The Language Teacher
06 - 2000

Reply to When is a Conversation not a Conversation?

William Gatton

DynEd Japan



(Note: This writer permits publication with some reluctance. Those who are directly attacked by Mr. Ford's article deserve first right of reply. The following notes are in no way intended to assume precedence over their rights)

We can probe Mr. Ford's article to consider if it is fair, if it raises useful issues, and if it exhibits any particular bias. My view is: No, Yes, and Yes.

Does Mr. Ford give fair treatment? Quite obviously the use of dialogs is but one form of input. Mr. Ford treats his quoted dialogs outside of the context of their lessons as if they are the sole source of lesson input. He is unhappy that a grammatical focus makes it difficult to compose realistic sounding dialogs. He is unhappy that these dialogs, which seem to have considerable power to vex him, contradict the pure principles of the communicative approach. For him, dialogs encourage the dangerous habit of rote memorization. He vilifies text authors and the publishing industry for seducing teachers into the communicative approach while supposedly contradicting it with these dialogs he has lifted from context. He pulls back the curtain to reveal Filthy Lucre as the Moriarty in this nefarious scheme.

Is this fair to those authors and texts? Do they offer no other language input? Virtually all textbooks back through the 17th century demonstrate communication through dialogues and quite a few twine this to a controlled grammar point. Dialogs are invariably models and all models lack meat on their bones. They are thin precisely to show the definition of the garment or grammar in a clear light. They are an aid to memory, presumably useful when learning a language.

Is Mr. Ford fair? The reader must decide. Straw men make for an easy flambe'.

Pithily written dialogs are of course desirable, but I personally doubt that "more realistic" dialogues are required. Colloquial language input at the low levels is more likely to inhibit or warp the rules of grammar and usage. We already have more than enough of the pop music, pop movies, pop net sites, etc. employed in lessons for the amusement of students who are usually paying to be taught. There is often no hint of language sequencing or control in such lessons. Needs analysis, language objectives, etc. are usually given short shrift.

Mr. Ford's useful issue points us to methodology and its perversion. If Mr. Ford is suggesting that a debased communicative approach has gone well beyond its utility in EFL in Japan, I am inclined to agree. Conversation classes and the resultant textbooks dominate much of the language learning experience in Japan.

Mr. Ford blames the perversion of the communicative approach on publishers. He seems to believe that publishers exercise the whip hand when it comes to the teaching of English. Perhaps Mr. Ford has overlooked the simple fact that the authors of EFL texts are, er, teachers. Publishers do not, in my experience, dictate what courses are offered. Mr. Ford might, of course, have usefully discussed the quality of university programs in which "conversation" is a separate class or the private language school where "conversation" may be the sole source of learner amusement, masquerading as class content.

It may be that the "conversation" class is outmoded. Would this justify more pop media lessons for media addled youth? Could it also be the case that the antiquated "conversation" class is needed simply because very little conversation occurs in English classes not labeled "conversation"? The premise that one can effectively teach "conversation" or that "conversation" requires a separate class at all needs a thorough re-examination. We are not, after all, considering Madame de Staël here.

Consider this iron rule: Publishers pursue market opportunities.

If this is true, then Mr. Ford is attacking dialogs, textbook authors, and publishers as convenient straw men when his better theme might be the need for realistic program reform and departmental restructuring to achieve measurable goals of success. That would have us put communication in its proper place, define the most useful variety of inputs needed to reach articulated and measurable goals at specific levels of language ability, separate the amusement class from the English class, and identify and encourage use of appropriate materials.


His better theme might be the need for realistic program reform and departmental restructuring to achieve measureable goals of success.


Mr. Ford offers comments valid, not simply with respect to dialogs, but to most input. The two I take to be most useful are:

. . . how are teachers supposed to use this "manufactured" input to develop a genuinely communicative activity?

and

. . . using these contrived dialogues as pedagogic tools can give students the wrong impression about the language learning process.

In both instances, he underscores the teacher's responsibility to exploit language input to achieve meaningful class activities. All input is manufactured and any text is but a springboard. The dive into that pool is the creative act the teacher brings to the class. If the teacher is burdened with a large class and that class is called "Conversation," well, the contradictions that are created risk a learner discouragement of the bad faith variety. This "learner training" in institutional irrelevance, program vacuity, and, worst of all, the certain knowledge that no one can ever fail, is far more pernicious than traditional dialogs in textbooks. Most students survive the experience without resort to violence. Some might even learn a bit. One wonders how Mr. Ford comes to blame publishers, who bring teachers' ideas to print, for this debasement of communication into conversation. This has little to do with dialogs. I am sorry to see this complaint as an unrequited bias. There is such a wide array of ELT materials available that one need not feel bitter of those texts not to one's taste.

To conclude, the article creates a sympathetic vibration in this reader, but one that is not particularly agreeable. It has a bit too much of the "workman blaming his tools" about it for me.



All materials on this site are copyright © by JALT and their respective authors.
For more information on JALT, visit the JALT National Website