语言教学的流派第一章

reformers to attempt to build a methodology around observation of child language learning. Other reformers toward the end of the century likewise turned their attention to naturalistic principles of language learning, and for this reason they are sometimes referred to as advocates of a “natural” method. In fact at various times throughout the history of language teaching, attempts have been made to make second language learning more like first language learning. In the sixteenth century, for example, Montaigne described how he was entrusted to a guardian who addressed him exclusively in Latin for the first years of his life, since Montaigne’s father wanted his son to speak Latin well. Among those who tried to apply natural principles to language classes in the nineteenth century was L. Sauveur(1826-1907), who used intensive oral interaction in the target language, employing questions as a way of presenting and eliciting language. He opened a language school in Boston in the late 1860s, and his method soon became referred to as the Natural Method.

Sauveur and other believers in the Natural Method argued that a foreign language could be taught without translation or the use of the learner’s native tongue if meaning was conveyed directly through demonstration and action. The German scholar F. Franke wrote on the psychological principles of direct association between forms and meanings in the target language(1884) and provided a theoretical

justification for a monolingual approach to teaching. According to Franke, a language could best be taught by using it actively in the classroom. Rather than using analytical procedures that focus on explanation of grammar rules in classroom teaching, teachers must encourage direct and spontaneous use of the foreign language in the classroom. Learners would then be able to induce rules of grammar. The teacher replaced the textbook in the early stages of learning. Speaking began with systematic attention to pronunciation. Known words could be used to teach new vocabulary, using mime, demonstration, and pictures.

These natural language learning principles provided the foundation for what came to be known as the Direct Method, which refers to the most widely known of the natural method. Enthusiastic supporters of the Direct Method introduced it in France and Germany, and it became widely known in the United States through its use by Sauveur and Maximilian Berlitz in successful commercial language schools. In practice it stood for the following principles and procedures:

1 Classroom instruction was conducted exclusively in the target language.

2 Only everyday vocabulary and sentences were taught. 3 Oral communication skills were built up in a carefully graded

progression organized around question-and-answer exchanges between teachers and students in small, intensive classes.

4 Grammar was taught inductively.

5 New teaching points were introduced orally.

6 Concrete vocabulary was taught through demonstration, object, and pictures; abstract vocabulary was taught by association of ideas.

7 Both speech and listening comprehension were taught. 8 Correct pronunciation and grammar were emphasized. These principles are seen in the following guidelines for teaching oral language, which are still followed in contemporary Berlitz schools:

Never translate: demonstrate Never explain: act

Never make a speech: ask questions Never imitate mistakes: correct

Never speak with single words: use sentences Never speak too much: make students speak much Never jump around: follow your plan Never go too fast: keep the pace of the student Never speak too slowly: speak normally Never speak too quickly: speak naturally

Never speak too loudly: speak naturally Never be impatient: take it easy

The Direct Method was quite successful in private language schools, such as those of the Berlitz chain, where paying clients had high motivation and the use of native- speaking teachers was the norm. But despite pressure from proponents of the method, it was difficult to implement in public secondary school education. It overemphasized and distorted the similarities between naturalistic first language learning and classroom foreign language learning and failed to consider the practical realities of the classroom. In addition , it lacked a rigorous basis in applied linguistic theory, and for this reason it was often criticized by the more academically based proponents of the Reform Movement. The Direct Method represented the product of enlightened amateurism. It was perceived to have several drawbacks. First , it required teachers who were native speakers or who had nativelike fluendy in the foreign language. It was largely dependent on the teacher’s skill, rather than on a textbook, and not all teachers were proficient enough in the foreign language to adhere to the principle of the method. Critics pointed out that strict adherence to Direct Method principles was often counterproductive, since teachers were required to go to great lengths to avoid using the native tongue, when sometimes a simple