Fundamentals of Learning/Teaching English As Second/Foreign Language

FUNDAMENTALS of LEARNING/TEACHING ENGLISH Page 1 of 38
as SECOND/FOREIGN LANGUAGE
Author: Archer Bishop (aka Centaur Priest)
FUNDAMENTALS of LEARNING/TEACHING
ENGLISH as SECOND/FOREIGN LANGUAGE
Archer Bishop
ABSTRACT
This paper addresses the fundamentals of learning (in terms of acquiring) and
teaching English language as L2 (second/foreign language). Whether a person is
an English language teacher, learner, or general user, where they are dealing
with adoption of English as L2, for producing the best result, they should apply
the points mentioned in this paper.
Although English is the target language in this paper, the underlying principles, I
believe, can be applied to any context of acquiring/teaching any language as L2.
CONTENTS
Topic Page
Abbreviation Table 2
Introduction: Foundation: Best Learning Mechanism 3
Reason for Learning English 6
What to learn? Natural Form 8
Prevailing Grammar 10
Standard English: Which Regional English is Standard? 17
How to Determine Acceptable English 24
Listening Skill The Most Essential Element 26
Importance of Including Informal and Nonstandard English 28
Non-Native Speaker’s ELT Qualification 31
Informed Eclecticism in The ELT 35
Abbreviation Table
The abbreviations used in this paper are listed in the table below:
ABBREVIATION ELABORATION
CC Communicative Competence
DG Descriptive Grammar
EGKL English The Global Koiné Language
EL English Language
ELL English Language Learner/Learning
ELT English Language Teacher/Teaching
GKL Global Koiné Language
INE Informal and Non-Standard English
L1 Native Language
L2 Any Language Other Than Native Language
NES Native English Speaker/Speaking
NEST Native English Speaking Teacher
NNES Non-Native English Speaker/Speaking
NNEST Non-Native English Speaking Teacher
NNS Non-Native Speaker/Speaking
NS Native Speaker/Speaking
PG Prescriptive Grammar
SLA Second Language Acquisition/Acquirer
SLL Second Language Learning/Learner
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
FOUNDATION of The FUNDAMENTALS
(BEST LEARNING MECHANISM:
The NATURAL APPROACH)
While the objective of this paper is to point out the fundamentals of learning (in
terms of acquiring) and teaching English language as L2 (second/foreign language),
these fundamentals are founded upon and correspond with my belief that the best
learning mechanism is generally the basics of Stephen D. Krashen’s Natural
Approach (NA).
The learning system I believe to be the most effective way is BASICALLY the way
the children acquire their L1.
Children don’t learn the L1 but acquire it. 1 They don’t read any grammar book; nor
do they receive any grammatical instructions. They observe the other people using
the language and use their instinct and natural reasoning tool to understand by
inference. And they learn the natural form of the language.
However, the path of learning L2 is never as smooth as that of learning L1 because

every L2 learner’s brain is programmed by a certain idea about how the
construction, structure, or pattern of a language must be, and the language is the
L1, while no L1 learner’s brain contains any such data or idea whatsoever. The
knowledge of L1 subconsciously forces the L2 learners to apply the L1’s
construction, structure, or pattern to L2. Therefore, unlike in cases of L1 learners,
1
In the sense of receiving the data concerning the construction of a language and understanding those data,
“acquire” means to receive the data concerning the construction of a language and understand the data naturally
and subconsciously by reasoning without being aware of grammatical rules. And “learn” means to receive direct
instruction on the rules of grammar, learn those rules like formulas, and use those formulas to articulate speeches.
However, in this chapter after the sentence to which this footnote is attached, I am using “acquire” and “learn”
interchangeably to mean the meaning of “acquire” unless otherwise indicated by the context in which they are used.
in the course of observing the other people using the language and using their
instinct and natural reasoning tool to understand by inference, the process
essentially is influenced by the aforementioned programming. And the older the L2
learner is, the problem can be more severe.
So, in terms of learning the target language which is the L2 for a person (whether a
five years old kid or an adult) already using a language and the L1 for a child being
introduced to it as the first language ever, the condition of a person already having
L1 data in their brain is quite different from the condition a child with an empty
brain. And the aspect of difference is that the L1 knowledge interferes with the
ability to learn the natural form of the L2 and therefore makes the learning
difficult. 2 Consequently, although learning L2 by means of acquiring like the
children acquiring L1 is the most natural and the most effective method, it is
essential to amend this natural system to compensate for the limitation to speed
up the learning/adoption process as well as to enable the learners to understand
the natural and correct form of the target L2.
I just mentioned the objective of the amendment is to “speed up” the

learning/adoption process as well as to enable the learners to “understand the
natural and correct form” of the target L2.
I have personally observed many many many NNESs living in the NES country
America. They are divided into the following two categories:
1. one who took formal English language lesson by means of English language
course or a part of their academic education; and
2. one who never took any formal English language lesson.
The ones in the second category learned English based on exclusively the system of
receiving the data concerning the construction of a language and understanding
that data naturally and subconsciously by reasoning without being aware of
grammatical rules. Among them, some did learn both the spoken and written
versions properly. Yet, it took them a long time to learn it. Some learned the proper
form of spoken English while taking a long time and remained terrible at written
2
Except with respect to tonal expressions (such as the sound of questions, exclamations, etc) and the L1s and L2s
that have closely similar (if not the same) grammatical patterns, I don’t agree at all that L1 knowledge plays any
positive role whatsoever in learning L2 where the objective is to learn the natural form of the L2.
version. And, some never learned proper form of either spoken or written English
at all. –– The reason for these problems is the L1 interference.
And, from the L1 knowledge, the element that creates the interference is the preset
idea about how the structural construction of and expressions in a language must
be while, in this regard, viewing the L1 as the model. Simply said, the preset
knowledge forces them to structure the L2 according to the structure of the L1.
Therefore, the amendment to the natural acquiring system is to add to that system
something that will get them to understand the fundamental structural
construction of the L2 and therefore they will not apply L1’s structural pattern to
the structure of L2. And the tool is the Prescriptive Grammar, in particular, the
areas of the PG that concern the most fundamental elements essential to
constitute the structure of the L2. 3 However, the lesson must not exceed the
specified areas; or the specified areas are exclusive, no more or less than that. 4
Accordingly, while the NA is the most effective system of second language

adoption, unlike in cases of the children adopting the L1, the L2 learners do need
some conscious learning of the PG’s most fundamental elements that are essential
to constitute the most basic structure of the L2. –– This is the idea based on which
I have determined the fundamentals outlined in this paper.
3
This, then, essentially raises the question: Which areas of the PG concern the most fundamental elements essential
to constitute the structure of the L2? And, I acknowledge that the answer to this question can vary from grammarian
to grammarian.
4
This limitation does not apply to advanced level language learning and other areas (e.g. literature).
CHAPTER 2
REASON FOR LEARNING ENGLISH
Despite the political borders dividing the world in different sovereignties, virtually
the world is now a one village due to the advancement of technology, globalization
of business, international diplomatic relationship, and international travel. And it is
the fact that, in all those instances in this village, English is the medium of
communication. It is the third most widely spoken native language in the world. In
a number of NNES countries, English is the official language. Thus, it literally is the
“world language”.
It is true that all persons do not travel internationally or participate in the

diplomatic affairs. But almost every individual, whether directly or indirectly, is
connected to technologies and offices that use at least some English. Therefore,
English is a part of today’s life in general.
Furthermore, “knowledge is power.” A person needs knowledge to effectively

perform in and to develop every aspect of life. And, in today’s world, English
language is the vital tool for acquiring knowledge. This is the most fundamental
reason for learning this language. And this point is explained in the context below:
CONTEXT FOR ILLUSTRATION
A job or a better job certainly can make a positive difference in a person’s life.
Whether living abroad or in their native countries, many NNESs are now either
jobless or pursuing less paying jobs. They are in a constant battle to change the
situation. Winning this battle requires them to orchestrate themselves with
enhanced expertise and skills. In this endeavor, what plays the vital role is
knowledge.
The requisite knowledge can be gathered by academically higher education,

training, independent self-research, or a combination of all.
English is the medium of instruction in almost all of the schools, colleges, and
universities as well as the training institutes in the countries in which English is the
native language. The British Council reported:
“A growing number of non-English speaking countries
[is] using ‘English as a Medium of Instruction’ (EMI),
instead of their mother tongue.”
To speak of independent self-research, the most popular source of knowledge is

the World Wide Web. While the World Wide Web renders information on just
about each and every thing, the majority of the influential websites use English as
the medium of communication. English is the primary language of all influential
websites. The Internet World Stats
(http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm) reports that, as of June 30, 2018,
there were 4.2 billion internet users.
Accordingly, when an NNES seeks to find a job or better job, they must learn English
to acquire the essential knowledge to enhance their expertise and skills that can
change his life.
CONCLUSION
Every person is an inhabitant of the global community that uses English as the
communication medium. While knowledge is an essential element in all aspects of
life, it is the fact that, in today’s world, English is an absolutely necessary tool for
gathering that knowledge. And this is the reason that every person should learn
English.
CHAPTER 3
WHAT TO LEARN? NATURAL FORM
In order to learn not just English but any language, we must first know what that
language is. When we know what the language is, we know exactly what to learn
to learn that language and therefore can set the specific learning goal.
To speak of English in terms of a tool that is to be used as a medium of

communication, we refer to the natural form of the English. And the natural form
is the form that the NSs use popularly, consistently, and thus naturally in the
everyday life. Therefore, to know what the natural form is, we look into not the
structured book rules but how the NSs use it naturally (popularly + consistently) in
the everyday life at the time of concern.
To illustrate the point, let’s use an analogy. Let’s take into consideration the
following dialogues:
Sampson: Gregory, o' my word, we'll not carry coals.
Gregory: No, for then we should be colliers.
Sampson: I mean, an we be in choler, we'll draw.
Gregory: Ay, while you live, draw your neck out o' the collar.
Sampson: I strike quickly, being moved.
Gregory: But thou art not quickly moved to strike.
William Shakespeare, The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet, Act 1, Scene 1.
By structured book rules, is there any grammatical error in those speeches? No.
But, does anyone use that kind of language pattern today? Absolutely not. So,
because no one uses this form any more, this form is NOT natural form in terms of
the way English is used today. Consequently, when we are to learn English as a
medium of communication, we do not learn the form used by Shakespeare.
Let’s just pick the last two speeches. For “I strike quickly, being moved”, today we
use something like “If someone provokes me, I attack fast” or “If someone provokes
me, I am fast to attack”. And, the passive sentence “But thou art not quickly moved
to strike” stands for “But you are not quickly moved to strike”. And, based on the
context, it can deliver on of the following two interpretations: (1) “But they don’t
quickly move you to strike” or “Although it is true that you attack fast if someone
provokes you, the fact is that, usually, they don’t provoke you to attack” expressing
“They usually don’t provoke you” (implying a result, “therefore, you have no reason
to attack”); and (2) If the speech emphasizes on “QUICKLY”, then the virtual active
form of the speech is “But they CAN’T QUICKLY move you to strike” expressing “But
it is not easy to provoke you to attack”, meaning “Although it is true that you attack
fast if someone provokes you, the fact is that it is not easy to provoke you to attack”
(or you can’t be easily provoked), and which meaning it means depends on the
context.
So, today’s versions of these speeches are:

Sampson: If someone provokes me, I attack fast.
or
If someone provokes me, I am fast to attack.
Gregory: But they usually don’t provoke you (to attack).
or
But it is not easy to provoke you (to attack).
This, in today’s English, is the natural form because this is the form that people use
today popularly, consistently, and therefore naturally. Accordingly, this is the form
that the today’s ELLs must learn where the goal is to use English as a medium of
communication.
Accordingly, to learn the EL, the ELLs must learn the form that the NSs naturally use
at the time of learning.
To achieve this goal, the ELLs must be sufficiently exposed to the actual action of
using the language: Observe the NSs using the language, copy it, and put it in
extensive practice.
Well, then how do we do that? Do we have to go to an NS country to be exposed

or to observe how the NSs are using it? Absolutely not. We can do it even without
stepping out the home if we have an internet connection and/or a television that
can access the satellite streaming.
CHAPTER 4
PREVAILING GRAMMAR
Descriptive Grammar vs Prescriptive Grammar
Descriptive Grammar: The Dominating Authority
Part 1
Descriptive Grammar (DG)
The DG is a grammar that defines language. In doing so, the DG relies on the
linguistic patterns as exist in the natural usage by the NSs at the time of the inquiry.
In other words, under this grammar, the construction of language is that which the
NSs naturally and commonly use. For example:
Bob wants to ask you whether you said it. To ask this question, Bob says,
“You said it?” (as opposed to “Did you say it?”). Although “You said it” is an
affirmative statement, Bob uses his tonal expression to make it interrogative.
This type of questioning pattern is not an isolated incident, but the NSs use
it always in everyday life. Therefore, under the DG, it is perfectly acceptable
in the spoken English.
Prescriptive Grammar (PG)

The PG is the grammar that defines language according to a set of structured rules
prescribed by certain authorities. It concerns little about the natural use. In plain
term, this grammar limits the structure of the linguistic items to the book rules. For
example:
Irrespective of the fact that the NSs frequently use Bob’s aforementioned
questioning pattern, the PG says it is unacceptable because Bob doesn’t
articulate it as “Did you say it?”
The relevant question is then: Which grammar should we follow? The answer is:
BOTH. Well, then, if there is a disagreement between them, which one must
prevail? The straightforward answer is the DG. Why?
People used to speak even when no book existed. At that time, what rules did they
follow? The rules as existed in the natural use or the DG. Where did the book rules
come from? The linguists observed the language as existed in the natural use and
discovered the patterns from there. Then they recorded those patterns and
prescribed to use them uniformly – only then did they become structured rules or
the PG. Therefore, the DG gave birth to the PG.
Is the PG same as it was three hundred years ago? No. Why? Because the structure
of language changed (and constantly changes) through natural use throughout the
time, and, as its structure changed, the grammarians had to amend the PG in
pursuance of the DG. For example, the language structure found in Shakespeare’s
literatures is still fine by the technicalities of the PG. But does anyone use that
pattern today? Absolutely not. Why don’t people use it even when it is correct
under the PG? Because those patterns changed through natural usage over the
period of time.
The evolution of language is axiomatic. And it is the natural usage that causes that
evolution, resulting in the change in the PG. The relationship between book
grammar and natural usage in language is like the relationship between skeleton
and flesh in a human body. Let me explain it by the analogy below:
In the above picture, we see a person in 1981, 1994, and 2018. The skeleton makes
the BASIC CONSTRUCTION of his body and is the same in 1981, 1994, and 2018. But
his external looks are NOT the same in the given times. Throughout the time, as the
construction of his “flesh” structure changed, his appearance changed also. And,
although his 1981 skeleton is same as 2018, when we are talking about his practical
form of existence, we are talking about NOT the forms in 1981 and 1994 but the
form in 2018. And, while the construction of his skeleton is the same in 2018 as was
in 1981, average people cannot identify him by the construction of his skeleton. His
immediate identification in 2018 is his 2018 external look that changed throughout
the time.
The same way, while book rules are the skeleton or basic construction of the
language, the form as exists in the practical or natural usage at the present time is
the actual form of the language.
Accordingly, as much as the DG gave birth to the PG, the DG constantly reshapes
the PG for the reason of the language evolution caused by the DG. Consequently,
to define the language, the DG prevails over the PG when they are in conflict on a
linguistic item.
It, however, does not mean we must follow everything that the native speakers
use. For example:
To say “I am not going to do it”, native speakers in Southern America
frequently say “I ain’t gonna do it”. But, “I ain’t gonna do it” certainly is a bad
English. At the same time, focusing on the word “gonna” only, we can safely
say “I’m not gonna do it”. But the books tell you “gonna” is a substandard
English, while we frequently hear literally everyone (from the president to all
decent speakers) using “gonna”. Thus, while “ain’t gonna” is bad, “am not
gonna” can be safely used although the PG disapprove the use of “gonna”.
So, in using the DG, we must be attentive to distinguish between good and bad
language. This, however, is the only caveat that we have to keep in mind.
Part 2
This part explains in a simple way the role of the Descriptive Grammar by means of
explaining the Descriptive Grammar, the Prescriptive Grammar, and the
EVOLUTION OF LANGUAGE as well as explains the reason that makes the
Descriptive Grammar SUPERIOR to the Prescriptive Grammar.
–– To understand these concepts, let’s use a hypothetical historical analogy.
HYPOTHETICAL YEARS 0-50
Suppose persons A, B, C, D, and E are the first human beings. They don’t have even
any language, let alone book. Now they start using their voice to make some words
to communicate with each other. And all five of them, by CONSISTENTLY using each
word for a specific object every day, now can understand which word they use for
which object. This is how they make a lot of words.
Then, they, by consistently using these words every day in a definite way in groups,
create different patterns (including phrases, clauses, and sentences) for different
expressions.
So, now, they understand, based on their everyday consistent use, the meanings of
the words and group of words they created. And therefore, the language is created.
Let’s say the name of this language is English.
By year 50, A, B, C, D, and E give birth to F, G, H, I. and J. And these little five kids
start learning the language from their parents.
So far there is language that has specific patterns or rules by which the users A, B,
C, D, and E can meaningfully communicate with each other. Now ask yourself these
questions:
What gave birth to the language?
NATURAL USE.
Did they have any book from which they got the rules?
No.
Then, where did those rules come from?
The rules came from the NATURAL USE by the native speakers A, B, C, D,
and E.
So, both the language itself and its rules came from the NATURAL USE by the native
speakers. This is DESCRIPTIVE GRAMMAR (DG).
Accordingly, the DG is the grammar that derives from the natural use of language
by the native speakers.
HYPOTHETICAL YEARS 51-100
In year 51, C thinks it would be a nice idea to keep a written record of the words
and the language patterns they use. So, she starts collecting the words as well as
studying the way they use the language and thus discovering the patterns or rules
established by their natural use of the language. At the conclusion of her research
in year 55, she writes and publishes two books:
1. one contains a list of words and their meanings, which is a DICTIONARY, and
2. the other contains the patterns or rules, which is a GRAMMAR BOOK.
The contents of these books are PRESCRIPTIVE GRAMMAR (PG). The names of
these books are respectively “C’s DICTIONARY (1st Edition 55)” and “C’s GRAMMAR
(1st Edition 55)”.
What gave birth to the language? DG.
What established the rules? DG.
What gave birth to the PG? DG.
What controlled the PG and its rules? DG.
Now, by year 75, A, B, C, D, and E die, and F, G, H, I, and J continue to use the
language.
Thereafter, despite “C’s DICTIONARY (1st Edition 55)” and “C’s GRAMMAR (1st
Edition 55)” or the existing PG, whether for humor, laziness, fancy, or avoiding
boringness, for whatever the reason may be, F starts using the words and patterns
differently. And G, H, I, and J like F’s new use and therefore follow it.
Consequently, by the end of year 95, it appears that now the way they naturally
use the words and patterns and thus the whole language is different from that is
written in “C’s DICTIONARY (1st Edition 55)” and “C’s GRAMMAR (1st Edition 55)”
or prescribed by the PG.
So, G decides to revise “C’s DICTIONARY (1st Edition 55)” and “C’s GRAMMAR (1st
Edition 55)” to match the latest forms of the words and rules. At the conclusion of
her work in year 100, she publishes the revised versions of C’s books named as “C’s
DICTIONARY (2nd Edition 100)” and “C’s GRAMMAR (2nd Edition 100)”.
So, today in year 100:

1. the language is different from the way it was in year 55;
2. Despite the existence of “C’s DICTIONARY (1st Edition 55)” and “C’s
GRAMMAR (1st Edition 55)” or the PG, the change happened;
3. the change happened because of the change in the use by the language
users, typically the native speakers; and
4. The “C’s DICTIONARY (1st Edition 55)” and “C’s GRAMMAR (1st Edition 55)” or
the PG had no power to stop the change. Rather, they had to change the PG
as per the DG to fit the DG as existed at the current time.
This is the very nature of language: it constantly changes based on the change in
and by natural use by the native users and this change is unstoppable because it
is the human nature to change or modify things to fit to their current taste. This is
the EVOLUTION OF LANGUAGE. And this evolution is axiomatic.
HYPOTHETICAL YEARS AFTER 100 …
The entire process keeps progressing the same way.
CONCLUSION
Based on the above hypothetical historical analogy, the data is:
1. DG gave birth to the language.
2. DG established the rules.
3. DG gave birth to the PG in year 55 and PG’s rules came from DG.
4. DG eventually changed the rules and reformed the language.
5. DG forced the PG to publish new rules to match current DG in year 100.
6. DG caused the PG of year 55 to become obsolete in year 100.
7. From year 0 to year 100, the language constantly evolved.
Although the events described above are hypothetical, yet this is exactly how the
language evolves and its mechanism functions.
Accordingly, the PG is just a guideline that is unrelated to or merely coincides with

the time of use. And it is the DG that defines exactly what the language is. The DG
is the prevailing grammar that defines both the language itself as well as the PG.
At the conclusion, let me give a practical example of the DG’s control over the PG.
Before 2004, there was no such term “facebook”. People started using the term
after the creation of the social media Facebook on February 04, 2004. Even then in
the later years, if we used this word in any manner except as the name of that social
media, all dictionaries in the world would tell it was an invalid word. But people
continued to use it as not just proper noun but also verb, and they started using it
so much that it forced the dictionaries to enter it into their entries. Now dictionaries
recognize it as a noun that has singular and plural forms as well as a verb.
CHAPTER 5
ENGLISH THE GLOBAL KOINÉ LANGUAGE
Standard English: Which Regional English is Standard?
Part 1
Many people are often quick to conclude that a certain regional English is the only
standard English. For example:
In many cases, a person who is used to using the British English says the
British English is the standard English. The same is true in many cases with
respect to many persons who are American English users. Whether
American, Australian, British, Canadian, or so on, many persons hold the
position that whichever version they are used to is the standard English.
This idea is totally obsolete.
Among many teachers, students, and users, there exist two fundamentally
confused issues that are as follows:
1. What is the standard version of English? and
2. How do I determine whether a language item is standard (correct)?
The instant section answers those two questions.
The Standard Version

Irrespective of its origin, English is no longer limited to any region. Despite the
political borders dividing the world in different sovereignties, virtually the world is
now a one village due to the advancement of technology, globalization of business,
international diplomatic relationship, and international travel. English is the third
most widely spoken native language in the world. In a number of NNES countries,
English is the official language. The Internet World Stats
(http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm) reports that, as of June 30, 2018,
there were 4.2 billion internet users, while needless to mention that the majority
of the influential websites use English as the medium of communication.
Accordingly, in this era (which is most likely to continue to an endless future for the
relevant purpose), irrespective of whether NES or NNES, there are everyday English
users from literally all parts of the world. Consequently, it is the world language or
global language.
This identification, however, is even more expressive under the term “global koiné
language”. Why?
In linguistics, a “koiné language” means a common language. It is a standard

language or dialect that derives from the contact between plural mutually
intelligible dialects of the same language. While (for an example) an American, Brit,
Chinese, and Russian are speaking English to communicate with each other in a
same room, would they sound the same? No. Would they use the same
articulation? No. But they are speaking English though. Thus, as long as they can be
understood normally or without any especial effort, each one is using an
“intelligible dialect” of English which is the “same language”. Accordingly, English,
due to its worldwide common use while having regional variations, perfectly fits to
the definition of “koiné language”. And, because it is used globally, it is the “global
koiné language” (GKL).
The relevant question is then: What is the standard version of English?
This topic began with the proposition that the idea to classify any region-based
English as standard is obsolete. It is undeniable that the origin of English goes to
specific geographical region. But, since it is the GKL, its ownership belongs to the
global community. Therefore, the “koiné” standard is the applicable standard. All
versions from all parts of the world are standard English.
It, however, is not to say that everything every single person speaks or writes is
standard. The limitation includes the following two components:
1. It must be naturally intelligible or must not need any especial effort to
comprehend; and
2. It must be acceptable under the DG at time of its use.
Any version that meets the above requirements is standard English.
Accordingly, when we talk about English as a “global koiné language”, we talk about
all versions of English that are naturally intelligible and acceptable under
“simultaneously existing” or “current” (as opposed to obsolete) descriptive
grammar.
Part 2
Defining a certain version of English as acceptable or more acceptable than any
other version essentially means defining it as the only standard version. Many tend
to define British English as exclusively the version that is more acceptable than any
other version. And many tend to argue that the versions used by NESs are the only
acceptable versions, excluding the versions used by NNESs.
Relating to those arguments, the instant section answers the following question:
Which is the more or most acceptable version?
And the answer is:
There exists no such thing that one version is more acceptable than other, and ALL
versions including the versions used by both all native speakers and all non-native
speakers are equally acceptable and fine as long as they are intelligible 5 and
grammatically correct 6.
DISCUSSION
First, let’s make sure we understand the central topic of this discussion. The
question is not what a person (referring to one person and/or a group of people)
personally prefers in terms of a subjective choice but which one is more acceptable
as a matter of objective general acceptability. The issue of subjective personal
preference is diametrically different from the issue of the objective general
acceptability. The latter is the one and only topic of this discussion. So, let’s not
confuse the central topic with the issue of personal preference.
There exist arguments that today’s British English is more acceptable because:
5
“Intelligible” refers to neither native-like accent, nor polished grammar, but to exactly what the term means:
comprehensible or understandable. It, however, doesn’t stretch to mean: no matter what it takes to understand, as
long as we can understand. Rather, it means the degree of effort necessary to understand is natural. Thus, a speech
is intelligible where average people can understand it without making any especial effort.
6
To say “grammatically correct”, the grammar I refer to includes DG and PG while DG is the dominating authority.
1. English was originated in England (referring to the land of Great Britain);

2. British English is the purest form of English; and
3. British English by virtue of its origin is the owner of English.
Each of the above arguments has little merit for the reasons stated below:
1
ORIGIN
Simply because the name “English” coincides with the name “England”, it does not
establish that the land of origin of English was England.
English is an Indo-European language that, to give birth to English, evolved as

follows:
Proto-Indo-European
↓
Germanic
↓
West Germanic
↓
Anglo-Frisian → Birth of English
↓
Old English → First Complete form of English
↓
Middle English
↓
Modern English
English took birth at the “Anglo-Frisian” stage. And the region as named in the
today’s world map included mainly West German (the dark blue region in the
picture below) and Denmark (the light blue region):
So, no, the birth place of English was not England or even the Great Britain at large
at all.
2
PURITY
In terms of its original structural construction, the version of English used in the
Great Britain today is nowhere near its purest form. The first complete and
therefore the purest form of English is the Old English which has no similarity to
the British English today.
Since the Old English era, as the Old English speaking people moved to different
regions of the world, English in each region took its unique shape resulting in
different versions. Therefore, ultimately, for the time being, today’s British English
is nothing other than merely one of the modern versions that evolved throughout
the time.
So, if the purity argument had any merit, then we should use the Old English.
3
OWNERSHIP
Some people argue that the British English is more acceptable because, by virtue
of its origin, it is the owner of English. And some people argue that NES regions in
general are in position to claim the relevant ownership.
These arguments are fatally flawed for the fundamental reason that the arguments
ignore the absolute axiom in the structure of the very nature of every language that
language evolves and takes shape according to its use through time and place. And,
because the process of its evolution and adaptation to time and place is absolute
and absolutely on-going, ALL versions including the versions used by both all NESs
and all NNESs are equally acceptable and fine as long as they are grammatically
correct and understandable. In other words, unacceptable are the only versions
(regardless of whether used by native or non-native speakers) that are
grammatically incorrect and/or unintelligible. But, among the acceptable versions,
there exists no comparative degree of acceptability.
English is the global koiné language or the lingua franca of the world. Thus, no
particular region defines its structural dimension as universal dimension.
Let us use an analogy:

Suppose X is used to and therefore comfortable with cold weather. And,
thus, for X, cold weather is acceptable. The same way, Y is used to and
therefore comfortable with hot weather. And, thus, for Y, hot weather is
acceptable.
–– Now it would be incorrect for X to say hot weather by itself or in general
is unacceptable simply because it is unacceptable to him and vice versa in
terms of Y’s position. As much as X can testify cold weather is acceptable to
him, X’s position is limited to his position only. X has absolutely no position
or authority to impose upon Y that cold weather has to be acceptable to Y
also. And the same is true for Y.
So, what is acceptable to a person depends on what they are used to with. And,
just because something is acceptable to one particular person or a group of
persons, it doesn’t create any theory of universal acceptability or unacceptability.
So, as long as a fraction of people accepts something, it is acceptable irrespective
of the fact that some other may find it unacceptable.
The real test is whether it is survivable or has the right to exist. And, for language,
a form of language is survivable or has the right to exist where it is grammatically
correct and intelligible.
Irrespective of whether American, Australian, British, Canadian, or any other

version from any NES region, or even a version used by NNESs, ALL versions are
acceptable if they meet the one and only condition. And the condition is: They must
be grammatically correct and intelligible.
Since English is the global koiné language or the lingua franca of the world, as long
as grammatically correct and intelligible, ALL versions are equally acceptable.
CONCLUSION
One has the right to say, "Well, this version is my personal preference" but no one
has any authority to define any certain version as more or less acceptable in terms
of general or universal acceptability.
Because English is the GKL or the lingua franca of the world, there exists no such
thing that one version is more acceptable than other.
The issue of personal preference is quite different from the issue of universal
acceptability.
ALL versions including the versions used by both all native speakers and all non-
native speakers are equally acceptable and fine as long as they are grammatically
correct and understandable.
The standard version of English is its “koiné language” version that includes all
versions that are:
1. naturally intelligible; and
2. acceptable under “simultaneously existing” or “current” grammar.
CHAPTER 6
HOW TO DETERMINE ACCEPTABLE ENGLISH
Looking at a word, phrase, sentence and/or their usage, it is often the case that
many people are quick to jump into a conclusion that it is correct or incorrect, based
on the prescription under PG. This approach is ridiculously incorrect.
To decide whether something is correct or incorrect, the determining factor is

acceptability. What we must decide is whether it is acceptable.
For the purpose of spoken English, an item is acceptable where it:

1. exists in the natural usage or DG even where incorrect under PG; and
2. can be used in just one context.
And, for the purpose of written English, an item is acceptable where it:
1. exists in the natural usage or DG;
2. can be used in just one context; and
3. is correct under PG.
Step 1: NATURAL USAGE (Spoken and Written English)
Because the DG is the dominating authority, if an item is correct under the PG but
does not exist in the natural usage, it has no practical value, and therefore it is
correct but unacceptable. Therefore, non-existence in the natural usage means we
must discard it as inherently unacceptable, and the determination process ends
right there. So, in determining whether an item is acceptable, if it survives this step,
it triggers the second inquiry.
Step 2: CONTEXT (Spoken and Written English)
In the second step, we can face one of the following two situations:
1. a situation in which a specific context is given; and
2. a situation in which no context is given.
In the first situation, we must see whether the given item suits the given context.
If it does, it is acceptable; and, if it does not, it is unacceptable.
In the second situation, since no context is given, we must evaluate whether there
exists any context in which we can use it. Absent a specifically given context, if it is
usable in any context, it is acceptable.
Step 3: CORRECTNESS UNDER PG (Written English)
Where a spoken item satisfies the conditions in the first two steps, it is good to go
regardless of whether it passes the test under this third step. But written English
must pass this test also for it to be acceptable. In this step, we inquire whether it is
correct under the PG. However, for the purpose of the PG, I believe the principles
under the Modern Linguistics (loosely used as “Modern Grammar’) overrides the
Traditional Grammar.
CHAPTER 7
LISTENING SKILL
THE MOST ESSENTIAL ELEMENT
Superior to Speaking, Reading, and Writing
It certainly is undeniable that all receptive and productive skills are essential. The
listening, however, is more essential than the other three. And needless to mention
that it is the most integral part of using and learning a language.
FACTOR 1
Research shows that, on average, we listen:

1. twice as much as we speak,
2. four times more than we read, and
3. five times more than we write.
FACTOR 2
Where people are mute due to any vocal cords or tongue related problems since
birth but have the hearing ability, they still learn, by means of listening and
THROUGH NATURAL PROCESS (or without any need for any special education), to
understand the language spoken to them as well as to read and write. They cannot
speak but still learn the language.
Likewise, where people are blind since birth but have the hearing ability, they still
learn, by means of listening and THROUGH NATURAL PROCESS (or without any
need for any special education), to understand the language spoken to them as well
as to speak. They cannot learn to read and write but still learn the language.
On the other hand, where people are deaf or cannot hear since birth but can see
and have no problem with their vocal cords or tongue, they can never learn
through natural process to speak, read, or write. They cannot learn the language
naturally. Yes, they can learn the language by means of special education, but not
through natural process. The people deaf since birth cannot learn language
naturally.
So, the fact is that, under the natural learning process which means a learning
process in which no special learning/teaching instrument is employed, people learn
to understand a language just by listening and without any need for speaking,
reading or writing, but it is impossible to learn to speak, read, or write or the entire
language itself without listening.
Let’s examine another scenario. Can we ever teach a dog how to speak, read or
write? No. But no one can argue against the fact that we certainly can teach the
dogs how to understand spoken language as long as they are not deaf. Well, then,
some may argue that the dogs learn the tone of command but not language. That’s
not correct. Although the dogs’ learning extent is limited, yet they do learn
language. How do we know it? If we train a dog commands in English and then all
the sudden start commanding in French, it will not understand the French
commands. So, the point is: Dogs learn the language by means of listening, and
listening only – no speaking, reading or writing.
Accordingly, speaking of the natural learning mechanism, speaking, reading and

writing are not any essential element to learn a language. But listening is absolutely
necessary. It is possible to learn to listen without learning to speak, read or write.
But, to learn to speak, read or write, one must learn to listen.
CONCLUSION
In the course of our communications, listening occurs more and have more impact
than speaking, reading, and writing. And, most importantly, for the purpose of
learning a language under natural condition, listening is a must while the other
three are not. Accordingly, listening is not only the most important skill but, indeed,
the most essential element to constitute the structure of the language learning
mechanism.
CHAPTER 8
IMPORTANCE OF INCLUDING INFORMAL AND
NONSTANDARD ENGLISH IN ELL & ELT
For the purpose of this topic, “informal” and “nonstandard” English (INE) refers to
all colloquial forms, slang, the sound of spoken language, and, simply said, all the
informal forms, terms, and sounds that people popularly and consistently use in
everyday life.
Including INE in the ELL and ELT is absolutely important because:

1. listening skill is the most frequently occurred incident in the use of language
and the most essential element to constitute the structure of language
learning mechanism; and
2. comprehension of INE is an essential component of listening skill.
See the above Chapter titled as “LISTENING SKILL – THE MOST ESSENTIAL ELEMENT
& SUPERIOR TO SPEAKING, READING, AND WRITING” for the reason that listening
skill is the most frequently occurred incident in the use of language and the most
essential element to constitute the structure of language learning mechanism.
COMPREHENSION OF “INE” – AN STRUCTURAL COMPONENT

OF LISTENING SKILL
The logic in this regard is pretty much straightforward. Whether in a university
classroom, the White House, a press conference, or a convenience store, or
watching news, how many times do we hear people saying “Dijjou do it” instead of
“Did you do it”? Or “I’m gonna do it” instead of “I am going to do it”? Or “Who gives
a fuck” instead of “Who cares”? Almost always. These are used every day, always,
and in every setting of daily life.
So, if we don’t teach our students or the learners don’t learn these forms of use,
the relevant users will be totally lost in just about every instance in the real-life.
Therefore, although they don’t need to use it in terms of speaking and writing, they
must be able to comprehend. Consequently, it is absolutely important to
teach/learn the INE if this language is learned for the purpose of use.
LEARNING/TEACHING INSTRUCTION
The instructions for the learners are:
1. Do not use it in the written English;
2. You do not need to use it in the spoken English but you can if you want to, or
it is your choice; and
3. Do remember these INE variations of the standard English to be able to
comprehend what other persons may speak to you.
To the Teachers
Some linguists argue that, if the INE needs to be taught, it should be taught at a
higher proficiency level. This argument has little merit because it is not the higher
level English users only but ALL levels who experience the real-life oral
communication. Therefore, it is important for ALL levels equally. For the best result,
they should be taught these variations as soon as they learn the standard versions.
However, while waiting for a higher level to teach it certainly is not a good idea,
teaching in the same class is not good either. Rather, a different class at the same
level should be scheduled for teaching these variations.
And, second, the educators must inform the students that:

1. they must not use it in the written English;
2. they don’t need to use it while speaking; and
3. all they need is to remember that these are the variations of the standard
versions.
CONCLUSION
Among the receptive and productive aspects of the language, listening is the most
occurred event while the INE is used in just about every instance of oral
communication in the everyday life. Thus, without knowing the INE version, any
person fails to comprehend what is spoken to them and therefore to effectively

communicate. Accordingly, it is absolutely important to include the INE in the ELL
and ELT.
It is not that, to learn the INE, the learners must have a higher proficiency level. But
the level is the same level in which the students learn the relevant standard version.
It is the best idea to teach it in a class separately scheduled to teach this topic only.
And the educators must inform the students that they must not use it in the written
English, that they are not required to speak it, and that all they need is to
understand it.
The ultimate conclusion is that, if the goal of the SLA is to acquire the ability to
communicate effectively, the learners must learn and the teachers must teach the
INE.
CHAPTER 9
NON-NATIVE SPEAKER’S ELT QUALIFICATION
For the purpose of using English as a medium of communication, this publication
refers to exclusively the “natural form” of this language. And, it defines the “natural
form” as the form naturally used by the NESs in everyday life. Looking at this
emphasis, one could be misled to assume that the NNESTs, then, may not be
qualified to teach English language or that the NESTs, simply because of their native
speaking status, may automatically be better qualified to teach the language than
the NNESTs.
–– The purpose of this chapter is to eliminate this confusion.
DOES THE “NATIVE SPEAKER” STATUS OF A LANGUAGE TEACHER MEAN HE OR

SHE AUTOMATICALLY HAS BETTER QUALIFICATION TO TEACH THE TARGET
LANGUAGE THAN A “NON-NATIVE SPEAKER”?
The straightforward answer is NO.
And the answer is “NO” because the NS/NNS status has absolutely nothing to do
with constructing the language teaching qualification/ability of a person.
There is a widespread idea that, for the purpose of language teaching, an NS is

better qualified to teach the target language than an NNS. This idea has absolutely
no logical basis for the reasons stated below.
Irrespective of whether language or other subject, with respect to ALL faculties of

teaching, the “qualification to teach” or, in one word, “expertise” is constituted by
the following two factors:
1. knowledge on the relevant subject; and
2. ability to present in terms of both presentation and explanation.
Any variation in either of these two factors augments or diminishes the degree of
the expertise.
Now let’s apply this standard in the context of language teaching which is the
central topic of this chapter.
KNOWLEDGE
Since the Descriptive Grammar (DG) and Prescriptive Grammar (PG) define what
the language is, how much knowledge a language teacher has is measured by how
much knowledge they have on the DG and PG. 7 In other words, the more
knowledge a person has on the DG and PG, the more knowledge they have on the
relevant language.
With respect to the DG knowledge, it is NOT the NS/NNS status but the DEGREE OF
EXPOSURE (to the target language) that plays the central role. There is no logical
basis to argue that, under a same degree of exposure, an NS would accumulate
more information than an NNS. How much information a person can retrieve from
a given source of exposure depends on their IQ level and how attentively they study
the information but has nothing to do with NS/NNS status. Accordingly, the DG
knowledge formula is:
Knowledge = Source + Depth of Study + IQ
With respect to the PG knowledge, all books are accessible from every part of the
world equally. And therefore, irrespective of whether NS or NNS, any person can
master on the PG. And, certainly, as mentioned before, how much knowledge a
person can gather from a source depends on the extent of their study and IQ level.
Thus, the formula remains the same:
Knowledge = Source + Depth of Study + IQ
Accordingly, the NS/NNS status plays no role to enable any person to be armed
with the requisite grammatical knowledge. Rather, the formula is:
Grammatical Knowledge = Source 8 + Depth of Study + IQ
[continued on next page]
7
In this regard, we must keep in mind that the DG is the dominating authority between the DG and PG.
8
The “source”, in case of DG, is DEGREE OF EXPOSURE to the target language and, in case of PG, is books by authentic
authors.
[ACCENT vs ELL EXPERIENCE]9
ABILITY TO PRESENT
The presentation skill is the second element in the constitution of a language
teacher’s expertise. In that, the teacher must have the ability to deliver the
accurate information and then to explain it properly to enable the students to
understand it.
It would be absurd to even think that an NS has any better ability to present
something than an NNS. This ability depends on one or a combination of the
following two factors:
1. natural aptitude; and
2. professional training.
Again, the NS/NNS status has no function in this regard.
[continued on next page]
9
There exists argument that the inherited native accent gives the NSs a credit over the NNSs for the instant purpose.
This argument has little merit.
Although the NESTs do have an advantage over the accent, the objective of the SLA is not that one must have native-
like accent but must be intelligible or clear enough so that the average people can understand them. This kills the
accent factor right there. Thus, this factor has no contribution towards an ELT’s qualification as long as they speak
clearly and use the natural form of the language.
As much as the NESTs have the advantage over the accent, the NNESTs have advantage over ELL experience. One
who learned ESL has first-hand practical experience to understand the students’ needs from the students’
standpoints, practically (as opposed to theoretically). And, most certainly, to teach effectively, it is more important
to know what it takes for the students to learn than to figure out what accent they will speak in.
Therefore, I believe the ELL learning experience as a qualification factor to teach English weighs much heavier than
the inherited NS accent factor.
I, however, decline to take into consideration any of these two factors for the purpose of determining the teachers’
qualification. Simply said, these factors are irrelevant for the given purpose.
CONCLUSION
The “qualification to teach” or, in one word, “expertise” is constituted by the
following two factors:
1. knowledge on the relevant subject; and
2. ability to present in terms of both delivery and explanation.
The amount or degree of the knowledge of a language teacher is not depended on

the NS/NNS status. Rather, the matter depends on the “availability of the source of
knowledge”, “depth of study”, and “IQ level”. At the same time, the “ability to
present” derives from either natural aptitude, or professional training, or a
combination thereof and has nothing to do with the NS/NNS status.
Accordingly, the relevant status plays no role. As far as the status factor is
concerned, all are in equal position for the purpose of gaining qualification to teach
any language. The factors that determine the qualification have nothing to do with
NS/NNS status but involve PERSON, a person’s personal ability.
CHAPTER 10
INFORMED ECLECTICISM
Informed Eclecticism or Principled Eclecticism
in The English Language Teaching
Whether a child or an adult, every person has a unique learning mechanism which
is different from other. Which way a person can learn depends on that person’s
idiosyncrasy which varies from person to person. Therefore, the same teaching
method does NOT work for teaching all. Also, for the same person, the same
method does not work for teaching all topics. Whether in case of a variation
between persons or topics, the variation creates a context that demands specific
elements or teaching techniques suitable in that particular context only. So, for the
most effective teaching, the teachers must, first, evaluate the specific context to
identify what technique it requires and, then, pick and choose technique(s) from
the existing ones or, if not available, then invent one to apply to that context. – This
approach is eclecticism which is termed as “Informed Eclecticism” or “Principled
Eclecticism”.
THE APPROACH
In 2000, in the context of market(ing) research, Nigel Spackman, Andy Barker and
Clive Nancarrow invented the term “Informed Eclecticism” and defined the
principle as
a broad and eclectic approach to market research (qualitative and quantitative), involving
the use of theories, methods and researchers drawn from a wide range of disciplines.
Visit https://www.aqr.org.uk/glossary/informed-eclecticism
Visit also http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/6413/
Visit also https://www.mrs.org.uk/ijmr_article/article/34839
In the same year (2000), Diane Larsen-Freeman defined “Principled Eclecticism”, to

quote:
“When teachers who subscribe to the pluralistic view of methods pick and choose from
among methods to create their own blend, their practice is said to be eclectic. Remember,
though, that methods are coherent combinations of techniques and principles. Thus.
teachers who have a consistent philosophy and pick in accordance with it (which may very
well make allowances for differences among students}, could be said to be practicing
principled eclecticism. They are in effect creating their own method by blending aspects
of others in a principled manner.”
Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching (2nd Edition) by Diane
Larsen-Freeman, at page 183.
Both the “Informed Eclecticism” and the “Principled Eclecticism” set forth one
same principle which is:
Do not throw away any approach or method. But, as demanded by a unique
context, pick and choose a method or methods already in existence as well
as combine them to create your own blend.
Accordingly, by the virtue of their principle, both approaches are the same.
(See An A-Z of ELT (2006) by Scott Thornbury, at page 73 (stating, to quote: “some
scholars have put the case for principled (or informed) eclecticism”) (By using the
word “or” between “principled” and “informed”, Thornbury defines them to be the
same)).
After years of the scholars’ research as well as experimentation and application of

ONE method (irrespective of what method it may be), it is proved that ONE method
is not effective in all contexts. Rather, selection of method(s) depends on the
unique dimension or need of a specific context while such need varies from context
to context. Therefore, the teachers must be acquainted with preferably all methods
or at least as many methods as possible; and not only that but also they must have
the ability to customize or even invent method(s) to suit a unique context that may
occur under a certain condition.
And, because the learning mechanism varies from person to person as well as topic
to topic, there is no alternative of the Informed or Principled eclecticism that covers
a wide range of methods including:
1. the ones already in existence,
2. customized versions of the existing ones, and
3. totally newly invented ones.
One may argue that, if the key objective is the “most effective result”, then the only
way it is possible to achieve that goal in the literal sense is by employing one
method for each student and therefore the approach is applicable in the context of
only one-on-one tutoring but not the classrooms that have plural students. – It is
true that employing different method for each student in a classroom simply is not
feasible. But it is quite possible to classify students having SIMILAR (as opposed to
same) learning mechanism and place them in the same classroom. Of course, all
students will not produce same result. But merit based difference is axiomatic.
THE ELEMENTS UNDER THE APPROACH
Examination of this approach makes it clear that, in the context of the second
language acquisition, its application requires the teachers to know:
1. all the existing approaches and methods, and
2. how to evaluate the demand of any unpredictable context.
The first component requires extensive study of the existing approaches and
methods. And the second component requires study of language learning
psychology.
THE NAME OF THE APPROACH
As shown above, in the context of the ELT, the approach exists under two names:
“Informed Eclecticism” and “Principled Eclecticism”. But, using two names for the
same principle can be troublesome for two reasons that are: (1) it can lead some
persons to get confused thinking that they are different; and (2) it requires
specification of both terms every time the approach is mentioned. Therefore, one
specific and uniform name is much desirable. Well, then, what should we call it?
First, the Spackman-Barker-Nancarrow trio, the original inventor of this principle,

called it “Informed Eclecticism”. And, second, the approach requires the teachers
to know or to be INFORMED of all the existing approaches and methods as well as
the human psychology as to language learning mechanism. Accordingly, the most
logical name for this approach is INFORMED ECLECTICISM.
CONCLUSION
Due to the idiosyncrasy of human psychology, the way of learning varies from
person to person. Therefore, irrespective of what method it is, one single method
cannot randomly teach all persons. So, to produce the most effective result, the
Informed Eclecticism is the best approach to teach the English language as much
as generally all subjects. Under this approach, the teachers must, first, evaluate the
specific context to identify what technique it requires and, then, pick and choose
technique(s) from the existing ones or, if not available, then invent one to apply to
that context. Thus, the approach requires the teachers to know:
1. all the existing approaches and methods, and
how to evaluate the demand of any unpredictable context.

Fundamentals of Learning/Teaching English As Second/Foreign Language

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Fundamentals of Learning/Teaching English As Second/Foreign Language

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

FUNDAMENTALS of LEARNING/TEACHING ENGLISH Page 1 of 38

However, the path of learning L2 is never as smooth as that of learning L1 because

I just mentioned the objective of the amendment is to “speed up” the

Accordingly, while the NA is the most effective system of second language

It is true that all persons do not travel internationally or participate in the

Furthermore, “knowledge is power.” A person needs knowledge to effectively

CONTEXT FOR ILLUSTRATION

The requisite knowledge can be gathered by academically higher education,

To speak of independent self-research, the most popular source of knowledge is

To speak of English in terms of a tool that is to be used as a medium of

So, today’s versions of these speeches are:

Well, then how do we do that? Do we have to go to an NS country to be exposed

Prescriptive Grammar (PG)

HYPOTHETICAL YEARS 0-50

HYPOTHETICAL YEARS 51-100

So, today in year 100:

HYPOTHETICAL YEARS AFTER 100 …

The entire process keeps progressing the same way.

Accordingly, the PG is just a guideline that is unrelated to or merely coincides with

The Standard Version

In linguistics, a “koiné language” means a common language. It is a standard

The relevant question is then: What is the standard version of English?

1. English was originated in England (referring to the land of Great Britain);

English is an Indo-European language that, to give birth to English, evolved as

Let us use an analogy:

Irrespective of whether American, Australian, British, Canadian, or any other

To decide whether something is correct or incorrect, the determining factor is

For the purpose of spoken English, an item is acceptable where it:

Step 1: NATURAL USAGE (Spoken and Written English)

Step 2: CONTEXT (Spoken and Written English)

Step 3: CORRECTNESS UNDER PG (Written English)

Research shows that, on average, we listen:

Accordingly, speaking of the natural learning mechanism, speaking, reading and

Including INE in the ELL and ELT is absolutely important because:

COMPREHENSION OF “INE” – AN STRUCTURAL COMPONENT

And, second, the educators must inform the students that:

person fails to comprehend what is spoken to them and therefore to effectively

DOES THE “NATIVE SPEAKER” STATUS OF A LANGUAGE TEACHER MEAN HE OR

There is a widespread idea that, for the purpose of language teaching, an NS is

Irrespective of whether language or other subject, with respect to ALL faculties of

[continued on next page]

[ACCENT vs ELL EXPERIENCE]9

[continued on next page]

The amount or degree of the knowledge of a language teacher is not depended on

In the same year (2000), Diane Larsen-Freeman defined “Principled Eclecticism”, to

After years of the scholars’ research as well as experimentation and application of

THE ELEMENTS UNDER THE APPROACH

THE NAME OF THE APPROACH

First, the Spackman-Barker-Nancarrow trio, the original inventor of this principle,

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen