Comments RE Call for response: Tipoff from Becky Kline RE:article in AMERICAN EDUCATOR

[McGinnis, Scott]

From: Brian Doyle [mailto:brian at gael-image.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 1:42 PM
 
There are two questions at hand here:

One is the argument that (short-term) study of a foreign language forces a
student to reflect on his or her own mental grammar, yielding a better
understanding of language and communication in general, including one's
mother tongue. This argument is similar to the one asserted to a similar
question, "why do I have to learn trigonometry? When am I ever going to use
this?" The answer, of course, is that study of math improves a student's
critical thinking skills. It's the secondary benefit that is important.

On the other hand, convincing people that it is important to spend long
hours to attain fluency in a language is like trying to convince them that
literature or music is important in its own right. What argument can be made
in favor of recreational reading, mastery of a Bach concerto, or fluency in
a foreign language other than to say that they enrich our lives? Isn't that
really the reason that we ourselves are drawn to them?

Besides, why do language professionals have to justify their vocation but
not, say, pro basketball players? I want to know, what essential life
function does dribbling serve and why do I have to plod through 10 pages of
sports news in every bleepin' national newspaper in the country?

The "glorious morning" argument is not limited to simple differences in
vocabulary and idiom. It goes to a central issue in cognition. How do we
think? How do we *know* when an utterance is grammatical or not? Second
language learning can draw these issues into focus.

I personally think that language teachers are well-served by the argument.
It may not justify the long hours needed for attainment of fluency, but it
can spare language programs from complete elimination during a budget
crunch.

My 2¢.

Brian Doyle
Graduate student
Northeastern Illinois University