Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching: Historical Perspectives 9027213704, 9789027213709

Citation preview

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching Historical perspectives

Edited by Richard Smith and Tim Giesler

aila applied linguistics series 20

John Benjamins Publishing Company

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching

AILA Applied Linguistics Series (AALS) issn 1875-1113

The AILA Applied Linguistics Series (AALS) provides a forum for established scholars in any area of Applied Linguistics. The series aims at representing the field in its diversity. It covers different topics in applied linguistics from a multidisciplinary approach and it aims at including different theoretical and methodological perspectives. As an official publication of AILA the series will include contributors from different geographical and linguistic backgrounds. The volumes in the series should be of high quality; they should break new ground and stimulate further research in Applied Linguistics. For an overview of all books published in this series, please see benjamins.com/catalog/aals

Editor Limin Jin

Beijing Foreign Studies University

Editorial Board Fabiola Ehlers-Zavala

Elke Stracke

Susanna Nocchi

Antje Wilton

Colorado State University Dublin Institute of Technology

University of Canberra, Australia Freie Universität Berlin

Anne Pitkanen-Huhta University of Jyväskylä

Volume 20 Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching. Historical perspectives Edited by Richard Smith and Tim Giesler

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching Historical perspectives Edited by

Richard Smith University of Warwick

Tim Giesler University of Bremen

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

doi 10.1075/aals.20 Cataloging-in-Publication Data available from Library of Congress: lccn 2023005840 (print) / 2023005841 (e-book) isbn 978 90 272 1370 9 (Hb) isbn 978 90 272 5286 9 (e-book)

© 2023 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Company · https://benjamins.com

Table of contents Information about the authors Introduction chapter 1. How can perspectives from Applied Linguistic Historiography improve our understanding of innovation? Richard Smith & Tim Giesler part i. Product innovation chapter 2. Tart–scriblita–torta–torte–torta–tortilha: A piece of cake! Acquiring lexis in R. John Andree’s (1725) A vocabulary, in six languages Giovanni Iamartino & Lucia Berti

vii

2

24

chapter 3. Teaching phraseology in the 19th century: John Charles Tarver’s Royal Phraseological English–French, French–English Dictionary 43 Stefania Nuccorini chapter 4. Innovation in monolingual English learner’s dictionaries: A historical perspective Reinhard Heuberger part ii. Innovation through scientific discovery chapter 5. La linguistique appliquée: Innovation in language learning/ teaching research in France (1955–85) Shona Whyte chapter 6. Classroom-oriented teacher research in modern languages: An innovation of the Reform Movement Friederike Klippel part iii. Oscillations along a continuum chapter 7. Change without innovation? Language teaching in late 19th‑century Germany Tim Giesler & Sabine Doff

59

82

104

122

vi

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching

chapter 8. “Reflection on language”: Innovation and tradition in ELT textbooks in Italy in the 1980s and 1990s Luciana Pedrazzini part iv. Adaptation in specific contexts chapter 9. Describing and learning the Chinese languages: Innovation in Western language pedagogical tools of the late Ming and late Qing periods Mariarosaria Gianninoto

137

164

chapter 10. Curriculum innovation through concept borrowing: The case of “learner autonomy” in English language education in Chinese universities (1978–2007) 180 Shi PU chapter 11. Beyond written texts: History as told by the objects of modern foreign language classes in a Brazilian school 199 Marta Banducci Rahe Index

217

Information about the authors Marta Banducci Rahe is Professor of English Language and the Coordinator of an extension project whose purpose is to offer language courses to the local community in the Arts, Language and Communication Faculty, Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil. She completed her Master’s and Doctorate degrees in History of Education, focusing on the history of foreign language learning and teaching and material culture. Her main fields of interest are history of language learning and teaching, and history of material cultures of schooling, with a focus on textbooks, language subjects, and school cultures. Currently she is researching the history of bilingual education and the biographies of language teachers. Email: [email protected] Lucia Berti is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Milan, where she teaches English linguistics. Her research focuses primarily on the early and late modern periods, specifically on the history of foreign language teaching and lexicography (English and Italian), Anglo–Italian relations, and the history and development of scientific periodicals. Recent relevant publications include book chapters on Italian borrowings in Giuseppe Baretti’s dictionaries (2020, 2023), an essay on Ph. A. Nemnich’s Universal European dictionary of merchandise (2019), and a co-authored paper on Moses Santagnello as a teacher of Italian in early 19thcentury England (2021). Email: [email protected] Sabine Doff is Professor of English Language Education at Bremen University, Germany. Her research interests include the history and historiography of foreign language education, in particular English language teaching in Europe (18th–20th centuries), methods and methodological questions in teaching English as a foreign language, curriculum studies and gender studies in language education. She completed her PhD and Habilitation at Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich and has worked as a teacher, researcher and teacher trainer in the field of language education. Among her recent publications are Media meets diversity @ school (with Joanna Pfingsthorn, wvt, 2020) and Policies and practice in language learning and teaching: 20th-century perspectives (with Richard Smith, Amsterdam University Press, 2022). Email: [email protected]

viii

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching

Mariarosaria Gianninoto obtained her doctorate in Asian Studies from the University of Naples “L’Orientale” in 2005 and her accreditation to supervise research (HDR) in linguistics at EHESS, Paris in 2017, with a Habilitation volume on the hybridization of Chinese and Western linguistic traditions (Hybridation des traditions linguistiques chinoise et occidentale, 2017). She is currently Professor of Chinese Linguistics at the Paul Valéry University in Montpellier, having been a lecturer in Chinese at the Stendhal University in Grenoble and at Grenoble Alpes University (2008–2018). She has co-authored a volume on the history of Chinese linguistics (Storia della linguistica cinese, 2012) and authored several articles on the history of Chinese linguistic studies and the history of Chinese language teaching. Email: [email protected] Tim Giesler has been a Lecturer in English Language Education at Bremen University, Germany, since 2010. Prior to this, he worked as a secondary school teacher of (mainly) English and History. His main research interest is the history of teaching English in institutional contexts in Germany, a field in which he completed his Ph.D. thesis (published as Die Formation des institutionellen Englischunterrichts (wvt, 2018). He is also interested in Content and Language Integrated Learning, teaching literary content and teaching English in heterogeneous contexts. Recent publications include book chapters and articles on the history of English teaching and the books Die große Frage (with Sabine Doff and Mareike Tödter, wvt, 2019) and Masters of reflective practice (with Joanna Pfingsthorn, wvt, 2020). Email: [email protected] Reinhard Heuberger is an Assistant Professor in the Department of English at the University of Innsbruck (Austria). His research focuses on lexicography (learner’s dictionaries and online dictionaries), ecolinguistics (and human–animal studies), and English dialectology. He was the co-director of the government-funded project SPEED (2006–2010), and also co-directed its follow-up project EDD Online (2011–2014), both concerned with the digitization and investigation of Joseph Wright’s English dialect dictionary. Email: [email protected] Giovanni Iamartino is Professor of the History of English at the University of Milan. His main research interests focus on the history of Anglo–Italian relations, translation studies and the history of translation, and the history of English lexicography and linguistic codification in general. His recent publications in the latter field include essays and book chapters on the representation of women in John Kersey’s dictionaries of the English language (2020), European cross-currents in English lexicography (in The Cambridge companion to English dictionaries, 2020),

Information about the authors

Giuseppe Baretti’s revision of Giral Delpino’s Spanish–English dictionary of 1763 (2020), culture-bound words and borrowings in Baretti’s English–Italian dictionary (2021, 2023), and Moses Santagnello as a teacher of Italian in early 19thcentury England (2021). Email: [email protected] Friederike Klippel is Professor Emerita of English Language Education at LudwigMaximilians-University Munich in Germany. Her research areas range from the history of language learning and teaching to language teaching methodology, classroom research, intercultural education, and teacher education and professional development, and her publications include Keep talking (Cambridge University Press, 1984), a comprehensive historical study of learning and teaching English in 18th- and 19th-century Germany (Englischlernen im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert, Nodus, 1994), handbooks on teaching English at various levels, a large number of articles on different aspects of the history of language teaching, and a handbook on foreign language research methods (Forschungsmethoden in der Fremdsprachendidaktik, 2nd ed., Narr, 2022, with D. Caspari, M. Legutke and K. Schramm). Email: [email protected] Stefania Nuccorini is Honorary Professor of English Language and Translation at Roma Tre University, and a lecturer on learner lexicography for the European Master in Lexicography. Her main research interests focus on lexicology, phraseology and lexicography, and their role in the history of English language learning and teaching. Recent publications include “Usage, authority and stance in the lexicographic management of English” (2020); “The didactic purposes of John Millhouse’s Italian–English, English–Italian new pronouncing and explanatory dictionary” (2020); “Lexicographic metalanguage as (a) specialized language” (2020); “Digging into a thesaurus for treasures: Conceptual maps in the Longman language activator (2020); and “English dictionary criticism in two lexicographical specialist journals” (2017). Email: [email protected] Luciana Pedrazzini is an Associate Professor of Second Language Education and TESOL at the University of Milan. Her main research interests are in the areas of Second Language Acquisition and pedagogy, history of language teaching, and teacher education. She is the co-author (with Andrea Nava) of Second language acquisition in action: Principles from practice (Bloomsbury, 2018) and the cofounder (also with Andrea Nava) of the Italy ELT Archive at the University of Milan. Email: [email protected]

ix

x

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching

Shi PU is a Lecturer at the Beijing Foreign Studies University National Research Centre for Foreign Language Education. She received her PhD degree in Second Language Education from the University of Cambridge in 2016. She is particularly interested in the historical and transnational development of prevailing pedagogical concepts such as “learner autonomy” and “critical thinking”, hoping to discover how such concepts are fed into dominant educational discourse in China, and how they mediate local educational practice. In 2022, she published a book entitled Critical thinking in academic writing: A cultural approach (Routledge) and her recent articles have appeared in Journal of English for Academic Purposes, Language, Culture and Curriculum, The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, and Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics. Email: [email protected] Richard Smith is Professor of ELT and Applied Linguistics at the University of Warwick, UK, where he established the Warwick ELT Archive in 2002. He researches in the field of History of Language Learning and Teaching and Applied Linguistics, with a particular focus on TESOL/ELT, and is founder and co-convenor of the AILA (International Association of Applied Linguistics) Research Network on History of Language Language Learning and Teaching (HoLLT.net). He is also known for his work on local pedagogies in ELT/TESOL, including approaches to teaching English in ‘difficult circumstances’ in countries of the Global South, pedagogy of autonomy, including language teacher autonomy, and capacity-building in ELT/TESOL research, including teacher-research. Email: [email protected] Shona Whyte is a Professor in Applied Linguistics at Université Côte d’Azur, France. Her work at the research laboratory Bases, Corpus, Language (BCL) focuses on second language (L2) studies including acquisition and learning, technology-mediated interaction, and language teacher education. Recent projects involve virtual exchange with young EFL pupils (RAVEL), and technologymediated pedagogy in higher education (SHOUT4HE). She is active in the French applied linguistics association AFLA and the L2 research network ReAL2, and is associate editor for the ReCALL journal. Email: [email protected]

Introduction

chapter 1

How can perspectives from Applied Linguistic Historiography improve our understanding of innovation? Richard Smith & Tim Giesler

University of Warwick | University of Bremen

As an emerging interdisciplinary, plurilingual and intercultural field (McLelland & Smith, 2018), the History of Language Learning and Teaching – and associated considerations of Applied Linguistic Historiography (Smith, 2016) – can be expected to provide useful perspectives on innovation: how, when and why to attempt it and how to sustain it, but also, from a relatively philosophical perspective, how to define and assess it. Innovation, after all, is an activity, or a construct, which is inextricably bound up with views of the past, whether imagined or well-researched – a past seen to be in need of replacement or at least reconstruction. Researching the past can, indeed, give rise to considerations of whether – and, if so, why and how – innovation occurs, or is seen to be required at all. In this introduction to a book devoted to historical perspectives on innovation, we consider three specific ways in which Applied Linguistic Historiography can contribute to a revised understanding of innovation in language teaching and we identify ways in which the chapters in the book shed new light on its nature, causes, effects and rationale.

Why are historical perspectives on innovation needed? By adopting a historical perspective, this edited collection of papers takes a new look at a key concept in the field of language education and (educational) applied linguistics, that of innovation. The nature of educational innovations is, as we shall see, more complex and problematic than may appear at first sight, but, provisionally, the OECD’s frequently cited characterization of them as “fresh ways of meeting outstanding challenges” (OECD, 2017, p. 17) can suffice as a working definition. As ELT Journal’s privileging of ‘innovation’ for repeated treatment in its Key Concepts in ELT feature has shown (Wedell, 2009a, 2022), this is a highly valued and frequently invoked notion in the globalized field of (English) language learnhttps://doi.org/10.1075/aals.20.01smi © 2023 John Benjamins Publishing Company

Chapter 1. How can ALH improve our understanding of innovation?

ing and teaching – indeed, here, innovation and innovative are “hooray words” (Harber & Davies, 1998, p. 110) – that is, words ‘that evoke a cheer and which seem incontestably Good Things’ (ibid.) – with affinities to others like current, new, progress, online, digital and technology. “Innovation” is invoked in international journal and book series titles (most notably, that of the journal Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, published by Taylor & Francis since 2007), celebrated in awards ceremonies (specifically, the British Council’s ELTons Innovations Awards (British Council, n.d.), held annually since 2003) and frequently sloganized (Schmenk, Breidbach, & Küster, 2018). Being innovative is used to justify both large-scale governmental reform efforts (see Wedell, 2022) and commercial sales of learning materials and systems worldwide, especially, perhaps in the ELT/TESOL field. Indeed, one of the globally best-selling ELT coursebooks – Cutting Edge (published by Pearson) – celebrates being innovative even in its title. Given this prevalence, indeed dominance, of the notion of innovation – and of practices termed innovative – in the field of language learning and teaching, the concept should be subjected to serious study within applied linguistics; at least, this is what we argue for in this introduction. Rather than positioning such study within the existing areas of “management of innovation”, or “diffusion of innovations”, which tend to take needs for innovation as given and investigate how best to implement educational reform, we adopt a relatively critical, or at least neutral position, hoping to indicate that historical research can lead to new (innovative!) perspectives which may or may not support the notion of innovation. This is necessary, from our experience as teacher educators, because language teachers around the world seem to be under continual pressure to adopt innovations which come from outside their own contexts and from the “top” down, via ministry directives and/or via academic and commercial blandishments. As Wedell (2022, p. 272) notes, the importance of the topic lies partly in the fact that large-scale innovations, specifically national curriculum reforms, “occur very frequently, affect very large numbers of people, and (to date) remain extremely difficult to implement successfully”. If only because of the stress for teachers and financial outlay for governments which are involved in such reforms, the topic of innovation deserves to be fully investigated, not just to see how reforms can be better implemented but with regard to what motivates innovation, whether it is appropriate, and what it involves – all on the basis of reasoned research, analysis, deconstruction and critique. As a starting-point for this endeavour, we note that “hooray words such as […] ‘progress’ may mask any analysis of who exactly owns, chooses or makes progress” (Harber & Davies, 1998, p. 110). In other words, the interests served by the promotion of progress, newness and innovation need to be uncovered. As Wedell (cited above) notes, there is in fact a developing literature which investigates effects of

3

4

Richard Smith & Tim Giesler

curricular reform in relation to the motives of agents and which, in part, has ascribed failures of top–down reform to the “hubris” of reformers (Henrichsen (1989) is one early example; Holliday (1994) another). We advocate an increase in historical research in this critical area, arguing that this is potentially useful in the following ways: –

–

–

firstly, via historical research, the present-day fixation on innovation can itself be deconstructed and shown to be contingent and not immutable. Investigations can also be carried out into how the promotion of innovation has arisen in the past, contributing potentially to a rethinking of the foundations of and the theory of language education (cf. Stern (1983), in particular pp. 75–116) while de-emphasizing the need to be new for newness’ sake – an argument we develop further in the section titled ‘How did innovation rise to prominence?’ below. secondly, adopting a historical perspective can take us to a deeper level of reflection on the nature of ‘innovation’ itself, which often tends to be viewed uncritically in the language teaching field – see ‘Characterizing and identifying innovation’ below. thirdly, in the light of concerns surrounding the common failure of top–down innovations, there is potential for historical research to have a practical value in the field of ‘managing innovation’, in other words for lessons to be drawn, with circumspection, from the historical record. See ‘Managing innovation with historical sense’ below.

As we shall show, the concept of innovation necessarily relies on views of the past for its meaning. But research into the past is generally absent from the fields of applied linguistics and language education, meaning that the status of innovation remains unquestioned. This is despite arguments by, for example, Stern (ibid.) that rigorous historical research should underpin the theorization of language teaching. One explanation for the continuing relative dearth of scholarly work in this area could be that a historical approach which does not itself bolster new ideas (setting them off from what is out of date and old-fashioned) has itself never been in favour precisely due to or in line with the prevalent disapproval of the past and fixation on newness, progress and innovation that we have been indicating. In attempting to counteract this situation by extending work in the area of Applied Linguistic Historiography (Smith, 2016), this book follows on from other publications which have, relatively recently, been seeking to establish History of Language Learning and Teaching (HoLLT) on a firmer footing, including McLelland & Smith (2014, 2018), Smith & McLelland (2018), and Doff & Smith (2022). By means of the present book, produced as an AILA Research Network on History of Language Learning and Teaching (HoLLT.net) project, we hope that the status of

Chapter 1. How can ALH improve our understanding of innovation?

historical research will become better established within the field of applied linguistics, informed by desiderata like the following (Smith, 2016; see also, Giesler, 2021; Doff & Smith, 2022): – – –

a rigorous examination of primary sources rather than over-reliance on secondary sources; a focus on practice, not just on what is seen to be ideal; i.e., a focus on impacts in/on practice, not just apparent abstract influence of ideas and theories; “grounded” history: looking at the sources of ideas/innovations in particular contexts of production and, when they are implemented, assessing their effects in specified contexts.

How did innovation rise to prominence? The idea that the history of language teaching is essentially a linear and teleological history of methods has been critiqued by, for example, Hunter and Smith (2012) and Howatt and Smith (2014) for the global history of English language teaching, and by Giesler (2015) specifically for the German context. Historical research can play a similarly deconstructive role vis-a-vis “innovation”. As with “method”, the whole concept of innovation might be seen as a western construct, mainly – though not exclusively – founded in the teleological “idea of progress” (Nisbet, 1994), whose dominance began to be established in the early Enlightenment (put simply, this is the idea that “mankind has advanced in the past […] – is now advancing, and will continue to advance through the foreseeable future” (ibid., pp. 4–5)). Philosophers like Voltaire and Kant argued that science and reason were the driving forces behind both technological and societal progress. In making this argument, these thinkers built on even older ideas by further developing the teleological framework of early Christianity and individual ideas from ancient Greece (ibid.). What needs to be stressed here is that, historically, the idea of continual progress is a rather maverick conception when set against the cyclical views prevalent, for example, in ancient Chinese, Babylonian, Hindu, Greek or Roman philosophies (cf. Fay, 1947). Whereas Confucianism and Taoism venerate the past, the “book religions” based on Judaism refer to a teleological worldview that addresses an idealized future yet to come. Throughout the world, modernization has often been modelled in a western/northern way in recent centuries; indeed, the worldwide spread of notions of progress and innovation – as well as the historical export of ‘innovative products’ – has strong connections with 19th–20th-century (and earlier) western/northern imperialism. The two 20th-century superpowers – the USA and the USSR – were both founded on their own specific ideas of technological and societal progress. In

5

6

Richard Smith & Tim Giesler

post-war Eastern Europe (and in left-wing intellectual circles of the west), a Marxist view of progress towards classless socialism and communism predominated (cf. Sayers, 2018). At the same time in the USA, the ideology/myth of “American Technological Sublime” (Nye, 1994) merged conceptions of natural wonder and mechanical triumph with religious and moral improvement. First (especially from European migrants’ perspective), the “sublime” landscape was read as a second scripture from a Calvinist viewpoint (ibid., p. 29); later, this was extended to technological achievements like the railroad system, thus defining the American nation through progress: As technological achievements became central […], the American sublime fused with religion, nationalism, and technology, diverging in practice significantly from European theory. It ceased to be a philosophical idea and became submerged in practice. (ibid., p. 43)

Such a view was (and is) not limited to the USA and has been exported as a byproduct of American cultural imperialism (see Tomlison, 1991), as well as through the adoption of US policies as, for example, in the case of the OECD’s influential educational policies favouring innovation and accountability.1 OECD views are themselves clearly derived from the economic realm – initially, as part of Cold War competition with the USSR (see Tröhler, 2011, p. 144ff.), and, later, disseminated as part of globalization (ibid., p. 151ff.). Indeed, the fields of language education and economics seem to overlap in the area of innovation: references to newness, progress and innovation are often found precisely when teaching methods or textbooks are marketed and advertised, in other words promoted for profitmaking purposes. This constitutes necessary background to the fact that progressivism informs prevalent conceptions of language teaching history, which tends to be presented as a kind of linear, progressivist narrative, characterized by successive revolutions or paradigm shifts (e.g. Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011; Richards & Rodgers, 2014). In this view, methods are presented as discrete packages or recipes, one by one being “stigmatized as inadequate and dysfunctional” (Giesler, 2015, p. 146) as innovation takes its course (cf. Hunter & Smith, 2012). Besse (2014, p. 42) ascribes the development of this view in particular to the period between 1960 and 2000: Entre 1960 et 2000, s’est développé dans les pays occidentaux un discours sur les méthodes pour enseigner / faire apprendre les langues étrangères ou secondes 1. Admittedly, there had also been more conservative notions in Europe, set against scientific progress and the accompanying destruction of nature – as in 19th-century Romanticism (cf. Levin, 1966) or 20th-century “Limits to Growth” as propagated by the Club of Rome (Meadows et al., 1972).

Chapter 1. How can ALH improve our understanding of innovation?

[…] qui adopte souvent un point de vue diachronique, concevant l’évolution méthodologique comme une succession de méthodes spécifiques et supposées distinctes qui s’inscrirait dans un progrès plus ou moins continu.2

Such a view has, of course, been critiqued. Besse (ibid.) himself mentions the fact that it neglects the institutional contexts within which ideas emerge, presenting them as universally relevant, and he also indicates that ideas are sometimes not as new as they seem, a point to which we return below. Hunter and Smith (2012) present similar views, building on Pennycook’s earlier (1989) post-modern deconstruction of the myth of continual methodological progress. Pennycook himself refers approvingly to Kelly’s (1969) view that the stock of ideas available to language teachers has not fundamentally changed, despite appearances of progress; indeed, the idea that history goes in cycles – or shifts according to swings of a pendulum – has, perhaps, gained some currency since the heyday of ‘scientifically based’ audiolingual, audio-visual and situational language teaching in the 1960s. Nevertheless, in spite of post-modern critiques and arguments for post-method pedagogy (e.g. Kumaravadivelu, 2006), the field as a whole still seems quite firmly wedded to a teleological view of continual progress involving – and requiring – continuous improvement and innovation. Indeed, in the absence of much historical research in our field, there have been few concrete suggestions for replacement of the still-dominant progressivist account of the past (and implied future). Use of the inadequate metaphors of pendulum shift and “reinventing the wheel” / “going round in circles” may tend to betray a certain world-weary cynicism (“Plus ça change …”) without providing guidance as to where appropriate ideas can come from or when they should be introduced; even post-method pedagogy itself (ibid.) can be seen to be predicated on an over-simplified conception of the past it is meant to replace.3 Showing the limitations of progressivism by indicating historically that supposed innovations are not as new as assumed is, indeed, one possible function of historical research, in a deconstructive mode. However, a major practical contribution to reconfiguring the field is unlikely to come if historians of language teaching confine themselves to erudite put-downs of claims to newness, since such critiques can reinforce another myth about the past – that nothing new is ever invented. 2. [Between 1960 and 2000, a discourse on language teaching methods developed in western countries […] which often adopts a diachronic point of view, conceiving of methodological evolution as a succession of specific methods which are held to be distinct and part of a process of more or less continuous progress.] 3. As, for example, in Kumaravadivelu’s (2006, pp. 97–157) account of ‘language-centred’ audiolingualism giving way to ‘learner-centred’ communicative language teaching, itself being, seemingly, supplanted by ‘learning-centred’, task-based methods.

7

8

Richard Smith & Tim Giesler

Things do change, of course. New ideas may seem similar to practices in the past (see next section) but they are reconfigured, in conditions and contexts which are never the same as before. Thus, Musumeci (1997) points out that Communicative Language Teaching is not as new as supposed, given that in Renaissance grammar schools pupils engaged in conversation and role-play in Latin – indeed, explicit teaching of grammar and rote learning of word lists, characteristic of what we know as “grammar-translation”, can be seen as more of a 19th-century phenomenon. This is important to recognize, but the very different context for, and characteristics of, 20th-century CLT also deserve to be highlighted. Similarly, while Giesler (2018b) shows that combining content and language learning (known now as “CLIL” – Content and Language Integrated Learning) is a principle that has been established over centuries and yet has been supposedly discovered again and again, it is also true that this has occurred in different forms in different contexts. Work like Musumeci’s and Giesler’s is useful for puncturing bubbles of complacency about the novelty and superiority of current language teaching theory but if the dominant myth of continual progression (and continual need for innovation) is to be replaced, it also seems necessary for historians to show, unanachronistically, how ideas and practices were not the same as those we have now, however similarseeming. Cultivating understanding and appreciation of the past on its own terms (not simply as a precursor to better-known ideas or practices) must surely be the main means to counteract progressivism in our field. In sum, showing the limitations of progressivism via historical research can open up new possibilities, but perhaps new perspectives can only be developed via research which avoids anachronism (see Smith, 2016) and shows the difference between present and past ideas/practices, and the alternative validity of the latter. In this connection, it also seems helpful to establish the difference between radical and incremental innovation (cf. Grandstrand, 1994). In language education, supposedly radical innovations are often termed “paradigm shifts” or “turns” – like, for example, the emergence of audiolingualism, communicative language teaching, task-based language teaching or intercultural language teaching (Schmenk et al., 2018, p. 3). A “procession-of-methods” view of the past (Hunter & Smith, 2012) is connected with “sloganization” in language education discourse (Schmenk et al., 2018), whereby new generations of language teaching theorists continually aim to distinguish themselves from their predecessors. In reality, though, incremental rather than radical change is to be expected in (language) education practice, as is well-expressed in Tyack and Cuban’s (1995) notion of “tinkering towards Utopia”. In many cases, self-branded slogans (Schmenk et al., 2018, p. 2) which involve notions of “innovation”, “turn”, “paradigm shift” or “radical change” could (and should) – via a historical perspective – more cautiously and precisely be termed

Chapter 1. How can ALH improve our understanding of innovation?

“reconfigurations” in language teaching (cf. Giesler, 2018a, p. 242ff; see also, Howatt and Smith (2014) on periodization as an alternative to histories of discrete methods). Thus, as an alternative to conceptualizing language teaching as a series of revolutions brought about by innovation, a focus on evolution and tradition may be productive (cf. Smith & Imura, 2004). As Giesler has shown, from a longue durée (Braudel, 1966) perspective on the development of English language education in German institutional contexts, only the moyenne durée of the 19th century was dominated by grammar-translation (cf. Musumeci (1997), cited above), with more functional or “communicative” methods being otherwise more normal. Other ways of breaking away from the innovation / paradigm shift perspective on history might be to explain the past instead with reference to the persistence of “dimensions” of language teaching (Stern, 1992; Thornbury, 2011) or of a relatively unchanging “grammar of schooling” (Tyack & Tobin, 1994) in institutional contexts. We shall consider these possibilities further in the sub-sections “Language teaching oscillating along a continuum” and “Adaptation in specific contexts” below.

Characterizing and identifying innovation Adopting a historical perspective on innovation can, furthermore, play an ontological role, in that history enables us to characterize what innovation “is”, and can potentially lead to revised conceptualizations of what innovation needs to involve. Indeed, innovation – as, supposedly, “something new” – can only be characterized in relation to what has gone before, so historical research should be relevant and could be useful, though it is rare. To show the actual complexity of the notion of innovation, we might go back to the OECD’s (2017, p. 17) characterization of educational innovations as “fresh ways of meeting outstanding challenges”. As we have already seen, innovations presented as such may not always in fact be completely “fresh”, so a distinction needs to be made between appearance and reality of “newness”. Additionally, to what extent are innovations always motivated by challenges – contextual needs – as opposed to other determining actors or forces? Contextual need may be an aspect of the face validity of an innovation – in other words, the need to seem to be meeting a real challenge, along with seeming new, may be necessary to qualify as a perceived innovation at the time of conception and introduction, but appearances of meeting challenges are not necessarily the same thing as actual motivations or effects, just as appearances of newness can be deceptive, and new effects

9

10

Richard Smith & Tim Giesler

may not result from new ideas. So, innovation in general – or a particular innovation – can be conceived in several ways: as intention to be new, as actual change in theory, and/or as actual change in practice. This already constitutes a revised, more complex conceptualization of innovation, with greater explanatory potential than is normally evident in discussions of the concept, although Malerba (2000), for example, does differentiate clearly between “invention” (something intended to be new and/or an actual change in theory, in our formulation) and “innovation” (corresponding with our actual change in practice above), the former being new ideas, technologies or scientific discoveries which only become an innovation – in Malerba’s terms – once they are implemented. According to this way of thinking, ideas or products do not have to be new in themselves; for him, the most important characteristic of innovation is actual change in practice. This is, indeed, consistent with the OECD’s overall view that innovation involves “significant change in […] educational practices” (Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2019, p. 17). Whereas the OECD relies on its own large-scale performance tests (ibid., p. 23) to assess impact, such a view is in itself one-sided and problematic as it does not take the “multilayered infrastructure of curriculum” (Cuban, 2013, p. 50ff.) into account: What is intended in curricula or textbooks, taught in classrooms, picked up, and learned by students needs to be distinguished from what students actually show in achievement tests: one can no more derive degree of actual innovation from students’ performance in tests than one can from the intended curricular demands, since both ignore the “complexities in teaching and learning that occur daily in the black box of the classroom” (Cuban, 2013, p. 12). Thus, while the above discussion implies, in the context of language education, shifting attention to the impact that new methods, approaches, products or processes actually have or have had on teaching practice rather than focusing on their novelty – real or imagined – and influence at a theoretical level as commonly tends to be the case, we should be very wary of the OECD’s own view that innovation involves only “significant change in educational practices” (Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2019, p. 17, cited above) at a particular point in time. Impact can be shortlived or longer lasting, relatively superficial or involving change at a deeper level, and these aspects need to be taken account of by the historian. In illustration of the distinctions we are suggesting, we could refer again to Musumeci’s (1997) research into antecedents of the Communicative Approach in language teaching, which, like many language teaching approaches, was generally conceived to be – and was presented as – something entirely fresh (intended to be new) at the time of its development and promotion in the 1970s–1980s. Musumeci’s monograph sets out to show that it was not as actually new in theory as was presented at the time (although – it should be stressed – its advocates probably

Chapter 1. How can ALH improve our understanding of innovation?

thought it was), in other words that a communicative form of language teaching was advocated in the Renaissance and was not, therefore, as new in theory as presented in the 1970s. We need to turn to other studies, however, to see whether communicative language teaching has been a successful innovation in reality – in other words, involving actual change in practice – and here a relatively restricted range of historical perspective seems necessary, alongside a strongly contextual focus. Within the context of UK language schools, for example, it seems clear that there was a great deal of change in practice during the 1970s and 1980s, involving the addition of a third stage of “communicative activities” to existing structuralsituational types of presentation and practice (hence, ‘P-P-P’ (cf. Anderson, 2017)). However, change has not happened so fast, or has hardly happened at all, across education systems worldwide (indeed, there has often been “tissue rejection” of intended communicative reforms, for reasons memorably analysed by Holliday (1994)). So, from the perspective of innovation as impact or effect (rather than just intention to be new or actual change in theory), the extent to which communicative language teaching has truly been an innovation can only be answered with reference to particular contexts, at particular points in recent history. Impact evaluation might reveal that a particular innovation – while apparently attractive in theory – has failed to take root, or has had only a brief or partial effect; indeed, the fact that reform projects often fail (cf. Hall, 1997) has been the starting-point for a number of publications aiming to improve the situation practically in recent years (e.g., Waters, 2009; Wedell, 2009b). We should probably not be surprised to find, via historical research, that intended top–down or outside–in innovations have failed to take root in the past. Cuban’s (2013) multi-layered model of the curriculum again provides a plausible explanation for this – the “intended curriculum” (often conveying intended innovations) is supposed to be translated into practice by teachers who may be unwilling to change when they cannot see the relative advantage of a particular new idea or product, or when it seems to contradict well-established routines and practices. At the same time, it might be beneficial to consider why certain intended innovations do in fact have an impact on practice without, seemingly, encountering so much resistance.

Managing innovation with historical sense As highlighted above, historically oriented research has already shown that certain top–down attempts to innovate have been inappropriate in the past (Holliday, 1994). To our knowledge, though, within work relating to the management of innovation in language education, only Henrichsen (1989) has devoted much

11

12

Richard Smith & Tim Giesler

attention to indicating that practical lessons can be learned from the past, whether these involve smoothing the path of an innovation, changing its nature, or dispensing with innovation altogether. Indeed, as Henrichsen (ibid.) has shown with regard to a particular attempt to reform English teaching within a school system – the introduction of Oral Approach by American experts into Japanese schools in the late 1950s – ignoring antecedents (in this case, prior initiatives led by the British applied linguist Harold E. Palmer in the 1920s and 1930s) was one reason for the reform’s overall failure. Based on this, Henrichsen (1989) builds historical investigation into his model of innovation management, proposing that “by looking back into history and learning from the experiences of others […] promoters of innovations can avoid many problems that plagued previous campaigns” (p. 201). As we have seen, claims to be innovative depend on assumptions about the past which may be false or at least under-researched, and which may be held as questionable or one-sided by those in “receipt” of an innovation. If we accept that something can only be defined as innovative in relation to assumed knowledge of the past, lacking historical knowledge about what innovations have or have not been attempted or implemented in the past in a particular context seems highly problematic. At least some innovations may constitute – and may be seen by some – as old wine in new bottles, as in the case considered by Henrichsen (ibid.). This case also shows how innovators undervalue the persistence of local traditions at their peril. Indeed, the lack of awareness – or deliberate ignoring – of antecedents which has tended to characterize post-World War II applied linguistics centred in western countries can be – and has been – counteracted by a certain degree of what Smith (2013) has termed “historical sense” among (some) teachers in countries like Japan. Lacks in context-sensitivity are often recognized as at fault in the failure of outside–in reform efforts, but perhaps the perspectives of those on the receiving end of innovations at the “taught” and “learned” levels (Cuban, 2013) have been insufficiently recognized, with too much attention having been paid to regrets at or critiques of the intentions of reformers. Greater access to the perceptions and voices of those directly involved in past efforts to innovate could provide a grounding for future reform efforts. Smith and Imura (2004) have made the further constructive suggestion that actually basing suggestions for change on careful consideration of local traditions of language teaching could be beneficial, given their persistence. Finally, historical sense can enable teachers to critically assess proposals coming from the outside, justifying appropriate resistance to inappropriate change, and enabling them to build their own suggestions for change on the basis of existing traditions and considerations of “what works” in their own classrooms. There are needs for local histories, then, but the best-known historical accounts of lan-

Chapter 1. How can ALH improve our understanding of innovation?

guage teaching have so far tended to be written by western scholars writing from the “centres” of innovation export. Whether for international reformers or local innovators, historical sense is important. What seems innovative or new in one context may not be viewed as such in another. Indeed, an idea or practice is never innovative in itself but only in relation to a particular setting, which needs to be fully understood and described, including with regard to its history.

Aspects of innovation, from chapter authors’ perspectives The contributors to this volume all consider innovation historically, themselves making explicit how their studies relate to the overall concept of innovation although not necessarily with specific reference to the considerations outlined above. The contributions address different and intersecting aspects of innovation and, although there is overlap in concerns among chapters, it seemed plausible to us to order them thematically into four separate sections, as described below Some innovations in the history of language learning and teaching are obviously influenced by the introduction of new (material) inventions or technologies, and this might be termed innovation through technological change, or product innovation. Technology is, indeed, what immediately springs to mind for many people when they hear the word “innovation”, although new products do not always involve new technology. In other cases, innovation has involved new ideas or findings rather than technology or immediately usable products, being developed via social processes which can be termed innovation through scientific research.4 Also, one might question whether what has conventionally been termed “innovation” involves, rather, oscillations along a continuum, within the dimensions of methods which Thornbury (2011, p. 194) has defined following Kelly (1969) and Stern (1992). Finally, it is also worth investigating further the specific nature of the “grammar” of schooling (cf. Tyack & Tobin, 1994) when thinking specifically about adaptation in specific contexts, particularly in contexts of (institutional) schooling which – from a historical perspective – have shown themselves to be robust against change, requiring a relatively “conservative” (Arendt, 1954) or, at least, highly context-sensitive approach (cf. Wedell, 2009b), if innovation is to become embedded.

4. Stern (1992, p. 6) makes a similar distinction between “technological innovation” and “innovation through the language-related sciences and research”.

13

14

Richard Smith & Tim Giesler

Product innovation Going back to the issue of definition, we can see that the Encyclopedia Britannica makes a useful distinction between new “products” and new “processes”. Innovation, here, is defined as the creation of a new way of doing something, whether the enterprise is concrete (e.g., the development of a new product) or abstract (e.g., the development of a new philosophy or theoretical approach to a problem). (Boslaugh, n.d.)

In the context of education, the OECD, as the major global propagator of educational improvement, makes a similar distinction between product and process, defining innovation as: a new or improved product or process (or combination thereof ) that differs significantly from […] previous products or processes and that has been made available to potential users (product) or brought into use […] (process). (OECD/Eurostat, 2018)

In this understanding, the introduction of “new or significantly different products and services” (Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2019, p. 21) marks product innovation. This can be identified in “new syllabi, textbooks or educational resources, or new pedagogies or educational experiences (for example e-learning or new qualifications)” (ibid.), often materialized in items which survive the course of time. These items can then be analysed thoroughly and need to be put into their respective historical, geographical, social contexts to evaluate their innovative character. This means researchers have to find out whether anything similar had been known or used before, to ascertain the extent to which they were indeed “significantly different” within their context and time. Several chapters in this volume highlight characteristics of product innovation, especially in the field of lexicography (Iamartino & Berti, Nuccorini, and Heuberger). The influence of technological change is evident in this field, both in the diversification of dictionaries for learners, and in their broader distribution, which were initially consequences of the decreasing cost of books and printed matter following the invention of printing on the threshold of the modern European era, and cheaper production, especially after the Industrial Revolution. The role that the invention of letterpress printing played in the development of learning materials also potentially applies to every other technological innovation in the field of media, including audio and video as well as information technology. The question does arise, however, whether cheaper and easier dissemination via new technology might only involve, in fact, cheaper and easier dissemination of information, that is, whether it primarily forms a quantitative advantage but

Chapter 1. How can ALH improve our understanding of innovation?

without changing the content itself. This would, for example, be the case if a book that was previously only copied by hand is made available as a printed product, but also if books are scanned and made available online. Qualitative effects are also conceivable, however. One example from this collection is the use of language corpora as a basis for dictionary production since 1987 (see Heuberger). With the use of corpora, the technical innovation of databases as a basis for dictionaries makes it possible to determine which language use is in fact empirical and authentic – something that neither individual authors nor larger teams had previously been able to ensure. Whether technological innovations trigger quantitative or qualitative effects on language learning and teaching thus deserves detailed investigation. On closer inspection, some celebrated apparent innovations might have been not much more than just transitions from one medium to another. These considerations are largely at the level of product innovation; they do not provide proof of whether the processes of foreign language learning and teaching have also been innovated. Although the availability and dissemination of innovative teaching and learning materials could be an indication of their use, Banducci Rahe (in this volume) shows how quite a large quantity of apparently innovative language teaching materials (e.g. records, record players, flashcards) were acquired by a Brazilian school in the mid-20th century in the course of modernization of the school system. However, the mint condition they are still in today suggests that they – and thus any intended process innovation – have never actually been implemented.

Innovation through scientific discovery In contrast to product innovation, process innovation is harder to trace from a historical perspective, as historians cannot always rely on material items when evaluating whether new processes have been brought into play. The distinction between product and process innovation seems similar to that drawn by Edquist and Johnson (1997) between innovation of material and innovation of immaterial aspects. Innovation not only bears on new technology but also on the introduction of new ideas or at least on new combinations of existing ideas. Thus, another aspect that becomes visible in some of the contributions to this volume is how innovation might be triggered through scholarly or scientific progress and, thus, through the introduction of new ideas and new ways of seeing and understanding the world. In the context of language education, this development has been most obviously relevant during what has been termed the “Scientific Period” from c. 1920 to c. 1970 (Howatt & Smith, 2014, p. 85ff.), when a series of scientific innovations in the field of second language learning theory led

15

16

Richard Smith & Tim Giesler

to a deeper (but to this day far from complete) understanding of how languages are learned. Whyte (in this volume) shows how these scientific innovations influenced the field of language learning and teaching (research) in France. Prior to that, the late 19th-century Reform Movement had triggered teacher-led research and thus innovation at the level of classroom practice – at least among the teachers who were convinced of the Reform and willing to try out the new methods (see Klippel, this volume). Generally (though not always), changes in understanding of processes involved in language acquisition may also give rise to new ways of language teaching and learning that can be tried and tested with the help of empirical research in the realm of process innovation. New scientific insights can also trigger product innovation, with dictionary-making again being a prime example within this collection. Thus, Iamartino and Berti show how, in the 18th century, Andree’s dictionary was constructed on the belief that lexis is more easily acquired and memorized with the help of etymology of the Latin ancestor of English words. In the same way, Nuccorini traces the use of word combinations in phraseological dictionaries of the 19th century that include a didactic perspective on using words in context rather than just relying on word-to-word translations. Heuberger analyses how the innovative nature of monolingual learner dictionaries answered to the needs of monolingual instruction suggested by the Direct Method. In these examples there is usually a close connection (or even a personal union) between the proponents of scientific innovation and authors / publishers of a product innovation. These lexicographical examples show how new insights into the way languages are (or should be) acquired and learned can trigger both process and product innovation and thus new ways of imagining language teaching and learning. However, what sometimes looks like a neatly ordered, universal ‘procession of methods’ (Hunter & Smith, 2012, p. 432) gains a more complex aspect when language education is considered in specific contexts, as in the chapters in this volume. Also, studies like Banducci Rahe’s remind us that the mere existence of new and innovative ideas does not say much about their relevance and dissemination in the real world. In other words, the influence of an idea on theoretical debate does not automatically prove its impact on teaching practice (cf. Giesler, 2021).

Oscillations along a continuum Instead of a linear progression of teaching methodology or a neat procession of methods, what we know about teaching practice both in the past and present looks, rather, eclectic and oscillatory along a continuum between extremes as, for example, defined by Stern (1992) and Kelly (1969) and taken up in Thornbury’s (2011, p. 192ff.) dimensions pertaining to methodology in language teaching and

Chapter 1. How can ALH improve our understanding of innovation?

learning. It is hard to imagine fundamental innovation in a millennia-old trade like language teaching in which almost every approach imaginable seems likely to have been tried out, in one way or the other, already. Practitioners can be assumed to have always based their practice on what has seemed to work before or, at least, to have mixed new ideas with their existing, relatively conservative routines, which may themselves be well-adapted to contextual constraints such as assessment.5 Extreme ends of the continua proposed by Stern (1992) and Thornbury (2011) include a focus on formal aspects of language – as in the much-maligned Grammar-Translation Method – or on functional aspects and language use – as in “direct” methods and those based on “communication”; these, in turn, are often combined with a focus on metacognition and didactic interventions at the one end and attempted replication of “natural” learning comparable to how children learn their mother tongue, at the other. In this spirit, Giesler and Doff trace Direct Method traditions in the German school context back to long before the Reform Movement at the end of the 19th century. They also show how a discourse of newness and innovation has typically been used to advertise ideas and delineate them from others. Pedrazzini, on the other hand, shows how the traditionally conservative Italian foreign language syllabus based on grammar-translation was challenged roughly a hundred years later through the idea of “reflection on language”. In both cases, reality turns out to be more complex than a procession-ofmethods view might suggest. Both direct methods and grammar-translation, as examples of extreme ends of a continuum, may have rarely existed in their purest form, nor were they strictly tied to a particular era. As both Giesler / Doff and Pedrazzini show in their respective chapters, when evaluating the degree of innovativeness of a specific teaching method, the historical educational context needs to be taken in account.

Adaptation in specific contexts A number of contributions to this volume show how “innovativeness” needs to be viewed in close relation to the cultural, geographic and political contexts in which it might or might not occur. Giesler and Doff provide evidence that the dominant

5. A more philosophical explanation of the conservative nature of schooling is provided by Arendt (1954, p. 11), who says “it seems to me that conservatism, in the sense of conservation, is of the essence of the educational activity, whose task is always to cherish and protect something – the child against the world, the world against the child, the new against the old, the old against the new. Even the comprehensive responsibility for the world that is thereby assumed implies, of course, a conservative attitude”.

17

18

Richard Smith & Tim Giesler

teaching methodology for higher boys education in 19th-century Germany was not necessarily similar to what was used in girls’ or merchants’ schools at the same time; Pedrazzini shows that, while communicative approaches may have generally become accepted internationally at a theoretical level from the 1970s onwards, the Italian school system continued to largely rely on grammar-translation methods. In yet another European context, Whyte describes the specific development of la linguistique appliquée in post-World War II-France, which partly resembled and related to developments in anglophone applied linguistics but also came to constitute a specific, national tradition of language teaching (and other) research. Finally, moving beyond Europe, the need to consider particular contexts and traditions becomes even clearer: Gianninoto and Pu, in separate chapters, explore the Chinese context in the 18th, 19th and late 20th centuries to show how western paradigms of language education (either imported by foreigners or adopted by the Chinese themselves) met different cultural, educational and linguistic traditions and thus may have caused confusion, had to be adapted, in fact changed, and finally may have led to innovation through exchange and adaptation of ideas. Indeed, language education as an endeavour organized by political institutions within nation states is always embedded in the respective political context of schooling, being subject to general educational pressures – as becomes visible in Pu’s chapter in relation to the different understandings and purposes ascribed to the notion of ‘learner autonomy’ in relatively liberal and relatively authoritarian societies. Educational traditions are known to be rather robust and often not very amenable to innovation – as is vividly made visible in Tyack and Tobin’s (1994) notion of a grammar of schooling that (once introduced) develops only slowly. Schools are known as places which change reforms, not the other way around. It is thus worth continuing to explore the differences between an innovation’s influence on theoretical debate and its actual impact on teaching practice. Cuban’s (2013) “layers” of curriculum offer a helpful framework here, as researchers can state on which layer the innovation occurred – and on which not (see Doff & Smith, 2022).

Conclusion Although clichés like “there is nothing new under the sun” certainly need to be avoided, and anachronism is an ever-present danger, some apparent innovations can turn out, from a historical perspective, to have been little more than turns of a wheel or swings of a pendulum, or, indeed, far less beneficial than was intended at the time; on the other hand, forgotten or disparaged approaches, methods, mate-

Chapter 1. How can ALH improve our understanding of innovation?

rials or means of change from the past can sometimes take on a modern form and emerge as potentially useful in relation to current concerns. Ultimately, what is genuinely innovative, and beneficially so, cannot be identified or appreciated without the kinds of historical perspective offered by this volume, perspectives which have hitherto been lacking in the fields of applied linguistics and language teaching research. “Local” or “glocal” historical developments in Brazil, China, England, France, Germany and Italy are considered in the book along with “global” innovations in the field of language learner lexicography, while the taught or learnt languages considered in different chapters include Chinese, French, Italian, Latin, Portuguese and Spanish as well as English. The historical periods treated range from the early eighteenth to the late twentieth century, and expertise is contributed from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds. The book draws on work by established scholars in the fields of history of language learning, lexicography and teaching (e.g. Doff, Iamartino, Klippel, Nuccorini) and introduces scholars who are relatively new to these fields. Various methodologies and types of source material within the overall field of HoLLT are utilized, illustrating the possibilities of applied linguistic historiography for both students and academics new to the field. The chapters in this volume contribute, then, to an emerging body of research in HoLLT and HoAL (the History of Applied Linguistics) by considering cases of successful as well as apparently ineffective innovation, and by both interrogating the notion of innovation and exploring the history of its rise to prominence in the field of language teaching. We hope that the insights provided will enable readers and, perhaps, the field as a whole to see beyond limitations of the dominant discourse of perpetual innovation and progress and thereby adopt a more historically informed, critical perspective on change and innovation in applied linguistics and language teaching.

Note on peer reviews, editorial assistance and translations Each of the chapters was reviewed by two anonymous peer reviewers as well as by the editors and revised accordingly, sometimes several times. We sincerely thank the reviewers for their constructive assistance and all the authors for their great patience and commitment to the project during this process. We would also like to thank Ms. Marieke Rathjen for her help with formatting the chapters for publication. When authors quote from a text written in a language other than English, we have encouraged them to provide both the original and a translation, indicated as such by square brackets. All translations are the authors’ own unless otherwise indicated.

19

20

Richard Smith & Tim Giesler

References Anderson, J. (2017). A potted history of PPP with the help of ELT Journal. ELT Journal, 71(2), 218–227. Arendt, H. (1954). The crisis in education. Retrieved on 22 November 2022 from https:// thecriticalreader.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/ArendtCrisisInEdTable.pdf Besse, H. (2014). La Société Internationale pour l’Histoire du Français Langue Étrangère ou Seconde (SIHFLES), ou vingt-cinq ans d’investigations historiographiques sur l’enseignement/apprentissage du français langue étrangère ou seconde, Language & History, 57(1), 26–43. Boslaugh, S. E. (n.d.). Innovation. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved on 9 October 2022 from https://www.britannica.com/topic/innovation-creativity Braudel, F. (1966). La Méditerranée et le monde méditerrranéen à l’époque de Philippe II (3 Vols). Librairie Armand Colin. British Council (n.d.). ELTons innovation awards. Retrieved on 9 October 2022 from https:// www.teachingenglish.org.uk/news-events/eltons-innovations-awards Cuban, L. (2013). Inside the black box of classroom practice. Change without reform in American education. Harvard Education Press. Doff, S., & Smith, R. (Eds.). (2022). Policies and practice in language learning and teaching: 20th-century historical perspectives. Amsterdam University Press. Edquist, C., & Johnson, B. (1997). Institutions and organizations in systems of innovation. In C. Edquist (Ed.), Systems of innovation (pp. 41–63). Pinter. Fay, S. B. (1947). The idea of progress. The American Historical Review, 52(2), 231–246. https://doi.org/10.2307/1841272

Giesler, T. (2015). Here be dragons. Von einer “Mythologie” zu einer “Morphologie” des Fremdsprachenunterrichts. IJHE Bildungsgeschichte, 5(2), 146–161. Giesler, T. (2018a). Die Formation des institutionellen Englischunterrichts. Englisch als erste Fremdsprache in Bremen (1855–1873). WVT. Giesler, T. (2018b). To kill two birds with one stone. Combining language and content since the 19th century. In N. McLelland & R. Smith (Eds.), The history of language learning and teaching, Vol. 2: 19th–20th century Europe (pp. 76–86). Legenda Giesler, T. (2021). Start afresh or return? The impact of the Reform Movement on northern German English language teaching. Language & History, 64(3), 187–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/17597536.2021.1996088

Grandstrand, O. (1994). Technological, technical and economic dynamics –Towards a Systems Analysis Framework. In O. Grandstrand (Ed.), Economics of technology (pp.190–221). Elsevier. Hall, D. (1997). Why projects fail. In B. Kenny & W. Savage (Eds.), Language and development: Teachers in a changing world. Longman. Harber, C., & Davies, L. (1998). School management and effectiveness in developing countries: The post-bureaucratic school. Bloomsbury. Henrichsen, L. E. (1989). Diffusion of innovations in English language teaching: The ELEC effort in Japan, 1956–1968. Greenwood Press. Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge University Press.

Chapter 1. How can ALH improve our understanding of innovation?

Howatt, A. P. R., & Smith, R. (2014). The history of teaching English as a foreign language, from a British and European perspective. Language & History, 57(1), 75–95. https://doi.org/10.1179/1759753614Z.00000000028

Hunter, D., & Smith, R. (2012). Unpackaging the past: ‘CLT’ through ELTJ keywords. ELT Journal, 66(4), 430–439. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccs036 Kelly, L. G. (1969). 25 centuries of language teaching. Newbury House. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410615725 Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and principles in language teaching (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. Levin, S. (1966). Malthus and the idea of progress. Journal of the History of Ideas, 27(1), 92–108. https://doi.org/10.2307/2708310

Malerba, F. (2000). Economia dell‘innovazione. Carrocci. McLelland, N., & Smith, R. (Eds.). (2014). History of modern language education in Europe. Special issue of Language & History, 57(1). McLelland, N., & Smith, R. (Eds.) (2018). The history of language learning and teaching (3 Vols). Legenda. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv16km0ns Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Rangers, J., & Behrens III, W. W. (1972). The limits to growth. Potomac Associates. Musumeci, D. (1997). Breaking tradition: An exploration of the historical relationship between theory and practice in second language teaching. McGraw-Hill. Nisbet, R. (1994). History of the idea of progress (2nd ed.). Routledge. Nye, D. E. (1994). American technological sublime. The MIT Press. OECD. (2017). The OECD handbook for innovative learning environments. OECD Publishing. OECD/Eurostat (2018). Oslo manual 2018: Guidelines for collecting, reporting and using data on innovation (4th ed.). OECD Publishing. Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of Method, interested knowledge, and the politics of language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 23(4), 589–618. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587534 Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009024532 Sayers, S. (2018). Marx and teleology. Science & Society, 83(1), 37–63. https://doi.org/10.1521/siso.2019.83.1.37

Schmenk, B., Breidbach, S., & Küster, L. (2018). Introduction: Sloganization in language education discourse. In B. Schmenk, S. Breidbach, & L. Küster (Eds.), Sloganization in language education discourse (pp. 1–18). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788921879-002

Smith, R. (2013). Harold E. Palmer, IRLT and “historical sense” in ELT. IRLT Journal, 12, 1–8. Smith, R. (2016). Building “Applied Linguistic Historiography”: Rationale, scope and methods. Applied Linguistics, 37(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv056 Smith, R., with Imura, M. (2004). Lessons from the past: Traditions and reforms. In V. Makarova & T. Rodgers (Eds.), English language teaching: The case of Japan. LincomEuropa. Smith, R., & McLelland, N. (Eds.) (2018). Histories of language learning and teaching in Europe. Special issue of The Language Learning Journal, 46(1).

21

22

Richard Smith & Tim Giesler

Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford University Press. Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching, ed. by P. Allen & B. Harley. Oxford University Press. Thornbury, S. (2011). Language teaching methodology. In J. Simpson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 185–199). Routledge. Tomlinson, J. (1991). Cultural imperialism. A critical introduction. Continuum. Tröhler, D. (2011). Languages of education. Protestant legacies, national identities, and global aspirations. Routledge. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering towards Utopia – A century of public school reform. Harvard University Press. Tyack, D., & Tobin, W. (1994). The “grammar” of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change? American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 453–479. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312031003453

Vincent-Lancrin, S., Urgel, J., Kar, S., & Jacotin, G. (2019). Measuring innovation in education 2019: What has changed in the classroom? OECD Publishing. Retrieved on 3 October 2022 from https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/measuring-innovation-in-education-2019 _9789264311671-en. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264311671-en Waters, A. (2009). Managing innovation in English language education. Language Teaching, 42(4), 421–458. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144480999005X Wedell, M. (2009a). Key concepts in ELT: Innovation in ELT. ELT Journal, 63(4), 397–399. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccp053

Wedell, M. (2009b). Planning for educational change: Putting people and their contexts first. Continuum. Wedell, M. (2022). Key concepts in ELT: Innovation in ELT revisited. ELT Journal, 76(2), 272–275. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccac003

part i

Product innovation

chapter 2

Tart–scriblita–torta–torte–torta–tortilha: A piece of cake! Acquiring lexis in R. John Andree’s (1725) A vocabulary, in six languages Giovanni Iamartino & Lucia Berti University of Milan

This chapter investigates R. John Andree’s A vocabulary, in six languages (London, 1725). This work was not conceived solely as a reference tool but with a pedagogical purpose as well; it was based on a comparative method to ease English native speakers’ acquisition of vocabulary in four living Romance languages (Italian, French, Spanish and Portuguese) by showing their etymological similarity to their Latin ancestor – the fifth language in the Vocabulary – and between them, with English as the language of the entry words. Indeed, by viewing and memorizing Latin and Romance words together, the learner was expected to acquire them more easily. This chapter focuses on the dictionary, its method and the author’s language learning ideas and concludes with considerations relating to its contribution to innovation in language learning and teaching.

Introduction As is well known, there is a long tradition of multilingual lexicography in Europe: after a number of medieval glossaries, one has only to think of the very many multilingual dictionaries that go by the name of Calepino to understand how widespread this tradition was (see Labarre (1975) and Considine (2008, p. 27ff.)): in fact, Ambrogio Calepio’s (aka Calepino) original Latin dictionary of 1502 had come, by the end of the 16th century, to include 11 languages (Latin, Greek, German, Dutch, French, Italian, Spanish, Hebrew, Polish, Hungarian and English). As far as early modern Britain is concerned, one may mention James Howell’s Lexicon tetraglotton (four languages, i.e. English, Italian, French and Spanish),

https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.20.02iam © 2023 John Benjamins Publishing Company

Chapter 2. A Vocabulary, in six languages

published in London in 1660.1 And although monolingual and bilingual dictionaries were much more widely used in the late modern period than multilingual ones, R. John Andree’s (1725) A vocabulary, in six languages is not the only dictionary of the latter type published in 18th-century Britain. One other example is the anonymous (1728) Vocabulary and dialogues in four languages: English, Low Dutch, French and Italian, also known as L’interprète du voyageur, which clearly indicates the nature of the prospective dictionary user; other specialized multilingual dictionaries, published towards the end of the 18th century in England, include Captain James Willson’s The soldier’s pocket dictionary (1794, six languages: English, German, Dutch, French, Italian, Spanish), Henry Neuman’s A marine pocket-dictionary (1799, six languages: Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, German, French, English) and Philipp Andreas Nemnich’s An universal dictionary of merchandise (1799, 12 languages: English, German, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Polish, Latin).2 Multilingual works such as these are revealing in terms of the practical reasons for which foreign languages have been learnt throughout history. Multilingual dictionaries were generally targeted at travellers, which – leaving aside pleasure travels such as the Grand Tour, which became popular in the late modern period3 – meant especially people who travelled for work, sailors, soldiers and merchants first and foremost among them, and who therefore needed to be able to communicate in more than one foreign language without necessarily needing to fully master the foreign language(s) in question. These dictionaries were thus compiled to be practical and useful tools; they were generally portable, mostly octavos or duodecimos, and contained handy extras such as short dialogues or lists of cities and currencies. Andree’s A vocabulary, in six languages, however, while it also met the practical necessities of the traveller as it was thematically arranged and, size-wise, an octavo, was compiled with a different, and more ambitious language-learning objective. Indeed, unlike the other multilingual dictionaries, it aims at being a learning book rather than a mere reference tool. At a time when the grammartranslation method ruled foreign language teaching methodology4 – with learners being taught a language starting from the memorization of grammatical rules and putting their knowledge into practice with rule-focused translation exercises – Andree proposed an inductive approach to language study, starting from vocab-

1. For more examples and further comments on multilingual dictionaries in early and late modern Europe, see the relevant pages in Iamartino (2020). 2. On Willson’s and Nemnich’s dictionaries respectively, see Iamartino (2001) and Berti (2019). 3. Recent publications on the Grand Tour include the following: Black (2011); Sweet (2012); Barton & Brodie (2014); Colletta (2015) and Tosi (2020). 4. See the recent collection of essays in Coffey (2021) and especially Simon Coffey’s own contribution to the volume.

25

26

Giovanni Iamartino & Lucia Berti

ulary acquisition and practice through conversation. His dictionary is meant to serve this purpose by providing the most frequent words in the target languages concerned and is based on a comparative method – in which cognate words are placed next to each other in order to show their formal similarities – to ease memorization of vocabulary. Andree’s dictionary and pedagogical reflections will be further explained in the following sections.

R. John Andree’s A vocabulary, in six languages R. John Andree (1697/8–1785) was a Huguenot physician who contributed to the foundation of the London Infirmary, later known as the London Hospital, in 1740. According to his biographer (Gibbs, 2003, p. 93), Andree “was clearly an ardent worker on behalf of the hospital, both professionally and administratively”; moreover, “his approach, outlook and interests were typical of those associated with the period now known as the Enlightenment and contributed to his success as the hospital’s first physician”. Andree was also a medical author and translator, with publications concerning the beneficial effects of Tilbury water (Andree, 1737), venereal diseases (Desault, 1738), the treatment of epilepsy and related disorders (Andree, 1746), and reflections on drugs used in the treatment of cancer (Andree, 1761). These were preceded by his A vocabulary, in six languages, first published in London in 1725, and by a translation of a work of natural history from German (Behrens, 1730).5 In short, although he was first and foremost a medical doctor, Andree also gave time and energy to translating and dictionary-making, both activities proving that he was well versed in languages (see Gibbs, 2003 and 2004). With his Vocabulary Andree wanted to promote and improve the study of living Romance languages among his fellow countrymen by showing how they are related to Latin and are thus similar to each other. The content of the title page is the following: A Vocabulary, in Six Languages; viz. English, Latin, Italian, French, Spanish, and Portugues, after A New Method, to Shew the Dependance of the four last upon the Latin, and their mutual Analogy to each other. With Proper Rules for their several Pronunciations; and a Dissertation upon their Origin, Change, and Mixture;

5. R. John Andree’s publications should not be confused with those of his son, John Andree the Younger, who was a surgeon and the author of various medical treatises.

Chapter 2. A Vocabulary, in six languages

besides many other Advantages, not to be met with in common Dictionaries and Vocabularies. To which is annexed, A brief Dissertation upon Pleasure and Pain.6

The title page is followed by a dedication (pp. iii–iv) to Lord John Carteret, an important British statesman (1690–1763), then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. As Jonathan Swift put it, Carteret had carried away from Oxford “more Greek, Latin and Philosophy than properly became a person of his rank” (Cannon, 2006) and was credited with a knowledge of French, German, Spanish, Italian, Swedish, and Portuguese – in other words, he was the perfect dedicatee for Andree’s Vocabulary. The dedication is followed by an impressive list of some 270 subscribers (pp. v–viii), which provides us with some insight into the potential readership of the Vocabulary. The list includes wealthy families of merchants, members of the nobility, two Fellows of the Royal Society – “Sir Hans Sloan, Bar. President of the College of Physicians” and later President of the Royal Society7 and William Rutty, physician and secretary of the Society from 1727 to 1730 who was also in charge of foreign correspondence – and, interestingly, 26 women, among whom are the miniaturist of Portuguese origin Catherine da Costa (1679–1756) and Lady Catherine Walpole, socialite and wife of the prime minister Robert Walpole. The To the Reader section (pp. ix–xvi) starts with some metalinguistic reflections on language and languages. Language is described as a way to express thoughts, produced by articulating sounds, and sounds represent ideas: “The Regularity and Form of these Sounds is called Language” (p. x). Andree then proceeds to describe the functions of language: “First, To Communicate one Man’s Thoughts to another. Secondly, To do it with as much Ease and Quickness as possible. And, Thirdly, Thereby to convey the Knowledge of Things” (Andree, 1725, p. x). Language thus has to communicate, be economic, and convey knowledge. Nevertheless, Andree continues, the number and multifariousness of living languages hinders communication. A possible solution to this, he explains, would be a universal language – what he calls “a general Language” (p. x). But, as such a language does not exist,8 it may be advisable to learn other languages, especially those that are most in use. 6. The brief dissertation that is mentioned on the title page of the Vocabulary, and is appended to it as “Disquisitio physico-philosophica: or, a brief enquiry into the nature of pleasure and pain, caused by external taction” (pp. 175–178), reminds us that Andree was a physician by profession. After the Vocabulary’s first publication in 1725, a second, unchanged edition came out four years later, in 1729. 7. 12 years later, Sloane would be the dedicatee of Andree’s An account of the Tilbury water (1737). 8. Attempts at the creation of a universal, perfect language have been analysed by Knowlson (1975), Slaughter (1982) and Eco (1995).

27

28

Giovanni Iamartino & Lucia Berti

At this point, Andree provides reasons to elicit interest in the five target languages contained in the dictionary – Latin, Italian, French, Spanish, and Portuguese. English, the language of the entry words, represents the mother tongue of the target readership as the book has been “chiefly designed for the use of English Men” (p. xvi). As far as Italian is concerned, the compiler explains that it “is much esteemed at the Courts of Princes” (p. x), a comment traditionally made to promote the study of Italian. This is possibly not as strong a reason if compared to those, showing greater utility, provided for the remaining languages. Latin is described as “the Language of the learned”, French “is talked throughout all Europe”, and Spanish and Portuguese are expedient for communication “in the East and West Indies, besides their Usefulness in Trade at home” (p. x). Andree also writes a little in defence of English with regard to the common accusation of it being a “Mixture of all Languages”;9 he reminds the reader that all languages, and not just English, “have introduced foreign Terms” and that no language “can boast of an unspotted Purity” (p. xi). Whatever the nature of the English language, Andree makes clear the purpose of his dictionary: “The present Undertaking being to facilitate the Study of the four last Tongues [i.e., Italian, French, Spanish and Portuguese], by shewing their Harmony among themselves, and great Dependance upon the Latin” (Andree, 1725, p. x). Indeed, Andree believed that the etymological similarity between the four Romance languages and the often obvious comparison with their ancestor, Latin, would ease the learner in memorizing and acquiring them. Viewing and memorizing the vocabulary of these languages together was thus in his opinion more effective than studying one of these languages individually, at least as far as lexis was concerned. The introductory section of the address To the Reader is followed by what Andree defines on the title-page as a dissertation upon the “Origin, Change, and Mixture” of the dictionary’s languages (pp. xi–xiii). He provides some historical information about the development of all the languages contained in the dictionary, English included. There is nothing particularly noteworthy here: Andree repeats what 17th-century scholarship had stated, and betrays his sources by refer-

9. The Renaissance master of Italian John Florio had been particularly vocal in his criticism of the English language: “Certis if you wyl beleeue me, it doth not like me at al, because it is a language confused, bepeesed with many tongues: it taketh many words of the latine, & mo from the French, & mo from the Italian, and many mo from the Duitch, some also from the Greeke, & from the Britaine, so that if euery language had his owne wordes againe, there woulde but a fewe remaine for English men, and yet every day they adde” (Florio, 1578, p. 51).

Chapter 2. A Vocabulary, in six languages

ring to the famous English antiquary and historian William Camden as “Mr. Cambden” (p. xii).10

Andree’s insights in relation to language learning Much more interesting is the final part of the address to the reader (pp. xiii–xvi), where Andree proceeds “to give the Reader an Idea of the designed Usefulness of this Undertaking” (p. xiii) and deals with the learning of the five languages. He explains that memory, which is a necessary requirement for the study of a language, is considerably strengthened by formal affinities between words from different languages. Thus, being able to associate one language with another and viewing common features between two or more languages enhances our learning skills. In order to recognize these ‘Resemblances’ (p. xiii), the reader should look at the base forms of words. Andree exemplifies this by referring to the entry for angel: Latin, Angelus; Italian, Angelo; French, Ange; Spanish, Angel; Portugues, Angio. (Andree, 1725, p. xiv)

He then challenges the reader, even with “the weakest Memory” (p. xiv), not to remember these words after having seen them all together, stressing that in this way vocabulary could be acquired “with little trouble” and “without Fatigue” (p. xiv). The example he offers was clearly not casually chosen, in that the lemma angel has the exact same root in all four modern Romance languages; Andree does, however, recognize that not all words in the Romance languages have maintained such a close similarity to Latin. Indeed, he displays some of the skill of the historical linguist in discussing how every language changes in relation to use and contact with other languages. Yet, he reassures the student by saying that Romance words, especially adjectives and verbs, deviate very little from the original Latin (p. xiv). Andree subsequently dedicates a brief paragraph to explaining how foreign languages should be studied, that is the various stages by which, according to him, a learner should first approach a language. After having received some instruction on pronunciation, the learner should study 10. This is the spelling of Camden’s name that is found in Andree’s likely sources for this introductory section, Edward Brerewood’s classic Enquiries touching the diversity of languages and religions (first published in 1614 and often reprinted) and the derivative descriptions of and comments on languages by James Howell in his Instructions for foreign travell (1642) and in the paratext to his Lexicon tetraglotton (1660). On Camden, see Herendeen (1988 and 2007).

29

30

Giovanni Iamartino & Lucia Berti

the auxiliary Verbs, I have, and, I am, and one regular Verb; and having got a competent Number of Words by heart, and the Manner of declining the Nouns, with the Articles, [the learner] may mix into Company, and acquire the rest by Conversation, and the Orthography by reading of good Authors, without passing through the tedious Introduction of so many Grammatical Rules, with which their Memories are commonly encumbered. (Andree, 1725, p. xiv)

Andree thus advises to learn a good amount of vocabulary by heart; reduces the learning of grammar to the basics; and encourages the study and practice of languages especially through conversation and reading, which are less tedious and confusing than studying grammar. Andree is aware that what he suggests is “against the Method and Interest of many Teachers” (p. xiv),11 but is confident that his readers’ experience will confirm that minimizing traditional grammatical learning in favour of a more intuitive, communicative approach can produce better results, if students are provided with select lexical material. Hence, his wordlists of the “most useful and common Words […] digested into several Chapters” (p. xiv) in the different target languages; also, the graphic display of the cognate languages one next to the other should help learners remember words more easily. Andree does not expand any further on his view of the traditional deductive method of teaching languages starting from grammar. However, the comment itself (cited above) – that “so many Grammatical Rules” can only encumber language acquisition – is worthy of notice. First, rejections of traditional grammar teaching in second language acquisition are generally associated with the end of the 18th / beginning of the 19th century, involving isolated innovators such as James Hamilton, Claude Marcel, Thomas Prendergast, Lambert Sauveur, François Gouin, and Maximillian Berlitz, who proposed different methods based on natural processes of language acquisition in opposition to the traditional system, which later came to be known as the grammar-translation method.12 A more systematic rejection of grammar-based teaching came even later, towards the end of the 19th century, with the Reform Movement.13 Hence, Andree provides a very early example of awareness of the difficulties associated with conscious grammatical study; however, rather than simply criticizing this approach, as was typical 11. As is well known, many masters of languages in late modern Europe not only based their teaching on grammar rules but also compiled, published and sold grammar books. 12. On early reformers in second language acquisition see Howatt & Smith (2000). See also Berti & Iamartino (2021) for a comparative analysis of two opposing early 19th-century teaching methods: the deductive grammar-based approach of Moses Santagnello and the inductive reading-based approach of James Hamilton. 13. On the Reform Movement see Howatt & Smith (2002), McLelland (2017, pp. 99–107) and Klippel & Kemmler (2021), as well as Klippel, this volume.

Chapter 2. A Vocabulary, in six languages

with his successors, he proposed a practical alternative by means of his dictionary, that is, a self-learning method that started from vocabulary acquisition, developed practice through conversation, and minimized the study of grammar rules. There remains one aspect of language learning which Andree does not discuss in the description of his method but deals with separately, that is, pronunciation – the greatest difficulty for students, according to the compiler. In fact, after concluding the address To the Reader with a description of the structural organization of his Vocabulary, Andree inserts five short chapters (pp. xvi–xxii) of rules meant to teach how to pronounce each of the dictionary’s languages. As was usual in those days, the letters of the alphabet are listed first, and then the corresponding pronunciations and their contextual variations are described, often by comparing the sounds of the Romance language under study with corresponding, or at least similar, English sounds. Admittedly, though, some sounds “cannot be shewn by English Examples, but must be learn’d from the Mouth of a Master” (p. xix). A few observations Andree makes in the chapter on Latin (p. xvii) are worth reporting. The author explains that, as all nations pronounce Latin adapting it to “their several native Articulations”, the English pronounce it “in such a manner, that they are hardly understood by Foreigners, because of the different Sounds they give their Vowels”. Possibly taking for granted that his readership includes educated Englishmen who learnt Latin as part of their school curricula, he expresses the wish that correct, or rather Continental, Latin pronunciation be taught in school: It would be a great Advantage to our Students, if they were taught to pronounce the Latin Vowels, at least, like other Nations; by this means they would also be enabled to learn Italian, French, &c. much sooner. Some Schools are come over to this Method already, and we hope, that in process of Time, the same will be generally received. (Andree, 1725, p. xvii)

Although Andree does not explicitly refer to the presence of modern language courses in English schools, his observations on the way in which Latin was taught and on how a good knowledge of it could aid in the learning of Romance languages adds to the existing evidence that shows how the study of modern languages was gradually being given more consideration.14 Indeed, the study of Latin at this time

14. Evidence of the increased interest in modern foreign languages is seen in the rapidly growing number of dictionaries and textbooks that were published throughout the 18th century, which were often highlighted as being “for the use of schools” and not only for private learning. Newspaper advertisements, moreover, show how foreign languages were sometimes taught in schools as an extra-curricular activity.

31

32

Giovanni Iamartino & Lucia Berti

was still considered the main priority,15 and so it was for Andree, who believed that the acquisition of Latin should come before the learning of modern Romance languages, as a correct pronunciation of the former would ease the pronunciation of the latter. Modern languages were also of importance for Andree and, as has been seen, he provides reasons to promote their study. This is an interesting detail because in 1724, the year before the publication of Andree’s dictionary, the study of modern languages (alongside classical languages) was introduced for the first time in the universities of Oxford and Cambridge (Firth, 1929). At the same time, the teaching of classical Latin and Greek in grammar schools started being reconsidered and criticized. There were even innovators who wanted to eliminate classical languages from the school curricula in favour of more practical subjects.16 Meanwhile, other reformers were both conservative and innovatory (Tompson, 1971), in that they still believed in the importance of classical languages but also wanted to modernize school curricula by adding new subjects such as modern languages, which could serve, for instance, trade and international relations.17 Andree’s standpoint would seem to be similar to that of the latter group, as he promoted the study of classical languages but also the study of foreign living languages.

The Vocabulary’s macro- and micro-structure The body of the dictionary comprises 174 numbered pages. The entries are arranged in six columns spreading across two facing pages having the same numeration, so that the body of the dictionary is actually 348 pages long. The dictionary is thematically organized in different chapters and sections; the reproduction of page 6 in Figure 1 provides a visual indication of the dictionary’s structure. Andree reports grammatical gender for the Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Latin words and also declension number for the latter. He explains in To the Reader (p. xv) that he purposely put Italian close to French, and Spanish close to Portuguese, as he wanted to show the closer affinity of these two language

15. The ECCO database may provide clear evidence of this: at least thirteen texts for the study of Latin were published in England in the year 1725 alone. 16. Yet classical languages continued to be regarded as one of the most important subjects up until the 20th century (McLelland, 2017, pp. 8–9). 17. For instance, in a letter proposing a modern languages programme at Oxford (dated 16 May 1724, in Firth, 1929, p. 5), Lord Townshend stresses the importance of teaching modern languages in universities as they were the nurseries of potential statesmen. For further discussion of criticisms of the teaching of classical languages and arguments for promoting the study of modern languages for practical reasons see Reinhold (1968) and Salmon (1985), respectively.

Chapter 2. A Vocabulary, in six languages

Figure 1. A vocabulary, in six languages, p. 6. Reproduced with permission of University of Manchester Library

pairs. He also occasionally places graphic accents on some words (e.g. fuóco, faísca, fumée) so that the reader is reminded where to stress them. Before the main body of the dictionary there is an index of the chapters and sections into which the dictionary is divided. The chapters total 33 and cover a variety of subject areas: Chapter I. Chapter II. Chapter III. Chapter IV. Chapter V. Chapter VI. Chapter VII. Chapter VIII. Chapter IX. Chapter X.

Of Things; Their Mode, Manner, Beginning and End. Of the Sky and Caelestial Bodies. Of the Elements. Of Fire. Of the Air. Of Rain, Hail, and Snow, &c. Of Water. Of Land or Earth. Of Minerals. Kinds of Stones. Precious Stones. Of Plants and Herbs. Eatable Herbs and Roots. Sorts of Corn. Of Trees and Shrubs. Of Fruits. Of Spices. Parts of a Plant. Of Animals in general. The Five outward Senses. Inward Senses. Of Insects. Of Birds. Parts of a Bird. Of Fishes. Parts of a Fish. Of Four footed Beasts. Wild Beasts. Tame Beasts. Parts of Beasts.

33

34

Giovanni Iamartino & Lucia Berti

Chapter XI.

Of Man, respecting his Age and Kindred. Male Kindred. Female Kindred. Stations of Man. Chapter XII. Proper Names of Men. Proper Names of Women. Chapter XIII. Parts of Man’s Body. Humours of the Body. Excrements. Chapter XIV. Of Diseases. Of Remedies. Chapter XV. Of the Mind and its Affections. Of Virtues. Vices. Passions of the Mind. Of Actions. Hunger, Thirst, &c. Chapter XVI. Of Meats and Drinks. Kinds of Meats. Kinds of Meals. Chapter XVII. Of Apparel in general. Mens Apparel. Womens Apparel. Chapter XVIII. Of Buildings. Parts of a House. Workmens Tools. Chapter XIX. Of Household Stuff. Furniture for a Room. For the Kitchin. For giving of Light. Kinds of Vessels. Chapter XX. Of the Country. Of Coaches and Waggons. Bridle, Halter, &c. to govern Beasts. Chapter XXI. Of Societies, and their several Members. Of Dignities and Honours. The King’s Ministers. Names of Tradesmen. Of Music and musical Instruments. Of Diversions and Games. Chapter XXII. Of a School and Learning. Of Writing. Kinds of Studies. Chapter XXIII. Of Ecclesiastical Affairs. Of a Church, and what belongs to it. Chapter XXIV. Of judicial Affairs. Of Crimes. Of Punishments. Of Rewards. Chapter XXV. Of Military Affairs. Of Peace. Of War. Of Military Persons. Of Weapons, or Arms. Warlike Instruments. Chapter XXVI. Of Naval Affairs. Kinds of Ships or Vessels. Parts of a Ship. Chapter XXVII. Of Time. Days of the Week. Chief Holy Days. The twelve Months. The four Seasons. Chapter XXVIII. Names of Countries and Cities. Chapter XXIX. Nouns Adjective (in an Alphabetical Order.) Chapter XXX. Of Cardinal Numbers. Chapter XXXI. Of Ordinal Numbers. Chapter XXXII. Of Colours. Chapter XXXIII. Verbs (in an Alphabetical Order.)

Although it is beyond the scope of this chapter to trace the source(s) of Andree’s selection of subject areas and related lexis, it should be remembered that the tradition of onomasiological or topical lexicography was an established one in Britain: one may mention John Wilkins’s “philosophical” tables in Part II of his Essay towards a real character, and a philosophical language (1668, pp. 22–296) or the topical component in James Howell’s Lexicon tetraglotton (1660), both works providing an ordered inventory of English words according to the encyclopaedic

Chapter 2. A Vocabulary, in six languages

fashion of their time.18 Not unlike his predecessors, Andree devotes his first chapters to the universe, the four elements and the kingdoms of nature; he then focuses on human physical and psychological properties, followed by chapters on various aspects of personal and social life; further chapters deal with the ecclesiastical, legal, military and naval domains; the final chapters are more casually arranged, with two of them – on adjectives and verbs – listing words in alphabetical, rather than topical, order. It should be stressed that, although the sequence of chapters in Andree’s Vocabulary may remind one of other onomasiological dictionaries, his is a multilingual dictionary meant to show the existing correspondences among four different Romance languages. This implies that the lexical make-up of Andree’s topical clusters of entries largely depends on the availability of Latin-derived words in Italian, French, Spanish and Portuguese. Also, as Andree had explained in To the Reader, at times his choice of Latin lexemes depends on the ultimate goal of showing affinity among the Romance languages, so that words that do not meet “the purest Latin” (p. xvi) are sometimes chosen, Romance words being often derived from non-classical, late Latin words. For each English headword, either one or two translation equivalents per language are provided: here again, the desire to show affinity between the languages may have sometimes been the reason behind the insertion of more than one equivalent for the living languages as well. In the example below, for instance, it can be seen that the variant entry word aversion is found in five out of the six languages, with the only exception of Latin. The meaning of the first noun, loathing, is correctly given in Latin by the noun fastidium (meaning repulsion, loathing). Fastidium, however, continues only in Italian and Spanish, and possibly with a slightly different meaning from that of loathing.19 As a result, Andree may have chosen to add aversion as it is semantically related to loathing and fastidium and has an etymologically related noun in all of the five living languages:

18. The standard work on the English tradition of onomasiology is Hüllen (1999). 19. Ferdinando Altieri, the compiler of the Dizionario italiano ed inglese, who took his headwords from the Italian Crusca vocabulary and published his work in 1726–1727, soon after Andree’s, defines fastidio as “[noia, tedio, rincrescimento] weariness, molestation, tediousness, distaste, loathing, heaviness, trouble, disquiet”, and aversione as “[ripugnanza] aversion, averseness, hatred, antipathy”. In the English–Italian section, the verb to loath is defined as “[nauseate] abborrire, schifare, avere a schifo, aver a noia, nauseare, svogliare, avere in fastidio, stomacare”, while aversion is described as “[hatred or dislike] avversione, ripugnanza, antipatia s.f., odio s.m”.

35

36

Giovanni Iamartino & Lucia Berti

English Latin Italian Loathing or Fastidium, Fastidio, m. Aversion n.2. Avuersione, f.

French Degoût, m. Aversion, f.

Spanish Fastidio, m. Aversion, f.

Portuguese Desgosto, m. Adverçam, f.

(Andree, 1725, p. 76)

The same may be observed in the following entry, where the compiler inserts up to three translation equivalents per language in order to show different cognate words among the six languages, such as Latin cibus and Italian cibo; English victuals and Spanish vituallas (from Lat. victualis, victus: food, sustenance); Italian alimento, French aliment, Portuguese alimento (from Lat. alimentum: what makes grow, nourishes); and Spanish and Portuguese comida (from Lat. comedere, to eat): English Latin Italian French Spanish Portuguese Meat or Cibus, m. 2. Alimento, Cibo, m. Vivres, m.pl. Comida, f. Comida, f. Victuals Viveri, m.pl. Aliment, m. Vituallas, f.pl. Alimento, m. Manjares, m.pl.

(Andree, 1725, p. 77)

A final, short list of entries, including an adjectival example and a verbal one, will provide further insights into Andree’s idea of etymological affinity: English Cheese a Thread All to Beseech

Latin Caseus, m. 2. Filum, n. 2. Totus, a, um. Supplicare, co, 1

Italian Formaggio, Cacio, m. Filo, m Tutto, a Supplicare, co.

French Fromage, m. Fil, m. Tout, te. Suplier, plie.

Spanish Queso, m. Hilo, m. Todo, da. Suplicar, co.

Portuguese Queyjo, m. Fio, m. Todo, da. Suplicar, co.

(Andree, 1725, pp. 77, 81, 138, 158)

Concluding remarks Did R. John Andree bring something new to the art and craft of dictionarymaking and to foreign language learning and teaching? As is often the case, the answer is both yes and no. The title page – which, incidentally, does not mention the compiler’s name (only to be found in the dedication to Lord Carteret) – claims that the Vocabulary was compiled “after a New Method”: this is not surprising at all, as very many dictionaries had, and still have, the word new in their title. Dictionary-making largely relies on tradition but at the same time lexicographers – for commercial, if not for technical and linguistic reasons – always try to highlight their innovations, be they real or otherwise.

Chapter 2. A Vocabulary, in six languages

As we know, Andree’s dictionary was preceded by a long series of multilingual dictionaries listing words in different columns and usually having languages from the same (Romance, Germanic or Slavic) language family near one another; and this was Andree’s practice too. What is different and new, however, is the didactic purpose: Romance words being listed side by side in order to help memorization and vocabulary acquisition. The language learning purpose of his Vocabulary, rather than its lexicographical structure per se, was Andree’s contribution to the history of British and European lexicography. From a pedagogical point of view, Andree’s idea does not strike one as particularly innovative. Today, as much as yesterday, multilingual speakers know that their acquisition of a new language may be founded upon their mastery of another language. And not only was it quite common in late modern Europe to be taught a foreign language by means of another, but also language teachers were usually masters of two or more languages: in 18th-century England, for example, Italian was often taught by relying on the student’s previous knowledge of French20 or Latin, and Giuseppe Baretti – the most famous teacher of Italian in 18th-century England – taught French and Spanish too. Nevertheless, Andree’s thinking on easing the process of acquiring foreign lexis by picking up on the morphological, phonetic, and semantic similarities it shares with the words of other better known and genetically related foreign languages has not only continued to this day but has also developed into a specific research field in multilingual learning and teaching, known as intercomprehension.21 Intercomprehension is seen as the realization of a general human faculty for using and understanding language, which includes the ability to comprehend texts and utterances in unfamiliar languages (Doyé, 2007, p. 59). While Andree’s method focused on languages from the same (Romance) family, intercomprehension has extended its reach to a much wider context, for instance using English to understand Romance languages

20. In England, the Italian language was often taught through comparisons with French or directly in French: see Berti & Iamartino (2021). 21. The term intercomprehension was introduced by Jules Ronjat in 1913 to offer a scientific explanation for the high presence of European multilingualism prior to World War I. Ronjat defined intercomprehension as “a speaker’s ability to understand the speech of another speaker who communicates in a dialect of the same language or a related language” (Donato & Pasquarelli-Gascon, 2015, p. 716). Since the 1970s, intercomprehension has become the focus of several European cooperation projects ranging from the production of teaching materials to the creation of customized training courses on the model proposed by intercomprehension research (Bonvino, Fiorenza, & Cortés Velásquez, 2018). With special reference to the Romance languages, see also Blanche-Benveniste & Valli (1997); Benucci (2005); Blanche-Benveniste (2008); Bach, Brunet, & Mastrelli (2008) and Schwarze (2014).

37

38

Giovanni Iamartino & Lucia Berti

(Dzik, 2019).22 A key aspect of intercomprehension that Andree anticipated and included in his method is the necessity of making learners aware of this faculty, by showing them how they can use already acquired knowledge (of Latin, in Andree’s case) to decode words and utterances in the foreign language. This competence can be developed through learning and promoted by teaching (Doyé, 2007; Dzik, 2019). Finally, Andree did not develop his method further but limited it to the level of vocabulary, while intercomprehension has extended interlingual connections to syntax and also to the relevant presence of internationalisms in many languages. At the heart of both Andree’s method and intercomprehension, however, lies the process of interlinguistic comparison. In developing his ideas and method, Andree may have been inspired by the beginnings and early development of comparative linguistics in the 17th century (see, above, fn. 10). Andree seems to have understood that both then-current trends in foreign language teaching and learning and recent philological research might provide the rationale and the linguistic material for a multilingual dictionary as a stimulating and entertaining learning book rather than a mere reference tool. His Sprachgefühl and facility with languages gave him the idea of an innovative approach to multilingual lexicography, although he was humble enough to dedicate his work to John Carteret “as a Specimen of what might be done in this Kind more completely” (Andree, 1725, pp. iii–iv). Arguably, Andree was aware that the art and craft of lexicography was becoming a profession in his days (think of the many dictionaries compiled by John Kersey and Nathan Bailey), though he was first and foremost a physician, and only an amateur linguist and lexicographer. Still, he was able to devise his Vocabulary, an interesting example of joint cooperation between the age-long tradition of multilingual lexicography and innovative practices of foreign language learning and teaching in early 18thcentury Britain.

Note on authorship This chapter was jointly conceived, prepared, and written by the two co-authors, with Lucia Berti responsible for the first three sections and Giovanni Iamartino for the remaining ones.

22. And yet, it should be remembered that Andree also displays formal similarities with English and Latin words, and not only between the living Romance languages and Latin. This, of course, relies on the strong influence that Latin lexis exerted on the English language from the Anglo-Saxon period onwards.

Chapter 2. A Vocabulary, in six languages

References Primary sources Altieri, F. (1726–27). Dizionario italiano ed inglese. A dictionary Italian and English containing all the words of the Vocabulary della Crusca and several hundred more taken from the most approved authors; with proverbs and familiar phrases. To which is prefix’d a table of the authors quoted in this work. By F. Altieri, professor of the Italian tongue in London (2 Vols.). William and John Innys. Andree, R. J. (1725). A vocabulary, in six languages; viz. English, Latin, Italian, French, Spanish, and Portugues, after a new method, to shew the dependance of the four last upon the Latin, and their mutual analogy to each other. With proper rules for their several pronunciations; and a dissertation upon their origin, change, and mixture; besides many other advantages, not to be met with in common dictionaries and vocabularies. To which is annexed, a brief dissertation upon pleasure and pain. P. Vaillant and W. Meadows. Andree, R. J. (1729). A vocabulary after a new method, in six languages, viz. English, Latin, Italian, French, Spanish and Portugueze … (2nd ed.). N. Prevost & Co. Andree, R. J. (1737). An account of the Tilbury water. J. Clarke and W. Meadows. (Further editions 1740, 1764, 1779, 1781, 1786). Andree, R. J. (1746). Cases of the epilepsy, hysteric fits, and St. Vitus dance, with the process of cure: Interspersed with practical observations. To which are added cases of the bite of mad creatures, treated after the method of Dr. Default, with some additional means of my own; Observations upon the same, and remedies proposed for the cure of the hydrophobia. By John Andree, M.D. of the College of Physicians in London, and Physician in Ordinary to the London Infirmary. W. Meadows & J. Clarke. (Further edition 1753). Andree, R. J. [1761]. Observations upon a treatise on the virtues of hemlock, in the cure of cancers. Written by Dr. Storck, an eminent physician in the imperial city of Vienna. Wherein the doctor’s cases in favour of that vegetable are candidly examined, and proved insufficient to be depended upon in divers instances. With some practical remarks upon cancers in general, and cautions interesting to all afflicted with this kind of malady. By John Andree, M.D. Member of the Royal College of Physicians, and Senior Physician to the London-Hospital. J. Meres. Anon. (1728). L’interprète du voyageur, en quatre langues: sçavoir: l’anglois, & l’hollandois, le françois, & l’italien. … Revu & corrigé par J. Grandpré, … B. Creake. Behrens, H. (1730). The natural history of Hartz-forest, in His Majesty King George’s German dominions. Being a succinct account of the caverns, lakes, springs, rivers, mountains, rocks, quarries, fossils, castles, gardens, the famous pagan idol Pustrich or Spit-fire, dwarf-holes, pits, moving islands, whirlpools, mines, several engines belonging to them;Ores, the manner of refining them; Smelting-houses; Several sorts of ovens, hammer-mills, vitriol and glasshouses, &c. in the said forest: With several useful and entertaining physical observation. Written in German by H. Behrens, M. D. T. Osborne. Brerewood, E. (1614). Enquiries touching the diversity of languages, and religions through the cheife parts of the world. Written by Edw. Brerewood lately professor of astronomy in Gresham Colledge in London. Iohn Bill. Calepio, A. (1502). Dictionarium latinum. Dionisio Bertocchi.

39

40

Giovanni Iamartino & Lucia Berti

Desault, P. (1738). A treatise on the venereal distemper, containing a method of curing it without salivation, danger, or great expence. With two dissertations; The first on madness from the bite of mad creatures; The second on consumptions. With a method of curing them radically. By Pierre Desault, M.D. and member of the College of Physicians of Bordeaux. Translated from the French by John Andree, M. D. John Clarke. Florio, J. (1578). Florio his firste fruites: Which yeelde familiar speech, merie prouerbes, wittie sentences, and golden sayings. Also a perfect induction to the Italian, and English tongues, as in the table appeareth. The like heretofore, neuer by any man published. Thomas Woodcocke. Howell, J. (1642). Instructions for foreign travel. Shewing by what cours, and in what compasse of time, one may take an exact survey of the kingdoms and states of Christendome, and arrive to the practicall knowledge of the languages, to good purpose. Humphrey Mosley. Howell, J. (1660). Lexicon tetraglotton, An English-French-Italian-Spanish dictionary … Samuel Thomson. Nemnich, P. A. (1799). An universal European dictionary of merchandise, in the English, German, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Polish & Latin languages. By Philip Andrew Nemnich, I.U.I Author of the Catholicon, or Polyglot Lexicon, lately published at Hamburgh. J. Johnson, J. Remnant, & W. Remnant. Neuman, H. (1799). A marine pocket-dictionary, of the Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and German languages, with an English-French, and French-English index; Being a collection of a great variety of the most useful sea-terms in the above idioms. By Henry Neuman, agent, and translator of languages. Printed for the Author. Wilkins, J. (1668). An essay towards a real character, and a philosophical language. Sa. Gellibrand and John Martin. Willson, J. (1794). The soldier’s pocket dictionary, or friend in need: Being a vocabulary of many thousand words, terms, and questions, in general use, and most likely to occur in military service, expressed in six languages, viz. English, German, Dutch, French, Italian, and Spanish. To which are annexed, accurate tables of the coins of various European nations. Designed and arranged by Capt. James Willson, of the Marines. Dedicated to His Royal Highness the Duke of York. R. Hindmarsh.

Secondary sources Bach, S., Brunet, J., & Mastrelli, C. A. (2008). Quadrivio romanzo. Dall’italiano al francese, allo spagnolo, al portoghese. Accademia della Crusca. Barton, S., & Brodie, A. (2014). Travel and tourism in Britain, 1700–1914. Pickering & Chatto. Benucci, A. (Ed.). (2005). Le lingue romanze. Una guida per l’intercomprensione. Utet Università Torino. Berti, L. (2019). An international master key to the languages of trade: P. A. Nemnich’s Universal European Dictionary of Merchandise. Aevum, 93(3), 747–772. Berti, L., & Iamartino, G. (2021). Competing methodologies in 19th-century foreign language teaching: Moses Santagnello (and others) vs James Hamilton. Linguistica e Filologia, 41, 13–50. Black, J. (2011). The British and the Grand Tour. Routledge Revivals.

Chapter 2. A Vocabulary, in six languages

Blanche-Benveniste, C. (2008). Aspetti lessicali del confronto tra lingue romanze. Esiste un lessico europeo? In M. Barni, C. Bagna, & D. Troncarelli (Eds.), Lessico e apprendimenti: Il ruolo del lessico nella linguistica educativa (pp. 47–66). FrancoAngeli. Blanche-Benveniste, C., & Valli, A. (Eds.). (1997). L’intercompréhension: Le cas des langues romanes. Hachette. Bonvino, E., Fiorenza, E., & Cortés Velásquez, D. (2018). Observing strategies in intercomprehension reading. Some clues for assessment in plurilingual settings. Frontiers in Communication, 3(29), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2018.00029 Cannon, J. (2006). Carteret, John, second Earl Granville (1690–1763), politician. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Retrieved on 1 June 2019 from https://www.oxforddnb .com/ Coffey, S. (Ed.). (2021). The history of grammar in foreign language teaching. Amsterdam University Press. Colletta, L. (2015). The legacy of the Grand Tour: New essays on travel, literature, and culture. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. Considine, J. (2008). Dictionaries in early modern Europe. Lexicography and the making of heritage. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511485985 Donato, C., & Pasquarelli-Gascon, V. (2015). The language of the other: Italian for Spanish speakers through intercomprehension. Italica, 92(3), 713–735. Doyé, P. (2007). A methodological framework for the teaching of intercomprehension. The Language Learning Journal, 30(1), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571730485200241 Dzik, D. (2019). Intercomprehension – A mere dream or a new way of learning in a globalised world? Politeja, 60, 155–166. Eco, U. (1995). The search for the perfect language. Blackwell. Firth, C. (1929). Modern languages at Oxford 1724–1929. Oxford University Press. Gibbs, D. (2003). Dr John Andree, MD (Rheims) LRCP, founding physician of the London Hospital. Journal of Medical Biography, 11(2), 87–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/096777200301100209

Gibbs, D. (2004). Andree, John (1697/8–1785), physician. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Retrieved on 1 May 2019 from https://www.oxforddnb.com/ Herendeen, W. H. (1988). William Camden: Historian, herald, and antiquary. Studies in Philology, 85(2), 192–210. Herendeen, W. H. (2007). William Camden: A life in context. Boydell & Brewer. Howatt, A. P. R., & Smith, R. C. (2000). General introduction. In A. P. R. Howatt & R. C. Smith (Eds.), Foundations of foreign language teaching: Nineteenth-century innovators (Vol. 1, pp. v–xlvii). Routledge. Howatt, A. P. R., & Smith, R. C. (Eds.). (2002). Modern language teaching: The Reform Movement (5 Vols.). Routledge. Hüllen, W. (1999). English dictionaries, 800–1700. The topical tradition. Clarendon Press. Iamartino, G. (2001). Foreign words in the kit bag: James Willson’s The Soldier’s PocketDictionary of 1794. In C. Kay & L. Sylvester (Eds.), Lexis and texts in early English: Papers in honour of Jane Roberts (pp. 143–160). Rodopi.

41

42

Giovanni Iamartino & Lucia Berti

Iamartino, G. (2020). European cross-currents in English lexicography. In S. Ogilvie (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to English dictionaries (pp. 58–74). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108553780.007 Klippel, F., & Kemmler, R. (Eds.). (2021). The Reform Movement and the grammartranslation method. Special issue of Language & History, 64(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/17597536.2021.1996084

Knowlson, J. (1975). Universal language schemes in England and France, 1600–1800. Toronto University Press. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781487589400 Labarre, A. (1975). Bibliographie du Dictionarium d’Ambrogio Calepino (1502–1779). Editions Valentin Koerner. McLelland, N. (2017). Teaching and learning foreign languages: A history of language education, assessment and policy in Britain. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315624853 Reinhold, M. (1968). Opponents of classical learning in America during the revolutionary period. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 112(4), 221–234. Salmon, V. (1985). The study of foreign languages in 17th-century England. In Histoire Épistémologie Langage, 7(2), 45–70. https://doi.org/10.3406/hel.1985.1314 Schwarze, S. (2014). Il principio di intercomprensione nell’insegnamento delle lingue romanze e il metodo EuroComRom. In F. Rossi (Ed.), La creatività nell’insegnamento dell’italiano per stranieri (pp. 19–36). Le Lettere. Slaughter, M. M. (1982). Universal languages and scientific taxonomy in the seventeenth century. Cambridge University Press. Sweet, R. (2012). Cities and the Grand Tour: The British in Italy, c. 1690–1820. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139104197 Tompson, R. S. (1971). Classics or charity? The dilemma of the 18th-century grammar school. Manchester University Press. Tosi, A. (2020). Language and the Grand Tour. Linguistic experiences of travelling in early modern Europe. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108766364

chapter 3

Teaching phraseology in the 19th century John Charles Tarver’s Royal phraseological English–French, French–English dictionary Stefania Nuccorini Roma Tre University

Phraseology has long been associated with lexicography (Knappe, 2004), especially with bilingual dictionaries, which have traditionally had a didactic aspect (Moon, 2000). In the 19th century, it was considered a fundamental area of concern in teaching and learning a foreign language and the Royal phraseological English–French, French–English dictionary (Tarver, Vol. 1, 1845; Vol. 2, 1849) addressed it by recording “an extensive phraseology to illustrate the proper manner of using the words” (1845, p. 7), with a novel lexicological, lexicographical and pedagogical approach. This chapter shows that Tarver’s dictionary innovates in relation to the few previous, comparable lexicographical works, and that it foreshadows later, especially 20th-century, approaches to the inclusion and treatment for didactic purposes of word combinations in English general-purpose and specialized learner dictionaries.

Introduction Mastering phraseology in foreign language learning has long been acknowledged as crucial (Meunier & Granger, 2008), because of its language-specific and culturebound nature, though the term “phraseology” itself has referred to variously named and defined combinations of words at different times in history (Doyle, 2007): proverbs, idioms, phrases and constructions have long been included, whereas, for example, collocations, lexical bundles, formulae, phraseological units, multi-word units and phrasemes have, in general, only been referred to since the 20th century, with the definition of phraseme still being considered a “problematic issue” (Lubensky & McShane, 2007, p. 920) and phraseology “an extremely complex, continually evolving system” (Cotta Ramusino & Mollica, 2020, p. 6). From a historical perspective, it is noteworthy that, especially in the 19th century, the cross-linguistic and didactic role of phraseology became quite strongly emhttps://doi.org/10.1075/aals.20.03nuc © 2023 John Benjamins Publishing Company

44

Stefania Nuccorini

phasized in England in works by various teachers of different languages (especially French, Italian and Spanish) (Nuccorini, 2016).1 Among them, within the area of English–French didactic materials and above all of specialized lexicography, John Charles Tarver (1790–1851) can be seen as an innovator in focusing on phraseology in a sense which mostly, though not exclusively, refers to the word combinations and phrases nowadays defined as lexical and grammatical collocations, as an analysis of his two-volume (Vol. 1, 1845; Vol. 2, 1849) Royal phraseological English–French, French–English dictionary (henceforth, “RPD”) will show.2 According to Anderson (1972: 73), the 19th century “saw a plethora of bilingual dictionaries, and the publication of specialized English–French, French–English bilingual dictionaries too numerous in range and scope to enumerate”. Most of these were dictionaries of pronunciation, but bilingual phraseological dictionaries proper which specifically included and exemplified the use of word combinations other than idioms and proverbs were not numerous at all. This was also the case for language pairs other than English and French: a rare counter-example was Santagnello’s (1820) Dictionary of the peculiarities of the Italian language, which was mostly concerned with the syntactic (and implicitly semantic) contrastive use of prepositions after verbs and adjectives (O’Connor, 1990). In the field of English–French bilingual lexicography, only one dictionary, Duverger’s Comparison between the idioms, genius and phraseology of the French and English languages (1810), is roughly comparable to the RPD. This dictionary (see Nuccorini, 2008, 2012) was especially addressed to Duverger’s privateschool “écolières” [schoolgirls] learning French, which, at the time, was “widely taught in private schools catering to the emerging middle classes” (McLelland, 2014, p. 3). This was a small, one-volume, practice-informed, unidirectional English–French dictionary for encoding purposes. Duverger compiled it to show his students the nature of idiomatic language (here, we should bear in mind that in Duverger’s terminology idioms referred to whole phrases or semantically transparent constructions, and not to opaque, non-compositional idiomatic expressions proper; genius and phraseology alike were umbrella-terms covering various types of phrases, especially those whose French renderings showed grammatical, lexical or cultural “peculiarities” (Nuccorini, 2008)). His Comparison was an exception in the panorama of lexicographical tools in the field of foreign language teaching, at a time when there were other types of didactic materials (grammar 1. Among others, the following book-writers and teachers of French: L. P. Fenwick de Porquet (1825); M. de la Voye (1847), and F. J. Wattez (1859). 2. The editions consulted for this chapter were published in 1849 (Vol. 1) and, posthumously, in 1853 (Vol. 2). Both include the 1845 and 1849 prefaces, and quotations from these refer to the original publication dates.

Chapter 3. Teaching phraseology in the 19th century

books, translation exercises) which included various types of constructions, but not bilingual dictionaries purposefully catering for transparent word combinations, most of which would be much later classified as collocations (Nuccorini, 2016). It is against this background that Tarver can be considered as a pioneer in the field of bilingual phraseological lexicography. His RPD sets itself rather specific linguistic and didactic goals, as testified by its very rich and detailed macro- and microstructure.3 Above all, it stands out because of its categorization of phraseology as transparent word combinations in a way that anticipates the 20th-century lexicological distinction between lexical and grammatical collocations and their lexicographical representation. Tarver was well aware of the pitfalls learners have to face with reference to word combinations in different languages, and of the relevance of anisomorphism of phraseological units in foreign language teaching and learning. This chapter will describe the author’s stance on the didactic role of phraseology, outline the typology and the presentation mode of the word combinations included in his dictionary, and comment on their translational equivalents. Translation is part and parcel of bilingual lexicography: in the Advertisement,4 Tarver clearly stated that he wanted to enable “an Englishman to translate his own language into grammatical, idiomatical, written, and colloquial French” (1845, p. 6). Significantly, in the RPD the concept of translational equivalence is not based on word-to-word renderings, but rather on how words are used with other words in a phraseological perspective. Selected English and French entries will be analysed in order to assess the role of Tarver’s dictionary in the “history of practice as well as ideas” (Smith, 2016, p. 71), that is, in this case, practices and ideas which have eventually led to present-day pedagogical and lexicographical approaches to contrastive phraseological issues. The contents and purposes of the RPD will first be assessed in the next section and an analysis of selected entries will follow. Main findings will be discussed and some concluding remarks will be offered in the final section.

3. Volume 1, English–French, is composed of 851 pages, and volume 2, French–English, of 835 pages. 4. The Advertisement serves the function of preface to volume 1 by reproducing a letter written by Tarver to a friend about “The history of the dictionary”, presumably in the guise of rhetorical artifice. The Advertisement had originally been included in a specimen of the dictionary “circulated by its publishers” (1845, p. 5).

45

46

Stefania Nuccorini

The RPD: Background, planning and description Having been born into an English-speaking family in France, where he grew up and lived for some twenty years, John Charles Tarver moved to England around 1812.5 Soon after, he started teaching French (he was later appointed as a teacher of French at Eton in 1826) and, at the same time, he went on improving his English, a language he thought he knew, but whose phraseology – he soon found out – he still had to master. Thus, he considered himself a learner of English and a native speaker of French, and he applied the motto docendo disco [“I learn by teaching”] to himself (1845, p. 6). It was thanks to his teaching and at the same time learning experience that he acquired “a thorough understanding of the innumerable points on which the two languages differ” (ibid.), especially with regard to lexical word combinations. According to him, the overall meaning of phrases is much more important than the decontextualized senses of individual words (1849, p. viii).6 This meaning- and use-based perspective, which goes back to the early years of his career, permeated his approach to phraseology as a syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic area of interest and was, indeed, the leitmotif of most of his works, later laying the sound, innovative foundation of his dictionary. As he wrote in the Advertisement, he had set himself the task of producing the RPD since his own 1818 Dictionnaire des verbes français “was an incomplete work” and he felt that “he ought to go much farther” (1845, p. 5), but it took him a long time to pursue his lexicographical interests. At first his didactic interests prevailed: the following publications show his commitment to the teaching profession: Key to the Eton familiar and conversational exercises (1835), Eton French and English Dialogues (1842), and Progressive oral lessons for French conversation or viva voce practice in rendering English phraseology into French (Tarver & Tarver, 1845). The inclusion of the very word phraseology in the title (and in the contents) of this last book is particularly revealing, considering that in the same year he published the English–French volume of his RPD. In 1847, while working on the French–English volume, he published his own “new, corrected and much enlarged” edition of Tardy’s (1799) English–French Explanatory pronouncing dictionary of the French language. Tarver stated that Tardy’s attempt “to teach the French pronunciation

5. He apparently admired Napoleon, who is often cited in the prefatory material to the RPD and features in several examples, but after the Russian campaign (1812) it became obvious to him that the Empire was doomed (1849, p. viii; here and elsewhere in the chapter I refer to the 1849 preface to Vol. 2, written in French, which basically describes the same approach as that referred to in the Advertisement to Vol. 1, but from French speakers’ perspective). 6. This chimes perfectly with Firth’s famous quotation “you shall know a word by the company it keeps” (1957, p. 11).

Chapter 3. Teaching phraseology in the 19th century

by means of corresponding English sounds […] appeared not only defective, but positively erroneous” (1847, p. v). He was well aware “of the thousand obstacles the teacher has to face to fight the consonant sounds produced by English students of French” (cit. in Marello, 2009, p. 90), and explained that English vowel sounds are affected by their position within a word and across words. Analogously, one might add, word meanings depend on the other words they are used with. Tarver started compiling the French–English volume immediately after the publication of volume 1.7 The last edition of volume 1 was dated 1867 (Hausmann, 1990: 2960), and that of volume 2 1879, which testifies to the publication’s success. The RPD most probably met the needs of many students, since “when formal education became more widespread in the course of the 19th century, French was the first foreign language learned” (Mclelland, 2018, p. 7). The RPD is also mentioned in an early 20th-century critical survey and described as follows: “it is composed with special regard to idioms” (Braunholtz, 1901, p. 55). Actually, though the RPD does indeed include a few idioms in the sense of non-compositional, fixed expressions, it is not a dictionary of idioms. Braunholtz’s remark seems to give a rather inaccurate representation of the basic principles and the actual contents of the RPD. Tarver acknowledged his sources, not only as a matter of duty but above all to differentiate his own dictionary from previous ones. In volume 1, examples “are mostly taken from Johnson, Richardson and Webster”, whom he refers to as “his authorities”, though he did not “always quote them verbatim” (1845, p. 8). He also added that his own dictionary “contains everything good that is to be found” (1845, p. 6) in other dictionaries, among them Chambaud’s The idioms of the French and the English languages, which had been first published in 1751, almost a hundred years earlier. To Chambaud, idioms are combinations which “are of their nature arbitrary”, consist “of words used in a figurative sense”, and are “the quintessence of the two languages” (1797 [1751], pp. iii–iv).8 His dictionary is divided into three parts for noun, verb and sentence idioms, respectively, which are listed in two columns (as Duverger would do some sixty years after). It is bipartite, and it carefully considers the asymmetries between the two languages, taking into due account that an English idiom may not have an equally idiomatic French equivalent, but just a meaning explanation which, as a consequence, could not be included in the French–English part. Idioms constitute the dictionary macrostructure (which occasionally also includes non-figurative combinations and proverbs), whereas 7. Unfortunately, he fell ill and the French–English part was finished by one of his sons and by André Viesseux, who was well-known for his literary works (1849, p. xii). Both volumes were revised by Alexander Ramsay, who had re-edited the Paston Letters in 1840. 8. The 1797 edition is available at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hn1t1t;view=1up; seq=11

47

48

Stefania Nuccorini

Tarver lists words as headwords and presents combinations (rarely idioms), within examples, in the microstructure, which includes an “extensive phraseology to illustrate the proper manner of using the words according to grammar and custom with the corresponding French translation” (1845, p. 7). In volume 2 Tarver occasionally used Chambaud and Robinet’s Nouveau dictionnaire françois-anglois, et anglois-françois (1776) together with Boiste’s (1800) and Bescherelle’s (1846) dictionaries.9 In the preface (1849: x), he had some harsh words for Chambaud, writing that, despite his well-established reputation, it was really astonishing that his dictionary had been reprinted twice with all its inaccuracies (1849, p. x).10 At the same time, he appreciated the bidirectionality of Chambaud’s Idioms. Tarver strongly emphasized that his was “a new dictionary in which will not be found a single phrase borrowed from those which have preceded it”, a statement that sounds contradictory with his previous reference to “his authorities”, and which seems to turn that reference into a purely perfunctory one. In fact, he included many examples – not taken from literary sources – of how words are used with other words in real communication to show “the sense or peculiarity of constructions” (1845, p. 8). A few differences emerge in the macrostructure of the two parts. In volume 1, headwords include “the words given by the standard English dictionaries”, that is “all words in general use, particularly literary, commercial and engineering”, followed by “conversational expressions” (1845, pp. 8–9). They do not include technical words. Compounds, homographs, derivatives, and most -ing forms are also headwords. In volume 2, headwords are based on the occasionally updated “nomenclature” adopted by the French Academy and in other dictionaries. They include homographs, derivatives, old and newly-coined words (1849: frontispiece), usually presented in a personalized mode, as in the following example in the entry for French abondance, whose historical role is revealing of Tarver’s at first very positive attitude towards Napoleon (see footnote 5): “greniers d’abondance public granaries, filled with corn in good years as a provision against scarcity [they were instituted by Napoleon]”. The English–French microstructure records the headword’s part of speech, sense discriminators and/or French equivalents with their grammatical features, 9. Bescherelle is overtly quoted in the French–English volume in the form “dit Bescherelle” to give some etymological information (hardly ever present in volume 1): for example, in the entry for the adjective FEU, E, “from Latin functus vita (English late, in the sense of dead)”. 10. He added in a note that a one-volume edition had been published in England under the name of Wilson and a two-volume edition [volume 1, 1839, volume 2, 1844] had come out in Paris “under the names of two well-known professors” (1849, p. x), namely Ch. Fleming and J. Tibbins.

Chapter 3. Teaching phraseology in the 19th century

and word combinations in examples, often as sentences, sometimes in short dialogues. They are always translated. Equivalents and/or sense discriminators are equally present with several examples of phraseological uses which occasionally include a few proverbs (1849, frontispiece). Part-of-speech information is given in both volumes: gender abbreviations (m. and f.) and the letter e, to show the feminine form of an adjective or past participle (see abandonné, e below), are given for French headwords in the French–English part, and for French equivalents in the English–French part. The French–English microstructure also gives information on irregular forms, introduced by the abbreviation irr. They are presented immediately after the headword, most probably to the sole benefit of English learners of French. In fact, the same type of information is not given for irregular English headwords in the English–French part. This and other, more or less systematic differences in the microstructure of the two parts seem to contradict Tarver’s intention, as expressed in both the Advertisement to volume 1 and the preface to volume 2, to produce a bidirectional dictionary. Although, on the whole, the RPD is classifiable as such, to my knowledge it was never printed in France, and neither Tarver nor his son, who took care of the RPD after his father’s death, mentioned its actual use by French learners of English. Especially in long articles, combinations are sub-entries. In volume 1, they are occasionally arranged according to explicit syntactic labels, such as noun+verb, noun+adjective, noun+preposition, as, for example, in the entry for hand (Nuccorini, 2017). Notably, the same syntax-based treatment is very common in modern collocations dictionaries. The following extract from the entry for the verb break, summarizes Tarver’s approach (capitalization as in the original): Besides its literal significations, both as an active and a neuter verb, to Break is used figuratively in many phrases, of which examples here follow. But, independently of that, it is also much used, with various senses, with a preposition attached to it. Instances are also given of these cases.

Analysis of selected entries A pair of cognate headwords – English to abandon, French abandonner – has been selected because in the Advertisement Tarver singles out “to abandon” as an example showing “the case the verb governs, and the proper preposition and pronouns to be used” (1845, p. 8).11 11. The following are used throughout the text as they are in the RPD: small capitals for headwords; italics for sub-entries, most “acceptations” in parentheses, abbreviations, labels, the to-infinitive particle, and for English examples in volume 1 and French ones in volume 2; and Roman type for their translations into either language, and for equivalents.

49

50

Stefania Nuccorini

A pair of unrelated words – the English noun will, and the French noun volonté (plus vouloir) – has also been selected to take into account an example of the net of functions across entries in the two volumes: will noun is also present as the English equivalent of French volonté in the entry for French abandonnement (which is not analysed below): son amour pour elle allait jusqu’à l’abandonnement de toute volonté, “so great was his love for her that he sacrificed his will to her – that he had no will but hers”. For lack of space, the following intra- and interrelated entries (and their zeroderivatives and homographs) are not analysed: English nouns abandoner and abandonment and French nouns abandon and abandonnement; the English verb to will (as a full and as a modal verb) and the French verb vouloir. However, a few specific examples from those entries will be commented on later in order to show the consistency of the original selection. Significant extracts from selected entries are presented and analysed in the following sub-sections. English–French entries precede French–English ones.

English to abandon Tarver has three entries for, respectively, (1) to abandon; (2) its past participle abandoned; and (3) the present participle abandoning, whose entry is the longest and richest in terms of word combinations. No examples, but French equivalents only are given for the past participle. Much more significant is the treatment of to abandon when followed by animate vs. inanimate objects, vis à vis the different uses of its French cognate equivalent, especially as a reflexive verb. abandoning, which “is also used as a noun” (1845, p. 9), is followed by French noun equivalents, namely abandon and abandonnement. Interestingly, in the example in which abandoning is used as a verb, a noun is used in the French translation; vice-versa, when it is used as a noun, a verb is used in the French rendering. 1. To abandon, v.a. abandonner (to neglect or give up things, to desert persons), abandonner, délaisser. To --- oneself to, s’abandonner à (y --- auquel). He has abandoned himself to intemperance, il s’est abandonné à l’intempérence. 4. abandoning, p. pr. abandon, m., abandonnement, m. He was blamed for thus abandoning his property to his creditors, on l’a blamé de l’abandon – de l’abandonnement – qu’il a fait de ses biens envers ses créanciers. His abandoning our party was a death-blow to it, en abandonnant notre parti, il lui donna le coup de grace.

Chapter 3. Teaching phraseology in the 19th century

French abandonner In the French–English part there are two entries for, respectively, (1) abandonner and (2) the past participle abandonné, e. The entry for abandonner, is much longer than that for its English cognate. Examples are divided according to the English verbs to be used or to the senses they express, strangely not in italics. Those including the reflexive prepositional verb s’abandonner à are grouped in a sub-entry. English renderings differ on the basis of the other words the headword is used with, according to a clear phraseological perspective: for instance, s’abandonner à sa colère, “give way to one’s anger”; il s’abandonna aux plaisirs, “he gave himself up to pleasure”. In a sense anticipating the Sinclarian concept of (positive/ negative) semantic prosody, these examples seem to be to the point (give way to something negative, give up to something positive).12 On the same lines, the use of English (positive) trust as opposed to (negative) deviate in the following examples is equally revealing of Tarver’s insights: je m’abandonne entièrement à la fortune, “I trust entirely to chance”; s’abandonner “(in bad part), to deviate from the path of virtue. (Of men), to be a libertine”. The following selected examples will further show the treatment of abandonner: 1. abandonner v.a. r. 1ère conj. (To leave, quit). Je vous abandonne tous les profits, I give up – leave – all profits to you; (To forsake, desert) Dieu n’abandonne pas les siens, God does not forsake his own. Les médécins l’ont abandonné, the doctors have given him over. (To fail) son courage ne l’abandonne jamais, his courage never failed him.

English will There are two entries for will as a noun: (1) in the sense power of desiring and doing; (2) in the sense testament. The only equivalent of will n. (1) is volonté f. Other French words, intention, plaisir, liberté, are also used in several phraseological examples listed in the entry. Volonté seems to work as a sense discriminator rather than as an equivalent proper, given the phraseological approach which, almost by definition, implies lexical and syntactic differences between languages. The entry for will noun also includes the proverb to take the will for the deed, “prendre la bonne volonté pour le fait”, and two idiomatic expressions: where there’s a will there’s a way, “avec de la bonne volonté on trouve toujours le moyen”; 12. In this respect there is a considerable difference between the phrasal verb give up (something), as in “I give up all profits to you” and the phrasal-prepositional verb give up to something, as in “give up to pleasure”.

51

52

Stefania Nuccorini

and at will, a sub-entry, as used in the phraseological example to be a tenant at will, “être locataire à l’année”. Also, the examples in the much shorter entry for the terminological and legal sense of will noun (2) show the presence of different types of phraseological combinations: “il est mort intestat” is the equivalent of the non-phraseological expression he died without a will; both to prove a will and “vérifier, légaliser un testament” show language-specific uses.13 There is no example showing the use of last will, whose French rendering does not include testament (see entry for volonté below). A few examples only from the entry for noun (1) will be presented: 1. will s. (power of desiring and doing), volonté f. Such is his will, telle est sa volonté. If I had my will, it would not be so, si j’étais le maître, il n’en serait pas ainsi. Is it your will (intention) to prosecute them? Votre intention est-elle de les poursuivre en justice? Let him have his will […], laissez-lui entière liberté. (Good will). To do things with good will, faire les choses de bonne volonté. (Kind feelings). Good will towards men, de la bienveillance envers les hommes (Ill will). He does every thing [sic] with an ill will, il fait tout de mauvaise volonté. (Malice). There is ill will between them, il y a de la mésintelligence entr’eux.

French volonté The first element that stands out in the short entry for volonté is that there is no sense discriminator, but phraseological uses are clearly highlighted. While the first example below is exactly the same as the first one in the entry for will above (both are fixed phrases), most of the others show the different uses of bonne volonté and mauvaise volonté (see good will and ill will above), and of contrastive fixed expressions, such as à volonté, “on demand”. volonté s. f. will. Telle est ma volonté, such is my will. Les dernières volontés de quelq’un, the last will of some one [sic]; billet payable à volonté, payable on demand; il a beaucoup de bonne volonté pour vous, he wishes you well, he is well disposed towards you; il a mauvase volonté envers moi, he has an ill-will against me; cet enfant a bien des volontés, that child is full of caprice.

13. The entry for French testament exemplifies the different uses of its English equivalents, testament and will. English testament is used in specific legal senses and in The Old/New Testament. Analogously, the entry for English testament records the use of French testament in L’Ancien/Nouveau Testament and adds a cross-reference to will.

Chapter 3. Teaching phraseology in the 19th century

French vouloir Vouloir is not included in the entry for will n. (see above), but its entry is here briefly presented because it records will as an English equivalent. Unlike the entry for vouloir verb, that for vouloir noun is very short. No example includes intention, which appears both as a meaning discriminator and as a translational equivalent in the entry for will. vouloir s.m. will, intention. Je n’ai point d’autre vouloir que le vôtre, I have no other will but yours. Il en a le pouvoir et le vouloir, he has both the ability and the will to do so.

Main findings Although the above analysis only takes in a few entries, it shows, together with examples from further selected entries below, that the RPD was worth Tarver’s endeavour and that, on the whole, it was consistent with its author’s intentions. The selection of phraseologically contrastive uses and their exemplifications testify to his sound knowledge of main syntactic, lexical, semantic and, partially, pragmatic issues involving English and French word combinations. Learners should master them in order to translate, but also to communicate, to which end he included many “conversational expressions” (1845, p. 9), for example Voulezvous bien vous taire? Will you hold your tongue? (s.v. vouloir verb). Tarver was especially concerned with the different use of prepositions – and of word order – in the two languages (e.g. “to like to hear the bells ring”, aimer à entendre sonner les cloches), with syntactic constructions and possibly interchangeable ones (willed that they should attend/willed them to attend (s.v. to will as a full verb: the modal verb is a separate entry), but also with lexical choices due to the object of transitive verbs (to neglect things vs. to desert people), a typical phraseological constituent and a well-known pitfall for learners. Plenty of other examples show how phraseological differences are more or less explicitly presented: specialized uses (il a signé l’abandon de ses biens, “he signed the deed of renunciation – of cession – of his property” (s.v. abandon noun)); non-phraseological sequences vs. phraseological units (he died without a will, il est mort intestat); single words vs. phraseological units (“prosecute” vs. poursuivre en justice); restricted lexical selections (conduire une affaire vs. “manage business”); different use of articles (les formalités voulues par la loi, “the forms required by law”) (s.v. vouloir verb); and sociocultural and time-specific aspects (from Dieu n’abandonne pas les siens, “God does not forsake his own” to vivre dans l’abandonnement, “to live in dissipation – in debauchery” (entry for abandonnement).

53

54

Stefania Nuccorini

Concluding remarks The above analysis shows that the RPD represents a productive meeting between lexicography and phraseology, and that it was innovative in providing a wealth of purposefully selected information about (mostly transparent) word combinations. At the time, no other specialized English–French dictionary could compete with the RPD: as Tarver stated, great was his “disappointment in finding that all dictionaries were deficient in that respect, that is the difference in the construction of the two languages” (1845, p. 5). He compiled his dictionary in order to show not only the grammatical, but also the semantic and pragmatic “peculiarities” (1845, p. 6), that is “la phraséologie” (1849, p. ix), of both languages, “in juxtaposition”. Quite interestingly, more than a hundred and fifty years later, Lubensky and Mcshane followed strikingly similar lines: according to them, the goal of bilingual phraseological dictionaries “is to provide all the semantic, contextual, stylistic and usage information that a non-native speaker needs in order to appropriately use phrasemes in real world situations” (2007, p. 925). Tarver’s “peculiarities” (the same word used by Santagnello) have also been included, though not “in juxtaposition”, in English 20th-century monolingual learner’s dictionaries, especially collocations dictionaries, addressed to native speakers of a variety of different languages. Tarver was not the first to identify phraseological pitfalls for foreign language learners but he gave them central status in language learning and teaching and tried to systematize them in his dictionary, which seems to be a lexicology-based lexicographical application in Stern’s sense (1983, p. 150), according to which “sophisticated lexicological knowledge is embodied in lexicography”. Stern, however, was referring especially to “the great dictionaries such as the ‘Oxford’ or the ‘Webster’”, as well as to the treatment of vocabulary in “Hornby’s Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English” (ibid.). In a pedagogical and lexicological line, Tarver’s definition of phraseology, which is based on “the proper manner of using the words” (1845, p. 7) with other words, therefore foregrounds the role played by phraseology in language teaching and learning and foreshadows later linguistic and lexicological standpoints. In this connection, Jespersen (1904, p. 16) clearly states that a mistake had often been made: languages are not collections of isolated and independent words – there is not “a corresponding word in the learners’ native tongue for each new foreign word that he learns” (and vice-versa). Sweet (1899, p. 73) called this mistake “the arithmetical fallacy” because languages are taken as collections of units where the order of the addends and the factors is immaterial. Everything that is idiomatic in the languages is quite set aside, […] without consideration for the fact that the most indispensable

Chapter 3. Teaching phraseology in the 19th century

expressions often are those irrational groups which cannot be constructed merely of words and grammatical rules, expressions like “What’s the matter? I couldn’t help laughing. Serve you right. Ça va sans dire. Ça y est. Voilà qui est drôle. […]”. (Jespersen, 1904, p. 16)

Notably, only the last two expressions are not present in Tarver’s dictionary. To him “idiomatic” refers to phraseology, especially to the yet-to-be-named collocations and patterns which Palmer (1938), Hornby et al. (1948) (see Cowie, 2009, p. 306) and many others later analysed and which became one of the main concerns in twentieth-century English monolingual learner’s dictionaries and, later, the exclusive contents of collocations dictionaries.14 Tarver’s dictionary was a major achievement as a specialized dictionary. Despite some inconsistencies, it developed a principled approach to the presentation mode of word combinations and phrases (constructions), nowadays labelled collocations, based on the contrastive analysis of English and French, to help learners produce natural-sounding speech and writing. Tarver’s concept of phraseology and his dictionary represent an exception at a time when little attention was paid to “theoretical issues such as preoccupy present-day phraseologists” (Doyle, 2007, p. 1089), with reference to the lexicological, lexicographical and pedagogical relevance of collocations across languages. Different types of bilingual or plurilingual phraseological dictionaries were later published but these mainly concerned specific areas, such as commerce, military matters, or technical terms.15 It is worth noting that no English–French phraseological dictionary is mentioned in Lubensky and McShan’s 2007 survey article, which lists several bilingual phraseological dictionaries of language pairs other than English and French. According to them, at the time of the publication of their article, existing bilingual phraseological dictionaries presented several problems, but they thought that online lexicographical resources connected with “aligned corpora” would solve them (2007, p. 927). To date and to my knowledge, no print or online (whether cum-corpus or not) bilingual English–French collocations dictionary has been produced since Tarver’s. Against this background, it is significant that the general-purpose, bidirectional CollinsRobert French–English, English–French dictionary “owes its reputation to the wealth of collocational information it contains” (Fontenelle, 1998: 194), in a sense compensating for the lack of a bilingual collocations dictionary proper. The RPD represents a significant step in the development of pedagogical lexicography. As McLelland and Smith (2014, p. 4) suggest, “much remains to be done 14. Notably, The BBI [Benson, Benson, Ilson] combinatory dictionary of English (2009); Longman collocations dictionary and thesaurus (2013); Macmillan collocations dictionary (2010); and Oxford collocations dictionary (2009). 15. For example, Scholl (1884), Vizetelly (1917), and Kettridge (1925).

55

56

Stefania Nuccorini

in charting the history of particular aspects of language teaching” and, among these aspects, dictionaries for language learners deserve attention. Among these, Tarver’s RPD stands out as a particularly innovative – and still relatively unique – example.

References Primary sources Bescherelle, L. N. (1846). Dictionnaire national ou dictionnaire universel de la langue française. Garnier. Boiste, P. C. V. (1800). Dictionnaire universel de la langue françoise. Nodier. Chambaud, L. (1751/1797). The idioms of the French and the English languages. Nourse. Chambaud, L., & Robinet, J. (1776). Nouveau dictionnaire françois–anglois, et anglois–françois. Contenant la signification et les differens usages des mots. C. Panckoucke. Collins-Robert French–English, English–French dictionary (1987). Collins. Duverger, W. (1810). A comparison between the idioms, genius and phraseology of the French and English languages. Whittaker and Co. Fenwick de Porquet, L. P. (1825). Parisian phraseology; or, choix de phrases diverses being a collection of sentences in common use, etc. English and French. G. Schulze. Fleming, C., & Tibbins, J. (1839–1844). The Royal dictionary: English and French, French and English. Didot. Hornby, A. S., Gatenby, E. V., & Wakefield, H. (1948). An advanced learner’s dictionary of current English. Oxford University Press. Kettridge, J. O. (1925). French–English and English–French dictionary of technical terms and phrases used in civil, mechanical, electric and mining engineering. G. Routledge & Son. Longman collocations dictionary and thesaurus. (2013). Pearson Education. Macmillan collocations dictionary. (2010). Macmillan. Oxford collocations dictionary. (2009). Oxford University Press. Palmer, H. (1938). A grammar of English words. Longmans, Green. Santagnello, M. (1820). A dictionary of the peculiarities of the Italian language. Henry Colburn. Scholl, C. (1884). A phraseological dictionary of commercial correspondence in the English, German, French and Spanish languages. C. Scholl. Tardy, [first name unknown]. (1799). Explanatory pronouncing dictionary of the French language. W. Clarke. Tardy, [first name unknown]. (1847). Explanatory pronouncing dictionary of the French language. New Edition corrected and much enlarged by J. C. Tarver. Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans. Tarver, J. C. (1818). Dictionnaire des verbes français. Wilson. Tarver, J. C. (1835). Key to the Eton familiar and conversational exercises. John Souter and Williams and Son. Tarver, J. C. (1842). Eton French and English dialogues. Dulau and Co.

Chapter 3. Teaching phraseology in the 19th century

Tarver, J. C. (1845). The royal phraseological English–French and French–English dictionary, Vol. 1: English–French. Dulau and Co. Tarver, J. C. (1849). The royal phraseological English–French and French–English dictionary, Vol. 2: French–English. Dulau and Co. Tarver, J. C. with Tarver, H. (1845). Progressive oral lessons for French conversation or viva voce practice in rendering English phraseology into French. Dulau and Co. The BBI combinatory dictionary of English, compiled by M. Benson, E. Benson & R. F. Ilson. (2009). John Benjamins. Wattez, F. J. (1859). English phraseology. A series of practical exercises to be translated into French. John W. Parker and Son. Vizetelly, F. H. (1917). The soldier’s service dictionary of French and English terms. Funk & Wagnall’s. de la Voye, M. (1847). A new comparative French grammar and phraseological reference book. C. M. Law.

Secondary sources Anderson, J. (1972). Development of the English–French, French–English bilingual dictionary: A study in comparative lexicography. Supplement to Word 28(3), Monograph 6. Braunholtz, E. (1901). Books of reference for students and teachers of French. A critical survey. T. Wohlleben. Burger, H. (2007). Subject area, terminology and research topics. In H. Burger, D. Dobrovol’skij, P. Kühn, & N. Norrick (Eds), Phraséologie/Phraseology: Handbook of contemporary research (pp. 10–19). Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110171013.10

Cotta Ramusino, P., & Mollica, F. (Eds). (2020). Contrastive phraseology. Cambridge Scholars. Cowie, A. P. (2009). The earliest foreign learners’ dictionaries. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.). The Oxford history of English lexicography (pp. 385–411). Oxford University Press. Doyle, C. (2007). Historical phraseology of English. In H. Burger, D. Dobrovol’skij, P. Kühn, & N. Norrick (Eds.), Phraséologie/Phraseology: Handbook of contemporary research (pp. 1078–92). Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110190762.1078 Firth, R. (1957). Papers in linguistics 1934–1951. Oxford University Press. Fontenelle, T. (1998). Discovering significant lexical functions in dictionary entries. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology (pp. 189–207). Clarendon Press. Hausmann, F. J. (1990). La lexicographie bilingue anglais–français, français–anglais. In F. J. Hausmann, O. Reichmann, H. E. Wiegand, & L. Zgusta (Eds.), Wörterbücher, dictionaries, dictionnaires (Vol. 2, pp. 2956–2960). Walter de Gruyter. Jespersen, O. (1904). How to teach a foreign language. Swan Sonnenschein, Allen & Unwin. Knappe, G. (2004). Idioms and fixed expressions in English language study before 1800. A contribution to English historical phraseology. Peter Lang. Lubensky, S., & McShane, M. (2007). Bilingual phraseological dictionaries. In H. Burger, D. Dobrovol’skij, P. Kühn, & N. Norrick (Eds.), Phraséologie/Phraseology: Handbook of contemporary research (pp. 919–928). Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110190762.919

57

58

Stefania Nuccorini

Marello, C. (2009). Bilingual dictionaries of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), The Oxford history of English lexicography (pp. 86–104). Oxford University Press. Mclelland, N. (2014). French and German in British schools (1850–1945). Documents pour l’histoire du français langue étrangère ou seconde, 53, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.4000/dhfles.4089

Mclelland, N. (2018). The history of language learning and teaching in Britain. The Language Learning Journal, 46(1), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2017.1382052 Mclelland, N., & Smith, R. (2014). Introduction: Building the history of language learning and teaching (HoLLT). Language & History, 57, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1179/1759753614Z.00000000030

Meunier, F., & Granger, S. (Eds.). (2008). Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.138 Moon, R. (2000). Phraseology and early English dictionaries: The growth of tradition. In U. Heid, S. Evert, E. Lehmann, & C. Rohrer (Eds.), Proceedings of the ninth EURALEX International Congress, EURALEX 2000 (pp. 507–516). University of Stuttgart. Nuccorini, S. (2008). A special dictionary of phraseology: Duverger’s comparison between the idioms, genius and phraseology of the French and English languages. In F. Maniez & P. Dury (Eds), Lexicographie et terminologie: Histoire de mots (pp. 99–112). Travaux du CRTT. Nuccorini, S. (2012). Phraseology in time: Examples of culture-bound expressions from Baretti’s Easy Phraseology (1775) and from Duverger’s Dictionary (1810). In R. Facchinetti (Ed.), English dictionaries as cultural mines (pp. 35–54). Cambridge Scholars. Nuccorini, S. (2016). Phraseology in time: On the innovative treatment of word combinations in specialized nineteenth-century bilingual dictionaries. Language & History, 59, 48–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/17597536.2016.1189665

Nuccorini, S. (2017). Word combinations in The royal phraseological English–French, French–English dictionary (Tarver, 1845–1849). In J. Roberts & T. Darby (Eds), English without boundaries: Reading English from China to Canada (pp. 214–229). Cambridge Scholars. O’Connor, D. (1990). A history of Italian and English bilingual dictionaries. Leo S. Olschki. Smith, R. (2016). Building ‘Applied Linguistic Historiography’: Rationale, scope, and methods. Applied Linguistics, 37(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv056 Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford University Press. Sweet, H. (1899). The practical study of languages. Dent.

chapter 4

Innovation in monolingual English learner’s dictionaries A historical perspective Reinhard Heuberger University of Innsbruck

80 years have passed since the publication of A. S. Hornby et al.’s Idiomatic and syntactic English dictionary (1942), which was reprinted a few years later by Oxford University Press as A learner’s dictionary of current English (1948). Hornby et al.’s publication firmly established a new and distinct genre of dictionary that has been at the forefront of lexicographic innovation during the past decades. This paper examines the historical development of selected key features of monolingual English learner’s dictionaries, focussing on major innovations and their significance for the users. It concentrates on areas such as defining vocabularies and definitions, grammar and usage, example sentences and the use of corpora, and also briefly touches upon electronic learner’s dictionaries.

Introduction Monolingual learner’s dictionaries (MLDs) are based on the premise that language learners, as they become more proficient, should move from bilingual reference works to monolingual ones (see Jackson, 2002, p. 129). Only monolingual dictionaries have the extra merit of introducing the user to the lexical system of the foreign language (see Béjoint & Moulin, 1987, p. 104), thus promoting a faster expansion of both active and passive vocabulary. Indeed, studies have shown that advanced learners using monolingual dictionaries manage to obtain better results (see Rundell, 1999, p. 41). The realization that foreign learners’ requirements of a monolingual dictionary differ greatly from those of native speakers (see Herbst, 1989, p. 1379) led to the creation of this unique type of reference work in the field of EFL (English as a Foreign Language). A. S. Hornby et al.’s Idiomatic and syntactic English dictionary, first published in 1942, is often regarded as the earliest exponent of

https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.20.04heu © 2023 John Benjamins Publishing Company

60

Reinhard Heuberger

the field, firmly establishing a distinct and – after World War II – profitable new dictionary genre. The past eight decades1 have witnessed a remarkable number of lexicographic innovations (cf. Jackson, 2002, p. 69), usually to the benefit of the intended user group, that is, intermediate and advanced learners of English. This does not, of course, mean that all these innovations have prevailed. Some of them were rather short-lived, others persisted during several editions but were finally given up. And some innovations have become so firmly established that they define the entire genre. This chapter aims to give an overview of the most significant lexicographic innovations in the history of EFL lexicography, illustrating the importance and lasting effects of features such as defining vocabularies, transparent grammar codes and authentic example sentences based on corpora. Other innovations such as frequency information and pictorial illustrations, as well as improvements regarding microstructure, phonetic transcriptions, collocations and guides will be covered as well. After a brief overview2 of the development of MLDs in the field of EFL, selected key innovations will be portrayed and discussed. The primary focus will be on print dictionaries, but major developments in electronic learner’s dictionaries will also be touched upon.

A brief history of monolingual English learner’s dictionaries Three teachers of English living in Asia, Michael West (1888–1973), H. E. Palmer (1877–1949) and A. S. Hornby (1898–1978), had a crucial role in the development of the learner’s dictionary. West, who was a major contributor to the so-called “vocabulary control”3 movement, compiled the The New Method English dictionary (NMED, 1935), sometimes even considered as the first monolingual learner’s dictionary (cf. Cowie, 2002, p. 33).4 Palmer was mainly concerned with the grammatical patterning of verbs, research that he applied for the compilation of his small but innovative dictionary A grammar of English words (1938). The usefulness of Palmer’s dictionary was, however, limited by the fact that it only focused on simple sentence patterns, ignoring complex types involving subordinate clauses (see Cowie, 200, p. 28). Hornby et al.’s Idiomatic and syntactic English dictionary (ISED, 1. Cowie (2002) provides the most detailed account of the historical development of MLDs up to the turn of the millennium. 2. The table in the appendix gives an overview of all print MLDs published to date. 3. This movement was an attempt to establish systematic criteria for selecting the most useful words for (English) language learning. 4. NMED had certain lexicographic limitations which deprive it of that honor. They will be briefly discussed later in this chapter.

Chapter 4. Innovation in monolingual English learner’s dictionaries

1942) is usually credited as the first general-purpose advanced-level learner’s dictionary (see Yamada, 2013, p. 189). The use of the terms “idiomatic” and ”syntactic” in the title are indicative of Hornby’s commitment to the productive (i.e. encoding) function of the dictionary (cf. Cowie, 2009, p. 398), while not neglecting learner’s receptive needs either. Oxford University Press had meanwhile become interested in ISED, republishing it as A learner’s dictionary of current English in 1948, and changing the title to The advanced learner’s dictionary of current English (ALD1) in 1952. In the two decades following the publication of ALD1, Hornby et al.’s dictionary merely faced competition from within its own publishing house. Its successor, ALD2, was released in 1963, and the third edition in 1974 – then for the first time called the Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary (OALD3). The first serious competitor to Oxford’s learner’s dictionaries came out in 1978 – the year in which A. S. Hornby died. Paul Proctor’s Longman dictionary of contemporary English (LDOCE1) was highly innovative at the time. The headwords were defined by means of a limited vocabulary of only 2,000 words,5 and the dictionary is also remembered for its systematic attempt to organize grammatical codes, which were further refined in later editions (see Fontenelle, 2009, p. 414ff ). It took almost another decade for the third major learner’s dictionary to be published, John Sinclair’s Collins COBUILD English language dictionary (COBUILD1, 1987). COBUILD1 deserves credit as the first corpus-based dictionary of English, a feature firmly established in EFL lexicography today. 1995 was, in retrospect, the most fruitful year in the history of printed monolingual English learner’s dictionaries. It saw the publication of OALD5, LDOCE3 and COBUILD2, as well as the appearance of a fourth competitor, the Cambridge international dictionary of English6 (CIDE1).7 Many standard features of today’s MLDs were first introduced in this generation of learner’s dictionaries: frequency information, guide words designed to facilitate the location of individual word meanings within the microstructure, explicit grammatical information rather than untransparent pattern codes, and so on. For the first time, all learner’s dictionaries on the market were corpus-based, a feature that the publishers strongly advertized in the blurbs to their dictionaries.

5. The actual number of words and senses used was definitely higher, mainly due to polysemous defining terms and derivations that were additionally used (cf. Kilgarriff, 1997b, p. 966). 6. From the second edition onwards, Cambridge changed the title to Cambridge advanced learner’s dictionary (CALD). 7. Cf. Heuberger (2000), a monograph focusing on learner’s dictionaries of this particular era.

61

62

Reinhard Heuberger

After the turn of the millenium, two further dictionaries entered the EFL market. 2002 saw the publication of the Macmillan English dictionary for advanced learners (MEDAL1), which was followed by a second edition in 2007. One year later, the first American learner’s dictionary was published, Merriam-Webster’s advanced learner’s English dictionary (MWALED1, 2008). This dictionary provided a special focus on American English vocabulary and usage but otherwise added few innovative elements to EFL lexicography (see Bogaards, 2010, p. 25). The latter criticism also partly applies to the aforementioned Macmillan dictionaries, which (wisely) adopted various features that had proven successful in previously published dictionaries (Bogaards, 2010, p. 21). Today’s learners of English can choose among the following current editions of MLDs: OALD10 (2020), LDOCE6 (2014), COBUILD9 (2018), CALD4 (2013), MEDAL28 (2007) and MWALED2 (2016). All of these dictionaries have their individual strengths and weaknesses. Thus, it depends on the skills and preferences of the learners as to which edition serves their needs best. For example, dictionary users in search of detailed grammatical information have traditionally been well-served with a COBUILD dictionary. Longman, by contrast, has focused on transparent and “simple” grammar codes, spelling out grammatical patterns in full since LDOCE3 (1995). To find the “best” dictionary on the market is thus a highly individual choice. In the following sections, the most significant innovations in monolingual English learner’s dictionaries will be portrayed and discussed in greater detail.

Defining vocabularies and definitions Defining vocabularies, first9 introduced in Longman’s LDOCE1 in 1978, may be regarded as the epitome of a lasting and game-changing innovation in monolingual learner’s dictionaries. Not only have defining vocabularies remained in existence ever since, but they have also been adopted by all major publishers and – most 8. Macmillan sees the future of its learner’s dictionaries only on the internet, having announced that MEDAL2 was the last dictionary to be published in print form. 9. This assertion is only true if one does not regard NMED (1935) as the first MLD. It did use a limited vocabulary of 1,490 words to define its 24,000 headwords, thus making it suitable for intermediate rather than advanced learners. Unlike modern learner’s dictionaries, however, NMED was primarily intended for decoding, and its usefulness for encoding purposes was limited by the absence of syntactic guidance and an insufficient treatment of inflection (see Cowie, 2009, p. 393). This is why I regard Hornby et al.’s ISED (1942) as the earliest exponent of the field and credit Longman’s LDOCE1 with this innovation.

Chapter 4. Innovation in monolingual English learner’s dictionaries

importantly – have had a significant positive impact on the overall usability of MLDs (see Yamada, 2013, p 192).10 The rationale of defining vocabularies is to ensure that learners can easily understand every definition (see Moon, 2016, p. 125). This is achieved by using no more than a few thousand words as the basis for all definitions. The following comparison between an entry from an MLD (COBUILD2) and a dictionary for native speakers (CED Online) illustrates the effects of a defining vocabulary policy. tear, tears tears

Tears are the drops of salty liquid that come out of your eyes when you are crying. (COBUILD2) the clear salty solution secreted by the lacrimal glands that lubricates and cleanses the surface of the eyeball and inner surface of the eyelids. (CED Online)

Even more advanced learners are unlikely to be familiar with terms such as “lacrimal gland” and “lubricate” (CED Online). The definition in COBUILD2, on the other hand, creates no difficulties for the intended user group. Defining vocabularies have occasionally been criticized, for example for resulting in longer, clumsy and unnaturally circumlocutory definitions (see Carter, 1994, p. 127). Landau (1993, p. 343) also acknowledges some downsides, but rightly suggests that the advantages outweigh the drawbacks: “there is no doubt that a controlled vocabulary makes for a duller text, and there is probably some merit to the charge of awkwardness, but the foreign learner may be better served by sacrificing all else to basic understandability of sense”. Defining vocabularies have become a firmly established feature in EFL lexicography, a fundamental pillar on which the success of learner’s dictionaries (at least partly) rests. Collins also deserves credit for striking a new and unique path with regard to defining style in the complete catalogue of its COBUILD dictionaries. Since the first edition of COBUILD (1987), Collins has relied on full-sentence definitions (which always include the lemma) rather than traditional phrasal explanations (see Peters & Fernández, 2017, p. 113). As in the case of defining vocabularies themselves, both pros and cons of using complete sentences can be put forward.11 Collins’ original claim was that full-sentence definitions are “much easier to read and understand” (1987, p. xviii) than traditional explanations. Jackson (2002, p. 131) has noted in this context that the definitions “are intended to sound like the teacher explaining the meaning in the classroom”. Herbst (1996, p. 326) has con10. Longman’s user research has shown that the defining vocabulary is regarded as “the single most helpful feature” (Yamada, 2013, p. 201). Jackson (2002, p. 130) reaches a similar conclusion. 11. For a discussion of definitions in learner’s dictionaries, see Moon (2016) and Heuberger (2016a, p. 31ff ).

63

64

Reinhard Heuberger

firmed that COBUILD’s definitions tend to “avoid the technical character and syntactic clumsiness of more complex alternatives” that can sometimes be found in learner’s dictionaries. On the other hand, full sentences may be perceived as longwinded and repetitive. Learners may find it difficult to extract the information they are looking for, and their attention might be distracted from the central elements of the definition (see Bogaards, 1996 p. 292). The latter criticism can be illustrated by means of Collins’ definition of the noun “infidel” (COBUILDO): infidel (n) If one person refers to another as an infidel, the first person is hostile towards the second person because that person has a different religion or has no religion.

This circumstantial and repetitious style can be observed in a number of cases, and full-sentence definitions alone cannot guarantee a better understanding on the part of the learner. However, the fact that Collins has maintained sentence-style definitions up to the most current editions of its learner’s dictionaries indicates that this approach is appreciated by a significant number of users. No other publisher of learner’s dictionaries has imitated Collins’ defining style, rendering consistent fullsentence definitions a unique feature of the COBUILD dictionaries.12

Grammar and usage The refinement and clarification of grammatical codes is arguably amongst the most important innovations in the history of EFL lexicography in attempts to make learner’s dictionaries more user-friendly and efficient. Mastering the intricacies of the coding schemes of early learner’s dictionaries was a daunting task (see Fontenelle, 2009, p. 417). The grammar codes were rather opaque and had little mnemonic value: that is, they were hardly suggestive of the syntactic patterns they aimed to illustrate. For instance, OALD3 (1974) used arbitrary letter-number codes such as “[VP 6C]”, which failed to clearly reflect the structure of this verb pattern (see Cowie, 2009, p. 409).13 It was only during the 1990s that the codes were considerably simplified (see Yamada 2013, p. 198), particularly in the 1995 edition of LDOCE, which spelt out grammatical information in full for the first time (a 12. Other publishers employ sentence-style definitions occasionally though (cf. Peters & Fernández, 2017, p. 113). A more thorough discussion of this particular defining style is provided by Yamada (2013, p. 203f ). 13. One could, however, argue that the provision of these syntactic pattern codes – complicated though they may have been in early MLDs – was itself an important innovation upon their introduction (cf. Jackson, 2002, p. 131).

Chapter 4. Innovation in monolingual English learner’s dictionaries

method common in bilingual dictionaries; see Herbst, 1996: 329). For instance, the pattern associated with the verb “find” in LDOCE3 (1995) was identified as ”find sb doing sth” rather than “(T + obj + v-ing)” or “(V n -ing)”, which were the corresponding codes in CIDE1 and COBUILD2 (both published in the same year). The most obvious advantage of this policy was that users hardly needed to remember syntactic codes, and many learners greatly appreciated Longman’s approach, which was maintained in subsequent editions. Figure 1 showing an extract from LDOCEO, illustrates that Longman still manages to do without grammar codes and abbreviations.

Figure 1. Extract from LDOCEO (accessed 20 June 2020), showing grammar coding for want

Rundell (2006, p. 741) aptly summarizes the development of coding systems in MLDs as follows: “More recently, the emphasis has shifted toward a simpler, surface-grammar model which – while sacrificing some of the delicacy of earlier systems – assumes very little grammatical knowledge on the part of users”. This development is arguably in line with the Zeitgeist, as dictionary users want their information fast and are often not willing to spend much time deciphering codes. Learners who prefer more technical information with regard to grammar (codes) can instead adhere to the Collins, Cambridge or Merriam-Webster learner’s dictionaries, while Oxford and Macmillan have shifted to spelling out grammatical information in full, thus following Longman’s approach. It goes without saying that not all innovations in the history of EFL lexicography have prevailed in the long run. In the context of grammar, the so-called “extra column”, which was used in the COBUILD dictionaries from the first edition onwards (i.e. since COBUILD1, 1987), is an example of a feature that was finally given up – after having been in use for two decades. The “extra column” – a selfcontained column on the right hand side of every entry – used to be employed to inform learners about word classes, syntactic structures, synonyms/antonyms, prepositions, adverb particles as well as other grammatical peculiarities of a given headword (see Figure 2 for an example).

65

66

Reinhard Heuberger

Figure 2. Extract from COBUILD2 (1995) showing use of an ‘extra column’ for grammatical information

As can be seen from Figure 2, it was sometimes difficult to relate an abbreviation from the “extra column” to the corresponding sentence in the main entry. Though this feature certainly helped to reduce non-discursive matter in the main text (cf. Moon, 2009, p. 453), studies indicated that learners were hardly using the extra column as a source of grammatical information (see Boogards & van der Kloot, 2001, p. 118). It was finally given up in COBUILD6 (2008). With regard to grammar and language use, the introduction of so-called “usage notes” also deserves to be briefly discussed as a helpful and lasting innovation in EFL lexicography. Once again, Longman deserves credit for taking a pioneering role, introducing this feature in LDOCE1. Grammar codes, along with example sentences (see below), can show the learner “how a word can be used, but not how it can’t” (Whitcut, 1985, p. 77). This is one of the main functions of notes on usage. They are mainly intended for productive purposes (encoding), giving more detailed information with regard to grammar, meaning and pragmatic usage. The success of usage notes can be illustrated by the fact that all major learner’s dictionaries include them nowadays. Unfortunately, they are provided rather irregularly and sporadically, and users can never be certain to find a usage note for a given headword.

Example sentences and the use of corpora Example sentences have been included in learner’s dictionaries from the very beginning (see Ostermann, 2015, p. 96). They fulfil several important functions in MLDs, for both receptive and productive purposes. Examples help to clarify meanings (and thus support definitions) and serve as syntactic models to be followed by the dictionary user. They are also a vehicle to provide collocations, and –

Chapter 4. Innovation in monolingual English learner’s dictionaries

as a side effect – serve to counteract “the dry effect of an entire book of abstract analyses of words as words” (Kipfer, 1984, p. 78). A major innovation regarding example sentences was introduced in 1987 with the first edition of the COBUILD dictionaries. COBUILD1 was the first MLD to rely heavily on a corpus, the Birmingham Collection of English Texts (BCET), then 7.3 million words.14 John Sinclair, editor of COBUILD1, argued in the preface to the dictionary that only authentic examples can show how a word is actually used, whereas invented examples “have no independent authority or reason for their existence […]; usage cannot be invented, it can only be recorded” (1987 p. xv). The term ”authentic” was basically a synonym for ”corpus-based”. Sinclair thus countered the tradition established by the early compilers of learner’s dictionaries, in particular A. S. Hornby, who was a confirmed advocate of invented examples. Hornby had argued that only made-up examples allow the lexicographer to include lexical or grammatical details shaped to meet the learner’s needs (see Cowie, 2002, p. 134). As Yamada (2013, p. 204) has stated, invented examples can be “conveniently tailored to be succinct, multipurpose, contrastive, and selfcontained”. The corpus revolution fully took off in EFL lexicography during the 1990s. All four new editions of learner’s dictionaries that were published in 1995 (OALD5, LDOCE3, COBUILD2 and CIDE1) strongly emphasized the use of corpora – especially with regard to example sentences – in their blurbs. Nowadays, all MLDs rely on corpus-based examples. They are, however, sometimes edited to remove difficult terms and to include collocations and other important syntactic structures. Thus, modern learner’s dictionaries can be said to combine the best elements of Hornby’s and Sinclair’s pioneering approaches.

Frequency information The 1995 generation of learner’s dictionaries, more precisely LDOCE3 and COBUILD2, saw the introduction of another potentially helpful innovation that would not have been possible without the advances in corpus research. Lexicographers were for the first time able to provide learners with explicit frequency information. Such data indicates how common a word is within the English language (or rather, 14. As Hanks (2012, p. 63) states, “the impact of corpus data on synchronic lexicography since 1987 (the date of publication of COBUILD1) has been overwhelming”. Lexicographers are thus provided with sufficient evidence to make generalizations about language with reasonable confidence. Also, their attention is drawn to lexical aspects that are likely to escape intuition altogether (See also L’Homme & Cormier (2014, p. 332) and Heuberger (2016b)).

67

68

Reinhard Heuberger

within a certain corpus) and thus how important it is to remember that term at a certain stage of learning (see Kilgarriff, 1997a, p. 135). Teachers of English and textbook authors are also likely to benefit from frequency information, as they need to know whether pupils or students can be expected to be familiar with a certain lexeme. Surprisingly, some 25 years after its introduction, the provision of frequency information seems to have stagnated. Not all current MLDs on the market provide frequency data yet, and if they do, they normally give this information for a few thousand15 common words only. As intermediate and advanced learners are the target audience for the dictionaries in question, frequency information should be indicated for a higher number of terms – arguably at least the 10,000 most common words of the language. For future editions of learner’s dictionaries, such a development does not seem unlikely: the ever-increasing size of corpora coupled with the use of more sophisticated corpus analysis tools, for example Sketch Engine,16 should result in even more extensive and reliable provision of frequency data.

Pictorial illustrations The use of pictorial illustrations has a long tradition in EFL lexicography, actually starting with Hornby et al.’s ISED (cf. Yamada, 2013, p. 191). Some innovations in this regard will briefly be discussed here, though their impact for language learning should not be overestimated. In 1995, some of the illustrations in LDOCE3 and OALD5 were for the first time full-colour, a feature which is now standard in current MLDs. Interestingly, studies have shown that full-colour illustrations are not generally superior to black and white drawings with regard to comprehensibility (see Hupka, 1989, p. 709). On the other hand, they do make the dictionary more attractive – which is likely to both increase sales figures and motivate learners to use the dictionary. The potential of pictorial illustrations has certainly not been exhausted, partly because they have received less lexicographic research attention than other information categories, for example, definitions and grammar codes. As Klosa remarks, the question of “how many and which illustrations belong in the dictionary has 15. It is worth noting that COBUILD2 (1995) covered no fewer than 14,700 words (within a five-level frequency band). In later editions, Collins reduced this figure without stating the reasons for this editorial decision. Perhaps the reliability of the data was not considered high enough. 16. Sketch Engine is a corpus manager and text analysis software programme developed since 2003. See https://www.sketchengine.eu/

Chapter 4. Innovation in monolingual English learner’s dictionaries

not yet been definitively answered” (2016. p. 530). Sometimes, aesthetic reasons seem to have played a greater role in their selection than lexicographic relevance. If employed effectively, illustrations are remarkably versatile in their range of application. They can, for example, be used for grouping and disambiguating words in a lexical field, depicting the parts of objects and contrasting meanings of polysemous and homonymous terms. LDOCE3 (1995) provided a number of full-page and full-colour illustrations that depicted, for instance, prepositions and sounds – terms for which one would not necessarily expect to find a pictorial illustration (see Figure 3, which illustrates the versalitity and efficiency of pictorial representations).

Figure 3. Collective picture titled ‘Sounds’ in LDOCE3 (1995, p. 1437)

69

70

Reinhard Heuberger

Microstructure A well-designed microstructure (that is, the structure of a lexical entry) is a prerequisite for the effective and efficient use of any dictionary. Thus, many efforts have been made to improve the microstructure of learner’s dictionaries over the years. Just one feature, designed to facilitate the location of the different senses of polysemous terms, will be considered here. The 1995 generation of learner’s dictionaries – highly innovative in many respects, as should have become apparent by now – introduced so-called “signposts” (LDOCE3) and “guide words” (CIDE1) to facilitate the retrieval of word senses. Recent studies have shown that learners clearly benefit from this feature (see Nesi & Tan, 2011, p. 90). The entry in Figure 4 for mouse in CALDO shows how guide words (i.e. “ANIMAL”, “COMPUTER” and “PERSON”) are employed by Cambridge University Press.

Figure 4. Use of guide words in CALDO (accessed 20 June 2020)

Chapter 4. Innovation in monolingual English learner’s dictionaries

In the majority of cases, these guide words are synonyms, short definitions and hyperonyms. Dictionary users who rely on them normally do not have to browse the entire entry to locate the sense they are looking for. Considering the fact that this feature has been in use for about 25 years and that its usefulness has been confirmed in research studies (see Yamada, 2013, p. 200), it comes as a surprise that several current learner’s dictionaries still do not provide it.

Other innovations: Transcriptions, collocations, guides Phonetic transcriptions are presumably the most stable information category in learner’s dictionaries, having experienced few major innovations since Hornby et al.’s ISED. They continue to be given by means of “a pedagogically sound and widespread sytem” (Strevens, 1987, p. 77), the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). This approach seems very much justified, as many foreign learners of English become familiar with the IPA in the course of their language studies. Dictionaries for native speakers have also experimented with “home-grown” transcription systems (often based on a re-spelling of the headword), but MLDs have wisely relied on the IPA ever since their introduction. Collocations, which are known to be both problematic and important for learners of a foreign language, have traditionally been provided within example sentences, definitions and usage notes. Since 2009, some MLDs (e.g. COBUILD6 and LDOCE5) have included them in self-contained boxes. As can be seen in Figure 5 (LDOCE5, accompanying CD-ROM), this helps to make collocations more accessible.

Figure 5. Use of collocation boxes in CD-ROM accompanying LDOCE5

71

72

Reinhard Heuberger

Like usage notes, collocation boxes are not provided consistently for all headwords which form collocations – presumably because they would consume too much space in a print dictionary. They are, however, useful for productive purposes and it is hoped they will be maintained as a feature. Guides to (learner’s) dictionaries are often ignored by users (see Herbst, 1996, p. 339). This leads to learners possibly failing to use MLDs to their full potential, especially with regard to newly introduced features. Innovations such as frequency information thus may not be used effectively. In recent editions, especially since the turn of the millennium, learner’s dictionaries have drastically shortened the length of their guides. They now often rely on annotated sample pages (sometimes called “visual keys”) in combination with short verbal descriptions. Studies need to confirm whether this approach has changed user habits significantly.

Electronic learner’s dictionaries A thorough treatment of innovations in electronic learner’s dictionaries would require (indeed, it deserves) a study of its own. This would not be an easy undertaking, though, as publishers do not normally provide changelogs for their internet reference works. New features are introduced – and sometimes disappear – on a regular basis. Such an undertaking could thus only be achieved in close collaboration with dictionary makers. Therefore, but also due to space constraints, this section can merely provide a sketch of some key developments in this field, concentrating on electronic MLDs on optical data carriers and on the internet, while ignoring, for instance, reference works on floppy disks as well as hand-held dictionary devices.17 The 1990s saw the rise (and peak) of learner’s dictionaries on CD-ROM. In the early years, the market was shared between Collins, Longman and Oxford University Press. At least in quantitative terms, Collins was the leading publisher for some time, issuing, for instance, the Collins COBUILD on CD-ROM (1994),18 the Collins COBUILD student’s dictionary on CD-ROM (1996), and Collins COBUILD e-dict (1998). Longman and Oxford had their share of the market with publications such as the Longman interactive English dictionary (1993, 1996) and the Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary on CD-ROM (1997), respectively. These early electronic learner’s dictionaries were essentially 1:1 conversions of printed reference 17. For more information on the various types of electronic MLDs, see Nesi (1999) and, in particular, Nesi (2009). 18. Collins supplemented this early electronic learner’s dictionary with a five-million-word corpus which dictionary users could analyze by themselves (cf. Jackson and Zé Amvela, 2000, p. 148).

Chapter 4. Innovation in monolingual English learner’s dictionaries

works – at least with regard to textual elements such as definitions and example sentences (see Jackson & Zé Amvela, 2000, p. 148; Pastor & Alcina, 2010, p. 308). As a major innovation, however, these CD-ROM dictionaries introduced multimedia features in the form of recorded pronunciations and even video material. The Longman interactive English dictionary (1996) included eight short video clips on a variety of topics, such as an interview at an employment agency and the ordering of a meal in a restaurant. Another significant advantage of these early electronic dictionaries was improved accessibility, with sophisticated search tools allowing more efficient and more effective retrieval of data (see de Schryver, 2003, p. 157; Pastor & Alcina, 2010, p. 310). The new millenium, and particularly the last decade, has been dominated by learner’s dictionaries on the internet,19 whereas MLDs on optical data carriers are becoming obsolete. The key innovations in online learner lexicography have primarily been driven by technology. While multimedia features, improved accessibility and (limited) customization options already enhanced learner’s dictionaries on CD-ROM and DVD, a number of more recent developments are directly related to the internet as a platform: user-input, hybridization and – arguably most importantly – virtually unlimited storage space. User-input means that online (learner’s) dictionaries can allow their users to contribute information and interact with each other.20 In discussion forums, learners can ask questions about topics not covered by the dictionary and, ideally, find qualified help. In this respect, the British online MLDs are somewhat behind their only American competitor. Merriam-Webster’s MWALEDO is currently the only learner’s dictionary on the internet that provides (registered) users the opportunity to ask questions, make comments and have discussions. Hybridization refers to the merging of a dictionary with other software applications – for example, with corpora and translation tools. Cambridge University Press, for instance, includes a multilingual translation tool directly in CALDO. Here, learners can select their target language and receive an instant translation of every lexeme (as illustrated in Figure 6). Lastly, current online MLDs are finally making good use of the storage space the electronic medium provides (to varying extents, of course, depending on the 19. All major publishers of learner’s dictionaries provide online versions of their flagship print reference works: The Cambridge advanced learner’s dictionary online (CALDO), the Collins COBUILD advanced learner’s dictionary online (COBUILDO), the Longman dictionary of contemporary English online (LDOCEO), the Macmillan English dictionary for advanced learners online (MEDALO), the Merriam-Webster’s advanced learner’s English dictionary online (MWALEDO) and the Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary online (OALDO). 20. Meyer and Abel (2018) have discussed the chances and limitations of user participation in the internet era.

73

74

Reinhard Heuberger

Figure 6. Hybridized translation tool in CALDO (accessed 20 June 2020)

dictionary and the entry). This development alone renders online learner’s dictionaries superior to their printed counterparts. In particular, the number of examples and collocations has increased significantly in recent years. For instance, Longman’s LDOCEO provides 56 example sentences for the noun “goal” – unthinkable in a printed learner’s dictionary. The internet gives lexicographers great freedom to include what they consider helpful. Longman and Collins, for instance, use the storage space to provide audio recordings of example sentences (in addition to headwords). Macmillan has recordings of various musical instruments and everyday sounds such as thunder (cf. Jackson, 2018, p. 545). Collins is currently the only publisher including video clips in its online MLD. Interestingly, the videos in COBUILDO are used to illustrate pronunciation rather than meaning. From the viewpoint of the learner, the overall development of internet learner’s dictionaries is (slowly but certainly) going in the right direction. Although the opportunities of the online medium are far from being exhausted (see Heuberger, 2020), internet MLDs seem to exceed the capabilities of their print counterparts in most respects.

Conclusion and outlook Monolingual learner’s dictionaries have witnessed significant lexicographic innovations in the past eight decades. Features such as defining vocabularies, trans-

Chapter 4. Innovation in monolingual English learner’s dictionaries

parent grammar codes and authentic example sentences have, among others, contributed to the remarkable development of MLDs in terms of usefulness to language learning. The advent of corpora has affected both dictionary makers and users, playing an important role “upstream, as raw material which lexicographers mine and refine to produce rich lexical entries, and downstream, as an integral part of the electronic dictionary to which users have direct access and which they can mine for themselves” (Granger, 2012, p. 3). Printed learner’s dictionaries have long been financially profitable, which has permitted publishers to continously invest in their improvement. With the rise of electronic dictionaries, the extent to which this will continue seems uncertain. As has been shown, the most significant lexicographic innovations were introduced in the 1990s or even earlier, that is before the internet became a popular platform. Subsequent print editions introduced only subtle changes: for example, more thorough treatment of collocations and neologisms, refined layout (e.g. the use of colour), an increase in headwords, accompanying CD-ROMs or DVDs, and so on – but the key features of printed learner’s dictionaries had essentially been established by 1995 (see also Heuberger, 2016a, p. 29). The fact that the developmental focus has now shifted toward online reference works is understandable and even rational, as (learner’s) dictionaries have arguably found their ideal medium in the electronic format (see Rundell, 2012, p. 15). Nevertheless, it is likely that financial resources will continue to be dedicated to print dictionaries in coming years – at least as long as the amount of income which they generate continues to be significant enough for the publishers. Online MLDs are currently offered free of charge,21 indirectly financed by advertisements and accompanying book sales. With this business model, print and electronic learner’s dictionaries may continue to co-exist into the foreseeable future. In line with the overall theme of this volume, it seems appropriate to end this chapter by returning to the question of why learner lexicography has been characterized by so much innovation. One reason that has already been mentioned is the long history of MLDs – some eighty years during which lexicographers have continously added improvements and innovations. Similarly important is the fact that there has been strong competition for many decades, with no fewer than six major publishing houses currently sharing the market. During the mid-1990s, perhaps the most fruitful time in the history of printed learner’s dictionaries, the rivalry between Oxford University Press, Longman, Collins and Cambridge University Press brought about various game-changing innovations. Jackson (2002, p. 132) provides a third, perhaps less obvious, reason for the many notable developments within the field:

21. Some publishers offer premium paid versions of their online MLDs.

75

76

Reinhard Heuberger

MLD lexicography has been extensively debated both by practising lexicographers (e.g. Rundell, 1998) and by academics (e.g. Herbst & Popp, 1999), with increasing attention being paid to the needs of learners and the reference skills that they can be expected to possess.

It seems plausible that valuable synergy effects have arisen from this (ongoing) constructive debate between theoretical and practical learner lexicography. All these circumstances have contributed to the high standards of today’s monolingual English learner’s dictionaries, both in book form and on the internet.

References Primary sources: Dictionaries ALD1: see ISED ALD2: The advanced learner’s dictionary of current English (2nd ed., 1963). A. S. Hornby, E. V. Gatenby, & H. Wakefield (Eds.). Oxford University Press. CALD4: Cambridge advanced learner’s dictionary (4th ed., 2013). C. McIntosh (Ed.). Cambridge University Press. CALDO: Cambridge advanced learner’s dictionary [Online]. Accessed on 20 June 2020 from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/ CED Online: Collins English dictionary online. Accessed on 20 April 2020 from http://www .collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english CIDE1: Cambridge international dictionary of English (1st ed., 1995). P. Procter (Ed.). Cambridge University Press. COBUILD1: Collins Cobuild English language dictionary (1st ed., 1987). J. Sinclair & P. Hanks (Eds.). HarperCollins. COBUILD2: Collins Cobuild English dictionary (2nd ed., 1995). P. Hanks (Ed.). HarperCollins. COBUILD6: Collins Cobuild advanced dictionary (6th ed., 2009). J. Sinclair (Ed.). HarperCollins. COBUILD9: Collins Cobuild advanced learner’s dictionary (9th ed., 2018). J. Sinclair (Ed.). HarperCollins. COBUILDO: Collins COBUILD advanced English dictionary online. Accessed on 20 June 2020 from https://www.collinsdictionary.com/de/worterbuch/englisch Collins COBUILD E-dict. (1998). HarperCollins. Collins COBUILD on CD-ROM. (1994). HarperCollins. Collins COBUILD student’s dictionary on CD-ROM. (1996). HarperCollins. ISED: Idiomatic and syntactic English dictionary. (1942). A. S. Hornby, E. V. Gatenby, & H. Wakefield (Eds.). Kaitakusha. (Photographically reprinted and published as A learner’s dictionary of current English by Oxford University Press, 1948; in 1952, retitled The advanced learner’s dictionary of current English (ALD1).) LDOCE1: Longman dictionary of contemporary English (1st ed., 1978). P. Proctor (Ed.). Longman.

Chapter 4. Innovation in monolingual English learner’s dictionaries

LDOCE3: Longman dictionary of contemporary English (3rd ed., 1995). D. Summers (Ed.). Longman. LDOCE5: Longman dictionary of contemporary English (5th ed., 2009). M. Mayor (Ed.). Pearson Longman. LDOCE6: Longman dictionary of contemporary English for advanced learners (6th ed., 2014). Pearson Longman. LDOCEO: Longman dictionary of contemporary English online. Accessed on 20 June 2020 from https://www.ldoceonline.com/ Longman interactive English dictionary. (1993, 1996). Longman Group UK. MEDAL1: Macmillan English dictionary for advanced learners (1st ed., 2002). M. Rundell (Ed.). Macmillan Education. MEDAL2: Macmillan English dictionary for advanced learners (2nd ed., 2007). M. Rundell (Ed.). Macmillan Education. MEDALO: Macmillan English dictionary for advanced learners online. Accessed on 20 June 2020 from http://www.macmillandictionary.com/ MWALED1: Merriam-Webster’s advanced learner’s English dictionary (1st ed., 2008). S. J. Perrault (Ed.). Merriam-Webster. MWALED2: Merriam-Webster’s advanced learner’s English dictionary (2nd ed., 2016). S. J. Perrault (Ed.). Merriam-Webster. MWALEDO: Merriam-Webster’s advanced learner’s English dictionary online. Accessed on 20 June 2020 from http://www.learnersdictionary.com NMED: The new method English dictionary (1935). M. P. West & J. G. Endicott (Eds.). Longmans, Green. OALD3: Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary of current English (3rd ed., 1974). A. S. Hornby, A. P. Cowie, & J. Windsor Lewis (Eds.). Oxford University Press. OALD5: Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary of current English (5th ed., 1995). J. Crowther (Ed.). Oxford University Press. OALD10: Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary (10th ed., 2020). Oxford University Press. OALDO: Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary online. Accessed on 20 June 2020 from https:// www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/ Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary on CD-ROM (1997). Oxford University Press. Palmer, H. E. (Ed.). (1938). A grammar of English words. Longmans, Green.

Secondary sources Béjoint, H., & Moulin, A. (1987). The place of the dictionary in an EFL programme. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), The dictionary and the language learner: Papers from the Euralex seminar at the University of Leeds, 1–3 April 1985 (pp. 97–114). Max Niemeyer. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111340500-009

Bogaards, P. (1996). Dictionaries for learners of English. International Journal of Lexicography, 9(4), 277–320. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/9.4.277 Bogaards, P., & van der Kloot, W. A. (2001). The use of grammatical information in learner’s dictionaries. International Journal of Lexicography, 14(2), 97–121. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/14.2.97

77

78

Reinhard Heuberger

Bogaards, P. (2010). The evolution of learner’s dictionaries and Merriam-Webster’s advanced learner’s dictionary. In I. J. Kernemann & P. Bogaards (Eds.), English learner’s dictionaries at the DSNA 2009 (pp. 11–28). K Dictionaries. Carter, R. (1994). Applied linguistic perspectives. Routledge. Cowie, A. P. (2002). English dictionaries for foreign learners. A history. Oxford University Press. Cowie, A. P. (2009). The earliest foreign learner’s dictionaries. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), The Oxford history of English lexicography, Vol. II: Specialized dictionaries (pp. 285–411). Clarendon Press. Fontenelle, T. (2009). Linguistic research and learner’s dictionaries: The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), The Oxford history of English lexicography, Vol. II: Specialized dictionaries (pp. 412–435). Clarendon Press. Granger, S. (2012). Introduction: Electronic lexicography – From challenge to opportunity. In S. Granger & M. Paquot (Eds.), Electronic lexicography (pp. 1–11). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654864.003.0001 Hanks, P. (2012). Corpus evidence and electronic lexicography. In S. Granger & M. Paquot (Eds.), Electronic lexicography (pp. 57–82). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654864.003.0004

Herbst, T. (1989). Dictionaries for foreign language teaching: English. In F. J. Hausmann, O. Reichmann, H. E. Wiegand, & L. Zgusta (Eds.), Wörterbücher, dictionaries, dictionnaires: Ein internationals Handbuch zur Lexikographie (pp. 1379–1385). Walter de Gruyter. Herbst, T. (1996). On the way to the perfect learner’s dictionary: A first comparison of OALD5, LDOCE3, COBUILD2 and CIDE. International Journal of Lexicography, 9(4), 321–356. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/9.4.321

Herbst, T., & Popp, K. (Eds.). (1999). The perfect learner’s dictionary (?) (Lexicographica Series Maior, 95). Max Niemeyer. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110947021 Heuberger, R. (2000). Monolingual dictionaries for foreign learners of English. A constructive evaluation of the state-of-the-art reference works in book form and on CD-ROM. Austrian Studies in English, 87. Braumüller. Heuberger, R. (2016a). Learner’s dictionaries: History and development; current issues. In P. Durkin (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of lexicography (pp. 25–43). Oxford University Press. Heuberger, R. (2016b). Corpora as game changers. The growing impact of corpus tools for dictionary makers and users. English Today, 32(2), 24–30. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078415000474

Heuberger, R. (2020). Monolingual online dictionaries for learners of English and the opportunities of the electronic medium: A critical survey. International Journal of Lexicography, 33(4), 404–416. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecaa018 Hupka, W. (1989). Die Bebilderung und sonstige Formen der Veranschaulichung im allgemeinen einsprachigen Wörterbuch. In F. J. Hausmann, O. Reichmann, H. E. Wiegand, & L. Zgusta (Eds.), Wörterbücher, dictionaries, dictionnaires: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Lexikographie (pp. 704–725). Walter de Gruyter. Jackson, H., & Ze Amviela, E. (2000). Words, meaning and vocabulary. An introduction to modern English lexicology. Cassell. Jackson, H. (2002). Lexicography. An introduction. Routledge. Jackson, H. (2018). English lexicography in the internet era. In P. A. Fuertes-Olivera (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of lexicography (pp. 540–553). Routledge.

Chapter 4. Innovation in monolingual English learner’s dictionaries

Kilgarriff, A. (1997a). Putting frequencies in the dictionary. International Journal of Lexicography, 10(2), 135–151. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/10.2.135 Kilgarriff, A. (1997b). Book reviews. Linguistics: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences, 35, 96–968. Kipfer, B. A. (1984). Workbook on lexicography: A course for dictionary users with a glossary of English lexicographical terms. Exeter Linguistic Studies, 8. University of Exeter Press. Klosa, A. (2016). Illustrations in dictionaries; encyclopaedic and cultural information in dictionaries. In P. Durkin (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of lexicography (pp. 515–531). Oxford University Press. L’Homme, M., & Cormier, M. (2014). Dictionaries and the digital revolution: A focus on users and lexical databases. International Journal of Lexicography, 27(4), 331–340. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecu023

Landau, S. I. (1993). Dictionaries. The art and craft of lexicography. Cambridge University Press. Meyer, C. M., & Abel, A. (2018). User participation in the internet era. In P. A. Fuertes-Olivera (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of lexicography (pp. 735–753). Routledge. Moon, R. (2009). The Cobuild project. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), The Oxford history of English lexicography, Vol. II: Specialized dictionaries (pp. 436–457). Clarendon Press. Moon, R. (2016). Explaining meaning in learner’s dictionaries. In P. Durkin (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of lexicography (pp. 123–143). Oxford University Press. Nesi, H. (1999). A user’s guide to electronic dictionaries for language learners. International Journal of Lexicography, 12(1), 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/12.1.55 Nesi, H. (2009). Dictionaries in electronic form. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), The Oxford history of English lexicography (pp. 458–478). Oxford University Press. Nesi, H., & Tan, K. H. (2011). The effect of menus and signposting on the speed and accuracy of sense selection. International Journal of Lexicography, 24(1), 79–96. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecq040

Ostermann, C. (2015). Cognitive lexicography: A new approach to lexicography making use of cognitive semantics. Walter de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110424164 Pastor, V., & Alcina, A. (2010). Search techniques in electronic dictionaries: A classification for translators. International Journal of Lexicography, 23(3), 307–354. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecq015

Peters, P., & Fernández, T. (2017). Lexicography and applied linguistics. In P. A. Fuertes-Olivera (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of lexicography (pp. 105–122). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315104942-8 Rundell, M. (1998). Recent trends in English pedagogical lexicography. International Journal of Lexicography, 11(4), 315–342. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/11.4.315 Rundell, M. (1999). Dictionary use in production. International Journal of Lexicography, 12(1), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/12.1.35 Rundell, M. (2006). Learner’s dictionaries. In K. Brown (Ed.), Elsevier encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp. 739–743). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00427-2

Rundell, M. (2012). The road to automated lexicography: An editor’s viewpoint. In S. Granger & M. Paquot (Eds.), Electronic lexicography (pp. 15–30). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654864.003.0002

79

80

Reinhard Heuberger

Schryver, G.-M. de. (2003). Lexicographers‘ dreams in the electronic-dictionary age. International Journal of Lexicography, 16(2), 143–199. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/16.2.143 Strevens, P. (1987). The effectiveness of learner’s dictionaries. In R. Burchfield (Ed.), Studies in lexicography (pp. 76–93). Clarendon Press. Whitcut, J. (1985). Usage notes in dictionaries: The needs of the learner and the native speaker. In R. Ilson (Ed.), Dictionaries, lexicography and language learning (pp. 75–80). Pergamon Press. Yamada, S. (2013). Monolingual learner’s dictionaries – where now? In H. Jackson (Ed.), The Bloomsbury companion to lexicography (pp. 188–212). Bloomsbury.

Appendix. Chronological table of monolingual English learner dictionary publications Oxford University Press / Kaitakusha

Longman

Collins

Cambridge University Press

Macmillan

Merriam-Webster

ISED (1942, 1948) ALD1 (1952) ALD2 (1963) OALD3 (1974)

LDOCE1 (1978)

OALD4 (1989)

LDOCE2 (1987)

COBUILD1 (1987)

OALD5 (1995)

LDOCE3 (1995)

COBUILD2 (1995)

OALD6 (2000)

COBUILD3 (2001) LDOCE4 (2003)

OALD7 (2005) OALD8 (2010)

OALD9 (2016)

LDOCE5 (2008)

LDOCE6 (2014)

COBUILD4 (2003)

MEDAL1 (2002)

COBUILD5 (2006)

CALD2 (2005)

COBUILD6 (2009)

CALD3 (2008)

COBUILD7 (2012)

CALD4 (2013)

COBUILD8 (2014) COBUILD9 (2018)

OALD10 (2020)

CIDE1 (1995)

MEDAL2 (2007) MWALED1 (2008)

MWALED2 (2016)

part ii

Innovation through scientific discovery

chapter 5

La linguistique appliquée Innovation in language learning/teaching research in France (1955–85) Shona Whyte

Université Côte d’Azur

At the creation of the Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliquée (AILA) in 1964, the new field of applied linguistics was marked by international collaboration on second and foreign language teaching among linguists in the US, the UK, and France. Over six decades later, while applied linguistics is a well-established discipline around the world, la linguistique appliquée is a much less common term in France. Research on FL teaching is called la didactique des langues [language didactics] and involves language teaching theories drawing more on education theory than applied linguistics. This paper explores the reasons for this French exception, focusing on its theoretical underpinnings, institutional foundations and acceptance by teachers and teacher educators in mid 20th-century France as compared to other founding countries of AILA.

Introduction Perhaps one of the most striking recent developments in second and foreign language education concerns the emergence of the new field of applied linguistics (AL) in the middle of the last century. The new discipline emerged in three countries with a measure of collaboration between teacher educators and scholars in North America, the UK and France, leading to the creation of new academic institutions and departments, and eventually to the development of second language acquisition (SLA), a novel field of theoretical enquiry, as well as influencing innovation in teaching methodology in the form of communicative language teaching (CLT), still the dominant paradigm today in many parts of the world. However, while AL is now a well-established domain in English-language research in many places, the same is not true of its translation equivalent la linguistique appliquée (LA) in France. Today, much language education research in France is conducted under the banner of la didactique des langues (DDL) [language didactics] without https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.20.05why © 2023 John Benjamins Publishing Company

Chapter 5. La linguistique appliquée

reference to LA. This French exception is the source of misunderstandings among scholars working across and among different cultures and disciplines, and also raises questions about how and why the new field of AL/LA came about, how its effects were experienced, and what the implications are for contemporary language education. This paper explores the history of the emergence of this new discipline in France with these questions in mind. It is true that, beyond France, both theoretical and practical definitions of AL have often proved somewhat slippery, as British linguist Peter Strevens hints: “Its meaning is simultaneously of two kinds: (i) a multi-disciplinary approach or contribution to the solution of language-based problems; (ii) what applied linguists do” (Strevens, 1979, p. 3). Henry Widdowson noted that “from time to time the underlying uncertainty about the scope and status of applied linguistics breaks surface [for] the issue is a highly contentious one that raises quite fundamental questions about academic identity”, although he also acknowledged the legitimacy of a position where “people who call themselves applied linguists should stop agonizing about the nature of their enquiry, and just get on with it” (Widdowson, 2000, p. 4). Such questions continue to arise, for example, in institutional decision-making regarding recruitment, promotion, and funding. International and cross-disciplinary collaboration also create a need for transparency, and of course there are epistemological and methodological concerns (Kramsch, 2009; Liddicoat, 2018). Another British applied linguist, this time working in the US, Richard Young (2014, p. 3) underlined the interdisciplinarity of the field: “nobody was born an applied linguist, and there are very few undergraduate degrees in applied linguistics, so most of us come from backgrounds in psychology, linguistics, literature, or language teaching.” Eric Kellerman has suggested we should “agree on what AL is by not defining it” (De Bot, 2015, p. 27), continuing what some see as a “long tradition of British empiricism and sober, down-to-earth sense of practicality” (Rajogopalan, 2004, p. 412). Against this may be placed a perhaps greater concern for theoretical considerations among French scholars in LA and DDL “comme si l’on s’était davantage soucié de borner le terrain plutôt que de construire la maison” [as though more attention were devoted to staking out the territory than building the house] (Berthet, 2011, p. 96). This chapter traces the development and divergence of the two research cultures AL and LA from their common point of origin in the mid-20th century. My objective is to contribute to reflection on this difference by focusing on the innovations brought by LA in terms of language learning and teaching theories, concerning disciplinary and institutional representation, and with respect to considerations of teaching methodology. Starting with Widdowson’s distinction between applied linguistics and linguistics applied (Widdowson, 1980, 2000), the

83

84

Shona Whyte

chapter examines the historical development of LA in France in the mid-20th century, particularly in comparison with developments in the US and the UK. The second section of the chapter investigates the principal innovations in the key decade from the mid-1960s to mid-1970s, in relation both to linguistic theory and disciplinarization, and to language teaching and learning, tracing the origins of divergences leading to a splintering of the field in France. The last part of the chapter reviews the implications of these historical developments and their effects on current language learning and teaching research today.

L’Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliquée (AILA): A common élan The emergence of the new field of AL/LA is generally dated to the mid-20th century: the first academic journal to embrace the term was the American publication Language Learning, founded in 1948, while the earliest scholarly associations were born in France in 1964: the international body AILA (L’Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliquée [International Association of Applied Linguistics]) and its first affiliate, AFLA (L’Association Française de Linguistique Appliquée [French Association of Applied Linguistics]). In this section I discuss understanding of this key term in English and French, and sketch the common origins of the new movement.

La Linguistique appliquée and “linguistics applied” In a paper marking the 20th anniversary of the Applied Linguistics journal, Widdowson (2000, p. 4) looked back on the enviable simplicity of early definitions of the field: “linguistics decontextualized language from reality, and applied linguistics re-contextualized it, and reconstructed reality in the process. In this respect, linguistics was the science (like physics) and applied linguistics its technology (like engineering).” However, Widdowson (1980), in the first issue of the same journal, already saw problems with this view. He used the term linguistics applied for activity where “the assumption is that [a] problem can be reformulated by the direct and unilateral application of concepts and terms deriving from linguistic enquiry itself ” (Widdowson, 2000, p. 5). In applied linguistics, on the other hand, “linguistic insights are not self-evident but a matter of interpretation [and there is a need to] relate and reconcile different representations of reality, including that of linguistics without excluding others” (ibid.). The remainder of his (2000) paper is devoted to the thesis that “linguistics applied is, in effect, misapplied linguistics” (p. 6) with the following conclusion:

Chapter 5. La linguistique appliquée

If applied linguistics is to have any occupation it must, to my mind, avoid and indeed resist, the deterministic practices of linguistics applied. Its only claim to existence as a field of enquiry must rest on its readiness to enquire critically into the relevance of linguistic theory and description to the reformulation of language problems in the practical domain. Such an enquiry has to be linguistically informed without being linguistically determined, for these problems are inextricably bound up with other conceptions of reality, embedded in different discourses which have their own legitimacy, and these we have to somehow come to terms with. The business of applied linguistics in this view is to mediate between linguistics and other discourses and identify where they might relevantly interrelate. (Widdowson, 2000, p. 23)

Widdowson thus rejects linguistics applied, whose proponents may be led to “defer unthinkingly” to “the discourse of linguistics”, in what he considers to be a restrictive view of AL and an erroneous interpretation of its aims and scope (Widdowson, 2000, p. 24). Coming now to the French translation equivalent la linguistique appliquée, readers familiar with French know that adjectives are generally post-nominal (the typologically preferred pattern among SVO languages), while in English, default placement is pre-nominal. This linguistic difference favours the restrictive reading of LA expressed by Widdowson’s linguistics applied and makes the ecumenical intention of applied linguistics (or indeed a satisfactory translation or paraphrase) much more difficult for a French speaker. French researchers working on language teaching and learning followed Widdowson in rejecting linguistics applied without entertaining the potential of the less restrictive applied linguistics, and, as we will see, by the mid 1970s la linguistique appliquée in France was a dead letter. The striking brevity of the French flirtation with LA in the teaching of French as a foreign language (Français Langue Étrangère; FLE) is underlined by SLA researcher Daniel Véronique: Quand on observe la constitution de ce nouveau domaine praxéologique, on ne peut qu’être frappé par l’émergence tardive de la linguistique appliquée en son sein et par la brièveté de son ascendance en matière d’enseignement des langues. En France, cette discipline ne vivra guère plus d’une décennie.1 (Véronique, 2009, p. 50)

1. [When we consider the constitution of this new praxeological domain, we cannot but be struck by the late emergence of applied linguistics there and by the brief duration of its ascendancy in the area of language teaching. In France, this discipline would scarcely last more than a decade.]

85

86

Shona Whyte

His assessment is echoed by Berthet (2011, p. 93) in reference to institutional developments in the wake of the creation in France in 1964 of the international association (AILA): “Moins de dix ans aprè s la fondation de l’AILA à Nancy, peu de linguistes s’inté ressent encore en France à la linguistique appliqué e” [Less than ten years after the foundation of AILA in Nancy, few linguists in France were still working in applied linguistics]. As suggested above, their position may have been influenced by an interpretation based on the word order constraints of the French language. A contemporary French linguist Fernand Carton, present at the foundation of AFLA and AILA at his home university of Nancy, noted that the French adjective “appliqué ” on a pupil’s report card means diligent but not brilliant, making it an “ambiguous” choice for an academic discipline, though he admits “j’ai apprécié par la suite ce mot un peu fourre-tout et commode” [I later came to appreciate this handy catchall term] (Carton, 2015, p. 2). In any case, at around the same period as Widdowson’s second article, Coste (1997, p. 34) spoke for many in France when he suggested that the term LA could be rehabilitated only to the extent that the application is not exclusively top-down [“pour autant que l’application ne soit pas un sens unique hiérarchisé”]. Thus, what had seemed new and full of promise in the early 1960s quickly fell from favour and “la linguistique appliquée s’est trouvée, en France, comme laminée et vidée de sa substance” [LA in France found itself a spent force, devoid of substance] (Coste, 1997). How did these rapid changes come about?

The emergence of LA in France and AL in the US and the UK The domain of LA has enjoyed a revival of interest in France in recent years, and issues surrounding the institutional and academic compartmentalization of language-related disciplines have been the focus of special issues of Le français dans le monde (Narcy-Combes, Portine, & Macaire, 2010) and Histoire Épistémologie Langage (Linn, Candel, & Léon, 2011a), as well as a series of conferences on applied linguistics, beginning with CRELA 2013 on cultures of research, followed by TRELA 2015 on research terrains, and PRELA 2019 on professional dimensions.2 Other eyewitness accounts are available in the historical journal Documents pour l’histoire du français langue étrangère ou seconde and co-authored volumes on linguistics (Chevalier & Encrevé, 2006) and language didactics research (Blanchet 2. Cultures de recherche en linguistique appliquée [Research cultures in applied linguistics] (CRELA), Nancy 2013; Terrains de recherche en linguistique appliquée [Areas of research in applied linguistics] (TRELA), Paris 2015; Professionnels et recherche en linguistique appliquée [Professionals and applied linguistics research] (PRELA), Lyon 2019.

Chapter 5. La linguistique appliquée

& Chardenet, 2014). A number of researchers have addressed this question from a historical viewpoint (Léon, 2015; Linn, 2008, 2011; Smith, 2016), from a contrastive perspective (Berthet, 2011; Liddicoat, 2009, 2018; Véronique, 2009), and from an epistemological standpoint (Carter & McCarthy, 2015; Kramsch 2009; Véronique, 2009, 2010; Widdowson, 1980, 2000). I begin by following the useful comparative approach taken by Berthet (2011), who examines that part of AL/LA which is concerned with second language teaching and learning in Britain, the US, and France and characterizes their differences with reference to Widdowson’s narrow and broad interpretations given above. His chronology of the field in these three geographical spheres is the subject of broad agreement (Léon, 2015; Linn, 2011; Linn, Candel, & Léon 2011b; Véronique, 2009) and includes many of the institutional and academic milestones shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Timeline of the emergence of Applied Linguistics and la linguistique appliquée

I here consider the period from the mid-1950s until the early 1980s, including a decade before and after the key ten-year period from the mid-sixties to the midseventies during which the new domain of AL/LA emerged as a unified movement in France, the US and the UK. For ease of reading, the developments in France which are the main focus of this chapter are shown above the timeline arrow, while related events in the UK and US appear below. Different shapes and shading are used to distinguish academic institutions, journals, scholarly and professional associations and key books and articles of the period. Figure 1 shows that the new field arose in the midst of a wealth of new developments on both sides of the Atlantic.

87

88

Shona Whyte

Institutional developments The influential Centre for Applied Linguistics opened its doors in Washington in 1959 under the direction of Charles Ferguson. The same impulse led to institutional implantation of AL/LA at similar times on both sides of the Atlantic: Edinburgh appointed John (Ian) Catford as head of a new School of Applied Linguistics in 1957, and the first chair in applied linguistics in the UK was created for Strevens with the inauguration of the University of Essex in 1964. Bernard Quemada set up his Centre de Linguistique Appliquée (CLA) at the University of Besançon in 1958, and this was followed in 1959 by the creation of two institutions for the teaching of FLE, the Bureau d’étude et de liaison pour l’enseignement du français dans le monde (BEL) and the Centre de recherche et d’étude pour la diffusion du français (CREDIF).

Scholarly associations The Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliquée (à l’Enseignement des Langues) [to the Teaching of Languages], as its full title first read, was founded in 1964 at a first international conference, held mainly in French, in Nancy, France; its first president was the French academic Bernard Pottier. The French affiliate AFLA (Association Française de Linguistique Appliquée), presided over by Antoine Culioli was created the same year (Miras, Boulton, Kübler, & Narcy-Combes, 2018). The British association dates from 1967, a direct response to developments in France orchestrated by Strevens. Pit Corder, the first BAAL president, underlined the leading role played by French academics: A project to establish an international association was initiated by the French in the mid-sixties. Peter [Strevens] was one of the few British participants in the first meeting of the Association in Besanç on in 1966. He found himself Secretary of the newly-founded Association with an undertaking from the British side to be responsible for the organisation of the next congress. It was realised that, if matters were to go forward, a national association would have to be formed to take over the organisation. Peter found himself thus the moving figure in calling the founding meeting of BAAL in Reading in 1967. BAAL did organise and play host to the second AILA congress in Cambridge in 1969. (Corder, 1990, p. 52)

The US affiliate AAAL did not arrive until a decade later, perhaps because applied linguistics already seemed well established (Valdman, 2004). As early as 1925, for instance, Leonard Bloomfield’s remarks at the inaugural meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, published in the first issue of the journal Language, showed that “applied linguistics was then considered to be a central part of the larger field of linguistics” alongside general and historical linguistics (Tarone, 2015, p.

Chapter 5. La linguistique appliquée

445). From 1948, moreover, Language Learning published ground-breaking work on the audio-lingual method of Charles Fries and Robert Lado at the University of Michigan, which brought together Bloomfield’s structural linguistics with B. F. Skinner’s behaviourist psychological model of learning.

Language teaching and teacher education With respect to the language teaching profession, three key teachers’ associations were founded almost at the same time: the US association TESOL in 1966, with its main journal TESOL Quarterly, the British IATEFL the following year, and in France, the Fédération Internationale des Professeurs de Français [International Association of French Language Teachers] (FIPF) in 1969. In France, the professionalization of FLE was already underway through CREDIF and BEL, the latter launching the main publication for teachers, Le Français dans le Monde, in 1961. In the UK a comparable role was played by the British Council (founded in 1934), which had begun publishing English Language Teaching as early as 1946.

Scholarly publications Finally, Figure 1 also dates the appearance of new academic journals in AL/LA, including Etudes de Linguistique Appliquée (1962), to disseminate the work of the Besançon CLA, and the International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (1963), published in Heidelberg with editors Bertil Malmberg and Gerhard Nickel. IRAL published two articles which were to become foundational texts for the new field of second language acquisition (SLA): Corder’s 1967 paper on the significance of learner errors, and Selinker’s 1972 article on interlanguage. This theory was developed at AILA congresses (e.g., in Corder’s keynote address in 1972) and in an offshoot annual meeting organized in Neuchâtel in Switzerland by Corder and Eddy Roulet, which brought together European applied linguists like Widdowson and Coste. Albert Valdman (2004), a French linguist at Indiana University in the USA, recounts how his own participation in the Swiss event led to his founding another new journal, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, furthering “la diffusion de la notion des systèmes approximatifs et des points de vue sur l’acquisition de la langue seconde qui prirent le relais de l’analyse contrastive des années soixante” [the dissemination of the notion of a developing interlanguage system and perspectives on second language acquisition which were replacing contrastive analysis in the 1960s]. Beneath these surface similarities and connections, however, a different story can be told.

89

90

Shona Whyte

Contours of la linguistique appliquée and the separate development of SLA Here, I trace the development of LA in France though three strands of innovation: formal linguistics (Culioli), the rise of lexicography and computer applications (Quemada), and la didactique des langues (Galisson). A fourth section addresses second language acquisition (Perdue), which developed outside LA, quite unlike the case with in the English-speaking world.

The new linguistics of Antoine Culioli In many ways a pure product of the elite scholarly tradition, Antoine Culioli (1924–2018) taught English philology and linguistics at the Sorbonne, in Nancy (1955–60), and at the Ecole Normale Supérieure in the rue d’Ulm, Paris. Something of a maverick with many irons in the fire, he remembers his involvement in LA thus: En 64, je contribue à créer l’AILA […], en relation avec des gens comme Guy Capelle qui dirigeait le BEL et, conjointement, un département de recherches linguistiques. C’était un autre aspect de mes intérêts: la linguistique appliquée à l’enseignement.3 (1982 interview reported in Chevalier & Encrevé, 2006, p. 173)

As noted, Culioli was co-founder of AILA in Nancy in 1964, then president of AFLA from 1965 to 1975, in a fertile creative context described by Chevalier and Encrevé (2006) thus: Besançon est le premier melting-pot de la filiale française de l’AILA, l’AFLA. Le premier colloque de l’AFLA, en 1965, se réunit dans ce lieu qui est le plus célébré des centres d’enseignements des langues, qui tourne à plein régime. Il s’agit d’applications à l’enseignement, mais solidairement de créations de méthodes et d’analyses de langues qui provoqueront des avancées de la linguistique ; dès le début, on a l’impression d’une aventure exceptionnelle, d’une jonction toute nouvelle des théoriciens et des praticiens d’un type quasiment expérimental.4 (Chevalier & Encrevé, 2006, p. 174) 3. [In 1964, I contributed to the creation of AILA, working with people like Guy Capelle, who directed BEL and at the same time a department of linguistic research. That was another aspect of my interests: linguistics applied to teaching.] 4. [Besançon was the first melting pot of the French affiliate of AILA, AFLA. The first AFLA conference in 1965 was held there, in the most celebrated of language teaching centres, which was working at full capacity. The focus was on applications to teaching, but hand in hand with the invention of methods and analyses of languages which would lead to advances in linguistics. From the very beginning it felt like an exceptional adventure, a completely new meeting of theoreticians and practitioners of a quasi-experimental kind.]

Chapter 5. La linguistique appliquée

Culioli constantly sought to extend the domain of LA in summer courses covering topics in linguistics, logic and psychology, and including lecturers like JeanClaude Chevalier (1925–2018), French language historian and grammarian, and Robert Galisson (1932–2020), who is the focus of the third LA strand in this chapter. Culioli published little, claiming to prefer the oral transmission of his ideas in graduate seminars and summer institutes, and to follow theoretical interests rather than career ambitions. His unofficial seminar in formal linguistics at the ENS Ulm gained institutional recognition in 1963, but he credited the events of May 1968 for establishing this work within the university system: “S’il n’y avait pas eu 68, je ne sais pas si j’aurais jamais pu faire de la linguistique générale en France.” [If May [19]68 had not happened, I don’t know if I would ever have been able to do general linguistics in France]. (Chevalier & Encrevé, 2006, p. 175) He went on to co-found the new university Paris 7 and direct its Faculty of English Studies from 1970, allowing him to set up a Department of Linguistic Research in 1972, where he developed an approach to cognitive linguistics and cognitive semantics which would become over the years his Theory of Enunciative Operations. Among linguists working in French, Culiolian linguistics rivalled the reach of US pioneers in cognitive linguistics and semantics Ronald Langacker and Leonard Talmy, and would inform the doctoral research of some sixty students, many of whom took up university positions. Thus, LA was something of a stepping stone in Culioli’s career, a discipline he left to others once his formal linguistics research found an institutional home.

AFLA and ATALA: Bernard Quemada and Bernard Pottier Other founding members of the LA movement in France were Bernard Quemada (1926–2018), the director of France’s first centre for LA in Besançon and editor of its first LA journal, and Bernard Pottier, first president of AILA. In his post as lecturer at Besançon, Quemada was a driving force in international efforts to develop the new field of LA. Returning to Paris after 1968 he directed the Institut des Professeurs de Français à l’Etranger (IPFE) and oversaw its transition in 1970–71 to a faculty of Etudes Françaises pour l’Etranger at the newly created SorbonneNouvelle. By then he was a professor at the Sorbonne, and research director at the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes (EPHE). However, Quemada is nowadays best known for his pioneering work in lexicology and lexicography using computerized corpora, and especially the definitive literary dictionary of 19th and 20th century French Trésor de la langue française, for which he directed research from the mid-1960s until 1994. It was this work which really made Quemada an applied linguist; indeed, he founded another journal, the Cahiers de lexicologie, in 1968. A similar assessment can be made of semanticist and ethnolinguist Bernard Pottier

91

92

Shona Whyte

(1924–), a professor of Spanish linguistics who taught in Bordeaux and Strasbourg before returning, like Quemada, to the Sorbonne and the EPHE. Both were involved in the Association pour la Traduction Automatique et la Linguistique Appliquée [Association for Automatic Translation and Applied linguistics] (ATALA), founded in 1959 by Emile Delaveney (1905–2003), with Pottier as vice-president. Following a crisis in confidence especially in the USA regarding the prospects for high-quality machine translation (Léon, 2015), ATALA’s remit was broadened in 1965 to include other applications of computing, using the term traitement automatique des langues [natural language processing] to conveniently preserve the French acronym while dissociating the group from the field of LA. Culioli took over the presidency in 1975, bringing his theory of enunciative operations into the purview of that association. A number of those involved in the foundation of AFLA and AILA were thus also involved in ATALA, and Léon (2015) details some of the divisions between applied linguists and those involved in machine translation and natural language processing which are relevant to the present paper. Neither general linguistics nor applied linguistics could claim an institutional identity in the middle of the 20th century in France. For the national research body, the CNRS, for example, LA fell across two sections, 22 (general linguistics, modern languages and comparative literature) and 23 (French linguistics and literary studies), meaning that French and other languages were treated separately in institutional terms.5 When ATALA broke away from LA in the mid-1960s, the relationship was asymmetrical: l’AILA (et à suite l’AFLA) va continuer à considé rer le TAL et les applications informatiques à la linguistique comme faisant partie de son champ, alors que l’ATALA, qui hé berge le bulletin de l’AILA à ses dé buts, ne considè rera plus l’application de la linguistique comme un de ses domaines de recherche.6 (Léon 2015, p. 17)

Developing research in teaching foreign languages: Robert Galisson It appears therefore that something of a vacuum in research on the teaching and learning of foreign languages had opened up by the late sixties and early seventies, as different actors and approaches to the study of various language phenomena found different institutional homes. The FLE teachers and teacher educators at BEL and CREDIF included several who participated in early AILA meetings, 5. Today CNRS Section 34 includes the whole field of language sciences, like its university counterpart the CNU’s Section 7, though university academics also belong to separate sections for particular languages (e.g., Section 11 for English studies). 6. [AILA (and then AFLA) still viewed NLP and computer applications to linguistics as falling within its purview, although ATALA, which had published early editions of the AILA bulletin, no longer viewed applications of linguistics as one of its areas of research.]

Chapter 5. La linguistique appliquée

including Guy Capelle (BEL) and Daniel Coste (CREDIF). Capelle was supportive of the US approach to AL, including the audio-lingual method associated with Fries and Lado (Capelle 1968); indeed, he edited Language Learning from 1966 to 1967, and wrote MFL materials and trained teachers. CREDIF was headed by Georges Gougenheim (1900–1972) and Paul Rivenc (1925–2019), co-authors of a new textbook for teaching FLE based on one of the first oral corpora (Gougenheim, Michea, Sauvageot, & Rivenc, 1955). Rivenc went on to develop a highly influential teaching methodology, the méthode structuro-globale audio-visuelle (SGAV ) or “St-Cloud Method”, using technology in the form of tape recordings and film strips to present learners initially with only aural models. Both Rivenc and Gougenheim were active in ATALA, and more circumspect regarding AL than Capelle: Pour quelqu’un comme Rivenc, la linguistique appliquée a surtout pris le visage outre-atlantiste d’une irruption excessive dans la classe de techniques d’analyse linguistique […] Autant il est prêt à dialoguer avec les linguistes, autant il se méfie de cette linguistique appliquée envahissante.7 (Coste, 2018, p. 228)

Something of this frustration with AL may have acted as a catalyst for Galisson’s efforts to establish la didactique des langues in place of LA in language education in France. Galisson (1932–2020) was a controversial yet highly influential figure in the linguistic and language landscape of French academia in the last quarter of the 20th century. He studied at the Ecole Supérieure de Préparation et de Perfectionnement des Professeurs de Français à l’étranger (ESPPPFE) and worked with Quemada at the University of Besançon. He wrote his doctoral thesis in LA and, as noted earlier, participated in early summer courses around the time of the creation of AILA and AFLA in the 1960s. He wrote teaching materials at BELC8 (1971–74) and took over from Quemada as director of his alma mater9 in 1974. With a professorial position at the Sorbonne-Nouvelle, Galisson claimed to exit the LA stage and campaigned for the institutional recognition of DDL. Alongside Louis Porcher (1940–2014), another FLE pioneer, Galisson headed the Faculty of FLE (1978–1981) and was able to enrol his own doctoral students in the new field until his retirement in 2000. In 1976, he published a Dictionnaire de 7. [For someone like Rivenc, applied linguistics in its North American form represented an excessive intrusion of techniques of linguistic analysis in the language classroom […] While he was ready to debate with linguists, he was suspicious of this invasive applied linguistics.] 8. The BEL became BELC (Bureau pour l’Enseignement de la Langue et de la Civilisation françaises à l’étranger) with its institutional attachment to the Centre International d’Etudes Pédagogiques in 1996 under Francis Debyser. 9. The ESPPPFE became the Institut des Professeurs de Français à l’Etranger from 1968–1970, then a faculty of the new university Sorbonne-Nouvelle in 1971.

93

94

Shona Whyte

Didactique des Langues [Dictionary of Language Didactics] with Daniel Coste (1940–). This volume was almost titled Dictionnaire de Linguistique Appliquée et de Methodologie de l’Enseignement des Langues [Applied Linguistics and Language Teaching Methodology], but the last-minute change was a harbinger of new directions, or at least of new terminology and new demarcations in language education research (Ferrao Taveres & Coste, 2016). Indeed, Coste (1997) reminds us that Galisson’s entry for applied linguistics was much more substantial than Michel Dabène’s contribution on DDL. In a similar vein, when Galisson succeeded Quemada as editor of Etudes de Linguistique Appliquée, he maintained the journal’s title at his predecessor’s behest, while adding a new subtitle including two new coinages: Revue de Didactologie et de Lexiculturologie des Langues-Cultures [Journal of Didactology and Lexiculturology of Languages and Cultures]. While neither of these neologisms caught on, he remained at the helm until 2009. As he moved from an initial interest in lexicology and vocabulary teaching to a stronger focus on language and culture (under his coinage lexiculture) and theories of its teaching (didactologie), the tone and tenor of Galisson’s work may read as surprisingly divisive and combative to the outside eye. In a 1994 paper on what he describes as an “identity crisis” in the field, he identifies a number of oppositions affecting research and practice in language education in France. The first seems to refer to language teacher preparation, long divided in France between largely discipline-specific academic training conducted in higher education institutes (now at universities), and initiation into teaching practice, the preserve of an inspectorate answering to the Ministry of Education. This division of responsibilities led to a gap between theoreticians and practitioners which Galisson judges regrettable. After arguing for the indissociable nature of language and culture, Galisson distinguishes “generalists” like himself, in favour of a broad field of modern language teaching, from “specialists” who, like Porcher, for example, defended the unique character of FLE. A second sub-division opposes applicationists, who are “dependent” on root disciplines, and autonomists or separatists, who see the teaching of a discipline as separate from the discipline itself. It is here that Galisson’s language may raise eyebrows: Les dépendantistes, ou applicationnistes inféodent l’enseignement/apprentissage des langues à des disciplines de références prestigieuses (comme la linguistique, la psychologie …), auxquelles ils empruntent les théories qu’ils préconisent pour la classe […] Comme son nom l’indique, la “linguistique appliquée” relève de cette catégorie.10 (Galisson, 1994, pp. 28–29) 10. [The applicationists subordinate teaching and learning of languages to prestigious disciplines of reference (like linguistics, psychology …) from which they borrow the theories they recommend for the classroom […] As its name implies, ‘applied linguistics’ belongs to this category.]

Chapter 5. La linguistique appliquée

Conversely, Les indépendantistes, ou autonomistes refusent toute subordination aux disciplines de référence (… ou de préférence !). Les rapports qu’il souhaitent établir avec elles ne sauraient donc être qu’égalitaires et occasionnels (liés à un projet commun) […] La didactologie/didactique des langues-cultures […] appartient à cette catégorie.11 (Galisson, 1994, p. 29)

Reflecting some time after this fighting talk, which characterized Galisson’s own work and also the orientation of ELA for more than three decades, Berthet suggests this opposition to his former field of linguistics was rooted less in a disciplinary quarrel than in a kind of corporatist or institutional resentment (2010, p. 118). After all, Berthet points out, Galisson’s work in lexiculture retained greater attention to linguistic detail than pedagogical or didactic implications. Indeed, university recruitment, one indicator of disciplinary autonomy, is still controlled by external disciplines: linguistics/language sciences on one hand, or the study of a specific modern foreign language on the other. Since university positions and promotions are regulated by the CNU, a national discipline-specific council, new doctors and established lecturers alike are called upon to have their research validated by either linguists or literary specialists.12 While Galisson militated for a separate institutional identity for language didactics, Porcher believed FLE was a better candidate, though for tactical rather than epistemological reasons, Berthet (2010) hints.

Second Language Acquisition: The ESF Project coordinated by Clive Perdue A final strand of innovation around this time in France concerns language learning rather than teaching and indeed occurred largely outside both the LA movement and the main time period of our focus (1965–75). As suggested earlier, important intuitions about second or foreign (L2) learner language by Corder (1967) laid the foundations for the scientific investigation of its acquisition (SLA) and reinforced the institutionalization of the field of AL. Initial interest in this research was developed at the Neuchâtel meetings in the 1970s and involved French researchers Daniel Coste (CREDIF) and Henri Holec (Nancy) (see Valdman 2004). However, 11. [The separatists reject any subordination to other disciplines of reference (or preference!). The relations they wish to establish with these can thus only be on an equal footing and on an occasional basis (linked to a common project) […] The didactics or didactology of language and culture […] belongs to this category.] 12. At the time of writing, several reforms have diluted and continue to reduce the scope and power of this mechanism for national disciplinary oversight in French higher education and research.

95

96

Shona Whyte

a separate project was launched by the European Science Foundation (ESF) with the Max Planck Institute in Nijmegen to understand language acquisition not so much via the deliberate teaching and learning which occurs in the FL classroom, as is the case in DDL, but as a cognitive or psycholinguistic problem of learning for what was termed ‘natural’ or untutored second language users. The scientific coordination of this project was devolved to Clive Perdue (1944–2008), a graduate of Oxford and Paris 8, whose interest in this question developed through involvement with an experimental research group seeking to test Corder’s intuitions. Indeed, Perdue was behind the translation of three of Corder’s papers for a special issue of Langages (1980); the time lag between original publication and translation is in itself indicative of the separate development of this strand of language research from LA in France. The extremely influential “ESF project”, (1981–1988) as it is known in SLA circles, investigated the L2 acquisition of a range of European languages by untutored adult immigrant learners with different first languages (L1), using innovative approaches to data collection and analysis (Perdue, 1982). The project identified a common underlying structure for L2 acquisition, a Basic Variety, dependent not on L1 or L2 properties but rather on psycholinguistic notions of agentivity and information structure (Klein & Perdue, 1992). Like the key figures featured in the previous sections, Perdue developed a strong scholarly network: after publishing the proceedings of an early SLA conference in Paris (1979) in his university journal Encrages, he founded the journal Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Etrangère (AILE) in 1991 (now Langage, Interaction, Acquisition), co-founded the European SLA conference EuroSLA in 1989, and trained numerous doctoral students who are now established academics (see Watorek, Benazzo, & Hickmann, 2012). What is striking about this work, however, is its separate development from LA in France, unlike SLA within AL in the UK and the USA.

Some conclusions and implications for the French language education landscape What conclusions may be drawn from these stories of innovation in the broad field of AL/LA in relation to language learning and teaching in mid-20th-century France? In this review of pioneering work in the middle of the last century, I have shown how shared interests in language, linguistics, and language education on both sides of the Atlantic and the Channel came together in the creation of an international association for AL/LA. AILA emerged with a French name under French impetus and with a common focus on the new field of linguistics as

Chapter 5. La linguistique appliquée

applied to questions of language teaching. With the expansion of higher education in the 1960s, new university institutions were created simultaneously in France, the UK, and the USA, new academic journals were founded, and professional associations were created for language teachers. Differences appeared, however, in terms of the theoretical underpinnings of AL/LA, with respect to the disciplinarization and institutionalization of the domain, and also with respect to praxeological concerns affecting the professionalization of language teaching and the development of teacher education.

Theoretical considerations One crucial difference concerned the theoretical foundations of AL, which crystallized quite rapidly around interlanguage, unlike in France, where a range of theories were initially developed under the LA umbrella. Smith (2016, p. 79) points out that nowadays the applied linguist is seen not simply as a consumer but as a producer of theories, citing “the growth of second language acquisition (SLA) as a field of applied linguistic research” as a good example. British and American AL built on the foundational texts of Corder (1967) and Selinker (1972), moving the focus of research from explicit learning through teaching to the implicit acquisition of language, and opening the way for a new domain, SLA. Communicative language teaching (CLT) from the mid-1970s offered the perspective of a methodology which was compatible with SLA, since it aimed to replace a grammatical syllabus, incompatible with interlanguage theory, with one based on key notions and basic language functions (Munby, 1978) which might be agnostic with respect to learning theory but had the merit of not organising teaching by grammatical structure. In France, on the other hand, the theories developed by early LA researchers ranged far from language education to embrace cognitive grammar, lexicology, and computer applications to the study of language. Those for whom language learning and teaching remained a core concern distanced themselves quite explicitly from a restrictive, linguistics applied interpretation of LA. The break dates from the 1976 publication of Galisson and Coste’s handbook for language teachers, which they described in their introduction as “une machine de guerre” [a war machine] for language teachers, which Coste softens with hindsight to “un espace d’affirmation d’un territoire autonome” [a declaration of independence] (Ferrao Taveres & Coste, 2016, p. 115) for the field of DDL. Once again, the fighting talk is striking, and as Figure 1 showed, this move on the part of French language educators predates the broader, more inclusive interpretations of AL discussed by Strevens (1979) and Widdowson (1980), which inform our current definitions of the field.

97

98

Shona Whyte

This explains why, as Véronique (2009, p. 49) notes, “[L]es travaux […] sur l’acquisition des langues étrangères […] ne sont pas perçus comme faisant partie de la didactique des langues, dans la tradition française” [SLA research […] is not seen as part of DDL in the French tradition]. He continues: “[L’]intégration des recherches sur l’appropriation des langues étrangères offre un bon test pour départager l’applied linguistics d’expression anglaise et la didactique des langues française” [a litmus test for applied linguistics in the English-speaking world as opposed to DDL in the French tradition is the inclusion of foreign language acquisition/learning]. As we have seen, SLA developed in French universities through a single important project involving untutored adults, instigated through the Max Planck Institute in the Netherlands with European funding. This beginning has led to a perception of SLA in France as exclusively psycholinguistic and unrelated to classroom concerns.

Institutional concerns A second difference between AL and LA relates to disciplinarization and institutionalization. In the UK and the US from the late 1950s and early 1960s onwards, AL seemed fairly cohesive and coherent: academics in the UK and the US were focused on language teaching, worked in centres and departments of applied linguistics, and published in journals of applied linguistics and second language acquisition. In France, the picture is less unified and more fragmented, perhaps in part due to the upheavals of 1968. This chapter has shown that the major figures in LA were not exclusively focused on language teaching, far less pursuing a common theory of language learning. As we have seen, each strand of innovation in French LA created distance from language teaching, whether it be in cognitive linguistics, corpus linguistics, or indeed second language acquisition. Chiss (2010) suggests that these domains were chosen to legitimize the new field of linguistics in reaction to the hegemony of literary and cultural studies, which dominated the study of language at the time. These developments tended to work against DDL, relegating language teaching to a less prestigious “soft science” (Chiss, 2010, p. 4) and creating territorial issues there too, as the earlier Berthet citation (2011, p. 96) showed. While the impetus to create AILA and organize its first congress certainly came from French scholars, the next steps were taken by academics from other European countries. As already noted, Strevens was behind the founding of BAAL (1967) in large part to play host to the second AILA congress in Cambridge in 1969 (Corder, 1990), and in a contemporary account the Swiss linguist Eddy Roulet commended “British, German, and Scandinavian delegates” for “shaking AILA

Chapter 5. La linguistique appliquée

out of its lethargy” and “electing a new committee” (Roulet, 1969, p. 7). A similar picture emerges in the history of AFLA, where “serious political and human tensions” led to further dissension and division in the 1980s and 1990s (Miras et al., 2018, p. 4). It seems likely that the problems of gaining institutional recognition for LA and its related fields militated against the development of these associations.

Language teaching and teacher education Certain similarities between the situation in France and in the USA and UK regarding actual language teaching and teacher education were also apparent in the mid-1960s. In the USA, the main methodological innovation of the immediate post-war period was the audio-lingual method, developed by Fries and Lado at the University of Michigan, and reported in the journal Language Learning. In the UK during the same period, the teaching of English and teacher education were promoted by the British Council, and many of the first applied linguists to take positions in the new university departments, like Widdowson and Corder, had worked for it. Munby’s influential thesis and book on CLT was also promoted by the British Council: It is doubtful if communicative language teaching or the British approach to syllabus and program design could have been established so rapidly without the Council’s help. John Munby, for example, is a British Council employee. Even before the publication of his book, Communicative Syllabus Design (Munby, 1978), in which a model for the design of ESL courses is proposed, the Munby model had been presented in Council-sponsored workshops and used as the basis for several Council consultancy projects in different parts of the world. (Richards, 1984, p. 16)

In France, developments were similar in the sense that BEL and CREDIF produced a number of innovations in the 1960s and early 1970s, involving technology and methodology: Gougenheim and Rivenc were pioneers in the recording and analysis of oral corpora, Capelle and Rivenc developed teaching materials based on audio-visual materials, and Galisson wrote vocabulary materials. BEL disseminated this work in textbooks and articles in its journal Le français dans le monde. The difference in France, however, was in the disciplinarization of this work at university level. During the key decade of LA, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s, there were few established academics at French universities working in LA, publishing and directing research in language education, or indeed in a position to take a leading role in national and international bodies. As we have seen, the publication of Galisson and Coste (1976) marked the end of the AL/LA

99

100

Shona Whyte

collaborative adventure, taking both FLE and DDL out of the AL project. By the 1980s, each had their own scholarly association ACEDLE (DDL) and ASDIFLE (FLE), and a third group SIHFLES was founded, in 1987, to research the history of French language teaching. In many ways language education research remains a somewhat fragmented field in France today, although there are signs of a revival of interest in an expanded definition of AL which is not limited on one side to linguistics applied or to an autonomous field of classroom praxeology on the other. In the midst of the present ongoing dramatic restructuring of higher education in the country, a number of developments point to a strengthening of links between theory and practice within university institutions. The scholarly society for research in English for Specific Purposes (ESP), for example, the GERAS, is increasing the visibility of DDL research in ESP and in teacher education in this area. The four universities where the bulk of SLA research continues – Toulouse, Paris 8, Nantes and Montpellier – have created a national network, ReAL2, to explicitly address instructed SLA and promote collaboration with DDL researchers in other universities. As noted, the national LA association AFLA has organized a series of successful conferences since 2013, and French academics are involved in a number of research networks within AILA (e.g., on data-driven learning, and informal learning). These new moves bode well for a field like AL/LA, which Linn (2011, p. 25) argues is most successful “where the boundary between university research and the world where language is actually used and experienced is a thin and porous one”. It makes sense from this point of view to militate for the place of DDL within AL. It seems that connections between French DDL and both AL and SLA are both possible and desirable (Berthet, 2011; Véronique, 2009, 2010) and it is somewhat reassuring to be reminded that our forerunners in the field on both sides of the Atlantic have included linguists and practitioners, theoreticians and pragmatists of all types. In this chapter, I have sought to unravel some of the historical tensions involved in the development of research on language teaching from the 1960s in France, with the aim of perhaps facilitating communication among those who are united in their concern to understand the task of second language learning in instructed contexts: what our learners know, how they come to know it, and how teachers may best accompany their progress.

Chapter 5. La linguistique appliquée

References Primary sources Capelle, G. (1968). Recent developments in language teaching. Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review, 57(226), 154–160. Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learner’s errors. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5(1–4), 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1967.5.1-4.161 Galisson, R., & Coste, D. (Eds). (1976). Dictionnaire de didactique des langues. Hachette. Munby, J. (1978). Communicative syllabus design: A sociolinguistic model for designing the content of purpose-specific language programmes. Cambridge University Press. Perdue, C. (1982). Second language acquisition by adult immigrants: A field guide. European Science Foundation. Roulet, E. (1969). Chronique de la CILA. Bulletin CILA (Commission interuniversitaire suisse de la linguistique appliquée), 10, 5–8. Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10(1–4), 209–232. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209 Strevens, P. (1979). Why versus? – and not only! BAAL Newsletter, 8, 3. Widdowson, H. G. (1980). Models and fictions. Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 165–170. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/1.2.165

Secondary sources Berthet, M. (2010). De l’IPFE à l’UFR de didactique du français langue étrangère. Enjeux disciplinaires et institutionnels (1960–2000). Documents pour l’Histoire du Français Langue Étrangère ou Seconde, 44, 111–128. https://doi.org/10.4000/dhfles.2786 Berthet, M. (2011). La linguistique appliquée à l’enseignement des langues secondes aux ÉtatsUnis, en France et en Grande-Bretagne. Histoire Épistémologie Langage, 33(1), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.3406/hel.2011.3208

Blanchet, P., & Chardenet, P. (2014). Guide pour la recherche en didactique des langues et des cultures. Editions des archives contemporaines. Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2015). Spoken grammar: Where are we and where are we going? Applied Linguistics, 38(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu080 Carton, F. (2015). Quand naissait l’AFLA: Témoignage. In F. Carton, J.-P. Narcy-Combes, M.-F. Narcy-Combes, & D. Toffoli (Eds.), Cultures de recherche en linguistique appliquée (pp. 27–32). Riveneuve. Chevalier, J. C., & Encrevé, P. (2006). Combats pour la linguistique, de Martinet à Kristeva: Essai de dramaturgie épistémologique. ENS. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.enseditions.30338 Chiss, J. L. (2010). Linguistique française et enseignement du français (de l’EPPFE à l’UFR DFLE): l’Épreuve de l’étranger. Documents pour l’Histoire du Français Langue Étrangère ou Seconde, 44, 129–140. https://doi.org/10.4000/dhfles.2795 Corder, S. P. (1990). Obituary for Peter Strevens. BAAL Newsletter 35, 50–52. Coste, D. (1997). De la linguistique appliquée à la didactique des langues. Quelques aspects de la scène française. Babylonia, 1997(4), 30–34.

101

102

Shona Whyte

Coste, D. (2018). Note sur quelques aspects des rapports entre linguistique et linguistique appliquée dans les années 1960 en France. In Martinez, H., & Meißner, F. J. (Eds.). Fremdsprachenunterricht in Geschichte und Gegenwart: Festschrift für Marcus Reinfried (pp. 221–232). Narr Francke Attempto. De Bot, K. (2015). A history of applied linguistics: From 1980 to the present. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315743769

Ferrao Tavares, C., & Coste, D. (2016). Entretien avec Daniel Coste à propos du Dictionnaire de Didactique des Langues, à l’occasion de son quarantième anniversaire. Synergies Portugal, (4), 115–120. Galisson, R. (1994). Un espace disciplinaire pour l’enseignement/apprentissage des languescultures en France: État des lieux et perspective. Revue Française de Pédagogie, 108, 25–37. https://doi.org/10.3406/rfp.1994.1253

Gougenheim, G., Michea, R., Rivenc, P., & Sauvageot, A. (1955). L’élaboration du français élémentaire (étude sur l’établissement d’un vocabulaire et d’une grammaire de base). Didier. Klein, W., & Perdue, C. (1992). Utterance structure: Developing grammars again. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.5 Kramsch, C. (2009). La circulation transfrontaliè re des valeurs dans un projet de recherche international. Le Français dans le Monde, 46, 66–77. Léon, J. (2015). Linguistique appliquée et traitement automatique des langues. Etude historique et comparative. Recherches en Didactique des Langues et Cultures: les Cahiers de l’Acedle, 12(3), 9–32. https://doi.org/10.4000/rdlc.949 Liddicoat, A. (2018). Language teaching and learning as a transdisciplinary endeavour. AILA Review, 31, 14–28. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.00011.lid Liddicoat, A. J. (2009). La didactique et ses équivalents en anglais: Terminologies et cadres théoriques dans la circulation des idées. Le Français dans le Monde, 46, 33–41. Linn, A. (2008). The birth of applied linguistics: The Anglo-Scandinavian school as ‘discourse community’. Historiographia Linguistica, 35(3), 342–384. https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.35.3.04lin Linn, A. (2011). Impact: Linguistics in the real world. Histoire Épistémologie Langage, 33(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.3406/hel.2011.3203 Linn, A., Candel, D., & Léon, J. (2011a). (Eds.) Linguistique appliquée et disciplinarisation. [Themed issue of ] Histoire Épistémologie Langage, 33(1). Linn, A., Candel, D., & Léon, J. (2011b). Présentation: Linguistique appliquée et disciplinarisation. Histoire Épistémologie Langage, 33(1), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.3406/hel.2011.3202

Miras, G., Boulton, A., Kübler, N., & Narcy-Combes, J. P. (2018). Association Française de Linguistique Appliquée (AFLA). European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 315–326. https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2018-0004

Narcy-Combes, J.-P., Portine, H., & Macaire, D. (Eds.). (2010). Interrogations épistémologiques en didactique des langues. Recherches et applications. [Themed issue of ] Le Français dans le Monde, 48. Rajagopalan, K. (2004). The philosophy of applied linguistics. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), Handbook of applied linguistics. Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757000.ch16 Richards, J. C. (1984). The secret life of methods. TESOL Quarterly, 18(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586332

Chapter 5. La linguistique appliquée

Smith, R. (2016). Building ‘Applied Linguistic Historiography’: Rationale, scope, and methods. Applied Linguistics, 37(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv056 Tarone, E. (2015). Second language acquisition in applied linguistics: 1925–2015 and beyond. Applied Linguistics, 36(4), 444–453. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv035 Valdman, A. (2004). Réflexions sur l’histoire de l’AILA. In S. M. Gass & S. Makoni (Eds.), World Applied Linguistics. A celebration of AILA at 40. AILA Review, 17. Véronique, D. (2010). La recherche sur l’acquisition des langues étrangères: Entre le nomologique et l’actionnel. Le Français dans le Monde – Recherches et applications, 48, 76–85. Véronique, G. (2009). La linguistique appliquée et la didactique des langues et des cultures: une polémique française au cœur d’un débat international. Le Français dans le Monde, 46, 42–52. Watorek, M., Benazzo, S., & Hickmann, M. (Eds.). (2012). Comparative perspectives on language acquisition: A tribute to Clive Perdue. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847696045

Widdowson, H. G. (2000). On the limitations of linguistics applied. Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.1.3 Young, R. (2014). Methods and data: Tangled up in blue. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36(3), 361–421.

103

chapter 6

Classroom-oriented teacher research in modern languages An innovation of the Reform Movement Friederike Klippel

Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich

We tend to think that classroom-oriented research in language teaching is a new phenomenon. However, the Reform Movement at the end of the 19th century brought forth a wide range of innovative developments, including – for the first time – teacher-led research into classroom procedures through experimentation, systematic observation, publication and ensuing scholarly discourse. Reports by several language teachers are presented here as examples of early classroom-oriented research. The chapter outlines what these teachers were trying to achieve in their language classes, how they reported on their teaching, and what reactions ensued. Thus, it gives voice to the teachers of the late 19th century, whose work is evidence of their professionalism and shows that innovation depends on both bottom-up and top-down processes.

Conditions for classroom-oriented research If we define research as systematic and principled inquiry with a purpose to enrich our knowledge and understanding of a particular issue or question, then it becomes obvious that research endeavours are not confined to the 20th and 21st centuries. However, for research to achieve impact we need more than just one curious mind, we need a discourse community, where research results can be publicized in order to be read and debated, replicated and used for further research (see Klippel, 2020). This discourse community makes use of certain channels of communication: these may take the form of regular meetings at universities, academies or societies; informal gatherings of scholars and professionals; publications in journals and monographs; and extensive correspondence. As long as there are language classrooms and there are researchers who either work in classrooms or have access to them, and as long as there is this kind of discourse community, then classroom-oriented research may be realized. These https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.20.06kli © 2023 John Benjamins Publishing Company

Chapter 6. Classroom-oriented teacher research in modern languages

conditions were not always present in the history of language teaching, however. A lot of the very early writing we have on language teaching and language learning, say from the 17th and 18th centuries, was produced by individuals who tried to identify and describe the most efficient way of language acquisition according to their own practical experience as learners or teachers, based on their tacit or stated theoretical assumptions. Most frequently, these accounts were published in the prefaces to language manuals and grammar books, usually in the form of strongly stated personal beliefs or precise instructions on how to proceed in learning or teaching another language. So, virtually throughout the long history of language teaching, individuals have thought about the best way of learning and/or teaching. However, at no point in time prior to the last decades of the 19th century was there a discourse community which might have served as a forum for discussing these views and a means of disseminating them. Furthermore, teaching and learning goals, learner characteristics, situations and contexts differed so widely in those centuries that a transfer of insights gained in one context to another was neither straightforward nor easy, due to the fact that earlier publications in the field and those from different regions and in different languages were not widely available. Therefore, the necessary preconditions for classroomoriented research were only reached at a time when language teaching was no longer aimed at individuals, but became common, that is, after the establishment of school systems with regular language classes based on state-issued or widely accepted curricula and teaching goals. Only then was there a large enough group of language teachers, educationalists and scholars to form a discourse community. In Germany, this happened during the course of the 19th century. So, the innovation highlighted here does not purely lie in the fact that language teaching is observed and reflected upon relatively systematically, but that observations and reflections are made public and are being discussed within a discourse community for the first time.

19th-century historical context: The Reform Movement in Germany By 1859, both French and English were compulsory subjects in one type of Prussian high school, namely the Realschulen, which catered for learners who were not keen on or not thought to be suited to the kind of humanist education based on an intensive and extensive study of Latin and Greek offered at the Gymnasien, the traditional grammar schools. Instead, modern languages and science [called Realien], which were taught more extensively at Realschulen, would, it was thought, better prepare them for real life and the evolving job markets in business and industry (see Klippel, 1994, p. 288). And language teachers were the first to investigate not

105

106

Friederike Klippel

only philological questions of language history and of literature but also issues regarding the teaching of modern languages. In his survey on the situation of English language and literature in Germany in the 1860s, Karl Elze stated that most of the teachers of English were self-taught, since modern languages were not yet established at the universities (Elze, 1864, p. 82). A process of creating professorships in modern languages – in Neuphilologie, that is, modern philology – began around the middle of the 19th century (Haenicke, 1979, p. 111ff.), so that modern language teachers for French and English entering the profession in the last two decades of the 19th century would in all likelihood have studied their subjects at university. However, most professors of modern philology were responsible for more than one language and its literature – French and English or German and English were common combinations. The focus of their research lay in strictly philological areas, quite often historical linguistics and literary history. So, in the 19th century – at least in Germany – research into language teaching was mostly conducted by the teachers, if there was research of this kind at all. At the end of the 19th century, from about 1880 onwards, the Reform Movement spread across Europe, and a number of its proponents were located in Germany. This period is “unique in language teaching history” (Howatt with Widdowson, 2004, p. 187). Several things had come together to create the impetus for change in language teaching. These were, among others: phonetics as a new science and academic discipline represented, for example, by Henry Sweet (Sweet, 1877); a growing dissatisfaction with the seemingly ubiquitous grammar-translation method and with the concomitant disregard for oral skills and natural language use in traditional classrooms (e.g. Quousque Tandem, 1882); a rising number of language teachers who had studied modern philology at universities, of whom some had spent considerable time abroad; an increasing recognition within German society of the importance of practical language skills in French and English; and the vastly improved means to travel and communicate across borders (see Schleich, 2015, pp. 50–79). In Germany, in the last quarter of the 19th century, language teachers founded professional associations like the Allgemeiner Deutscher Neuphilologenverband [German Association of Modern Philologists] (which has changed its name a few times but still exists today as the Gesamtverband Moderne Fremdsprachen); they edited and contributed to journals dealing with modern philology and the teaching of French and English; they met at regular regional and national conferences, and quite a few teachers published prolifically – articles, pamphlets and books to support or to fight the Reform Movement and to reflect on particular questions of the teaching and learning of languages. As regards the context for classroom-based research, we have – for the first time in history – a shared educational context with growing numbers of pupils learning foreign languages, a lively discourse community, a substantial number of motivated and reflective teachers, all contributing to the first examples of classroom-based research in our field, that is,

Chapter 6. Classroom-oriented teacher research in modern languages

systematic observation of and inquiry into what exactly happens in language classrooms – research which was not conducted by academics but by teachers.

Teachers looking at their classrooms The impetus of the Reform ideas led quite a large number of teachers to describe what they were doing in the classroom. In the 1890s, every volume of the journal Die Neueren Sprachen contains at least one such paper by a teacher (e.g. Freudenthal, 1894; Wickerhauser, 1895; Kühn, 1895; Gerhardt, 1897; Wendt, 1898/99a). Some, but by no means all of these teachers were active supporters of the Reform Movement. And it is worth noting that there are two contributions by female teachers (Freudenthal, 1894 and Schenck, 1897), whose voices had hardly ever been heard before then. Both women describe how they teach German as a foreign language in an inductive manner solely in the foreign language without using translation, Freudenthal in Finland and Schenck presumably in a summer course for learners from different language backgrounds. They use pictures and talk about them with their learners; for this, Schenck (1897, pp. 375–379) supplies a verbatim transcript of the relevant phase of her German lesson. These descriptions may be considered a preliminary stage of research, because close observation and documentation are necessary first steps in an inquiry. There is some reflection too, but not really an attempt at closer analysis or linking one’s observations to the insights of others and to theory. Other teachers also report extensively on their classroom practice in journals (e.g. Fehse, 1893), in the yearly school programmes (e.g. Junker, 1893) or in books (Klinghardt, 1888 and 1892).

Klinghardt, Junker and Fehse: Three early classroom studies So far, these early examples of classroom-oriented research have not been taken much notice of in historical research, whether in Germany or in work elsewhere on the history of English or modern language teaching. Howatt and Widdowson (2004, p. 192ff.) mention just one of the authors, namely Hermann Klinghardt, a teacher at a Realgymnasium (high school) in Silesia and supporter of the Reform Movement, mainly for his use of Henry Sweet’s (1885) textbook Elementarbuch des gesprochenen Englisch in his English classes, which in itself is a clear indication that Klinghardt was a teacher well aware of the theoretical and pedagogical developments in modern language teaching at his time (see also Howatt & Smith, 2002, pp. xvi–xix). The studies under scrutiny here give us a very vivid impression of how English was taught by those teachers who supported the Reform, because they minutely describe individual lessons, types of activities and exercises, different

107

108

Friederike Klippel

means of assessment and the use of the course book. It is slightly speculative to deduce from textbooks, theoretical publications and other sources what really took place in language classrooms at the end of the 19th century. However, with the publications of Hermann Klinghardt, Heinrich Junker, Hermann Fehse and others, we do have a number of subjective records of the individual practice of language teaching at that time. How these teachers proceeded 130 years ago might be called “practitioner research” today, although it is always problematic to use present-day terminology for historical circumstances. These teachers planned their lessons, kept diaries and copious notes both on the planning and the actual teaching and later revisions of their procedure, they questioned their decisions, reported and documented their results, and they reflected on their premises and their learners’ achievements. They were driven by a desire to try out the new methodology developed in the Reform Movement and to initiate a discussion of its principles, its procedures and results within the language teaching profession. Hermann Klinghardt, the most prolific of these teachers, states his reasons for undertaking his classroom project at the beginning of his first publication, which reports on one year of teaching English according to the principles of the Reform (Klinghardt, 1888). His second publication (Klinghardt, 1892) describes a further three years, so, all in all, he gives a record of a four-year course based on the approach propagated by the Reform. This approach highlighted, in short: the primacy of speech with a new emphasis on pronunciation; a bias in favour of oral activities in the target language; the centrality of the connected text; the abolition of translation as a practice activity; a predominantly monolingual approach to teaching; a shift from formal grammar to more lexico-pragmatic issues like idioms and style; and assessment via reproduction of texts and free text production. A decade after Klinghardt’s teaching experiment, these principles were summarized in the so-called “Wiener Reform-Thesen” proposed by Gustav Wendt (1898/99b). During the 1880s and 1890s, the Reform ideas were discussed with great intensity and argument at the annual (later biennial) conferences of language teachers in Germany, the Neuphilologentage [Modern Philologists’ Conferences] of the Verband der Neuphilologen Deutschlands, as well as in articles published in journals and in monographs. Hermann Klinghardt (1847–1926) was an ardent and vocal supporter of the Reform Movement. Basically, he puts forward three goals he wants to achieve with his project: First of all, he wants to illustrate how the Reform method works in practice to convince the adversaries of the Reform of its merits; secondly, he aims at those who support the Reform in principle but cannot yet put theory into practice by giving his own classroom activities as practical examples to be tried out and followed; thirdly, he wants to stimulate a discussion among the supporters of the Reform regarding the application of the Reform principles in practice:

Chapter 6. Classroom-oriented teacher research in modern languages

In erster linie möchte ich unseren gegnern ein anschauliches, bequem zu erfassendes bild von dem neuen verfahren, so wie es sich im detail der praxis ausnimmt, liefern. […] Ebenso möchte ich mit meiner darstellung den nicht wenigen, zumeist jüngeren fach-genossen einen dienst leisten, welche ernstlich auf seiten der reform stehen, jedoch nicht recht wissen, wie sie unsere allgemeinen grundsätze in der bunten mannigfaltigkeit des praktischen unterrichtslebens zum ausdruck bringen sollen. […] Endlich ist der vorliegende bericht auch für alle mitstreiter und führer im kampfe um eine durchgreifende umgestaltung des sprachunterrichts bestimmt. Ueber die leitenden prinzipien der ‘neuen methode’ sind wir uns ja so ziemlich einig; in der praxis hat ein jeder umfängliche und werthvolle erfahrungen gesammelt. Aber man möchte sich mit solcher isolirter [sic] thätigkeit ungern begnügen, und nicht nur mir, sondern gewiss auch noch vielen anderen dürfte es erwünscht sein, sei es kunde zu erhalten, wie die gesinnungsgenossen jeder in seiner weise vorgehn, sei es selbst gewisse punkte der eigenen unterrichtsweise ihrem sachkundigen urtheil zu unterbreiten. Wir brauchen also einen literarischen meinungsaustausch über wichtige einzelpunkte der schulpraxis.1 (Klinghardt, 1888, pp. I–III)

Heinrich Junker, (1859–?), the second teacher and author (Junker, 1893), refers to Klinghardt’s project as an example to follow and classifies his own work as a Lehrversuch, a teaching experiment, thus indicating that he acts with an investigative purpose. His experiment lasted three years from 1890 to 1893. Hermann Fehse (1844–?), the third teacher, also experimented with the direct method (his expression) based on phonological principles and the use of coherent texts in one course for three consecutive years (Fehse, 1893). Thus, of the three studies, two deal with a three-year period of teaching and one with four years, and they therefore have a much more extended empirical basis than most classroom studies today, which are rarely longitudinal. All three authors taught languages at a Realschule, a type of high school which had been established at the beginning of the 19th century in direct competition to the traditional grammar schools. The Realschulen were favoured by the new middle classes, whose sons were expected to be traders, clerks, craftsmen or scientists. The 1. [First of all, I would like to draw a detailed picture of the practical realization of the new method for our adversaries. […] At the same time, I would like to provide a service for those colleagues, mostly the younger ones, who support the reform, but do not know exactly how they can put its principles into practice in all the various teaching contexts. […] And, finally, this report is meant for my fellow campaigners for a substantial reshaping of language teaching. We agree on the leading principles of the “new method”; and in practice each of us has gained extensive and important experience. But we do not want to be content with these isolated activities; and it is not just me but probably lots of others who would like to learn how each of us proceeds, maybe with the intention of gaining feedback from others. Therefore, we need an exchange on important aspects of practical teaching through publications.]

109

110

Friederike Klippel

sons of the upper bourgeoisie aiming to be lawyers, doctors or officers in the military continued to attend the grammar schools. The Realschulen played a major role in the Reform Movement because many of the language teachers working there were keen to leave the traditional methods behind, methods which quite often came very close to those by which Latin and Greek were taught in the grammar schools. Hermann Klinghardt was the pioneer, who first meticulously observed, recorded and analysed his own teaching over a period of four years. His two books are the most detailed accounts by far, comprising 83 pages for the book about the first year and 162 pages for the second to fourth years. Both Junker’s and Fehse’s reports are a lot shorter and were undertaken a few years later, in the case of Fehse explicitly in reaction to the motion passed by the third Deutsche Neuphilologentag in Dresden in 1888 (Fehse, 1893, p. 104), where a majority of the participants agreed that it was desirable to undertake as many teaching experiments as possible with the new method based on pronunciation and coherent texts: Der dritte deutsche Neuphilologentag erklärt es für wünschenswert, dass weitere möglichst zahlreiche Versuche mit der Lehrweise gemacht werden, die auf lautlicher Grundlage ruht und den zusammenhängenden Lesestoff zum Mittelpunkt des Unterrichts macht.2 (Pädagogisches Archiv 31, 1889, p. 618)

So, there was consensus among language educators that classroom research into the new method was highly desirable. In the following section the three studies will be analysed in more detail with regard to their pedagogical principles, their use and evaluation of the Reform method and the aspects which characterize them as research.

The research studies in detail Pedagogical principles It was in the course of the late 19th-century Reform Movement that many of the pedagogical principles for language teaching were established which we take for granted today. These are, in modern terminology: the idea of an incremental syllabus, the need for a combination of declarative and procedural learning, holistic learning, learner orientation, outcome orientation, the spacing of practice and repetition, classroom atmosphere, authentic materials, and the idea of bringing 2. [The third gathering of the Modern Philologists declares it to be desirable that as many practical teaching experiments as possible are undertaken using the new method, which is based on phonetics and uses cohesive texts as the focus of language teaching.]

Chapter 6. Classroom-oriented teacher research in modern languages

into the classroom what is relevant outside it. All these principles are present in Klinghardt’s (1888 and 1892) accounts and some in those by Junker (1893) and Fehse (1893). The idea that learning has to proceed in well-planned stages led to a very careful plotting of the entire course as well as of individual lessons and lesson sequences. According to Reform ideas, the first thing to be learnt is the correct pronunciation of the sounds of the English language. Therefore, listening is practised before the learners are asked to produce the new sounds, words and sentences. Fehse (1893) laments that schools neglect the sense of hearing and rely overmuch on visual perception, a situation which he thinks ought to be redressed. This may seem obvious to us today, but grammar-translation lessons did not place much emphasis on sounds and oral skills so that, as a rule, listening was never practised much, or not at all. During the first half of the 19th century, learning texts and responses by heart played a major role in language classes (Klippel, 1994, p. 234ff.). In contrast, the reformers place a lot more emphasis on learner responses which are not just reproductions of memorized language material. In the following extract, Klinghardt (1888, p. 53) describes how he progresses by reducing guidance in his questions on a text in order to force his pupils to think about the question and formulate the answer spontaneously and not just present the teacher with a quote simply learnt by heart. Thus, his questions increasingly do not refer to a particular sentence but rather a whole chunk of text, so that the learners are obliged to formulate their own answers: In dem masse aber, als die fragen aufhörten, sich streng auf einen bestimmten satz im texte zu beziehen, sondern allgemeiner wurden und sich auf eine reihe von sätzen nach einander bezogen, sodass sie der schüler schon aus zeitmangel nicht einfach durch gedächtnissmässige [sic] niederschrift des auswendig gelernten textes beantworten konnte – in demselben masse ward letzterer genöthigt, seine antworten mit einer erst schüchtern, dann aber rasch und bewusst zunehmenden selbständigkeit abzufassen.3 (Klinghardt, 1888, p. 53)

We are aware today that whatever we teach ought to be relevant to our learners. When Klinghardt (1888, p. 36ff.) describes how he follows up a text from Henry Sweet’s (1885) Elementarbuch, which he uses as his textbook, one is impressed by how well this teacher made a text come alive. The text deals with the sea. Naturally, Klinghardt’s pupils in Silesia, which is about six hundred kilometres distant 3. [To the degree that the questions stopped referring to one particular sentence and grew more general by being about a number of sentences in the text so that – for lack of time – the pupil could not simply answer them by quoting from his homework which he had learnt by heart, to the same degree the pupil was forced to formulate his own answers, at first rather hesitantly and then more and more confidently.]

111

112

Friederike Klippel

from the Baltic coast, had never seen the sea for themselves. So, in his English lesson, Klinghardt describes how the tides shape the coastline by showing illustrations of the Cornish and Devonshire coasts. He locates places mentioned in the text, that is, Margate and Ramsgate, on the map and explains in English how rock is turned into pebbles and sand with the help of a geology textbook from England. But since sand can also be found in the landscape around the school, he points out how relevant this information from their English book is for them. This short text provides enough linguistic and factual content for three weeks of teaching, and after that the learners are well able to use words, structures and factual knowledge to express themselves. Today we would talk about content-based language teaching in this case. Bringing the learners’ lives and environment into the classroom is an aspect of orientation towards the learner. It also becomes clear how intensively texts were worked through – both in terms of language and of content – and used for a wide range of language activities. In a less dramatic way, both Fehse and Junker also use material from the here and now in their English lessons: Junker (1893, p. 9) talks about the classroom and its furnishings (something which became common again in the situational method of the 1960s) and also uses numbers and basic arithmetic to practise sounds and simple utterances. He teaches new words and structures through visualization and demonstration, for example “This blotting paper is red. These blotting papers are green” (Junker, 1893, p. 9). Fehse (1893), who, in contrast to Klinghardt and Junker designed his own textbook, which, unfortunately, seems to have been lost, uses short texts on everyday matters at the beginning. A good teacher also makes use of current events. In the year 1888, the world exhibition was held in Melbourne in Australia, and Klinghardt saw the possibilities this would give him to talk about the British colonies, Britain’s role in world politics, the development of Australia, and Melbourne as a political and commercial centre in his English lessons (Klinghardt, 1888, p. 42). We should note that this happened in the very first year of learning English in a class of 15-yearold boys. Another big event, namely the 50th Jubilee of Queen Victoria’s reign, even prompts him to order newspapers and magazines straight from England (Klinghardt, 1888, p. 33) – in those days, this was both costly and rather cumbersome. Again, it is interesting that it is by no means an invention of recent years to make use of authentic materials in language teaching. In summing up, one can say that the English lessons of these teachers were based on very different principles to those in the traditional manner of grammartranslation. It is not only the use of Reform principles, current affairs and the talking about everyday occurrences which set them apart, but most of all the underlying philosophy that teaching a language should always work towards the goal of enabling the learners to employ that language productively for their own

Chapter 6. Classroom-oriented teacher research in modern languages

communicative purpose. Success in language learning for Klinghardt and his colleagues was not something which lay in the distant future or in the flawless reciting of forms which had been learnt by heart, but in the ability to make use of the foreign language to understand and to speak about things that matter. Klinghardt, in particular, stresses how important consistent use of the foreign language by the teacher and a supportive classroom atmosphere are for this goal, so that the pupils feel confident in trying out their English, asking questions and talking English to their teacher outside class (Klinghardt, 1888, pp. 65–66). This indicates a change of perspective – in modern terms – from input orientation to a more learner-centred perspective, which is also reflected in the classroom procedures.

New methodology After Wilhelm Viëtor’s famous pamphlet Der Sprachunterricht muss umkehren! (Quousque Tandem 1882)4 (usually translated into English as “Language Teaching must start afresh!”), questions of how to teach a living language were raised in connection with the new goals of language teaching. The ideas of the reformers were challenged by the traditionalists, who felt that both the emphasis on practical language skills and the methods employed to teach them led to a loss of educational rigour and substance. That is why methodological questions play such a big role in the pro-reform and anti-reform debates and also in the three publications under consideration here. The reformers saw the need, firstly, to outline the new ways of teaching, and secondly, to demonstrate their positive effect on the results of learning through careful documentation and argumentation on the basis of both practice and theory. Therefore, a great number of publications focus on a comparison of traditional and new methods, as do Klinghardt (1888 and 1892), Junker (1893) and Fehse (1893). The first and most obvious innovation was in the teaching of pronunciation, which the Reform Movement elevated to hitherto unknown prominence. For learners of English, the gap between spelling and pronunciation has always been a great challenge. Phonetics, the new science, was the underpinning of the Reform Movement and produced charts and diagrams to explain the characteristic features of the different sounds and their formation. The descriptions of the teaching of pronunciation given in the classroom research reports under scrutiny here show quite clearly that the Reform Movement did not possess a closed set of universally agreed procedures, but rather has

4. Viëtor published the original version under the pseudonym of Quousque Tandem and only acknowledged authorship in the second edition, which was published in 1886.

113

114

Friederike Klippel

to be interpreted as a theoretical framework for experimentation, which is nevertheless based on a few common principles. Phonetics, as a new science in the last decades of the 19th century, was seen as helpful, not just for the design of textbooks and materials or the preparation of teachers, but also for teaching the sounds in class. Both Junker (see Junker, 1893, p. 5) and Klinghardt (1888, p. 7) used a kind of sound chart in their classes and gave explicit descriptions of how certain sounds of English were to be produced by pointing out lip and tongue positions. Junker stresses that these more theoretical explanations and visualizations were helpful for those pupils who would not have profited from yet more imitation activities (Junker, 1893, p. 5). Klinghardt calls his eight hours of introducing the English sound system Lautgymnastik, that is, sound gymnastics. In these lessons he wants to achieve two things: he wants his learners to become aware of the muscles in their lips, tongue and jaws, and he wants to train them in sound discrimination. His pupils are given small hand mirrors so that they are able to see for themselves whether their lip positions are the same as those of their teacher (Klinghardt, 1888, p. 8ff.). Fehse, the third teacher, also starts with pronunciation exercises, but he dispenses with any theoretical explanations and does not use the vowel diagram or other visualizations. Instead, he gives his pupils a keyword for each sound, and practises these keywords in various combinations at the beginning of each lesson for the first year: again, a kind of sound gymnastics. Fehse admits that he did not use phonetic transcription in the first two years because he saw no need; in his third year, however, he began to use the phonetic alphabet to good effect, thus changing his way of teaching on the basis of his experience. He is then convinced that this helps a lot, because many pupils do not learn just by listening and they do not trust their auditory memory; so, having a phonetic transcription is a valuable aid to the retention of correct pronunciation, even though there may be interference with spelling. Fehse states that he now spends six units (one can only guess that this may mean about six weeks) teaching the sound system using only phonetic script; in the subsequent weeks phonetic and proper script are used side by side; after that, phonetic script is only used when necessary to remind learners of the correct pronunciation of a word (Fehse, 1893, p. 107). Although this new bias towards pronunciation teaching is what most distinguishes the Reformers from traditional language teachers, there were also changes in other domains. Within the new methodology, grammar was to be taught inductively; on this all three teachers agree. Klinghardt characterizes grammar as “die dienende Magd” (Klinghardt, 1888, p. 21), that is, the handmaiden, whom he only called upon when her services were needed to improve text comprehension. As far as vocabulary is concerned, we can see some distinctive differences. Since Fehse is the only teacher who designed his own textbook, we can expect that he

Chapter 6. Classroom-oriented teacher research in modern languages

reflected on what to include. As mentioned above, he chose texts dealing with everyday situations. In the first part of his book, he claims that he uses only English words of one or two syllables which are of Germanic origin for his short descriptions or stories. Words of French origin are only included in the second part of the book. This is not a completely new concept; in the middle of the 19th century, Carl Munde (1856), another textbook author, had had the same idea. There is a further measure which Fehse adopts in order to create a progression of difficulty for his learners: in the first texts he uses only words which have a monographemic spelling, that is, where each phoneme is represented by just one letter. The spelling of the new words is practised as well as their use: Fehse first asks his learners to name animals or parts of the body or colours they know. These words are subsequently used in sentences (see Fehse, 1893, p. 107). Whereas all three teachers pay a lot of attention to frequent revisions and repetitions of vocabulary, only Klinghardt mentions that he also includes etymological explanations and points out similarities between English and German, English and French or English and Latin when introducing new words. In a similar way to Fehse, Klinghardt also recycles vocabulary by creating topical word lists with his pupils. According to Reform maxims, Klinghardt attempts to use only English in his lessons, also explaining the meaning of the new words in the target language as far as possible. He involves his learners in conversations and develops an oral exam for the end of the year which includes the retelling of a story, the handling of questions and answers, a short monologue, a dialogue between pupils about a text read in class, and a conversation with a native speaker whom Klinghardt invited into his classroom (Klinghardt, 1892, pp. 31–38). The success of his pupils in this exam is not only welcome to Klinghardt as the teacher who tried out a new method which has proved superior to the old method, but also to his principal since the school, as a result, was granted permission by the education authorities to continue using the Reform method. Finally, a few innovative ideas regarding teaching method deserve a mention: Junker describes a language activity which we consider very modern – language mediation. The teacher reads out a short text in German, and the learners have to render its content briefly in English (Junker, 1893, p. 24). Klinghardt describes how he reduces the use of the mother tongue in his English lessons. Whereas it now seems quite normal to use English when talking about a text or when handing back written homework or tests, using English for classroom discourse in the modern sense of the word was highly unusual in classrooms where the translation of individual sentences had hitherto taken centre stage. Klinghardt managed his classroom in the foreign language and even gave the pupils instructions in English for small errands taking them outside the classroom, which they were happy to do, because they felt a great sense of achievement when they understood what was

115

116

Friederike Klippel

asked of them (Klinghardt, 1888, p. 65). He also suggests the use of fill-in exercises for grammar practice, so that it is possible to practise grammar without resorting to the first language. For language teachers who up to that time had not spoken English in their classrooms apart from reading out from the textbook, this new way of interactive oral teaching, where so much depended on the linguistic and methodological skills of the teacher must have been immensely challenging. Both Fehse and Klinghardt are aware that only a small number of their colleagues would have the language proficiency necessary to conduct lessons in the foreign language. It is not surprising therefore that the reformers insisted that grants should be made available to student teachers or teachers in service so that these would be able to travel to England or France in order to improve their language skills (e.g. Körting, 1886, p. 52). The reformers were innovative in redefining the goals of language teaching and in developing appropriate textbook formats containing pictures and other visual elements to aid learning, as well as in creating a whole range of procedures and activities for teaching and learning. This is not to say that none of these were occasionally used before in the long history of language teaching, but the combination of goals, method and materials is unique. The Reform Movement was largely driven by teachers themselves, not by academics. Many of these teachers, however, were not just good practitioners but reflective practitioners and, in the cases considered here, teacher-researchers – long before these terms were coined.

Research aspects The three teacher reports display critical self-reflection in varying degrees, which – no doubt – has something to do with the nature of each particular kind of publication, in particular length and explicitness. Fehse (1893), the author of the shortest report by far, mentions his initial doubts as to the usefulness of teaching the phonetic symbols to his learners and concedes – after he has tried using them in class – that they have proven to be very helpful for some learners. Based on this experience he will continue to integrate phonetic script into his teaching of English. He also shares his reflections on the function and place of translation activities within the direct method with his readers, and he describes how his teaching changed over the years, with translations into the foreign language being relegated more and more to the very advanced classes. His report shows very clearly that his interpretation of the Reform Method changed in the course of his three-year teaching experiment on the basis of his observations and reflections. The usefulness of translation is also considered in Heinrich Junker’s teaching experiment (Junker, 1893). He describes how he let his pupils translate some of the isolated sentences in the traditional grammar-based textbook after having

Chapter 6. Classroom-oriented teacher research in modern languages

explained the new grammatical structure. He admits that his own methodological repertoire for practising grammar at that time, that is, in the first year of his teaching experiment, had not been as diverse as it was at the end, when he wrote his report. In the first year he still believed translating decontextualized sentences to be an effective kind of learning activity. However, his pupils could retain neither the words nor the structures, which had disappeared like chaff in the wind (Spreu), as he expresses it. Rather than translations, he says, the learners need activities which help them express their own thoughts. Hermann Klinghardt is by far the most reflective. He is motivated by a desire to show how language teaching according to Reform principles works in practice and what results it renders on the learners’ side. But he is not just keen to document his teaching methods and materials in great detail over the period of four years, he is also intent on analysing his pupils’ responses to the new method and drawing conclusions as to the appropriateness of particular procedures. Not only does he outline in detail why he came to certain decisions regarding the use of materials and methods, but also engages with possible objections to or criticism of his procedures. Klinghardt sees himself as a practical researcher who has to work empirically. For him, “Practice the mistress and Theory the handmaid” [sic] (Klinghardt, 1892, III, original in English). Empirical classroom research, in his eyes, needs teaching experiments which are closely observed, documented and analysed, because one can only see from practice itself, from trying it out, if an innovation has any value (Klinghardt, 1892, p. 26). This was a dramatic departure from previous thinking about teaching. From this new perspective, it is no longer sufficient to outline a pedagogical theory and claim that this is an improvement on an established practice or a previous theory, it is necessary to open the classroom for experimentation, close observation, comprehensive documentation and subsequent reflection which is acted upon. The results have to be made public and transparent so that they may be discussed in the professional community. In Klinghardt’s time, this discourse community extended way beyond his school in Silesia or his colleagues in the professional organization of the Neuphilologenverband in Germany. Eminent scholars from abroad visited his classroom to observe his teaching and exchange ideas, among them the Danish grammarian Otto Jespersen. This kind of professional approach and discourse is the hallmark of any academic research. Furthermore, it represents a starting point for classroom research into language teaching.

117

118

Friederike Klippel

Conclusion Many contemporary reviewers praised Klinghardt’s meticulous reports on his own language teaching and his reflective stance. Breymann’s bibliography (Breymann, 1895, pp. 29–30; pp. 55–56) lists ten reviews of the 1888 volume and nine of the 1892 one (Klinghardt, 1888 and 1892) in educational and philological journals. Even those reviewers who were not supporters of the Reform conceded that his results in terms of learner achievement were remarkable. However, they attributed them first and foremost to Klinghardt’s outstanding competence as a teacher and not so much to his method and materials (e.g. Jäckel, 1890, p. 64). Also, Jäckel raises the question whether Klinghardt is right in banning explicit grammar teaching and whether he does not rely too much on imitation and memorization and the fostering of purely practical language skills. In this reviewer’s view (Jäckel, 1890, p. 62), education should also train the mind by making pupils think, and to that end grammar teaching is very useful. Reviews are less plentiful for Junker’s report; Breymann (1895, p. 62) lists just two positive ones. One can certainly state that Klinghardt’s reports stimulated extensive discussions and, possibly, motivated other teachers to follow in his footsteps and document their own teaching rationales and procedures. It should be noted that all three teachers whose classroom experiments were analysed here were academically trained insofar as all had acquired PhDs in a philological field at university before entering the teaching profession. Junker’s doctorate was in French literary history, Fehse’s in English history and Klinghardt’s in medieval German literature. So, all three teachers brought an academic rigour to their reports, an ability to be precise and aware of theory; Klinghardt, in particular, is extremely systematic and reflective in his documentation and analysis. All of them are early and innovative empirical researchers into the teaching of modern languages at school level who contributed to the intensive debate around teaching goals and practices in the time of the Reform Movement. As innovative researchers, they enriched the history of our discipline as a field of empirical enquiry and reflective practice long before this type of classroom-oriented research became common in schools and at universities in the late 20th century. We should recognize and value their pioneering work and pay tribute to the rise of the discourse community of language teachers and scholars which helped to establish our field as a research area.

Chapter 6. Classroom-oriented teacher research in modern languages

References Primary sources Anon. (1889). Bericht über den dritten allgemeinen Neuphilologentag zu Dresden. Pädagogisches Archiv, 31, 607–618. Breymann, H. (1895). Die neusprachliche Reform-Literatur von 1876–1893. Eine bibliographischkritische Übersicht. Deichert. Elze, K. (1864). Die englische Sprache und Literatur in Deutschland. Louis Ehlermann. Fehse, H. (1893). Erfahrungen mit der direkten Methode in einem dreijährigen Unterrichtskursus im Englischen. Neuphilologisches Centralblatt, 7(3), 104–111. Freudenthal, E. (1894). Unterricht im deutschen ohne benutzung der muttersprache in einer privatschule in Finland. Die Neueren Sprachen 1, 44–48. Gerhardt, O. (1897). Eine unterrichtsstunde im französischen, gehalten von einem franzosen mit anfängern. Die Neueren Sprachen, 4, 43–46. Jäckel [sic] (1890). Review of Klinghardt, H (1888). Ein Jahr Erfahrungen mit der neuen Methode. Bericht über den unterricht mit einer englischen anfängerklasse im schuljahre 1887/88. Zugleich einen anleitung für jüngere fachgenossen. Elwert. Pädagogisches Archiv, 32, 60–64. Junker, H. P. (1893). Lehrversuch im Englischen nach der neuen Methode von Ostern 1890 bis Ostern 1893. Beilage zum achtzehnten Jahresbericht Städtische Realschule zu Bockenheim (pp. 1–34). Bockenheim. Klinghardt, H. (1888). Ein Jahr Erfahrungen mit der neuen Methode. Bericht über den unterricht mit einer englischen anfängerklasse im schuljahre 1887/88. Zugleich eine anleitung für jüngere fachgenossen. Elwert. Klinghardt, H. (1892). Drei weitere Jahre Erfahrungen mit der imitativen Methode (Obertertia bis Obersecunda). Elwert. Körting, G. (1886). Die Organisation des neusprachlichen Universitätsunterrichts. Verhandlungen des ersten Allgemeinen Deutschen Neuphilologentages am 4., 5. und 6. Oktober 1886 zu Hannover (pp. 49–53). Meyer. Kühn, K. (1895). Aus der praxis des französischen unterrichts. 1. Grammatisches, 2. Behandlung der lektüre. Die Neueren Sprachen 2, 581–585. Munde, C. (1856). Erster Unterricht im Englischen (10th ed.). Arnold. Quousque Tandem [= Wilhelm Viëtor] (1882). Der Sprachunterricht muss umkehren! Henninger. Schenck, O. (1897). Erfahrungen auf den gebiete der neuen methode im sprachunterricht. Die Neueren Sprachen 4, 369–379. Sweet, H. (1877). A handbook of phonetics. Clarendon Press. Sweet, H. (1885). Elementarbuch des gesprochenen Englisch. Clarendon Press. Wendt, G. (1898/1899a). Die reformmethode in den oberen klassen der realanstalten. Die Neueren Sprachen 6, 193–207. Wendt, G. (1898/1899b). Die wiener reform-thesen. Die Neueren Sprachen 6, 657–550. Wickerhauser, N. (1895). Das resultat eines schuljahres englischen unterrichts nach Viëtors und Dörrs Lehrplan I. Die Neueren Sprachen 2, 468–473.

119

120

Friederike Klippel

Secondary sources Haenicke, G. (1979). Zur Geschichte der Anglistik an deutschsprachigen Universitäten 1850–1925. Universität Augsburg. Howatt, A. P. R., & Smith, R. C. (Eds.) (2002). Modern language teaching: The Reform Movement, Vol. 3: Germany and France. Routledge. Howatt, A. P. R., with Widdowson, H. G. (2004). A history of English language teaching (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. Klippel, F. (1994). Englischlernen im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert. Die Geschichte der Lehrbücher und Unterrichtsmaterialien. Nodus. Klippel, F. (2020). Nationaler und internationaler Austausch – Das Entstehen einer breiten Diskursgemeinschaft zum neusprachlichen Unterricht in der Reformzeit. Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung, 31, 63–81. Schleich, M. (2015). Geschichte des internationalen Schülerbriefwechsels. Entstehung und Entwicklung im historischen Kontext von den Anfängen bis zum Ersten Weltkrieg. Waxmann.

part iii

Oscillations along a continuum

chapter 7

Change without innovation? Language teaching in late 19th-century Germany Tim Giesler & Sabine Doff University of Bremen

In the context of language education, innovation seems a problematic concept. Although there is no doubt that teaching methods have changed in the 200 or so years that modern foreign languages have been taught in schools, it is usually highly debatable that they were as “new” as claimed when they were introduced. One example is the “Direct” methodology promoted by protagonists of the late 19th-century Reform Movement, which had in fact already been in use before the 1880s – language teachers for girls and for future merchants, for example, had already been focusing on functional aspects at the grassroots level because this served needs in these specific contexts well. They, in turn, had not “invented” these methods but had drawn upon long functional traditions. Secondly, at roughly the same time, modern language teacher education was becoming professionalized and some former teachers went into teacher training or were named to one of the new university chairs for modern foreign language teaching. Justifying and promoting their ideas, they neglected (or simply forgot about) the traditions that had given rise to them.

Introduction One of the recurring laments in teacher education is how little (student) teachers change their subjective theories during their academic teacher training – how they simply “teach as they were taught” (Altman, 1983, p. 24). Among other factors, this critique may find its roots in the different world views of academic theorists and practitioners. While theorists promote innovation, schools and the teaching that goes on in them do not seem to change substantially or quickly, as teachers refuse to adopt new methods in the first place or are likely to fall back into their apparently conservative routines. Looking at the history of language teaching in institutional contexts may offer some (although perhaps provisional and surely not deterministic) explanations

https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.20.07gie © 2023 John Benjamins Publishing Company

Chapter 7. Change without innovation?

for this. This chapter will provide examples of how practice and theory of modern foreign language teaching diverged in the course of the introduction of modern languages into the curriculum. This divergence first took first place within the same curricular level1 (practitioners who wrote textbooks adopted a langue or discourse of innovation) and later led to a stronger separation of curricular levels when some theorists left the language teaching profession for good to go into academia or teacher training. After giving some background information on the professionalization of language teachers in 19th-century Germany, we will take a closer look at leaders of the late 19th-century Reform Movement as a group of theorists employing a specific discourse on innovation with which they meant to set themselves apart from their predecessors. We then examine how the allegedly new direct methods had actually been around for a long time – although in different contexts – thus challenging the notion that innovation occurred in the late 19th century. We then trace claims for newness as a general 19th-century phenomenon in contrast to the lack of real innovation. The final part of the chapter then looks at the different ways theorists and practitioners talk about teaching or – following Saussure – their specific langues or languages. Summing up, we argue that language teaching in the 19th century did indeed change without actually being innovative in a strict and literal interpretation of the term. At the same time we suggest an alternative and less deficit-oriented view on practioner’s approaches which values their attempts to come up with practices that are adapted to their specific contexts rather than inventing something new.

Background: Claiming “new” methods Teacher professionalization is a rather new phenomenon: before the second half of the 19th century, there was no formal preparation for modern language teachers in the German context. The teachers were usually autodidacts who had been prepared neither in teacher training nor in university courses. In Prussia, the biggest and most influential of the German states, this only gradually changed after the first examinations for modern foreign language teachers were instituted from 1854 onwards (Klippel, 1994, p. 307). Ludwig Herrig founded the first teacher Seminar (i.e., teacher training college) for English language teachers in 1859; in the 1860s 1. We borrow the helpful notion of curricular layers from Cuban’s (2013) analysis of US education in the 20th century. He distinguishes between four curricular layers, namely what is intended, what is taught, what is learned and what is tested (ibid., p. 51–52). Although these layers are often presented in a hierarchical order, in reality they tend to be detached, each with their own practice and theory.

123

124

Tim Giesler & Sabine Doff

and 70s, modern foreign languages were first introduced as university courses (ibid., p. 310). In the course of the professionalization of modern language teaching, communication between teachers improved through journals and conferences in the last few decades of the 19th century (ibid., p. 311). With English becoming a regular school subject and eventually the most important language taught at German schools, Klippel concludes that this signified a shift from teachers being autodidacts to being formally trained and qualified in an academic manner. While the former individually designed textbooks for their own teaching to English, there were ready-made teaching resources for a mass market towards the end of the century (ibid., p. 313). It was as part of this development at the beginning of the 1880s that Wilhelm Viëtor (under the pseudonym Quousque Tandem, in a pamphlet first published in 1882) called for a “fresh start” in modern language teaching. In his pamphlet, Viëtor vividly criticizes the language teaching methods he found to be common at the time and concludes – in Henry Sweet’s translation – that “language teaching must start afresh” (Der Sprachunterricht muss umkehren!).2 The publication of this pamphlet has, in retrospect, been perceived as the starting shot for the Reform Movement and it can be viewed as “one of the most significant documents in recent language teaching history” (Howatt with Widdowson, 2004, p. 188). Mainly (but not exclusively) in the German context, the Reformers’ approach came to be known under the umbrella term New Method, although other names like analytic, direct, or imitative – which do not stress their method’s (alleged) novelty but instead underline some of its inherent qualities – were also in use (see Howatt & Smith, 2002, pp. x–xi). One possible historiographical reading of this development is that (deficient) autodidacts were gradually replaced by (expert) professionals who, regularly discussing and refining their ideas, then developed innovative teaching methods which cured the shortcomings of what isolated individuals had come up with before. Along these lines, Viëtor heavily criticized the grammar-translation methods adopted by his forerunners that he considered old-fashioned, boring and ineffective: Es handelt sich darum, den Inhalt der Schulgrammatik und nebenher den nötigen Wortvorrat dem Schüler zu überliefern. Wie man das anfängt, darüber klären uns schon die Lehrbücher allein auf. Eine Portion grammatischer Regeln wird 2. Giesler (2021, p. 190) argues that Sweet’s translation (as adopted by Howatt with Widdowson, 2004, p. 188) “seems a bit misleading”, as a literal translation of umkehren could also be to “turn around on a wrong path and revert to an earlier status”. In the context of this chapter, it is interesting that Sweet seems to allude to the notion of innovation with his choice of the words “start afresh”.

Chapter 7. Change without innovation?

einer „Lektion“ oder einem „Kapitel“ zugewiesen; Übungssätze in der fremden Sprache, sodann deutsche, folgen; die zugehörigen Vokabeln stehen entweder mit oder ohne Verweisungsziffern unter den Stücken oder sind, und das ist das Gewöhnliche, in einem Anhang untergebracht, d. h. sie sollen auswendig gelernt werden.3 (Viëtor, 1886, p. 19f.)

If one adopts Viëtor’s view, one might easily be trapped in the rather ahistorical perspective which considers the past as a “procession of methods” (Hunter & Smith, 2012, p. 432), favouring a mythological view that “demoniz[es] past practices” (ibid.). This chapter sets out to show that, in the case of the Reform Movement, this view does not carry far, as major principles of the New Method promoted by Viëtor, Sweet, Passy, Jespersen and others had already been used long before, for example when teaching future merchants or girls. Following this line of argument, in the next section we will look at a selection of Direct Methods in the 18th and 19th centuries that had been used before the Reformers were advertising them as their own ideas from the 1880s onwards. Here we will make a strong claim for taking the specific contexts and target groups into account.

A multitude of “Direct” methods In this section, we look at some examples of “Direct”’ methods that had been in use before the 1880s, that is, before the Reform Movement, showing that they were anything but new (or innovative). The examples we have chosen come from secondary education in schools for girls (höhere Töchterschulen) as well as for boys (Real- or Bürgerschulen), both of which we have studied in depth (see Doff, 2002; Giesler, 2018). Both types of context, in the course of the 19th century, show alternatives to the otherwise dominant neo-humanist ideal of Bildung4 which teachers and methodologists in Gymnasien (comparable to British grammar schools) believed could be reached via a more formal approach to foreign language teaching on the basis of grammar and translation. 3. [The main point is to pass on to the pupil the content of the grammar textbook along with the essential choice of vocabulary. The textbooks alone explain to us how this can be accomplished. A portion of grammar rules is assigned to a ‘lesson’ or a ‘chapter’; these are followed by exercise sentences in the foreign language, then in German; the respective vocabulary items are listed either with or without reference numbers below or in an appendix, which means that these are meant to be learned by heart.] 4. The German term Bildung refers to a specific and specifically non-utilitarian understanding of education rooted in Lutheran Protestant educational ideals (see Tröhler, 2011, pp. 148–163).

125

126

Tim Giesler & Sabine Doff

In considering the origins of the Direct Method, Howatt and Widdowson (2004, p. 217ff.) state that there is “apparent confusion surrounding this term” (ibid., p. 226) as the term is both tied to a specific historical epoch of language teaching and to a general, “functional” principle. It is the latter that we are concerned with here. According to Thornbury (2011, p. 191ff.; also see Doff, 2016, pp. 321–322; Giesler, 2018, p. 227ff.), we can distinguish methods according to where they are situated on a functional–formal continuum.5 So when – for the sake of simplicity – we speak of Direct or Natural methods in the late 19th century, we think of a “method that construes language as ‘meaning potential’, internalized as a system of semantic choices” (Thornbury, 2011, p. 192) and a method that “seeks to replicate naturalistic, informal, experiential, or incidental learning processes” (ibid.). In other words, Direct methods are methods where the functional dimension is foregrounded over the formal dimension, and we can therefore subsume them under the functional principle. Both formal and functional dimensions in language learning and teaching have been around for a long time and are not tied to a specific epoch. Still, the 19th century is often connected with the dominant spread and use of methods which strongly accentuate the formal dimension (e.g. the grammar-translation method). On the other hand, our research (e.g. Doff, 2002; Giesler, 2018) has shown that this was not characteristic of all schools and, thus, it is not mainly the epoch but the respective contexts (which must be analysed in terms of their particular teaching objectives, target groups and traditions) that can be seen to promote specific methods. The Prussian Gelehrtenschule or Gymnasium was the palladium for the classic languages; modern languages were only learned in third or fourth place (after Latin, Greek and, on occasions, Hebrew). The teachers were philologists who usually did not speak any modern foreign languages (see Howatt with Widdowson, 2004, p. 151ff.). In addition, Lutheran Protestantism in Prussia brought about a form of spiritual education termed Bildung that strongly favoured non-utilitarian content (Tröhler, 2011, p. 148ff.) and was thus averse to teaching the functional use of modern foreign languages (Giesler, 2018, p. 79ff.). Consequently, grammar-translation methods could be defined as useful for these educational needs and objectives as well as plausible within their specific context. One has to keep in mind, though, that this kind of secondary education was exclusively aimed at a very small part of the male population who were being prepared for university education. The vast majority of Prussians and Germans did not learn any foreign languages. Two of the exceptions were girls from relatively privileged 5. In Thornbury’s (2011) model, there are ten dimensions, which provide a helpful metalanguage to define language teaching methods from a historical perspective. The notion of dimensions goes back to Stern’s (1992, pp. 279–348) presentation of teaching strategies.

Chapter 7. Change without innovation?

backgrounds (so-called höhere Töchter – higher daughters) in secondary education and boys in non-academic schools which were preparing them for commercial and especially merchant careers. The former were expected to learn to converse in modern foreign languages, while the latter needed functional language skills to deal with international trade partners. Girls from upper middle-class families needed to be provided with a secondary education that matched their families’ status. Needle-work, playing an instrument and conversation skills in modern languages (French and English) were the pillars of this approach to education that was intended to bridge the gap between adolescence and marriage. For a long time, this approach was implemented in private institutions and/or at home, with the help of governesses (cf. Hardach-Pinke, 1993); only in the last third of the 19th century was it beginning to be transferred into a higher secondary state school system for girls.6 Included in this transfer were salient elements of Direct language teaching methods that had become established within the tradition of teaching girls (cf. Doff, 2002; Doff, 2018). This meant, for example, a focus on communicative skills, on language in use and on reading carefully selected (i.e. morally unobjectionable) texts in French or English. From what we know about secondary education for girls in 18th- and 19thcentury Germany, it was always fee-paying: private tutors and teachers as well as private schools (state schools hardly existed before the last third of the 19th century) had to be paid for. More often than not, parents wanted to see practical results of this investment, and that meant, for example, daughters who could more or less fluently hold a conversation in English and/or French on appropriate topics. Thus, it was seen as desirable that the French and English teachers in these contexts tended to be L1 speakers or at least quite fluent in the respective language because they had spent a considerable time abroad. Their Direct teaching methods and outcomes were often looked down on and criticized by usually male philologists, as the following quotation from the grammar school expert Karl Reinhardstöttner (1868, pp. 13–14) illustrates: Ich schätze es gering, einen Menschen perfect Englisch sprechen zu hören, das kann jeder brauchbare Kellner, er muß es können; das französische Institutsgeplapper der Mädchen ist nicht viel werth, denn sie wissen schließlich doch nicht, warum nach dieser und jener Conjunction der Conjunctiv steht, ob sie auch die 6. Before 1872, the year of the so-called “Weimar Conference”, the German state, i.e. first and foremost Prussia, seemed only half-heartedly interested in establishing a state education system for the female half of its population (see Albisetti, 1988). Similarly, in further steps in the direction of female emancipation, be it the right to vote or attend university, Germany proved a European latecomer rather than forerunner.

127

128

Tim Giesler & Sabine Doff

Regel wissen, daß er steht […]. Lassen wir die Mädchen parliren vom Wetter und von Spaziergängen, dem Gebildeten ist es um etwas anderes zu thun. Er will, er soll eindringen in den Genius der Sprachen, er soll die Gedanken der Nationen, die Ideen der Fremden, nicht ihre Wörter beherrschen.7

On the surface, the opposition the author highlights between the educated (man) and the non-educated (girls) represents a struggle between the goals of foreign language teaching – teaching oral proficiency versus cultural capital. In addition, it also shows the expert philologist Reinhardstöttner arrogantly dismissing the specific practices in use in girls’ schools. Yet, this did not prevent principles of the Direct language teaching methods, which also shine through in this quote (for example, the ancillary role of grammar), from entering standard curricula for English and French at the beginning of the 20th century (cf. Doff, 2002; Doff, 2018). The second example has to be seen against the backdrop of industrialization, which created a need for non-academic experts able to deal with the “real life”, practical demands of engineering and trade, that is, by studying sciences and modern languages. This demand was answered by schools specifically aimed at teaching these subjects; accordingly, these schools were named Realschulen [lit. “real [life] schools”] or Bürgerschulen [lit. “city/citizen schools”] within the German context. Forerunners of the 19th century Real- and Bürgerschulen were the German merchant schools (Handelsschulen [lit. “trade schools”]) of the 18th century (see Giesler 2018, p. 67ff.). There, modern foreign languages (especially French) were an integral part of the curriculum. Language was taught in a functional way with a focus on speaking skills (Sprechfertigkeiten) that were gained by talking to the teachers – who often were a team of one expatriate native speaker and one academically trained philologist (see ibid., p. 108). Grammar was seen as a means to an end (ibid.: 74), foreshadowing the ancillary role later generations would assign it to. In line with Thornbury’s dimensions, “the target language [was] integrated into the curricular content” (Thornbury, 2011, p. 192), with geography and history being taught not only in German but also (and sometimes exclusively) in French (see Giesler, 2018, p. 75).

7. [I do not greatly value hearing a man speak perfect English, any skilled waiter can do that; girls’ rote-learned chatter in French is not worth much because they do not actually know why after this or that conjunction a subjunctive comes, even if they know the rule. Let girls chat about the weather and walks, the educated [man] has something else to do. He wants to – he should – penetrate the genius of languages, he should study the ideas of nations, the ideas of foreigners, not master their words.]

Chapter 7. Change without innovation?

When English was introduced as a compulsory subject in German Real- and Bürgerschulen from the mid-19th century onwards, similar Direct teaching methods were put to use. The city state of Bremen was the first to introduce English as a main subject at its Bürgerschule in 1855. Prussia followed in 1859, but usually favoured French as the first foreign language and a less functional approach to modern language teaching. In Bremen, there was again a focus on Sprechfertigkeiten (see Giesler, 2018, p. 172ff.), with grammar also being put in second place (see ibid., p. 178ff.). The teachers were non-native speakers but had all spent time abroad studying and teaching, so they were able to speak fluently and thus adopt a Direct, functional approach in which they taught the language by using it (see ibid., p. 152ff.). Like their predecessors in the 18th century, they combined and integrated subject and language teaching by teaching history and geography in English (see ibid., p. 185ff.). Thus, principles of Direct language teaching had already prevailed in state secondary schools for boys and girls alike; the two examples illustrate that it had been practised long before the Reformers claimed it as an approach of their own (Reinhardstöttner’s quote above, for example, predates Viëtor’s original (1882) edition of Der Sprachunterricht by 15 years). The two examples also show a remarkable number of similarities with regard to language teaching principles. Thus, they may serve here as an indication of how different ways of balancing between more functional and more formal methods have always been used to find language teaching methods that fit specific purposes in specific contexts. One might add other ideas here like the Direct method used in Berlitz schools to teach adults languages in non-academic contexts (see Howatt with Widdowson, 2004, p. 217ff.) but also older and more recent examples of language teaching oscillating along the formal–functional continuum (see above). Balancing between the formal and functional extremes or leaning towards one end of the continuum can thus hardly be termed literally “innovative” (see Giesler, 2018, p. 242ff.): indeed, it is rather hard to imagine radically new, that is, so far unheard of ways of teaching language that have not been tried out (at least in a similar, if not exactly the same way) in the long history of institutional and non-institutional language teaching. It might be more helpful to think of strengthening or weakening along various dimensions, or, as Pennycook (1989, p. 608) argues: While it is clear that language teaching has undergone many transformations over the centuries, a thorough examination of the past suggests that these changes have represented different configurations of the same basic options rather than some linear, additive progress towards the present day, and that these changes are due principally to shifts in the social, cultural, political, and philosophical climate.

129

130

Tim Giesler & Sabine Doff

In the following section we will show how the notions of innovation and progress have nevertheless become recurring themes in (language) teaching and we would also like to offer a provisional explanation for this based in the discourse or langue of theorists who cater for professional needs. Although this clearly could be traced up to the present day, we argue from examples of 19th century practice when – as stated above – theorists and practitioners of language teaching began to move apart.

Languages of theorists and practitioners We have so far been challenging the ahistorical view that the Reformers’ method – or indeed any method – was new by confronting this with a view of teaching methods evolving and being developed in and for specific contexts and thus oscillating along particular dimensions. We now turn to the discourse on modern language teaching throughout the 19th century to identify two separate and partly contradictory strands in the way practitioners talked about their approaches and teaching suggestions: When advertising and commercializing their ideas, e.g. as textbook authors, practitioners (like theorists) tended to fall into a teleological langue,8 stressing the newness and ease of their method. On the other hand, one can identify an opposing line of argumentation when (sometimes the very same) practitioners justify their suggestions on the basis that they are tried and tested and have already worked before – an argumentation that seems to be more in line with their professional habitus. In the course of the 19th century, methods and approaches were regularly labelled as new – thus setting them apart from older, allegedly deficient ideas. This trend can be clearly seen in the naming of the Reformers’ New Method (see above) but also had a longer tradition. Although textbook authors had traditionally been practitioners who wrote and published their textbooks alongside their teaching practice, they used a similar langue when promoting and justifying their textbooks as the theorists later did. One might even argue that individuals may have used a different langue when acting as a practitioner than they did when acting as a theorist/textbook author or – in other words – when arguing on and for different curricular layers (in this case, the taught and the intended curriculum; see above). One case might be Heinrich Plate who worked as a teacher at 8. Building upon Saussure’s notion of langue as a “theoretical regulating system” (Tröhler, 2011, p. 4), we will be discussing the different langues (languages) of theorists and practitioners in foreign language education. Langues in this case refers to their respective underlying modes of thinking (see ibid., p. 1)

Chapter 7. Change without innovation?

Bremen Bürgerschule teaching the functional or direct methodology favoured there (see Giesler, 2019, p. 148ff.; also, below). At the same time, he published a grammar-translation based textbook promoting it as “easy, quick and fundamental”. A quick look at the primary sources used by Klippel (1994, p. 469ff.) illustrates a general trend: Textbook titles regularly claimed to present new (or neu(e)) methods, as in Appleton’s (1858) A new and practical method of learning to read, write and speak the English language in a short time, Boltz’s (1852) Neuer Lehrgang der Englischen Sprache nach einer neuen praktischen, analytischen, theoretischen, synthetischen Methode, Christiani’s (1799) Neue englische Sprachlehre, Crabb’s (1837) Neue practische Englische Grammatik, etc. – just to name a few. Other recurring notions would be practical (as in relying on practice; see Howatt with Widdowson, 2004, p. 152) and fast/schnell or easy/leicht – indicating that the method works effortlessly in an efficient way in a short time (as in Graeser, 1889: Praktischer Lehrgang zur schnellen und leichten Erlernung der Englischen Sprache; Fick, 1800: Theoretisch-praktische Anweisung zur leichtern Erlernung der Englischen Sprache). As stated above, Heinrich Plate’s (1887) bestselling textbook combined the two concepts by claiming to be complete, easy, quick and fundamental: Vollständiger Lehrgang zur leichten, schnellen und gründlichen Erlernung der Englischen Sprache. Although most teachers and language learners might agree that language learning rarely is a quick and effortless endeavour, claiming to have found a method that is indeed quick and easy clearly is a way of advertising a textbook that addresses the understandable wish to find a shortcut through the hardships of learning vocabulary by heart and struggling with the different elements of a language. This was apparently in stark contrast with the textbooks writers’ experience as grass-roots practitioners who should, in theory, have been more concerned with what had traditionally worked than what was new or innovative. Nevertheless, for the sake of advertising and selling their ideas, they adopted the discourse of newness. In the practitioners’ role as textbook authors, it is important to claim that they have indeed found a new or innovative way of dealing with the problems of language teaching as this is the very reason why somebody should buy their textbook and not rely on older ones that are already on the market. Therefore, postulating that one’s own ideas are new/innovative and thus generally better than older methods caters for textbook authors’ need to set themselves apart from others; this surely is part of their marketing strategy but at the same time reflects a recurring practice in the intended curricular layer they are inhabiting in their role as textbook authors proposing particular practices. Although textbook authors in the 19th century were at root practitioners, their role resembled that of the Reform Method theorists: They obviously felt the need to advertise their ideas to make them attractive in the textbook market in the same way that theorists from the

131

132

Tim Giesler & Sabine Doff

end of the 19th century needed to advertise their ideas, setting these apart from older concepts. It is plausible to assume that this tendency was strengthened when practioners in the course of the professionalization of teacher education left the teaching profession for good to exclusively become academic experts or full-time teacher trainers: for these professionals, there was often no longer the immediate need to put their theoretical suggestions to the test and thus to justify them on the basis of what had worked before. At the same time they may have felt the need to set their ideas apart from older approaches, thus underlining their innovative character. This teleological (i.e. oriented towards an end) language of newness and innovation also works better in a society that believes in progress towards a better world. Tröhler (2011, p. 98ff.) identifies (technological) progress as a central theme in American pragmatism, which has its philosophical roots in (Calvinist/ Reformed) Protestant Christian ideals. Although this belief (see Nye, 1994) was traditionally not as strong or unopposed in Europe, Protestant educational theorists shaped the way people think, write and talk about education on both sides of the Atlantic (see Tröhler, 2011). Teleology also played and plays a role in secularized ideologies (e.g., in the socialist “paradise” and in Marxist views of history as a series of revolutions). And as in these views humankind constantly develops, “innovation” is almost used interchangeably with ”becoming better”.9 In the context of the 19th century, a general belief in progress and innovation made sense: rapid technological progress encouraged economic and social change and – apart from Luddite fears – this was broadly welcomed by Liberals and Marxists alike. Industrialization and the new technologies emancipated humans from nature’s constraints. Better communications between different nations through steamships, railways, improved postal services (see Schleich, 2015, p. 51ff.), and the first steps towards telecommunication (telegraphs and telephones) also had a considerable influence on why languages were taught. One might also argue that it had repercussions on the choice of languages taught (modern foreign languages instead of the classics) and perhaps also on the methodology chosen because trade and travel created a demand for oral communication. Hence, the steam engine influenced foreign language teaching but only in an indirect manner. Technological progress did not directly innovate language teaching methodology. When advertising their ideas, theorists of language teaching use the langue of innovation, thus trying to utilize a general belief in progress in a field where it seems oddly misplaced. Alhough practitioners may also go along with this ideology, their professional reality demands methods and methodology that are rather 9. In this spirit, today’s German federal standards for teacher education define ‘innovation competence’ (Kompetenzbereich innovieren; cf. KMK, 2004, p. 12) as one central element.

Chapter 7. Change without innovation?

proven than innovative; they need to find ways of teaching that have worked before, relying on experience and trying to adapt methods to their specific context. Their approach is “rather empirical than theory-directed” (Corder, 1973, p. 135), or what might be called “eclectic”. Although practitioners are generally silent in public debates about teaching methodology – especially after academic modern foreign language teacher trainers entered the scene in the second half of the 19th century – their empirical and eclectic langue can be traced in the few sources in which they explain and justify their teaching practice. When, for example, Bremen teachers in 1855 first introduced English as the first foreign language at a public school in Germany, they felt obliged to present their methodology in monthly ”notices” to their pupils’ parents (An das Elternhaus. Mittheilungen aus der Bürgerschule; see Giesler, 2018, p. 3–4.). Instead of arguing that their methods were their own innovative and progressive inventions, they openly stated who had been inspiring their (first and second) language teaching design: “Nach dem Beispiele unserer tüchtigen Methodiker des modernen Sprachunterrichts benutzen wir auch die Lectüre zu schriftlichen Zwecken” [Following the example of our industrious methodologists of modern language teaching we also use the reading for writing purposes] (Werner, 1864, p. 83). What is remarkable here is that they label proponents of older methods as “able” or “competent” (tüchtig). Elsewhere they state that they put principles to use that were acknowledged in other areas of teaching: “Durch Anwendung von methodischen Grundsätzen, die auch auf andern Gebieten des Unterrichts allgemein anerkannt sind” [By applying methodical principles which are also acknowledged in other fields of teaching] (ibid., p. 82). The Bremen teachers also were aware (and openly admitted) that they had modelled their methodology partly on how language masters (i.e. native speaker teachers giving private tuition) taught. Consequently, they were not labelling their methods as “new” or ”innovative” but instead argued that they were using older methods in a different context of teaching whole classes of pupils instead of private tuition: Nach diesen eingehenden Erörterungen über unsere Methode suchen wir uns noch gegen diejenigen zu verwahren, die wohl die Principien derselben gelten lassen, aber dieselbe nur bei Privatschülern und bei sehr begabten Schülern, keinesfalls im Massenunterricht wollen angewandt wissen.10 (ibid., p. 84)

10. [After having elaborated on our method precisely, we would like to object to those who accept our principles yet only would like to see them put into practice with private and very gifted pupils, not for everyone.]

133

134

Tim Giesler & Sabine Doff

Summing up, the examples here show a different language being used by theorists and practitioners. The language or langue of theorists not only reflects overarching cultural ideals – as in the case of the term innovation. It also reacts to inherent problematic characteristics of language teaching by claiming to have found a method that is “easy” and ”efficient”. Practitioners, on the other hand, would probably lose their credibility if they promised that their pupils do not have to study hard. From the need to actually make their teaching work, they tend to rely on empirical methods that have been tried before and adapt these to their specific context.

Conclusion In the second half of the 19th century, an explicit theory of foreign language teaching was developed. Praxis and (formerly usually implicit) theory, which had traditionally been united, began to fall apart. These different curricular layers developed their specific theories and practices. Theories and practices in foreign language education, i.e. the intended and taught curriculum, can be somewhat detached – practitioners do not usually put into practice what theorists develop. Indeed, some ideas and concepts have more influence on theoretical discussions than impact on teaching, while teaching practice tends to be eclectic and empirical, based on teachers’ experience. This may partly be explained by looking at the different professional needs of theorists and practitioners. While the former need to advertise their ideas and therefore apply a langue of efficiency and innovation, the latter tend to be more conservatively reliant on what has actually already worked – either for themselves or for their pupils. While the former need to promote their ideas in a competitive market for jobs in academia or teacher education, the latter teach as they were taught. Needless to say, this should be understood as a tendency, not as a determinism that neither theorists nor practitioners can escape. Stating the situation in these terms is not intended as a criticism of either position but instead a means to try to to come to terms with the different langues that clearly have the potential to impeding teacher education. Educating future teachers means translating between different langues; it also means reflecting on one’s own ideologies, biases and subjective theories and practices. One of those ideologies is that visible in the language of innovation: Language teaching methodologies have obviously not changed much just because of technological progress. Instead, explaining the dimensions of methodologies (cf. Thornbury, 2011) and explaining a variety of methods used in different contexts (without discarding ideas just because they are considered old) may enable student teachers to become

Chapter 7. Change without innovation?

autonomous practitioners who can choose appropriate methods for their own pupils. Looking at past language teaching in a historiographical manner thus is a necessary prerequisite in language teacher education (as well as in related research fields) – not a luxury.

References Primary sources Appleton, J. L. (1858). A new and practical method of learning to read, write and speak the English language in a short time (2nd ed.). Schäfer & Koradi. Boltz, A. (1852). Neuer Lehrgang der Englischen Sprache nach einer neuen, praktischen, analytischen, theoretischen, synthetischen Methode (3 Vols.). R. Gaertner. Crabb, G. (1837). Neue practische Englische Grammatik (6th ed.). Gebhardt & Reisland. Fick, J. C. (1800). Theoretisch-praktische Anweisung zur leichtern Erlernung der englischen Sprache. Erster Theil: Praktische Englische Sprachlehre für Deutsche beiderlei Geschlechts. Nach der in Meidingers französischen Grammatik befolgten Methode (3rd ed.). Palm & Enke. Graeser, K. (1889). Praktischer Lehrgang zur schnellen und leichten Erlernung der Englischen Sprache. Nach Ahn’s Methode. Erster Kursus (15th ed.). Brockhaus. [KMK] Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (2004). Standards der Lehrerbildung: Bildungswissenschaften. Self-published. Plate, H. (1887). Vollständiger Lehrgang zur leichten, schnellen und gründlichen Erlernung der Englischen Sprache, II: Mittelstufe (48th ed.). Ehlermann. Reinhardstöttner, K. von. (1868). Über das Studium der modernen Sprachen an den bayerischen Gelehrten-Schulen: Ein Beitrag zu den Ideen über die Reorganisation der Gymnasien. Thomann. Viëtor, W. (1886). Der Sprachunterricht muß umkehren! Ein Beitrag zur Überbürdungsfrage von Quousque Tandem (2nd ed.). Verlag von Gebr. Henninger. W[erner, F.] (1864). Der Unterricht im Englischen in der Bürgerschule. In H. Gräfe (Ed.) An das Elternhaus. Mittheilungen aus der Bürgerschule, Töchterbürgerschule und deren Vorbereitungsschulen (pp. 81–85, 3rd year, Vol. 3. 11. 15.02.1864). Gesenius. [Staatarchiv Bremen, Za-231.]

Secondary sources Albisetti, J. C. (1988). Schooling German girls and women: Secondary and higher education in the nineteenth century. Princeton University Press. Altman, H. B. (1983). Training foreign language teachers for learner-centered instruction. Deep structures, surface structures and transformation. In J. E. Alatis, P. Strevens, & H. H. Stern (Eds.), GURT ’83. Applied linguistics and the preparation of second language teachers: Toward a rationale (pp. 19–25). Georgetown University Press. Corder, S. P. (1973). Introducing applied linguistics. Penguin.

135

136

Tim Giesler & Sabine Doff

Cuban, L. (2013). Inside the black box of classroom practice. Change without reform in American education. Harvard Education Press. Doff, S. (2002). Englischlernen zwischen Tradition und Innovation: Fremdsprachenunterricht für Mädchen im 19. Jahrhundert. Langenscheidt-Longman. Doff, S. (2016). Vermittlungsmethoden: Historischer Überblick. In E. Burwitz-Melzer, G. Mehlhorn, C. Riemer, K.-R. Bausch, & H.-J. Krumm (Eds.), Handbuch Fremdsprachenunterricht (6th ed., pp. 320–325). Francke. Doff, S. (2018). “Let girls chat about the weather and walks”: English language education at girls’ secondary schools in nineteenth-century Germany. In N. McLelland & R. Smith (Eds.), The history of language learning and teaching, Vol. II: 19th–20th century Europe (pp. 87–97). Legenda. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv16km1gp.10 Giesler, T. (2018). Die Formation des institutionellen Englischunterrichts. Englisch als erste Fremdsprache in Bremen (1855–1873). WVT. Giesler, T. (2019). Pre-reform professionals: Multilingual Northern German language teachers (ca. 1850–1875). Language & History 62(2), 140–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/17597536.2019.1641957

Giesler, T. (2021). Start afresh or return? The impact of the Reform Movement on northern German English language teaching. Language & History, 64(3), 187–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/17597536.2021.1996088

Hardach-Pinke, I. (1993). Die Gouvernante. Geschichte eines Frauenberufs. Campus Verlag. Howatt, A. P. R. & Smith, R. (2002). Introduction to volume III. In A. P. R. Howatt, & R. Smith (Eds.), Modern language teaching. The Reform Movement, Vol. III: Germany and France (pp. ix–xxxviii). Routledge. Howatt, A. P. R., with H. G. Widdowson. (2004). A history of English language teaching (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. Hunter, D., & Smith, R. (2012). Unpackaging the past: “CLT” through ELTJ keywords. ELT Journal, 66(4), 430–439. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccs036 Klippel, F. (1994). Englischlernen im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert: Die Geschichte der Lehrbücher und Unterrichtsmethoden. Nodus. Nye, D. E. (1994). American technological sublime. The MIT Press. Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 23(4), 589–618. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587534 Schleich, M. (2015). Geschichte des internationalen Schülerbriefwechsels. Entstehung und Entwicklung im historischen Kontext von den Anfängen bis zum Ersten Weltkrieg. Waxmann. Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford University Press. Thornbury, S. (2011). Language teaching methodology. In J. Simpson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 185–199). Routledge. Tröhler, D. (2011). Languages of education. Protestant legacies, national identities, and global aspirations. Routledge.

chapter 8

“Reflection on language” Innovation and tradition in ELT textbooks in Italy in the 1980s and 1990s Luciana Pedrazzini University of Milan

At the end of the 1970s, the conservative Italian scenario of foreign language teaching witnessed various innovations. The process of change was prompted by a reform of the national school syllabus for lower secondary school that advocated a new and comprehensive approach to language education. After an overview of the main tenets underlying this approach, the chapter focuses on “reflection on language”, one of the cornerstones of the reform. It then reports on an investigation of how reflection on language was implemented in a corpus of communication-oriented ELT school textbooks published in Italy in the 1980s and 1990s. In an attempt to understand the perspectives of those involved, leading figures and textbook authors of the period were also interviewed. In spite of the authors’ claims about introducing new features of language reflection, textbook analysis shows how their implementation in fact swung between innovative and traditional options.

A new, broader perspective on language education From the early 1970s onwards, the Italian foreign language teaching scene was affected by a wind of change. In his history of language education in Italy, Balboni (2009, p. 79), indeed, compares the Seventies to a “Copernican Revolution”. Here I focus on some of the new ideas of language education that were advocated in the reformed school syllabus for lower secondary schools, with a particular focus on “reflection on language”. In 1979, the New National Syllabus for the lower secondary school (Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione, 1979) replaced the old syllabus dating back to the early Sixties (Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione, 1963). This marked a real turning point in the reform process of the Italian school system. For the first time, the different subjects were viewed not just as self-standing but also as tools within a https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.20.08ped © 2023 John Benjamins Publishing Company

138

Luciana Pedrazzini

unitary approach to education; among the different types of education (historical, scientific, technical, etc.), “language education” (educazione linguistica) was thought to play a key role in cutting across different subjects and activities in the curriculum. The origin of the term educazione linguistica can be traced to a position paper called Dieci tesi per l’educazione linguistica democratica [Ten theses for democratic language education] (GISCEL, 1975), which inspired the definition of aims and methodology for language teaching in the new syllabus. The paper was written by a research group of linguists and teachers mainly from the area of Italian studies (GISCEL – Gruppo di Intervento e Studio nel Campo dell’Educazione Linguistica [Intervention and Study Group in the field of Language Education] and it soon gained acceptance among linguists and teachers of other languages. In keeping with an overall aim of democratization of school education, the theses focus on different issues related to language and language education. While theses I–IV consider relatively broad issues such as plurality and complexity of language skills, and equality in linguistic rights, theses V–VII critique the methods of traditional language pedagogy and its failure to address the language needs of pupils from the lower urban and rural classes. In the 1970s, one citizen out of three in Italy was semi-literate. The term “democratic” was thus intended to underline the need to promote the linguistic skills of all students, irrespective of their social class, culture, religion, language or dialect. The seventh thesis, which is directly relevant to the notion of “reflection on language” which will be focused on in this chapter, highlights the partiality, uselessness and harmfulness of traditional grammar teaching and criticizes the prevalent emphasis on the development of formal written skills and rote learning of grammatical rules and paradigms. The last three theses (VIII–X) set forth the ten principles on which language education should be based according to a “new democratic school” and consider the implications of these principles for the development of a new curriculum for language teacher education. In contrast to a traditional prescriptive linguistic pedagogy, which views language as a “model” based on normative grammar to be acquired through rule-based practice, these principles are grounded in the idea that language is a tool that can be adapted to different contexts and purposes; a new linguistic pedagogy was thus expected to target the development of all language skills and highlight different options for conveying meaning through oral as well as written texts. The new syllabus for the lower secondary school came to incorporate the main principles put forward in these theses. While, in the former syllabus, language teaching was mainly considered a tool of cultural knowledge and expression, the teaching of the mother tongue (Italian) was now aimed at the acquisition of language in a wide range of functions and forms. The new syllabus emphasized the

Chapter 8. “Reflection on language”

role of the foreign language as a means of communication and defined learning aims in terms of language skills to be acquired in contexts of use rather than linguistic features such as sounds, rhythm, intonation, vocabulary and structures to be learnt through practice and repetition of models. As will be discussed further below, this new perspective on language education thus led to a reconsideration of the role of grammar teaching, which was now thought to foster “reflection” on the ways language is used rather than being mainly aimed at the mastery of rules and language patterns. A cross-curricular approach to language education also contributed to strengthening the links between Italian and foreign language teaching, and a greater validation of the role of foreign language teachers, who had often felt isolated in their role. As argued by Bertoni Del Guercio (1979, p. 155), in the 1970s the majority of learners still had to face the hurdles of learning to use the national language correctly and learning a foreign language was somehow considered a luxury. Taking part in a comprehensive project of language education gave foreign language teachers the opportunity to enhance their teaching in relation to specific learning needs and motivations (De Luca, 1980, p. 31). The specific aims and contents for foreign language teaching specified in the new syllabus also resonated with the operational definitions of language objectives which were beginning to be provided by the Council of Europe (van Ek, 1975/1980; van Ek, 1985–1986; van Ek & Trim, 1991) incorporating the new concepts of “communicative competence”, “ability”, “notion”, “function” and “text” which were being spread by the communicative movement and gradually made available to Italian teachers (for example D’Addio Colosimo, 1978; Ciliberti, 1980; Giunchi 1990). These concepts provided additional theoretical background to the idea of language education developed within the Italian context, leading Italian academics and teacher trainers to elaborate communication-oriented proposals within this new framework (for example, Freddi, 1979; Bertocchi et al., 1981; Prat Zagrebelsky, 1985; Porcelli 1994). Many of these experts were actively involved in the major language teachers’ associations, such as ANILS (Associazione Nazionale Insegnanti Lingue Straniere), LEND (Lingua e Nuova Didattica) and TESOL Italy, which played key roles in backing the process of reform and innovation through their journals, workshops and national conferences (Pedrazzini, 2018). The implementation of the school reform was also officially supported by a teacher training programme called Progetto Speciale Lingue Straniere – PSLS [Special Foreign Languages Project] set up by the Ministry of Education (Sanzo 1981, 1988). The programme was run for about ten years and was the first attempt to address the professional needs of in-service foreign language teachers in an institutionalized way. Quoting a metaphor suggested by Gianfranco Porcelli (Interview, 3

139

140

Luciana Pedrazzini

May 2019), this flurry of activities worked effectively as a “cinghia di trasmissione tra ricerca glottodidattica e l’insegnante” [a “drive belt between language teaching research and the teacher”]. The new syllabus for lower secondary schools provided food for thought and inspiration in terms of contents and methodology of language education for the syllabuses to follow, which aimed to continue the process of educational reform at different levels of schooling (Programmi Didattici per la scuola primaria [National Syllabus for the Primary School], 1985; Piani di studio della scuola secondaria superiore e programmi dei trienni. Le Proposte della Commissione Brocca [Proposals for a revised curriculum for the upper secondary school], 1991, 1992). The comprehensive framework for language education in the new national syllabus, oriented as it was towards “communication” and “use”, had opened up new opportunities for collaborative cross-curricular activities. Within this new framework, grammar teaching was one of the major issues that needed to be addressed and revisited.

“Reflection on language”: A cross-curricular approach to grammar learning Within the comprehensive new framework, the development of communication skills became one of the main aims of first and foreign language teaching, but not on its own: the development of metacognitive skills through “reflection on language” was also emphasized. This was destined to challenge traditional grammar teaching assumptions and habits, providing foreign language teachers with a broader basis for language analysis than before. Indeed, the issue of grammar had been at the centre of the Italian debate on mother tongue and foreign language teaching since the early seventies. As pointed out above, the Seventh Thesis for a democratic language education (GISCEL 1975) severely criticized traditional grammar teaching for its exclusive focus on the analysis of grammatical categories and for giving priority to the learning of patterns and syntactic rules. These critiques, which were mainly addressed to the teaching of Italian, found an echo among foreign language teachers as well. The thesis calls for a broader approach to grammar teaching so that it will cover linguistic phenomena that include actual language use and varieties. Such an approach to grammar thus implies that the practice of language skills should be closely related to reflection on how language is used. It also requires that language teachers should have a more comprehensive linguistic competence along with a deeper awareness of language acquisition processes (Sabatini, 1984).

Chapter 8. “Reflection on language”

Drawing inspiration from this debate, the new syllabus for the lower secondary school addressed the issue of grammar teaching by introducing the new term riflessione linguistica [reflection on language]. The term riflessione seemed to point to a more involving, awareness-raising and thoughtful approach to explicit language study to be pursued within a general framework of language education (Colombo, 1982, p. 18). As far as foreign language teaching was involved, La riflessione sulla lingua, senz’altro indispensabile, sarà condotta partendo dall’uso concreto della lingua in un contesto e non da schemi grammaticali. È opportuno che tale riflessione comprenda sia gli aspetti morfologici-sintattici sia quelli semantico-comunicativi. La riflessione sulla lingua offrirà occasione anche per i necessari riferimenti culturali dato che la lingua è elemento rivelatore del contesto socio-culturale. Le possibili diverse impostazioni dell’analisi linguistica richiedono che gli insegnanti di italiano e di lingua straniera, nel consiglio di classe, raggiungano una intesa sulla terminologia grammaticale da adottare.1 (Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione, 1979, p. 14)

While in the former syllabus (Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione, 1963), grammar teaching for the foreign language was mainly aimed at the acquisition of morphological and syntactic patterns through practice of structurally and lexically graded examples, the notion of reflection on language introduced in the 1979 syllabus offered a broader perspective. Thus, Gianfranco Porcelli (Interview, 3 May 2019) recalls that he preferred to use the term ”grammars” to that of ”grammar” during his training workshops designed to introduce teachers to the new notions. As he argues, “se tu parli agli insegnanti di ‘grammatica’, loro hanno in mente solo le parti del discorso” [if you talk to teachers about “grammar”, they only think of the parts of speech]. Talking about ”grammars” was thus a strategy to help teachers become aware of the different dimensions (morphosyntactic, semantic, pragmatic) that grammar encompasses and which somehow needed to be addressed in their teaching. The term riflessione linguistica used in the new syllabus did not appear immediately clear or straightforward to language teachers and lent itself to possible misunderstandings, as pointed out by Prat Zagrebelsky (1983, p. 62) in this personal anecdote:

1. [Reflection on language, which is without any doubt essential, will depart from actual instances of language use in context and not from grammatical patterns. Reflection needs to target both morphosyntactic and semantic and pragmatic features. It will also provide opportunities for the necessary cultural references, as language is revealing about the sociocultural context. Given that the Italian and foreign language teachers of the same class may have different approaches to language analysis, they will need to agree on the metalanguage to be used.]

141

142

Luciana Pedrazzini

Al termine di una lunga discussione sull’argomento, un collega mi disse “Sono d’accordo nel far fare ai ragazzi la riflessione sulla lingua, ma quello che ora dobbiamo decidere è se la grammatica la manteniamo o no”.2

Reflection on language was not only aimed at the acquisition of a set of new notions, but also at the development of language awareness skills. Daniela Bertocchi (1983, p. 76), who drew up proposals for an L1-L2 shared curriculum in the lower secondary school, states that reflection on language implies a process of skill acquisition and discovery of properties and rules about how a language works. The learner is supposed to take part in this process actively. The skills to be developed are therefore similar to those required for the study of scientific subjects, for example describing, classifying, problem solving, using specific terminology, and so on. These skills need to be trained through explicit teaching activities and supported by an interdisciplinary approach to reflection on language. In accordance with the new national syllabus, Bertocchi (1983, pp. 78–79) further suggests that Italian and foreign language teachers should define specific aims of reflection on language to be achieved through shared teaching activities involving the use of a common metalanguage and techniques of interlinguistic and intercultural analysis. The learning aims will need to be targeted at both linguistic and communicative features of the two languages. In this regard, Prat Zagrebelsky (1983, p. 67) points out that, while reflection on language in the L1 lesson is likely to occur separately from the activities aimed at the development of language skills, linguistic analysis in the foreign language lesson should be carried out in relation to instances of use as they emerge during specific communication activities. An interlinguistic analysis would also provide learners with opportunities to notice and reflect on language features acquired implicitly in their mother tongue. The spread of communicative ideas led teachers to assume contrasting attitudes towards grammar teaching that were also voiced in journals, debates and conferences: while some teachers believed that all language features could be acquired ”implicitly” through lots of practice and exposure to authentic materials, others feared that the greatly increased use of practice activities had had the effect of reducing opportunities for learners to learn the formal features of the language in a systematic way (Prat Zagrebelsky, 1985, p. 63). The national conference organized by LEND in 1985 had, indeed, as the main theme “The Role of Grammar within a Communicative Approach”. The attendance of over 1,200 teachers was a clear sign that the theme had become a burning issue in teaching practice, with a particularly thorny question being to what extent a systematic study of the language could be

2. [After a long discussion on the topic, a colleague told me “I agree on having the students do some reflection on language, but what needs to be decided is whether we keep grammar or not”.]

Chapter 8. “Reflection on language”

pursued together and at the same time with the development of comprehension and production skills (D’Addio Colosimo, 1985). The theme of grammar teaching continued to be the leitmotiv of several events during the 1980s, such as a round table at the British Council conference in Milan in 1989. British Council conferences were organized in Italy on a nearly annual basis between the 1980s and 1990s. Being attended by a large number of Italian EFL teachers, they provided a good platform for sharing and testing teaching ideas (Pedrazzini, 2018). A motion set for debate – “This house believes that communicative revolution has been achieved at the expense of grammatical accuracy” – was discussed by two groups of British and Italian ELT experts and textbook authors. As reported by Pozzo (1989), the audience eventually dissented from the motion, favouring the idea that communicative teaching and grammar teaching could be somehow compatible. The problem was how to make these two teaching components interact in a profitable way. As will be illustrated in the following section “grammar”, or ”reflection on language” as it came to be called, needed to be given a proper place in the new generation of Italian communicative ELT textbooks that gradually found their way into lower secondary school classrooms.

“Reflection on language” in Italian ELT lower secondary school textbooks Research design From the early 1980s onwards, the “Communicative Approach” spread directly into Italian ELT classrooms via a large number of textbooks published in Italy. These new Italian textbooks show the authors’ attempt at both “adopting” and “adapting” communicative language teaching ideas to local educational needs (Pedrazzini, 2018). Against the backdrop presented in the previous sections, I now report on a small-scale study that aimed to investigate how reflection on language was implemented in a corpus of Italian ELT secondary school textbooks published in the 1980s and 1990s and to what extent innovative options were brought about via this implementation. Two main questions were addressed: 1.

What do the authors of these ELT textbooks claim about introducing a “reflection on language” approach in their communication-oriented materials? 2. How is reflection on language actually implemented in their textbooks and to what extent does it depart from traditional approaches to grammar teaching? The data for the study were supplied by a corpus of ten ELT textbooks for the lower secondary school (students’ age 11–13) published in Italy in the 1980s and 1990s (see Table 1).

143

144

Luciana Pedrazzini

Table 1. Italian ELT Textbooks (1980s–1990s) for the Lower Secondary School 1982

Communication tasks (Iantorno and Papa, 1982a)

1982

New learning to communicate (Di Giuliomaria and Carra, 1982)

1982

Got the message? (Elviri et al., 1982a)

1982

Ready, steady, go! (Angeletti Meirano et al., 1982)

1983

Open roads (Sodini et al., 1983)

1984

English plus (Freddi et al., 1984)

1988

Adventures in English (Whitney and Dandini, 1988)

1990

Keyword (Radley et al., 1990)

1991

Talk to the world (Caravaggi et al., 1991a)

1995

Kaleidoscope (O’Malley, 1995)

Books were selected for the corpus on the basis that they were popular titles written (mainly) by Italian authors and published by Italian companies (in two cases, as joint ventures with UK publishers: New learning to communicate and Keyword) which all claimed to implement specific features of reflection on language within a communication-oriented approach. To investigate how the new concept of reflection of language was operationalized and implemented in the textbooks selected and to identify possible aspects of innovation, data were gathered from different paratextual components (introduction, blurb, contents page) and, in particular, from the sections which aimed at an explicit focus on language in the student’s books and workbooks. These sections were analysed using a framework aimed at assessing the role of reflection on language within a communicative approach to language teaching (Prat Zagrebelsky, 1985), considering the following five aspects: (1) whether reflection on language is explicitly labelled; (2) what kinds of language features are addressed; (3) in which section of the teaching unit it is implemented; (4) what techniques are used to engage learners in the processes of observation, analysis, reflection; and (5) what type of metalanguage is used. The analysis of the introduction and lesson notes in the teacher’s books provided further insight into the authors’ beliefs about grammar learning and teaching, with particular reference to the techniques considered effective for implementing reflection on language. In keeping with an approach to historical research aimed at situating ideas and trends in contexts of practice and experience (Smith, 2016), I also interviewed the authors of the two best-selling Italian ELT textbooks in the 1980s and 1990s, respectively (Got the message? and Talk to the world). These authors were invited to express their views on a number of topics ranging from the general context of

Chapter 8. “Reflection on language”

ELT teaching and teacher training in Italy to their specific experience as textbook writers. In keeping with the main features of qualitative semi-structured interview (see, for example, Borg, 2006), the questions were loosely defined, allowing the interviewees to talk in an open-ended manner about the topics under discussion. This also gave the interviewer the opportunity to make unexpected discoveries and, through progressive focusing, ask questions not on the schedule. Questions were formulated so that the interviewees would also be encouraged to provide accounts of events from a personal perspective, by recalling experiences or anedoctes. The attempt to elicit data in the form of personal narratives served the purpose of counterbalacing the more general statements of belief that were expected to emerge (Woods, 1996). During the interview, the authors were also asked to evaluate their materials retrospectively through “concurrent verbalization” to help them reflect on the decision-making process leading to the design of their materials (cf. Rixon & Smith, 2012), with a particular focus on the reflection on language sections. Finally, as the interviews were carried out face-to face at the interviewees’ homes, this gave them the opportunity to share additional sources, such as notes and drafts. All the interviews were recorded and transcribed.

“Reflection on language”: Stated intentions The use of communication-oriented methodologies together with a new approach to reflection on language advocated in the new syllabus for the lower secondary school led authors of the textbooks in question to explore new options of material design. After an enthusiastic initial response to communicative proposals, teachers began to feel not completely at ease with an entirely function-oriented language syllabus and hoped to find specific sections in their textbook where students would be able to focus on the language more explicitly. As pointed out by one of the authors of Talk to the world (Interview, 6 May 2019), Una cosa che gli insegnanti dicevano era che mancava la sistematicità, le informazioni sulla grammatica erano frammentate e lamentavano di non riuscire a far ripassare, far ritrovare la regola e far fare gli esercizi.3

The main challenge for textbook authors was therefore to identify alternative methodological options to traditional grammar teaching that would fit in with the 3. [One of the things teachers complained about was that [textbooks] lacked systematicity, grammatical notes were incomplete, and it was difficult for them to carry out revision work, and have students find rules and do exercises.]

145

146

Luciana Pedrazzini

communicative features of their textbooks. How did textbook authors face this challenge? What kind of proposals did they put forward? Despite the claimed communicative orientation of the textbooks selected, the issue of redefining a place for explicit language learning and controlled language practice seems to have been a shared concern among authors, as stated, for example, in the introduction to New learning to communicate (p. 3): L’impostazione di questa edizione di Learning to Communicate segue gli orientamenti più recenti della didattica linguistica. Essa tende a raggiungere un equilibrio tra gli esercizi applicativi, che mirano a far assimilare gli elementi linguistici presentati, e le attività linguistiche, che spingono l’allievo a fare uso della lingua in situazioni communicative.4

How was this “balance” between language-focused practice and communicationoriented practice expected to be achieved? The use of language functions required learners to be able to handle different language forms, which were not supposed to be selected according to familiar criteria of structural complexity, but on account of communication needs. For example, the authors of Communication tasks (Iantorno & Papa, 1982b, p. 6) suggest implementing criteria of ”utility and applicability”, while those of Ready, steady, go (Angeletti Meirano et al., 1984, p. 5) highlight the criterion of “frequency of use”. In all the teacher’s books examined, authors seem to be very clear that a fundamentally inductive approach is the best for leading learners to reflect on language. For example: Il metodo seguito è induttivo, parte cioè dall’osservazione e dal confronto di enunciati o brevi testi, per portare l’allievo a cogliere le regolarità linguistiche.5 (Got the message? Teachers’ book (Elviri et al., 1982b), p. 11) Una volta che l’alunno ha acquisito l’uso di determinate funzioni, viene guidato a riflettere sulla lingua […], a ricavarne induttivamente le regolarità […].6 (Talk to the world, Teacher’s book (Caravaggi et al., 1991b), p. 4)

4. [The design of this edition of Learning to communicate conforms to the latest approaches of language teaching. It aims to achieve a balance between practice exercises for the assimilation of the linguistic features presented and language activities, which make learners use the language in communicative situations.] 5. [The method implemented is inductive, that is, it departs from the observation and comparison of utterances or short texts to lead learners to identify linguistic regularities.] 6. [After acquiring the use of specific functions, learners are led to reflect on the language […] and understand regularities “inductively”.]

Chapter 8. “Reflection on language”

In general, authors thus seem to endorse the implementation of an inductive approach that will help learners reflect on the language in an explicit way through different types of procedures involving observing, classifying, inferring and making generalizations, and making and testing hypotheses. In compliance with the new national syllabus, all the authors also claim to engage users of their book in reflection on language. For example, according to the authors of Got the message?, one of the best-selling titles of the period, reflection on language enhances explicit knowledge of the language structures acquired in the teaching unit via comparative analysis with corresponding language forms in Italian (Teacher’s book (Elviri et al., 1982b), p. 11). Maria Cecilia Rizzardi (Interview, 21 February 2018), one of the book’s authors, explained that the writing team was able to benefit from the collaboration of Daniela Bertocchi, a teacher of Italian and teacher trainer, who carried out research on the implementation of L1–L2 interdisciplinary projects in lower secondary schools (Bertocchi et al., 1981; Bertocchi, 1983): Daniela ha avuto questa intuizione di fare delle schede grammaticali contrastive in italiano per fare riflettere. Per cui è sempre osserva e rifletti, il titolo è molto significativo, ogni tanto nel libro, cioè non necessariamente alla fine […] Abbiamo introdotto, lavorando insieme, l’idea di considerare la lingua straniera e l’italiano insieme, mentre nelle scuole era tutto estremamente diviso. […] Era Daniela che usava la terminologia usata dagli insegnanti di italiano.7

As will be discussed further below, this special collaboration contributed to making Got the message? quite unique in its implementation of reflection on language activities. In a similar vein, the authors of Adventures in English state that the cognitive approach implemented in their textbook aims to help learners reflect on the characteristics of the language and the way it is put to use, again through a comparison with the Italian language (Angeletti Meirano et al., 1982, back cover). The “contrastive” approach to language reflection to which most authors seem to subscribe can be seen as a means of departing from more traditional translationbased practice. However, at the end of the 1980s, some authors started to consider the option of providing more systematic work on language to counterbalance the focus on com-

7. [Daniela had this clever idea of designing contrastive grammatical boxes in Italian to help learners think. It is always Observe and Think – the name [of these boxes] is significant. They are throughout the textbook, not necessarily at the end. […] We collectively introduced the idea of considering the foreign language and Italian together, while in schools everything was separate. […] Daniela used the type of metalanguage Italian teachers used too.]

147

148

Luciana Pedrazzini

munication practice, as highlighted by the authors of Talk to the world (Caravaggi et al., 1991b, p. 3): Emerge tuttavia da qualche anno, dall’esperienza di insegnamento di chi opera nella scuola media italiana, l’esigenza di rivalutare l’aspetto strutturale della lingua all’interno dello stesso approccio comunicativo. […] Si evidenzia perciò la necessità di un lavoro sistematico di riflessione sulla lingua.8

These authors, practising teachers themselves, decided to address this emerging need by giving more vigour and organization to an explicit focus on language which was thought to have been dampened by the introduction of a notionalfunctional syllabus and by communicative teaching in general. Luisella Maroni (Interview, 6 May 2019), one of the authors of Talk to the world, further elaborates on this point: Siamo state invitate a presentare […] il nostro libro a un workshop che si intitolava “Fluency vs accuracy?” […] La dicotomia tra fluency e accuracy di fatto non esiste. L’accuracy va intesa non solo come grammatica ma anche lessico, pronuncia e intonazione. Abbiamo visto che un approccio comunicativo portato un po’ agli estremi era come se ignorasse questi aspetti e andasse comunque rivisto per sviluppare una migliore consapevolezza dell’uso della lingua.9

On account of this perception, the authors of Talk to the world decided to write a separate booklet as an add-on to their student’s book, which would give teachers and students the opportunity to catch up with the “accuracy” dimension of language that communicative teaching seemed to have neglected, and it is no coincidence that their booklet was titled Accuracy (Caravaggi et al., 1991c). One of the co-authors, Mariangela Pozzi (Interview, 6 May 2019), adds that “Chiaramente, Accuracy era inteso come strumento per una sistematizzazione di tutto il lavoro che avevi già fatto in classe, per cui arrivava dopo […]. Forse era questo che piaceva agli insegnanti” [Obviously, Accuracy was conceived as a tool to systematize and rationalize what had already been done in class […] Maybe, this was precisely what teachers liked most].

8. [What has been emerging over the past few years from teachers’ experience in Italian lower secondary schools is the need to value the structural aspect of language within a communicative approach. Systematic work of reflection on language is therefore considered necessary.] 9. [We were invited to give a presentation of our textbook during a workshop on “Fluency vs Accuracy?” The dichotomy between fluency and accuracy doesn’t exist in practical terms. Accuracy doesn’t involve just grammar but also vocabulary, pronunciation and intonation. We saw that an extreme version of a communicative approach somehow ignored these features and needed to be adjusted to develop a better awareness of language use.]

Chapter 8. “Reflection on language”

The authors of Talk to the world proved to be right, as their textbook turned out to be for some time the best-selling ELT textbook for the Italian lower secondary school in the 1990s. Authors of other books also endorsed this line, with the number of pages in later books and new editions being increased for explicit work on language and providing more grammar work, more exercises, more revision and remedial practice. In its new edition published in 1988, Communication tasks advertises 450 written exercises for grammar practice; Keyword (1990) boasts over 1000 exercises and a grammar and vocabulary compendium; Kaleidoscope (1995) supplies exercises for the study of grammar and vocabulary in different sections of the unit and in additional revision sections. Despite general continuing acknowledgement of the potential of communication-based and learner-centred activities, this increase in the offer of language-focused work seems to have responded to Italian second language teachers’ concerns about their neglecting grammar practice (Nava, 2018).

“Reflection on language”: Implementation The second question addressed in the study concerns what methodological options for reflection on language were actually implemented in the selected corpus of Italian EFL textbooks vis-à-vis their authors’ intentions, and to what extent these options provided innovative proposals in the traditionally conservative field of Italian foreign language teaching, or constituted instead a reinstatement of more ”formal” methods of grammar teaching. All the textbooks examined feature one or more sections in which reflection on language is implemented. It is interesting to observe the variety of labels that authors use for these sections, either in Italian or in English, or in both languages: “Riflessione grammaticale” [Reflection on grammar] (New learning to communicate), “Osserva e rifletti” [Observe and Think] (Got the message); “Language work” (Communication tasks); “Language” (Ready, steady, go!); “Discovering the language” (Open roads); “Work on the language” (English plus); “Talk about English”, “Riflessione sulla lingua” [Reflection on language], “Grammar magic”, or ”Use your grammar” (Adventures in English); “Riflessione sulla lingua” [Reflection on language] (Keyword), “Accuracy” (Talk to the world)’ and “Studying grammar” or “Grammar” (Kaleidoscope). Each label directly or indirectly indicates the kind of approach to reflection on language that authors aimed to implement. While terms such as “Observe and think”, “Discovering the language” and “Use your grammar” seem to imply an engaging, discovery-based approach for students, other terms such as “Accuracy” and “Studying grammar” point instead to a more systematic and formal approach. As regards the types of language features explicitly addressed by reflection on language, grammar – particularly morphology and syntax – turns out to be a pri-

149

150

Luciana Pedrazzini

ority; other features, such as language functions, vocabulary and pronunciation are presented in additional boxes or sections in units, but explicit reflection on these features is not always encouraged. Although the guidelines in the new school syllabus advocated reflection on instances of language use “in context”, nearly all textbooks present instead examples with reduced context involving simple drawings (Adventures in English; Keyword; Kaleidoscope), or no context at all (New learning to communicate; Communication tasks; Open roads; English plus; Talk to the world). When context is not provided within the reflection section, students are sometimes asked to turn to a specific text or activity in which a specific language feature is used (Ready, steady, go!). The only exception to this is Got the message?, in which lexical and grammatical features are presented in broad illustrated contexts and analysed in relation to aspects of meaning and use, also through a comparison with the students’ mother tongue. For example, in the “reflection box” in Figure 1, learners are guided to reason about the meaning of the adverbs “very” and “too” used by the two interlocutors (“Does Mr Gibb consider spicy food positive or negative? What about Dave? Which words tell you about their attitudes towards spicy food? Which words would you use in Italian to express these different attitudes towards something or someone?”).

Figure 1. An example of ‘reflection on language’ in context (Got the message?, p. 188)

The analysis also shows in which section(s) of the textbooks reflection on language is implemented. Except for New learning to communicate, which in a relatively traditional manner introduces a grammatical focus before language practice exercises, reflection on language generally follows the stage of ”communicative

Chapter 8. “Reflection on language”

practice”, that is, after the students have used the foreign language in simple and guided communication activities. However, a number of differences were found in the way this option came to be implemented: 1.

In three out of the ten textbooks examined (Got the message; Ready, steady, go!; Adventures in English), reflection on language is enhanced immediately after a communication activity. For example, after being involved in a listening activity and a dialogue in pairs about a specific topic, students are generally asked to turn to a reflection on language section in which they are led to analyse and compare examples of sentences from the preceding activities and observe similarities and differences related to aspects of form, meaning or use. The process of reflection activated at this stage is meant to help students develop some kind of awareness about the specific language feature they have just used and will be asked to use in a following activity; in this sense, reflection on language can be seen as functionally “embedded” in the process of language learning and use. 2. In Talk to the world, reflection on language is introduced, instead, at the end of a sequence of different types of activities (for example, pairwork, reading, listening, songs, vocabulary activities). Students are told, at that point, to turn to the reflection activities provided in a separate booklet (“Accuracy”), where grammatical features are presented through examples, notes and tables followed by a number of written exercises mainly targeting formal aspects. The type of reflection engaged in seems to mainly serve the purpose of “language practice” rather than being supportive to actual “language use”. 3. In the remaining five textbooks analysed, reflection on language tends to be relatively distanced from communicative practice and postponed either to the end of a lesson (Kaleidoscope) or of the whole unit (Communication tasks; Open roads; English plus; Keyword) The process of reflection activated at this later stage makes it more challenging for students to somehow rely on it during actual language use. Moreover, except for Keyword and Kaleidoscope, analysis of language features tends to be engaged in through decontextualized examples and is followed by drill-type exercises mainly focused on morphological and syntactic features, in which students have to complete or rewrite sentences according to a given pattern. It is no coincidence that these sections came to be labelled “Language work” (Communication tasks), or “Work on the language” (English plus). The study also aimed to investigate what techniques are implemented in the textbooks to engage learners in different cognitive processes, that is whether they are guided inductively or deductively, whether contrastive analysis is encouraged, and how metalanguage is used. The main findings will be compared to the authors’ stated intentions below.

151

152

Luciana Pedrazzini

Only three of the textbooks published in the 1980s (Got the message?; Ready, steady, go!; Adventures in English) and one in the 1990s (Keyword) can be said to approach reflection on language by implementing inductive and discovery-based techniques, that is along the lines recommended in the new syllabus. For example, in the extract from Got the message? in Figure 2, students have to order the pieces of a puzzle to build up sentences in the affirmative, interrogative and negative forms of the verb ‘be’. Here, observation and analysis are also enhanced through a comparison with Italian (“How do you form interrogative and negative sentences in Italian?”) and hypothesis-checking is expected to take place with the help of other classmates and the teacher.

Figure 2. Example puzzle activity from Got the message?, p. 2810

In the following, second example (this time, from Keyword, p. 203), of students being led to reflect on syntax through simple questions and problem-solving activities, students are asked to order the words in the sentences paying attention to the position of the adjectives used with nouns:

10. [Each sentence has a specific form, as you will find out by building this ‘puzzle’. Discuss with your teacher and mates: How do you turn an affirmative sentence into a negative one in English? What about in Italian? How do you turn an affirmative sentence into an interrogative one in English? What about in Italian? Which differences do you notice?”]

Chapter 8. “Reflection on language”

Costruisci le frasi, riordina le parole.11 Had hair fair He long . You a weekend have Did ? good idea That’s good ! a In inglese l’aggettivo che accompagna un sostantivo ha posizione fissa. Lo segue o lo precede? (Keyword, Student’s book, p. 203)

It is interesting to note that, in these two textbooks, students are also made to discover aspects related to form-meaning connections, which can be considered key for effective implementation of a communication-based approach. For example, in one of the “Observe and think” boxes in Got the message? (p. 175), students are asked to analyse three short dialogues and figure out which meaning of the modal verb “can” is conveyed in each case (asking for information, asking for permission or making a request). Similarly, in a reflection section in Keyword (p. 203), students have to match sentences with phrasal forms of “get” to illustrated contexts, and find out the different meanings of “get” according to each particle (get up, get back, get on, etc.). In contrast with what is claimed in the teacher’s books, the four other textbooks examined resort to mixed options ranging from familiar deductive techniques to more learner-centred ones: 1.

Kaleidoscope introduces moderately inductive options similar to those described above, but involving less active discovery-based work; for example, students are asked to observe some examples, find regularities (and irregularities) in the forms of a specific feature and complete a grammatical table with the target forms accordingly; a rule is then provided below the table. After this stage, students are asked to do one or two practice exercises which engage them in more deductive than inductive work, however, as students have to show whether they can “apply” the rule presented. 2. the other textbooks (New Learning to communicate; Communication tasks; Talk to the world) tend to combine inductive and deductive procedures, with a higher frequency of the latter. The examples in Figure 3 illustrate how these procedures could be implemented within the same textbook. While, in the first example, students are led to understand inductively how time prepositions are used through the analysis and comparison of different expressions, in the second example, they are not engaged in any type of reflection, but

11. [Build up the sentences, ordering the words provided. […] In English, adjectives have a fixed position when they are used with nouns. Is the adjective before or after the noun?]

153

154

Luciana Pedrazzini

Figure 3. Examples of inductive and deductive procedures for reflection on language (Talk to the world. Accuracy (Caravaggi et al., 1991c), pp. 112, 117)

Chapter 8. “Reflection on language”

simply provided with a rule about the forms of comparatives and asked to apply the rule in an immediately following exercise. The remaining two textbooks examined still implement only traditional deductive options (Open roads; English plus), that is, students are presented with examples and rules and asked to do exercises to apply the rules. Finally, as regards the language and metalanguage used to carry out reflection on language, the analysis shows that, in all the textbooks, the use of Italian is preferred to English, partly, perhaps, on account of students’ elementary level. Although the type of language used to guide learners through the observation and analysis of examples tends to avoid being over-technical, it still requires a knowledge of both general and L2 specific grammar-related metalanguage. For example, students are expected to know the meaning of terms such as “pronoun”, “adverb”, “adjective” and “auxiliary”, but also of “Simple Present”, “Saxon Genitive”, “Present Perfect”, and so on. Moreover, while the first type of terms are provided in Italian, the latter are always in English, making them more difficult to understand for Italian adolescents. While most textbooks tend to provide metalinguistic information using an impersonal and objective style, New learning to communicate and Got the message?, it should be said, opt for a more interactional and informal style by engaging students with direct questions and through reference to their personal experience, as in this example referring to wh-questions in English (New learning to communicate, p. 108): 1.

– –

2. – –

How much does it cost? (It costs) 80 pence. Where does he work? (He works) at the Black Arrow

Negli esempi abbiamo messo tra parentesi la parte della domanda che non viene ripetuta nella risposta. Queste risposte sono le più normali in inglese. Provate in italiano a ripetere sempre una parte della domanda nelle risposte, e vedrete che effetto strano ne deriva.12 As Zagrebelsky (1985, p. 67) points out, a relatively informal register to talk about the language can facilitate the processes required for an effective language analysis and provide opportunities for ”authentic” communication between teacher and students, in addition to other types of communication activities in the classroom.

12. [In these examples, we put the part of the question that is not repeated in brackets. These types of questions are very common in English. Try now in Italian and repeat one part of the question in your answer. You’ll see how strange it sounds.]

155

156

Luciana Pedrazzini

The wide range of options for reflection on language implemented in this sample of Italian ELT textbooks seems to relate to the authors’ attempts to account for the teachers’ need of an explicit focus on language that was felt to be missing in an exclusively communicative approach to second language teaching. The analysis has shown that in spite of “ideally” endorsing the methodological guidelines advocated in the new syllabus for the lower secondary school, which placed language reflection within a new and broader approach to language education, most authors do not seem to fully exploit the learning potential envisaged in this approach and end up implementing mixed options, ranging from moderately inductive to more traditional deductive ones.

Conclusions Compared to the extensive research into the history of French and Spanish teaching and learning materials that has been carried out in Italy (for example, Minerva. 2003; San Vicente et al., 2014), studies of the history of ELT and ELT materials production are still scarce (Nava & Pedrazzini, 2019). This chapter has aimed to explore the recent history of ELT in the Italian context, with a focus on the 1980s and 1990s. At the end of the 1970s, a range of top-down and bottom-up contextual factors, such as a reform of the school syllabus, increased activism by language teachers’ associations, and a unique offer of language teacher-training initiatives provided potentially favourable conditions for innovation in the traditionally conservative Italian foreign language teaching scene. The spread of communicative language teaching gave an additional impetus to this process. In the early 1980s, new Italian ELT textbooks began to incorporate the new communicative teaching principles, including a new perspective on grammar teaching which took account of the new concept of language education (educazione linguistica) advocated in the new school syllabus and supported by research carried out by teachers’ associations. In particular, the chapter has examined how a new approach to reflection on language, or riflessione linguistica, was tackled by the authors of communicative-oriented ELT lower secondary textbooks. In spite of an enthusiastic response to communicative proposals mediated by textbooks (Pedrazzini, 2018), many Italian teachers continued to perceive a need for explicit work on the language. The role of explicit grammar teaching was, indeed, a major unresolved issue, “a pain in the neck, an invisible wall raised between innovative methodologies – or the innovation of methodologies – and the persistent learners’ language incompetence” (Ambel, 1987, p. 10). In her keynote speech at the LEND national conference (1985), Wanda D’Addio suggests two interpretations of this call for grammar, which seem to reflect a prevalent tension between innovation and tradition in the teaching practice of most language teachers of the period: on

Chapter 8. “Reflection on language”

the one hand, this call is motivated by the need to reassess the role of grammatical knowledge as part of language awareness within a more general framework of communicative teaching; on the other hand, instead, it gives voice to a resurgence of the belief that the traditional teaching of “rules” is the panacea for most language learning problems (Giunchi, 1985, pp. 4–5). A similar tension between innovation and tradition seems to emerge from the analysis presented here of the ways the new “reflection on language” approach came to be implemented in the communication-oriented ELT textbooks selected for the study, vis-à-vis their authors’ stated intentions. While, in just three of the ten textbooks examined, reflection on language comes to be integrated with communication practice activities and used flexibly as a monitoring tool to support the development of communicative skills, in the remaining textbooks it is exploited more traditionally for decontextualized language practice. The latter option, though, does not seem to provide learners with the opportunity to relate their reflection on language to actual instances and experiences of use, as advocated by the new school syllabus guidelines. In contrast with the authors’ unanimous public endorsement of inductive approaches to reflection on language, the analysis has shown, instead, that only four textbooks implement techniques that actively engage learners in discovery-based activities of observation, analysis, hypothesis-testing and checking, also through a comparison with the students’ L1. The remaining textbooks still rely on mixed procedures ranging from moderately inductive to mainly deductive exploiting the traditional presentation of rules followed by practice exercises. Moreover, the analysis of the interview data has allowed us to pin down the main decisions taken by the authors of two best-selling textbooks in relation to the design and implementation of their reflection on language sections. While the authors of Got the message? tried their hand at experimenting with new options that would fit not only with communication-oriented principles, but also with a comprehensive and interdisciplinary framework of language education, the authors of Talk to the world sounded more cautious, and, on account of teachers’ increasing call for more systematic grammar teaching activities, decided to play safe and implement options that were familiar to most teachers. Although the more “conservative” options implemented in Talk to the world, and to a different extent in five other textbooks in the corpus, were at first aimed simply at counterbalancing the impact of a radical communicative syllabus, they ended up reinstating a traditional, “more formal” approach to grammar teaching based on deductive learning and decontextualized language practice. The types of options put in place had the effect of recreating a separation between “language reflection” and actual “language use”, which was the opposite of what was expected by the new school syllabus. This seems to be indicative or symptomatic of a wider resistance of Italian publishers to take risks and endorse innovative teaching proposals.

157

158

Luciana Pedrazzini

This study has aimed to provide an example of investigation into language teaching and learning materials from a decentred and localized ELT history perspective (Howatt and Smith, 2014, p. 93; Smith and McLelland, 2018, pp. 2–3). In keeping with an approach to applied linguistic historiography that aims to link the investigation of ideas to context-related language teaching practices (Smith, 2016), the research methodology involved triangulation of different types of primary source: ELT textbooks, official documents, and interview data. In particular, the use of semi-structured interviews provided an additional method to investigate recent history in second language teaching, allowing the reasearcher to pin down interviewees’ interpretation of concepts related to reflection on language and communicative teaching, and understand how these concepts were somehow accommodated within a pre-existent set of beliefs and assumptions about language, second language learning and teaching.

Acknowledgements I am very grateful to Luisella Maroni, Gianfranco Porcelli, Mariangela Pozzi and Maria Cecilia Rizzardi for accepting to be interviewed and for supplying different types of materials. I would also like to thank Edoardo Lugarini for sharing interesting information about the history of the educazione linguistica movement in Italy. Special thanks to Mario Nappo for transcribing the oral interviews. The study is part of an ongoing project launched at the University of Milan aiming at the creation of an archive (as both a physical repository and an online database) of ELT materials published in Italy in the 20th century, as a resource for researchers, academic students and teachers with a view to facilitating interchange between research, teaching and teacher training activities (Nava & Pedrazzini, 2019). Finally, I would like to thank the two reviewers for providing insightful comments on the chapter.

References Primary sources (1): Student’s and teacher’s books Angeletti Meirano, G., Fox, G., & Fugiglando Cumino, M. (1982). Ready, steady, go! Corso di lingua inglese per la scuola media. Paravia. Angeletti Meirano, G., Fox, G., & Fugiglando Cumino, M. (1984). Ready, steady, go! Corso di lingua inglese per la scuola media. Teacher’s book. Paravia. Caravaggi, R., Maroni, L., & Pozzi, M. A. (1991a). Talk to the world. Ghisetti e Corvi Editori. Caravaggi, R., Maroni, L., & Pozzi, M. A. (1991b). Talk to the world. Teacher’s book. Ghisetti e Corvi Editori. Caravaggi, R., Maroni, L., & Pozzi, M. A. (1991c). Talk to the world. Accuracy. Ghisetti e Corvi Editori.

Chapter 8. “Reflection on language”

Di Giuliomaria, S., & Carra, F. (1982). New learning to communicate. La Nuova Italia/ Oxford University Press. Elviri, F., Rizzardi, M. C., & Bertocchi, D. (1982a). Got the message? Principato. Elviri, F., Rizzardi, M. C., & Bertocchi, D. (1982b). Got the message? Teacher’s book. Principato. Freddi, G., Zani, G., Freddi, E. (1984). English plus. Minerva Italica. Iantorno, G., & Papa, M. (1982a). Communication tasks. Zanichelli. Iantorno, G., & Papa, M. (1982b). Communication tasks. Teacher’s book. Zanichelli. Iantorno, G., & Papa, M. (1988). New Communication tasks. Zanichelli. O’Malley, K. (1995). Kaleidoscope. Edizioni Scolastiche Bruno Mondadori. Radley, P., Sharley, A., Massari, A., & Redaelli, A. (1990). Keyword. Edizioni Scolastiche Bruno Mondadori/Heinemann/The British Council. Sodini, S., Flammini, A., & Formilli, R. (1983). Open roads. SEI. Whitney, N., & Dandini, M. G. (1988). Adventures in English. Firenze La Nuova Italia/ Oxford University Press.

Primary sources (2): Others D’Addio Colosimo, W. (Ed.). (1978). I materiali linguistici nella didattica delle lingue. Zanichelli. D’Addio Colosimo, W. (1985). Il perché di un convegno. Lingua e Nuova Didattica, 2, 3–4. Ambel, M. (1987). Corsi e ricorsi (del rinnovamento). Lingua e Nuova Didattica, 1, 2–3. GISCEL [Gruppo di Intervento e Studio nel Campo dell’Educazione Linguistica] (1975). Dieci tesi per l’educazione linguistica democratica. In Ferreri, S. (Ed.), (2014). Dieci tesi per l’educazione linguistica democratica/ Dix thèses pour l’éducation linguistique démocratique/ Ten theses for democratic language education. Editore Sette Città. Retrieved on 20 June 2020 from https://giscel.it/dieci-tesi-per-leducazione-linguistica-democratica/ Bertocchi, D. (1983). La riflessione sulla lingua in L1 e L2: Alcune ipotesi per un curricolo commune nella scuola media. In M. V. Matarese Perazzo (Ed.), Insegnare la lingua. Interdisciplinarità L1–L2 (pp. 71–94). Edizioni Scolastiche Bruno Mondadori. Bertocchi, D., Brasca, F., Elviri, F., Lugarini, E., & Rizzardi, M. C. (1981). Educazione linguistica e curricolo. Edizione Scolastiche Bruno Mondadori. Bertoni Del Guercio, G. (1979). Lingua straniera. In T. De Mauro & L. Lombardo Radice (Eds.), I nuovi programmi della media inferiore (pp. 154–162). Editori Riuniti. Colombo, A. (1982). La riflessione grammaticale: Riflessioni di un conservatore. In M. Ambel (Ed.), Insegnare la lingua. Quale grammatica? (pp. 12–70). Edizioni scolastiche Bruno Mondadori. Ciliberti, A. (Ed.) (1980). Glottodidattica e discipline linguistiche: Prospettive attuali. Zanichelli. Ek, J. A. van. (1975/1980). The threshold level in a European unit/credit system for modern language earning by adults. The Council of Europe. Republished as Threshold level English, with L. G. Alexander. Pergamon Press. Ek, J. A. van. (1985/86). Objectives for foreign language learning, Vol. I: Scope, Vol. II: Levels. Council of Europe. Ek, J. A. van, & Trim, J. L. M. (1991). Threshold level 1990. Cambridge University Press.

159

160

Luciana Pedrazzini

Freddi, G. (1979). Didattica delle lingue moderne. Minerva Italica. Giunchi, P. (1985). Grammatica e insegnamento comunicativo. Lingua e Nuova Didattica, 14(4), 3–13. Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione. (1979). Programmi, orari di insegnamento e prove d’esame per la scuola per la media statale. Decreto Ministeriale 9 febbraio 1979. Gazzetta Ufficiale, 50, 3–23. Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione (1963). Orari e programmi di insegnamento della scuola media statale. Decreto Ministeriale 24 aprile 1963. Gazzetta Ufficiale, 11 maggio 1963, 124, 2–10. Porcelli, G. (1994). Principi di glottodidattica. Editrice La Scuola. Pozzo, G. (1989). Fluency or accuracy. Lingua e Nuova Didattica, 2, 12–14. Prat Zagrebelsky, M. T. (1983). Il ruolo della grammatica in lingua materna e in lingua straniera: Principi per una collaborazione interdisciplinare nella scuola media inferiore. In M. V. Matarese Perazzo (Ed.), Insegnare la lingua. Interdisciplinarità L1–L2 (pp. 62–70). Edizioni Scolastiche Bruno Mondadori. Prat Zagrebelsky, M. T. (1985). Grammatica e lingua straniera. La Nuova Italia. Sabatini, F. (1984). Usi reali della lingua e studio della grammatica. Per un’educazione linguistica non riduttiva. In CIDI-LEND, L’educazione linguistica dalla scuola di base al biennio della superiore (pp. 82–87). Edizioni Scolastiche Bruno Mondadori. Sanzo, R. (Ed.). (1981). Progetto speciale lingue straniere. Pacini Fazzi. Sanzo, R. (Ed.). (1988). Progetto speciale lingue straniere. Le Monnier.

Secondary sources Balboni, P. E. (2009). Storia dell’educazione linguistica in Italia. Dalla legge Casati alla riforma Gelmini. UTET Università. Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. Continuum. De Luca, C. (1980). I commenti ai nuovi programmi di educazione linguistica nelle Scuole medie. Lingua e Nuova Didattica, 2, 28–34. Giunchi, P. (Ed.). (1990). Grammatica esplicita e grammatica implicita. Zanichelli. Howatt, A. P. R., & Smith, R. (2014). The history of teaching English as a foreign language, from a British and European perspective. Language & History, 57(1), 75–95. https://doi.org/10.1179/1759753614Z.00000000028

Minerva, N. (Ed.). (2003). Insegnare il francese in Italia. Repertorio di manuali pubblicati dal 1861 al 1922. CLUEB. Nava, A. (2018). A return to grammar amid the communicative ‘revolution’. Italian pedagogical grammar books for EFL students (1980–2000). In N. McLelland & R. Smith (Eds.), The history of language learning and teaching, Vol. 2 (19th–20th century Europe) (pp. 246–259). Legenda. Nava, A., & Pedrazzini, L. (2019). ITALY ELT Archive. A historical archive of materials for English language teaching in Italy. Quaderno CIRSIL 12: 291–314. Pedrazzini, L. (2018). The spread of communicative language teaching: ELT in Italy in the 1980s and 1990s. In N. McLelland & R. Smith (Eds.), The history of language learning and teaching, Vol. 2 (19th–20th century Europe) (pp. 231–245). Legenda. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv16km1gp.19

Chapter 8. “Reflection on language”

Rixon, S., & Smith, R. (2012). The work of Brian Abbs and Ingrid Freebairn. ELT Journal, 66(3), 383–393. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccs022 San Vicente, F., Pérez Vázquez, M. V., & De Hériz, A. L. (Eds). (2014). Perfiles para la historia y crítica de la gramática del español en Italia: siglos XIX y XX Confluencia y cruces de tradiciones gramaticográficas. Bononia University Press. Smith, R. (2016). Building “Applied Linguistic Historiography”: Rationale, scope, and methods. Applied Linguistics, 37(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv056 Smith, R., & McLelland, N. (2018). Histories of language learning and teaching in Europe, The Language Learning Journal, 46(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2017.1382051 Woods, D. (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching: Beliefs, decision-making and classroom practice. Cambridge University Press.

161

part iv

Adaptation in specific contexts

chapter 9

Describing and learning the Chinese languages Innovation in Western language pedagogical tools of the late Ming and late Qing periods Mariarosaria Gianninoto

Paul Valéry University, Montpellier

The first works on Chinese languages destined for Western learners were compiled at the end of the 16th century, but it was not until the 19th century that such works were compiled in significant numbers. In these works, Western categories and paradigms were largely adopted and adapted. However, elements from Chinese linguistic and didactic traditions were also integrated, and innovative devices were developed to face the epistemological challenge of analysing and describing distant languages. This chapter analyses the linguistic descriptions contained in the pedagogical tools compiled in the late Ming and Qing periods, focusing on the innovations promoted by the contacts between different linguistic and didactic traditions and underlining their impact on the history of Chinese (applied) linguistics and language learning.

Introduction: Westerners learning Chinese1 in the late Ming and Qing periods The earliest existing pedagogical works on the Chinese languages destined to European learners can be traced back to the end of the Ming (1368–1644) and the beginning of the Qing (1644–1911) period, when Catholic missionaries established their missions in South-East Asia and Southern China (Brockey, 2007; Klöter, 2011). One of the challenges the missionaries had to face was the language barrier. The knowledge of local languages was essential for their daily needs but also for their 1. The term “Chinese” designates a macro-language: beside standard languages – ‘literary Chinese’ (wényán 文言, written standard), and Mandarin (guānhuà 官話, the “informal lingua franca” of Chinese literati and officials; see Ramsey, 1987, p. 4) – different local varieties of Chinese were described in Western works written between the 16th and 19th centuries. https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.20.09gia © 2023 John Benjamins Publishing Company

Chapter 9. Describing and learning the Chinese languages

missionary activities. In this first period, missionary language training was essentially based on Chinese pedagogical tools. The newly arrived missionaries adopted native monolingual primers, used to teach lexicon and characters to Chinese children. Hence, the Jesuit educational curriculum (Ratio studiorum) for the China mission, written in 1624 and modified in subsequent decades (Brockey, 2007, p. 268), partly followed Chinese pedagogical tradition, with a first period devoted to vocabulary and character learning, before learners started studying the texts of the Confucian canon (Brockey, 2007, pp. 263–264). The adoption of native methods of language learning was coherent with the Jesuits’ “cultural accommodation” approach2 and was “inseparable from the fascination for Chinese culture” which they evidenced (Klöter, 2011, pp. 36). However, even though newly-arrived missionaries relied on native language learning tools, they adapted these approaches to the needs of Western learners and compiled several works (dictionaries, grammars and primers) inspired by Western linguistic tradition, or merging elements from the two traditions. In particular, in compiling these works, they introduced Romanization systems to note down word pronunciation. Furthermore, they contributed greatly to the development of Chinese grammar studies, being the authors of the first grammars of Chinese. Grammar studies had previously been marginal in the impressive tradition of Chinese philology, focused on grammatology, lexicography and historical phonology (Peyraube, 2001; Hú, 1987). Grammatical studies developed relatively late in the history of Chinese language studies and their development was strongly influenced by the contacts with Western linguistic tradition (Wáng, 1996, p. 202; Chappell & Peyraube, 2014). Hence, the elaboration of Romanization systems and the development of grammar studies can be considered as important innovations tied to the interactions between Chinese and Western linguistic traditions and destined to exert a strong impact on the history of Chinese linguistics and language learning. The 17th century thus laid the foundations for missionary sinology. However, the most significant developments in Chinese as a foreign language learning occurred in the 19th century, accompanying a diversification of learners’ profiles. This period saw an increase in contacts (but also in conflicts) between Western countries and China. After the first Opium War (1836–42), Treaty ports open to foreign residents were established according to the clauses of the Treaty of Nanjing (1842). This resulted in a growing presence of foreigners eager to learn Chinese. Diplomats, officials and military staff from Western countries settled in China and needed to learn local languages for their daily life but also for their professional activities. 2. Indicating the adoption of cultural references and etiquette of the Confucian elite of literati and officials (Standaert, 1999, p. 352).

165

166

Mariarosaria Gianninoto

The economic and geopolitical interests of various Western countries in relation to China promoted the development of courses in Chinese in different European countries, including France, United Kingdom and Germany (Rabut, 1995; McLelland, 2015). Moreover, this period is characterized by the development of secular sinological studies. The works which appeared in the 19th century were not only compiled by missionaries, but also by scholars, diplomats and officials (Chappell & Peyraube, 2014). Nevertheless, the contribution of China-based missionaries was still important. In particular, the role of Protestant missionaries, who arrived in China in the early 19th century, was relevant in the second half of the century (Latourette, 1970), particularly in relation to the description of Chinese varieties (Branner, 1997). The present chapter focuses on two specific aspects of linguistic description and language learning in the 19th century: pronunciation and grammar. The Chinese sound system (in particular the tones) represented and still represents a challenge for Western learners, whose native tongues are non-tonal languages (McLelland, 2015, p. 131; Klöter, 2017, p. 414). Furthermore, because of the non-alphabetic nature of the Chinese script, specific innovative devices were elaborated for noting down and learning Chinese pronunciation. Moreover, in describing morphology and syntax, Western missionaries and scholars had to face the challenge of writing the first systematic grammatical descriptions of Chinese. For centuries, reflections about grammar in China had been limited to glosses or to dictionary entries on grammatical particles (Harbsmeier, 1998, p. 86; Peyraube, 2001). The first grammars of the Chinese languages were thus written by Western missionaries during the 17th century. Describing Chinese grammar represented a challenge for Westerners because of the presence of several undescribed categories and unfamiliar features, such as classifiers, disposal construction or verbal reduplication (Klöter, 2017, pp. 413–414; Chappell & Peyraube, 2014). Hence, the descriptions of the Chinese sound system and morpho-syntax are important examples of the challenges3 facing learners and of associated innovations in Chinese applied linguistics between the late Ming and the Qing periods. In the present chapter, these aspects are analysed in a corpus of works by Western missionaries and scholars belonging to two periods: the period between the late 16th and early 17th century, which laid the foundations for missionary sinology, and the late 19th century, characterized by a considerable development of Western sinological studies. The introduction of linguistic theories, the identification and description of linguistic categories and the development of pedagogi3. Chinese script also represented and still represents a considerable challenge for learners (Klöter 2017). However, the rich history of character teaching and learning deserves a specific analysis and cannot be analysed in the framework of the present paper.

Chapter 9. Describing and learning the Chinese languages

cal devices are analysed in parallel, to show that there was a strong interrelation between the history of theoretical linguistics and the history of applied linguistics, and between linguistic ideas and “language-related practices” (Smith, 2016, p. 77).

Learning Chinese pronunciation The European missionaries who began to settle in China at the end of the 16th century needed to quickly acquire the local languages for daily life and proselyting activities. Because of the non-alphabetic nature of the Chinese script, noting down the sounds of Chinese words and transcribing Chinese script in Latin letters were among the first challenges that Westerners missionaries had to face when they began to learn the Chinese languages. The missionaries used the Latin alphabet to record Chinese words and expressions and to visualize their pronunciation (Raini, 2010, p. 1), thus elaborating the first Romanization systems for the Chinese languages (Steffen Chung, 2016, p. 756). The development of Romanization systems represented a crucial innovation, destined to have a huge impact in the history of Chinese linguistics and didactics (Luó, 1930; Hú, 1987, p. 5). The earliest Romanization systems for the Chinese characters were elaborated in the late 16th century by Catholic missionaries (Luó, 1930; Raini, 2010). The first well-documented Romanization system can be found in the Portuguese–Chinese dictionary4 (c. 1584, see Raini 2010, p. 3) by the Italian Jesuits Michele Ruggieri (1543–1607) and Matteo Ricci (1552–1610). This is “the earliest known effort at representing spoken Mandarin Chinese in Latin letters” (Steffen Chung, 2016, p. 758). Brockey (2007, p. 247) also underlines that “this lexicon represents the Jesuits’ first systematic attempt to make the Chinese language a common resource for the mission with the provision of a European-style teaching tool for recruits as well as veteran priests”. The Romanization system used in this dictionary is known as the RuggieriRicci System or Ricci Early System – RES (Raini, 2010, p. 62) and is essentially based on Italian and Portuguese spellings (Steffen Chung, 2016, p. 758). This Romanization system does not provide indications concerning the tones. For instance: obrar [to work] zu cum [i.e. zuò gōng] 做工 (Ruggieri & Ricci 1584 [Witék (Ed.), 2001]: p. 123 f.)

4. This manuscript was discovered by the Jesuit Pasquale D’Elia in the Roman Archives of the Society of Jesus in 1934. D’Elia called it Dizionario Portoghese-Cinese [Portuguese-Chinese dictionary] and ascribed its authorship to Ricci and Ruggieri, even though Ruggieri should be probably considered as the main author. See Yang (2001, p. 180).

167

168

Mariarosaria Gianninoto

The identification of the tones was probably due to the Jesuit Lazzaro Cattaneo (1560–1640), whose musical education was important for their identification (Brockey 2007, p. 250). The introduction of diacritic marks for the tones was an important innovation, extremely useful for helping Western missionaries memorize the tones and the pronunciation of Chinese words.5 The first Romanization providing tone marks can be found in Ricci’s (1605) Xī zì qíjī 西字奇跡 [The wonder of Western writing] (Ricci, Zhū ed. [1605] 2001), a small volume containing explanations for biblical illustrations in both Chinese characters and Romanization (the Latinized spelling being added to the right of each character; see Steffen Chung, 2016, p. 759). Besides tones, this Romanization also indicated the aspiration of initial stops with “a reversed apostrophe, borrowed from classical Greek” (Steffen Chung, 2016, p. 759). This form of Romanization is known as the Ricci Late System (Raini 2010), or Ricci–Ruggieri–Cattaneo system (Steffen Chung, 2016, p. 759; for more detailed description of this Romanization system, see Raini 2010). This system was refined by the Flemish Jesuit priest Nicolas Trigault (1577–1628), “mainly by reducing the number of symbols used” (Steffen Chung, 2016, p. 759). Trigault’s (1626) Xīrú ěrmù zī 西儒耳目資 [An aid to the ears and the eyes of Western literati] (Trigault, 1626) was compiled with the collaboration of the Chinese scholars Hán Yún 韓雲 and Wáng Zhēng 王徴. It can be considered a remarkable result of the Jesuits’ accommodation approach, being entirely written in Chinese, and integrating “various Chinese lexicographical traditions and phonological distinctions” (Klöter, 2011, p. 36). This dictionary followed the arrangement of Chinese traditional rhyme books (yùnshū 韻書),6 but also provided Romanization for the entries (Steffen Chung, 2016, p. 759). Trigault’s dictionary was well received by Jesuit missionaries, as shown by the number of times it was reprinted (Brockey, 2007, p. 261). It also drew the attention of Chinese literati (Casacchia & Gianninoto, 2012, pp. 309–313). Other important Romanization systems were the work of Protestant missionaries, whose activities in 19th century China were intensive (Branner, 1997). According to Steffen Chung (2016, p. 760), the main contributions in the field of Romanization were by the British missionary Robert Morrison (1782–1834) and the American missionary Samuel Wells Williams (1812–84). They both relied on 5. The tones are not marked in Chinese script, even though diacritic marks for noting them did exist in the Chinese linguistic tradition. Steffen Chung (2016, p. 757) mentions the sìshēng quāndiǎn 四聲圈點 “Four Tone Circle Marking” method, where the four tones were “indicated by a circle, semicircle, or other mark written in one of the four corners of a Chinese character”. 6. In the Chinese phonological tradition, the syllable is divided into an initial (corresponding to the initial consonant) and a final or coda (formed by the vowel, plus, on occasion, intercalary vowel and consonantal endings). In Chinese traditional rhyme books, the entries were arranged by tones and then by finals, each final combining with an initial. The initials and finals are still used in Chinese as a foreign language pedagogy (Wu, 2016, p. 137).

Chapter 9. Describing and learning the Chinese languages

the works of Catholic missionaries, “but as native speakers of English, they Anglicized it considerably” (Steffen Chung, 2016, p. 760). The language described represented another considerable difference. The Catholic missionaries focused on Nanjing-based Mandarin, which represented the 17th century standard, while the Protestant missionaries focused on Beijingbased Mandarin, spoken in the new capital and representing the 19th century standard. Furthermore, Protestant missionaries made systematic descriptions of Chinese varieties and provided Romanizations for vernaculars (Branner, 1997). Morrison’s A vocabulary of the Canton dialect (1828) can be considered “one of [the] earliest attempts to offer transcription for Cantonese words in Roman letters” (Cheng & Tang, 2016, p. 37). In his A syllabic dictionary of the Chinese language (1874), Williams tried to set up a Romanization system “convertible into China’s many local dialects” (Steffen Chung, 2016, p. 763). In collaboration with the American missionary Elijah Coleman Bridgman (1801–1861), Williams tried to develop “a single set of tone marks that could be used in the transcription of any Chinese dialect” (Branner, 1997, p. 251). To this end, they adapted the Chinese system of corner tone marks, basing their marks “on the handwritten circles, arcs, and other marks used by Chinese teachers to indicate tonally variant readings of a single character”, thus providing “a fine example of a distinctively Western transformation of a Chinese concept” (Branner, 1997, p. 251), with a Romanization system merging Chinese and Western elements. Aside from these missionary efforts, the 19th century saw the elaboration of Romanization systems by Western secular scholars. In particular, the Wade–Giles system deserves mention, since it was to become the dominant Romanization system for more than a century. This was developed by the diplomats and scholars Thomas Fr. Wade (1818–1895) and Herbert A. Giles (1845–1935). Wade, who served for 40 years in the British foreign service in China before becoming the first Professor of Chinese at the University of Cambridge, elaborated the first version of this Romanization system in 1859. This Romanization system can be found in the section Peking Syllabary, being a collection of the characters representing the dialect of Peking; arranged after a new orthography in syllabic classes, according to the four tones, which accompanied the The hsin ching lu [Xúnjīnlù 尋津錄] or Book of experiments, published in Hong Kong (Wade, 1859)). Its diffusion was tied to its inclusion in the popular language textbook Yü yen tzu êrh chi [Yǔyán zì’ěrjí 語言 自邇集] (Wade & Hiller, 1886; 1st ed. 1867). Wade’s system was similar to Williams’ Romanization, with the exception that the four tones were not indicated by semicircles (as in Williams’ system), but with superscript numbers.7 Aspirated initial stops and affricates were indicated by a 7. See Steffen Chung (2016, p. 765) for a detailed description of Wade’s Romanization system. Examples can be found in the quotations from the Yü yen tzu êrh chi further below.

169

170

Mariarosaria Gianninoto

reversed apostrophe (Steffen Chung, 2016, p. 765). Wade’s Romanization system was slightly modified by Giles, who also served in the British foreign service before succeeding Wade as Professor of Chinese at Cambridge. His A Chinese–English dictionary (Giles, 1892) largely “contributed to the popularization of the system” (Wippermann, 2017, p. 432). This Romanization knew considerable success and became “the undisputed standard for Romanization of Chinese in English-language writing until the 1970s” (Steffen Chung, 2016, p. 768), when it was replaced by the Hànyŭ pīnyīn, that is the official transcription system adopted in the People’s Republic of China as it began opening up to the rest of the world, largely as an input method for Chinese word processing and in Chinese as a foreign language teaching (Chen 2016, pp. 248–249). These different Romanization systems have, for centuries, fulfilled (and still fulfill: see Chen, 2016) an important function in Chinese language learning. Their elaboration is thus to be considered a crucial innovation introduced to face the challenge of learning distant and non-alphabetic languages which has exerted a durable influence on the history of Chinese as a foreign language learning. Besides creating transcription systems, early missionary works tried to explain the features of Chinese phonology, focusing on the phonological features that do not exist in European languages and constitute challenges for the Western learners. Among them was the Arte de la lengua chio chiu (1620), the earliest grammar of a Chinese language today available, which was composed in Manila and describes the language of the Chinese community settled there, a Southern Min variety. In the Arte we read that the “the major difficulty of the Chinese language is to know how to pronounce it” (Klöter trans. and ed., 2011, p. 177). In the section devoted to the “Mode of pronouncing this language according to Chinese vocabularies”, we find detailed descriptions of tone features for the benefit of Western learners. Some descriptions are characterized by colourful metaphoric expressions, in order to make tone features clearer for the intended learners. For instance, “la quarta diferençia es quando se pronunçia con un ainco que pareçe salir del cora[con] [“The fourth difference is pronounced with eagerness which seems to come from the heart”] (Klöter, ed. and trans., 2011, pp. 180–181). This section ends with suggestions on the ways of acquiring and practising tones (and more generally on how to improve oral language competence): Todas la diferençias dichas sentenderan claramente açiendo a un chino pronunçiar los exenplos puestos y los que se seguin. Para quel que comiença[n] sea perfecta lengua procure desde al principio aprender con perfection estas tonadas y luego le dé un sanglei [term designating the Chinese in the Philippines] el exerçiçio aunque la pratica [se la ensene] el padre ministro en el bocabulario se pondran todas las tonadas para aprender desde el principio con perfection. […] All these differences will be understood clearly when these and the following examples are pronounced by a Chinese. In order that the beginner will learn the

Chapter 9. Describing and learning the Chinese languages

language with perfection he should try from the beginning to learn these tones perfectly. Then he should be given a Sangley for exercise, although a Father Minister will teach the practice. In order to learn with perfection from the beginning, all tones are indicated in the vocabulary. (Anonymous, 1620; ed. and trans. Klöter, 2011, pp. 186–187)

Similarly, detailed descriptions of phonemes and tones are included in an early grammar of (Nanjing-based) Mandarin Chinese, the Arte de la lengua mandarina. This grammar was written by the Dominican missionary Francisco Varo (1627–1687), and completed and printed by the Dominican Pedro de la Piñuela (1650–1704) in 1703. The Dominicans “shifted their focus of language learning from Hokkien to Mandarin” after their arrival in Southern China at the beginning of the seventeenth century (Klöter, 2011, p. 41). In the description of the first tone, we find references to the phonological categories of traditional Chinese philology and comparisons with Spanish: La primera se pronunçia prolongando la voz igualmente, sin levantar, ni baxar cosa alguna, como quando à una persona le deule algo, y que xandose diçe ai, quelo dize igual […] à esta tonada llama el Chino pî‘ng çhīng, vox llana, clara y limpia.llaman le tambien xáng pî‘ng. The first is pronounced by prolonging the voice evenly, without raising or lowering anything, as when a person is in pain, and slightingly says, ai [“Alas!”]. Let it be said in the same manner as that. […] The Chinese call this tone p’îng çhīng 平 清 [sic] “even, clear, and clean voice”. They also call it xáng p’îng 上平. (Varo, 1703, ed. and trans. Coblin & Levi, 2000, p. 9 & p. 33)

Varo not only described the tones but also provided detailed indications on the pronunciation of phonemes and syllables, focusing on those that are challenging for Westerners. For instance, we read that: De à qui es, que los terminos que acabanen o, y se apuntan. con el puntillo dicho, se pronuncia la o casi como u […] para acertar el termino se ha de respirar intentando deçir, ò, y se ande frunçir los labios, con que resultara un mixto impercetible de o, revertita de u. In words which end in o, and are written with the above-mentioned dot, the o is pronounced almost like a u. […] Therefore in order to correctly pronounce the words, one must breathe while trying to say ȯ, and at the same time close the lips. This result would be an imperceptible mixture of o dressed up like u. (Varo, 1703; ed. and trans. Coblin & Levi, 2000, p. 15 & p. 45)

The Yü yen tzu êrh chi by Thomas Fr. Wade “was certainly the most often-used text by beginners of Chinese at the time” (Steffen Chung, 2016, p. 765). It was a

171

172

Mariarosaria Gianninoto

reference textbook for English-speaking learners, reedited three times8 until 1903 (McLelland, 2015). It was also used in France, as shown by the course programs of the École des langues orientales vivantes (Pino & Rabut, 1995, p. 324) and “adapted for use in Japan” (Steffen Chung, 2016, p. 765). In the introduction to “The tone exercises”, we read that: Tone is to Chinese monosyllable pretty much what quantity is to the individual syllable in Latin […] rhythmically, in long combinations […] and in particular in attributive and adverbial constructions, there is a modulation of the voice that is not to be defined by the Tone Scale, and which nothing but practice can teach; just as rules of prosody will carry us only a certain length in Latin. (Wade & Hillier, 1886, p. 421)

The importance of context in tone design is stressed and the authors recommend learning to pronounce words and phrases rather than isolated tones. Changes of individual tones according to the context are then shown in the exercises, where we find the same syllable in a set of words and phrases, provided in Chinese characters, with Romanization plus English translation: 不 pu,

我不 wo3 pu1

不是 pu2 shih4

補缺 pu3 ch’üeh1 不可 pu4 k’o3

not, no I say no Not to be so; not to be right; hence, a fault To fill a vacancy It is not admissible; [I, you, he] ought not

(Wade & Hillier, 1886, p. 461)

The descriptions of the Chinese sound system provided in Western grammars and primers merged references to the categories of Chinese phonology with comparisons with Western languages. This interplay of Western and Chinese elements can be found, for example, in the program presented by the French sinologist Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat for the first Chair of Chinese in Europe, the Chair of Chinese and Tartar-Manchu Languages and Literatures established at the Collège royal (today Collège de France) in 1814. In the part of the program devoted to Chinese phonology (Abel-Rémusat 1815), we read that this course included: “Sons initiaux ou consonnes – Sons finaux ou voyelles – Quatre tons – Changémens de ton – Méthode chinoise pour les indiquer – Méthode européenne” [Initial sounds or con-

8. In this chapter, the second edition of the the Yü yen tzu êrh chi, published in 1886, is quoted. This edition, as well as the third (abridged) edition (published in 1903), were prepared by Wade in collaboration with the British diplomat and sinologist Walter Caine Hiller (1849–1927).

Chapter 9. Describing and learning the Chinese languages

sonants – Final sounds or vowels – Four tones – Tone changes – Chinese method of indicating tones – European method]. In this program, Abel-Rémusat merged the Western ways of analysing the syllables (identifying consonants and vowels) and the Chinese approach, making reference to the Chinese categories of initials and finals.

Describing and learning Chinese grammar China has one of the oldest and richest traditions of philological studies, most notably in the fields of lexicography, exegesis, and phonology (Hú, 1987, p. 6), connected with the constitution of the Confucian canon and with the imperial examination system. However, unlike in the Western tradition, grammar textbooks and treatises appeared late in the history of Chinese linguistics. Grammatical studies in imperial China traditionally took “the form of explanatory glosses on grammatical particles and […] dictionaries of grammatical particles” (Harbsmeier, 1998, p. 86; see also Hú, 1987, pp. 324–331). The development of grammar studies was thus an important innovation of linguistic studies of the late Ming and Qing periods, destined to influence the history of Chinese linguistics and didactics (Wáng, 1996; Zhāng, 2009). Western missionaries and scholars played a crucial role in this field, compiling several grammars of the Chinese languages (see for instance Peyraube 2001; Klöter 2011; Lǐ 2011; Paternicò 2013; Chappell & Peyraube 2014). The authors generally adopted the linguistic as well as the pedagogical approaches that they were used to, adapting Western theoretical frameworks and linguistic categories to Chinese. Part of the categories used in missionary linguistic descriptions continue to be used in contemporary Chinese linguistics and didactics. For instance, the parts of speech, adapted to the description of Chinese languages in early missionary grammars from the late Ming period onwards (Gianninoto, 2014), are still used in Chinese language description (Cheung, 2016). Moreover, in their attempts to give an account of the specific features of Chinese, several works also singled out and described features foreign to the IndoEuropean languages, integrating elements from the native linguistic tradition (such as the categories of empty and full words, and living and dead words, see Gianninoto, 2014) or creating new categories (Klöter, 2011, pp. 110–111; Chappell & Peyraube, 2014). The identification of these “unknown” features represented a challenge for missionary linguistics, and attempts to describe them resulted in innovations in the set of linguistic categories inherited from Western linguistic tradition.

173

174

Mariarosaria Gianninoto

This was the case, for example, for the classifiers, words “syntactically required by certain languages in the operation of quantifying nouns” (Chappell & Peyraube, 2014, p. 122). In Chinese, they are used in a pre-nominal position, between a numeral or demonstrative and the head noun. This is “a grammatical category which is not to be found in any Greco-Latin grammatical model, and certainly not in any grammatical descriptions written prior to the late sixteenth or early seventeenth century” (Chappell & Peyraube, 2014, p. 122). The treatment of this previously unknown grammatical category “historically represented one of the main focuses of the analyses carried out by missionaries and scholars in grammars and teaching materials compiled for studying Chinese” (Tola, 2020, p. 156). In the earliest existing grammars of Chinese languages, we find specific sections devoted to the description of classifiers. In the Arte de la lengua chio chiu, the appendix dedicated to the classifiers opens with a brief introduction on the way of using them: en esta lengua fuera de los numerales comunes ay otros numerales proprios para contar cosas particulares estos se ponen entre el numeral comun y el nombre […] In this language there are, apart from common numerals, other proper numerals for counting particular things. These are placed between the common numeral and the noun. (Anonymous, 1620; ed. and trans. Klöter, 2011, pp. 290–291)

The first “numeral” quoted is bue2 尾, described as the classifier for “things with a tail” (“para cossas q[ue] tiene cola”), followed by illustrative examples like si4 bue2 cua5 四尾蛇 “four snakes” (Klöter, 2011, pp. 290–291). The classifiers are thus “appropriately linked with the notion of counting” (Chappell & Peyraube, 2014, p. 131) and “the compiler shows some understanding of the fact that the use of the same classifier for different nouns can be explained with a feature shared by the nouns” (Klöter, 2011, p. 105). These points are also stressed in the Grammatica sinica by the Italian Jesuit Martino Martini (1614–1661). Compiled around 1652, this can be considered the first descriptive grammar of Nanjing-based Mandarin (Paternicò, 2013). In Martini’s grammar, the classifiers are described as follows (quoted from Paternicò’s critical edition): De Numeris eorumque particulis quas numericas vocabo Particulas numericas in lingua Sinica multas et obuias habebis, earumq(ue) fraequens est usus, ac plane soli linguae Sinicae particulis: cum enim unam rem, duas, auteres, vel plures dicere vis, barbarè ac plane inconcinne uni rei, alteri propriam particulam adhiberes […] Jě. chām […] dicitur de papyro, mensa, sedili: jě. chām chì, unum folium papyri, jě. chām chŏ, una mensa. About the Numbers and their particles which I call numerical. In the Chinese language you will find many numerical particles, whose usage is frequent, and which are a peculiarity of Chinese language. If barbarously and

Chapter 9. Describing and learning the Chinese languages

clumsily you were to say one thing, two, other or many, you should interpose in between an appropriate particle […] Jě. chām is said of paper, table, chair, jě. chām chì, one paper sheet, jě. chām chŏ, one table. (Martini 1652; ed. and trans. Paternicò, 2013, pp. 185–187; pp. 202–203)

Later bilingual primers described this category with grammatical explanations, examples and sometimes exercises. For instance, we can quote the primer A course of Mandarin lessons based on idiom by the American Presbyterian missionary Calvin W. Mateer (1836–1908), first published in Shanghai in 1892. This primer belongs to the rich production of language learning materials elaborated by China-based Protestant missionaries during the 19th century. It can be considered a representative example of language textbooks built on grammatical progression (each unit focuses on a grammar point). The first unit of this language textbook is devoted to the presentation of the classifiers, showing the importance of this category in grammatical description and language teaching. In particular, this first unit presents the most common classifier, ge 個:9 There is in Chinese a large class of words joined with substantives as classifiers, there being some sort of affinity, real or imaginary, on which the classification is based. […] We have in the case of a few nouns in English a somewhat similar usage: thus, we say a flock of sheep, a pane of glass, a loaf of bread, a piece of work, two stalks of corn, etc. When these classifiers happen to correspond to similar forms in English, they may be translated, in all other cases they are untranslatable. […] The present lesson is limited to 個, which may be called the general classifier. It is applied to such nouns as have no special classifier, and may, upon occasion, be applied to almost any noun, as a substitute for the special classifier. (Mateer, [1892]1906, p. 2)

In this first unit, Mateer provides a grammatical explanation on the category of classifiers, comparing their function with some English words (like “flock”, “bread”, “loaf ”), but also specifying that in most of the cases the classifiers do not have corresponding forms in English. Mateer also stresses that the choice of the correct classifiers is challenging for learners and considers usage as the best guide for identifying the appropriate form.10 9. Cheung (2016, p. 272) describes it as follows: “The most versatile sortal classifier is ge 个, which can be used to classify a wide range of nouns, including nouns denoting humans […], inanimate objects […] and abstract concepts […]. In the literature, ge 个 has been viewed as a ‘general classifier’ (also referred to as a ‘neutral classifier’), since it can be used with a wide range of nouns of different semantic properties.” 10. This point is still challenging for foreign learners, as stressed by Orton (2016, p. 112): “Although a generally new class of word for learners, measure words and classifiers are not difficult to understand, but finding and remembering the correct one for each noun is a chore”.

175

176

Mariarosaria Gianninoto

In the second volume of Wade’s Yü yen tzu êrh chi, we also find a short description of the classifiers (called “numeratives” by the author). In this unit, the grammatical explanation is followed by exercises (learners are asked to translate sentences by using classifiers). This can be regarded as a prototypical example of the kind of treatment adopted in the 19th-century manuals, providing detailed explanations, illustrative examples and, in some cases, also pedagogical exercises. Turn the following into Chinese (Key, Exercise I) […] 6. There are a good many horses. How many oxen are there? There are fifty-six oxen and horses. […] 8. More than ten persons are coming. […] A hundred odd persons are coming. A single individual. (Wade & Hillier, 1886, p. 7)

These examples show, on the one hand, the integration of unfamiliar categories in linguistic description and language pedagogy (in this case, the classifiers). At the same time, these examples also bear witness to the importance given to grammatical description in Chinese as a foreign language learning from the late Ming period onwards, representing an innovation in relation to the Chinese linguistic and pedagogical tradition, where grammar studies were marginal. It is important to stress that grammatical description is central in modern teaching of Chinese. For instance, Klöter (2017, p. 414) claims that “in Chinese language teaching, to different degrees, ‘grammar explanation’ continues to be one of the core components of lessons and textbooks”. The category of classifiers, identified and described in the earliest Western grammars of Chinese languages, has been and is still widely referred to in Chinese linguistics as well as in Chinese language teaching (Cheung, 2016).

Concluding remarks The late Ming and the Qing periods are of fundamental importance in the history of Chinese language learning by Westerners. Missionaries, diplomats, civil servants and academics were confronted by the challenge of describing and learning distant languages. A rich production of linguistic and pedagogical works was developed to face this challenge. These works, which stand at the crossroads of Chinese and Western linguistic traditions, mixing categories, theories and approaches, are of great importance in the history of the circulation of knowledge. Some important innovations resulted from these contacts and exchanges. The design of Romanization systems, the development of grammar studies, and the description of previously unknown linguistic categories, are representative exam-

Chapter 9. Describing and learning the Chinese languages

ples of the innovations promoted by the contacts between two very distant linguistic and didactic traditions which were to have an important impact in the history of Chinese linguistics, applied linguistics and language learning. The present study has focused on a limited corpus of language learning materials, belonging to the late Ming period (when Europeans began to learn Chinese) and the late Qing period (marked by a significant increase in the number of learners and a diversification of learners’ profiles). The investigation of a larger corpus of Chinese language learning tools written in Western languages since the 16th century and the systematic comparison of a larger corpus of textbooks diachronically could be the object of further research, in order to better evaluate the impact of late Ming and Qing period works on contemporary educational practices.

References Primary sources Abel-Rémusat, J.-P. (1815). Programme du cours de langue et de littérature chinoises et de tartare-mandchou; précédé du discours prononcé à la première séance de ce cours dans l’une des salles du Collège royal de France, le 16 janvier 1815. Charles, imprimeur. Retrieved on 20 July 2020 from https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k55776041.texteImage Giles, H. A. (1892). A Chinese-English dictionary. Bernard Quaritch; Kelly & Walsh. Klöter, H. (2011). The language of the Sangleys: A Chinese vernacular in missionary sources of the seventeenth century. Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004195929 Mateer, C. ([1892]1906). A course of Mandarin lessons, based on idiom (revised edition). Presbyterian Mission Press Shanghai. Morrison, R. (1828). A vocabulary of the Canton dialect. East India Company. Paternicò, L. M. (2013). When the Europeans began to study Chinese: Martino Martini’s Grammatica linguae sinensis. Leuven Chinese Studies, 24. Ferdinand Verbiest Institute, K.U. Leuven. Ricci, M. [ 利瑪竇] ([1605] 2001). Xīzì qíjī 西字奇蹟, in Zhū Wéizhēng 朱維錚 (Ed.), Lìmǎdòu zhōngwén zhùyì jí 利瑪竇中文著譯集. City University of Hong Kong Press. Ruggieri, M. & Ricci, M. (1584). Dicionário Português – Chinês, facsimile edition, edited by John W. Witek (2001). Ricci Institute, Instituto Português do Oriente, National Library of Portugal. Trigault, N. [ 金尼閣] (1626). Xīrú ěrmù zī 西儒耳目資, Hangzhou (edition held in Rome National Library). Varo, F., Coblin, W. S. & Levi, J. A. (Eds). (2000). Francisco Varo’s Grammar of the Mandarin language (1703). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sihols.93 Wade, T. (1859). The hsin ching lu 尋津錄, or, Book of experiments; being the first of a series of contributions to the study of Chinese, Hong Kong.

177

178

Mariarosaria Gianninoto

Wade, T. Fr., & Hillier, Fr. C. (1886). Yü-yen tzŭ-erh chi, a progressive course designed to assist the student of colloquial Chinese, as spoken in the capital and the metropolitan department, in eight parts, with key, syllabary and writing exercises. Vol. II. Kelly & Walsh. Williams, S. W. (1874). A syllabic dictionary of the Chinese language; Arranged according to the Wu-Fang Yuen Yin, with the pronunciation of the characters as heard in Peking, Canton, Amoy, and Shanghai. Hàn Yīng Yùnfǔ 漢英韻府. American Mission Press.

Secondary sources Branner, D. P. (1997). Notes on the beginnings of systematic dialect description and comparison in Chinese. Historigraphia Linguistica, 24(3), 235–266. https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.24.3.02bra

Brockey, L. M. (2007). Journey to the East: The Jesuit mission to China, 1579–1724. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674028814 Casacchia, G., & Gianninoto, M. (2012). Storia della linguistica cinese. Cafoscarina. Chappell, H., & Peyraube, A. (2014). The history of Chinese grammar in Chinese and Western scholarly tradition. Language & History, 57(2), 107–136. https://doi.org/10.1179/1759753614Z.00000000032

Cheng, S.-P., & Tang, S.-W. (2016). Cantonese romanization. In S.-W. Chan (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of the Chinese language (pp. 35–50). Routledge. Chen, L. L. (2016). Hanyu pinyin. In S.-W. Chan (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of the Chinese language (pp. 484–504). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315675541 Cheung, C. C.-H. (2016). Chinese: Parts of speech. In S.-W. Chan (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of the Chinese language (pp. 242–295). Routledge. Gianninoto, M. (2014). The development of Chinese grammars and the classification of the parts of speech. Language & History, 57(2), 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1179/1759753614Z.00000000033

Harbsmeier, C. (1998). Language and logic in traditional China, Vol. 7, Part 1, Science and civilisation in China, J. Needham (Ed.). Cambridge University Press Hú, Q. 胡奇光. (1987). Zhōngguó xiǎoxué shǐ 中国小学史. Shànghǎi rénmín chūbǎnshè. Klöter, H. (2017). Chinese as a foreign language, linguistics and pedagogy. In R. Sybesma, W. Behr, Y. Gu, Z. Handel, C.-T. James Huang, J. Myers, (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Chinese language and linguistics (pp. 410–422). Brill. Latourette, K. S. (1970). A History of Christian missions in China.: Ch’eng-wen. Lǐ, Zh. 李真 (2011). Zǎoqí lái Huá Yēsūhuìshì duì hànyǔ guānhuà yǔfǎ de yánjiū yǔ gòngxiàn—yǐ Wèikuāngguó, Mǎruòsè wèi zhōngxīn 早期来华耶稣会士对汉语官话语 法的研究与贡献—以卫匡国、马若瑟为中心. Wakumon 或問, 20, 59–67. Luó, Ch. 羅常培 (1930). Yēsūhuìshì zài yīnyùnxué shàng de gòngxiàn 耶穌會士在音韻學上 的貢獻. Zhōngyāng yánjiùyuàn lìshǐ yǔyán yánjiūsuǒ jíkān 中央研究院历史语言研究 所集刊, 1(3), 267–388. McLelland, N. (2015). Teach yourself Chinese – how? The history of Chinese self-instruction manuals for English speakers, 1900–2010. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 50(2), 109–152. Orton, J. (2016). Chinese language education: Teacher training. In S.-W. Chan (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of the Chinese language (pp. 104–118). Routledge.

Chapter 9. Describing and learning the Chinese languages

Peyraube, A. (2001). Some reflections on the sources of the Mashi Wentong. In M. Lackner, I. Amelung, & J. Kurtz (Eds.), New terms for new idea: Western knowledge and lexical change in late imperial China (pp. 341–356). Brill. Pino, A., & Rabut, I. (1995). La chaire de chinois à l’affiche de l’École des Langues O’, 1843–1945. In M.-C. Bergère & A. Pino (Eds.), Un siècle d’enseignement du chinois à l’École des langues orientales: 1840–1945 (pp. 315–338). L’Asiathèque. Rabut, I. (1995). Un siècle d’enseignement du chinois aux Langues O’: Éléments d’une enquête sur la didactique de la langue chinoise en France du milieu du XIXe siècle à la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale. In M.-C. Bergère & A. Pino (Eds.), Un siècle d’enseignement du chinois à l’École des langues orientales: 1840–1945 (pp. 213–269). L’Asiathèque. Raini, E. (2010). Sistemi di romanizzazione del cinese mandarino nei secoli xvi-xviii (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Sapienza-Università di Roma. Ramsey, R. S. (1987). The languages of China. Princeton University Press. Smith, R. (2016). Building “Applied Linguistic Historiography”: Rationale, scope and methods. Applied Linguistics, 37(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv056 Standaert, N. (1999). Jesuit corporate culture as shaped by the Chinese. In J. W. O’ Malley, G. A. Bailey, S. J. Harris, & T. F. Kennedy (Eds.), The Jesuits: Cultures, sciences, and the arts, 1540–1773 (pp. 352–63). University of Toronto Press. Steffen Chung, K. (2016). Wade-Giles romanization system. In S.-W. Chan (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of the Chinese language (pp. 756–776). Routledge. Tola, G. (2020). Origin, role and use of Chinese classifiers: Some linguistic observations from late Qing Western grammars. In C. Piccinini & E. Giunipero (Eds.), Italian Association for Chinese Studies. Selected papers 3 (pp. 156–167). Cafoscarina. Wáng, L. 王力. (1996). Zhōngguó yǔyánxué shǐ 中國語言學史. Wǔnán túshū. Wippermann, D. (2017). Transcription systems: Wade-Giles (English). In R. Sybesma, W. Behr, Y. Gu, Z. Handel, C.-T. James Huang, J. Myers (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Chinese language and linguistics (Vol. 4., pp. 432–436). Brill. Wu, W. (2016). Chinese language pedagogy. In S.-W. Chan (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of the Chinese language (pp. 137–151). Routledge. Yang, P. F.-M. 楊福綿. (2001). The Portuguese–Chinese dictionary of Michele Ruggieri and Matteo Ricci: An historical and linguistic Introduction. In Ruggeri, M. & Ricci, M., Dicionário Português-Chinês, edited by J. Witek by Ricci, M. & Ruggeri, M. [Facsimile edition] (pp. 169–217). Instituto Português do Oriente, National Library of Portugal. Zhāng, X. 张西平 (2009). Shìjiè hànyǔ jiàoyù shǐ 世界汉语教育史. Shāngwù yìnshūguǎn.

179

chapter 10

Curriculum innovation through concept borrowing The case of “learner autonomy” in English language education in Chinese universities (1978–2007) Shi Pu

Beijing Foreign Studies University

This chapter analyses how the concept of learner autonomy was incorporated into the national college English curricula in China between 1978 and 2007. Adopting Quentin Skinner’s intentionalist approach, it examines this concept in relation to linguistic convention and practical context in China, discussing its meaning in the Chinese context and the intentionality of promoting this concept for curriculum innovation. The findings reveal that learner autonomy was taken to refer mainly to students’ ability to learn on their own outside the classroom. The importation of this concept has pushed teachers and policy makers to attend to students’ individual needs, but it has also manipulated dominant academic and pedagogical discourse in China in a way that steered curriculum innovation away from its original aim.

Introduction In China, English language education at the tertiary level has been undergoing reform since the opening-up policy of 1978 onwards. During the 1980s and 1990s, university English courses followed unified national curricula, serving the purposes of economic development and social restoration. English was taught as a tool for learning Western science and technology, and then for enabling international communication in written and oral forms (CDG, 1986, 1999). The beginning of the 21st century saw an increasingly uneven development in economy and education in different areas in China, and English courses in universities were expected to cater for a greater variety of learning needs (Tu et al., 2016). In most universities, English remained a compulsory course for non-English major students during the first https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.20.10pu © 2023 John Benjamins Publishing Company

Chapter 10. Curriculum innovation through concept borrowing

one or two years of their four-year undergraduate study, but the aims and content of English courses could no longer be defined by a unified national curriculum. In the national curriculum requirements for college English released in 2017, English was recognised as a tool for the development of individual students rather than merely the state. The turn of attention from the needs of the state to the needs of individual students induced fundamental changes to university English courses. At the level of discourse, curriculum and pedagogical innovation were conceptualized and justified by adopting concepts borrowed from Western academic sources (Tan, 2015). Concept borrowing, in line with policy borrowing and educational transfer, refers to the process whereby a foreign concept is imported to a local context to initiate and implement change (Phillips & Ochs, 2003). The concept of learner autonomy, for instance, originated in Europe during the 1970s. It was first imported into English language education in Chinese universities through academic discourse towards the end of the 1990s. During the first decade of the 21st century, it was widely used in both academic and pedagogical discourse in China: hundreds of research articles appeared on this concept;1 the national curriculum for college English in 2007 referred to it as an aim for English learning; and hundreds of selfaccess centres were established in the name of enhancing students’ autonomy. While the use of this concept contributed to a growing attention to students’ needs, motivation, psychological status, and learning strategies, the complications of its importation have not been thoroughly discussed. When transplanted into a different cultural context, a borrowed concept has to interact with entrenched local concepts before it can be understood and accepted (Schriewer, 2012). Its meaning may be interpreted differently from where it originated, and, as Lieberman (2002) observes, without this being the conscious intention of anyone, it can also be used to support different purposes. In China, borrowed concepts including communicative language teaching and task-based approach have been shown to have been resisted or distorted to varied degrees (Hu, 2002; Ha et al., 2011). This chapter examines the borrowed concept of learner autonomy by analysing its meaning in the Chinese context and its role in curriculum innovation in English language education in China. Its meaning is interpreted not by synthesizing relevant Chinese research literature, but by juxtaposing it with linguistic convention and practical contexts in China, following Quentin Skinner’s intentionalist approach. The analysis targets national college English curricula for non-English major students. While acknowledging that, in practice, particular institutions, individual teachers 1. Before 1985, the term “public English” (gonggong yingyu) was used to refer to English language education for non-English majors at the tertiary level. This term was changed into “college English” (daxue yingyu) in 1985 but “public English” was still used on some occasions after that date.

181

182

Shi Pu

and researchers may understand and use this concept in varied ways, this chapter focuses on the macro level, scrutinizing how the borrowed concept of learner autonomy was gradually incorporated into the dominant pedagogical discourse in China. The study reported on here addresses two questions: 1.

What was the meaning of learner autonomy in the selected curricula (i.e., in what terms was it represented in Chinese, and what were the sense and reference of these terms)? 2. What was the intentionality of promoting the concept of learner autonomy through the selected curricula (i.e., why did it appear in the curricula at that particular period)?

Learner autonomy: A borrowed concept Learner autonomy was originally a Western concept. In second language education, it was first promoted during the 1970s, with an orientation towards the “language needs of migrant workers” (Gremmo & Riley, 1995, p. 153). In that context, learner autonomy referred to self-directed learning in which “the objectives, progress and evaluation of learning [are] determined by the learner themselves” (Benson, 2001, p. 8). In the late 1970s and early 1980s, learner autonomy was also brought into formal education, referring to “the ability to take charge of one’s own learning” (Holec, 1981, p. 3). In Europe, the promotion of this concept echoed the trend of European integration, the political movements for minority rights, the development of humanistic psychology, and, later on, neo-liberal ideologies of choice. It reflected an increasing respect for individuals against institutional hierarchies, and, in second language education, it promoted the view of students as agentic learners rather than passive receivers of knowledge. During the 1990s, the concept of learner autonomy experienced a psychological turn, accompanied by the popularity of the communicative approach and learner-centred ideology. The basic assumption was that the learner should be an active agent capable of learning foreign languages according to personal “needs, interests and expectations” (Little & Singleton, 1989, p. 29). Within that context, learner autonomy was redefined from a psychological perspective as a “capacity – for detachment, critical reflection, decision-making, and independent action” (Little, 1991, p. 4). Learner autonomy thus became a topic for scientific research aiming to understand learners’ psychological status and to train them with effective strategies of learning, and it became associated with “neutral” and universally applicable constructs such as emotional intelligence, resilience, and self-determination (Oxford, 2015). The psychological turn stimulated empirical research on learner autonomy not only in Europe but also worldwide (e.g.

Chapter 10. Curriculum innovation through concept borrowing

Schmenk, 2005; Little, 2009; Zou, 2011). With the establishment of self-access centres, learners were expected to engage in autonomous learning, meaning that they should develop digital literacies and manage language learning on their own (Kormos & Csizé r, 2014). In that context, the term “autonomous learning” began to be used interchangeably with “learner autonomy” (Benson, 2013), leading to a widespread tendency to regard autonomy as the practice of “self-discipline and self-mastery” (Esch, 2009, p. 34). In China, higher education from 1978 focused on the training of advanced specialized personnel who could make contributions to economic and social development (Vogel, 2011). Officials and students were encouraged to study abroad and foreign experts were invited to China (Vogel, 2011). Great importance was attached to English learning to enable international communication, and Western concepts and theories, such as the communicative approach, were imported for the purpose of reforming English language education. The concept of learner autonomy first appeared in 1998, in a journal article entitled “Autonomy in learning and English language education in China” (Li, 1998). The article reviewed the concept of learner autonomy in Western contexts and discussed its adaptability to the Chinese context. The author suggested that, as communication was already commonly acknowledged as the main purpose of learning English, the concept of learner autonomy deserved more attention in China. She pointed out that students should no longer be treated as passive learners, but meanwhile, due to the lack of learning resources at the time and students’ lack of awareness or lack of a tendency to take responsibility for their learning, learner autonomy in China could only be viewed as partial autonomy (Li, 1998). After that, the concept of learner autonomy began to be used frequently in academic discourse, being defined on the basis of Western sources (see, for example, Hua, 2002; He, 2003). It was acknowledged as a multifaceted concept and a product of liberalism, but researchers suggested that it could be adapted, to some extent, to the Chinese context (Li, 1998; Cheng, 1999; Hua, 2002; He, 2003). This demonstrated an open attitude towards foreign concepts, in line with the general open social atmosphere stimulated by the openingup policy. Pedagogical innovation, then, was like “bai hua qi fang” [hundreds of flowers blooming together] (Li, 1998, p. 25).

Analysing concept borrowing: An intentionalist approach This chapter adopts Quentin Skinner’s intentionalist hermeneutic approach to analyse concept borrowing. This approach is based on Austin’s speech act theory, which proposes that language not only describes reality but also performs actions to change the status quo (Saeed, 1997). For a linguistic message to perform an

183

184

Shi Pu

intended act, it has to conform to linguistic convention in order to be understood. This indicates that the meaning of a linguistic message is shaped by its context but the message also performs acts to manipulate the context (Skinner, 1978). Although this approach is seldom used in research on educational history, in the few cases where it has been applied, it has proved to be a useful method for understanding the nature of key terms in education. For instance, Howlett and McDonald (2011) employed this approach to analyse the term ‘progressivism’ used by Susan Isaacs and A. S. Neill, who had previously been categorized as fitting into the same progressive discourse. Their analysis revealed that the two educationists were actually using the same term with opposite intentionality, and that such intentionality, representing the nature of their educational theories, could be more effectively discerned by being juxtaposed with its linguistic context. Methodologically, the advantage of Skinner’s approach lies in taking into consideration both the context constraining the meaning of a term and the agency of an author using the term to manipulate the context (Howlett & McDonald, 2011). Skinner’s emphasis on the role of context makes his approach a suitable methodological framework for studying concept borrowing, particularly for discovering how the context in the receiving culture affects the interpretation and usage of terms representing borrowed concepts (Phillips & Ochs, 2003). This chapter, accordingly, adopts the intentionalist approach to investigate how the concept of learner autonomy was imported into the national college English curricula in China between 1978 and 2007.

Defining key terms A national curriculum is a written text acting to direct educational practice. The language used in the curriculum has to be understood by its target audience, including teachers and educational leaders, in order to have actual effects upon educational practice. How the curriculum is understood depends upon how it connects to the audience’s “linguistic knowledge, […] background cultural knowledge and knowledge of the immediate local context” (Saeed, 1997, p. 223). This study analyses the meaning and intentionality of learner autonomy in relation to the linguistic convention and practical context in China. Meaning refers to the propositional meaning of a term, including both sense and reference (Tully, 1988). Sense refers to “the semantic links between elements within the vocabulary system” (Saeed, 1997, p. 3), that is, how a term is defined in relation to other words in the same language. Reference is “the relationship by which language hooks onto the world” (Saeed, 1997, p. 3), that is, what a term refers to in reality. Sense and reference are analysed against linguistic convention applicable when the concept

Chapter 10. Curriculum innovation through concept borrowing

of learner autonomy was imported into China. The purpose is to understand the relationship between learner autonomy and other concepts rooted in the Chinese context, that is, the position assigned to learner autonomy in Chinese pedagogical discourse. The term “intentionality”, according to Skinner, does not refer to the subjective personal purpose of the author of a text; it refers to “the ideological point or points of a text relative to the available conventions” (Tully, 1988, p. 10). Thus, the intentionality of a national curriculum to manipulate educational practice is not necessarily the personal, subjective intentions of curriculum designers. It has to be analysed in relation to its practical context, and such analysis is expected to unveil why learner autonomy appeared in the curriculum during a particular historical period and how it was used to respond to issues prevailing at the time (Skinner, 1978).

Analytical procedure To address the first research question (see Introduction), I first investigated how the concept of learner autonomy was expressed in important national curriculum documents during the 30 years under investigation, by collecting linguistic terms related to its semantic field. Between 1978 and 2007, seven national college English curricula were released, among which three were selected for this study because they were designed based on empirical research rather than mere opinions of specialists. They applied to almost all the universities in China as opposed to only a few key universities and targeted a wide range of students rather than only students of particular subjects. Within these three curriculum documents, I examined not only the term learner autonomy itself but also a set of terms that were related to learner autonomy, such as motivation, learner-centredness, and individualized learning. These terms were identified based on their close relationship with the notion of learner autonomy according to their lexical meaning and usage in research literature in the field of second language education. I noted down where they appeared in the curriculum documents and how they were used in relation to other concepts. Secondly, I examined the linguistic context in order to discover how the concept of learner autonomy could be understood according to linguistic convention in China. Linguistic convention is largely embodied in “the collection of texts written or used in the same period, addressed to the same or similar issues and sharing a number of conventions” (Tully, 1988, p. 9). In higher education in China, pedagogical discourse is shaped, if not dominated, by academic discourse, and academic discourse is mainly produced and circulated by academic journal articles published in Chinese. Key terms used in pedagogical research

185

186

Shi Pu

are often directly transferred into educational policy to define and evaluate educational practice. They serve as primary linguistic resources that facilitate curriculum design. They also feed into everyday pedagogical discourse, enriching and constraining practitioners’ understanding of their teaching practice. In my research, therefore, linguistic convention was construed from Chinese academic journal articles related to the concept of learner autonomy published in the field of English language education from 1978 to 2007. I conducted my search in the Chinese Academic Journals Database, which stores all Chinese academic journals. The criteria for selecting journal articles were the quality of the journal, the relevance of the article topic and the influence of the particular journal or author. I searched by four key words related to learner autonomy: zizhu xuexi (autonomous learning), xuexizhe zizhuxing (learner autonomy), xuexizhe zizhu (learner autonomy), xuexi zixhuxing (autonomy in learning). 75 articles on the topic of learner autonomy in English language education at the tertiary level were identified as the most relevant. These articles represented the prevailing linguistic convention which included “shared vocabulary, principles, assumptions […] and so on” (Tully, 1988, p. 9) of the target audience, shaping how they would understand the notion of learner autonomy as it appeared in the curriculum documents. The construction of the linguistic context made it possible, then, to examine how the curriculum documents related to their linguistic context by way of adopting (or not adopting) the concept of learner autonomy. It could reveal “how far” the curriculum designers “were accepting and endorsing, or questioning and repudiating, or perhaps even polemically ignoring, the prevailing assumptions and conventions” (Skinner, 1978, p. xiii). In short, inquiring about the meaning of learner autonomy in the curriculum was virtually the same as seeing how this concept was used in relation to the local linguistic convention. In order to address the second research question (see Introduction), I analysed the intentionality of incorporating the concept of learner autonomy into the national curricula, that is, what the curriculum designers were doing by using the borrowed concept. Skinner (1978) suggests that, in politics, the primary subjects of political debates represent ways in which political theorists respond to prevailing issues in political life of their time. Likewise, in education, the design and release of new curricula represent ways in which policy makers respond to prevailing educational problems. Issues that a national curriculum chooses to address and concepts that it chooses to highlight reflect major educational problems at the time. The real intentionality of the curriculum is not only what it appears to advocate but also what it actually responds to or acts against. In my study, in order to identify prevailing educational problems within the three decades under investigation, practical context was construed from Chinese academic journal articles on English language education and its reform at the tertiary level. Ideally, the practical

Chapter 10. Curriculum innovation through concept borrowing

context should involve all materials related to English language education between 1978 and 2007. However, in order to maintain focus, a certain number of sources were selected to represent the practical context. I searched for articles in the Chinese Academic Journal Database by using key words such as daxue yingyu (college English), gonggong yingyu (public English), daxue yingyu jiaoxue gaige (reform in English language education in universities) and gonggong yingyu jiaoxue gaige (reform in public English language education).2 Within the three decades under investigation, 94 articles were identified as most relevant, representing prevailing issues in English language education in China. The criteria for selecting journal articles was the same as that used to identify the linguistic context: quality of the journal, relevance of the article topic and the influence of particular journals or authors. I juxtaposed the curriculum documents with the practical context in order to find out the extent to which learner autonomy was set as an aim on its own or used as a means to achieve other purposes.

The concept of learner autonomy in the Chinese context: Meaning and intentionality From 1978 to 2007, English was a compulsory course for most university students during the first two years of their four-year undergraduate study. The development of English language education at the tertiary level went through three stages: Recovery from the Cultural Revolution (1978–1986), Stable development (1987–2001), and Educational reform (2002–2007) (Wang et al., 2009). The three national curricula selected for analysis appeared towards the end of each stage, respectively referred to here as “the 1986 Curriculum”, “the 1999 Curriculum”, and “the 2007 Curriculum” (CDG, 1986, 1999; MOE, 2007). This section analyses linguistic convention and practical context during each stage, in order to understand how learner autonomy gradually became part of the national curricula representing official pedagogical discourse.

2. Before 1985, the term “public English” (gonggong yingyu) was used to refer to English language education for non-English majors at the tertiary level. This term was changed into “college English” (daxue yingyu) in 1985 but “public English” was still used on some occasions after that date.

187

188

Shi Pu

Recovery from the Cultural Revolution (1978–1986) In 1978, the National College Entrance Examinations restarted after their abolition during the Cultural Revolution. This marked the revival of higher education in China. During this stage, radical views that regarded learning as useless were dismissed and the legitimacy of foreign language learning was re-established. The concept of learner autonomy did not appear in the 1986 Curriculum, but several terms used in the curriculum were related to it: yincai shijiao [instruction according to individual characteristics], jijixing [level of motivation], zhudongxing [initiative], zixue nengli [the ability for self-instruction], and duli gongzuo nengli [the ability to work independently]. Instruction according to individual characteristics was the primary justification for “fenji jiaoxue” [“streaming”], that is, grouping students according to their test score and organizing teaching activities accordingly. These terms were authentic Chinese terms widely used in English language education at the time, constituting the Chinese linguistic convention. In accordance with that convention, the 1986 Curriculum encouraged teachers to stimulate students’ motivation, to make them take initiative in learning, and to develop their ability for self-instruction and independent learning. The concept of learner autonomy did not appear in pedagogical discourse during this stage. Within the practical context, it could be seen that the primary task of English language education at that time was to restore education following the devastation caused by the Cultural Revolution. In order to accelerate social construction, the main use of English was to introduce advanced science and technology from the West. English language education focused on teaching language knowledge and practising reading skills. A shortage of teachers and facilities increased the demand for students to work hard on their own.

Stable development (1987–2001) In 1987, the National College English Test started to be implemented for all nonEnglish major students. This led to a wide acknowledgment of the significance of English learning and accelerated the development of English language education. New textbooks were designed and published, and language laboratories were established. The concept of learner autonomy was introduced into academic discourse towards the end of this stage. The 1999 Curriculum adopted some terms from the 1986 Curriculum: yincai shijiao [instruction according to individual characteristics], jijixing [level of motivation], and zixue nengli [the ability for selfinstruction]. Meanwhile, the 1999 Curriculum also added new terms: zhudong canyu [active participation], zhudong xuexizhe [active learner], and xuexi fang fa [learning method]. These terms were used in accordance with the linguistic con-

Chapter 10. Curriculum innovation through concept borrowing

vention at the time. The 1999 Curriculum specified that the skills of listening and speaking should be practised more but improving the ability to read was still the primary aim of English learning. It advocated the view that learning was an activity conducted by students: the acquisition of knowledge depended on how much students could take in, and the enhancement of skill was determined by how much students could practise. It suggested that students should be encouraged to use English through active participation in learning activities in and out of class, and that they should be given access to more resources such as English newspapers and radio broadcasts. It also highlighted the development of learning methods as a necessary means for students to learn on their own outside the classroom. In Chinese, zizhu [autonomy] was originally used in politics and foreign affairs to refer to sovereignty. In the linguistic convention in English language education in China, the concept of learner autonomy was expressed in Chinese by means of a few different terms: xuexi zizhuxing [autonomy in learning], zizhu xuexi nengli [the ability for autonomous learning], and xuexizhe zizhu/zizhuxing [learner autonomy]. The term “ability for autonomous learning” was used interchangeably with “learner autonomy” (e.g. Cheng, 1999). It was recognized that, in China, students’ role was not to decide all aspects of their learning – they were supposed to follow the guidance of their teachers and to adjust their learning objectives to the aims set by the national curriculum. Within that linguistic context, learner autonomy was most likely to be associated with self-instruction, referring to students’ ability to study on their own outside the classroom (Cheng, 1999). It was probably not a coincidence that the four-character Chinese term for autonomous learning, zizhu xuexi, can be shortened into a two-character term, zixue, meaning self-instruction. However, Western research literature on learner autonomy was intensively quoted, and the concept of learner autonomy, in both political and psychological senses, was also used to problematize English language education in China. In the practical context of English language education during this period of time, the educational system was criticized for suppressing students’ motivation, creativity, freedom, and independence, because students were found to have little say in the content and methods of their English learning (Li, 1998; Cheng, 1999; Hua, 2001). Students’ lack of ability for autonomous learning was attributed to traditional values that advocate obedience to authority (Cao, 2000). Teachers were required to retreat from an authoritarian position by increasing classroom interaction and studenttalking-time. Meanwhile, they were also asked to provide more guidance on students’ learning methods. Although such requirements could be justified in theory, they caused confusion in practice. Many teachers were not sure how to provide more guidance in class while allowing more time for students to talk. Underlying their confusion was the overlooked issue of how, or whether, students’ in-class participation could enhance their ability to learn on their own outside the classroom.

189

190

Shi Pu

Educational reform (2002–2007) In 2001, China entered the World Trade Organization, and increasing importance was attached to English learning to meet growing needs for international communication in economy, business, and culture. In 2002, the Ministry of Education started to reform English language education in universities. The 2007 Curriculum was an important outcome of the reform. Similarly to the 1999 Curriculum, it continued to adopt the terms yincai shijiao [instruction according to individual characteristics] and jijixing [level of motivation]. It replaced “active learner”, “active participation” and “learning method” with terms more closely related to the concept of learner autonomy grounded in Western research literature: zizhu xuexi nengli [the ability for autonomous learning], yi xuesheng wei zhongxin [learner-centredness], gexinghua [individualization], xuexi celüe [learning strategies], and zhongshen xuexi [life-long learning]. The 2007 Curriculum changed the aim of English learning from improving reading ability to developing communication abilities. It emphasized the student’s central role in learning by promoting the notion of learner-centredness. That was in line with academic discourse in Europe. In the 2007 Curriculum, improving the ability for autonomous learning was legitimized as one of the major aims of English language learning. In the linguistic convention at the time, learner autonomy was used interchangeably with the concept of autonomous learning, which could only be interpreted as students’ ability to study on their own outside classroom. Based upon Western research literature, the significance of learner autonomy was justified at the theoretical level, supported by the learner-centred approach, the communicative approach, and humanistic psychology (Wei, 2002; He, 2003; Lan & Zeng, 2004). Developing respect for individual students and enhancing their capacity for life-long learning were deemed as desirable aims of modern education because the fast development of society required people to continue to develop themselves without being driven by educational institutes (Wei, 2002). By then, mainstream pedagogical discourse no longer stuck to the aim of cultivating students’ ability to study outside the classroom. It criticized the Chinese education system for placing too much emphasis on teaching rather than learning, and on teacher authority rather than learner differences. Teacher authority, demonstrated as teacher-lecturing, was criticized for lowering students’ motivation and failing to produce autonomous citizens who could think and act with rationality to participate in social affairs (Wei, 2002; Lan & Zeng, 2004). This criticism involved the political sense of learner autonomy being added to its psychological sense, and pedagogical discourse being extended far beyond the original purpose of enabling students to master strategies to manage their own learning outside the classroom.

Chapter 10. Curriculum innovation through concept borrowing

At the level of practical context, the period 2002–2007 witnessed immense social and economic development in China. The development of science and technology, the fast growth of knowledge and the frequent exchange of information brought in an increasing demand for people to use English as a lingua franca for international communication (Dong, 2002; Shi, 2003; Jiang & Tian, 2003). However, the development of English language education was too slow to cope with the changing demands of society (Li, 2003). Survey results revealed that many employers were dissatisfied with students’ writing and speaking skills (Jiang & Tian, 2003), and this led to severe criticism of English language education for teaching students longya yingyu [“deaf and dumb English”] only for passing exams (Li, 2003, p. 228). Meanwhile, during this stage, the number of university students began to increase exponentially. In 1998, there were about 6,600,000 university students in China, but by 2002 the figure had increased to 17,000,000 (Zhang, 2003). As all university students were required to take English courses, there was a shortage of English teachers. The ratio between the number of teachers and students was reportedly 1:130 on average over the whole country (Zhang, 2003). Structural changes could not happen overnight, and the easiest solution was to motivate students to work harder on their own outside the classroom. In this context, the 2007 Curriculum suggested that more attention should be paid to learners and that more choices should be given to learners (Hua, 2002; Wei, 2002). It suggested that modern technology should be used to assist students to study on their own when teachers were not available. It also suggested that teachers should take up the role of facilitator, organizing more learning activities in class to stimulate students’ interest and motivation, to guide students to reflect on themselves, and to develop students’ ability for autonomous learning (He, 2003). Cultivating this ability, especially with students who had been brought up in an exam-oriented culture, demanded more input and involvement from teachers, but it was hardly possible in reality. In this situation, organizing more classroom activities was encouraged not only as an application of the imported learner-centred approach; it was also seen as a practical way of reducing teachers’ workload. Gradually, designing novel learning activities to increase student-talking-time became an explicit focus of pedagogical innovation, but how such innovative activities could develop students’ ability to study outside class was scarcely discussed, let alone their ability to take responsibility for their own learning.

191

192

Shi Pu

From 2007 onwards … In 2014, the Ministry of Education (MOE) began to design new College English Curriculum Requirements, released in 2017. Different from previous curricula, the 2017 Curriculum highlighted that students’ individual needs should be the basis for universities to define the goal of English language courses. It specified that English courses should meet students’ specific needs for disciplinary learning and professional development, rather than merely serving for the general purpose of social and economic development. Needs analysis thus became a common practice for providing the basis for curriculum design at the institutional level (e.g. Zhu & Ma, 2014). Based on results of large-scale needs analysis, it was suggested that English courses should be divided into different categories, such as English for general purposes, English for specific or academic purposes, and English for cross-cultural communication; within each category, courses should be divided into varied levels, with lower-level courses focusing on language skills and higher-level courses focusing on more comprehensive abilities, such as critical thinking, research skills, and innovation skills (Tu et al., 2016; Lu, 2018). While some courses should be compulsory for all, other courses should be made optional so that students could choose to attend courses according to their needs. It is undeniable that importing the concept of learner autonomy has had a positive effect in encouraging teachers and policy makers to pay more attention to students. However, as pedagogical innovation goes on, how to provide more substantial guidance for students to become more autonomous has been left unattended to. Students’ engagement in learning, at the level of discourse, has gradually been reduced to visible participation, as manifested by the amount of student-talking-time and the liveliness of classroom activities. Teacher–student interaction and student–student interaction are given more weight in academic and pedagogical discourse and this has reinforced a negative view of the traditional grammar-translation approach, legitimating the call for teachers to prevent themselves from imposing authority. Inviting students to speak in class, unfortunately, is no guarantee of the enhancement of their autonomy, yet this issue has hardly been of concern to policy makers or curriculum designers. The original aim of cultivating learner autonomy was to teach students how to learn on their own, including how to set goals, how to select learning materials, how to design learning procedures, how to self-assess their own progress, and how to maintain self-discipline. In China, students who are used to coping with exams are usually not used to setting goals for themselves or deciding what to do on their own; they need more guidance in this respect (Li, 1998). In reality, however, such topics are attracting less attention in dominant academic discourse surrounding pedagogical innovation.

Chapter 10. Curriculum innovation through concept borrowing

In today’s English language education in China, especially at the tertiary level, pedagogical innovation is mediated by new trends at the level of discourse, such as the push for English teachers to produce academic publications and the call for cultivating higher-order thinking skills in English courses. In many universities in China, it is a common practice to link teachers’ welfare to the quantity and ranking of their research publications rather than the quality of their teaching, including English teachers. This is pushing universities to strengthen a discourse that pedagogical innovation needs to be presented as academic publication. It drives teachers to adopt the newest popular concepts emerging from international research literature to conceptualize their teaching practice. Regarding the concept of learner autonomy, in some cases it can elevate the quality of teaching based on scientific research, but it has also caused confusion. While terms related to learner autonomy are assimilated into dominant academic and pedagogical discourse in China, their actual references have remained obscure, stimulating heated debates at the theoretical level on whether learner autonomy is a right or a responsibility, a political or a psychological construct (He, 2003). Such debates have deviated from the original practical aim of enabling students to learn on their own after class. In other words, when the outcome of pedagogical innovation has to be recognized in the form of academic publication, adopting imported, theorized terms such as learner autonomy is becoming a powerful means of defining innovation. The glamour of the concept may eclipse many other (authentic) concepts that could also be employed to tackle the practical issue of enhancing learner autonomy. Meanwhile, the call for paying attention to students’ needs has led many universities to give students the opportunity of rating their teachers, usually through questionnaire surveys. This pushes teachers to care for students’ learning and the quality of teaching. The premium put on students’ individuality has also reinforced the discourse of teaching higher-order thinking skills through English classes, such as critical thinking and research skills, through methods such as English debates and project-based learning. While such skills and activities are all valuable in their own right, and while they may have a positive effect in involving students in learning, their apparent novelty may also marginalize the original focus on learning the English language itself. Alongside memorization skills, skills such as comprehension and summarization, often used in English courses, are seen as lower-order thinking skills (Liu, 2013). Explicit focus on developing lower-order skills, regardless of specific context, risks being criticized as outdated, lacking innovation and detrimental to a democratic classroom atmosphere. Besides, curriculum innovation is usually conducted on elite students, who are already autonomous enough to learn English after class by exercising lower-order skills on their own (e.g Qu et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2015). With the English language that they have learned on their own, such students can perform in classroom activities that demand the use

193

194

Shi Pu

of higher-order thinking skills. Their classroom performance is often applauded as the outcome of successful pedagogical innovation. However, the apparent success is largely achieved by evading the substantial problem of enhancing learner autonomy, that is, of enabling students to learn English on their own, especially those who do not yet know how. In the Chinese context, enhancing learner autonomy requires a clearer understanding of how teachers can retreat from an authoritarian position and at the same time provide more guidance to maximize students’ learning. Students who have not developed the ability of managing their learning after class may have to go through a process from following teachers’ requirements to gradually developing the ability for monitoring themselves. This demands teachers to have better methods, more involvement, and enduring patience. It also requires teachers to be able to see the real aim of their teaching beyond the perplexing discourse consisting of a wide range of grand-sounding imported concepts. In addition, it requires an environment where teachers’ authoritative guidance is not criticized outright as inappropriate teacher-domination, and where the teaching of language knowledge and lower-order skills can be allowed when happening at the right time for a right reason. This remains a challenge in China for teachers, policy makers, institutions and the whole ecology of English language education.

Conclusion and implications By adopting Quentin Skinner’s intentionalist approach, this chapter has analysed how the concept of learner autonomy was borrowed from the European context and incorporated into national college English curricula in China. It has shown that learner autonomy was interpreted as the ability for autonomous learning, that is, students’ ability to learn English on their own outside classroom. The borrowed concept has accelerated curriculum innovation at national and institutional levels, raising awareness of the necessity to attend to students’ individual needs. Meanwhile, constrained by the discourse of evidencing pedagogical innovation by academic publications and the discourse for cultivating higher-order thinking skills through English teaching, the original aim of guiding students to learn how to study on their own was obscured. This is not to say that foreign concepts should not be imported, as it may just be a matter of time for such concepts to have more substantial impact on local pedagogical practice. The main aims of this chapter have been to raise awareness of the complications underlying the process of concept borrowing, and to show how borrowed terms can be used to conceptualize local pedagogical issues, to problematize local realities, and to steer the direction of curriculum innovation. It is hoped that such awareness

Chapter 10. Curriculum innovation through concept borrowing

may, in the long run, free educational thought from the constraints of dominant discourse, so that innovative efforts can directly, and more effectively, attend to authentic issues emerging from local practice.

Acknowledgement The findings in this chapter have been previously addressed in Pu (2020) from a different perspective, that of teacher disempowerment.

References Primary sources Cao, R. (2000). Jiaqiang daxue yingyu jiaoxue zhuanyehua, zou xuexizhe zizhu zhilu [Professionalization of college English education through developing learner autonomy]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, (Sup.), 100–102. Cheng, X. (1999). Lun zizhu xuexi [On autonomous learning]. Subject Education, (9), 32–35, 39. Curriculum Design Group (CDG) (1986). College English curriculum ( for undergraduates in arts and Science). Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Curriculum Design Group (CDG) (1999). College English curriculum ( for undergraduates). Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Dong, L. (2002). 21 shiji daxue yingyu jiaoxue gaige de zhanwang [Perspective for college English education in the 21st century]. Journal of Shaanxi Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 31(Sup.), 296–299. He, L. (2003). Zizhu xuexi jiqi nengli de peiyang [The ability for autonomous learning and its development]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 7, 287–289. Hua, W. (2001). Zizhu xuexi zhongxin – yizhong xinxing de yuyan xuexi huanjing (Self-access centres: A new environment for language learning). Foreign Language World, 5, 41–45. Hua, W. (2002). Xuexizhe zizhu tanxi [On learner autonomy]. Shenzhen University Journal, 2, 107–112. Jiang, C., & Tian, H. (2003). Daxue yingyu jiaoxue mianlin de yali he gaige [Challenges to the College English education reform]. Journal of Shaanxi Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 32(Sup.), 29–32. Lan, C., & Zeng, J. (2004). Dui peiyang woguo waiyu xuexizhe xuexi zizhuxing de sikao [Developing learner autonomy among Chinese foreign language learners]. Foreign Language World, 4, 24–30. Li, H. (1998). Xuexi zihuxing yu zhongguo yingyu jiaoxue [Autonomy in learning and English teaching in China]. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 10, 24–26.

195

196

Shi Pu

Li, S. (2003). Daxue yingyu jiaoxue gaige huhuan guannian gengxin [College English education reform calls for changes in educational beliefs]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 3, 228–230. Ministry of Education (MOE) (2007). College English Curriculum Requirements. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Shi, B. (2003). Lengjing de jinxing daxue yingyu jiaoxue gaige [Reforming college English education with rationality]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 5, 384–385. Wei, Y. (2002). Cujin xuexizhe zizhuxing: waiyu jiaoxue xingainian [Developing learner autonomy: A new concept in foreign language education]. Foreign Language World, 3, 8–14. Zhang, R. (2003). Guanyu daxue benke gonggong yingyu jiaoxue gaige de zaisikao [Reflection upon reforms in English language education for undergraduate students]. China Higher Education, 12, 19–21.

Secondary sources Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. Longman. Benson, P. (2013). Learner autonomy. TESOL Quarterly, 47(4), 839–843. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.134

Esch, E. (2009). Crash or clash? Autonomy 10 years on. In R. Pemberton, S. Toogood, & A. Barfield (Eds.), Maintaining control: Autonomy and language learning (pp. 27–44). Hong Kong University Press. https://doi.org/10.5790/hongkong/9789622099234.003.0003 Gremmo, M.-J., & Riley, P. (1995). Autonomy, self-direction and self access in language teaching and learning: The history of an idea. System, 23(2), 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(95)00002-2

Ha, P. L., McPherrson, P., & Van Que, P. (2011). English language teachers as moral guides in Vietnam and China: Maintaining and re-traditionalizing morality. In J. Ryan (Ed.) Education reform in China: Changing concepts, contexts and practices (pp. 132–157). Routledge. Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Pergamon. Howlett, J. & McDonald, P. J. (2011). Quentin Skinner, intentionality and the history of education. Paedagogica Historica: International Journal of the History of Education, 47(3), 415–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/00309230.2010.530272 Hu, G. (2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The case of communicative language teaching in China. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 15(2), 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908310208666636 Kormos, J., & Csizé r, K. (2014). The interaction of motivation, self-regulation strategies, and autonomous learning behavior in different learner groups. TESOL Quarterly, 48(2), 275–299. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.129 Lieberman, R. C. (2002). Ideas, institutions, and political order: Explaining political change. American Political Science Review, 96(4), 697–712. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055402000394

Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy, 1: Definitions, issues and problems. Authentik.

Chapter 10. Curriculum innovation through concept borrowing

Little, D. (2009). Language learner autonomy and the European Language Portfolio: Two L2 English examples. Language Teaching, 42(2), 222–233. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444808005636

Little, D., & Singleton, D. (1989). Setting the context: Language learning, self-instruction and autonomy. In D. Little (Ed.), Self-access systems for language learning (pp. 1–31). Authentik. Liu, X. (2013). Lun daxue yingyu jiaoxue sibian nengli peiyang moshi jiangou [Constructing an educational model for cultivating critical thinking skills in university English courses]. Foreign Language World, (5), 59–66. Lu, Z. (2018). Chuangxinxing waiyu rencai peiyang de linian yu shijian [Innovative education for cultivating foreign language talents: theory and practice]. Foreign Language Education, 39(1), 50–54. Oxford, R. L. (2015). Expanded perspectives on autonomous learners. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2014.995765 Phillips, D., & Ochs, K. (2003). Processes of policy borrowing in education: Some explanatory and analytical devices. Comparative Education, 39(4), 451–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305006032000162020

Pu, S. (2020). Learner autonomy in the national English language curricula for Chinese universities 1978–2007: A historical analysis. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics 43(1): 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1515/CJAL-2020-0006 Qu, X., Zhang, F., & Wang, X. (2013). ‘Bajian shiyan ban’ de daxue waiyu peiyang moshi tansuo he jiaoxue xiaoguo yanjiu [Exploring the elite program of college English teaching: Model and effectiveness]. Foreign Languages in China, 10(5), 13–18. Saeed, J. (1997). Semantics. Blackwell. Schmenk, B. (2005). Globalizing learner autonomy. TESOL Quarterly, 39(1), 107–118. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588454

Schriewer, J. (2012). Meaning constellations in the world society. Comparative Education, 48(4), 411–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2012.737233 Skinner, Q. (1978). The foundations of modern political thought (Vol. 1). Cambridge University Press. Tan, C. (2015). Education policy borrowing and cultural scripts for teaching in China. Comparative Education, 51(2), 196–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2014.966485 Tu, G., Hu, D., & Fan, L. (2016). Chuancheng, fazhan, and chuangxin: Daxue yingyu kecheng shezhi xintixi goujian zhi sikao [Inheritance, development and innovation: Reflections on the construction of new college English curriculum setting system]. Foreign Languages in China, 13(6), 4–9. Tully, J. (1988). The pen is a mighty sword: Quentin Skinner’s analysis of politics. In J. Tully (Ed.), Meaning and context: Quentin Skinner and his critics (pp. 7–25). Polity Press. Vogel, E. F. (2011). Deng Xiaoping and the transformation of China. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674062832

Wang, S., Wu, D., Liu, C., Jia, G., Zhao, W., Jin, Y., … Xin, H. (2009). Daxue yingyu jiaoyu fazhan yanjiu [Research on the development of college English language education]. In W. Dai & W. Hu (Eds.), Development of Chinese foreign language education: 1949–2009 (pp. 445–570). Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

197

198

Shi Pu

Zhang, W., Zhang, W., & Liu, M. (2015). Yanjiuxing daxue yingyu jiaoyu tixi de goujian yu tansuo: Yi Tsinghua daxue weili [Constructing an integrated English education system at a Chinese research-oriented university: the case of Tsinghua University]. Modern Foreign Languages, 38(1), 93–101. Zhu, X., & Ma, W. (2014). Kecheng shezhi de xuexizhe xuqiu fenxi: Jiyu daxue gonggong yingyu kecheng de yanjiu [Analysing learners’ needs for curriculum design: A study on college English curriculum]. Foreign Language World, (6), 48–56. Zou, X. (2011). What happens in different contexts and how to do learner autonomy better? Teacher Development, 15(4), 421–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2011.635268

chapter 11

Beyond written texts History as told by the objects of modern foreign language classes in a Brazilian school Marta Banducci Rahe

Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul

This chapter analyses the objects and artifacts used in foreign language classes in a secondary school in Campo Grande, a Brazilian city, from 1931 to 1961, and compares these with official sources such as government policy documents and texts on new methodological approaches in an attempt to examine whether and how intended innovations helped to shape teachers’ daily practices. A document found in the archives of this school points to the purchase of record collections, record players and postcards, showing that there were attempts to follow official reforms. However, closer examination shows that the presence of these objects in the school did not bring about the expected changes. Material Culture, as represented by such artefacts, can be seen to open up a new perspective to be considered within Applied Linguistic Historiography.

Introduction Examples of material culture range from impressive constructions such as the Great Wall and the Forbidden City in China, the Eiffel Tower in Paris or contemporary buildings in the United Arab Emirates to small objects found in archeological sites. All these reveal the everyday life of a society, and are socially and culturally marked. Although widely considered in the fields of history and social science, material culture has not yet acquired a commonly accepted or precise definition. According to Buccaile and Pesez (1989), this is probably because the idea of material culture appears to be obvious or even because its global meaning seems to be self-evident. However, they also point out that the different connotations of this notion deserve rigorous investigation. As these authors affirm, there has been an attempt to develop the notion over the years, under the influence partly of epistemological changes in contemporary humanities and social sciences. https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.20.11ban © 2023 John Benjamins Publishing Company

200

Marta Banducci Rahe

Firstly, it seems that material culture is strongly connected with collectivity as opposed to individuality. This is one of the reasons why it is studied in Anthropology and Archeology, for instance. Another aspect is that it draws special attention to persistent facts, habits and traditions more than to accidental or big events. This opens up new perspectives in historical studies. Besides collectivity and habits, the notion of material culture also implies infrastructural phenomena relating to the material aspects of culture, and this explains the importance which may be given to concrete objects from a Marxist viewpoint. From this perspective, the objects become tools to throw light on less well-documented domains via sociocultural analyses. In such analyses, the dimensions of the objects, their sizes, shapes, the materials they are made of, the way they are produced, and other aspects of their materiality may all be relevant. In History, written texts have tended to be privileged as the main type of source for investigations. It was not until the 1970s that historians who were used to analysing traditional sources such as offical documents and their discourses began to add other references in their research (Burke, 2011; Le Goff, 2013). This perspective has not only revised the notion of document but also broadened it by taking full account of documents’ non-neutrality. The inclusion of photographs, literary texts, gramophone records, films and other cultural productions has shown that these can be even more enlightening about social relations in different times and places than written texts (ibid.). Indeed, according to Tilley (2009), objects “tell” about social relations in a way that often cannot be told by oral and written discourses: The artifact, through its silent speech and written presence, speaks what cannot be spoken, writes what cannot be written, and articulates that which remains conceptually separated in social practice. (Tilley, 2009, p. 62)

In the research reported in this chapter, I consider ways in which objects newly brought into secondary schools to be used in modern foreign language classes may shed light on the investment made by the Brazilian government, since the 20th century, towards the modernization and innovation of schools and their practices, including new policies, new school programmes, new supplies and new methodologies. Underlying this research approach is the assumption that the school supplies intended to be tools of schooling are valuable sources for investigating classrooms and their routines, of equal importance to written and official documents. Brazilian educational proposals in the first half of the 20th century reflected Republican ideology, involving reorganization of school buildings, furnishing of classrooms, creation of laboratories and the proposal of a national curriculum

Chapter 11. Beyond written texts

according to European and American models. In 1931, a Decree issued by the Ministry of Education and Health (the so-called Francisco Campos Reform) listed the subjects to be taught in Brazilian secondary schools, suggested school programmes and instructions for implementation, provided methodological instructions, and suggested supplies for classes. Privileging the teaching of English and French in modern foreign language classes, the reform brought significant methodological changes to language subjects, proposing implementation of the Direct Method. The time frame 1931–1961 was chosen for this investigation because 1961 was a further turning-point in the history of foreign language teaching and learning in Brazil due to Law n. 4024 of that year which excluded Latin as required subject and brought the teaching of Spanish back into the picture again, implemented a more flexible and decentralized curriculum and made modern foreign languages elective subjects in secondary schools. Thus, my aim in this study was to search for the objects and artifacts used in foreign language classes in a secondary school in Campo Grande, a Brazilian city, from 1931 to 1961, and to compare them with official sources such as government policies, school documents, and texts on new methodological approaches, attempting to examine whether and how the innovations proposed helped to shape teachers’ daily practices and whether the presence of these objects in the schools supported implementation of reforms proposed by the Ministry of Education. The search for these objects and the attempt to find them in the school were inspired by the government proposals relating to the implementation of the Direct Method in Brazilian secondary schools and the successive lists of materials that arrived in schools suggesting the purchase of record collections, gramophones and slides, among other objects, but mainly because, although most works on the history of foreign language teaching and learning in Brazil consider and mention them as important methodological resources, their presence and actual use in classes have not been deeply analysed. Aware of the potential importance of these school supplies for understanding and building the history of foreign language teaching and learning practices, I pursued answers to the following questions: – – –

Did these objects actually arrive in the school, and were they included in its language class routines in accordance with the government’s proposed school programmes? Why were they purchased by the school? Were teachers prepared to use them in their classes?

Listening to what these objects may “speak” and reading what they might “write” are possible ways of bringing material culture as a source into Applied Linguistic

201

202

Marta Banducci Rahe

Historiography, raising questions about the roles these objects played in language classes, as well as how and if they were included, incorporated and mixed with teachers’ practices and the institution’s routines.

Modern language teaching and learning in Brazil: From the regencies to the first republic Modernization arrived in Brazil in the 19th century in association with a Republican vision which intended to lead the country to progress and civilization, promoting economic, social and political change. In order to shape the contemporary citizen, relevant actions included instruction and education of the Brazilian population. For this purpose, educational projects would have to be implemented, including opening schools, offering teacher training courses and modernizing the curriculum. One important aspect to be considered here is that during this period, through to the beginning of the 20th century, the Brazilian project to become a “cultivated” nation was strongly influenced by European models, with a particular focus on British industrialization and French cultural models. This Eurocentric view meant that French and English were promoted in secondary schools to the detriment of Spanish, the language spoken by the other countries in Latin America. At the end of the 1880s, discussions about classical and scientific approaches to education were intensified. Intellectuals supported a scientific education, whereas members of the social and political elite restated their interest in literary and humanistic approaches. In relation to the teaching of foreign languages, progressive changes from literary to practical purposes gave rise to the development of listening and speaking skills, and brought daily dialogues to classes. Nevertheless, many teachers and students still continued to understand modern foreign language teaching as a bridge to developing refinement and literary knowledge – hence, an overall continuation of the Gramar-Translation Method, with its humanistic perspective and traditional procedures, in schools. In the first decade of the 20th century, the government still did not explicitly promote any particular methodology for modern foreign language classes, but, in 1912, some principles of the Direct Method were included in the programme of the Collegio Pedro II, a leading secondary school in Rio de Janeiro. This suggested that French classes in the third year should be given in French, and stated the goal that by the end of schooling, students would have to be able to read, write, and speak the foreign language as well as to appreciate its literature. According to the document,

Chapter 11. Beyond written texts

O ensino será ministrado exclusivamente em francez explicando o professor os principaes idiotismos e as particularidades essenciaes da língua. As traduções preparadas com antecedência ou feitas em aula terão de ser resumidas oralmente, devendo exercita-se os alumnos na elaboração de syntheses claras e consisas. As composições ou serão livres ou obedecerão a um thema obrigado, sendo a crítica e a defeza das mesmas feitas na língua ensinada.1 (Vecchia & Lorenz, 1998, p. 187)

However, it was only in 1930, with the creation of the Ministry of Education and Public Health that modern foreign languages and associated methodologies definitively became a talking point. Under Francisco Campos as Minister of Education, Carneiro Leão, a teacher at Collegio Pedro II (as well as being a leading intellectual) was invited to show how the Direct Method could be put into practice. An Ordinance published by the Ministry in June 1931 determined the programmes for French, English and German classes, reinforcing the idea that students should be taught in the foreign language: Não basta, pois, que o aluno se torne o aluno capaz de ler, com maior ou menor dificuldade, os autores estrangeiros, traduzindo aproximadamente os vocabularios, os grupos sintáticos, os idiotismos, sem dispensar o uso de dicionário ou regras decoradas. É necessário que o aluno adquira a faculdade de manifestar o pensamento diretamente na língua estrangeira, sem a mediação da língua materna.2 (Brasil, 1931, 12405)

Decree 20.833, in December 1931, established that the teaching of modern foreign languages would be oriented and supervised by teachers hired by the Ministry (Brasil, 1931, art. 2). It also determined that Cada matéria […] será ministrada a turmas composta, no máximo, de 15 alunos, por professores nacionais ou estrangeiros, admitidos por portaria de contrato.3 (Brasil, 1931, art. 3)

1. [Classes will be given exclusively in French – the teacher will explain the most important idioms and the essential particularities of the language. Translations previously prepared or done in the classroom will be summarized orally, and the students will practise clear and concise syntheses. Essays will either be free or be on a chosen theme, constituting arguments for and against this theme in the target language.] 2. [It is not suffficient for students to be able to read foreign authors with more or less difficulty, translating the vocabulary, syntax or idioms with the use of a dictionary or memorized rules. It is necessary that students acquire the ability to express their thoughts directly in the foreign language, with no support of their mother tongue.] 3. [Each subject will be taught to groups formed of at most 15 students. The teachers, Brazilian or foreigners, will be hired under the rules of the Ordinance.]

203

204

Marta Banducci Rahe

There was also the creation of a committee to develop the Instructions for implementation of the 1931 Decree, which were published in the Official Journal in March 9, 1932. The document (Brasil, 1932) was written by a group of Brazilian teachers, most of them authors of coursebooks, grammars and dictionaries. Besides being teachers at Collegio Pedro II, these professionals were involved in public debates about educational processes in the country (Chagas, 1967). Thus, the Instructions specified the methodology, the criteria for hiring teachers and the number of students in the classrooms. In relation to methodology, they registered that “o ensino das Línguas Vivas (Francês, Inglês e Alemão) será prático e ensinado na língua estrangeira pelo Método Direto desde a primeira classe” [the teaching of modern foreign languages (French, English and German) will be practical and will be taught in the foreign language by the adoption of the Direct Method from the first class onwards] (Brasil, 1932). The experience with the new method would be demanding since it required classrooms with 15 students, rigorous selection of teachers, and meticulous control of the textbooks and other school supplies. Recommended practices involved the use of magazines, newspapers, pictures, photographs and other visual objects. The inclusion of these materials could be envisaged as changing classroom routines, and to a certain extent, rearranging the school space and time. Teachers would have to be more communicative, and teacher–student and student–student communication would be intensified. A further Decree (no. 4244), which came into force a decade later, in 1942, reinforced the connection between the humanities and language teaching and suggested that the presence of English and French in secondary school curricula was due to their cultural relevance and the strong connection between Brazil and both France and Britain, but also with the United States (Brasil, 1942). The next year, a Ministerial Order presented school programmes and aspects of the Direct Method in detail, proposing both procedures and supplies to be used in language classes (Brasil, 1943). In addition to textbooks, the 1943 document listed other materials that would make up classroom experiences and rituals. These included chalks in different colours, pictures, wall charts, records, vocabulary games, mimeographed short stories, maps and films. The report also recommended that teachers organize a small library in the classroom containing “obras recomendadas para a análise e livros ilustrados referentes à vida social e literária dos séculos XVIII, XIX e XX” [recommended works to be analysed by students and illustrated books showing social and literary life of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries] (Brasil, 1943). The creation of a special “place” for modern foreign language classes called the “Sala de Línguas Vivas” [Modern Languages Room] was another intended innovation in foreign language classes in Brazil. This room, furnished with innovative school supplies such as record player, cinematograph, book collections,

Chapter 11. Beyond written texts

records, film collections and postcards would not only bring changes in the way of teaching and learning foreign languages in schools, but would also require wellprepared teachers. According to Schmidt (1958: 165), the arrival of these objects in schools helped to highlight a distinction between “o trabalho feito com as coisas” [work done with things] and “o estritamente oral” [strictly oral work]. For this author, things or realia meant everything related to the teaching of foreign languages, including to history, ideas, habits, customs and people: A noção das coisas se adquire pelos meios auxiliares do ensino de línguas: discos registrando canções populares, narrações, cantos de toda espécie, música característica, trechos literários, discursos, poesias, etc., jogos de vocabulário, de história, de geografia, etc., revistas, jornais, livros; filmes reveladores da civilização estrangeira; ilustrações que tenham esse mesmo fito; dispositivos; aulas de rádio. Tudo aquilo que escapa ao trabalho meramente verbal da aula.4 (Schmidt, 1958, pp. 166–167)

Let us now retrace our steps to consider the preparation of teachers to deal with the intended innovations in the period 1931–1961. The Decree of April 1931 had stressed teachers as leading figures in the process of school modernization along with methodology and school supplies. In 1931, the government created the first Education, Language and Science College with the aim of enhancing teacher preparation. Conscious of the number of teachers who needed training courses, and that there were not enough vacancies in colleges, temporary licensing was provided “aos que o requerem, dentro de seis meses a contar da data da publicação deste decreto.” (Brasil, 1931). [to professionals who require it, in six months from the publishing of this Decree.] (Brasil, 1931). Teachers who until the 1930s and 1940s, especially in towns far from central cities, had been lawyers, doctors, dentists, military officers, or otherwise selftaught teachers known for their cultural background, needed to be prepared to deal with the new expected realities of language teaching. For many of them, teaching was not even their first job, so it was not rare to see them abandoning their classroms, even in the middle of the term, in order to follow their first career. The emphasis given to teachers in the reform of 1931 led Brazilian schools to pay special attention to their staff. A report from 1937 relating to the research site of this study (see below) highlights this aspect. According to the public teach-

4. [The notion of things takes the form in language teaching and learning of auxiliary tools: records that bring folk songs, narratives, songs in different styles, literary excerpts, speeches, poems, etc., vocabulary, history, geography games, etc., magazines, newspapers, books; films and visuals showing foreign civilization; radio lessons. Everything that goes beyond merely oral classes.]

205

206

Marta Banducci Rahe

ing inspector, Amélio de Carvalho Baís, the professionals who taught at Colégio Nossa Senhora Auxiliadora were rigidly selected under official rules. Most of them were nuns and priests of the Salesian order, while some subjects had lay teachers who were chosen “sob rigorosa moralidade e competência didática” [“according to criteria of rigorous morality and didactic competence”] (Relatório, Ginásio Feminino Nossa Senhora Auxiliadora, 1937, Livro 3). In 1953 another attempt was made to modify lay teachers’ status when the government started to offer courses to in-service teachers during the school holidays. This initiative was intended to provide official licensing for professionals formally approved in the courses and by means of the exams offered. These courses were essential to towns like Campo Grande (home of the research site), which only had its first college opened in 1961.

Colégio Nossa Senhora Auxiliadora, Campo Grande, and the objects for language classes While the official documents cited above propose methodology for language classes in secondary schools as well as textbooks and other objects, it is in a school’s own reports, in its Inspection records, and in its internal regulations that signs and clues of the actual presence of these materials in this environment, and of their uses by the teachers are likely to be found. In pursuit of the research questions listed above, my research was carried out in the school office, in the storage room, in the library, and in the archives of a Catholic Secondary School, Colégio Nossa Senhora Auxiliadora, situated in Campo Grande, a town in the Midwest of Brazil, which faced its first flow of development in 1914 with the arrival of the railway and electricity. This was originally a school for girls, founded and supported by the Salesian Sisters of Saint John Bosco, which started its activities in 1926. It is important to mention that, at the end of the 1930s, there were only three secondary schools in Campo Grande, two of which were Catholic, Colégio Dom Bosco, a school for boys, and Colégio Nossa Senhora Auxiliadora. The institution offered day-school and boarding-school to paying and nonpaying students. Most of the boarders belonged to middle class and rich families from small towns in the state as well as from Campo Grande itself. To be accepted as a non-paying student, it was necessary to attest poverty, to be an orphan or to have been abandoned by one’s parents. These non-paying places were left at the disposal of the local government. In the words of a 1930s advertisement published in Folha da Serra, a local magazine, the school “tem por fim formar a mente e o coração das jovens, para torná-las aptas a bem desempenharem a nobre tarefa que lhes é reservada na família e na sociedade” [aims at shaping girls’ minds and hearts to make them able

Chapter 11. Beyond written texts

to perform the noble role reserved for them in the family and society] (Folha da Serra – Anno IV – numbers 37–48, undated). This is one of the reasons parents used to enrol their daughters in this institution. Although far from the capital of the country and the big cities, where political decisions were made, Colégio Nossa Senhora Auxiliadora tried to follow all government laws in order to achieve the status of a modern Brazilian institution like the ones in Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo. Hence, the school tried to purchase all supplies indicated by official documents, and these objects became part of its material heritage. Colégio Nossa Senhora Auxiliadora, therefore, was chosen to be the locus of these investigation for this reason and also because I had come across an important document during previous research in the school. This internal 1945–46 report lists all the objects that belonged to the Sala de Linguas Vivas in the school: Encontram-se nesta sala os seguintes materiais didáticos: uma electrola, uma vitrola, dois aparelhos cinematográficos, coleção de livros franceses, ingleses e americanos, coleção de filmes em francês, inglês e português. Coleção de cartões postais e gravuras, bem como alguns objetos destinados a iniciação de conhecimentos da civilização estrangeira.5 (Relatório [Report], 1945–1946, Colégio Nossa Senhora Auxiliadora, n. pag.)

These objects had arrived in the institution as required for the implementation of new policies on modern foreign language teaching and learning which included the adoption of the Direct Method in 1931. Comparing internal school reports such as the one cited above with national Decrees and Instructions, I was able to see that this school had purchased all materials listed in the national documents, especially the ones specified in the Ordinance published in 1943. Discovering these reports led me to reflect on the relevance of the objects mentioned as signs of innovation for modern foreign language classes and the application of the Direct Method in the school. In an attempt to understand how and whether this method was actually implemented in the school, and how the innovative school supplies were used by teachers and students, I decided to search for them, even though “rescuing” them would not be likely to be easy, as it is known that only a few institutions tend to keep old materials. Most school supplies are discarded, burned or kept in storage rooms where, normally, they are not well preserved or simply disappear. 5. [The room is furnished with the following school supplies: one phonograph, a record player, two movie projectors, collection of French, English and American books, collection of French, English and Brazilian movies, postcards and pictures, as well as various objects intended for introducing knowledge of foreign civilization.]

207

208

Marta Banducci Rahe

There are, in the school, two storage rooms. In one of them, near the library, old textbooks, atlases and magazines are kept and, in another room on the second floor of the building, old and broken materials such as desks, tables, cupboards, film projectors, binoculars, a camera, two tape recorders and other small objects are stored, probably waiting to be discarded. However, there are some old objects here which seem to have been simply abandoned or forgotten. Among the furniture in this room, in a wooden cupboard, I came across many of the gramophone records listed in the Report from 1945 and suggested by the 1943 Ordinance as necessary for furnishing the Sala de Línguas Vivas. These were in their original boxes and in good condition. Considering that new objects arrive in schools in response to new methodologies, it should be remembered that the records found in the storage room in Colégio Nossa Senhora Auxiliadora entered the institution as a tool for modern foreign language classes to be taught via the Direct Method. Their presence could be expected to promote changes in culture, space and practices of the school, demanding new abilities and approaches from teachers, and their incorporation in every day practices. Chagas (1967); Boechat (1962) and Schmidt (1958) all mention the use of records in language classes in a period when teaching of phonetics and the achievement of excellent pronounciation were imperative. In order to be effective for foreign language teaching, they affirm that voices on the records should be all from native speakers. Indeed, Schmidt (1958) considered gramophone records to be “indispensable sources for the Scientific Method” (Schmidt, 1958, p. 174), and suggested that they should play a relevant role in pronunciation classes, in listening activities and silent reading. Having discovered the records, I started to analyse them, observing them closely to see if they had scratches on them, or any fingermarks perhaps, in order to verify vestiges of their presence in the classrooms. This procedure was influenced by Ginzburg’s (1989, p. 147) recommendation that we observe cultural products in their “insignificant particularities”, and his argument that simple signs and evidence, neglected data and individual traces, usually underestimated by researchers, can disclose important social processes. So, based on his method of finding clues, digging deeply inside the archives, I tried to shed light on the modern foreign language objects that had arrived in the school. Among the objects analysed was a red box with 12 vinyl records (78rpm) and three books inside it (See Figure 1). These form part of a Linguaphone Course for French classes. The books are: Cours de français, divided into 50 lessons; Linguaphone: Gramática Francesa e vocabulário; and Fonética. All texts are recorded. This material started to be used in Brazil in 1937, and was largely spread among secondary schools, most of them confessional and situated in the south and

Chapter 11. Beyond written texts

northeast of the country. Both Chagas (1967) and Schmidt (1958) mention the Linguaphone records when describing foreign language classes.

Figure 1. Linguaphone course records found in their original box and covers in the storage room of Colégio Nossa Senhora Auxiliadora6

Another collection is English traditional songs: English by radio (See Figure 2), which is dedicated to “foreign listeners”. This material was produced by the British Broadcasting Corporation – BBC – and contains six vinyl records with “traditional songs” and a handbook. The records are packed in their original and nearly-new box and are all in their original tracing paper. The handbook with lyrics does not have fingermarks or traces of being read by anyone. Calling all beginners (1959) is a collection of four vinyl records and one handbook with 52 lessons (see Figure 3). The author is David Hicks and it was adapted for Brazilian students by M. Dias Coelho. “This is, with no doubt, the most updated and accessible English course. It teaches the language of educated people in an extremely easy and pleasant way to beginners”, affirms the author on p. 3 of the handbook. This collection also includes a booklet with exercises related to pronunciation, phonetic symbols and drills. All dialogues and sentences printed in it are reproduced on the records. 6. All photographs in Figures in this chapter are by the author.

209

210

Marta Banducci Rahe

Figure 2. Original box with English traditional songs record set and handbook, Colégio Nossa Senhora Auxiliadora collection

There is also an English literature course, Readings from English literature (1962) (see Figure 4), published by the BBC. The texts are excerpts from Shakespeare’s plays, novels by Charles Dickens and short stories, together with some poems. All are recorded on vinyl records and students are invited to listen to them while reading. As Schmidt (1958: 177) wrote, Os discos em aulas regulares auxiliam a memorização de textos; o canto fala à imaginação e à sensibilidade; os contos de fadas musicados; as biografias e as narrativas; as fábulas apresentam um vocabulário escolhido, servindo de transição entre o curso de linguagem corrente e a literatura.7

Analysing these objects in detail, opening each box and taking every record out of its sleeve to check its condition, it was possible to notice that the signs of the past found on them seemed to be caused by time and the way they were stored, not by their use in language classes. The stain on the bottom of Linguaphone red box (Figure 1) is an example: it was probably caused by damp, but the records inside it are very well preserved and kept in their original wrappers.

7. [The records will help with the memorization of texts; the songs will support the imagination and sensibility; the vocabulary presented in the fairy tales, in the biographies and in the narratives will connect the current language course and literature.]

Chapter 11. Beyond written texts

Figure 3. Original box with Calling all beginners English course records in their original tracing paper, Colégio Nossa Senhora Auxiliadora Collection

Among all records, only one was broken; the others were well-organized in their original boxes and covers, with no scratches or other signs of damage on them. The records of the Calling all beginners collection were still packed in their original tracing paper, as if they had never been used. My findings show that these objects were present in the school, and became part of its material heritage, but when they were searched for in the inspectors’ reports which describe the routines and daily activities in language classes, only textbooks were mentioned. For example: Presenciei os últimos preparativos para o início das aulas. Examinei os livros a serem adotados pelos professores das diferentes cadeiras. Quase todas seguem exatamente os programas emanados pelo Ministério da Educação e Saúde.8 (Relatório Ginásio Feminino Nossa Senhora Auxiliadora, 1935–1941, p. 11)

8. [The school is being prepared for the next term. I examined the books which will be used by the teachers in their different subjects. Almost all of them follow exactly what is proposed by the Ministry of Health and Education.]

211

212

Marta Banducci Rahe

Figure 4. Original box with Readings from English literature record set and handbook (Colégio Nossa Senhora Auxiliadora collection)

In contrast with the records, books from the period are stored on shelves in the storage room which is in the hallway and close to the library. Although they are dusty and worn out, they are organized by subject, and most of them are catalogued, suggesting that they used to be part of the library collection. According to Sorá (2010), in the 1930s, especially in the second half of the decade, books became much more part of the national cultural reality in Brazil. There was an increase in production by publishing houses, ranging from literature to textbooks. Moreover, the creation in 1937 of the Instituto Nacional do Livro (INL) [National Institute of the Book] by the Ministry of Education was the country’s first official action establishing textbook policies (Cury, 2009), highlighting the role of publishing houses in the processes of national modernization and schooling development. This development encouraged the use of textbook mate-

Chapter 11. Beyond written texts

rials by teachers, especially when schools started to receive lists of recommended textbooks and had to choose the best options for their needs. In the Colégio Nossa Senhora Auxiliadora, I found many of the titles suggested by the Ministry of Education, and while leafing through these I could see that some had students’ names on their first pages, while others contained handwritten annotations, reminders, dates or translations close to the words and expressions. Their condition suggested that they had been used by students and teachers. Thus, by means of close inspection of textbooks and other school supplies, and through reading Inspectors’ Reports and checking the lists of books recommended for modern foreign language classes, it was possible to see that the gramophone records related to active learning do not appear in reports of actual practice but the textbooks are always present. The maintenance of these last materials as daily tools in the language classes and the apparent non-inclusion of the new objects may suggest that teachers were not prepared to incorporate them into their practices. Indeed, changes in school routines do not follow the same pace as the production of official documents. Schools tend to keep their traditions and cultures, while it seems to be the case that sudden interventions in their experiences and practices are most usually rejected or take longer than expected to be incorporated instead of being promptly accepted. Thus, the modern objects that arrived at Colégio Nossa Senhora Auxiliadora to be incorporated into the modern foreign language classes actually had a “lost or dislocated existence, along with other layers of object sedimentation” (Lawn, 2005, p. 7) in the school.

Conclusion Being part of the school landscape, school supplies are usually so “naturalized” within everyday scenarios that they are not deemed to be objects of research. Making them visible and recognizing them as material forms of ideas, as I have attempted in this research, can provide useful insights into the realities of school practice. In Brazil, at least, textbooks are usually the main sources for researching the history of foreign language teaching and learning, but documents found in the archives of Colégio Nossa Senhora Auxiliadora also point to the purchase of records, record players, tapes and flashcards, showing that there were attempts, on paper at least, to conform with the successive reforms proposed by the Ministry of Education and Health. In this study, I searched for these innovative and modern supplies with the aim in mind of revealing and discussing their uses and roles in modern foreign

213

214

Marta Banducci Rahe

language classes, their materiality, and signs of their “lives” in the school. Differently from the textbooks that are organized on shelves in a room close to the library, having handwritten annotations which show that they had been part of class routines, the records, found in the storage room on the second floor of the school, seemed to have been abandoned there. Following Escolano (2009), it can be affirmed that these gramophone records were, at one level, incorporated into the school scenario; however, it was not possible to detect any vestiges of practices involving them or to see how the institution embraced the methodological changes and innovations proposed by them into French and English classes. Although compulsory, since the laboratories, including the Sala de Línguas Vivas, would be periodically and rigorously inspected and supervised by a public inspector, so that the institution would be considered sufficiently modern, gramophone records do not appear to have become an essential tool within language teaching, at least in this institution. Thus, even though they were symbols of innovation in modern language teaching, these objects and their presence in the school apparently did not bring the expected changes in daily practice since the record collections still keep the characteristics of new materials. Their nearlynew condition, their covers, the tracing paper protecting them, and their original boxes imply that they were purchased by the school but had been never or hardly ever used. On the basis of my research, with its focus on Material Culture, I may conclude that we should not necessarily trust or be content with what is stated in policy and theory, in official documents and even in documents produced by schools themselves. There is a need to look at evidence of actual use of materials to affirm that they were part of daily practices. In the fields of Applied Linguistic Historiography (Smith, 2016) and History of Language Learning and Teaching (McLelland & Smith, 2018), such findings are important because they show that the arrival of innovative objects in a school does not necessarily mean they are adopted by language teachers and students. In the researched school, the lack of use of gramophone records may have related to insufficient preparation of professionals who, most of the time, were employed because of their knowledge of foreign languages. This also suggests that schools and school culture, in general, may tend to react to innovations coming from outside by appearing to adopt rather than fully adopting them in practice.

Chapter 11. Beyond written texts

Acknowledgements I sincerely thank the editors for their advice and many useful suggestions for revising this chapter.

References Primary sources (1): Colégio Nossa Senhora Auxiliadora documents Relatório Ginásio Feminino “N. S. Auxiliadora”, 1935–1941. Campo Grande, M. Dados Gerais, Plantas das salas de aula, regimento interno. Livro de Correspondências Exp. Ginásio 1935–1941. Termo de visita Ginásio Feminino “N. S. Auxiliadora”, Alvino Corrêa da Costa, 1934. Campo Grande, MT, Termos de visita dos fiscais designados para a Inspeção do Ginásio Feminino N. S. Auxiliadora, 1934–1945. Termo de visita Ginásio Feminino N. S. Auxiliadora, Amélio Baís, 1937. Campo Grande, MT, Termos de visita dos fiscais designados para a Inspeção do Ginásio Feminino N. S. Auxiliadora, 1934–1940.

Primary sources (2): Others Boechat, J. (1962). O material didático no ensino de francês. In CADES. Didática do Francês: súmulas para os cursos de orientação (pp. 111–116). CADES. Brasil. (1931). Ministério da Educação, Cultura e Saúde Decreto nº 20.833, de 21 de dezembro de 1931. Extingue cargos de professores no Colégio Pedro II e dispõe sobre o ensino de línguas vivas estrangeiras no mesmo colégio. Retrieved on 24 June 2018 from http:// www2.camara.leg.br/legin/fed/decret/1930-1939/decreto-20833-21-dezembro-1931-508467norma-pe.html Brasil. (1932). Ministério da Educação, Cultura e Saúde. Instrução para Execução do Decreto nº 20.833, de 21 de dezembro de 1931. Diário Oficial, Rio de Janeiro, 9 mar. 1932. Instruções para a execução do Decreto nº 20.833, de 21 de dezembro de 1931. Retrieved on 24 June 2018 from http://www,jusbrasil.com.br/diarios/1997679/pg-8-secao-1-diariooficial-da-uniao-dou-de-09-03-1932 Brasil. (1942). Ministério da Educação, Cultura e Saúde Decreto-Lei nº 4.244, de 9 de abril de 1942. Lei orgânica do ensino secundário. Retrieved on 24 June 2018 from http://www2 .camara.leg.br/legin/fed/declei/1940-1949/decreto-lei-4244-9-abril-1942-414155publicacaooriginalpe.html Brasil. (1943). Ministério da Educação, Cultura e Saúde Portaria Ministerial nº 114, de 29 de janeiro de 1943. Expede as instruções metodológicas para execução de programa de francês do curso ginasial. Retrieved on 24 June 2018 from http://www,jusbrasil.com.br /diarios/2157048/pg-12-secao-1-diario-oficial-da-uniao-dou-de-02-02-1943 Brasil. (1952). Ensino secundário no Brasil: Legislação vigente. INEP. Chagas, V. (1967). Da revolução industrial aos nossos dias. In Didática especial das línguas modernas (pp. 53–97). Companhia Editora Nacional.

215

216

Marta Banducci Rahe

Chagas, V. (1967). Evolução do ensino das línguas no Brasil. In Didática especial das línguas modernas (pp. 103–121). Companhia Editora Nacional. Schmidt, M. J. (1958). O ensino científico das línguas modernas. F. Briguiet & Cia Editores. Vecchia, A., & Lorenz, K. M. (Eds.). (1998). Programa do ensino da escola secundária brasileira: 1850–1951. Editora do Autor.

Secondary sources Bucaille, R., & Pesez, J. M. (1989). Cultura material. In Enciclopedia Einaudi (Vol.16, pp. 11–47). Burke, P. (2011). Abertura: A nova história, seu passado e seu futuro. In P. Burke, A escrita da história: Novas perspectivas (pp 7–38). Editora Unesp. Cury, C. R. J. (2009). Livro didático como assistência ao estudante. Revista Diálogo Educacional, Curitiba, 9(26), 119–130. Escolano Benito, A. (2009). Ethnohistory and materiality of education: In the setting of Universal Exhibitions. In M. Lawn (Ed.), Modelling the future: Exhbitions and materiality of education (pp. 31–50). Symposium Books. Ginzburg, C. (1989). Mitos, emblemas, sinais. Trans. Federico Carotti. Companhia das Letras. Kelly, L. G. (1976). 25 centuries of language teaching. Newbury House. Lawn, M. (2005). A pedagogy for the public: The place of objects, observation, mechanical production and cupboards. In M. Lawn & I. Grosvenor (Eds.), Materialities of schooling: Design, technology, objects, routines. Comparative Histories of Education (pp. 15–30). Symposium Books. https://doi.org/10.15730/books.12 Le Goff, J. (2013). História e memória. Editora da Unicamp. McLelland, N., & Smith, R. (Eds.). (2018). The history of language learning and teaching (3 vols.). Legenda. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv16km0ns Smith, R. (2016). Building “Applied Linguistic Historiography”: Rationale, scope and methods. Applied Linguistics, 37(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv056 Sorá, G. (2010). Brasilianas: José Olympio e a gênese do mercado editorial brasileiro. Editora da Universidade de São Paulo: Com-Arte. Tilley, C. (2009). Objectification. In C. Tilley, W. Keane, S. Kuchler, M. Rowlands, & P. Spyer. (Eds.), Handbook of material culture (pp. 60–73). Sage.

Index A AAAL (American Association for Applied Linguistics) 88 AFLA (L’Association Française de Linguistique Appliquée) 84, 88, 90–92, 99–100 AILA (L’Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliquée) 84, 88–93, 96 Altieri, Ferdinando 35 applied linguistic historiography 4, 19, 158, 201–202, 214 applied linguistics 3–4, 19, 83–94, 96–100, 166 see also history of applied linguistics; linguistique appliquée ATALA (L’Association pour la Traduction Automatique et la Linguistique Appliquée) 92–93 audiolingual method 7–8, 89, 93, 99 audio-visual method / méthode structuro-globale audio-visuelle (SGAV ) 7, 93, 99 authenticity 15, 60–61, 75, 110, 112, 142, 155, 188, 193 B BAAL (British Association for Applied Linguistics) 88, 98 BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) 209–210 BEL (Bureau d’étude et de liaison pour l’enseignement du français dans le monde) 88–89, 92–93, 99 Besançon (University of ), Centre de Linguistique Appliquée (CLA) 88 Bildung 125–126 bilingual lexicography see dictionary Bloomfield, Leonard 88 Brazil 200–208, 212–213

Britain see UK British Council 3, 89, 99, 143 Bürgerschule 125, 128–129 C Calepio / Calepino, Ambrogio 24 Cambridge University Press 65, 73, 75 Capelle, Guy 90, 93, 99 Carteret, John 27 Catford, John C. (Ian) 88 Centre for Applied Linguistics (Washington, D.C.) 88 Chambaud, Lewis 47–48 change 8, 10–14, 16, 18–19, 72, 75, 86, 106, 113–104, 116, 122–123, 129, 132, 134, 181, 190–191, 201–202, 205, 208, 213–214 China 164–171, 173, 180–185, 187–194 Chinese (language) 164–177, 182, 185, 188 classifier (in Chinese) 166, 174–176 classroom discourse 115 classroom observation 105, 107, 116–117 classroom research 104–105, 107, 110, 117 CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) 8 Collins 63–65, 68, 72, 74–75 collocation 44–45, 55, 71–72, 74–75 communicative language teaching 8–11, 82, 97, 99, 127, 139, 142–146, 148, 150–151, 156, 182–183, 190 comparative method 26, 37–38, 147 concept borrowing 181, 183–185, 193–195 Confucianism 5 Corder, S. Pit 88–89, 95–97, 99

corpus / corpora 15, 55, 61, 67–68, 75, 91, 93 Coste, Daniel 86, 89, 93–94, 95 Council of Europe 139 CREDIF (Centre de recherche et d’étude pour la diffusion du français) 88–89, 92–93, 99 Cuban, Larry 123 Culioli, Antoine 88, 90–92 curriculum layer see multilayered curriculum curriculum reform see reform D Danish (language) 25 defining vocabulary 61–64, 74 definition (in dictionaries) 63–64 dictionary bilingual 25, 44–45, 54–55, 59, 65 electronic 72–74 guide to 72 hybridization 73 learner’s 19, 28, 38, 54–56, 59–76 macro/microstructure 45, 48–49, 70–71 monolingual 25, 54–55, 59–62, 74, 80 multilingual 24–25, 37 phraseological 45, 52–55 didactique / didactologie des langues(-cultures) 82–83, 93–95, 97, 100 dimensions of language teaching 9, 126, 129, 134 direct method(ology) 109, 116, 124–129, 131, 201–204, 207–208 discourse community 104–105, 117–118 Dutch (language) 24–25

218

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching

E Edinburgh (University of ), School of Applied Linguistics 88 educazione linguistica 138, 156 ELT / EFL / TESOL 3, 59, 89, 143, 156 history of 5, 9, 60, 89, 107, 156, 158 England 37, 44 English (language) 28, 31, 35, 44, 46–47, 49, 60–62, 67–68, 105–106, 113–116, 124, 127, 129, 133, 181, 183, 187–194, 201–203 see also ELT / EFL / TESOL ESF Project 95–96 evolution 9 example (phrase or sentence) 47–49, 51–52, 63, 66–67, 73–75, 141, 150–151, 153, 155, 176 experimentation 96, 109–110, 114, 116–118 F Fehse, Hermann 108–118 Ferguson, Charles 88 français langue étrangère (FLE) 85, 88–89, 92–95, 100 France 84–100, 172, 202 French (language) 24–28, 32, 35, 37, 44–55, 85–86, 88, 91–92, 105–106, 115, 127, 128–129, 201–204 frequency (information) 26, 61, 67–68, 146 G Galisson, Robert 91–95, 97, 99 Gelehrtenschule 126 German (language) 25, 106–107, 115, 203–204 Germany 105–118, 123–135 Giles, Herbert A. 169–170 girls’ school 44, 125–129, 206 GISCEL (Gruppo di Intervento e Studio nel Campo dell’Educazione Linguistica) 138 Gougenheim, Georges 93, 99

grammar 30–31, 97, 108, 114, 116¬–118, 128–129, 138–143, 149–151, 155–157, 165–166, 173–176 code see grammatical information of schooling 13, 18 school / Gymnasium 8, 32, 105, 110, 125–126 grammar-translation method 8–9, 17–18, 25, 30, 106, 111, 124–126 see also tradition grammatical information (in dictionaries) 61, 64–67, 75 gramophone record 200–201, 204–205, 207–214 Greek (language) 24, 27–28, 32, 105, 110, 126, 168, 174 H Handelsschule 128 Hebrew (language) 24, 126 Herrig, Ludwig 123 historical research 3–5, 7–12, 14, 18–19, 107, 144, 156, 158, 200, 208, 213 historical sense 11–13 history / historiography 124–125, 132, 199–200 grounded 5 local 12, 19 of applied linguistics (HoAL) 19, 83, 167, 177 of Chinese language studies 165, 170, 173, 176–177 of education 184 of English language teaching see ELT / EFL / TESOL of French language teaching 100, 156 of language learning and teaching (HoLLT) 4, 19, 105–107, 117–118, 129, 135, 201, 213–214 of methods 5, 9 of practice 45, 144, 167, 201 see also applied linguistic historiography; historical research; lexicography; method(ology)

Hornby, A.S. 59–62, 67–68 Hungarian (language) 24 I impact 63, 67–68, 104, 134, 157, 165, 194 see also innovation industrialization 14, 128, 132, 202 influence 5–6, 10, 14, 16, 82, 86, 88, 93, 96, 99, 132, 134, 165, 170, 173, 186, 199, 202 innovation 2–19, 36, 60, 62, 64–65, 67–68, 71–73, 75, 90, 95–96, 117, 122–123, 130, 132, 144, 156–157, 165, 167–168, 170, 173, 176–177, 193, 200–201, 207, 214 as / through adaptation 13, 18 apparent / perceived 9, 15, 18 curriculum 181, 194 discourse of 123, 132, 134 as impact / effect 10–11, 16, 18, 134 as intention 10, 205 incremental 8–9 layer of 18 management of 3, 11–13 methodological 99, 113, 156 pedagogical 181, 183, 191–194 perceived 9 process 14–15 product 13–15 radical 8–9 through research 13, 15–16, 83–84 technological 6, 13–15, 73, 98–99, 132 intended curriculum 10–11, 134, 138, 200, 202 see also multilayered curriculum intentionality / intentionalist approach 181–185 intercomprehension 37–38 interlanguage 89, 97 internet 72–76 invention 10, 13–14 Italian (language) 24–26, 28, 32, 35–37, 44, 138–142, 147, 149, 152, 155, 167 Italy 137–158

Index

J Jespersen, Otto 54–55, 117, 125 Judaism 5 Junker, Heinrich 108–118 K Kant, Immanuel 5 Klinghardt, Hermann 107–118 L language mediation 115 langue 123, 130, 132–134 Latin 24–29, 31–32, 35–38, 105, 110, 115, 126, 174, 201 learner autonomy 18, 181–194 learner’s dictionary see dictionary LEND (Lingua e Nuova Didattica) 139, 142, 156 lexicography 14, 34–35, 38, 44, 54, 90–91, 165, 173 EFL 60–76 history / historiography of 14, 24, 37, 60–61, 65–65, 75 onomasiological 34–35 see also dictionary; tradition lexiculture 94–95 Linguaphone 208–210 linguistics 38, 84–85, 89–92, 95–96, 98, 106, 165, 167, 173, 176 see also tradition linguistique appliquée 82, 84–95 see also applied linguistics Longman 62–63, 65–66, 72, 74–75 M Macmillan 62, 65, 74 Mateer, Calvin W. 175 material culture 199–201, 214 memorization 25, 28–29, 37 Merriam-Webster 65, 73 method(ology) 5–10, 16–18, 30–31, 110, 110, 117–118, 123–135, 138, 145, 149, 156, 189–190, 200–208, 214 “new” 36, 60, 108–110, 113–117, 123–125, 130–133 see also audiolingual method; audio-visual method; CLIL; communicative language teaching; comparative

method; grammar-translation method; post-method pedagogy; Reform method; situational language teaching missionary sinology 165–166, 168–171, 173–175 modernization 5, 32, 200, 202, 205, 212 monolingual lexicography see dictionary Morrison, Robert 168–169 multilayered curriculum 10–12, 18, 123, 130, 131, 135 multilingual lexicography see dictionary N national curriculum 140, 142, 180–181, 184–191, 194 newness 3–4, 6–7, 9, 130, 132 see also method(ology) O observation see classroom observation OECD 2, 6, 9–10, 14 oscillation along a continuum 9, 13, 16–17, 129 Oxford University Press 61, 65, 72, 75 P Palmer, H.E. 12, 55, 60 Passy, Paul 125 Perdue, Clive 95–96 phonetics / phonetic transcription 71, 106, 113–114, 116, 208–209 phraseological lexicography see dictionary phraseology 44, 46, 51, 54–55 pictures 68–69, 107, 112, 116, 204 Plate, Heinrich 130–131 Polish (language) 24–25 Porcher, Louis 93–95 Portuguese (language) 25, 27–28, 32, 35–36, 167 post-method pedagogy 7 Pottier, Bernard 88, 91–92 practice 5, 8, 10–11, 13, 16–18, 25, 44–45, 94, 100, 107–109, 113, 117, 118, 123, 128, 130–131,

133–134, 144, 156, 158, 167, 183–184, 186, 189, 192–195, 201, 203–204, 208, 213–214 innovative 3, 38 language 26, 30–31, 110, 116, 138–142, 146, 148–151, 157 practitioner 17, 90, 94, 100, 106, 122–123, 130–136 research 107–108, 116 Proctor, Paul 61 professionalization 97, 123–124, 132 Progetto Speciale Lingue Straniere (PSLS) 139 progress / progressivism 3–8, 15–16, 19, 129–130, 132–134, 184, 202 pronunciation 31–32, 46–47, 73, 75, 108, 111, 113–114, 166–173, 208 Prussia 123, 126–127, 129 revolution 6, 67, 132, 137, 143 Q Quemada, Bernard 88, 91–92, 94 R Realschule 105, 109–110, 128 recording 74, 93, 208 see also gramophone record reflection 105–108, 116–118 on language 138–158 reform 3–4, 11–12, 18, 32, 113, 116, 139, 183 curricular 3–4, 137, 140, 156, 180, 190, 201, 205, 213 see also Reform Movement Reform method 108, 110, 115–116, 130 Reform Movement 30, 105–108, 110–111, 113, 116, 118, 124–125 research 13, 16, 38, 60, 63, 67, 71, 82–86, 91–92, 94–100, 104, 106–107, 117–118, 138, 156, 181–182, 185, 189, 193 see also classroom research; historical research; practitioner Ricci, Matteo 167–168 riflessione linguistica see reflection Rivenc, Paul 93, 99

219

220

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching

Romanization (system) 165, 167–170, 172, 176 Roulet, Eddy 89, 98–99 Russian (language) 25 S Sala de Línguas Vivas 204, 208, 214 Saussure, Ferdinand de 123, 130 school supplies 200–201, 204–205, 207, 213 SGAV (méthode structuro-globale audio-visuelle) see audiovisual method situational language teaching 7, 11, 112 SLA (second language acquisition) 30, 82, 89, 95–98, 100 sloganization 3, 8 Sinclair, John 61, 67 Skinner, Quentin 183–185 Spanish (language) 24–28, 32, 35, 37, 44, 156, 171, 201–202 Stern, H.H. 17, 54, 126 Strevens, Peter 83, 88, 97–98 Swedish (language) 25, 27 Sweet, Henry 106–107, 125

T Taoism 5 teacher education / preparation / training 3, 89, 94, 97, 99–100, 122, 132, 134–135, 138, 156, 205 teacher research see practitioner technology 3, 5–6, 10, 13–15, 73, 93. 99. 132, 134, 180, 188, 191 teleological view 5, 7, 130, 132 TESOL see ELT / EFL / TESOL textbook 6, 10, 14, 31, 99, 108, 114–116, 131, 137–158, 169, 172–173, 175–177, 188, 204, 206, 208, 211–214 author 68, 112, 123–124, 130–131, 143, 143 Thornbury, Scott 13, 16–17, 126 tone (in Chinese) 166–173 tradition 9, 12, 17–18, 83, 90, 98, 105, 109–110, 112–114, 127, 130–132, 134, 138, 140, 147, 149, 156–157, 189, 200, 202, 213 lexicographical 24, 34, 36, 38, 62–63, 67–68, 71 linguistic 165, 168, 171, 173, 176–177 grammar-teaching 30, 116, 138, 142–143, 145, 155 pedagogical 165, 168, 176–177

translation 25, 35–36, 45, 73–74, 92, 116, 125 avoidance of 107–108, 115, 117, 147, 213 see also grammar-translation method U UK 11, 24–25, 34, 37–38, 73, 82–83, 87–89, 96–99, 112, 144, 169–170, 202, 204 USA 6, 12, 62, 73, 87–89, 92–93, 96–99, 132, 201 usage information 66, 71 USSR 5–6 V Viëtor, Wilhelm 113, 124–125, 129 vocabulary 28–30, 31, 38, 54, 59–61, 114–115, 165 see also defining vocabulary Voltaire, M. de 5 W Wade, Thomas Fr. 169–172 Wade-Giles system 169 West, Michael 60 Widdowson, Henry 83–85, 89, 97, 99 Williams, Samuel Wells 168–169

By adopting a historical perspective, this edited collection of papers takes a fresh look at a key concept in applied linguistics, that of innovation. A substantial introduction advocates historical re-evaluation of this notion via exploration of its rise to prominence, while the ten subsequent chapters present in-depth case studies of apparently successful as well as ineffective innovation(s), from the early eighteenth to the late twentieth century. Language learning/teaching developments in Brazil, China, England, France, Germany and Italy are considered along with ‘global’ innovations in language learner lexicography, while the languages considered include Chinese, English, French, Italian, Latin, Portuguese and Spanish. Various types of primary source material are utilized, illustrating the possibilities of applied linguistic historiography for both students and academics new to the field. The book questions ideas of perpetual innovation and progress, supporting the adoption of more critical perspectives on change and innovation in applied linguistics and language teaching.

isbn 978 90 272 1370 9

John Benjamins Publishing Company