselves by means of self-correction.
Maybe one of the problems that the Natural Approach also can solve is the deficiency in the students’ communicative skills, as it creates a class environment when students are immersed in the language completely, and are not discouraged or made anxious. The affective filter, and thus, motivation is another thing that every language teacher should take into account, because each student is to be seen as a whole person who should not be forced to do what they are not ready to do.
I agree with the idea that speech comes through natural stages (yes/no replies, one word answers, lists of words, phrases, questions), though I don’t think that it is always the case, especially when grown up learners have already the cognitive ability to reproduce fixed sentences or longer phrases that can be used communicatively since the beginning.
Finally, I am more on the side of Terrell than of Krashen in what respects to grammar. I agree with Terrell that grammar can be helpful to improve the skill of the learners (Dhority, 1991:32), whereas I consider that Krashen’s claim that grammar has no effect upon language acquisition, is totally false.
In conclusion, the Natural Approach holds some principles that are useful for language acquisition and learning, and its use can be effective for any type of learners who want to improve their communicative skills.
References:
Dhority, Lynn (1991). The ACT Approach: The Use of Suggestion for Integrative Learning. Philadelphia, PA: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.
Content-Based Approach: Reasons for choosing it
Choosing the Content-Based Approach
by Omar G. P.
Subject: Teaching English as a Foreign Language: Methodology I
In this essay, I will talk about the reasons why I prefer the Content-Based Approach or Content-Based Instruction (CBI) over other approaches in language teaching.
As I understand the CBA, the basic proposal is that acquiring content knowledge is not what comes ‘after’ learning the language, but instead, a way to actually learn the language. Similar to the Communicative Language Learning, this approach also deals with the usefulness of language, but in this case, it’s not merely focused on metalinguistic functions, nor in purely personal matters. Language is seen as a medium of communication to express information and knowledge, either from social, experiential, vocational, or recreational nature. Maybe what best distinguishes this approach from all the others is that the objective has to do directly with the content, not with the language, which is thus meant to be acquired inductively.
For me, there is no doubt that the Content-Based Approach is one of the best in language learning. I think that, somehow, since we are children we all learn our mother language mainly through a type of ‘content approach’, and we get to learn the language successfully that way. In my personal experience, I am sure that this type of learning was the one which more allowed me to improve my English, and even today, I consider that it’s still the way in which I have better learned English.
I think there are many advantages in this approach: it can be applied with equal emphasis on the four skills of language, the professor can make use of authentic materials, and, as I see it, the content-based approach can be applied successfully at any level, from kindergarten, to high school teenagers, and as well to the most advanced levels. Contents can be chosen taking into account cognitive factors and the stages in life where students are.
I must admit, however, that there may be a considerable downside. In brief terms, there is this possibility that the contents proposed by the teacher might be totally dislikeable or uninteresting to some students. I have had L2 lessons where the contents or topics presented were about things I really dislike, which made that my learning experience became harder in those moments. In such cases, the students might struggle inside, not only against possible linguistic difficulties, but also against emotional bounds or personal distastes related to certain contents.
In conclusion, I think that the CBI is a very good option as a teaching method, but any professor should take into account two more things when using the CBI. One of them is that the contents should have some kind of relation or meaningfulness to the students. The second, and the one I consider most important, is that, when possible, SSs should be allowed to decide democratically which contents they would like to address. The teacher may suggest and propose, but SSs free will should have a degree of involvement regarding the selection of contents.
As I understand the CBA, the basic proposal is that acquiring content knowledge is not what comes ‘after’ learning the language, but instead, a way to actually learn the language. Similar to the Communicative Language Learning, this approach also deals with the usefulness of language, but in this case, it’s not merely focused on metalinguistic functions, nor in purely personal matters. Language is seen as a medium of communication to express information and knowledge, either from social, experiential, vocational, or recreational nature. Maybe what best distinguishes this approach from all the others is that the objective has to do directly with the content, not with the language, which is thus meant to be acquired inductively.
For me, there is no doubt that the Content-Based Approach is one of the best in language learning. I think that, somehow, since we are children we all learn our mother language mainly through a type of ‘content approach’, and we get to learn the language successfully that way. In my personal experience, I am sure that this type of learning was the one which more allowed me to improve my English, and even today, I consider that it’s still the way in which I have better learned English.
I think there are many advantages in this approach: it can be applied with equal emphasis on the four skills of language, the professor can make use of authentic materials, and, as I see it, the content-based approach can be applied successfully at any level, from kindergarten, to high school teenagers, and as well to the most advanced levels. Contents can be chosen taking into account cognitive factors and the stages in life where students are.
I must admit, however, that there may be a considerable downside. In brief terms, there is this possibility that the contents proposed by the teacher might be totally dislikeable or uninteresting to some students. I have had L2 lessons where the contents or topics presented were about things I really dislike, which made that my learning experience became harder in those moments. In such cases, the students might struggle inside, not only against possible linguistic difficulties, but also against emotional bounds or personal distastes related to certain contents.
In conclusion, I think that the CBI is a very good option as a teaching method, but any professor should take into account two more things when using the CBI. One of them is that the contents should have some kind of relation or meaningfulness to the students. The second, and the one I consider most important, is that, when possible, SSs should be allowed to decide democratically which contents they would like to address. The teacher may suggest and propose, but SSs free will should have a degree of involvement regarding the selection of contents.
References:
- British Council BBC. Content-based instruction. August 13 2003. Teaching English https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/content-based-instruction
- Mulamba Patrick Omoto. Content-Based Instruction. May 2013. Kenya. Maasai Mara University. International Journal of Business and SocialScience. Vol. 4 No. 5. http://ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_5_May_2013/27.pdf
Communicative Language Learning Approach: Its meaningfulness
The meaningfulness of the Communicative Language Learning Approach
by O. G. P.
Subject: Teaching English as a Foreign Language: Methodology I
In this essay, I will discuss what I perceive as the core of the Communicative Language Learning and why it represents such an important meaningfulness in language pedagogy.
The objective of this approach is that SS develop functional abilities in the target language, but one of the key views in this approach is that “language is acquired through communication” (Howatt, 1984; en Knapp, 2009: 504), a statement that I think that anybody could accept by reflecting on their experience. However, it is sad to see that, because of negligent professors, sometimes students fail to fully understand the communicative use of a second language in real life.
Today, there are indeed many syllabi, textbooks and language courses in which the importance of communicative purposes is highly neglected and that shouldn’t be the case. Learning is more difficult when one sees a topic as useless or irrelevant, but it is easier when someone helps us to understand and make us apply the language, being aware of its actual usefulness. Such idea might be determining in any language lesson because then motivation can be seen as the outcome of understanding the usefulness of language functions.
Another important thing in the CLL, is that communication takes place paying attention to the social context, and using the language in situations where one communicates in meaningful ways, beyond just the structural analysis of language. Following that line of thought, pragmatic and cultural aspects of language are rightly considered more than important than usual.
Function rather than form is a third feature. The perfect “structuralization” is not sought. What is important instead is the perfect transmission of the meaning learners want to communicate. So, in this view, there is a vital principle for language education. Quite often, many language teachers forget that language is extremely flexible and that there is not just one ultimate answer or one only structure to say the same thing in the target language. Accordingly, the role of the teacher as a promoter of communication and facilitator should be assumed.
In my opinion, the principles of the Communicative Language Learning approach should always be taken into account by professors. For me, they represent learning meaningfulness to both the professor and the student, and because of that, I would certainly use this method in my lessons.
The objective of this approach is that SS develop functional abilities in the target language, but one of the key views in this approach is that “language is acquired through communication” (Howatt, 1984; en Knapp, 2009: 504), a statement that I think that anybody could accept by reflecting on their experience. However, it is sad to see that, because of negligent professors, sometimes students fail to fully understand the communicative use of a second language in real life.
Today, there are indeed many syllabi, textbooks and language courses in which the importance of communicative purposes is highly neglected and that shouldn’t be the case. Learning is more difficult when one sees a topic as useless or irrelevant, but it is easier when someone helps us to understand and make us apply the language, being aware of its actual usefulness. Such idea might be determining in any language lesson because then motivation can be seen as the outcome of understanding the usefulness of language functions.
Another important thing in the CLL, is that communication takes place paying attention to the social context, and using the language in situations where one communicates in meaningful ways, beyond just the structural analysis of language. Following that line of thought, pragmatic and cultural aspects of language are rightly considered more than important than usual.
Function rather than form is a third feature. The perfect “structuralization” is not sought. What is important instead is the perfect transmission of the meaning learners want to communicate. So, in this view, there is a vital principle for language education. Quite often, many language teachers forget that language is extremely flexible and that there is not just one ultimate answer or one only structure to say the same thing in the target language. Accordingly, the role of the teacher as a promoter of communication and facilitator should be assumed.
In my opinion, the principles of the Communicative Language Learning approach should always be taken into account by professors. For me, they represent learning meaningfulness to both the professor and the student, and because of that, I would certainly use this method in my lessons.
Reference:
- Knapp, Karlfried; Seidlhofer, Barbara; Widdowson, H. G. (2009). Handbook of Foreign Language Communication and Learning. Volume 6 of Handbooks of applied linguistics. Walter de Gruyter
Desuggestopedia’s unconscious techniques
Being conscious of Suggestopedia’s unconscious techniques
by Omar García Pérez
Subject: Teaching English as a Foreign Language: Methodology I
In this essay, I will talk about Georgi Lozanov’s curious method of “Desuggestopedia” or “Suggestopedia”. His idea that learning can be improved through the influence of non-rational and unconscious factors is actually interesting, but teachers should rationalize and be conscious of some inadequacies that might emerge in its application. What I really liked about this method is the emphasis on “emotional meaning”, to which students are exposed, that language is thought to be mostly acquired (unconsciously) by means of an enjoyable experience, and that both cultural and pragmatic aspects of language are taken into account.
I loved the principle that the classroom environment is of major importance in the learning experience. A bright cheerful classroom with comfortable chairs and colorful things or relevant notes around, is something far better than an empty cold room in which chairs are so painful that students only want to leave. A reform on this aspect should be done in education, though I don’t think that posting cardboards on the walls or having a fashioned room are the ultimate solutions to the problems in language learning education.
There are several principles with which I disagree. One of them, is Lozanov’s claim that “we may be using only five to ten percent of our mental capacity” (Larson-Freeman, 2000:73) has been proved to be a pseudoscientific statement (Boyd, 2008) now referred to as the “ten percent brain myth”. But what I disliked most about Desuggestopedia is that the real identities of the students are not respected, and they are expected to invent a new identity, take a different name, make up an imaginary biography, assume an hypothetical profession or conceive almost always unreal situations. Maybe these might be more appropriate for playful children, but I think that in general, it may unconsciously give us the idea that one’s own identity in the L1 is not acceptable when learning the target language. I think that our true identity (from which there is a factual need to communicate) should be respected and incorporated, rather than ignored. I know that assuming a new identity is meant to break emotional bounds from the past or develop creativity; but retaining one’s own identity within the classroom is also helpful as a way to learn to express ourselves better and to be honest about our real persona and who we really are and what we really want to communicate. For the same reason, I dislike that role plays and fake acting pervade the lessons under this method.
I also think that the election of several things (pictures, paintings, music, role plays, etc.), might be rather arbitrary because is left almost completely to the teacher’s tastes. Many times I’ve disliked the music chosen or the roles assigned to me by my professors, and by experience, I know that those things can encourage the learning experience only if the person really likes it; but if not, they may cause exactly the opposite effect expected. So on this topic, I put into question whether the use of classical music is always helpful, because I know some people who dislike it. And after all, who decides which are fine arts and which are not? Who decides whether it is Mozart or Beethoven what should be played on an English lesson in order to “activate the brain function”, or somebody else? And why should the teacher assume that his or her election is always going to be ‘enjoyable’ to all the SSs? For instance, I love Bach and Händel, whose music is to me very peaceful; but in contrast, I can’t stand Beethoven’s Symphony No. 9 which prelude Ode To Joy I detest with all my heart, and which “1st movement” causes me anxiety. I also remember an English course where a professor who firmly believed in “the Mozart effect” used to bring a recorder and play music during the exams. I sometimes liked the melody, and got relaxed; but sometimes I really disliked the melodies, and had to struggle hard not to get distracted by the sound of the music itself.
In conclusion, Lozanov’s Suggestopedia has interesting proposals to form a good atmosphere in the classroom, but it will only work as long as the students really find the features likable. Enjoyable classrooms, playful techniques and comfortable atmosphere, are very good, but teachers should not be unconscious of the possible problems, and the purpose of language teaching should not be confused with creating an art gallery, a musical session, or an acting lesson.
I loved the principle that the classroom environment is of major importance in the learning experience. A bright cheerful classroom with comfortable chairs and colorful things or relevant notes around, is something far better than an empty cold room in which chairs are so painful that students only want to leave. A reform on this aspect should be done in education, though I don’t think that posting cardboards on the walls or having a fashioned room are the ultimate solutions to the problems in language learning education.
There are several principles with which I disagree. One of them, is Lozanov’s claim that “we may be using only five to ten percent of our mental capacity” (Larson-Freeman, 2000:73) has been proved to be a pseudoscientific statement (Boyd, 2008) now referred to as the “ten percent brain myth”. But what I disliked most about Desuggestopedia is that the real identities of the students are not respected, and they are expected to invent a new identity, take a different name, make up an imaginary biography, assume an hypothetical profession or conceive almost always unreal situations. Maybe these might be more appropriate for playful children, but I think that in general, it may unconsciously give us the idea that one’s own identity in the L1 is not acceptable when learning the target language. I think that our true identity (from which there is a factual need to communicate) should be respected and incorporated, rather than ignored. I know that assuming a new identity is meant to break emotional bounds from the past or develop creativity; but retaining one’s own identity within the classroom is also helpful as a way to learn to express ourselves better and to be honest about our real persona and who we really are and what we really want to communicate. For the same reason, I dislike that role plays and fake acting pervade the lessons under this method.
I also think that the election of several things (pictures, paintings, music, role plays, etc.), might be rather arbitrary because is left almost completely to the teacher’s tastes. Many times I’ve disliked the music chosen or the roles assigned to me by my professors, and by experience, I know that those things can encourage the learning experience only if the person really likes it; but if not, they may cause exactly the opposite effect expected. So on this topic, I put into question whether the use of classical music is always helpful, because I know some people who dislike it. And after all, who decides which are fine arts and which are not? Who decides whether it is Mozart or Beethoven what should be played on an English lesson in order to “activate the brain function”, or somebody else? And why should the teacher assume that his or her election is always going to be ‘enjoyable’ to all the SSs? For instance, I love Bach and Händel, whose music is to me very peaceful; but in contrast, I can’t stand Beethoven’s Symphony No. 9 which prelude Ode To Joy I detest with all my heart, and which “1st movement” causes me anxiety. I also remember an English course where a professor who firmly believed in “the Mozart effect” used to bring a recorder and play music during the exams. I sometimes liked the melody, and got relaxed; but sometimes I really disliked the melodies, and had to struggle hard not to get distracted by the sound of the music itself.
In conclusion, Lozanov’s Suggestopedia has interesting proposals to form a good atmosphere in the classroom, but it will only work as long as the students really find the features likable. Enjoyable classrooms, playful techniques and comfortable atmosphere, are very good, but teachers should not be unconscious of the possible problems, and the purpose of language teaching should not be confused with creating an art gallery, a musical session, or an acting lesson.
References:
- Boyd, Robynne (2008). "Do People Only Use 10 Percent Of Their Brains?". Scientific American. Feb 7, 2008. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/people-only-use-10-percent-of-brain/
- Larsen-Freeman, Diane; (2000). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Teaching Techniques in English as a Second Language (2nd ed.). Oxford. Oxford University Press.
- Larsen-Freeman, Diane; (2013). “Language Teaching Methods: Suggestopedia”. American English - Official Youtube Channel. Jan 25. Online Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rkrvRlty5M
- Colin Baker, Sylvia Prys Jones, "Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education". Multilingual Matters. p. 681. ISBN: 1853593621
Total Physical Response: A maximum expression of behaviorism?
The Total Physical Response Method: A maximum expression of behaviorism?
by O. G. P.
Subject: Teaching English as a Foreign Language: Methodology I
In this essay, I will talk about what I regard the worst ideas of the Total Physical Response which will be referred as the TPR. As it is known, the TPR starts from the assumption that L2 can be learned the same way in which one learns the L1, like the Direct Method and the Audio-lingual Method. I will not delve much into a discussion about that since I have discussed it already in previous essays, but it is necessary to understand that language learning in a child and a teen, and an adult, is certainly different.
One of the things I want to stress in this essay is that little children enjoy a period in which their ability to acquire vocabulary is incomparable to any other stage in life, at a pace that a grown student could not equate (unless it is a genius). Kids’ Language Acquisition Device (LAD), Chomsky would say, is still predisposed and open to learn language, even L2, while adults’ LAD is not. This is why, I think that the TPR is appropriate for little children who begin to learn the L2 at kindergarten of elementary school.
I must admit that, reading about this method, I could not help visualizing students being treated like Skinner’s dogs and pigeons. I wondered, does the student really learn language production, or does he/she learn to imitate the professor? As I see it, the core of this method is precisely imitation and no more. Operant conditioning. Stimulus–response. However, when I saw a video of the method being applied with little children, I changed my mind.
It could be argued that the drawback of this method is the teacher’s role. The professor acts as the only one who decides what students will do. He is in total control of the class, and he not only controls everything, but orders everything that students ought to do. Students can’t be able to communicate what they would want to communicate. It is the teacher the one who tells them what to do, how to do it, and how to react or respond to it. Nonetheless, I noticed that if the TPR method is presented to children students as a kind of “game”, they not only seem to be willing to learn the language, but many actually seem happy and even likely to have fun, given that they are playful children.
I would accept James Asher’s claim that his method is “the fastest, less stressful way to achieve understanding of any target language” (Larsen 2000:108) if we are specifically speaking about children, but I have to question it if we are speaking about grown up students. Children are more likely to receive the teachers’ instructions and follow them as they are expected to do, because they are meek, and playful, but one could hardly expect that an independent adult student would act the same way towards the method. It may also be asked, how abstract notions, mental concepts and non-physical things are supposed to be learned? Probably, the TPR method is not the proper one to answer the question, and cannot be used in intermediate levels, let alone advanced ones.
In conclusion, the TPR method seems to be effective as long as it is used with children in basic levels. For grown up students, including teenagers, the question is whether they would be able to face a real use of language or not. I believe they would not, and thus, it would be inadequate to apply it in any other language teaching context. The contrast is, of course, that for its use in teaching the target language to children, it seems very promising.
Reference:
One of the things I want to stress in this essay is that little children enjoy a period in which their ability to acquire vocabulary is incomparable to any other stage in life, at a pace that a grown student could not equate (unless it is a genius). Kids’ Language Acquisition Device (LAD), Chomsky would say, is still predisposed and open to learn language, even L2, while adults’ LAD is not. This is why, I think that the TPR is appropriate for little children who begin to learn the L2 at kindergarten of elementary school.
I must admit that, reading about this method, I could not help visualizing students being treated like Skinner’s dogs and pigeons. I wondered, does the student really learn language production, or does he/she learn to imitate the professor? As I see it, the core of this method is precisely imitation and no more. Operant conditioning. Stimulus–response. However, when I saw a video of the method being applied with little children, I changed my mind.
It could be argued that the drawback of this method is the teacher’s role. The professor acts as the only one who decides what students will do. He is in total control of the class, and he not only controls everything, but orders everything that students ought to do. Students can’t be able to communicate what they would want to communicate. It is the teacher the one who tells them what to do, how to do it, and how to react or respond to it. Nonetheless, I noticed that if the TPR method is presented to children students as a kind of “game”, they not only seem to be willing to learn the language, but many actually seem happy and even likely to have fun, given that they are playful children.
I would accept James Asher’s claim that his method is “the fastest, less stressful way to achieve understanding of any target language” (Larsen 2000:108) if we are specifically speaking about children, but I have to question it if we are speaking about grown up students. Children are more likely to receive the teachers’ instructions and follow them as they are expected to do, because they are meek, and playful, but one could hardly expect that an independent adult student would act the same way towards the method. It may also be asked, how abstract notions, mental concepts and non-physical things are supposed to be learned? Probably, the TPR method is not the proper one to answer the question, and cannot be used in intermediate levels, let alone advanced ones.
In conclusion, the TPR method seems to be effective as long as it is used with children in basic levels. For grown up students, including teenagers, the question is whether they would be able to face a real use of language or not. I believe they would not, and thus, it would be inadequate to apply it in any other language teaching context. The contrast is, of course, that for its use in teaching the target language to children, it seems very promising.
Reference:
- Larsen-Freeman, Diane (2000). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Teaching Techniques in English as a Second Language (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-435574-2
Notional-Functional Approach: Shaping the perception of Language Teaching
The Notional-Functional Approach: Shaping the perception of Language Teaching
by Omar G. P.
Subject: Teaching English as a Foreign Language: Methodology I
In this essay, I will talk about what I consider the strongest features of the Notional-functional Approach, which will be referred in this essay as NFA. In my view, this approach, first proposed by British linguist D.A. Wilkins, has very interesting and indispensable principles for language teaching, and wide more advantages than all the other methods we have checked before.
First, I must say that what I love most about the NFA is that it redefines the traditional structuralist and behavourist conceptions of language. It poses language, not just as a mere system of structures or symbols, but as a living expression of meaningful and communicative acts. Secondly, the great emphasis on the communicative value of language is wonderful because it accomplishes the extremely important task of making students know the use of language and the way in which it really works in every day conversations. Learning takes place as a very practical analysis of the communicative meanings that need to be understood and used effectively in the target language. The learners’ need of expressing themselves is taken into account and the learner is able to notice clearly the diverse formulations of language. Third, the idea of functional grammar, which is more related to the syllabus design (Sánchez, 2011:2), is a more complete manner to address grammar in a realistic way provided that it deals with the purpose and practical understanding of grammatical structures in certain situations.
Another point in its favor, for me, is the idea of code-switching. With this, it deviates radically from behaviorist perceptions which insisted that L1 was a bad “interference” or “problem” for the L2 learner and should be completely avoided, regardless of the level of the students. As I see it, code-switching as proposed in the NFA should not be confused with the idea of giving most of the class in L1, let alone with the idea of returning the Grammar Translation Method, but as a way to recognize the mental, semantic, and emotional value that the L2-learner holds for his L1.
With respect to the criticism of NFA, one the one hand, it might be argued that, at some point, this approach may neglect writing skills, but no one forbids us to adjust it and apply an eclectic approach that include the four basic skills of language under the same approach of notions and functions. On the other hand, it is true what some people have pointed out about the apparent random order in which notions are functions are taught. Nonetheless, that is not really a big deal because, to my mind, it would be a matter of doing more research and methodic studies so as to determine the frequency with which certain notions or functions happen in spoken or written language, and know accurately which are the most and less common. A study as such would provide NFA advocators with clearer understanding of which are the notions or functions that are more appropriate for students in basic, intermediate or advanced levels of language; according to an order of frequency. If that is taken into account, courses, syllabuses and textbooks for language teaching would be designed and addresses far better.
In conclusion, the Notional Functional method has many good sides which can enrich the process of language learning. If one looks at the way in which language teaching courses have been planned in the last decades, it must be admitted that, in fact, this approach has definitely shaped the practice of language teaching. Therefore, its importance cannot be overlooked, and any serious teacher, course designer or language scholar should eagerly consider its implications and proposals.
References:
First, I must say that what I love most about the NFA is that it redefines the traditional structuralist and behavourist conceptions of language. It poses language, not just as a mere system of structures or symbols, but as a living expression of meaningful and communicative acts. Secondly, the great emphasis on the communicative value of language is wonderful because it accomplishes the extremely important task of making students know the use of language and the way in which it really works in every day conversations. Learning takes place as a very practical analysis of the communicative meanings that need to be understood and used effectively in the target language. The learners’ need of expressing themselves is taken into account and the learner is able to notice clearly the diverse formulations of language. Third, the idea of functional grammar, which is more related to the syllabus design (Sánchez, 2011:2), is a more complete manner to address grammar in a realistic way provided that it deals with the purpose and practical understanding of grammatical structures in certain situations.
Another point in its favor, for me, is the idea of code-switching. With this, it deviates radically from behaviorist perceptions which insisted that L1 was a bad “interference” or “problem” for the L2 learner and should be completely avoided, regardless of the level of the students. As I see it, code-switching as proposed in the NFA should not be confused with the idea of giving most of the class in L1, let alone with the idea of returning the Grammar Translation Method, but as a way to recognize the mental, semantic, and emotional value that the L2-learner holds for his L1.
With respect to the criticism of NFA, one the one hand, it might be argued that, at some point, this approach may neglect writing skills, but no one forbids us to adjust it and apply an eclectic approach that include the four basic skills of language under the same approach of notions and functions. On the other hand, it is true what some people have pointed out about the apparent random order in which notions are functions are taught. Nonetheless, that is not really a big deal because, to my mind, it would be a matter of doing more research and methodic studies so as to determine the frequency with which certain notions or functions happen in spoken or written language, and know accurately which are the most and less common. A study as such would provide NFA advocators with clearer understanding of which are the notions or functions that are more appropriate for students in basic, intermediate or advanced levels of language; according to an order of frequency. If that is taken into account, courses, syllabuses and textbooks for language teaching would be designed and addresses far better.
In conclusion, the Notional Functional method has many good sides which can enrich the process of language learning. If one looks at the way in which language teaching courses have been planned in the last decades, it must be admitted that, in fact, this approach has definitely shaped the practice of language teaching. Therefore, its importance cannot be overlooked, and any serious teacher, course designer or language scholar should eagerly consider its implications and proposals.
References:
- Sánchez Hernández, Purificación (2011). The Potential of Literary Texts in the Language Classroom: The Study of Linguistic Functions: Universidad de Murcia. Odisea, nº 12, ISSN 1578-3820, 2011, 233-243
- Retrieved on march 2013 http://www.ual.es/odisea/Odisea12_Sanchez.pdf
- Mora Modules (2012). Second and Foreign Language Teaching Methods. Enhancing Academic Achievement of Bilingual Learners.
- Retrieved on march 2013. http://moramodules.com/ALMMethods.htm#Functional
Audio-Lingual Method: Errors & Horrors
Errors and Horrors of the Audio-Lingual Method
by Omar García Pérez
Subject: Teaching English as a Foreign Language: Methodology I (with professor Lic. Elizabeth Sosa Piña)
In thus characterizing the title of this essay, I will talk about what I consider the worst mistakes of the Audio-Lingual Method (ALM). I specifically will discuss how both its theoretical and practical foundations must be reasonably put into question if one analyzes them, not superficially, but in a deep way.
First of all, I must dispute the idea that the ALM has “strong” theoretical base, as Larson and other authors claim. It is no secret that behaviorist theory (the one in which the ALM is mostly based) has been severely criticized for years, due to its neglect of basic aspects of human language learning. The same goes applies to structural linguistics which, in the words of Chomsky, comes to be an “inadequate conception of language" (1972:20). Though still widely held in countless classrooms today (Yun Du, 2011:32), it is time for contemporary teachers to understand that language learning is more than “just” a system of words and that learning is more than just repetition, imitation and memorization undergone by means of conditioning, reinforcement, and habit-formation.
A second problem must be found in the weakness of the “natural way”-argument, which retains the idea that the best way for someone to learn a language is "hearing before speaking, speaking before reading, and reading before writing” (Goldstein 2014:40). This is certainly true for the way in which a baby learns his L1. Nonetheless, it must be noticed that there are serious differences between the way that we learn an L1 and a L2. One of these is very obvious: a grown-up person, unlike a baby, already has the ability to speak, read or write; and thus, it may be slightly foolish for a teacher to prevent the learner to use an ability he already has, if this can help him to accelerate the learning process.
Once the theoretical basis of ALM is weakened, one just has to consider the practical implications with the dialogue-based lessons. One the one hand, it would be much more practical just to show a video of a well-planed prepared conversation, than to have the teacher to serve as an actor and make the SS’s to learn his dialogues. On the other hand, let us admit that the idea of memorization without understanding is a naïve principle for someone whose main purpose is to learn to express his or her own ideas, rather than the ideas of others or pre-fabricated paragraph. Otherwise, the only thing that SS’s would be exercising would be their memory, rather not real linguistic production.
In addition, the repetition of these dialogues throughout a prolonged period of time, not only makes me feel as if the teacher would be mistaking students with parrots, but also tells me that in such cases, the learning process would be taking much more time than what it should. Not to mention the lack of a wider exposure to language. Another mistake, in my opinion, is the principle of “no grammar rules” given. This is even unrealistic if one should try to follow the so-called natural way of learning, because even children are meant to be taught grammar at elementary school in order to improve the use of language. It may be true that a person could eventually figure out all these grammar rules and learn how to use them in a spoken way, but this would possibly require many years of practice. Just think about how much time it would take for someone to figure out all the grammatical tenses or the verb forms.
The ALM, I believe, may be interested for people whose only need is to communicate in the spoken form, in very basic terms, but, to be honest, I would never ever use it for anything else because of its imperative behaviorist tactics, who are tedious and repetitive, and the time it would take for learners to pass from one topic to another.
References:
- Chomsky, Noam. (1972) Language and Mind. Enlarged Ed. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
- Larsen-Freeman, Diane (2000). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Teaching Techniques in English as a Second Language (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-435574-2.
- Goldstein, Irwin (2014). Language and ESOL Methodology- a unique perspective. Trafford Publishing
- Yun Du, Xiang (2011) Gender and Diversity in a Problem and Project Based Learning Environment, River Publishers
Situational Approach: 3 useful things
Three useful sides of the Situational Approach in Language Teaching
by O. G. P.
Subject: Teaching English as a Foreign Language: Methodology I
In this essay I will talk about what I consider the three most useful sides of the Situational Approach (S.A.). Though I consider a downside that it retains a number of mistakes in the tradition of the imperative psychological school at that time (i.e. behaviorism and its concepts), I think that this method offered innovational proposals with respect to Foreign Language Teaching.
The first step forward, in my view, was the contextualizing of linguistic samples; something that the former major methods had apparently disregarded at all. The idea that “any language item, whether it be a structure or a word, should not be presented in isolation” (Nagaraj 1996:14), is something that every language teacher should remember during the teaching-learning process, provided that we can learn new parts of language when there’s a well-established context for any student of the L2. An advantage of this is that it also allows the students to practice inductive thinking (which is necessary when learning a language), and may possibly give them the facility to prevent an excessive use of dictionary. This is nowadays related to the context clues activities.
Another key point is the importance of teaching the most common words of every-day language. This, unarguably, is a vital factor in the language learning process. So much, that, today, lexical frequency is understood to be a paramount factor for the understanding and study of psycholinguistic phenomenon, since it has an intrinsic relationship with cognitive functions of language (Peña-Casanova, 2007:61).
The third most useful side of the situational approach is the acute mention of meaningful learning. The idea of “Structures and vocabulary selected… initially presented orally and in meaningful situations and then practiced orally in similar situations” (Nagaraj 1996:17) is really worth-considering. The very concept of “meaningful learning” today is usually associated with the constructivist theory of learning, and the fact that the S.A. held this idea even before the spread of the former, really demonstrates that this method was meant to be an upfront move towards a broader visualization of language learning.
As I see it, the S.A. does represents a progress in ELT. Though there are things that it overlooks, and though I would do some important modifications, (i.e. especially, to discard the use of behaviorist techniques), I would certainly adjust the key concepts here discussed and apply them in order to improve the quality of the learning-teaching process.
References:
- Nagaraj (1996) English Language Teaching: Approaches, Methods, Techniques. Orient Blackswan. ISBN: 8125007512
- Peña-Casanova, Jordi (2007), Neurología de la conducta y neuropsicología, Madrid, Ed. Médica Panamericana, junio 30, 409 págs.
Direct Method: Cons
Cons of the Direct Method
by O. G. P.
Subject: Teaching English as a Foreign Language: Methodology I
As the title suggests, in this essay, I will
talk about some of the most worth-considering cons of the Direct Method (DM) in connection to the learning teaching process
of a Second Language (L2).
First of all, let us bear in mind that the key
proposal of the DM is that the professor will have to teach the target language
using - only – and - exclusively - the target language, while
the learner while have to learn the language ‘as a baby’, and avoiding
completely his already existent native language. At first, the idea of
imitating the natural way in which a language learner acquires his mother
tongue, seems, indeed, very good. However, when analyzed in detail, a number of
downsides emerge.
On the one hand, It is worthy to consider that a
number of linguistic theories, including Chomsky’s theory of Universal Grammar (UG),
postulate a theoretical problem to the DM. If the long-debated critical period hypothesis be true, it
should be admitted that the process of learning a Second Language is different
than from the process of learning one’s mother tongue, and our ‘language
acquisition device’ (LAD) is not as ready to learn the L2 as was with the L1,
the reason of which, we will not be able to ‘infer’ all grammatical rules the
way that a baby would do it with his L1.
On the other hand, it is important to consider
that there are essential – sometimes diametral - differences between a baby or
a toddler who is learning with the help of his mother, and a teenager, a young
adult or an adult who seek to learn the L2 with the assistance of professor. One
has to do with cognitive abilities:
while the baby is just beginning to acquire them and develop them progressively,
older learners have much more developed abilities to learn and think, and try use
that to accelerate the process of learning. Another difference is the disposition to learn: the baby seems
to have an innate desire of learning the language in order to communicate with
his mother or people around him (with whom he has an emotional bound). In
contrast, the teen, youngster or adult who learns a L2, already has one
language and almost certainly no serious emotional bound with his professor. In
this sense, for instance, facing linguistic ‘corrections’ from a mother and a
teacher, is pretty different. A fourth difference is related to the knowledge of the world: while the baby
is just “discovering the world” and the mental image of things (the signified);
the oldest learners have obviously much more knowledge and experiences that
already have acquired.
In such scenario, how sensible does it seems
that the DM advocator forbid he learners to use the knowledge they already have
in their mother tongue? If we already possess a signifier related, a signified,
and cognitive abilities that may help us to relate and compare one language to
another, why should it be denied to the learner? How much counterproductive
could it be if we have already an emotional attachment to our mother tongue?
And why should the learner be expected to “infer” the grammatical rules, or
spelling in writing, when even children from a young age are supposed to be
taught reading, spelling and writing abilities for future situations in their
life?
In my experience, what I feel as certain is that
comparing L1 with L2 may be useful for us as language learners, if we take it
not as the main method, but as a reference
point in cases where the meaning of words in the target language seem to be
ambiguous, when the level of the students is just too basic to understand the
language, or when the comparison between one language and another seem to be
necessary, for instance, in some grammatical cases.
In conclusion, though the DM may be useful for
the learners who only want to learn and focus on speaking and listening skills,
or for those who are possibly younger, or of basic levels; empty spots are
missing especially in relation to the development of grammar and reading.
Grammar Translation Method: Why was it useful?
Linguistic needs and the Grammar-Translation Method
by O. G. P.
Subject: Teaching English as a Foreign Language: Methodology I (with professor Lic. Elizabeth Sosa Piña)
In this essay, I will talk about how the Grammar-translation method (GTM) is, linguistically speaking, inadequate in regard to what modern language teaching concerns, but I will also discuss what I consider to be the real use for which it was developed, and thus, the implications for the contemporary language-learner.
Foremost, the basic characteristics of this method must be mentioned; i.e. the great emphasis on grammatical rules, the exclusive focus on reading and writing, and the central role of word-by-word translation from one language to another (Thuleen, 1996). These two things are what, broadly speaking, constitute the core of GTM.
Many authors have discussed the problems of GTM, and probably one of the most common critiques is that it makes an “overemphasis” on grammar and memorization of words (Byram & Hu, 2013:288) because it was allegedly based in the theory of ‘faculty psychology’, prevalent at that time (Crookall & Saunder, 1989: 64). The then Grammar-translation advocators are today judged as “neglectful” teachers who were virtually ignorant of the language learning process. However, one should not consider it as such. To emphasize the importance of grammar, by itself, is of no harm. Sometimes, it may be actually good if one takes into account that grammatical knowledge and memory are two things that play an extremely important role in language learning, and that it may be appropriate to the purposes of a few students whose linguistic needs are according to the emphasis. To argue that underlining these aspects of language is what constitutes the problem of GTM, is not, in my opinion, a satisfactory answer.
If the exclusive focus on grammar and translation are understood to be the consequence of the cultural context at the time in which GTM was widely used; and of the purposes for which language-learning was primarily taking place, one may realize that the grammar-translation method was not ‘bad’ at all. For centuries, Latin was the main language used in higher studies, and later it was widely used in German schools (Richards & Rodgers, 2001: 5). The GTM was useful for the specific purposes of comprehending written texts (mainly literature) and write for advanced studies. It was actually successful, and we should not overlook the fact that outstanding figures such as Newton, Lebniz and Descartes were almost likely to have learned Latin under this method, even to the grade of acquiring a great level of accuracy (writing). Although the views on language learning were certainly not holistic, developing the skills of speaking (fluency) and of listening in second language learning, was - reasonably – not really important because of several reasons, audiovisual media was literally nonexistent, and international communication was taking place in the form of texts: books, letters, and scholarly papers, etc.
Today, linguistic needs are undoubtedly not the same that they used to be in the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period. Unlike then, we are now in a very globalized world in which the business, touristic and diplomatic area demand skills of oral communication and listening. We live in a place where, since the post-war era, in the twentieth century, communication has been increasingly taking place through audiovisual media; (Interestingly, those were the very years in which the GTM began to decay according to authors like Kuhiwczak & Littau; 200:56; Richards & Rodgers, 2001: 4). Nowadays, the linguistic needs of the majority of second language learners are understood to regard grammar and reading as two parts as important as listening and speaking.
In conclusion, the GTM would be inefficacious and faulty to those students who require a global learning of L2, and for those teachers that are supposed to give an holistic teaching of language; but, nonetheless, it should not be seen as an obsolete method, and it should remembered that it may be useful for those whose linguistic interests are only aimed at the area of reading, and for those whose mood is enough disposed to learn with a self-taught grammar translation method.
References
- Byram, Michael; Hu, Adelheid (2013). “Routledge Enyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning”. Revised edition. Routledge. ISBN: 113623554X
- Richards, Jack C.; Rodgers, Theodore S. (2001). “Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching” (2nd ed.). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Thuleen, Nancy (1996). "The Grammar-Translation Method." Website Article. University of Wisconsin-Madison. 24 October. <http://www.nthuleen.com/papers/720report.html>.
- Piotr Kuhiwczak, Karin Littau, (2000) "A Companion to Translation Studies", Multilingual Matters.
- Saunder, Danny; Crookall, David. “Communication and Simulation: From Two Fields to One Theme”. Multilingual Matters. ISBN: 0905028848
The Last Of The Mohicans: Ideological Issues
American ideological issues in James Fenimore Cooper’s The Last of The Mohicans
by Omar García
Subject: 19th Century Literature
(with professor Diana Bustos)
In this this essay, I will talk about what I perceive as American ideological issues represented in some of the characters of the 1826 novel “The Last of The Mohicans” (TLOTM). To analyze this, I consider that is important not only to know the context of the story (set in the time of the Seven Years' War and located in the Northern frontiers of the British Colonies), but also to understand clearly which was the position of the author James Fenimore Cooper towards the topics that are touched throughout his novel. For this reason, I will try to relate, when possible, the events that occur in the story with his personal statements in other writings.
A first point of analysis has to do with the main character Hawkeye, who, in my view, represents the contradictory actions of the American fighters. He’s the one who murders the wicked Magua (compare it as white Great Britain vs France). Having pondered about his role in the story, I agree with those who may perceive the scout as a ‘brave fighter’ who, with determination, tries to do his best to defend the Monro sisters. However, Hawkeye is no moral hero. Actually, as I see it, he’s pretty much the opposite. His character and ideology is one that reflects the greatest “antithesis of character,” which Cooper mentioned in the Introduction of an edition of the book (Cooper, 1831). In Chapter 3, Hawkeye is literally depicted as a type of white supremacist who does not admit his own prejudices; someone who sees himself as superior because of his white skin, and someone who feels himself morally superior to his red-skinned fellows. He may have established a close Indian acquaintance with Chingachgook and Uncas, but still he looks down upon Indians, especially Iroquois or Hurons, whom he despises. At the same time, he is insanely obsessed with his own whiteness, as shown in his numerous remarks that he has so-called “white blood”. Hawkeye, in many senses, represents many soldiers of this period, as someone who unashamedly rejects America’s history of Native culture, but, in contrast, proudly exalts the “brave soldier” who defends the European ideals.
On this topic, the Munro family is also very symbolic: George Munro is another contradictory man, because while working as Colonel in the William Henry Fort, he expects to lead the British army and threaten the lives of his enemies; yet, he intends to keep safe the life of his daughters. On the one hand, he’s trying to keep alive, and on the other, he’s trying to do the opposite. The author shows that outcome of this “savage warfare” is unavoidable. In a war as such, eventually, the life of someone will be taken, either by “those who had pledged their blood to satiate their vengeance, or [by those who] uphold the cold and selfish policy of the distant monarchs of Europe” (Ch. 1).
A second aspect I will deal with is the role of religion. Though some essayists have interpreted that the author used the character of David Garmout to criticize "the role of religion in the wilderness," to assume such interpretation would be to neglect Cooper’s own position towards religion. It’s worth mentioning that he was actually a religious man, and not only the big support he gave to his Episcopal Church is a testimony of it (Phillips, 1913: 6-7), but also some of his literary works and novels in which he demonstrates that Christian faith played an important element of his life (See Cooper 1824, 1842, 1847, 1848, 1849).
The doctrine of predetermination proposed by Calvinism is mentioned in Chapter 12 in this way: “He that is to be saved will be saved, and he that is predestined to be damned will be damned.” In opposition we have a doctrine called Arminianism, the theological teaching that rejects the Calvinist views, and reassures a God-given free will. This has a historical relevance because it has been a topic of lively discussions among prominent theologians, just decades before the writer’s birth (e.g. Wesley vs Whitefield).
Cooper seems to have taken the side of the Armianists who reaffirmed the role of free will. He does not censure religion; what he does is to reject Calvinism; and this can be understood in the light of one of his later novels where he deals with the reasons why he dislikes it so much:
“The high-wrought and dogmatical Calvinist, in the midst of his fiery zeal, forgets that love is the very essence of the relation between God and man; the Quaker, seems to think the cut of a coat essential to salvation; the descendant of the Puritan, whether he be Socinian, Calvinist, Universalist, or any other "-ist," appears to believe that the "rock" on which Christ declared he would found his church was the "Rock of Plymouth"; and the unbeliever, in deriding all creeds, does not know where to turn to find one to substitute in their stead.” [The bee-hunter (1848), Chapter XI]
In plain words, Fenimore sees Calvinism as a sect that forgets the true meaning of religious experience: God’s love towards man. In this sense, by no means is he diminishing the role of religion in the wilderness. He actually is revindicating it on the recognition of freedom of will and the hopes of equality of rights before God, 'The Great Spirit'. It is in this way that he begins Chapter 6:
"Those strains that once did sweet in Zion glide;
He wales a portion with judicious care;
And 'Let us worship God', he says, with solemn air."—Burns
In addition, in the book under analysis, Cooper mentions the case of the famous arminian Quaker William Penn, founder of the colony of Pennsylvania where people were treated equally, and religious freedom being promoted and the liberty of minor groups being respected. Cooper wrote of him as someone who "was termed Minquon by the Delawares, and, as he never used violence or injustice in his dealings with them, [that] his reputation for probity passed into a proverb."
For Cooper, God shows no partiality towards his Creation, and people must do it neither. So strongly did he believe in that, that in one his non-fiction writings, Cooper openly manifested his regret that America had failed to put into practice the Christian principles, and had instead been divided by sectarianism:
“In America the taint of sectarianism lies broad upon the land. Not content with acknowledging the supremacy as the Deity, and with erecting temples in his honor, where all can bow down with reverence, the pride and vanity of human reason enter into and pollute our worship, and the houses that should be of God and for God, alone, where he is to be honored with submissive faith, are too often merely schools of metaphysical and useless distinctions. The nation is sectarian, rather than Christian.” [The American Democrat (1838), On Religion]
That leads us to a third important topic in the novel, which has to do with equality. In the closing of TLOTM, Cooper shows a beautiful thought declaring that “the gifts of our colors may be different, but God has so placed us as to journey in the same path”. Now, let us relate this to the symbolic characters of Cora and Alice, who may well represent the mixed “children of America” or a young generation of people whose home was now America: they are both of black and white descent, but at the end, children of a same father. This very idea would appear in another Leatherstocking Tale, (the sequel of TLOTM), where Cooper would write that “God has given the salt lick to the deer; and He has given to man, red-skin and white, the delicious spring at which to slake his thirst” (The Pathfinder, 1840). Thus, man, for Cooper, has received a different and diverse physical appearance, but still we are intended to have equal treatment. Cora poses a question in this way: “should we distrust [a] man because his manners are not our manners, and [because] his skin is dark?” (Ch. 2). In the American Democrat (1838), he would firmly advocate for equality of rights: “with an equality of civil rights, all men are equal before the law.”
Actually, the topic of equality of rights is addressed by Cooper since the beginning of the novel, when he states that the English and the French powers had “robbed… the native right” to even name the place where their ancestors had lived for years. It is so grievous that Europeans fought the Natives to take the land as they pleased, that Chingachgook asserts “we were one people, and we were happy. The salt lake gave us its fish, the wood its deer, and the air its birds. We took wives who bore us children; we worshipped the Great Spirit” (Ch. 3). European powers shouldn’t have taken that away from the Natives, and a decade later, Cooper would delve on this topic manifesting:
“Obstructing the progress of other nations… causes us to undervalue the high blessings we so peculiarly enjoy, to render us ungrateful towards God and to make us unjust to our fellow men, by throwing obstacles in their progress towards liberty” [A letter to His Countrymen (1834)]
In conclusion, The Last of The Mohicans can clearly be seen as a remarkable reflection of important social issues and ideological interests in America’s society during the 18th and 19th century. Its main characters are people whom with usually one could not totally agree or disagree, just like we cannot totally agree or disagree with all the things that happened in America during that period. Nonetheless, Cooper did a unique job exploring both the good and bad sides of each topic that he addresses through the mindset of its characters, and that is a very clear reason why this novel has gained an essential place in American literature even nowadays.
Bibliography
Electronic sources:
- Cooper, James Fenimore (1826). The Last of the Mohicans. Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library http://web.archive.org/web/20110111151619/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=CooMohi.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=1&division=div1
- Cooper, James Fenimore. (1831). Introduction / to The Last of the Mohicans. Wikisource. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Last_of_the_Mohicans/Introduction
- Cooper, James Fenimore (1834). A Letter to His Countrymen. New-York: John Wiley. http://external.oneonta.edu/cooper/texts/letter.html
Books:
- Cooper, James Fenimore (1824). The Pilot: A Tale of the Sea. [Preface] John Lane. New York Public Library.
- Cooper, James Fenimore (1838). The American Democrat . or, Hints on the Social and Civic Relations of the United States of America. Cooperstown, NY: H. & E. Phinney.
- Cooper, James Fenimore (1840). The Pathfinder. Lea and Blanchard. New York Public Library
- Cooper, James Fenimore (1842). The Wing-and-Wing or, Le feu-follet : a tale. New York : Henry Holt
- Cooper, James Fenimore (1847). The Crater; or, Vulcan's Peak: A Tale of the Pacific . New York Stringer and Townsend.
- Cooper, James Fenimore (1848). Oak Openings or The bee-hunter. New York. Hurd and Houghton
- Cooper, James Fenimore (1849). The Sea Lions or The Lost Sealers. New York : John W. Lovell.
- Phillips, Mary Elizabeth (1913). James Fenimore Cooper. New York, London. John Lane Company
Silas Marner: Biblical allusions and Symbolisms
Silas marner in the light of biblical allusions and symbolisms
by Omar García
Subject: 19th Century English Literature (with teacher Susana Bustos)
In this essay, I will talk about biblical symbolisms in the novel “Silas Marner” (1861) by George Eliot. On the recognition of Mary Ann Evans’ evangelical background as a youngster, and her understanding of “religion as the form through which many people have, historically, expressed their best moral impulses” (Maitzen, 2012), I will discuss the events in the story’s paradigm considering the relevance of its biblical allusions (Eliot, 2006), their moral implications, and topics, in order to express throughout my personal point of view, and to describe what the story means to me.
First, it’s worth noticing that Eliot chose biblical names for the two main characters of this story: “Silas” and “Hephzibah” (shortened: Eppie). In connection with this, it’s interesting the fact that, like the biblical Silas in Acts 16, Marner is the object of false accusations that a crowd raises against him. Throughout the novel Eliot also mentions the Bible six times, she quotes once from the Psalms, and she incorporates or mentions several religious topics that are meant to be part of the context of the story.
In connection to the beginning of the story, we learn very early that Silas was part of “a narrow religious sect.” Nevertheless, the narrative makes it very clear that his mouth reflected a heart that was not fully persuaded of his belief. Totally unlike the biblical Silas, Marner had no firm convictions, which can be understood when we are informed that “one of the most frequent topics of conversation… salvation… Silas confessed that he could never arrive at anything higher than hope mingled with fear.” Such is the fear that overcomes his little hope as soon as William Dane spreads false report against him. Again, unlike the David and Jonathan in The Bible, Silas and William make no friendship covenant.
Notably, the moment the weaver renounces to his little faith, he also renounces to affective contact with people. It is foolish to lose faith in God just because of man’s actions, or because church fellows accuse oneself, but Silas is clearly shown to have been expecting the approval of man rather than God’s. Mistakenly, he can’t see the difference between men’s actions and God’s so he blasphemes as if his church’s accusation had been God’s. Afterwards, Eliot describes us how this “shaken trust in God and man” made him become an isolated and hopeless hermit in an unknown town so far. We are told that during that time he was “cut off from faith and love”, leading a solitary life, lacking any kind of lovely relationships and any type of brotherly bonds, as Eliot expresses: “his life narrowing and hardening itself more and more into a mere pulsation of desire and satisfaction that had no relation to any other being."
Isolated from social contact, Marner tirelessly begins to work in his loom. However religious he may had been, he is then seen as the very personification of the neglectful man in Matthew 6:19. He may be one of the best examples of someone who mistakenly stores up for himself treasures on earth, deceived by the false idea that money can be his “company.” Eager for money, Silas wandered from the faith and pierced himself with many griefs, remaining this way for fifteen years. When the thief breaks in and steals his gold, Silas’ world is turned upside down.
He finds himself in a hard position, a bad situation that at first seem to cause more suffering to Silas, but Eliot displays the theft as what actually leaves place for good things to begin to happen. After all, had it not been for the stealing, probably Silas would not have moved his thoughts to higher things than money. Had it not been for the stealing, probably the villagers in Raveloe hadn’t showed compassion to Silas. Had it not been for the stealing, probably the little girl Eppie wouldn’t have found Silas, or he wouldn’t have adopted her. The robbery is the beginning of a change that helps Silas to see the emptiness he had in materialism and his ephemeral joy in gold. Silas’ former love of money, the root of all evil, would be taken away, as he would clearly affirm in the endings: “it takes no hold of me now”.
All Silas did years before was to work for money, but when he’s stolen, Eliot shows that a door is opened. People began to communicate more with him because of his pitiful situation. It was, in Eliot’s words, “an incident… which seemed to open a possibility of some fellowship with his neighbours.” Eliot describes this as a “bud” or the “beginning of a growth”. Silas will be little by little part of a community again as his neighbours began to see him as a needed person. The best of his neighbors, Mr. Macey and Dolly, bring him food and try to console him.
All the villagers, of course, are different. Many are ready to fear or avoid outsiders, rather than to welcome them. Having been an outsider himself, there are those who slandered with his tongue against Silas. Many of them not only neglect to show hospitality to strangers, but also ignore about their inner struggles, their past, or their future. Yet, feeling very ready to judge, they raise speculations against Silas and later against the peddler. All those villagers personify those who bear false witness against their neighbors. Their irreverent babble and foolish talk leads people into more and more impiety. These pointless discussions reflect the truthful saying that “evil communications corrupt good morals.”
However, as Silas adopts Eppie, he finds more sympathy in the eyes of people. Dolly Winthrop invites him to church and is happy to make him company; she offers him her hand, asks her little boy to sing a religious and encouraging carol to Silas, and she gives him advice about how to raise the little girl. She is a woman who tries to carry Silas’ burdens though Silas is somewhat reluctant. Symbolically, Silas reconciles himself with humanity and with God, as he regains his belief on the assurance that “God gave Eppie to him because Godfrey turned his back upon her, and He looks upon her as Silas’.” Godfrey has to admit then: "everything comes to light,… when God Almighty wills it, our secrets are found out,” a phrase that echoes Luke 8:17.
Eppie’s name, rooted in the hebrew name 'Hephzibah', fulfills for Silas its literal translation: 'my delight is in her,' (Hutchinson: 1996:192). Noteworthy, Eliot uses Eppie and Silas’ baptism as a symbolism of a new life starting for them. Though he didn’t fully know what it meant, new life had begun for Silas Marner.
The conclusion of the story is rightly stated in Eliot words: Silas “brought a blessing on himself by acting like a father to a lone motherless child”. This allowed him to reconnect with humanity, to find a happy fellowship of “united people” in the end, and to somehow rediscover love. Silas Marner, thus, can be regarded as a novel of reconciliation and promotion of certain moral principles, which even Eliot, in her later humanist world-view, had to recognize as principles promoted by biblical teachings here discussed. “She always remained interested in religion,” (BHA, 2004) and through the incorporation of some of its meanings, Silas Marner contains the message that one should not give up on relationships just because some people failed us, that one should not refuge in material things to find ephemeral satisfaction; and that one can adopt little children like Eppie, with which one can find the long-lasting relationship of a father and a daughter. Indeed, something beautiful, though nothing new, in the light of the biblical teachings.
First, it’s worth noticing that Eliot chose biblical names for the two main characters of this story: “Silas” and “Hephzibah” (shortened: Eppie). In connection with this, it’s interesting the fact that, like the biblical Silas in Acts 16, Marner is the object of false accusations that a crowd raises against him. Throughout the novel Eliot also mentions the Bible six times, she quotes once from the Psalms, and she incorporates or mentions several religious topics that are meant to be part of the context of the story.
In connection to the beginning of the story, we learn very early that Silas was part of “a narrow religious sect.” Nevertheless, the narrative makes it very clear that his mouth reflected a heart that was not fully persuaded of his belief. Totally unlike the biblical Silas, Marner had no firm convictions, which can be understood when we are informed that “one of the most frequent topics of conversation… salvation… Silas confessed that he could never arrive at anything higher than hope mingled with fear.” Such is the fear that overcomes his little hope as soon as William Dane spreads false report against him. Again, unlike the David and Jonathan in The Bible, Silas and William make no friendship covenant.
Notably, the moment the weaver renounces to his little faith, he also renounces to affective contact with people. It is foolish to lose faith in God just because of man’s actions, or because church fellows accuse oneself, but Silas is clearly shown to have been expecting the approval of man rather than God’s. Mistakenly, he can’t see the difference between men’s actions and God’s so he blasphemes as if his church’s accusation had been God’s. Afterwards, Eliot describes us how this “shaken trust in God and man” made him become an isolated and hopeless hermit in an unknown town so far. We are told that during that time he was “cut off from faith and love”, leading a solitary life, lacking any kind of lovely relationships and any type of brotherly bonds, as Eliot expresses: “his life narrowing and hardening itself more and more into a mere pulsation of desire and satisfaction that had no relation to any other being."
Isolated from social contact, Marner tirelessly begins to work in his loom. However religious he may had been, he is then seen as the very personification of the neglectful man in Matthew 6:19. He may be one of the best examples of someone who mistakenly stores up for himself treasures on earth, deceived by the false idea that money can be his “company.” Eager for money, Silas wandered from the faith and pierced himself with many griefs, remaining this way for fifteen years. When the thief breaks in and steals his gold, Silas’ world is turned upside down.
He finds himself in a hard position, a bad situation that at first seem to cause more suffering to Silas, but Eliot displays the theft as what actually leaves place for good things to begin to happen. After all, had it not been for the stealing, probably Silas would not have moved his thoughts to higher things than money. Had it not been for the stealing, probably the villagers in Raveloe hadn’t showed compassion to Silas. Had it not been for the stealing, probably the little girl Eppie wouldn’t have found Silas, or he wouldn’t have adopted her. The robbery is the beginning of a change that helps Silas to see the emptiness he had in materialism and his ephemeral joy in gold. Silas’ former love of money, the root of all evil, would be taken away, as he would clearly affirm in the endings: “it takes no hold of me now”.
All Silas did years before was to work for money, but when he’s stolen, Eliot shows that a door is opened. People began to communicate more with him because of his pitiful situation. It was, in Eliot’s words, “an incident… which seemed to open a possibility of some fellowship with his neighbours.” Eliot describes this as a “bud” or the “beginning of a growth”. Silas will be little by little part of a community again as his neighbours began to see him as a needed person. The best of his neighbors, Mr. Macey and Dolly, bring him food and try to console him.
All the villagers, of course, are different. Many are ready to fear or avoid outsiders, rather than to welcome them. Having been an outsider himself, there are those who slandered with his tongue against Silas. Many of them not only neglect to show hospitality to strangers, but also ignore about their inner struggles, their past, or their future. Yet, feeling very ready to judge, they raise speculations against Silas and later against the peddler. All those villagers personify those who bear false witness against their neighbors. Their irreverent babble and foolish talk leads people into more and more impiety. These pointless discussions reflect the truthful saying that “evil communications corrupt good morals.”
However, as Silas adopts Eppie, he finds more sympathy in the eyes of people. Dolly Winthrop invites him to church and is happy to make him company; she offers him her hand, asks her little boy to sing a religious and encouraging carol to Silas, and she gives him advice about how to raise the little girl. She is a woman who tries to carry Silas’ burdens though Silas is somewhat reluctant. Symbolically, Silas reconciles himself with humanity and with God, as he regains his belief on the assurance that “God gave Eppie to him because Godfrey turned his back upon her, and He looks upon her as Silas’.” Godfrey has to admit then: "everything comes to light,… when God Almighty wills it, our secrets are found out,” a phrase that echoes Luke 8:17.
Eppie’s name, rooted in the hebrew name 'Hephzibah', fulfills for Silas its literal translation: 'my delight is in her,' (Hutchinson: 1996:192). Noteworthy, Eliot uses Eppie and Silas’ baptism as a symbolism of a new life starting for them. Though he didn’t fully know what it meant, new life had begun for Silas Marner.
The conclusion of the story is rightly stated in Eliot words: Silas “brought a blessing on himself by acting like a father to a lone motherless child”. This allowed him to reconnect with humanity, to find a happy fellowship of “united people” in the end, and to somehow rediscover love. Silas Marner, thus, can be regarded as a novel of reconciliation and promotion of certain moral principles, which even Eliot, in her later humanist world-view, had to recognize as principles promoted by biblical teachings here discussed. “She always remained interested in religion,” (BHA, 2004) and through the incorporation of some of its meanings, Silas Marner contains the message that one should not give up on relationships just because some people failed us, that one should not refuge in material things to find ephemeral satisfaction; and that one can adopt little children like Eppie, with which one can find the long-lasting relationship of a father and a daughter. Indeed, something beautiful, though nothing new, in the light of the biblical teachings.
References:
Books:
Hutchinson, Stuart (1996). George Eliot: Critical Assessments: Helm Information critical
assessments of writers in English. Volume 4; Volume 6. Helm Information.
ISBN: 9781873403396
Eliot, George (2006). Silas Marner: Literary Touchstone Edition. Prestwick House literary
touchstone classics. Prestwick House Inc. 1580493459
Electronic sources:
British Humanist Association (BHA), 2014. “George Eliot / Marian Evans (1819-1880)”
https://humanism.org.uk/humanism/the-humanist-tradition/19th-century-freethinkers/george-eliot/
Maitzen, Rohan. October 5th, 2012. Look No More Backward: George Eliot and Atheism. Los Angeles Review of Books. https://lareviewofbooks.org/essay/look-no-more-backward-george-eliot-and-atheism
Eliot, George (1861). Silas Marner: The Weaver of Raveloe. October 10, 2008. The Project Gutenberg. [EBook #550]
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/550/550-h/550-h.htm
https://humanism.org.uk/humanism/the-humanist-tradition/19th-century-freethinkers/george-eliot/
Maitzen, Rohan. October 5th, 2012. Look No More Backward: George Eliot and Atheism. Los Angeles Review of Books. https://lareviewofbooks.org/essay/look-no-more-backward-george-eliot-and-atheism
Eliot, George (1861). Silas Marner: The Weaver of Raveloe. October 10, 2008. The Project Gutenberg. [EBook #550]
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/550/550-h/550-h.htm
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)