ERIC ED371573: Simplification in Pedagogy.

8 Pages·1993·0.17 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
FL 022 044
ED 371 573
Brumfit, Christopher
AUTHOR
Simplification in Pedagogy.
TITLE
PUB DATE
93
8p.; In: Tickoo, M. L., Ed. Simplification: Theory
NOTE
and Application. Anthology Series 31; see FL 022
043.
PUB TYPE Viewpoints (Opinion/Position Papers, Essays, etc.)
(126)
MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.
EDRS PRICE
English (Second Language); Foreign Countries;
DESCRIPTORS
*Generalization; Language Attitudes; Language Usage;
*Second Language Instruction; *Second Language
Learning; Stereotypes; Teacher Role; *Teaching
Methods
IDENTIFIERS *Simplification (Language)
ABSTRACT
This paper examines the use of simplification in
second language instruction. It argues that although simplification
is a necessary process in coping with the conceptual and experiential
chaos of the classroom, it is a potentially dangerous process that
risks creating categories that become too insensitive to cope with
changing audiences and changing conceptual needs. Simpli.:ication in
the classroom involves selection, coherence, and adaptation to the
particular audience by the instructor. Processes of making general
statement, of fixing and formalizing, and ultimately of stressing
particular features for particular effects are inherent in the
simplification process, but should not degenerate into insensitive
stereotyping and caricature. Teachers need to understand ihe nature
of the simplifications they are making and beware of their pitfalls.
(MDM)
***********************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
***********************************************************************
SIMPLIFICATION
IN PEDAGOGY
Christopher Brumfit
U.S. DEPARTMENT Of EDUCAT!ON
Olficit ca Educational (tomarch and Improvement
"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS
EDUCATIONAL REtiOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
his documonl has Coen reproduced as
eceived from the person or organization
h&
Yv-
originating it.
N&S-(ZA'n
0 Minor changes nave been made to improve
reproduction quality
\r/Clearn
Points of vim or opinions staled in this docu-
ment do not necessarily represent official
OERI Madan or policy
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC).-
PEDAGOGY
SIMPLIFICATION IN
Christopher Brumfit
Droad Issues
simplification.
broad approach to the issue of
In this paper I want to take a
the conceptual and
process in coping with
I shall argue that it is a necessary
too,
but it is a potentially dangerous process
experiential chaos that surrounds us,
insensitive to cope with
that rapidly become too
because it risks creating categories
capacity to
conceptual needs. Developing a
changing audiences and changing
problematisation of
simplification and necessary
distinguisb between necessary
aim for education.
accepted categories Is an important
is an exercise in simplification.
Linguistically and conceptually, this paper
number which are
I am selecting a limited
From the range of possible approaches
enable the
ordering them in a way tbst will
most appropriate for my argument,
and expressing
have to say as easily as possible,
reader to make sense of what I
presumed
accessible as possible to my
them in language which will be as
I read will
that anyone else whose work
readership. And I am entitled to assume
the co-
These activities ere built into
have taken it through a similar process.
about the need to
directly from our assumptions
operative principle, and derive
and to convert.
communicate, to persuade, to clarify
similar
for teaching, we find that very
If we look at basic manuals
"Classroom Teaching
popular research-based book on
processes are advised. A
mentions
classification for "explanation" which
Skills", for example, includes a
inter alit a series of planning strategies:
"keys"
Analyse topic into main parts, or
Establish links between parts
Determine rules (if any) involved
required
Specify kind(s) of explanation
characteristics
Adapt plan according to learner
(Brown & Armstrong, 1984: 123).
the notion of
related to general discussion of
At least four of these may be
classification
parts" involves a selection and
simplification. The concept of "main
the stream
of sub-components that organises
of significant elements, a highlighting
3
PEST COPY /NUB( E 1
The
for easier comprehension.
socially constructed categories
of experience into
separated elements
similarly attempts to reintegrate the
establishment of links'
of
categories, while the determination
identified set of connecting
with a clearly
experience. The last two
impose a helpful pattern on
'rules' is an attempt to
they
strategies in their own right, but
obviously simplification
elements are less
of the'
presentation. The specification
the topic to the form of
shift attention from
the teacher - a classification as a
perhaps a meta-activity for
bid of explanation is
adaptation of the plan
communication strategy. But the
device for adopting a
relationship between choices about
characteristics reflects the
according to learner
being identified is a discourse
of the addressee; what is
the code and the nature
for teachers
aimed at a simplified "learner",
also of course a strategy
strategy. (It is
individualised
individuals, and every plan, even for an
typically address groups, not
generalised "typical learners".
classroom, presumes one or more
discussion of
do not derive from a
Although these categories
of the central activities of
clear relationship between one
"simplification*, there is a
by linguists. The main
of simplification as described
teaching and the concept
powerful concept as simplification
is to ask whether such a
purpose of ibis paper
simply another way of
whether in practice it is
deserves its special status, or
strategies.
communication - or even thinking
referring to fundamental
Linguists and Simplicity
strategies isolated
underlying the explanation
There are three major ideas
of coherence by creating
principle of selection, second that
above. First there is the
Examples that may be
that of adaptation to audience.
"links" and 'rules", and third
linguistics relate to these quite closely.
taken from the history of applied
reflect
of artificial languages may
To take only one example, the structure
sacrifice the third in
but they also deliberately
each of the first two characteristics,
world peace feel
closeness that some supporters of
the desire to avoid the cultural
Quirk, 1982:
linguists (whether professionals like
inLibits understanding. Applied
simplification
1954) who concern themselves with
37-53, or amateurs like Gowcrs,
of internal
trocedures that depend on a view
movements, will use selection
They thus
number of usable elements.
linguistic coherence with the minimal
broader
audiences in the interests of
willingly sacrifice adaptability to varied
homogeneous
bidding for a large scale
communication. In essence they are
English-
man" or to "international
audience, whether it is an appeal to 'the plain
simplification, or a stereotyping based on
users". The fact that these concepts are a
uncertain
precisely what makes some commentators
many different individuals, is
2
4
about their claims (see the debate between Kachru and Quirk
in recent issues of
english Today). Similar points
may be madz: about classroom second language
development (Ellis, 1984: 60-61), or children's L2
acquisition (Fillmore, 1979:
211). But these strategies, while universal, have immense
importance when there
are asymmetrical power relations, as in teaching.
5imgliflu1isaum-a-Tsiching-lakra
There is a 'lexical set' that is rarely
seen as coherent, but which is of
immense importance in teaching. It includes the verbs simplify
generalise
stereotype, and caricature. The first two
appear together in the same section of a
recent lexicon (McArthur, 1981, section N63), but caricature
there is linked with
features like 'mockery", and stereotype does not
appear at all.
If we summarise relevant Advanced
Learner's Dictionary definitions of
these, in the same order, we see the progression:
1. make easily understood, not causing
trouble
2. make a general statement
3. fix, formalise or standardise
4. make an imitation, stressing certain
feaures.
Processes of making general
statements, c f fixing and formalising, and
ultimately/of stressing particular
features for particular effects arc inherent in
the
simplification process, but they also have inherent
risks.
Thus simplification results in
a reliance on generalisation, generalisation
can easily degenerate into stereotyping, and insensitive
stereotyping rapidly
becomes caricature, with associated implications
of mockery that are offensive to
victims.
The tension for the teacher is between
quantity and quality. A key feature
of linguistic simplification is reduction
in quantity, of sentence length, of
vocabulary size, of phonemic
range (Ferguson, 1977). But this principle cannot be
achieved without qualitative decisions
being made about the generalisability of
particular items. We reduce to the
most salient (or functionally generalisable)
elements in the discourse; otherwise
we lose the overall structure and the discourse
becomes incoherent. Thus making
a simple statement means acting
on
generalisations. Linguistically, these
may well become stereotyped, so that the
generalised features are adopted regardless
of the particular re(erent (so all Africans
arc + black", and all nurses in British
society are "+ female" for
many English
3
5
.
4
conventional
convenient, such stereotypes become
speakers). When ideologically
female and
On... films can portray nurses as inherently
caricatures, so that 'Carry
Africans as
twentieth century children's comics could portray
sexy, and early
ideological
therefore sinister. Only after substantial
inherently black, different and
shared with the
give way to emphasis on either what is
shifts do these caricatures
the readers of
people like members of other groups -
reader (Africans or nurses are
sub-groups, of
distinctive about individual members, or separate
the text), or what is
some norm
are male).
white;
Africans .ire
about (some
the group being generalised
affecting
is a key point. Generalisations
This combination of factors
"The British are
they have a distancing effect.
people are mide about outgroups;
ignored, but as a
bu.cause non-Christian Britains feel
Christians" is a simplification
value. The life-style
some
Iran or India it has
perspective of
generalisation from the
than Islamic or
British are undoubtedly Christian rather
and assumptions of the
precisely because
generalisations as shnplifications
Hindu. We live by accepting
being
until we are deeply embedded in the group
complexifications are inefficient
in
Christians" is not a useful comment
generalised about. "The British are
Meshed or Madras.
Southampton, but may be in
whether linguistic, discoursal, or
Thus processes of simplification,
particular
judgements about the salience of
conceptual, involve tacit or explicit
responsive to the
of the discourse, which in turn is
features in relation to the purpose
that we
addressed. We might go further, and argue
nature of the audience being
their
by creating saliences and debating
only establish coherence of viewp. :nt
is
in contemporary literary theory
appropriateness. The debate about the canon
for
"key", "emblematic*, "resonant" texts
partly about salience - which are the
Whether
value for our current world view?
today, which encapsulate greater
choice (to
Dancing by Victor Sylvester is your
Ulysses Tristram Shandy, or Come
TLS debate, January 1992) depends on a
cite various suggestions from a recent
other matters that concern you.
view of which generalises most usefully to
simplification is a process that enables us
What I am arguing, then, is that
what is currently
currently important and to ignore
to concentrate on what is
introducing irrelevant clutter of
risks
irrelevant. It prevents clutter in the mind, but
justified,
generalisations are always contextually
its own. The reason for this is that
changes or disappears. Yesterday's
and when contexts change the justification
and tomorrow's caricatures. Our
generalisations become today's stereotypes
becomes dysfunctional if it is not
capacity to process and select concepts
contexts, and serious thinking
accompanied by a capacity to recognise changing
demands of quantity and quality.
requires a constant internal debate between the
Implications for Practice
I have suggested that the simplification debate, which might at first sight
seem to be a technical one for linguists, is bound up with larger issues of
comprehension and communication. Teachers of course operate with great
power
in both these spheres. The centrality of explanation involves them in frequent (and
usually implicit) decision-making about salience and gencralisability, both
conceptually and linguistically. But they are also, as a profession, unusually
exposed to cultural variation. Teachers, unusually, operate with many large
groups
of people in the course of a single working day. Their role is to communicate
effectively, and to cause effective communication within these groups
- and each
group has to be generalised about in planning, in execution of the lesson, in making
judgements for assessment purposes, and in dealing with the considerable affective
demands that insecure learners make on their teachers. It is little surprise that
a
process of simplification and routinisation is important in general teacher thinking
(see Calderhead, 1988) or in language teachers' methodological practice (Mitchell
and Johnstone, 1986).
I have argued elsewhere that effective discussion of the practice of
teaching requires methodological constructs that are intermediate between scientific
studies that are independent of teaching and those that are embedded in classroom
practice (Brumfit, 1987). I would wish to propose that an important conceptual
tension for teacher education is the one explored in this
paper, between
simplification as quantitative reduction (or economy) and simplification
as
qualitative reduction (or insensitivity to audience). The latter formulation
may
seem a surprising way of looking at the problem, but it should be clear from the
argument so far that the quality of conceptualisation is dependent on the cultural
base from which the reader, listener or learner is operating. Insofar
as teachers are
necessarily transmitters of culture, awareness of the relationship between the
conceptual frameworks of learners and those underlying all generalisations,
simplifications, and explanations provided by the teaching
process will be crucial.
We have to simplify, both in code and in content
- otherwise we cannot
conununicate.
But all simplification betrays somebody;
no simplification betrays
everybody. Teachers have to resolve this paradox in their professional practice.
5
7
REFERENCES
121-148.
1984, 'Explaining cuedExplanatione, in Wragg, 1984:
BROWN, G A and S Armstrong
Categories in Language Teaching Malsodcdogy*,
BRUMFIT, C 1 1987, 'Concepts and
AILA Review 4: 25-31.
Professional Learning, London, F,,bmer.
C41DERHEAD,1 1988, Teachers'
d Language Developmma, Oxfor4 Pergamm.
ELIJS, R 1984, Classrooam Seca,
1977: 219-235.
Simplified Register', in Snow and Fewason,
FERGUSON, C A 1977, 'Baby Talk as a
Language Ability
Wang (as) 1979, Individual Dilfersacu in
FILLMORE, C, D Kelvin* and W S-Y
Press.
and Language Behavior, New York, Academic
Differences in Second Language Acquisition',
FILLMORE, Lily Wong 1979, 'Indivi dssal
in Fillmore, Kempkr and Wang, 1979: 203-228.
Words, London HMSO.
GONERS, E 1954, The Complete Plain
Contempormy English, Harlow, Longman.
McARTHUR, T 1981, Longman Lexicon of
Routiniztaion of Comm:nice:6r Methodology',
MITCHELL, R and R Johnstone 1986, 'The
in Bramfit, 1986: 123-143.
Arnold.
the English Language, London, Edward
QUIR1 R 1982, Style and Communication in
Press.
Children, Cambridge, Cambridge University
SNOW, C E and C A Fergawn 1977 Talking to
London, Croons Helm.
WRAGG, E C (ed.) 1984, Classroom Teaching Skills,
8
6