metodo audiolingual

Reading # 8 Richards, J. C. and Rodgers, T.S. Approaches and Methods in laneuaee teachin~. C.U.P., pp. 44 63

4 The Audiolingual Method

Background

The Coleman Report in 1929 recommended a reading-based approach to foreign language teaching for use in American schools and colleges (Chapter 1). This emphasized teaching the comprehension of texts. Teacliers taught from books containing short reading passages iii the foreigii language, preceded by lists of vocabulary. Rapid silent reading was tlie goal, but in practice teachers often resorted to discussing the coiitent of the passage in English. Those involved in the teaching of Englisli as a second language in the United States between the two world wars used either a modified Direct Method approach, a reading-based approach, or a reading-oral approach (Darian 1972). Unlike the approach that was being developed by British applied linguists during the same period, there was little attempt to treat language content system- atically. Sentence patterns and grammar were introduced at the whiiii of the textbook writer. There was no standardization of the vocabulary or granimar that was included. Neither was there a consensus o n wlint graiiiniar, sentence patterns, and vocabulary were rnost important for beginning, intermediate, or advanced learners.

But the entry of the United States into World War 11 had a significant effect on language teaching in America. To supply the U.S. government with personnel who were fluent in German, French, Italian, Chinese, Japanese, Malay, and other languages, and who could work as inter- preters, code-room assistants, and translators, it was necessary to set up a special language training program. The government commissioned American universities to develop foreign language programs for inilitary persoiiiiel. Thus the Army Specialized Training Program (ASTP) wns establislied in 1942. Fifty-five American universities were involved in

thc program by the beginniñg of 1943. Tlie objective of the army programs was for students to attain con-

versiitional proficiency in a variety of foreign languages. Since this was not tlie goal of conventional foreign language courses in the United States, iiew approaches were necessary. Linguists, such as Leonnrd Blooiiifield a t Yale, had already developed training prograins as part ot thcir liriguistic research that were designed to give linguists and antliro- pologists mastery of American Indian lang~iages and other Ianguager

Este material es proporcionado al alumno con fines educativos, para la crítica y la investigación respetando la reglamentación en materia de derechos de autor.Este ejemplar no tiene costo alguno. El uso indebido de este ejemplar es responsabilidad del alumno.

Richards, J.C. y T.S. Rodgers (1987). The Audiolingual Method.En Approaches and Methods in language teaching (pp. 44-63). Reino Unido: Cambridge University Press.

The Audiolitzgual Method

they were studying. Texcbooks did not exist for such languages. The technique Bloomfield and his colleagues used was sometiines known as the "informant method," since it used a native speaker of the language - the informant - who served as a source of phrases and vocabulary and who provided sentences f o r imitation, a n d a linguist, who supervised the learning experience. The linguist did not necessariiy know the language but was trained in eliciting the basic structure of the language from the informant. Thus the students and the linguist were able to take part in guided conversation with the informant, and together they grad- ually learned how to speak the lariguage, as well as to understand much of its basic grammar. Students in such courses studied ten hours a day, six days a week. There were generally fifteen hours of drill witli native speakers and twenty to thirty hours of private study spread over two to three six-week sessions. This was the system adopted by the army, and in small classes of mature and highly motivated students, excellent results were often achieved.

The Army Specialized Training Program lasted only about two years but attracted considerable attention in the popular press and in the academic community. For the next ten years the "Army Method" and its suitability for use in regular language programs was discussed. But the linguists who developed the ASTP were not interested primarily in language teaching. The "methodology" of the Army Method, like the Direct Method, derived from the intensity of contact with the target language rather than froni any well-developed methodological basis. It was a program innovative mainly in terms of the procedures used and the intensity of teaching rather than in terms of its underlying theory. However, it did convince a iiurnber of prominent linguists of the value of an intensive, oral-baskd approach to the learning of a foreign language.

Linguists and applied linguists during this period were becoming increasingly involved in the teachirig of English as a foreign language. America had now emerged as a inajor international power. There was a growing demand for foreigii expertise in the teaching of English. Thou- sands of foreign students entcred the United.States to study in universities, and many of these st~idents required training in English before they could begin their studies These factors led to the emergence of the American approach to ESL, wliich by the mid-fifties had become Audiolingualism.

In 1939 the University of hlichigan developed the first English Lan- guage Institute in the Uniteci States; it specialized in the training of teachers of English as a foreigii language and in teaching English as a second o r foreign language. Charles Fries, director of the institute, was trained in structural linguisrici, ;trtd he applied the principies of structural linguistics to language teaching. Fries and his colleagues rejected approaches like those of ttie 1)irzct blethod, in which learners are exposed



Approaches & methods in h~r~:<ir,ige teaching

to the language, use it, and gs:i~iii;illy absorb its grammatical patterns. For Fries, grammar, or "strticriirc," was the starting point. The structlire of the language was identified \\ i r l i irs basic sentence patterris and grammatical structures. The langitiigi was taught by systematic attention to pronunciation and by intensivc or;il drilling of its basic sentence patterns. Pattern practice was a basic clnssrooin technique. "lt is these basic patterns that constitute the learnerV\ rnsk They require drill, drill, and more drill, and oniy enough vocab~ilary t o inake such drills possible" (Hockett 1959).

Michigan was not the only uiiiversity involved in developing courses and materials for teaching Englisli. A number of other similar programs were established, some of the riirliest being at Georgetown University and American University, Washington, D.C., and at the University of Texas, Austin. U.S. linguists \vere becoming increasingly active, both within the United States and ;ibrond, in supervising programs for the teaching of English (Moultoii 196 1). In 1950 the Ainerican Council of Learned Societies, under contract to the U.S. State Department, was commissioned to develop textbooks tor teaching English to speakers of a wide number of foreign langiiages. The format the Iinguists involved in this project followed was known as the "general forrn". A lesson began with work on pronunciation, morphology, aiid grammar, followed by drills and exercises. The guidelines were publislied as Structzrral Notes and Corpus: A Basis for the Preparation of Maierials to Teach English as a Foreigrr Language (American Council of Learned Societies 1952). This became an influentinl document and together with tlie "general form" was used as a guide to developing English courses for speakers of ten different languages (the famotis Spoken Lang~tnge srrirs), puh- lished between 1953 and 1956 (Ivloulton 1961).

In many ways the methodology used by U.S. linguists and lariguage teaching experts a t this period sounded similar to the British Oral Ap- proach, although the two traditions developed independently. The Amer- ican approach differed, however, in its strong alliance with American striictural linguistics and its applied linguistic applications, particularly contrastive analysis. Fries set forth his principies in Teaching and Learn- ing English as a Foreign Lang~r~rge (1945), in which the problems of learning a foreign language were nrtributed to the conflict of different structural systems (¡.e., differences between the grammatical and plion- ological patterns of the native toiigue and the target language). Con- trastive analysis of the two langiiages would allow potential problems of interference to be predicted aiid addressed through carefully prepared teaching materials. Thus was borii a major industry in American applied linguistics - systematic comparisons of English with other languages, with a view toward solving rhe iiiiidamental problems of foreign language learning.



The Audiolirrgual Method

The approach developed by linguists at Michigan and other universities became known va,riously as the Oral Approach, the '4ural-Oral Approach, and the Structural Approach. It advocated aural training first, then pronunciation training, followed by speaking, reading, and writing. Language was identified with speech, and speech was approached through structure. This approach influenced the way languages were taught in the United States throughout the fifties. As an a ~ p r o a c h to tlie teaching of English as a foreign language the new orthodoxy was proinoted through the University of Michigan's journal Language 1,earning. This was a period when expertise in linguistics was regarded as a necessary and sufficient foundation for expertise in language teaching. Not sur- prisingly, the ciassroom materials produced by Fries and linguists at Yale, Cornell, and elsewhere evidenced considerable Iingiiistic analysis but very littie pedagogy. They were widely used, however, aiid the applied linguistic principies on which they were based were thought to incorporate the most advanced scientific approach to langurige teaching. If there was any learning theory underlying the Aural-Oral iiiaterials, it was a commonsense application of the idea that practice niakes perfect. There is no explicit reference to then-current learning theory in Fries's work. It was the incorporation of the linguistic principies of the Aural- Oral approach with state-of-the-art psychological learniiig theory in the mid-fifties that led to the method that came to be known as Audiolingualism.

The emergence of the Audiolingual ~ e t h o d resulted from the increased attention given to foreign language teaching in tlie IJiiited States toward the end o i the 1950s. The need for a radical change 2nd rethink- ing of foreign language teaching methodology (most of whicli \vas srill linked to the Reading Method) was prompted by the laiiriching of the first Russian satellite in 1957. The U.S. Government ackiiowledgcd the need for a more intensive effort to teach foreign languages i i i order to prevent Americans trom becoming isolated from scientific adviiiices rnade in other countries. The National Defense Education Act ( 1 Y.i8), among other measures, provided funds for the study and analysis ot niodern languages, for the development of reaching materials, and tor rlie training of teachers. Teachers were encouraged to atterid sumrner iiistitutes to improve their knowledge of foreign languages and to learii tlic pririciples of linguistics and the new linguistically based teaching iiictliocis. Lan- guage teaching specialists set about developing a method rli;it was ap- plicable to conditions in U.S. colleges and university classroonis. Tliey drew on the earlier experience of the army programs and the Xural-Oral or Structural Approach developed by Fries and his colleag~ics, adding insights taken from behaviorist psychology. This cornbiiiatioii of structural linguistic theory, contrastive analysis, aural-oral proced~ires, and behaviorist psychology led to the Audiolingual Method. Aiidiolingualism



Approaches e? methods in language teaching

(the term was coined by Professor Nelson Brooks i i i 1')64) claimed to have transformed language teaching from an art t o .i \cience, which would enable learners to achieve mastery of a foreign I;iiisiinge effectively and efficiently. The method was widely adopted tor i~,nching foreign languages in North American colleges and universitic\. I r provided the methodoiogical foundation for materials for the teachiiig of foreign languages at college and university leve1 in the United St;itcs nrid Canada, and its principles formed the basis of such widely used series as the Lado English Series (Lado 1977) and English 900 (English L.niiguage Services 1964). Although the method began to fall from favor i i i tlie late sixties for reasons we shall discuss later, Audiolingualism aiid riiaterials based on audiolingual principles continue to be widely iised today. Let us examine the features of the Audiolingual Method n t tlie levels of approach, design, and procedure.

Approach

Theory of language

The theory of language underlying Audiolingualism was derived from a view proposed by ~ m e r i c a n linguists in the 1950s - a view that came to be known as structural linguistics. Linguistics had enierged as a flour- ishing academic discipline in the 1950s, and the structural theory of language constituted its backbone. Structural iinguistics had developed in p a a as a reaction to traditional grammar. Traditiorial approaches to the study of language had linked the study of langtiage to philosophy and to a mentalist approach to grammar. Grammar rvns considered a branch of logic, and the grammatical categories of Iiido-European languages were thought to represent ideal categories ir1 lariguages. Many nineteenth-century language scholars had viewed moderri Eiiropean languages as corruptions of classical grammar, and langunges from other parts of the world were viewed as primitive and underclcveioped.

The reaction against traditional grammar was promptcd by the move- ment toward positivism and empiricism, which Darwiir's Origin of the Species had helped promote, and by an increased iiiterest in non- European languages on the part of scholars. A more practica1 interest in language study emerged. As linguists discovered new so~ind types and new patterns of linguistic invention and organization, a riew interest in phonetics, phonology, morphology, and syntax developed By the 1930s, the scientific approach to the study of language was rlioiight to consist of collecting examples of what speakers said and ;iiinl\-~iiig them according to different levels of structural organizatiori r;ither than according to categories of Latin grammar. A sophisticiircd rnethodology



The Audiolingual Method

for col lecr i i~~ 2nd analyzing data developed, which involved transcribing spoken ~itrc.rnrices in a !anguage phonetically aiid later working out the phoneniic. i~~orphological (stems, prefixes, suffixes, etc.), and syntactic (phrases, clnuscs, sentence types) systems underlying the grammar of the language L.aiiguage was viewed as a system of structurally related elements for tlie encoding of meaning, the elements being phonemes, rnor- phemes, worcls, structures, 2nd sentence types. The term structural referred to these characteristics: (a) Elements in a language were thought of as being linearly produced in a ruie-governed (structured) way. (b) Lan- guage samples could be exhaustively described at any structural level of description (phonetic, phonemic, morphological, etc.). (c) Linguistic levels were thought of as systems within systems - that is, as being pyram- idally structured; phonemic systems led to morphemic systems, and these in turn led to the higher-level systems of phrases, clauses, and sentences.

Learning a language, it was assumed, entails mastering the elements or building hlocks of the Ianguage and lcarning the rules by which these elements are conibined, from phonerne to rnorpheme to word to phrase to sentence. The phonological system defines rliose sound elements that contrast nieaningfully with one another iii the language (phonemes), their phonetic realizations in specific environments (allophones), and their permissible sequences (phonotactics). The phonological and grammatical systems of the language constitute the organization of language and by implication the units of production and comprehension. The grammatical system consists of a listing of grammatical elements and rules for their linear combination into words, phrases, and sentences. Rule-ordered processes involve addition, deletion, and transposition of elements.

An imporrant tenet of structural linguistics was that the primary medium of language is oral: Speech is language. Since many languages do not have a written form and we learn to speak before we learn to read or write, ir was argued that language is "primarily what is spoken and only secondarily what is written" (Brooks 1964). Therefore, it was assumed that speech had a priority in language teaching. This was contrary to popular views of the relationship of the spoken and written forms of language, sirlce it had been widely assumed that language existed prin- cipally as syrnbols written on paper, and that spoken language was an imperfect realization of the pure written version.

This scientific approach to language analysis appeared to offer the foundations for a scientific approach to language teaching. In 1961 the American linguist William Moulton, in a report prepared for the 9th International Congress of Linguists, proclaimed the linguistic principies on which laiigtiage teaching methodology should be based: "1.anguage is speech, iiot writing.. . . A language is a set of habits.. . . Teach the language, r i o t ;ihout the language. . . . A lariguage is what its native speak-



Approaches & methods in language teaching

Reinforcement (behavior likely to oc- / cui agan and becorne a habit) /

Stimulus - Organism - Response Behavior

\ No reinforcementi Negative reinforcement (behavior not likely to occur again)

ers say, not what someone thinks they ought to say.. . . Languages are different" (quoted in Rivers 1964: 5 ) . But a metliod cannot be based simply on a theory of language. It also needs to refer to the psychology of learning and to learning theory. It is to this aspect of Audiolingualism that we now turn.

Theory of learning

The language teaching theoreticians and methodologists who developed Audiolingualism not only had a convincing and powerful theory of language to draw upon but they were also working in a period when a prominent school of American psychology - known as behavioral psy- choloev - claimed to have tapped the secrets of al1 human learning,

" Z . . - including language learning. Behaviorisiri, like structural linguistics, is another antimentalist. empiricallv biised approach to the study of human . . . . behavior. To the behaviorist, the Iiuiiinn heing is an organism capable of a wide repertoire of behaviors. The occurrence of these behaviors is dependent upon three crucial elenieiits in learning: a stimulus, which serves to elicit behavior; a response rriggered by a stimuliis; and reinforcement, which serves to mark tlie response as being appropriate (or inappropriate) and encourages the repetition (or suppression) of the response in the future (see Skinner 1957; Brown 1980). A representation of this can be seen in Figure 4.1.

Reinforcement 1s a vital elemeiit tn rlie learning process, because it increases the likelihood that the beiicivior will occur again and eventually become a habit. To apply this theor? ro language learning is to identify the organism as the foreign language leiirner, the behavior as verbal behavior, the stimulus as what is rniight or presented of the foreign language, the response as the leariier'~ reaction to the stimulus, and the reinforcement as the extrinsic approval iind praise of the teacher or fellow students or the intrinsic self-satisfactioii ot target language use. Language mastery is represented as acquiring 3 ser of appropriate language stim-



'Ihc ;1~~diolingual Method

The descriptive practices of structural lingiiiii\ siiggested a number of hypotheses about langu,age learning, and henLc .iiiout language teachirig as well. For example, since linguists normall! J~.scribed languages beginning with the phonological level and finishiiig \citli the sentence level, it was assumed that this was also the appropriLirc scquence for learriing and teaching. Since speech was now held tí) l,i. priniary and wririiig secondary, it was assumed that language t e a c l ~ i i i ~ should focus on inas- tery of speech and that writing or even writteii proinpts should be withheld until reasonablv late in the language lenriiinn process. Since the - - . structure is what is important and unique about n language, early practice should focus on mastery of phonological arid grainmatical structures rather than on mastery of vocabulary.

O u t of these various influences emerged a iluiiiber of learning priii- ciples, which became the psychological found:itioiis of Audiolingualisii~ and came to chape its methodological practices Xinong the more central are the following:

1 . Foreign language learning is basically a procesi ot niechanical habit formation. Cood habits are formed by giving corrccr responses rather thaii by making mistakes. By memorizing dialogues nnd pcrforming pattern drills the chances of producing mistakes are rniriiiiii/ed. Language is verbal behavior - that is, the automatic production iiiid comprehension of utterances - and can be learned-by:inducing rhe stiideiits to do likewisc

2. Language skills are learned more effectively if rhe itcins to be learned in the target language are presented in spoken forin hefore they are seen ir1

written form. Aural-oral training is needed to provide the foundation for the development of other language skills.

3. Analogy provides a better foundation for langu;t$c Ienrning h a n analysis Analogy involves the processes of generalizatioii ;iiid dis~rimination. icx- planations of rules are therefore not given until siudcnts have practiced a pattern in a variety of contexts and are thouglir r o have acquired a per- ception of the analogies involved. Drills can ennhlc learners to form correct analogies. Hence the approach to the teacliiiig of grammar-is essentially inductive rather than deductive.

4 The meanings that the words of a language ha\c tor tlie native speaker can be learned only in a linguisric and cultural coritcxt and not in isola- tion. Teaching a language thus involves teaching aspects of the cultural system of the people who speak the language ( f t i i , c r s 1964: 19-22).

In advocating these principies, proponents o t Aiidiolingualism were drawing on the theory of a well-developed scliool of American psy- cholog;- behaviorism: The prominent ~ ~ r v a r d 1,ehaviorist B. F. ~ k i n n e r had elaborated a theory of learning applicablc to language learning in his influential book Verbal Behavior (1957), i i i which he stated, "We have no reason to assume.. . that verbal belinvior differs in any fundamental respect from non-verbal behavior, or ~ l i a t any new pririciples must be invoked to account for ir" (1957: 10j Xrined with a powerful

5 1

* , :




theory of the nature of language and of language learning, audiolin- gualists could now turn to the design of language teaching courses and materials.

Design

Audiolinguaiists demanded a complete reorientation of tlie foreign lariguage curriculum. Like the nineteenth-century reforrners, they advocated a return to speech-based instruction with the primary oblective of oral proficiency, and dismissed the study of grammar or literature as the goal of foreign language teaching. "A radical transformarion is called for, a new orientation of procedures is demanded, and a tlioro~igh house clean- ing of methods, inaterials, texts and tests is unavoidable" (Brooks 1964: SO).

Objectives

Brooks distinguishes between short-range and long-range objectives of an audiolingual prograrn. Short-range objectives include training in listening comprehension, accurate pronunciation, recognition of speech symbols as graphic signs on the printed page, artd nbtlity to reproduce these symbols in writing (Brooks 1964: 11 1). "These inimediate objectives imply three others: first, control of the strucrures ot sound, form, and order in the new language; second, acquaiiitance with vocabulary items that bring content into these structures; nnd rhird, meaning, in terms of the signiíicance these verbal symbois have ior those who speak the language natively" (Brooks 1964: 113). Long-raiigc ohjectives "must be language as the native speaker uses it.. . . There nilist he some knowledge of a second language as it is possessed by a true biliiigiialist" (Brooks 1964: 107).

In practice this means that the focus in the early stages is on oral skills, with gradual Links to other skills as learning develops. Oral proficiency is equated with accurate pronunciation aiid graiiiniar and the ability to respond quickly and accurately in speecli sitiiations. The teaching of listening comprehension, pronunciation, graiiiiii;ir, ltnd vocabulary are al1 related to development of oral fluency. I<e;iding and writing skills inay be taught, but they are dependent upoii prior oral skills. Language is primarily speech in audiolingual theory, i>iir speaking skills are themselves dependent upon the ability to acc~ir:trely perceive and produce the major ph~nological features of the target I;trigiiage, fluency in the use of the key grammatical patterris in the Iniigiingr, and knowledge of sufficient vocabulary to use with these pnttcriis




The syllabus

Audiolingualism is a linguistic, or structiire-based, approach to language teaching. The starting point is a linguistic syllabus, which contains the key items of phonology, morphology, and syntax of the language ar- ranged according to their order of presentation. These may have been derived in part from a contrastive analysis of the differences between the native tongue and the target language, since these differences are thought to be the cause of the major difficulties the learner will en- counter. In addition, a lexical syllabus of basic vocabulary iterns is also usually specified in advance. In Foundations for English Teaching (Fries and Fries 1961), for example, a Corpus of structural and lexical items graded into tliree levels is proposed, together with suggestions as to the situations that could be used to contextualize them.

The language skills are taught in the order of listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Listening is viewed largely as training in aura1 discriminatiori of basic sound patterns. The language rnay be presented entirely oraily at first; written representations are usually withheld from learners in early stages.

The learner's activities must at first be confined to the audiolingual and ges- tural-visual baiids of language behavioc.:. .

Recognition and discrirnination are followed by imitation, repetition and mernorization. Oiily when he is thoroughly familiar with sounds, arrange- rnents, and forriis does he center his attention on enlarging his vocabulary.. . . Throughout he concentrares upon gaining accuracy before striving for fluency. (Brooks 1964: SO)

When reading nnd writing are introduced, students are taught to read and write wlint rhey have already learned to say oraily. An atternpt is made to miniinize the possibilities for making mistakes both in speaking and writing by iising a tightly structured approach to the presentation of new langliage items. At more advanced levels, more compiex reading and writing tiisks may be introduced.

Types of learning and teaching activities

Dialogues anci cirills form the basis of audioliiigual classroom practices. Dialogues provide the means of contextualizing key structures and il- lustrate situarioiis i i i which structures might be used as well as some cultural aspects of t:-2 target language. Dialogues are used for repetition and rnemorizarioii. Correct pronunciation, stress, rhythrn, and intonation are ernpliiisi~ed. .4fter a dialogue has been presented and memorized, specific grniiiin3rical patterns in the dialogue are seiected arid becomr the focus o1 viirious kixids of dril1 and pattern-practice exercises.



Approaches & methods in lunguage teaching

T h e use of drills a n J p;ittern practice i s a distinctive feature of the Audiolingual Method. V~irious kinds of drills are used. Brooks (1964: 156-61) includes the follo\viiig:

l. Repetition. The studenr rcpears an utterance aloud as soon as he has heard ir. He does this wirhoiit looking at a printed text. The utterance must be brief enough to !>e retained by rhe ear. Sound is as important as form and order.

EXAMPLE. This is the seventh month. -This is the seventh monrh. After a student has repeared an utterance, he inay repeat it again and add a few words, then repeat that whole utterance and add more words.

EXAMPLES. 1 used to know him. -1 iised to know him. 1 used to know him y e ~ r s ogo. -1 used to know hini years ago when we were in school.. . .

2. Inflection. One word in nn utterance appears in another torm when repeated.

EXAMPLES. 1 bought the ticket. -1 bought the tickets. He bought the candy -She bought the candy. 1 called the young man. -1 called the young men

3. Replacement. One word in an utteonce is replaced by another

EXAMPLES. He bought this house cheap. -He bought it clieap Helen left early -She lefr early. They gave their boss a. watch. -They gave him a wntch

4. Restatement. The studeiir tephrases an utterance and addresses i r to someone else, according to instructions.

EXAMPLES. Tell him to wait for you. -Wait for me. Ask her how old she is -How old are you? Ask John when he began -John, when did you begin? . .

5. Completion. The srudent hears an utterance that is complete except for one word, then repeats the utterance in complered form.

EXAMPLES. I'll go my way and yoii go.. . . -1'11 go my way and you go yortrs. We al1 have . . . own troubles. -We al1 have our own troubles. . . .

6. Transposition. A change in word order is necessary when a word is added.

EXAMPLU. i'm hungry. (so). -So .lin l. i'll never do it again. !iieirlier). -Neither w:ll 1 . . .




7. Expansion When a word is added it takes a certniii place in the sequence.

EXAMPLES. 1 know him. (hardly). -1 hardly know him. 1 know him. (well). -1 know him well.. . .

8. Contractiort. A single word stands for a phrase o r clnuse.

EXAMPLES. Put your hand on the table. -Put your hand there They believe that the earth is flat -They believe it

V . Trnnsformation. A sentence is transformed by beirig made negative o r in- terrogative o r through changes in tense, mood, voice, aspect, o r modality.

EXAMPI.ES. He knows my address. He doesn't know my address. Does he know my address? He used to know my address. I f he had known my address.

10. Integration Two separate utterances are integrnted into one.

EXAMPLES. They must be honest. This is irnportant. -1t is important that they be honest. 1 know that man. He is looking for you. -1 kno\r, tlic niaii who is looking for you.. . .

11. Rejoinder The student makec an appropriri;~ reji,;n?ii.i 10 3 gi-vsii utisr- ance. He is told in advance to respond in one ot rlic following ways:

Be polite. Answer the question. Agree. Agree emphatically. Express sucprise. Express regret. Disagree. Disagree emphatically. Question what is said. Fail to understand.

BE L'OLITE. EXAMPI-ES. Thank you. -You're welcome. May 1 take one? -Certainly.

ANSWER THE QUESTION. FXAMPI.ES. What is your name? -My name is Srnitli. Where did it happen? -1n the middle of the street



Approaches & methods in language teachi?zsy

AGREE. EXAMPLES. He's following us. -1 think you're right. This is good coffee. -Ir's very good.

12. Restoration The student is given a sequence ot \\.ords that have been culled from a sentence but still bear its basic iii~~niiing. He uses these words with a minimum of changes and additioiis to restore the sentence to its original form. He may be told whether thc tinic is present, past, or future.

EXAMPLES.

students/waitine/bus -The students are waiting tor the bus. - boys/build/house/tree -The boys built a house'in n tree.. . .

Learner roles

Learners are viewed as organisms that can be dirccted by skilled training techniques to produce correct responses. In accordance with behaviorist learning theory, teaching focuses on the exteriial rnanifestations of learning rather than on the interna1 processes. Leariiers play a reactive role by responding to stimuli, and thus have little control over the content, pace, or style of learning. They are not encouraged to initiate interaction, because this may lead to mistakes. The fact rhat in the early stages learners do not always understand the meanirig of what they are repeating is not perceived as a drawback, for by Iistening to the teacher, imitating accurately, and responding to and pertorniing controlled tasks they are learning a new form of verbal behavior.

Teacher roles

In Audiolingualism, as in Situational Language reaching, the teacher's role is central and active; it is a teacher-dominated method. The teacher models the target language, controls the directioii and pace of learning, and monitors and corrects the learners' perforinarice. The teacher must keep the learners attentive by varying drills and tasks and choosing relevant situations to practice structures. Larig~iagc learning is seen to result from active verbal interaction between tlie teacher aiid the learners. Failure to learn resuits only from the improper applicatioii of the method, for example, from the teacher not providing sutficierit practice or from the learner not memorizing the essential patteriis nrid structures; but the method itself is never to blame. Brooks argues tliat the teacher must be trained to do the following:

Introduce, sustain, and harmonize the learning oi thc Iour skills in this order: hearing, speaking, reading and writing.

Use - and not use - English in the language clascioc~iii



Tbe Audioli~zgual Metbod

.\lo~iel the various types of language behavior that the student is to learn 1 c.ic.li spoken language in dialogue form. I)trcct choral response by al1 or parts of rhe class. 1 c:icli tlie use of structure through pattern practice. (;iiicle the student in choosing and learning vocabulary. 511o\v how words relate to meaning in the target language. (iet tlie individual studenr to talk. I<cw:ird rriais by the student in such a way that learning is reinforced. Teacli a short story and other literary forms. 1:stnblish and maintain a cultural island. Fornialize on the first day the rules according to which the language class is

to he conducted, and enforce them. (Brooks 1964: 143)

The role of instructional materials

Irtstructional materials in the Audiolingual Method assist the teacher to develop language mastery in the learner. They are primarily teacher oriented. A student textbook is often not used in the elementary phases of a course where students are primarily listening, repeating, and responding. At this stage in learning, exposure to the printed word may not be considered desirable, because it distracts attention from the aural input. The teacher, however, will have access to a teacher's book that contains the structured sequence of lessons to be followed and the dialogues, drills, and other practice activities. When textbooks and printed materials are introduced to the student, they provide the texts of dra- logues and cues needed for drills and exercises.

Tape recorders and audiov~sual equipment often have ceritral ro!es ir: ari audiolingual course. If the teacher is not a native speaker of the target laiiguage, the tape recorder provides accurate models for dialogues and drills. A Ianguage laboratory may also be considered essential. It provides tlie opportunity for further drill work and to receive controlled error- free practice of basic structures. It also adds variety by providing an alternative to classroom practice. A taped lesson may first present a dialogue for listening practice, allow for the student to repeat the seri- tences in the dialogue line by line, and provide follow-up fluency drills on grarnmar or pronunciation.

Procedure

Siiice Audiolingualism is primarily an oral approach to language teach- iris, i t is not surprising that the process of teaching involves extensive oral iristruction. The focus of instruction is on immediate and accurnte spccch, there is little provision for grammatical explanatioii or t a l k ~ n g



Approaches 6 methods in language teaching

abou t the language. As far a s pocsible, the target language is used a s t he medium of instrucrion, nnd translation o r use of the native t ongue is discouraged. Classes oí ten o r less a r e considered optimal, a l though larger classes a r e ofren tlie norm. Brooks lists the following procedures t he teacher should adopt i i i iising the Audiolingual Method:

The modeling ot al1 learnings by the teacher. The subordination of tlie niother tongue to the second language by rendering

English inactive while the new language is being learned. The early and conrinued trainiiig of the ear aiid tongue without recourse to

graphic symbols. The learning of structure tlirough the practice of patterns of sound, arder,

and form, rarher than by euplanaóon. The gradual substitutioii of graphic symbols for sounds after sounds are thor-

oughly known. The summarizing of thc iiiain principies of structure for the student's use

when the strucrures are already familiar, especially when they differ from those of rhe mother tongue.

The shortening of the time spari between a performance and the pronounce- ment of its rightness o r rcrrongness, without inrerrupcing rhe response. This enhances the factor of reinforcement in iearning.

The minimizing of vocabulnry until al1 common structures have been learned. The study of vocabularv oiily in context. Sustained practice in rhe use of tlie language only in the molecular form of

speaker-hearer-situation. Practice in translation oiily as a literary cxercise at an advanced level.

(Brooks 1964: 142)

In a typical audiolingiial lessori the following procedures would be observed:

1. Students first hear a moJel dialogue (either read by the teacher o r on tape) containing the key strucrures that are the focus of the lesson. They repeat each line of tlie clialogiie, individually and in chorus. The teacher pays attention to proti~iiici;ition, intonation, and fluency. Correction of mistakes of pronunci:itioii ur grammar is direct and immediate. The dialogue is memorized graciilnlly, line by line. A line may be broken down into several phrases i t tiecessary. The dialogue is read aloud in chorus, one half saying one speaker's pnrt 2nd rhe orher half responding. The students do not consult rheir hook rhroughout this phase.

2. The dialogue is adnpred ro tlie students' interesr o r situation, through changing certain key i\.ords o r plirases. This is acted ou t by the students.

3. Certain key srructiires troiii [he dialogue are selected and used as tlie basis for pattern drills o t ditttreiir kinds. These are first practiced in chorus and then individually. Soiiic 3r:imniatical explanation inay be offered a t this point, but this is kept ro ni1 nbsolute minimum.

4. The students may reter r o their texrbook, aiid follow-up reading, writing, o r vocahulary activities I>nssd on the dialogue may be introduced. At the beginning leve!, wriiiii? is p~trely imitative and consisrs of litrle more thaii




copyirig out sentences that have been pr.icticed. As proficiency increases, students rnay write out yariations of s t r i i ~ r i ~ r n l items they have pracriced or write shoct compositions on given i o p i ~ s wirh the help of framing ques- tions, which will p ide their use of thc I.iiigiiiige.

5 . Follow-up activities may take place in 111c Iiitiguage laboratory, wherc further dialogue and dril1 work is carrieci o i i r

The decline of Audiolingualisrn

Audiolingualisrn reached its period of niost wides~read use in the 1960s and was applied both to the teaching of foreign languages in the United States and to the teaching of English as a second or foreign language. It led to such widely used courses as Englisl~ YO0 and the Lado Englisl~ Se- ries, as well as to texts for teaching the riicijor European languages. But then came criticism on two fronts. On tlic oiie hand, the theoretical foundations of Audiolingualisrn were attacked iis being unsound both in ternis of Ianguage theory and learning theory. 011 the other, practitioners tound that the practica1 results fell short of expectations. Students were often found to be unable to transfer skills acquired through Audiolingualisrn to real communication outside the classroom, and many found the experience of studying through audiolingual procedures t o be boring and unsatisfying.

The theoretical attack on audiolingual beliefs resulted from changes i r1

American linguistic theory in the sixties. Tiie MlT linguist Noam Cliom- sky rejected the structuralist approach to Ianguage description as well as the behaviorist theory of language learniiig. "Language is not a habit structure. Ordinary linguistic behavior cliriracteristically involves mno- vation, formation of new sentences and patterns in accordance with rules of great abstractness and intricacy" (Ctionisky 1966: 153). Chomsky's theory of transformational grarnmar proposed that the fundamental properties of language derive from innate aspects of the rnind and from how hurnans process experience through Ianguage. His theories were to revolutionize American linguistics and focus the attention of linguists and psychologists on the mental properties people bring to bear on language use and language iearning. Chornsky also ~ r o ~ o s e d an alternative rheory of language learning to that of the belia\.iorists. Behaviorism regarded language learning as similar in principie to ;iny other kind of learning. It was subject to the sarne laws of stirnuliis and response, reinforcemenr and association. Chomsky argued that such 3 learning theory could nor pos- sibly serve as a model of how humans Icarii language, since much of human language use is not imitated beliiivior but is created anew from underlying knowledge of abstract rules. Sciirences are not learned by imitation and repetition but 'cgenerated" troin the learner's underlying " competente."




Suddenly the whole audiolingual paradigm was called into question: pattern practice, drilling, memorization. These inight lead to language- like behaviors, but they were not resulting in cornpetence. This created a crisis in American language teaching circles frorn which a full recovery has not yet been made. Temporary relief was offered in the form of a theory derived in part from Chomsky - cognitive code learning. In 1966 John B. Carroll, a psychologist who had taken a close interest in foreign language teaching, wrote:

The audio-lingual habit theory which is so prevalent i i i American foreign language teaching was, perhaps fifteen years ago in step witli tlie state of psychological thinking of that time, but it is no longer abreast of recent developments. It is ripe for major revision, particularly in rhe direction of joining it with some of rhe better elements of the cogiiitive-code leariiing the- orv (Carroll 1966: 105)

This referred to a view of learning that allowed for a conscious focus on grammar and that acknowledged the role of absrrnct mental processes in Iearning rather than defining learning simply in terms of habit formation. Practice activities should involve meaningful learning and language use. Learners should be encouraged to use their innate and creative abilities to derive and make, explicit the underlying grammatical rules of the language. For a time in the early seventies there was a considerable interest in the implication of the cognitive-code theory for language teaching (e.g., see Jakobovits 1970; Lugton 1971). Rut n o clear-cut niethodological guidelines emerged, nor did aiiy particular method in- corporating this view of learning. The term cogniti~~r code is still some- times invoked to refer to any conscious atteinpt r o organi7.e rnaterials - around a grammatical syllabus while allowing tor meaningful practice and use of language. The lack of an alternative to Audiolingualism in language teachLg & the United States has led to 3 period of a>aptation, innovation, experimentation, and come conlusion. O n rhe one hand are new methods that have been developed independently of current linguistic and second language acquisition theory (c h., Total Physical Re- sponse, Silent Way, Counseling-Learning); oii rhc other are competing approaches that are derived, it is clairned, froiii coiitemporary theories of langliage and second language acquisitioii (e.g., The Natural Ap- proach, Communicative Language Teachiiig). Tliese developments will be considered in the remaining chapters of this h o o k

Conclusion

Audiolingualism holds that language leariiing i \ Iikc other forms of learning. Since language is a formal, rule-governcd svsrcin, it can be formally



The Audiolingual :t,I~>thod

organized to maximize teaching and learning efficiency. A~dioliii~ii.ilisi11 thus stresses the mechanistic aspects of language learning and I:iii~ii:ijie use.

There are many similarities benveen Situational Language '1 c;icliiiig and Audiolingualism. The order in which the language skills arc iiitro- duced, and the focus o n accuracy through drill and practice in thc Ii;isic structures and sentence patterns of the target language, might siiggest that these methods drew from each other. In fact, however, Sir~icitiorial Language Teaching was a development of the earlier Direct Metliorl (see Chapter 1) and does not have the strong ties t o linguistics and behavioral psychology that characterize Audiolingualism. T h e similarities of the two methods reflect similar views about the nature of language ;iiict of laiiguage learning, though these views were in fact developed froni quite different traditions.

Bibliography

Alleii, V F. 1965. On Teaching English to Speakers of Other 1,anguages (,li;iin- pnign, 111.: National Council of Teachers of English.

Anierican Council of Learned Societies. 1952. Structural Notes and Corplis A Bosis for the Preparation of Materials to Teach English as a Foreigil 1.211- glroge. Washington, D.C.: American Council of Learned Societies.

Bloch, B., and G. Trager. 1942 Outline of Linguistic Analysis. Bnltiiiiore Linguistic Society of America.

f%looiiitield, L. 1933. Language. New York: Holt. Brooks. N 1964. Language and 1.anguage Learning: Theory and Prrrctii~, 2nd

cd New York: Harcourt Braie. Browii, H D 1980. Principies of Language Learning and Teaching Eiiglr.\\.ooJ

Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. C:arroll, J. B. 1953. The Study ofLanguage: A Survey of Linguistics and Kcl,zted

Disciplines in America. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University I'ress. Cnrroll, J. B. 1966a. Research in Foreign Language Teaching: The /.USI f-ive

i'erlrs In R. G. Mead, Jr. (ed.), Language Teaching. Broader Contr.xts, pp 11-41. Northeast Conference Reports on the Teaching of Forcigii 1 iiri- gii3gts Reports of the Working Committees. New York: MLA tv1iiteri:iis Ceiirer.

C;irroll, J B. 1966b. The contributions of psychological theory and edii~:iti(~iinl rcsmrch to the teaching of foreign languages. In A. Valdman (ed j, I r-c>ricis ir1 1.irir~uage Teaching, pp. 93-106. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Cli:istain, K. 1969. The audio-lingual habit theory versus tlie cognitivi cede- learnirig theory: some theoretical considerations. International Ko! , i~r i , of Applied Ihguistics 7: 79-106.

<.Ii~stniii, K. 1971. The l>evelopmerzt of Modern Langtragc Skills I / v<>I I , t r ~

/'i<rctice Chicago: Rand McNally. ChoiiisL!.. N 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.



Approac.l~cs C+ methods in language teaching

Chomskv. N. 1959. A review of B. F Skinner's Verbal Behavior. Language 35(1): 26-58..

Chomsky. X 1965 Aspects ofthe Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press

Chomsky, S. 1966. Linguistic theory. Reprinted in J. P. B. Allen and P. Van Bureii (cds.), Chomsk~: Selected Readings, pp. 152-9. London: Oxford Univtrsirv Press.

Darian, S. G 1972. English as a Foreign Language: History, Development, and Metltods of Teaching. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

English Langunge Services. 1964. English 900. New York: Collier Macmillan. Fries, C. C. 1945. Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language. Ann

Arbor. University of Michigan Press. Fries, C. C , 2nd A. C. Fries. 1961 Foundations for English Teaching Tokyo:

Kenkyiishn. Gagne, R. h.1 1962. Miiitary training and principles of learning. American

Psycl~ologist 17(2): 83-91. Hilgard, E 11 1975. Theories of Leurning 2nd ed. New York: Appleron-

Century-Crofts. Hockett, C F. 1958. A Course in Moderrr Lirrguistics New York: Macmillan. Hockett, C. F. 1959. The objectives and process of language teaching. Keprinted

in D. Byrne (ed.), English Teaching Extracts London: Longman, 1969. Hughes, J. P. 1968. Linguistics and Larrguage Teaching. New York: Random

House. Jakobovits, L. A. 1970. ~oreign Language Leariring A Psycholinguistic Analysis

of the Issrres. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Lado, R. 1957 Linguistics Across G<ltures. Applied Lirtguistics for Language

Teachers t\nn Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Lado, R. 196 1 Language Testing London: Longman. Lado, R. 1977. Lado English Series. 7 books. New York: Regents. Lugton, K. (ed.). 1971. Toward a Cognitive Approach to Second Language

Acqirisitioii Philadelphia: Center for Curriculum Development. Matthew, R J. 1947. Language and Area Studies in the Arnred Services: Their

Future and Significance. Washington: American Council on Education Modern Language Association. 1962. Reports of Surveys and Studies in the

Teachiirg of Modern Foreign Languages. New York: Modern Language Teaching Association.

Moulton, W. G 1961. Linguistics and language teaching in the United States: 1940-1960. In C. Mohrmanti, A. Somnierfelt, and J. Whatmough (eds.), Trendz iii European and Americati Linguistics, 1930-1 960, pp. 82-109. Utreclit: Spectrum.

Moulton, \Y' G. 1963. What is structural drill? lnternational journal of Amer- ican Linguistiw 29 (2, pt. 3): 3-15.

Moulton, \V. 1966. A Linguistic Guide to Language Learning. New York: Modern Language Association.

Parker, \V. 1962. The National Interest and Foreigri Languages. Washington, D.C.: Departrnent of State.

Rivers, W &,l. 1964. The Psychologist and the Foreign Language Teacher. Chicaso. University of Chicago Press.




Rivers, W. M. 1981. Teaching Foreigtt Language Skills. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Skinner, B. F. 1957. veiba1 Behavior New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Smith, H. L. 1956. Linguistic Science artd the Te~ching of English Cambridge,

Mass.: Harvard University Press Stack, E. 1969. The Language I-aboratory and Modern Lattguage Teaching.

New York: Oxford University Press Stern, H. H. 1983. Fundamental Contepts of Language Teaching. Oxford:

Oxford University Press. United States Office of Education. 1 Y63 ?%e Language Developmeitt Prograin.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Governnient Printing Office.

