1

The Seven Circles of Purgatory:

The Dilemmas of Language Teaching
(for Maia)


Traditional language teaching systems (TLTS) in my view do not do at
least three things which mine will seek to do at all costs.
1. TLTS do not preserve a holistic view of language
They make assumptions that (a) language consists of diverse theoretical areas such
as:
Phonetics
Grammar
Morphology
Syntax
Orthography, etc

And they extrapolate from this the conclusion that the language according to these
parameters is coterminous with a general scheme for mastering the language thus
defined from (respectively) the point of view (1) of the teacher (2) the learner.

Unsurprisingly, each strand within such a bottom-up view represents an area of
endeavor (and potentially testing) in its own right.
2


For example, a textbook might focus unremittingly on tenses of the verb in English;
and base its curriculum and derived contextual examples on the same bedrock; with
exercises, tests, and a putative scheme for progression similarly anchored: but
without appreciating (so far as I can see) that in doing so it has made some hidden
assumptions about the nature of learning which are hardly if at all borne out by
the facts of classroom experience.

I examine these assumptions which I see as being the result of the embracing of a
flawed, four-fold syllogism in section 2 below

I would never do that. I would consistently seek to situate the students, both
imaginatively and intellectually, within the total landscape of a particular take on
English: its consideration, that is, from one particular angle or vantage-point at a time
(allowing the students thus spontaneously to assimilate and chart their acquired
knowledge within the overall context and extent of that inner territory)

Id help them locate and explore it, of course; but there would be no testing; no
homework; no exercises; no anxiety about where we had been and were due to go.
Instead, homely follow-up, contextual activities and clarificatory actions such as song
and chant would emerge: to energize and engage students needing to deal with often
abstract and elusive matter. For the abstract and elusive is as unavoidable in
languages as it is in mathematics. Sooner or later, the complexity of any language has
to be faced head-on; and no appeal to the nursery and prior agreements with the
wet-nurse will suffice then.

The irony is that the challenge lies in the everyday act of study, not the exceptional
one of cramming or being examined; and it follows from this that in time the logic
will be reversed to what it was once: you take an exam because you have mastered a
subject and the exam becomes in fact easy, stimulating, agreeable, and fun. Because
you know. So better sooner the full challenge and stretching of the student; but very
gently and sympathetically; especially at first. A non-invasive method, coupled to a
rigorous syllabus, will yield great results. And the scope aimed for, if not exhaustive,
will be at least very extensive. Within a timeframe of progress proportionately
generous
3




2 TLTS appeal to a faulty hidden syllogism of implied universality, as follows:

(a) Each element learned is part of an overarching structure and so part of a
representative whole;

(b) That whole should be learned;

(c) Once learned, it will mean that the language; or a great part of it
(whatever that may mean!) is learned;

(d) That a particular selective analysis, e.g. of a languages grammar, can do
duty, by implication, for a full and complete knowledge of the language, in
practice.

My seven tiers of language expertise do not guarantee a full view. We may well think
of other possibilities. But they do rejoice in their incompleteness and provisionality
because these limited virtues not a scientific or quasi-scientific exactitude are the
very stuff of the way language arises and presents itself to us in the field.
4


3 TLTS are not open-ended'

They presume to fence in a particular terrain. They imply that there exists only one,
ideal, approach to their learning content (by implication everyone has it, or should
have it, or is at fault if they do not have it; whereat it is not the systems fault at all;
but that of the client)

And they imply a further, three-fold syllogism that

once completed, the course:
(a) will somehow have inculcated a certain, subtle, definable mastery;
(b) thereby has defined a certain objective standard of linguistic attainment which further
(c) can be realistically tested by on-the-spot, one-off, traditional, pressurized examination
techniques.
These assumptions are foolhardy at best.
With Michael Thomas, I would argue that nothing is more guaranteed to impede
the easy flow of images and textures into the unconscious memory that great
storehouse and motor of linguistic learning than the pressurized culture of levels,
testing, examinations, judgment, evaluation, and the rest.
These things make the real, natural, uninhibited and subconscious flowering of the
mind into a stunted, abnormal, painful, unreal travesty of its true self.
The quarry my methods seek may be a Unicorn a very different animal indeed
but it exists. Many experimental sessions so far are beginning to show that.
The open-ended and provisional is the most creative, and the best

5


4 TLTS are task-dependent

If not embarked upon, a TLTS course means nothing. It has as much meaning as a
recipe uncooked; not that of a Tolstoy novel unread. But I hope that my courses will
carry meaning and logic at every point, and leap off the page, irrespective of whether
they are studied or not, at any particular time. That they carry their own logic and
consistency will be intuitively obvious and right. This is my hope



5 TLTS are all or nothing.

TLTS are all or nothing. It must be solved like that. It must be viewed like this. As
if there were not variety and contrast in peoples views, personalities, learning styles,
tastes and preferences. My approaches privilege the heuristic, or experimental,
approach; and we are happy if provisionally and with many qualifications an
approach has been found which allows a partial and encouraging view of a difficult
terrain. Its the careful philosophy of the design of the lunar module.

6



6 TLTS are not probabalistic and statistically-anchored; but egregiously definitive

We are building up a fresh picture of language based on what we find as we go
along; both as we write courses and as we experiment with them. And then we would
improve and tweak them again and again, as necessary. The task never ends.

They are labile and always developing; like a true scientific approach in physics. In
due time all the variants in a particular defined parameter of approach will be found
and be incorporated into a developing model. It will be the work of decades. But at
least satisfactory premises will have been defined and incorporated, and re-thought
over and over again Moreover, all are welcome to contribute to a collaborative
goal. Quite how this can be worked out in the existing internet situation is a
considerable puzzle.




7 TLTS are never fun or fresh

7

We will ensure that our courses are fun and engaging at all times. If the stages of
speaking an English sound have to be likened to the stages of running up to kick a
ball in a penalty shoot-out, well so be it. There is nothing academic or stilted in
approaches which, by design, run counter to TLTS and are the stronger for it!



The ball may well come from a direction and with a trajectory you never expected!
What price your Queensbury Rules then!