JOURNAL OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING, English Bimonthly …

A f

oru

A f

oru

m f

or p

rofe

ssio

nal

dev

elop

men

tELT@I

RNI No. 8469/1965

JOURNAL OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING, English Bimonthly

Journal of English Language Teaching (JELT) is the oldest journal of the English Language Teachers’ Association of India. It is a bimonthly, which offers a forum for teachers and researchers to voice their views on the teaching of English language and literature.

English Language Teachers’ Association of India (ELTAI)

16/20, Sowrashtra Nagar, II Street, Choolaimedu

Chennai - 600 094.

E-mail: [email protected] & [email protected] Web: www.eltai.inPh: 9344425159

Printed and Published by Dr. K. Elango on behalf of the Society

for the Promotion of Education in India. Printed at SRI

AIYNAR PRINTERS, New No. 10, Sowrashtra Nagar, II Street,

Choolaimedu, Chennai-600 094.

ISSN 0973-5208

Vol. 63/5 September - October 2021Rs. 15/-

(A Peer Reviewed Journal)

The English Language Teachers’ Association of India was registered on August 7, 1974 by the late Padmashri S. Natarajan, a noted educationist of our country.

Objectives of the Association

l To provide a forum for teachers of English to meet periodically and discuss problems relating to the teaching of English in India.

l To help teachers interact with educational administrators on matters relating to the teaching of English.

l TodisseminateinformationintheELTfieldamong teachers of English.

l To undertake innovative projects aimed at the improvement of learners’ proficiencyin English.

l To promote professional solidarity among teachers of English at primary, secondary and university levels.

l To promote professional excellence among its members in all possible ways.

The Journal is sent free to all the registered and active members of the Association. In addition to this print journal, ELTAI brings out three quarterly online journals: Journal of Teaching and Research in English Literature, The Journal of Taechnology for ELT, and The ELT Practitioner.

ELTAI also conducts professional development activities including offline and onlineworkshops, webinars, and discussion meetings on current needs and trends in ELT.We host annual, national and international conferences and regional programmes on specific areasrelevant to ELT today. Delegates from all over the country as well as from outside participate in them, present papers and conduct workshops.

PRESENT OFFICE-BEARERSPatron - Dr. S. Rajagopalan President - Dr. Sanjay Arora Vice President - Dr. Shravan Kumar Vice President - Dr. Reddy Sekhar Reddy Secretary - Dr. K. ElangoJoint Secretary - Dr. Ramakrishna BhiseJoint Secretary - Mr. R. H. Prakash Treasurer - Mr. P. R. KesavuluCoordinator - Dr. J. Mangayarkarasi

ADDITIONAL MEMBERS OF THE ECDr. P. N. RamaniDr. S. MohanrajDr. C.A. Lal

PRESIDENTS Prof. R. Krishnamurthy (Aug. 1974 – Oct. 1985)Dr. S. Rajagopalan (Nov. 1985 - July 2008) Dr. Amol Padwad (Aug. 2008 - Mar. 2012)Dr. Sanjay Arora (Apr. 2012 - Dec.2014)Dr. G. A. Ghanshyam (Jan. 2015 - Oct. 2018)Dr. Sanjay Arora (Jan. 2019 - till date)

SECRETARIES Prof. M. Duraiswamy (Aug. 1974 - June 1981)Prof. B. Ardhanareeswaran (July 1981 - Oct. 1985)Dr. K. K.Mohamed Iqbal (Nov. 1985 - Aug. 1989Dr. V. Saraswathi (Sep. 1989 - Mar. 2007)Dr. K. Elango (Apr. 2007 - till date)We sincerely appeal to ALL teachers of English as well as post-graduate students and research scholars to become members of ELTAI and strengthen the association so that it may serve the cause of English language and literature education in India.ALL correspondence relating to the association should be addressed either to: [email protected] or to: [email protected].

Website: www.eltai.inPh.: 9344425159

JOURNAL OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING (JELT)Journal of English Language Teaching (JELT), launched in 1965, is the oldest and

flagship journal of the English Language Teachers’ Association of India (ELTAI).

Dr. Neeru Tandon (EDITOR)Dr Anjita Singh Dr Vandhana SharmaProf. Binod Mishra Dr Vasistha BhargaviProf. Prantik Banerjee Dr Veena SelvamDr Sudhir K Arora Dr Uma Maheswari Chimirala

EDITORIAL BOARD

All correspondence relating to the journal, JELT, should be addressed to the Editor, Dr. Neeru Tandon, at: [email protected]

EDITORSProf. R. Krishnamurthy (June 1965 - Oct. 1984)Prof. B. Ardhanareeswaran (Nov. 1984 - Oct. 1985)Dr. K. K. Mohamed Iqbal (Nov. 1985 - Dec. 1994) Mr. Francis P. Jayachandran (Jan. 1995 - June 2001)Dr. V. Saraswathi (July 2001 - Aug. 2013)Dr. P. N. Ramani (Sept. 2013 - Aug. 2016)Dr. Albert P. Rayan (Sept. 2016 – Feb. 2019)Dr. P. N. Ramani (Mar. 2019 - Dec. 2020)Dr. Neeru Tandon (Jan. 2021 - till date)

PUBLISHERS

Sri. S. Natarajan (June 1965 - Apr. 1974)

Prof. M. Duraiswamy (May 1974 - Oct. 1984)

Ms. N. Krishna Bai (Nov. 1984 - Dec. 1992)

Dr. S. Rajagopalan (Jan. 1993 - Mar. 2004)

Dr. K. Elango (Apr. 2004 - till date)


Periodicity

Journal of English Language Teaching (JELT) is published six times a year: Jan.-Feb.; Mar.-Apr.; May-June; July-Aug.; Sept.-Oct.; and Nov.-Dec.

Contributions

Articles on ELT are welcome. Share your ideas, innovations, experiences, teaching tips, teaching-learning resources with your fellow professionals.

Length: 2000-2500 words

There should be an abstract in about 100 words at the beginning and all the necessary

Recommended by the Director of School Education (Proceedings D Dis No. 75301/76 dt 21 March 1979)and the Director of Collegiate Education (RC No. 11059 / J3 / 2000 dt 28 February 2000)

information about all the references cited.

Articles should be sent only as an email attachment (AS A WORD DOCUMENT) to: [email protected] or [email protected] (copy to: [email protected]).

CDs and hard copies will not be accepted.

It should be declared by the author(s) that the article submitted is free from plagiarised sections, that it has not already been published, and that it is not being considered by any other journal for publication.

The views expressed in the articles published in JELT are the contributors’ own, and not necessarily those of the Journal.

Printed and published byDr. K. Elango on behalf of the Society for the Promotion of Education in India

Correspondence relating to the journal, Journal of English Language Teaching, should be addressedto the Editor at: [email protected] and that relating to the association, English LanguageTeachers’ Association of India (ELTAI), to: [email protected] or, [email protected] Website: www.eltai.in ELTAI Office: 9344425159

The Journal Website: www.jelt.eltai.inDisclaimer: The views expressed in the articles published in JELT are those of the authors only

and do not necessarily reflect the stand of the editorial board.

JOURNAL OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING

(A Peer-Reviewed Journal Included in the UGC-CARE List)

VOLUME LXIII, NUMBER 5, September-October 2021

Our Founder Editor & Publisher: (Late) Padmashree S. NatarajanEditorial 2

The Origin and Growth of ELTAI – A Fascinating Story 3S Rajagopalan

Teaching Foreign / Second Language Reading: Instructional Guidance toImprove Teahcers’ Teaching 5S C Sood

The History and the Current Status of Computer Assisted Language Learning 10M S Xavier Pradheep Singh

‘Scientific’ Language Teaching 21Richard Smith

Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Conceptual Framework andViability in the Indian Context 24Lal C A and Arun George

One-on-One: Interview with Scott Thornbury 33Albert P’Rayan

Aesthetics of Reception: Shakespeare Criticism down the Ages 38M S Nagarajan

Book Review 45V Saraswathi

Book Review 46Uma Maheshwari

2 Journal of English Language Teaching, Vol. 63, No. 5, September-October 2021

EDITORIALCongratulations once again to every one of you. You will be happy to know that JELT has beenrecognized by UGC-CARE. Recognizing a published article as a finalized version of a piece ofresearch establishes the fact that it can be relied upon as accurate, complete, and citable. JELT iscommitted to honouring these principles. We are committed to sharing the latest developments inEnglish language research, and current guidelines and tools that will help to ensure the standardand quality of JELT. In this issue, we have compiled a few articles from past issues for this number.The table of contents of this issue, featuring some of the brightest stars in the firmament of ELT inIndia, will sound familiar to regular readers. Every aspirant for publication should go through thesearticles to learn how to share their research work and findings.We open this issue with an article written by our patron Shri Rajagopalan in which he has outlinedthe journey ELTAI has travelled. From its worthy (although modest) beginnings, the journal alongwith ELTAI has gone through a series of transformations that are part and parcel of those long-termacademic projects which, to adopt an ecological analogy, are expected to evolve constantly; especiallywhen their main activity is the construction of new knowledge. Despite the expected changes thatcome with the growth of our publication, one aspect remains constant: our aim of enriching theprofessional knowledge of our readers and authors and thus, creating and strengthening aninternational academic community around the teaching and learning of English as a second/foreignlanguage. ‘Those without a past are without a present.’The second article, authored by Professor Sood deals with the teaching of reading in a second/foreign language such as English and provides guidance to improve teachers’ teaching of reading asa skill. He makes the point that having a purpose in mind gives learners motivation to read. A state-of-the-art article on Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) by Xavier Pradheep Singhattempts to trace the history of CALL and discusses Communicative CALL, Integrative CALL, andits current status in a compact way. The paper that follows by Richard Smith explores the views andpractices of Palmer and discusses what ‘scientific language teaching’ would mean. In the article onContent and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), C. A. Lal and Arun George probe the basicnuances of CLIL as an ELT methodology and its viability in the Indian context.In the interview reported by Albert P’Rayan, Scott Thornbury answers a wide range of questionsabout the ‘Dogme method’, ‘Teaching Unplugged’, and post-method pedagogy. Our readers wouldcertainly enjoy Professor Nagarajan’s presentation on the ‘Aesthetics of Reception’ with reference toShakespeare criticism down the ages. He explains why the Bard-of-Avon has elicited the widestresponse to his works and how everyone – lay leaders, students, scholars, critics, theatre-goers, andtranslators – has marvelled at the ‘human invention’. This article is followed by two book reviews –one by Professor Saraswathi and the other by Uma Maheswari.To conclude, we wish to highlight the valuable contributions of the editorial board, authors, andreaders. All of them have provided their support in their own way. We hope we will continue to besupported by scholars, researchers, and our readers who will find the Journal useful and relevant.The secret of getting your articles published and recognized lies in these words – research, write,revise, edit, finish, and submit.’Enjoy reading. Enrich yourself!

Neeru Tandon, Editor

Journal of English Language Teaching, Vol. 63, No. 5, September-October 2021 3

Introduction

Our Association had a humble beginning and hasgrown into one of the largest professionalassociations of teachers in the world just like atiny seed becoming in course of time a bigbanyan tree—from just six members, allbelonging to one city, Madras (now Chennai) toabout 4000 members and 60 chapters in differentparts of our country. You may wonder how ithad happened. Well, it is quite an interestingsaga.

Our Founder, the Late Padmashree S. Natarajan,who began his professional life as a schoolteacher, rose to become the Vice-President of theWorld Confederation of Teachers’ Organizations.With a grant of one lakh rupees for the Societyfor the Promotion of Education in India, helaunched the publication of four journals:Journal of English Language Teaching, TheMathematics Teacher, The Geography Teacher,and Experiments in Education – only the firsttwo have survived, though.

Journal First, Association Later!

It is interesting to note that our Journal wasstarted first and our Association much later. Whyand how did it happen? The Journal of EnglishLanguage Teaching (JELT) —the first of its kindin our country— was published in 1965. Hereally wanted to start a professional associationof teachers of English but he knew that teacherswould not join it paying subscription without anincentive. So he told teachers they would geta free copy of the Journal if they joined theEnglish Language Teachers’ Association once itwas started.

The Journal provided an opportunity forteachers to get themselves acquainted with

research findings in teaching English and alsoshare their experiences with others. He pricedit at just a rupee per copy and almost single-handedly promoted its sale. He visited schoolsand colleges and requested them to subscribeto it. Only some subscribed out of regard forhim, but he didn’t give up. He did not have atypewriter nor anyone to assist him; in poorhealth and with failing eyesight but with amissionary zeal, he wrote letters by hand to theheads of a few well-known educationalinstitutions in the State requesting them tosubscribe to the journal and did the canvassinghimself. There was also a paucity of articlesfor publication. He requested his closefriends—one or two—to write almost for everyissue. The point is the journal saw the light ofthe day only due to the persistent efforts of thisold man. In the beginning, only a hundredcopies were printed and, in fact, some remainedunsold. But he didn’t give up and soon thecirculation went up. But unfortunately, it neverwent beyond 400 copies or so.

ELTAI is born!

A few years later, in 1969, Mr. Natarajan startedthe Association. Six teachers including the writerwho met at his residence discussed theimportance of the professional development ofteachers as a key factor in enhancing thestandards of education in our country, when therewere only trade unions of teachers concernedwith working for the improvement of theirservice conditions. At our meeting, he mootedthe idea of starting an association of teachersconcerned with organizing professionaldevelopment programmes for them. He saidenrolment of members of the new associationwould be easier if we said all members of theAssociation would get a free copy of the Journal.

The Origin and Growth of ELTAI – A Fascinating StoryS Rajagopalan


Thus, our Association came into being and wewere able to enrol about 256 members.

Promoting ELTAI – New Strategies

After the passing away of our Founder in 1974,a new team of office-bearers took over anddecided to carry forward the good work initiatedby him adopting certain new strategies. It wasdecided to conduct free workshops, seminars,and refresher courses for teachers of English. Inthese programmes the teachers were told aboutthe benefits of joining ELTAI – a free copy ofour bi-monthly Journal, opportunities providedfor the improvement of their teachingcompetence, interacting with ELT professionals,and getting their papers published in our Journal.

Another strategy adopted was to provide cashawards for teachers undertaking action researchand also for using ICT tools in teaching English.The allotment of some subsidised membershipsoffered by IATEFL to our members has alsohelped to enrol new members, besidesfamiliarizing them with the work done byIATEFL. Special Interest Groups were alsoformed—e.g., English Literature SIG andComputer Technology SIG, Business EnglishSIG. These have been running open access onlinejournals, which may be accessed on our websitewww. eltai.in. Our Online Discussion Forumsprovide opportunities to our members to interactwith one another and also to get updates aboutour association activities Since the Covid-19lockdown in May 2020, ELTAI has beenorganizing weekly Webinars contributing to theprofessional development of our teachers. Wealso conducted an eight-day FacultyDevelopment Programme (FDP) on Reading inJuly-August 2021.

Annual Conferences

We hold our annual conferences regularly,several of them international, too, attended by alarge number of English teachers and research

scholars. We have had quite a few speakers fromIATEFL, RELO (Regional English LanguageOffice, US Govt.), and the British Council at ourannual conferences.

ELTAI: An Associate of IATEFL (UK) and anAffiliate of TESOL (USA)

As an Associate of IATEFL, we are able toprovide a fixed number of its subsidizedmemberships to our members. Almost every yeara member is sent to attend the IATEFLconference with some financial assistance fromus. A few have won IATEFL scholarships too toattend the international event. Some of ourmembers have also contributed to theirpublication ‘Voices’ in recent years. We alsoparticipate in the TESOL Affiliate events online.

IATEFL and Hornby Trust-Funded Projects

ELTAI was the first recipient of the IATEFLProject grant along with another Europeancountry for our project on ‘Training the Trainersin Virtual Learning’. Another project undertakenby our Association with support from the HornbyTrust, UK, was on training teachers in usingsmartphones for the teaching and learning ofEnglish. Yet another project funded by theHornby Trust was a Master Training Workshopfor our Chapter heads on ‘The Use of DigitalTools for Learner Autonomy in Communicationskills’.

Collaboration with the British Council

The British Council has also been collaboratingwith us for a range of our activities for a numberof years now. Our ‘Shakespeare lives – 2016’celebrations in collaboration with the BritishCouncil in six different cities in India includedcompetitions for students and seminars forteachers on the relevance of the playwright’sworks for all ages.

Dr. S. Rajagopalan, Patron, ELTAI.


Teaching Foreign / Second Language Reading: InstructionalGuidance to Improve Teahcers’ Teaching

S C Sood

Introduction

Reading is perhaps one of the areas inlanguage learning/teaching (the first as wellas the second language – L1/L2) that havereceived a lot of attention in recent years andmuch light has been thrown on what readingis, what different kinds of reading processesare, and what their implications are forlanguage teaching – particularly in foreign/second language (FL/SL) teachingclassrooms.1 Much has also been writtenabout the skills and strategies used byeffective readers.

It is said that they:

• Know that both text and context areimportant to make sense and so read,keeping in mind background knowledge:content knowledge, culture-specificknowledge, formal knowledge aboutdifferent text types and text-organisations,and general knowledge of the world. Theyseek this knowledge if they do not haveit, or activate it if they have;

• Predict on the basis of their schematicknowledge what the writer might say inthe given text and verify whether theprediction is correct; if not, revise theprediction. Expert readers invoke theirschematic knowledge and the visual inputis minimal. Reading for them is alinguistic guessing game and so they maynot read each and every word;

• Understand what reading means: read

silently, varying speed according topurpose and text, guess meanings ofunfamiliar words and expressions, read insense groups also called meaningfulchunks;

• Are clear about the purpose of reading andso are motivated to read and know thatstress, fear and anxiety can cause ‘short-circuit’ and hence avoid them;

• Read fast with fluency: have acquired‘speed and accuracy’ and ‘automaticity’of decoding (Eskey, 1988; Anderson,2005; Grabe, 2009);

• Have linguistic competence: have vastpassive vocabulary and keep learning newwords and phrases (Coxhead, 2000;Bromley, 2004; Nation, 2001); new usesof known ones, phrasal verbs, linkingdevices and discourse markers;grammatical and lexical cohesion; and canprocess complex constructions;

• Pay attention to how the writer says whathe says: logical development of ideas inthe text;

• Pay attention to non-verbal information,if any

• Make inferences; and

• Have developed sensitivity to language:understand writer’s attitude, irony,sarcasm, choice of words and phrases,symbols, imagery, similes and metaphorsincluding orthography of writing:


punctuation marks, quotations, italics,capitals, and so on.

This broader concept places reading notmerely as a passive but an active – ratherinteractive – activity, not just decoding butinterpreting and making meaning of what isread. This view of reading was applied to L1reading around 1970 but it was only around1979 that it started having an impact on L2situation. Since then much has been writtenon techniques and methods of teachingreading in ESL (Nuttall, 2005; Mikulecky,2008; Grabe, 2009).

But despite this, in many ESL classroomsreading continues to be done in the oldtraditional way: in the elementary classes theattempt is to help students to ‘learn to read’ andin secondary classes the focus is on ‘giving’meaning and on ‘testing the product’ by askingcomprehension questions given at the end ofthe prescribed text. This practice is content-oriented and not skill- oriented. The focus is onthe ‘product’ and not on the ‘process’ of reading.In other words, the aim is to ‘give meaning’ tothe learner instead of ‘skills’ required to ‘makemeaning’ for him/herself.

Even where recent research on interactivemodels has reached the classroom teacher, ithas not yet been assimilated in its rightperspective. Teaching of reading has eithernot changed at all or tilted towards the top-down model. As Eskey (1988, p.95)observes, “despite the emergence ofinteractive models, much of the ESL readingliterature continues to exhibit a strongly top-down bias.” The materials prescribed forintensive reading practice is of little help tothe practising teacher.

How Can Material Writers Help

In such ESL/EFL situations where teachersstill use old, traditional practices or wherethere is a bias towards ‘top-down’ process ofreading, the role of material writers assumesgreat significance in helping teachers impartskills and strategies used by effective readersidentified as follows:

a) Reading with a purpose

Effective readers read with a purpose in mind.They are clear why they are reading a giventext; what they will have to do after readingit: answer some given questions? Fill in sometable/chart? Having a purpose in mind alsogives learners motivation to read.

b) Pre-viewing skills

Trained readers survey the text to form aquick general idea of what the text is aboutby:

• using the title, sub-titles, pictures,diagrams and physical layout of the text;

• predicting and forming a hypothesis usingprior background knowledge;

• testing the hypothesis by further readingof the text and reforming it if not provedcorrect; and

• recognising the text type and the writer’spurpose.

c) Text sampling

Trained readers skim for main ideas by goingthrough the text silently and fast withoutstopping even when they come across a wordor phrase they do not know, making sense ofsuch words and phrases by guessing theirmeaning from the context, form, etc.

Other important traits of effective readers are:


d) Recognizing Text structure

• Recognizing rhetorical organisation of thetext as a whole and its layout: whether itis classification, cause and effect,comparison and contrast, hypothesis toproof, etc.

• Understanding the organisation of eachparagraph, identifying focal and supportacts, and the function of support acts, thatis, how they are related to the focalsentence. Are they meant to expand,explain, exemplify, restate, justify, and soon, the main idea contained in the focalsentence? In other words, they have theability to spot the sentence containing themain idea, and the sentences, if any, usedto develop the main idea, and how thisdevelopment is achieved. They are alsoable to spot transitional sentence(s), if any,and the concluding sentences, and howthese are indicated.

e) Comprehensive reading

Scanning/re-reading the text but this timeslowly and attentively paying attention todetails focusing on meaning by:

• reading in sense groups/meaningfulchunks;

• making inferences;

• interacting with the writer through the text,critically examining the incominginformation and accommodating the newinformation;

• identifying the writer’s point of view, tone,etc.; and

• distinguishing facts from opinions.

Various methods and techniques have been

suggested for teaching effective reading skillsto ESL/EFL learners. Among these, Carrell(1988: 248), who tries to bring out thecommon features of these methods, stillremains the most popular for guidingclassroom teachers. All these methods, it ispointed out, train the learner to do somethingbefore reading the text in order to activateappropriate background knowledge. Inaddition, all these methods have the readerread the text against the background of theactivated knowledge. Finally, they all havethe reader do something after reading tosynthesize the new information gained fromthe text with their prior knowledge. Theseare popularly called pre-reading, while-reading and post- reading activities.

Pre-reading Activities

Reading with a purpose and pre-viewing textscan be taught through devising pre-readingactivities. Material writers can frame tasksand activities to develop these skills andstrategies. Tasks can also be framed to givebackground knowledge (linguistic,conceptual, subject and topic knowledge, andsocio-cultural knowledge), if the learner doesnot have this knowledge, or to activate thisknowledge if the learner already has it. Thesetasks should be stated before the learners startreading the text so that they read the giventext with a purpose in mind and in the lightof the background knowledge required tocomprehend the text.

Some Examples:

1. Go through the given text silently and asfast as you can. Do not stop even if youcome across a word or a phrase you donot know. After you have finished reading,answer the following questions:


a) Tick a suitable title for this text out ofthe four given titles. OR

b) You are given two titles. Which ofthese you think fits the text? OR

c) Suggest a suitable title for this text.OR …

While-reading activities

Understanding text structure andcomprehensive reading (skimming andscanning) can be taught by material writersthrough carefully devised tasks and activities.

Some Examples:

1. Underline the sentence(s) and/orphrase(s) that contain the main idea ineach paragraph.

2. Now look at the remaining sentences in eachparagraph. Are they related to the parts youhave underlined? If so, how (i.e., are theyrestatements, expansions, explications,modifications, justifications, etc.)?

3. What is the rhetorical organisation of thetext you have just read? (i.e., is itclassification? comparison and contrast?cause and effect? problem to solutiontype? etc.).

4. The following types of exercise are usefulfor teaching text-structure: Re- arrangingjumbled words/sentences/paragraphs;matching opening sentences with theparagraphs; picking out words/sentencesthat do not fit in the text; supplying linkingdevices/discourse-markers/organisingdevices, or choosing them from the givenlist; etc.

Scanning: Some Examples

Read the given text once again and:

a) Think of suitable sub-titles for eachparagraph. OR

b) For each paragraph tick the most suitablesub-title out of those suggested (Give 3sub-titles for each paragraph for learnersto choose from). OR

c) In which paragraph does the author saythe following: . . . ? (Give the learnersstatements for matching with eachparagraph.)

C. Post-reading

1. Make notes for future reference; draw adiagram or flow-chart of the text to showhow the text is organised (i.e. transferverbal information into non-verbal formand vice-versa).

2. Rewrite using a different rhetoricalstructure.

3. Describe what the author’s intention is: Toinform? To persuade? To warn? Anyother?

4. Students can be asked to make notes onthe text they have read for reference infuture.

The examples given above are only indicativeand not exhaustive. Teachers can frame moretasks of their own depending upon theirsituation and level of competence of theirlearners.

Exercises, tasks and activities can also bedevised to develop sensitivity to language:raise awareness about orthographic practicesfollowed in written texts (such as capitalletters, italics, quotations, and so on), abilityto pick out words and expressions used tolend ironic effect or humour; understand toneand attitude; to give familiarity with devices


like metaphors and similes; distinguishbetween facts and opinions; etc. Writers alsovery often incorporate in their writing non-verbal information for effectivecommunication. These can be graphs, charts,pictures or other visual media. Learners mustbe trained to make use of this non-textinformation to make meaning of what theyread. The text can finally be used forteaching other useful language skills, e.g.grammar rules or items difficult for second/foreign language learners; consulting adictionary for pronunciation or wordmeanings; and for preparing students forwriting a paragraph, an essay, or a criticalarticle depending on students’ level ofcompetence.

These activities and tasks have given rise towhat is called holistic view of languageteaching. Holistic language teaching devisesexercises and classroom procedures to teachall the four skills of the target languageincluding study skills and this has to be oneof the aims of those writing intensive readingtexts for ESL/EFL teaching situations wehave described here.

Note:

1. This article is a sequel to the author’s article,“Interactive Approaches to Second/ ForeignLanguage Reading and their Implications”,Language and Language Teaching, 4 (1), Issue7 (Jan. 2015), pp.41-45.

References

Anderson, Neil J. (2005). Fluency in L2reading and speaking. TESOL 2005Colloquium.

Bromley, K. (2004). Rethinking vocabularyinstruction. The Language and LiteracySpectrum, 14 (Spring), 3-12.

Carrell, Patricia L. (1988). Interactive textprocessing: Implications for second languagereading classrooms. In Patricia L. Carrell,Joanne Devine & David E. Eskey (Eds.).Interactive approaches to second languagereading, 1988. op.cit., pp. 239 -248.Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic wordlist. TESOL Quarterly, 34 (2): 213-238.Eskey, D. (1988). Holding in the bottom:An interactive approach to the languageproblems of second language readers. InPatricia L. Carrell et al., op.cit., pp. 93-113.Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a secondlanguage. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Mikulecky, Beatrice S. (2008). Teachingreading in a second language. PearsonEducation.

Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabularyin another language. Cambridge UniversityPress.

Nuttall, Christine. (2005). Teaching readingskills in a foreign language (3rd edn.).Oxford: Macmillan.

Prof. S C Sood, Retd. Professor of English,Dyal Singh College, Delhi University; LifeMember, Shakespeare Society of India &Indian Association for English Studies.

Email: [email protected]

This article was published earlier in JELT,Vol. 57-3, May-June 2015 Issue (GoldenJubilee Year Issue).


The History and the Current Status of Computer-AssistedLanguage LearningM S Xavier Pradheep Singh

ABSTRACT

Researchers and practitioners of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) musthave a thorough understanding of the field and its history for successful implementationof technology in ESL learning. This paper attempts to trace the history of CALL over thepast six decades and discusses its current status. The awareness of various paradigms ofCALL will enable ESL teachers and researchers to improve their classroom practices.

Keywords: CALL; History of CALL.

Computer-Assisted Language Learning(CALL) is a broad, well developed anddiversifying field (Motteram 2013a, 177).Researchers have defined CALL in variousways. Each definition reveals somecharacteristics of the field. A well-acceptedbroad definition of CALL is “the search forand study of applications of the computer inlanguage teaching and learning” (Levy 1997,1; Amaral 2011, 365). This definition admitsthe multidisciplinary nature of CALL.Psychology, Instructional Technology,Artificial Intelligence, Human-ComputerInteraction, Computational Linguistics,Applied Linguistics, and Second LanguageAcquisition are some of the key areas thathave contributed to the advancement ofCALL. These areas have contributed not only“their specific body of knowledge” but also“their methodological paradigms toundertake scientific investigation” (Amaral2011, 371).

Beatty offers another definition whichaccommodates the changing nature of

CALL: “any process in which a learner usesa computer and, as a result, improves his orher language” (2003, p.7). Hubbard raisestwo questions about this definition: “Whatdo we mean by ‘computer’? And what do wemean by ‘improve’?” (2009, p.1). He himselfprovides answers to these questions and hisanswers highlight the varying nature ofCALL. According to him, computer “doesnot include simply the canonical desktop andlaptop devices” but also “the networksconnecting them, peripheral devicesassociated with them and a number of othertechnological innovations such as PDAs(personal digital assistants), mp3 players,mobile phones, electronic whiteboards andeven DVD players, which have a computerof sorts embedded in them” (2009, pp.1–2).To the second question, Hubbard identifieslearning efficiency, learning effectiveness,access, convenience, motivation, andinstitutional efficiency as areas that CALLattempts to improve (2009, p.2). Hence,CALL may involve any technological deviceto improve any of the areas mentioned above.


This “complex, dynamic and quicklychanging” (Hubbard 2009, 1) nature of CALLmakes it “both exciting and frustrating as afield of research and practice” (Hubbard2009, 1).

Egbert’s definition of CALL recognises thecontext and the method of using computertechnologies in learning a language. Accordingto him, CALL means “learners learninglanguage in any context with, through, andaround computer technologies” (2005, p.4).The context or environment of learning alanguage may vary from classrooms, tocomputer centres, language labs, homes, cafesand similar public places, the Web and Mobilecomputing (Hubbard, 2014).

Though the phrase Computer AssistedLanguage Learning implies that the field isall about learning a language usingcomputers, it encompasses all areasassociated with the use of computers inlanguage learning, teaching and testing. So,a vast array of areas such as MaterialDevelopment, Learner Training, LanguageTesting, Assessment, Evaluation and TeacherTraining comes under CALL. The definitionsand descriptions of CALL mentioned abovebring out the following characteristics of thefield. CALL is a multidisciplinary field; it iscomplex, dynamic and quickly changing; itinvolves various contexts and methods; andit encompasses various activities associatedwith learning a language using computers.

History of CALL

Using computers in language learning datesback to the early 1960s when prestigiousuniversities used mainframe computers forlanguage learning (Motteram, 2013b, p.5;

Levy, 1997; Davies et al., 2012). Since then,CALL has developed into “a symbioticrelationship between the development oftechnology and pedagogy” (Gorjian, Hayati,and Pourkhoni, 2013, p.35; Stockwell, 2007,p.118). By the early 1980s, using computersin language learning has become awidespread practice throughout America andEurope. It was at this moment that CALLemerged as a distinct field as CALL-themedconferences and professional organisationsaccompanied the advent of the personalcomputer in the 1980s. Many researchershave hitherto attempted to trace out theevolution of CALL and have proposeddifferent typologies of CALL (Levy, 1997,pp.13–46; Sanders, 1995, pp.6–14; Graham,1997, pp.27–48; Davies, 2012; Butler-Pascoe, 2011, pp.17–27; Delcloque, 2000;Warschauer, 1996; Warschauer and Healey,1998, pp.57–58; Kern, Ware, andWarschauer, 2008, pp.281–282; Bax, 2003,pp.14–19; Warschauer, 2004, pp.20–21).

Of all typologies proposed by researchers,two stand unique: one by Warschauer (1996,2000, and 2004) and the other by Bax (2003).Both typologies divide the history of CALLbased on phases rather than approaches.Warschauer’s typology is based on the threephases in the history of CALL, such asStructural CALL, Communicative CALL andIntegrative CALL. But Bax reassessed thehistory of CALL and proposed a newtypology in terms of three differentapproaches to CALL, such as RestrictedCALL, Open CALL and Integrated CALL.Since Warschauer’s typology ischronologically divided, this paper takes itinto account in tracing the history of CALLover the past six decades.


1. Structural CALL

The first phase in the history of CALL,labelled earlier as ‘Behaviouristic CALL’ andlater as ‘Structural CALL’ by Warschauer(Warschauer, 1996, p.5; Warschauer andHealey, 1998, p.59; Lee, 2000; Fotos andBrowne, 2004, p.5; Warschauer, 2004, p.20),was envisaged in the 1960s and executed inthe 1970s and the 1980s. CALL, in this phase,was considered a subset of the broad, all-embracing field of Computer-AssistedInstruction (CAI). The psychologicalprinciples of Skinner (1957) provided astrong footing for Structural CALL. Skinner’soperant-conditioning model of linguisticbehaviour, which leaned excessively onpositive reinforcement, developed a structurefor the learning process providing feedback,repeated reinforcement, branching and self-pacing (Butler-Pascoe, 2011, p.17). Thismodel of CALL involved repetitive languagedrills such as “dialogues and pattern drillsdesigned to condition learners to produceautomatic, correct responses to languagestimuli” (Kern and Warschauer, 2000, p.3).These exercises were easy to program on thecomputer because of their “systematic androutine character” and “their lack of open-endedness” (Kenning and Kenning, 1990,p.53; Taylor and Gitsaki, 2004, p.132). Theyalso stressed imitating the correct linguisticstructure, reflecting the strong influence ofthe school of behaviorism (Ozkan, 2011,p.12).

Structural CALL viewed computer as amechanical tutor (Warschauer, 1996, p.3;Warschauer and Healey, 1998, p.57; Ahmed2004, p.24; Gündüz, 2005, p.198) “ideal forcarrying out repeated drills since the machine

does not get bored with presenting the samematerial and . . . can provide immediate non-judgemental feedback” (Warschauer, 1996,p.3; Pim, 2013, p.36). Founded on this notion,many CALL tutoring systems were designedfor the large mainframe computers which wereprevalent at that time. One such best-knowntutorial system was the PLATO (ProgrammedLogic for Automated Teaching Operations)introduced at the University of Illinois, USA(Butler-Pascoe, 2011, p.17; Egbert et al., 2011,p.17). The PLATO system ran on its ownspecial hardware containing a centralcomputer and terminals (Warschauer, 1996,p.3; Warschauer and Healey, 1998, p.57).Based on the grammar-translation method(Butler-Pascoe, 2011, p.17), it includedvocabulary drills, brief grammar explanationsand drills, and direct translation tests at variousintervals (Warschauer, 1996, p.3; Warschauerand Healey, 1998, p.57). The PLATO was notan exclusive CALL venture but a“monumental effort that produced significantmaterial in a wide range of academicdisciplines, including foreign language, thatcontinued for years and was eventually usedin institutions across the country” (Sanders,1995, p. 9).

2. Communicative CALL

The late 1980s and the early 1990s witnessedStructural CALL being challenged by twosignificant factors: first, the rejection ofbehavioristic approaches to language learningat both theoretical and pedagogical levels;and secondly, the greater prospects bestowedon language learning by the introduction ofpersonal computers (Warschauer and Healey,1998, p.57; Warschauer, 1996, p.6; Lee,2000; Gündüz, 2005, p.199). Meanwhile, a


crucial paradigm shift occurred in secondlanguage teaching that resulted inCommunicative Language Teaching (CLT)(Egbert et al., 2011, p.21), which emphasisedthe functional use of language and attemptedto foster learners’ communicativecompetence. Against this backdrop, “ademand for interactive and communicativeuses of the computer for language teaching”evolved in the second language teachingscene (Egbert et al., 2011, p.22). Hence, thisphase of CALL is referred to asCommunicative CALL by researchers(Warschauer, 1996, p.4; Warschauer andHealey, 1998, p.57; Warschauer, 2004, p.20;Fotos and Browne, 2004, p.5; Ahmed, 2004,p.24).

Proponents of Communicative CALLdownplayed the drill and practice method ofStructural CALL as it did not promoteauthentic communication. Rather, theyaccentuated an intense focus on the use oflanguage forms than on the forms themselves,the implicit teaching of grammar,encouraging learners to produce originalutterances instead of manipulatingprefabricated language forms, and ultimatelyusing the target language predominantly(John, 1984, p.52; Warschauer and Healey,1998, p.57; Lee, 2000; Warschauer, 1996,p.5). All these ideas were originally proposedby Underwood, one of the chief advocatesof Communicative CALL, in his seminalwork (1984). Other pioneering contributionsof this phase include the ones by (Higginsand Johns, 1984) and Ahmad et al. (1985),.Many key professional organisations, suchas the Computer Assisted LanguageInstruction Consortium (CALICO) in theUnited States and the European Association

for Computer Assisted Language Learning(EuroCALL) in Europe were establishedduring this period.

Communicative CALL corresponded tocognitive theories which regarded learningas “a process of discovery, expression, anddevelopment” (Warschauer and Healey,1998, p.57) and as “a cognitive processwhere learners actively generate andtransform knowledge” (Ozkan, 2011, p.12).Its main concern was not what learners didon the computer but what they did with eachother while working on the computer(Gündüz 2005, p.199). Through suchinteraction, according to Warschauer (2000),“learners can develop language as aninternal mental system” (p.65). Thus, duringthis phase, the computer was viewed as astimulus whose intention was not to havelearners discover the right answer but tofoster discussion, writing, and analytical andcritical thinking (Warschauer, 1996, p.5).Software developed during thisCommunicative CALL phase offered skillpractice but in non-drill format. Programssuch as text reconstruction, paced readingand language games were some examples.In these programs, computers possessed theright answers but the process of discoveringthe answers involved a reasonable amountof learner choice, control and interaction(Warschauer, 1996, p.5). Another model ofcomputer as a tool was also popular duringthis phase. In this model, computer thoughnot developed specifically for languagelearning, were utilized to make learnersunderstand language (Warschauer, 1996,p.5). Examples of computer as tool includeword processors, spelling and grammarcheckers, and concordances.


3. Integrative CALL

By the turn of the 1990s, many educatorsrealised that Communicative CALL hadfailed to live up to its potential sincecomputers were used in a disconnectedmanner and thereby made contributions tomarginal rather than to central elements ofthe language teaching process (Kenningand Kenning, 1990, p.90; Warschauer,1996, p.5). Critics of CommunicativeCALL found that teachingcompartmentalised skills or structures wasnot beneficial. Along with other educators,they attempted to develop models thatintegrated various aspects of the languagelearning process.

Many language teachers, at this juncture,relocated their stance from a cognitiveapproach to a more socio-cognitiveapproach, which placed greater emphasis onlanguage use in authentic social contexts(Warschauer and Healey, 1998, p.58).Consequently, language learning wasviewed as “a process of apprenticeship orsocialization into particular discoursecommunities” (Warschauer and Meskill,2000, p.306). Language learners need to begiven maximum opportunity for authenticsocial interaction, not only comprehensibleinput but also practice in the kinds ofcommunication they will later engage inoutside the classroom. This can be achievedthrough student collaboration on authentictasks and projects while simultaneouslylearning both content and language. As aresult, task-based, project-based, andcontent-based approaches to languagelearning came to be proposed. All theseapproaches sought to assemble learners in

authentic environments and to integrate theirlearning and use of various language skills.This led to a new perspective on technologyand language learning, which was namedIntegrative CALL (Warschauer, 1996, p.6;Warschauer and Healey, 1998, p.58), aperspective which seeks to integratelanguage skills as well as technology morefully into the language learning process. ForKern and Warschauer, this change stemsfrom both theoretical and technologicaldevelopments: “Theoretically, there hasbeen the broader emphasis on meaningfulinteraction in authentic discoursecommunities. Technologically, there hasbeen the development of computernetworking, which allows the computer tobe used as a vehicle for interactive humancommunication” (Kern and Warschauer,2000, p.11). Thus, the second generationweb launched in the first decade of the 21stcentury had integrative capabilities perfectlymatched to the new era of integrativeapproaches to language teaching (Butler-Pascoe, 2011, p.24).

In an integrative approach, learners learn touse an array of technological tools in anongoing process of language learning anduse, rather than visit the computer lab once aweek for isolated exercises (Warschauer andHealey, 1998, p.58). With a wide range ofpowerful web tools, learners are engaged incollaborative learning, interacting withauthentic audiences that fosters theircomprehension and production (Butler-Pascoe, 2011, p.24). In other words, learnershave the opportunity to interact not just withthe tutor computer but also with “their peers,teachers and other people all around theworld” (Ozkan, 2011, p.13).


Current Status of CALL

According to Warschauer (1996, 2000, and2004), the three phases of CALL do not fallinto a linear timeline. As each new phaseemerges, the previous phases too continue tocoexist. The commencement of a new phase“does not necessarily entail rejecting theprograms and methods of a previous phase;rather the old is subsumed within the new. Inaddition, the phases do not gain prominence

in one full swoop, but like all innovations,gain acceptance slowly and unevenly”(Warschauer, 1996). The following tablesummarises the three phases of CALL basedon Warschauer’s typology (Warschauer,1996; Warschauer, 2000, p.64; Warschauer,2004, p.11; Taylor and Gitsaki, 2004, p.134).

Over the past few decades, CALL hastransformed “from being a niche fieldpractised by a few early adopters, to being

Phase Structural CALL CommunicativeCALL

Integrative CALL

Table 1 : The Three Phases of CALL


mainstream” (Motteram, 2013c, p.6). Themain drive behind this transformation is thatmany digital technologies have moved to thecentre of daily life in many parts of the world.Their speedy adoption has expanded themeans by which one connects to andcommunicates with the others. They havechanged the sources from which peoplegather information. They also play importantroles in many facets of life: education, work,recreation, etc. Thus, these digitaltechnologies have become “normalised” tothe extent that they are invisible, hardly evenrecognised as technology, taken for grantedin everyday life (Bax 2003, 23). As a result,CALL has moved from the peripheral interestof the language teaching community tomainstream thinking, education and practice.

Due to the diversity of digital technologies,CALL has evolved to represent a set ofvarious divisions such as Computer-Mediated Communication, BlendedLearning, Virtual Worlds, Gamification, etc.Further, the field has many sub-divisions suchas CALL for ESP (English for SpecificPurposes), CALL for EAP (English forAcademic Purposes), CALL for younglearners, and so on. Thus CALL is no longera single, unified subject.

CALL has remained predominantly apractice-oriented field. Here, practice informsresearch and development of newtechnologies. All CALL studies have showed“practitioners using their own networks,knowledge and resources rather than turningto classroom research for new ideas”(Stanley, 2013, p.54). The field had been thesame even in the past. Many researchers haveconfirmed this notion. In 1977, Kemmis et

al. stated, “CALL is practitioner-led asopposed to research-based” (Kemmis, Atkinand Wright, 1977, p.6). Levy (1977) alsoshared a similar view: “many developers relyon their intuition as teachers rather thanresearch on learning” (Levy, 1997, p.4).

CALL is an established and recognised butalso quickly evolving academic field(EuroCALL, 2010; Motteram, 2013c, p.5).Zhang and Barber in 2008 asserted thatCALL is “maturing and heading toward abetter balance between technology andthinking” (Zhang and Barber, 2008, p.xviii).They also acknowledge that technology isdeveloping faster than our thinking processeswhich, in turn, is driving forward. In such arace, CALL practitioners and researchershave learnt “to recognize and deal moreeffectively with the dissonance between thespeed of technological development and thespeed of our thinking” (Zhang and Barber,2008, p.xviii). As a result, today more andmore technologies have been integrated intoclassrooms “physically and pedagogicallyrather than being an add-on” (Kern, 2013,p.92). More importantly, the computer is nowseen and used as a tool to accomplish certaintasks or to communicate.

Numerous teachers’ associations across theworld are aspiring to keep up with the paceof technological developments. There haveemerged many technology-specialisedprofessional associations. Wikipedia lists asmany as twelve such associations:APACALL, AsiaCALL, AULC, CALICO,EUROCALL, IALLT, IATEFL, JALTCALL,IndiaCALL, LET, PacCALL, andWorldCALL (Wikipedia contributors, 2014).There are also a number of journals


exclusively dedicated to the field oftechnology and language learning: CALICO,CALL, International Journal of ComputerAssisted Language Learning and Teaching,Language Learning and Technology,ReCALL and Journal of Technology for ELT.Journals that have a more general focus oneducation also include articles about CALL.Recently, there has been a growth of articlesin journals that address very specific domainsof CALL, such as CALL for young learners(Macaro, Handley and Walter, 2012), socialmedia in language learning, digital games,mobile learning, virtual worlds, and so on.

All these factors make it clear that “we arenow at a time in human development wheredigital technologies are making an increasinglysignificant contribution to language learningin many parts of the world” (Motteram, 2013b,p.177). Therefore, CALL can now be definedas “the full integration of technology intolanguage learning with its three elements oftheory, pedagogy, and technology playing anequally important role” (Garrett, 2009, p.730;Quoted in Kern, 2013, p.92).

References

Ahmed, Zohur. 2004. “The Role ofComputers in Facilitating the AcademicWriting of Undergraduate Students.” CentralInstitute of English and Foreign Languages.

Amaral, Luiz. 2011. “Revisiting CurrentParadigms in Computer Assisted LanguageLearning Research and Development.” IlhaDo Desterro (60): 365–389.

Bax, Stephen. 2003. “CALL — Past , Presentand Future” 31: 13–28.

Beatty, Ken. 2003. Teaching and Researching

Computer-Assisted Language Learning. NewYork: Longman.

Butler-Pascoe, Mary Ellen. 2011. “TheHistory of CALL: The Intertwining Paths ofTechnology and Second/Foreign LanguageTeaching.” 2International Journal ofCompter-Assisted Language Learning andTeaching 1 (1): 16–32.

Davies, Graham. 2012. “Computer AssistedLanguage Learning: Where Are We Now andWhere Are We Going?” February 10. http://w w w. c a m s o f t p a r t n e r s . c o . u k / d o c s /UCALL_Keynote.htm.

Davies, Graham, Ros Walker, HeatherRendall, and Sue Hewer. 2012. “Introductionto Computer Assisted Language Learning(CALL). Module 1.4.” Information andCommunications Technology for LanguageTeachers (ICT4LT). Slough, Thames ValleyUniversity. http://www.ict4lt.org/en/en_mod1-4.htm.

Delcloque, Philippe. 2000. “The History ofComputer Assisted Language Learning: WebExhibition.” ICT for Language Teachers.ICT4LT. October 3.

Egbert, Joy, Omran Akasha, Leslie Huff, andHyunGyung Lee. 2011. “Moving Forward:Anecdotes and Evidence Guiding the NextGeneration of CALL.” International Journalof Compter-Assisted Language Learning andTeaching 1 (1): 1–15.

Egbert, Joy L. 2005. “Conducting Researchon CALL.” In CALL: Research Perspectives,edited by Joy L. Egbert and Mikel PetrieGina, 3–8. ESL & Applied LinguisticsProfessional Series. London: LawrenceErlbaum Assoicates.


EuroCALL. 2010. “EUROCALL ResearchPolicy Statement 2010.” EuropeanAssociation for Computer Assisted LanguageLearning.

Fotos, Sandra, and Charles Browne. 2004.“The Development of CALL and CurrentOptions.” In New, edited by Sandra Fotos andCharles Browne, 3–14. Mahwah, NewJersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoicates.

Garrett, N. 2009. “Computer-AssistedLanguage Learning Trends and IssuesRevisited: Integrating Innovation.” TheModern Language Journal 93 (Supplements1): 719–740.

Gorjian, Bahman, Abdolmajid Hayati, andParisa Pourkhoni. 2013. “Using PraatSoftware in Teaching Prosodic Features toEFL Learners.” Procedia - Social andBehavioral Sciences 84 (2005) (July): 34–40. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.505. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1877042813015723.

Graham, Davies. 1997. “Lessons from thePast, Lessons for the Future: 20 Years ofCALL.” In New Technologies in LanguageLearning and Teaching, edited by A-KKorsvold and B Rüschoff, 27–51. Strasbourg:Council of Europe.

Gündüz, Nazli. 2005. “Computer AssistedLanguage Learning.” Journal of Languageand Linguistic Studies 1 (2): 193–214.

Hubbard, Philip. 2009. “GeneralIntroduction.” In Computer AssistedLanguage Learning, edited by PhilipHubbard, 1:1–20. Critical Concepts inLinguitics. London: Routledge.

———. 2014. “Unit 5: Environments, Tools,

Materials, and Activities.” An Invitation toCALL: Foundations of Computer-AssistedLanguage Learning. Linguistic Department- Stanford University. February 12. http://www.stanford.edu/~efs /callcourse2/CALL5.htm.

John, Underwood. 1984. Linguistics,Computers and the Language Teacher: ACommunicative Approach. Rowley, MA.:Newbury House.

Kemmis, S, R Atkin, and E Wright. 1977.How Do Students Learn? Working Papers onComputer Assisted Language Learning.Uncal Evaluation Studies. Norwich:University of East Anglia.

Kenning, M-M., and M. J. Kenning. 1990.Computers and Language Learning: CurrentTheory and Practice. New York: EllisHorwood.

Kern, Nergiz. 2013. “Technology-IntegratedEnglish for Specific Purposes Lessons: Real-Life Language, Tasks, and Tools forProfessionals.” In Innovations in LearningTechnologies for English LanguageTeaching, edited by Gary Motteram, 89–115.London: British Council.

Kern, Richard, Paige Ware, and MarkWarschauer. 2008. “Network-BasedLanguage Teaching.” In Encyclopedia ofLanguage and Education, 2nd ed, 4:281–292. Springer Science + Business MediaLLC.

Kern, Richard, and Mark Warschauer. 2000.“Theory and Practice of Network-BasedLanguage Teaching.” In Network-BasedLanguage Teaching: Concepts and Practice,edited by Mark Warschauer and Richard


Kern, 1–19. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Lee, Kuang-wu. 2000. “English Teachers’Barriers to the Use of Computer-AssistedLanguage Learning.” The Internet TESLJournal 6 (12). http://iteslj.org/Articles/Lee-CALLbarriers.html.

Levy, Mike. 1997. Computer-AssistedLanguage Learning: Context andConceptualization. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Macaro, E, Z Handley, and C Walter. 2012.“A Systematic Review of CALL in Englishas a Second Language: Focus on Primary andSecondary Education.” Language Teaching45 (1): 1–43.

Motteram, Gary. 2013a. “Developing andExtending Our Understanding of LanguageLearning and Technology.” In Innovations inLearning Technologies for English LanguageTeaching, edited by Gary Motteram, 177–191. London: British Council.

———. 2013b. Innovations in LearningTechnologies for English LanguageTeaching. Edited by Gary Motteram.Innovations Series. London: British Council.

———. 2013c. “Introduction.” InInnovations in Learning Technologies forEnglish Language Teaching, edited by GaryMotteram. London: British Council.

Ozkan, Mahmut. 2011. “Effects of SocialConstructivist Virtual LearningEnvironments on Speaking Skills from thePerspectives of University Students.”University of Cukurova.

Pim, Chris. 2013. “Emerging Technologies,Emerging Minds: Digital Innovations within

the Primary Sector.” In Innovations inLearning Technologies for English LanguageTeaching, edited by Gary Motteram, 15–42.London: British Council.

Sanders, Ruth H. 1995. “Thirty Years ofComputer Assisted Language Instruction:Introduction.” CALICO Journal 12 (4): 6–14.

Stanley, Graham. 2013. “IntegratingTechnology into Second LanguageTeaching.” In Innovations in LearningTechnologies for English LanguageTeaching, edited by Gary Motteram, 43–66.London: British Council.

Stockwell, Glenn. 2007. “A Review ofTechnology Choice for Teaching LanguageSkills and Areas in the CALL Literature.”ReCALL 19 (02) (May 4): 105–120.doi:10.1017/S0958344007000225. http://w w w . j o u r n a l s . c a m b r i d g e . o r g /abstract_S0958344007000225.

Taylor, Richard P., and Christina Gitsaki.2004. “Teaching WELL and Loving IT.” InNew Perspectives on CALL for SecondLanguage Classrooms, edited by SandraFotos and Charles Browne, 135–147. ESLand Applied Linguistics Professional Series.New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoicates.

Warschauer, Mark. 1996. “ComputerAssisted Language Learning: AnIntroduction.” In Multimedia LanguageTeaching, edited by Sandra Fotos, 3–20.Tokyo: Logos International. http://www.ict4lt.org/en/warschauer.htm.

———. 2000. “The Death of Cyberspace andthe Rebirth of CALL.” English Teachers’Journal 53: 61–67.


———. 2004. “Technological Change andthe Future of CALL.” In New Perspectiveson CALL for Second Language Classrooms,edited by Sandra Fotos and Charles Browne,15–25. Mahwah, New Jersey: LawrenceErlbaum Assoicates.

Warschauer, Mark, and Deborah Healey.1998. “Computers and Language Learning:An Overview.” Language Teaching (31): 57–71.

Warschauer, Mark, and Carla Meskill. 2000.“Technology and Second LanguageTeaching.” In Handbook of UndergraduateSecond Language Education, edited by J.Rosenthal, 303–318. Mahwah, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wikipedia contributors. 2014. “Computer-

Assisted Language Learning.” Wikipedia,The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The FreeEncyclopedia. June 2. http://e n . w i k i p e d i a . o rg / w i k i / C o m p u t e r -assisted_language_learning.

Zhang, Felicia, and Beth Barber. 2008.“Foreward.” In Handbook of Research onLanguage Acquisition and Learning, editedby Felicia Zhang and Beth Barber, xviii–xix.Hershey: Information Science Reference.

M S Xavier Pradheep Singh, AssistantProfessor of English, St. Joseph's College(Autonomous), Tiruchirapalli.


This article was published earlier in JELT,Vol. 57-5, September-October 2015 Issue.

ELTAI READING CLUBSELTAI has launched Reading Clubs in educational institutions with the primary objectiveof creating a ‘culture of reading’ among school and college students. This initiative is basedon a research-based framework that takes into account differences in age, gender, interests,and location.

Objectives of the Reading Club:q To create a love for reading in students and enable them to become better, lifelong

readers;q To enable them to reflect on what they read in order to lead them to become effective

writers and speakers;q To familiarize them with different text types (genres) and enable them to engage in

appropriate reading strategies; andq To employ synchronous (both virtual and physical meetings) as well as asynchronous

modes – Web tools, such as WhatsApp, Facebook, Blogs, Reading Logs, MOOCs (audios,videos, quotes, blurbs, reviews, etc.) to sustain their interest.

ELTAI would like to have MoUs with institutions that are willing to implement thisinitiative and help to achieve these objectives collaboratively. Institutions interested inthis project may please write, expressing their interest, to: [email protected] with acopy (Cc) to Dr. Zuleiha Shakeel, the Coordinator of the project at:[email protected] a brief description of this initiative, visit our website at: http://eltai.in/reading-clubs/.For an outline of the respective roles and responsibilities of the host institution andELTAI, visit the website at: http://eltai.in/roles-and-responsibilities-of-the-host-institution-and-eltai/.


‘Scientific’ Language TeachingRichard Smith

A recent blog-post by Scott Thornbury onsubstitution tables (Thornbury 2017), whichtouches on contributions by Harold E.Palmer (1877–1949) to their theorisation anddevelopment, reminded me that there is stilljust about time this year to celebrate thecentenary of Palmer’s ‘classic’ (1917)work, The Scientific Study and Teaching ofLanguages. This book can be seen to haveheralded what Tony Howatt and I havetermed a ‘Scientific Period’ of languageteaching discourse, a period of at least 50years during which language teachingtheorists tended to relate their proposals quitestrongly to background scientific research ofvarious kinds (Howatt and Smith 2014).

In 1923, Palmer himself set up an Institutefor Research in English Teaching inTokyo (IRET) in Tokyo which was a world-leader in the pre-war period (see Smith 2013).In fact, it was really the only place whereorganised research into English as L2teaching was going on until the Universityof Michigan English Language Institute wasfounded in the 1940s. The ScientificStudy predated the generally acknowledgeddebut of ‘applied linguistics’ by 30 years, andthe Tokyo research work itself prefigured andinfluenced that in the USA and UK in thepost-war era, though in generallyunacknowledged forms. I’ve writtenelsewhere (Smith 2011) about the wayPalmer’s conception of (something like)applied linguistics as reflected in the workhe and, from 1936 onwards, A. S. Hornby(1898–1978) were engaged in at IRET was a

broader, more eclectic and practice-centredconception both than post-war ‘linguisticsapplied’ and the kind of new academicdiscipline Palmer seemed to be proposingin The Scientific Study.

I say ‘seemed’ because a close, contextualreading of the latter book (see Smith 2011)shows that the actual conclusions Palmerproposed are not derived from backgroundsciences (linguistics, psychology, etc.) somuch as from his own experimentation as apractitioner-researcher in Belgium, where hetaught from 1902 to 1914. This is actuallyquite clear from his Dedicatory Preface tothe book (Palmer 1917: 5-8).

Palmer mainly based his recommendationsand conclusions in The Scientific Study on aseries of experiments carried out into his ownpractice as a language teacher in Belgium –they were founded on a form of ‘practitionerresearch’, in other words. As his daughterlater wrote, he “explored the possibilities ofone method after another, both as teacher andstudent. He would devise, adopt, modify orreject one plan after another as the result of


further research and experience in connexionwith many languages – living and artificial.”(Anderson 1969: 136-7).

What was really new was the way, in his 1917and later works, Palmer set out to provide aprincipled basis for all kinds of approach, tobe selected according to needs and context,in accordance with the following realisation(expressed in the book’s Dedicatory Preface):

“cen’est pas la méthode qui nous manque;ce qui nous manquec’est la base même de laméthode” (“it is not ‘method’ that we lack;what we lack is a basis for method” (mytranslation)) (Palmer 1917: 5-6).

And this was Palmer’s major contribution –to argue that a basis is needed for methodswhich goes beyond salesmanship, beyondfashion; and that there is no one methodsuited for all occasions but instead manypossibilities, necessitating careful selection.

This is true of his ‘Substitution Method’(which resembled, but of course predated bya long way audiolingualism) as much as it isof his ‘ostensive line of approach’ (whichprefigured TPR) or the reader-centredapproach he developed for Japanese schools.These all came out of theorised experienceas a teacher or teacher educator, but none ofthem was elevated to the status of a ‘one-size-fits-all’ method.

When – or whether – the ‘scientific period’heralded by Palmer’s contribution ended isopen to question. On the one hand, somewell-known ELT gurus have recently beenseeming to claim that research has little tooffer language teachers (e.g. Maley 2016;Medgyes 2017). On the other hand, they seem

to be arguing against something they see asstill prevalent in the field – a tendency tovenerate researchers (‘science’) at theexpense of insights from experience and‘craft knowledge’.

What we can say is that ‘science’ is notaccorded the automatic respect it once had –in the heyday of audiolingualism, forexample, when behaviorist psychology andstructural linguistics seemed to provide asolid, largely unquestioned underpinning todrills which treated learners rather likelaboratory rats!

It seems to me that the ELT profession needsa new, rebalanced view of the relationshipbetween ELT and research or ‘science’, onewhich acknowledges the need to baseresearch on teachers’ priorities, thedesirability of teachers themselves beingresearchers of their own practice and theimportance, also, of teachers being critical of‘academic’ research. At the same time, weneed to stop stereotyping research and seethat there are many kinds, some with definiterelevance for the classroom, some with none– and that we can usually only talk aboutpossible implications of research, not directapplications.

A revised conception like this – which isconsistent with Henry Widdowson’s ongoingcritique of the top-down nature of certainforms of applied linguistics (including in hisrecent plenary for the British Association forApplied Linguistics: Widdowson 2017) –would, in fact, constitute a return to Palmer’sown lived conception of problem-oriented,practical research, though not to what heclaimed – somewhat precociously and even,


in some ways, pretentiously – to be settingup as an academic discipline in his 1917work, The Scientific Study and Teaching ofLanguages.

Note

This article was first published in the formof a blog-post on 19 November 2017. Formore information on Harold E. Palmer’s lifeand work, the reader is invited to consult therelevant Warwick ELT Archive Hall of Fameweb-page here: warwick.ac.uk/elt_archive/halloffame/palmer and/or the book TheWritings of Harold E. Palmer: An Overview,freely downloadable from the same website.

References

Anderson, Dorothée. 1969. ‘Harold E.Palmer: a biographical essay’. Appendix toPalmer, Harold E. and H. Vere Redman, ThisLanguage-Learning Business. London:Oxford University Press, 1932/1969.

Howatt, A.P.R. and Smith, Richard. ‘Thehistory of teaching English as a foreignlanguage, from a British and Europeanperspective’. Language and History vol. 57,no. 1, 2014, pp. 75-95. Online (open access):http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1179/1759753614Z.00000000028.Accessed 20 November 2017.

Maley, Alan. ‘“More research is needed”: amantra too far?’. Humanising LanguageTeaching, vol. 18, no. 3, 2016. Online (openaccess): http://hltmag.co.uk/jun16/mart01.htm

Medgyes, Péter. ‘The (ir)relevance ofacademic research for the language teacher’.ELT Journal vol. 71, no. 4, 2017, pp. 491-498.

Palmer, Harold E. The Scientific Study and

Teaching of Languages. A review of thefactors and problems connected with thelearning and teaching of modernlanguages with an analysis of the variousmethods which may be adopted in orderto attain satisfactory results . London:Harrap, 1917. American edition online:h t t p s : / / a r c h i v e . o r g / d e t a i l s /cu31924026503478. Accessed 20November 2017

Smith, Richard. ‘Harold E. Palmer’salternative “applied linguistics”’. Histoire–Epistémologie–Langage vol. 33, no. 1, 2011,pp. 53-67. Online (open access): http://w w w . p e r s e e . f r / d o c / h e l _ 0 7 5 0 -8069_2011_num_33_1_3206.

Smith, Richard. ‘Harold E. Palmer, IRLT, and‘historical sense’ in ELT’. IRLT Journal no.8, 2013, pp. 1-8. Pre-publication versiononline: http://warwick.ac.uk/richardcsmith/s m i t h _ r / h a r o l d _ e _ _ p a l m e r_irlt_and_historical_sense_in_elt.pdf

Thornbury, Scott. ‘S is for Substitutiontable’. https://scottthornbury. wordpress.com/2017/11/12/s-is-for-substitution-table,2017. Accessed 20 November 2017.

Widdowson, Henry G. ‘Disciplinarity anddisparity in applied linguistics’. Plenary paperat 50 th British Association for AppliedLinguistics annual meeting, University ofLeeds. Online (video): https://youtu.be/choufPZm1O8

Richard Smith, Reader in ELT and AppliedLinguistics at the University of Warwick, UKEmail: [email protected]

This article was published earlier in JELT,Vol. 59-5, September-October 2017 Issue.


Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): ConceptualFramework and Viability in the Indian Context

Lal C A and Arun George

ABSTRACT

The pedagogical experiments centring on language acquisition and content learning had,in the latter part of the previous century, resulted in methods that combined both. Thesynergy of combining content and language has proved to be beneficial to both theseaspects. Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is one of the successful modelsthat has attempted this integration in the classroom. The discourses that evolve in theclassroom as part of a content-centred curriculum lead also to language learning. Thevarious theories related to language learning and the experiments in the European Unionand Asian countries have approved the success and practicality of CLIL. This paperprobes the basic nuances of CLIL as an ELT methodology and its viability in the Indiancontext.

Content and Language Integrated Learning(CLIL) is a pedagogic approach in secondlanguage teaching, that combines theapparently disparate components ofcontent learning and language acquisitionin a single class. This kind of symbiosisbroadens the scope of learning as a wholeand hence it can be accomplished bytraversing a few yards beyond the existingframework of teaching and learning. Thisintegration of content and language hasbeen much experimented in many parts ofthe world since 1990s and is now in aposition to be accounted based on itsimplication as a methodology.

The term Content and Language IntegratedLearning (CLIL) was first used in 1994 byDavid Marsh. It is defined as “a dual focussededucational approach in which an additionallanguage is used for the learning and teachingof both content and Language” (Coyle et al,

2010). European Union promotes CLIL as asuitable methodology which promotes thethree languages formula and integratesdiverse cultures, essential for the existenceof the Union. CLIL was more a proactiveprogramme for the integration of the Union.The European Union Commission forEducation (EC 2005) had formally approvedCLIL as a methodology which resulted inCLIL schools and CLIL teachers in Europe.This has also been adopted as an educationalmethodology in many parts of Asia includingChina, Malaysia and Thailand following itssuccess in promoting content learning andlanguage acquisition. This paper probes thebasic nuances of CLIL as an ELTmethodology, and its viability in the Indiancontext.

The “content” in CLIL broadly refers toindividual subjects like Mathematics,History, Chemistry, or Engineering, which is


Language of learning

Language for learningLanguage through learning

often the top priority in the teaching learningprocess. It need not exactly be the descriptiongiven in the curriculum as such, but refers tothe subject for learning which can be basedon the curriculum adapted to support theneeds of the class. It can be limited or dividedinto bits and can be supported by additionalmaterials which is found suitable. “Contentlearning implies progression in newknowledge, skills and understanding” (Coyle,2005: 5). It demands proficiency in thetheoretical and practical aspects, as seen inthe science and technological subjects, andrequires the appropriate subject knowledgein Arts, Literature and Humanities. A personproficient in a particular subject or contentarea has the potential to communicate theideas in seminars and presentations and “tomanage the tasks that face them in their workin content areas” (Mohan 1979, 181).

“Language is our greatest learning tool”(Coyle 51) refers to the importance oflanguage in content learning. The wordcommunication used in this context refers tothe acquisition of the target content languageand its application in the different learningcontexts. Communication is “interaction,progression in language using and learning”

(Coyle et al. 2010, 54). Language andcommunication in content classrooms are soessential that the lack of effectivecommunication leads to largely nonverbaldemonstrations in the classrooms, labs andworkshops, which are detrimental to thelearners in the long run. Functional languageuse is promoted in the classroom throughinteraction and activities which arepurposeful and result oriented. The discoursein the classroom comprises instructional andregulative register which has a positiveimpact on both content learning and languageacquisition.

The interaction, activities and activeinvolvement in content learning directlyimpact Basic Interpersonal CommunicativeSkills (BICS) initially, and then proceeds tofacilitate Cognitive Academic LanguageProficiency (CALP) (Cummins 2000). Thesetwo language aspects involved in languageacquisition and the role of CLIL in promotingdemand particular attention. The LanguageTriptych put forward by Do Coyle (Coyle etal. 2010, 36) delineates the aspects oflanguage learning in academic contexts.

Here are the three language aspects neededin a content classroom. Language of learningrefers to the basic language needed tounderstand the content aspects. Language forlearning refers to the language required tolearn in a second language learning situation.Language through learning refers to the newlanguage acquired through the process oflearning.

Language and Content Learning:Previous Experiments

Language learning based on content evolved


from the immediate needs of the modernsociety. Mohan (2002: 303) observes: “Aseducation throughout the world becomesincreasingly multilingual and multicultural,we must look beyond the individual learningthe language system and consider languageas medium of learning, the co-ordination oflanguage learning and content learning,language socialization as the learning oflanguage and culture […] and discourse inthe context of social practice.”

But Language acquisition along with contentlearning is not a new methodology. “Twothousand years ago, provision of aneducational curriculum in an additionallanguage happened as the Roman Empireexpanded and absorbed Greek territory,language and culture. Families in Romeeducated their children in Greek to ensurethat they would have access to not only thelanguage, but also the social and professionalopportunities it would provide …” (Coyle2010, 2). Social, cultural and economicaspects that prevailed in the world in the formof privatisation, globalisation, and migrationhave paved the way for this kind of a learningwhich is more a kind of infusion of contentand language which resulted in amethodology like CLIL which is an“amalgam of both and is linked to the processof convergence” (Coyle et al. 2010, p. 4). Thiscontent based language acquisition has beenbest experimentally utilized by educationalpractitioners since 1960s, and with moretheoretical basis after 1980s, when severalmethods came to be practised; like theBilingual Integration of Languages andDisciplines (BILD), Content and LanguageIntegrated Learning (CLIL), Content-basedInstruction (CBI), Content-based Language

Instruction (CBLI), Content-based LanguageTeaching (CBLT), English Across theCurriculum (EAC), English as an AcademicLanguage (EAL), Foreign LanguageImmersion Program (FLIP) and ForeignLanguages as a Medium of Education(FLAME).

CLIL has a lineage that can be traced to theImmersion programmes in Canada, Bilingual(Immersion) programmes and ShelteredInstructions in the US, and Content BasedLearning, even though there are manydifferences in the different approaches.French Immersion programmes in Canadahad the reason of the French minorityupheaval for its origin where the immersionwas later extended to other languages.Content became a rich source for languageacquisition in these programmes. Then thescope and role of content as a validcomponent in language Immersionprogrammes gave impetus to many languagedevelopment programmes andmethodologies. Many of these took contentas an input for language development, whilesome other methods had direct learning orimmersion in the target language.


Type of CLIL Time Context

Language-led

Subject-led (Modular)

Subject-led (partialimmersion)

45 minutes once a week

15 hours during one term

About 15% of the curriculum

Some curricular topics aretaught during a languagecourse.

Schools or teachers chooseparts of the subject syllabuswhich they teach in the targetlanguage.

About half of the curriculumis taught in the target language.The content can reflect what istaught in the L1 curriculum orcan be new content.

Soft CLIL

Hard CLIL

CLIL in its present form was launched in1996 by UNICOM, University of Jyväskylä(Finland). It had an all-encompassing viewabout content-language learning, with itsroots firm on the locality but with aninternational outlook. “The acronym CLIL isused as a generic term to describe all typesof approaches in which a second language isused to teach certain subjects in thecurriculum other than the lessonsthemselves” (Eurydice 2006, 8).

Content and Language IntegratedLearning: Basic Concepts

Any discussion on CLIL should begin withthe 4 Cs framework (Coyle, 2010).

This framework ‘integrates fourcontextualized building blocks (Coyle,2010): Content (subject matter),Communication (language learning andusing), Cognition (learning and thinkingprocess) and Culture (developingintercultural understanding and globalcitizenship). All these factors exist in therealm of specific contexts of learning. The

primary difference between CLIL and othercontent based learning methodologies is theperfect integration of content and language.

Expression of meaning requires language and“… a focus on language would takeadvantage of students’ communicativeproblems, bringing in work on the lexis andthe grammar they require to express theirmeanings” (Llinares and Whittaker 2009:85). “…CLIL learners will need theirlanguage to be supported and developed in acohesive way in order to be able to uselanguage as a learning tool. This demandsboth subject teachers and language teachersto reconsider the role of language learning inCLIL and requires adoption of approacheswhich might not sit comfortably in eitherteaching repertoire” (Coyle, 56).

The constructive theories in education statethat the cognitive and thinking aspectsinvolved in CLIL enrich those aspects of alearner. It will have an “impact onconceptualization …enriching theunderstanding of concepts and broadeningconceptual mapping resources” (Coyle


2010). There is a constant shift on the partof CLIL teachers to involve skills likeremembering and understanding (LowerOrder Thinking Skills) and applying,analysing, evaluating and creating (HigherOrder Thinking Skills), given in Bloom’sTaxonomy (Anderson et al, 2001). “Thecomplexity for the CLIL teacher lies inproviding a learning environment which issupportive, language-rich and language-accessible, whilst working with cognitivelychallenging and appropriate content” (Coyle,56). Multilevel tasks catering to differentlevels of thinking skills from the same chunkof content given can be a test of the skills ofCLIL teachers. “CLIL is concerned with thecreation of new knowledge not simplyrepackaging what is already known inalternative codes” (Coyle, 56). This creationof personal knowledge in the classrooms isthe result of interaction and activities in theclassrooms. “CLIL learners make newpersonal meanings in another language”(Dale 2012). The conclusion to these aspectscan be seen in the following statements whichblend what is termed as Content andLanguage Learning.

• Language is a matter of meaning as wellas form;

• Discourse does not express meaning: itcreates meaning;

• In acquiring new knowledge, we acquirenew language and meaning.

(Mohan and van Naerson 1997)

A number of benefits of CLIL are pointedout in recent researches. Liz Dale (2010) haspointed out several benefits of CLIL: 1) CLILlearners are motivated. 2) They develop

cognitively and their brains work faster. 3)They receive a lot of input and workeffectively with that input. 4) They learn indifferent ways. 5) They develop interculturalawareness. CLIL offers a natural environmentfor language learning. “It is this naturalnesswhich appears to be one of the majorplatforms for CLIL’s importance and successin relation to both language and subjectlearning” (Marsh 2000). A research made byLasagabaster (2008) pointed out that CLILlearners made greater advancement inlearning English language than non-CLILlearners.

The range of CLIL exposure to students hasbeen a topic of debate. It has resulted innaming the various exposures as Soft CLILand Hard CLIL

Practising CLIL

The language and subject teachers have theirdistinctive roles in CLIL classes. If it takesto team teaching the collaboration extendsthrough designing the course, transacting thecontent and language elements, evaluatingthe concepts acquired, language skills andfinal analysis of the teaching-learning system.The subject teachers can help develop thelanguage and vocabulary of the learners whiledealing with the content aspects. Thelanguage teacher works with the preparationof language aspects and can act as anevaluator, co-teacher and motivator. Ifteaching is done in their respective classesthen the language teacher can contribute tolearning of content-based vocabulary,frequently used structures needed in thecontent class and even a bit of Content BasedInstruction (CBI) which can supplementcontent learning.


One cannot definitely say CLIL should followthese steps during preparation, transactionand evaluation phases. This absolute freedomprovided in CLIL settings can be truncatedor elaborated by the language teacher indetermining the ability and limitations of thelearning community and learning situationsand facilities of the region. Some stages likehaving a shared vision of CLIL, analysingand personalizing the CLIL context, planninga unit in terms of the 4 Cs including authenticmaterial and monitoring and evaluating CLILin action (Coyle, 2010) have to beincorporated. The content obligatory andcontent compatible languages have to beclearly dealt with in the planning andtransaction phases. Coyle (2005) putsforward the Lesson Observation and CriticalIncident Technique (LOCIT) process whichis continuous evaluation with the help ofprofessionals and colleagues. Liz Dale (2010)has given a process description in CLILclasses which is a balanced approachinvolving activating previous learning,guiding understanding (transacting thecontent), focus on language (dealing withcontent-specific language elements), focus onspeaking, focus on writing and assessment,review and feedback. The role of CLILteachers is to acclimatize the students to thecontent and its language involving thedifferent phases as per the context. Learningin CLIL milieu is natural, progressive andhappens at a subconscious level. Thebackground set is in the form of facilitatingteachers and scaffolding (Wood, BurnerVygotsky (1978)). The teachers set thebackground for the learners to construct theirown learning. Here the personal needs andabilities of the learners are also taken into

account whereby the different skills andcognitive ability (Multiple Intelligence,Howard Gardner 1983) are also dealt with.So the CLIL in classrooms will be diverseand congenial for learning in all its aspects.

The core elements of CLIL, adaptation andinteraction, according to its level of properexecution can make or mar the success ofCLIL. Adaptation refers to the preparatorypart which comprises the selection of materialappropriate to the level of students andlearning situation and organizing it tofacilitate CLIL. It shall give ampleopportunity for an active learning of contentand language. If the content teacher is notadept in facilitating language learning, he canget the help of a language expert. Getting thematerials and teaching aids ready before theclass is an important aspect. Interaction is thekey to success in a CLIL class. “Socialconstructivist theories of learning emphasisethat learning is a social, dynamic process andthat learners learn when interacting with oneanother” (Dale, 2012). The differencebetween a traditional class and CLIL is theextent of time allotted for interaction in thelatter class. Student-student interaction andstudent-teacher interaction in the vernacularlanguage amount to the grasp in the targetlanguage and group learning, pair learningand individual activities have their specificrole in a progressive manner of learning.Language used in this kind of more than asimulated manner in the classroom, wherelearning itself becomes the motivating factor,encourages students to exert themselves tothe task allotted to them resulting inidentifying and creating their ownknowledge.


The language teaching part of CLIL drawsfrom Communicative Language Teaching(CLT) and makes use of CLT activities ortasks in the classroom. Activities thatmotivate and arouse the learners’ interest canbe used. Gap exercises with missinginformation, words and sentences are veryeffective in CLIL which saves a lot of time.Grid exercises, guessing the result or end,brainstorming, vital visuals, graphicorganizers, interactive PowerPointpresentations, interviews, runningcommentary, academic word list, bingo, mindmaps, word puzzles, sorting exercises, roleplays, class magazines, and recreation of atext are common practices in the classrooms.These tasks should ultimately lead to anactive interaction in the class which leads tolearning. The information gap exercisesstimulate learner interaction, and interactionleads to effective content and languagelearning.

CLIL assesses both the content and thelanguage skills of the learners. There is a shifttowards the learner-centred assessmentexperimented by many teachers. Here thelearners are free to assess their colleagues.They have to prepare the rubrics forassessment based on different aspects oflearning. Formative and summativeassessments can be used. “CLIL learnersperform better when a range of assessmentstools are used” (Dale 2012). Needs analysisand portfolio assessment can be used to directthe course of learning.

Scope of CLIL in India

English is the language of higher educationin most of the study programmes in India, alanguage preferred evidently due to utilitarian

implications. This language has legitimatelyclaimed its role in the multicultural andmultilinguistic context of the nation. Theexecution of the three-language formula inIndia, often considered effective in ensuringmore meaningful communication within thecountry, is not challenged by the CLIL model.The positive environment for enhancingcommunication skills in English, Hindi anda vernacular language and for using them foracademic purposes is strongly implied in theeducational system, but seems to have fallenmuch short of the target. The reason is oftenthat the content of core subjects, thoughdesigned to be transacted preferably inEnglish (as most of the content textbooks areprepared in English) following a Content-Based, ‘immersion’ model, is often taught inthe mother tongue, with the teacher playingthe role of a translator. The unfortunate resultis the dual inadequacy and incompetence inthe two targeted aims, content learning andproficiency in the second language.

For instance, the scope of learning SocialStudies in Hindi and Science in English canbe experimented in classrooms in a CLILbackground. This will require a shift fromthe existing scenario of learning and theideology of learning as mentioned in thebeginning. The statement “…all teachers areteachers of language …” (Bullock 1975) isnot an encroachment on the definite anddemarcated role of the content or languageteacher. On the other hand, it brings about ameaningful change in the roles of the contentteacher and the language teacher in theclassroom, facilitating learning which “isboth an individual and social activity” and“supporting cognitive processing” (Coyle,56). The does not imply the shifting of


responsibility of the language teacher to thecontent teacher, or even diminishing in therole of the language teacher as such. It is morein the direction of adding further dimensionsto the roles currently played by the contentand the language teachers, in terms of theirfurther empowerment in wider areas ofknowledge and improved linguistic ability asthe case may be.

Conclusion

CLIL methodology, with its synthesis ofcontent and communication, is based on theconcept that these two are inseparable, andthis synergy accounts for its success in theclassrooms. It is seen as a methodology thatfits into the current system of education withits myriad demands to be accomplishedwithin a short span of time. The learners arehighly motivated as the learning process itselfemerges as a motivating factor. The affectivefactors which hinder learning is minimisedin the classrooms, when learning isaccomplished with learner autonomy. Theteachers facilitate learning by scaffolding andproviding meaningful input which results increative interaction and student talk in theclassrooms. The cultural aspect of learningwhich is incorporated into the system makesCLIL local in its planning and execution,combining subject and linguistic knowledgewith intercultural awareness.

Works Cited

Anderson, L. W., David R. Krathwohl, PeterW. Airasian, K.A.Cruikshank,Richard E.Mayer, Paul R. Pintrich, James Raths andMerlin Carl Wittrock, eds. Taxonomy forLearning, Teaching and Assessing: ARevision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of

Educational Objectives. New York: AddisonWesley Longman. 2001. Print.

Bentley, K., TKT CLIL Module. Cambridge:CUP, 2010

Bullock, Alan. Languages for Life: TheBullock Report. London: HMSO. 1975

Coyle, D, “Developing CLIL: Towards atheory of Practice”. APAC Monograph,Barcelona: APAC. 2005. Print.

Cummins, J. Language Power andPedagogy: Bilingual Children in theCrossfire, Cleavedon: MultilingualMatters. 2000

Dale, Liz and Rosie Tanner, CLIL ActivitiesA Resource Book for Subject and LanguageTeachers. Cambridge: CUP, 2012. Print.

Coyle, D, Philip Hood and David Marsh.CLIL Content and Language IntegratedLearning Cambridge: CUP. 2010. Print.

Coyle, D. “Post-meth1od pedagogies: usinga second or other language as a learning toolin CLIL settings” Linguistic insights vol. 108:Content and foreign language integrated -Contributions to multilingualism inEuropean contexts. Eds. Y Zarobe, J Sierra& F Gallardo Del Puerto. Bern: Peter Lang.2011. 49-73.

European Council. European Council of theEuropean Union, EDUC 69, Resolution.Brussels: EC. 2005.

Eurydice. Content and Language IntegratedLearning (CLIL) at School in Europe.Brussels: Directorate-General forEducation and Culture.2006.Print.

Gardner, Howard . Frames of Mind: The


Theory of Multiple Intelligences. London:Fontana Press. 1983.

Llinares García, Ana and Rachel Whittaker.“Teaching and Learning History in SecondaryCLIL Classrooms: from Speaking toWriting”. Eds. Emma In Dafouz and MicheleGuerrini CLIL Across Educational Levels.London: Richmond, 2009. 73–88. Print.

Marsh, D. “An Introduction to CLIL forParents and Young People”. UsingLanguages to Learn and Learning to UseLanguages.Eds. David Marsh and GisellaLange. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.2000.

Mohan, Bernard. “Knowledge Structures inSocial Practices.” International Handbook ofEnglish Language Teaching Part I. Eds. JimCummins and Chris Davison. New York:Springer, 2002. 303–332. Print.

Mohan, Bernard A. “Relating LanguageTeaching and Content Teaching” TESOLQuarterly Vol. 13, No. 2 June (1979): 181.Print.

Mohan, Bernard, and Margaret van Naerssen.“Understanding Cause-Effect: Learningthrough Language”. Forum 35/4: 1997. 22–29.Print

Vygotsky, L. Mind in Society: TheDevelopment of Higher PsychologicalProcesses. London: Harvard UniversityPress. 1978.

Lal C A, School of Distance Education,University of Kerala

Arun George, Government PolytechnicCollege, Adoor

This article was published earlier in JELT,Vol. 59-2, March-April 2017 Issue.

Journal of Technology for ELT

The Journal of Technology for ELT is an open-access research journal forteachers of English. It is published four times a year by the EnglishLanguage Teachers’ Association of India (ELTAI). It aims to promote seriousdiscussion and sharing of experiences on the use of technological toolsand resources for teaching and learning English effectively, either in anonline mode or through blended learning modules. The emphasis is onapplication and judicious use of technology for the purpose rather thanon mere descriptions of the tools and devices available for use globally.

Articles can be submitted throughout the year. They may be sent to:[email protected] with a copy (Cc) to the editor Dr. JayaRamakrishnan at: [email protected]. For submissionguidelines, visit the journal website: https://sites.google.com/view/journal-of-technology-for-elt/home. There is no access or publicationfee.


One-on-One: Interview with Scott ThornburyAlbert P’Rayan

A few months ago, a friend invited me todeliver a lecture at an institute of engineeringand technology where he is working as aprofessor of English. When I asked her onwhich topic I could deliver my lecture, shesuggested these two topics: 1) Dogmeapproach to language teaching, and 2) Post-method pedagogy. Out of curiosity, I askedher why she was interested in the topic“Dogme ELT”. She replied that someonerecently discussed the topic at an ELTconference and she and her colleagueswanted to know more about it. I promisedto deliver a lecture on the topic, but,unfortunately, I couldn’t make it for reasonsmore than one. I am sure, there are manyELT enthusiasts in India who have heardabout Scott Thornbury and his work andsome even have carried out research on theDogme ELT approach to language teaching.

Albert P’Rayan in his One-on-One with ScottThornbury asked him questions about Dogmemethod, Teaching ESL/EFL as a globallanguage, professional development forteachers, etc.

The terms Dogme ELT and TeachingUnplugged are synonymous with yourname. Could you share with us when andhow you conceived the idea of DogmeELT?

Essentially, it grew out of a frustration withthe way the so-called communicativeapproach seemed to have been betrayed andhijacked by globalised ELT publishinginitiatives, such as the extraordinarilysuccessful Headway series (1986).

I had “grown up” as a language teacher in themid to late seventies and experienced thetransition from a very form-focused,regimented kind of teaching (the tail end ofthe audiolingual method) to the (at the time)totally liberating communicative revolution,with its emphasis on authenticity, meaning,interaction, and so on. As the director of studiesin a large school in Cairo, in the late 1970s, Itried to implement these principles. This,combined with my reading of Earl Stevick,and the influence of Stephen Krashen(particularly the notion of “comprehensibleinput”) impelled me in the direction of a viewof teaching that sought to provide optimalconditions for “acquisition”, that is a language-rich, meaning-driven, learning environment –not one driven purely by a grammar syllabusand a “focus on forms”.


So when, as a teacher trainer on the Diplomaprogramme that I helped set up atInternational House, Barcelona, in 1986, Isaw how NON-communicative the“Headway classroom” had become, I – andmy colleague Neil Forrest – set about tryingto “de-toxify” language teaching, and torestore the “big C” communicativeapproach. One of the blocks to effectivecommunicative teaching seemed to be anover-dependence on materials and aids, andso we tried to encourage our trainees to“make more out of less” and to cultivate alearning context that foregrounded what thelearners bring to the classroom. (This alsoreflected my own experience teaching inEgypt, where materials were extremelylimited, at least initially, and where I learnedto be very resourceful). The analogy I drewbetween the “Dogme 1995” film collectiveand our own teaching training agenda wasaccidental, but somehow it captured afeeling that was simmering at the time.

What were the limitations of the mostsuccessful and influential course bookseries Headway by Soars and Soars?

After ten years of experimentation withalternative ways of organizing syllabuses –e.g. tasks, functions/notions, topics – thatfollowed from the recommendations of theCouncil of Europe in the mid-seventies, theHeadway series effectively revived thegrammatical syllabus and basically ‘re-set’language teaching back in the 1960s.Because, when you have a syllabus ofgrammatical forms, the tendency is to teachthose forms for their own sake, rather thanteaching them when they are needed forcommunicative effectiveness. Whereas the

communicative approach had prioritized themeaning-making potential of language (‘Saywhat you want and I will help you say itbetter’), the rehabilitated ‘Headway’approach, while claiming to becommunicative, prioritized grammaticalstructure: ‘You can say what you want butyou have to use the present perfectcontinuous’. And, as N.S. Prabhu (1987)nicely puts it, “If the meaning is not one’sown, it seems to follow that the language isnot one’s own either”.

What do you mean by “de-toxifying”language teaching?

By ‘de-toxifying’ I mean ridding teaching ofits obsession with grammatical form, withaccuracy, and with native-speaker standardsof – among other things – pronunciation.

Kumaravadivelu in his article titled “Towarda postmethod pedagogy” (TESOL Quarterly,35, 2001) says: “Language pedagogy, to berelevant, must be sensitive to a particulargroup of teachers teaching a particular groupof learners pursuing a particular set of goalswithin a particular institutional contextembedded in a particular socioculturalmilieu.” Is this reflected in the philosophyof Dogme ELT?

Yes, very much so. As we wrote in TeachingUnplugged:

Dogme is more than simply a new set oftechniques and procedures. It is more anattitude shift, a state of mind, a different wayof being a teacher. In fact, because itprioritises the local over the global, and theparticular over the general, the individualover the crowd, a Dogme approach will vary


according to its context. For some teachersand in some situations, it may be enough tointersperse their teaching with ‘Dogmemoments’, such as when a student’s utteranceoffers a learning opportunity and the lessontakes a brief detour in pursuit of it. Otherteachers may be motivated to – or in aposition where they are allowed to – designtheir whole course according to Dogmeprinciples.

How successful is Dogme ELT in countrieswhere English is taught as a second orforeign language? Has it been wellreceived by the ELT community incountries where English is taught eitheras a second or a foreign language?

Dogme ELT certainly hasn’t becomemainstream in practice, because manyeducators still encounter resistance when theytry and apply it. But it has entered themainstream as an idea which many peoplewho are serious about ELT feel is worthy ofconsideration – something they need to havean opinion on and even, in the case ofpublishers and coursebook authors, adapt to.

Is it important for a Dogme ELT teacherto prepare a lesson plan? What is thestructure of a typical Dogme methodlesson plan?

An unplugged teacher is more likely to gointo class with a framework for activity thana lesson plan as such. For example, theymight have it in mind to recycle some ofyesterday’s emergent language; to spendsome time on homework; then to work on ashort text they have selected overnight. Butall of this might be delayed by a conversationwhich develops at the start of the class. And

even these notional phases can beunpredictable in terms of timings: if thehomework involved the learners generatingsome stimulus of their own, this will takemore or less time depending on how far theyhave engaged with the task.

So it’s less about pre-planning than post-planning – ‘identifying’ a lesson plan fromthe notes that were taken while it washappening. Or, to put it more simply,reporting on what actually happened.

It can be done in a number of ways. Forexample, you can post-rationalise along thelines of a conventional lesson plan, almostfilling in the gaps in a standard schema: ‘sothese turned out to be the language exponents,and this is how the timings panned out.’ Thiscan be helpful because it shows you aresensitive to the expectations of the widercommunity – whether this is colleagues,managers, learners or parents.Or you caninvolve the learners in reporting whathappened in the class in ways that make senseto everyone involved.

You are a successful coursebooks andmaterials writer but Dogme ELT, as amethod, is said to be against usingmaterials and technology. Isn’t there awide gap between what you practise andwhat you preach?

Actually, I haven’t written a coursebook fortwenty years or more. I think, though, that itwas the process of writing coursebooks thatconfirmed my suspicion as to how unsuitedthey are for the kinds of learning experiencesthat I was trying to set up in my classrooms.The obsessive concern for teaching ‘grammarMacNuggets’, and the somewhat anodyne


texts used to reinforce these, turned teachinginto a joyless activity, whereas Dogme ELTwas an attempt to ‘rescue’ the teaching-learning experience from these artificialconstraints. I do write books on methodologythough, because that’s one way I can get mymessage across.

One of the primary aims of the TeachingUnplugged method is that the lesson contentshould “be driven by the students rather thanbeing preplanned by the teacher”. Arelearners equipped to generate material for thecourse? How realistic is the aim?

It is not realistic if you don’t try it – but it ismore likely to work when there is a classroomdynamic in which the learners’ contributionsare welcomed, validated and not judged solelyin terms of their accuracy. This, in turn, requiresthe teacher to be an equal partner in theclassroom ‘sub-culture’. But, in any case, youcannot – and should not – force learners to talkfreely and openly about the things that interestthem if they don’t want to. You can, however,provide structured activities that invite them todo so in ways which are ‘safe’ and non-threatening – the activities in TeachingUnplugged are designed towards that end.

You and Luke Meddlings jointly wrote‘Teaching Unplugged’, a comprehensiveguide to Dogme ELT, and it won theELTons award for Innovation in the year2010. How important is the award foryou?

The award was important only insofar that itacknowledged that Dogme ELT had made (orwas making) a valid contribution to languageteaching methodology – that it was not just a‘fad’.

Some scholars are of the opinion that it isgood to have no methods while teaching alanguage. What is your take on it?

I think that what they mean is that it is ill-advised to slavishly follow a particularmethod when it is patently inappropriate orlacking in plausibility (see next point). Butyou cannot teach without adhering to a set ofprinciples about both language and learning,even if these are not explicit. That is to say,every teacher has a ‘method’ in the sense thatthey have a theory at to how languages arebest learned in classrooms.

Prabhu in his article titled “There is nobest method – why?” (TESOL Quarterly,24, 1990) explores the concept “teachers’sense of plausibility”. Are you alsoconvinced that there is no good or badmethod?

I tend to agree with Prabhu in the sense thatthe ultimate arbiter of a method’s probity isthe teacher him or herself, and that if youare not convinced by a method, it will notwork for you. As Jane Spiro (2013, p. 218)writes, in comparing different methods, ‘thecritical factor in success is the commitmentand belief of the teacher in the methods heor she is using, and the continuing reflectionof the teacher as to whether these methodsare making a positive difference.’

I presume that Dogme ELT is all forcorpus-based grammar teaching and notfor pedagogic grammar. Can we say thatto teach authentic English, it is importantto teach corpus-based grammar?

First of all, there is no contradiction betweencorpus-based grammar and pedagogicgrammar: if we are going to teach pedagogic


grammar then it should be corpus-based, inthe sense that the selection and sequencingof syllabus items should be informed byfindings in corpus linguistics, particularlywith regard to the typical register in whichparticular items are found, and their relativefrequency. But Dogme ELT rejects the ideaof a pre-selected syllabus of items, whethercorpus-based or not, and instead recognizesthe pedagogic value of the learner’s syllabus– that is the syllabus that emerges naturallythrough engagement with real languagetasks. As David Willis memorably said,

‘In helping learners manage their insightsinto the target language we should beconscious that our starting point is thelearner’s grammar of the language. It is thelearner who has to make sense of the insightsderived from input, and learners can onlydo this by considering new evidence aboutthe language in the light of their currentmodel of the language’ (Willis, 1994:56).

What do you do when you are notthinking about or working on ELT?

I am probably asleep. ;-)

I am happy to know that you wereinfluenced by Stephen Krashen, the mostinfluential voice in language acquisitionand education activist. About six monthsago I interviewed Dr Krashen. To myquestion whether he would like to beknown as a linguist or as an activist, hesaid, “I would like the ideas I haveworked with to be known, both amongacademics and the public, so the answeris both.” Mr Thornbury, what do youwish to be known as?

I will never earn the respect of academicsto the extent that Krashen has, since I havenot really been part of the researchcommunity: my role has been to mediatebetween the academics and the practitioners,so I hope I am respected by the academicswhose work I interpret, and appreciated bythe practitioners for whom I interpret it.

Albert P’Rayan, Education Columnist andFreelance Trainer based at Chennai


This article was published earlier in JELT,Vol. 59-1, January-February 2017 Issue.

The Journal of Teaching and Research in English Literature (JTREL)The Journal of Teaching and Research in English Literature (JTREL), launchedin July 2009, is an international double-blind peer-reviewed open access journalaimed at encouraging scholarly exchange among teachers and researchers ofliteratures written in English. It publishes research articles of quality, reviews,author interviews, and poems and other creative writings. It welcomes contributionsnot only from senior scholars, but also from researchers who are in the earlyyears of their career.The journal is published online four times a year by the English language Teachers’Association of India (ELTAI). There is no access or publication fee. Articles canbe submitted throughout the year. They may be sent to: [email protected] a copy (Cc) to the editor Dr. Shaila Mahan at: [email protected] our website (www.jtrel.in) for policies and submission guidelines as well asfor back issues of the journal.


Aesthetics of Reception: Shakespeare Criticism down the AgesM S Nagarajan

An anonymous critic once declared, with alittle bit of pardonable jingoism, that if allthe writings on Hamlet were to be collectedand piled one upon another, it would touchthe nearest planet! Fun apart, none can denythat of all writers in this cosmos, it is the Bard-of-Avon who has elicited the widest responseto his works from all over the world. Layreaders, students, scholars, critics, theatre-goers, translators—indeed all of them havemarvelled at what Harold Bloom terms himas the ‘human invention.’ It is well-nighimpossible to put together all the reactionswhich have been so continuously pouringover the four centuries. I intend to restrictmyself to the critical output on Shakespeareby established critics ever since the playswere staged.

In his own time, Shakespeare met withfavourable response; and right from theRestoration in 1660 onwards critics andeditors began their focus on the dramatic textand language of Shakespeare and quitenaturally the attention shifted from theatreperformance to the text, the printed version.A vantageous point to begin our journeywould be to start from John Dryden who inhis Essay on Dramatic Poesy (1668) offersthis remark:

To begin, then, with Shakespeare. He was theman who of all modern, and perhaps ancientpoets, had the largest and mostcomprehensive soul. All the images of naturewere still present to him, and he drew them,not laboriously, but luckily; when he

describes anything, you may more than seeit, you may feel it too. Those who accuse himto have wanted learning, give him the greatercommendation: he was naturally learned; heneeded not the spectacle of books to readnature; he looked inwards, and found herthere. I cannot say he is everywhere alike;were he so, I should do him injury to comparehim with the greatest of mankind, He is manytimes flat, insipid; his comic wit degeneratinginto clenches, his serious swelling intobombast. But he is always great, when somegreat occasion is presented to him; no mancan ever say he had a fit subject to his wit,and did not then raise himself as high abovethe rest of the poets.

It was Dryden who declared that the credit ofinitiating the genre of the tragicomedy goesto Shakespeare for till then ‘the sock and thebuskin were not worn by the same poet’, thatis, the genres of the tragedy and comedy werekept apart from each other and were notpractised by one and the same poet.

Samuel Johnson’s edition of Shakespeare(1765) was the sixth edition of the great poetin terms of history of editions (after the folio).The earlier ones were by Nicholas Rowe,Alexander Pope, Lewis Theobald andWilliam Warburton. All of these textualdetails connected with the definitive,authoritative editions were updated andpublished by the great bibliographer W.W.Greg as Editorial Problems in Shakespeare.On his own method of textual editing andemendation, Johnson was of the view that


that reading is right which requires manywords to prove it wrong, and that emendationis wrong which cannot without much labourappear to be right. In form and spirit, hefollows the earlier prefaces. The Prefacewhich was intended as the introduction to hisedition of Shakespeare is Johnson’s first workin extended criticism. There are seven unitsin this long essay: Shakespeare as a poet ofnature, a defence of his tragicomedy, his style,his defects, and attack on the dramatic unitiesin general, the historical background todrama, and finally, his editorial practice.There are some inconsistencies in his viewson tragicomedy, in his praise of Shakespeareand the later attack on him, and on his style—”A quibble to Shakespeare, what luminousvapours are to the traveller; he follows it atall adventures; it is sure to lead him out ofthe way, and sure to engulf him in themire…… A quibble was to him the fatalCleopatra for which he lost the world, andwas content to lose it—but these were thecharacteristic defects—not taken seriously—of his age.” In his own Johnsonian language,his estimate of immortal Shakespeare, whoit was said knew little Greek and less Latin,runs thus:

The work of a correct and regular writer is agarden accurately formed and diligentlyplanted varied with shades and scented withflowers; the composition of Shakespeare isa forest in which oaks extend their branches,and pines tower in the air, interspersedsometimes with weeds and brambles, andsometimes giving shelter to myrtles and toroses; filling the eye with awful pomp, andgratifying the mind with endless diversity.Other poets display cabinets of preciousrarities, minutely finished, wrought into

shape, and polished into brightness.Shakespeare opens a mine which containsgold and diamonds in inexhaustible plenty,though clouded by incrustations, debased byimpurities, and mingled with a mass ofmeaner minerals.

When you come next to the Romantic age,here is Coleridge’s dispassionate judgement:

As proof positive of his unrivalledexcellence, I should like to try Shakespeareby this criterion. Make out your amplestcatalogue of all the human faculties, asreason, or the moral law, the will, the feelingof the coincidence or the two called theconscience, the understanding, or prudence,wit, fancy, imagination, judgment, and thenof the objects on which these are to beemployed, as the beauties, the terrors, andthe seeming caprices of nature, thecapabilities, that is, the actual and the idealof the human mind, conceive as an individualor a social being, as in innocence or in guilt,in a play-paradise or in a war field oftemptation: and then compare withShakespeare under each of these heads all orany of the writers in prose and verse that haveever lived! Who, that is competent to judgedoubts the result?

Charles and his sister Mary Lamb were avidreaders of Elizabethan drama. It is said theyread together all the plays of Shakespearetwice over every year. As a regular theatre-goer, Lamb felt that the depth ofShakespeare’s plays cannot be seen throughocular aids; they have to be felt on the pulsethrough an imaginative response that can beaided only by reading. Stage presentationcannot do justice to the play. His work Onthe Tragedies of Shakespeare came out in


1811. The tragic experience of a play willalways remain ‘unplumbed andunplummable by the best actors andproducers.’

Appreciation of a play by Shakespearethrough his character portrayal begins withWilliam Hazlitt, one of the most notablecritics of the Romantic age. In his trend-setting book Characters of Shakespeare’sPlays (1817), he evaluates the playwright onthe basis of the real, life-like portrayal of hischaracters. “Macbeth and Lear, Othello andHamlet are usually reckoned Shakespeare’sfour principal tragedies. Lear stands first forthe profound intensity of passion; Macbethfor the wilderness of the imagination and therapidity of action; Othello for the progressiveinterest and powerful alternations of feeling;Hamlet for the refined development ofthought and sentiment.” With him beganwhat has now come to be called the characterschool of Shakespearean criticism, later onto be taken up for more serious study andinterpretation by Dr A.C. Bradley. Charles DeQuincey’s famous essay “On the knockingat the Gate in Macbeth” is a penetrating andphilosophic piece of criticism. The Porterscene (II, 3) in which Macduff and Lennoxknock at the gates of Duncan’s castleInverness is usually taken to mean a comicinterlude to relieve the mental tension of theafter effect of the most foul murder. “We mustbe made sensible that the world of ordinarylife is suddenly arrested—laid asleep—tranced—racked into a dead armistice; timemust be annihilated; relation to things withoutabolished; and all must be self-withdrawninto a deep syncope and suspension of earthlypassion. Hence it is that when the deed isdone, when the work of darkness is perfect

… the knocking at the gate is heard; and itmakes known audibly that the reaction hascommenced….” The Scottish philosopherand historian Thomas Carlyle in his famouswork On Heroes and Hero-worship remarksthat history is nothing but the biography ofthe Great Man. In the light of this remark heputs to test Shakespeare’s work andconcludes that he is a hero poet. LikewiseCarlyle’s contemporary, the Americanphilosopher, essayist and transcendalistEmerson in his Representative Men eulogisesand extols the virtues in Shakespeare’s works.The two of them opine that it wasShakespeare who had created the Europeanimaginative empire.

Criticism came to occupy its place in theuniversities only in the beginning of thetwentieth century. Until then men of letterscombined criticism and scholarship andarticulated their views in journals. Thesituation now is different: criticism does not,indeed cannot, exist outside the academia.Coleridge, Hazlitt, Carlyle and De Quinceydid not belong to the university fold. GeorgeSaintsbury was the first to effect somereforms. Edward Dowden published hisbiographical criticism Shakespeare: HisMind and Art. Dr A. C. Bradley and W.R.Ker were the critics of prominence—the firstamong the academic critics—entering theuniversity for the spread of their criticalenterprise. At a time when Walter Raleighand Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch were occupyingpositions of prominence in the two citadelsof learning, criticism came into its own inthe beginning of the twentieth century. Themost distinguished of them all was theredoubtable Dr A. C. Bradley. HisShakespearean Tragedy (1904) was so much


of a bible for Indian students. It used to be awisecrack that Shakespeare failed in the‘Shakespeare’ paper because he had failed toread Bradley. A critic Guy Boas composedthis limerick: I dreamed last night thatShakespeare’s ghost/Sat for a civil servicepost,/The English paper of the year/Contained a question on King Lear,/

Which Shakespeare answered very badly/Because he had not read his Bradley.”

Middleton Murry thought that it was thegreatest single work of criticism in English,while Leavis and the Scrutiny scholarsforcibly pushed Bradley off the pedestal.Bradley was a committed student of Hegel.No wonder then that his ahead aesthetictheory was based on Hegel’s philosophy oftragedy. He was most at home in Germanmetaphysics. The English had known themeaning of tragedy from the Aristoteliantradition, and its effect on the audience byarousing the twin emotions of pity and fear.For Bradley reality is one and the same. Allthings which exist are only imperfectmanifestations of the real one, the infinite.Evil is that which alienates the part from thewhole. Finite is imperfect while the infiniteis perfect. Finally moral order is restored andharmony prevails. Tragedy as an art is thevery image of this human drama. Tragedydefends and confirms this order of the world.The tragic hero goes against this order,succumbs and submits. “We feel that thisspirit, even in the error and defeat, rises byits greatness into ideal union with the powerthat overwhelms it.” Passive suffering cannotlead to the tragic. A tragic hero is one who isresponsible for his actions. There is noelement of chance in tragedy. The concept of

poetic justice that virtue is rewarded and evilpunished is alien to the tragic spirit. Tounderstand tragedy Bradley has to look at thecharacters because actions issue through thecharacters. It is this insistence on characterthat has come in for much criticism.

L.C. Knights made a scathing attack on himin his famous essay, “How many children hadLady Lady Macbeth?” The rejection ofBradley came from different quarters: fromthose who maintained that Shakespeare’splays should be discussed as effective stagedramas; Granville Barker took upShakespeare’s dramaturgy and the practicalmatters and problems of staging Shakespearein Prefaces to Shakespeare that appeared in12 volumes over a period of 20 years; fromthose who thought that he was unhistoricalin his concept of tragedy, from those, theScrutiny group of critics who wanted tointerpret Shakespeare’s plays as poems interms of imagery and themes. Bradley reliedupon his personal emotional reactions toShakespeare. He succeeded in inculcating inus something about the profundities ofShakespeare’s plays and laid the foundationsfor a philosophic criticism of Shakespearepractised later by such well-known critics asMiddleton Murry and Wilson Knight. L.C.Knights, the co-editor of Scrutiny, however,wanted to reject this character approach thatdominated Shakespeare criticism and somockingly wrote the essay “How manychildren?” a classic of modern criticism. Hisposition is that “the only profitable approachto Shakespeare is a consideration of his playsas dramatic poems, of his use of language toobtain a total complex emotional response.”He demonstrates this method by exploringthe twin themes of reversal of values and


unnatural disorder in the play Macbeth by aclose examination treating it as a poem andnot as a play. This attention to the organicpoetic unity that expresses the intention ofthe playwright was the next step inShakespeare criticism, followed by a greatmany New critics like Derek Traversi(Approach to Shakespeare), Robert Heilman(This Great Stage) among others. This lop-sided insistence on the words alone to theexclusion of other elements such as the plotand constructive features of the play came infor rejection at the hands of a group Neo-Aristotelians. They argued in favour oftreating the play as play taking intoconsideration all constitutive elements: plot,character, dialogue, music and spectacle allof which together build up a play. RonaldCrane, Elder Olson and others formed thisgroup which came to be known as theChicago Neo-Aristotelians.

After the advent of Structuralism andDeconstruction, Shakespeare criticism tooka different turn, veering away from theinterpretative methodology, spearheaded bythe New Historicists Stephen Greenblatt andhis followers. New Historicism is based on aparallel reading of literary and non-literarytexts (chosen from the archive) both of whichbelong roughly to the same historical period.It does not privilege the literary text. It doesnot attempt to ‘foreground’ the literary textand treat history as its background as wasdone by Tillyard in his Elizabethan WorldPicture (1943). Literary and all otherdiscourses are given equal importance: theone is used to read and interpret the other.The two are seen to mutually interrogate,contradict, modify and inform each other. Inother words, it textualises history and

historicises the text. Social structures aredetermined by ‘discursive practices.’ Theirhigh powered journal Representationsbecame its organ, promoting essays that gavea historicist reading of literature of theRenaissance and Elizabethan age. It is moreof a practice than an interpretation or a theory.To quote Greenblatt, “the work of art is theproduct of a negotiation between a creatoror class of creators, equipped with a complex,communally shared repertoire ofconventions, and the institutions andpractices of society.” Most of the plays ofShakespeare have been subjected to this newhistoricist reading and this has marked a newwave in Shakespeare criticism.

The British version Cultural Materialism,a crit ical method of enquiry gainedcurrency in the mid-1980s. JonathanDollimore and Catherine Sinfield in theirbook of essays (Political Shakespeare) onreligion, ideology and power in the dramaof Shakespeare and his contemporariesprovided a reading based on politicalcommitment. This served as an alternativeto the conventional Christian framework ofShakespeare criticism which had run itscourse for more than four hundred years.By way of an example, let us juxtapose thereadings of Greenblatt and Dollimore ofKing Lear. In his essay “Shakespeare andthe Exorcists”Greenblatt makes acomparative study of the play in relationto an unnoticed social document, ADeclaration of Egregious PopishImposture written by one Harsnett in 1603two years before Shakespeare’s play madeits first appearance. Harsnett exposesexorcists as frauds and persuades the Stateto punish them. Greenblatt proves with


textual evidence that Shakespeare uses thetheatre for a similar purpose of ritualdemystification of the supernatural. Thereis a deeper and unexpressed institutionalexchange of the two texts. Dollimoreemploying a similar method of engagingwith the historical, social and politicalrealities concludes that the materialistconception challenges all forms of literarycri ticism premised on essential isthumanism and idealist culture. Such aradical reading of Shakespeare throwsoverboard the idea of a timeless, humaneand civilising Shakespeare replacing it withthe one anchored in social, political andideological concepts of his historicalmoment.

Leaving aside these critical estimates basedon some or the other critical assumptions,there have been an enormous variety ofcontributions on different aspects ofShakespeare studies. The OxfordRenaissance scholar Dover Wilson, theeditor of the New Cambridge series ofShakespeare’s works along with ArthurQuiller-Couch wrote two influentialstudies, “What happens in Hamlet?” and“Fortunes of Falstaff” as an answer toBradley’s “The Rejection of Falstaff.”Terry Eagleton’s Shakespeare and Society(1967) and William Shakespeare (1986) aretwo major studies based on his treatmentof the literary text in relation to moral,historical and political realities.Shakespeare’s works are inseparable fromElizabethan social issues. In the WesternCanon, a work by Harold Bloom whichmakes a list of 22 authors who form thefulcrum, the foundation for a liberaleducation affords the central place to

Shakespeare and Dante. The two havedivided the western world between them.For sheer cognitive acuity, linguistic energyand power of imagination they achievecanonical centrality.

‘Negative Capability’ and ‘ObjectiveCorrelative’ are two among the best knowncritical vocabulary used in relation toShakespeare’s works. Keats, definingNegative Capability says, “At once it struckme, what quality went to form a man ofAchievement, especially in literature, andwhich Shakespeare possessed soenormously—that is Negative Capabilitywhen a man is capable of being inuncertainties, mysteries, doubts withoutany irritable reaching after fact andreason.” T. S. Eliot coins the term‘objective correlative’ in his famous essay“Hamlet and his Problems”. “The only wayof expressing emotion in the form of art isby finding an ‘objective correlative,’ inother words, a set of objects, a situation, achain of events which shall be the formulafor that particular emotion, such that whenthe external facts which terminate insensory experience are given, the emotionis immediately evoked.” Using this formulaEliot dismissed the play Hamlet as anart istic failure. The yearbook ofShakespeare studies and productionShakespeare Survey has been publishinginternational scholarship in Englishregularly since 1948, and many of its essayshave become classics of Shakespearecriticism.

There have been poetic tributes to theBard of Avon pouring in from all quartersall the ages. It was Ben Jonson, who first


composed “To the memory of my belovedauthor William Shakespeare.” It is mostappropriate to conclude with the best well-known of them by Matthew Arnold:

Others abide our question. Thou art free.

We ask and ask Thou smilest and art still

Out-topping knowledge. For the loftiesthill,

Who to the stars uncrowns his majesty,

Planting his steadfast footsteps in the sea,

Making the heaven of heavens hisdwelling-place,

Spares but the cloudy border of his space

To the foiled searching of mortality;

And thou who didst the stars and sunbeamsdid know,

Self-schooled, self-scanned, self-honoured,self-secured,

Didst tread on earth unguessed at. Betterso!

All pains the immortal spirit must endure,

All weakness which impairs, all griefswhich bow,

Find their sole speech in that victoriousbrow.

Nothing can please many, and please long,but just representations of human nature. –”

Samuel Johnson

Dr. M. S. Nagarajan, (Formerly) Professorof English, University of Madras.

This article was published earlier in JELT,Vol. 59-1, January-February 2017 Issue.

OBITUARYIt is with a deep sense of sorrow that we bring to you the sad news of the demise ofDr Francis P. Jayachandran, former principal, Vellaiyan Chettiar HigherSecondary School, Ennore (Chennai), but more importantly, one of the foundermembers of ELTAI, who contributed significantly to its growth and development.In the early 1990s when the then president Dr S. Rajagopalan called for monthlymeetings, in a dingy, dark, airless shed of a bungalow in Mandaveli, in addition tothe secretary Dr V. Saraswathi, treasurer, P. Kesavalu, Editor of the journal, DrMohamed Iqbal, the members who made the quorum were Dr Dawood Shah, Dr

Francis Jayachandran, and Dr Raja Ganesan. Serious deliberations were conducted over ‘High Tea’,consisting of two Marie biscuits and a cup of hot, watery tea! And Dr Jayachandran came all the wayfrom Ennore to attend the meeting and contribute to the discussions.Perhaps, the turning point in the history of our Association was the grand annual conference, hosted byDr Jayachandran. The teachers and children of his school worked tirelessly. The conference was a greatsuccess and the ELT community came to know of our work. He also edited JELT from 1995 to 2001.Dr Jayachandran was deeply religious. His integrity, honesty, straightforwardness, and commitmentwere remarkable. He attended every annual conference without fail and was at the venue from 7am to7pm. He also mobilised members for the association. But for the tireless, selfless work of such stalwarts,ELTAI would never have grown into an international body. Francis, as in the famous prayer of St.Francis of Assisi, believed, “It is in giving that we receive.” And, he is not dead, but, “in dying, he isborn into eternal life.” May His Soul Rest in Peace!

Dr V. Saraswathi


Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. And soam I venturing on reviewing a masterpiece ofthe century in ELT global history by amastermind in ELT, Dr. N S Prabhu. There havebeen quite a few reviews published already. Whyanother, one may wonder. Well, this is a tokenof gurudakshina to a Mahaguru from a humblenincompoop disciple who learnt the ABC of ELTunder his inspiring guidance.This is, in a sense, the academic autobiographyof an ELT genius with keen insights andmindboggling perceptions of more than fivedecades. In another sense, it is also the biographyof every committed teacher of English theorizingon his own through trial and error, successes andfailures, but not having the courage to sharethem. In his author’s note, Prabhu refers to thebook as a collection of “my various papers frompast decades, mostly written for conferences, intoa book form.” A majority of them showsuccessive stages of continuing thought on threeaspects of pedagogy.According to the editor of the volume, GeethaDurairajan, “the twenty-nine articles in thisvolume encapsulate a lifetime of contemplationand articulation on language pedagogy.” Thepublishers say this book “captures differentstages in an intellectual journey from making aquiet entry into the world of ELT through anarticle published in a daily newspaper in 1966to becoming one of the best-known practitionersand radical thinkers in the field.”Just a cursory run through the chapter titlesbrings to us the amazing, comprehensive,intellectual acumen of the author. Some titles aredeceptively simple and straightforward: e.g.‘Rational Approach to English Teaching’; ‘Three

BOOK REVIEWSPrabhu, N. S. Perceptions of Language Pedagogy. Chennai, India: Orient BlackswanPvt. Ltd., 2019.

Modules in Second Language Pedagogy’;‘Communicative Language Teaching’; ‘ThreePerceptions’. Some titles startle you into a newawareness: e.g. ‘There is No Best Method –Why?’; ‘Teaching is At Most Hoping For theBest’; ‘Should Materials Be Prescribed?’ Othertitles present conflicts: ‘Language Acquisition– Equipping or Enabling?’; ‘Materials asSupport’; ‘Materials as Constraint’; ‘A CaseAgainst Practice’.Here is a treasure trove of concepts: directcontact vs. remote control; acquisition throughdeployment; teacher’s sense of plausibility;procedural syllabus; ideation vs. ideology;teaching language for / as / throughcommunication. Researchers in ELT can take updoctoral studies on each of these. Englishteachers find here ideas which “I have toyed withbut never fully carried out”. Trainers have hereconcepts for workshops galore. Finally, oursecond language learners in India from othermedium schools, rural background, will beginto look forward to English classes when theirteachers implement the ideas herein. Before weclose, just a couple of quotable quotes. “Perhapscomprehension is like nutrition, leading toproduction, while remedial grammar is themedication for the ailments of production.”“Teaching is at most hoping for the best.”If you haven’t read this book, you have missedsomething valuable in your academic journey.Hurry up and get a copy. Happy reading!PS: Don’t miss the icing on the cake – theinterview of the author by the editor in the lasttwo chapters – the quintessence of ELT.Dr. V. Saraswathi, (Retd) Professor of English,University of Madras.


Cenoz, Jasone and Gorter, Durk (2015). Multilingual education: Between languagelearning and translanguaging. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Series Editors:Carol A.Chapelle and Susan Hunston [Pages: 258; ISBN 978-1-107-47751-3]

As a researcher/teacher in a naturalmultilingual societal and educationalcontext, the pedagogic support that otherlanguages can render to English languageeducation has been a complex and intriguingpoint of interest. The question that becomespertinent yet guilt-laden (at least forteachers) is: is it legitimate to use otherlanguages that learners possess and teachersknow in the teaching of English? A lot ofteachers and learners do use theirmultilingual resources but justify it as anecessity emanating from a deficientEnglish competence of learners. They do notview such instances as naturally occurringmultilingual practices of communicating.What this book does is to propose andoperationalise a continuum along whichsuch instances of multi-language resourceswill be seen.The notion of multilingual practices inpedagogic and social contexts has recentlywitnessed a spurt of research investigationsfrom an array of theoretical orientationsincluding Applied Linguistics, SecondLanguage Acquisition, Sociolinguistics andSociocultural Theory and Pragmatics. Insimple terms, multilingual practices involvethe learner/language users’ use of a repertoireof multilingual and multimodal resourcessuch as code switching, mixing and meshing,or a choice of strategies in communicatingone’s intentions. Theoreticians argue that thelegitimate acceptance of the multilinguals’language use behaviour involving themultilinguals’ repertoires of resources would

not only value multisensory, multimodal,multidimensional nature of learner resources,but also counter the normative, monolingualand ideologically driven pedagogic practices(Clyne 2008; Canagarajah 2011). This bookis a step closer to understanding andinvestigating such practices. The core studiesreported in the book offer uniqueinterpretations and operationalisation of thenotion of multilingual resources either alongthe contextual/pedagogical planes, themethodological planes, or the analyticalplanes. So, beyond question the book is aresource to teachers and researchers alike.The book begins with the introductorychapter where Cenoz and Gorter (2015: 5-6), in referring to the “approaches taken byresearchers when studying interactionsbetween languages or language features inthe context of multilingual education”,propose a continuum which shows positionsof “crossing over of applied linguistics andsecond language acquisition theory tosociocultural theory to social approach tolanguage” (Figure 1). At one end of thecontinuum is the deliberate effort taken/ putin by teachers and learners to becomemultilingual, i.e. to build competencies inlanguages. At the other end is the ability ofbeing multilingual, i.e. to wield thecompetencies in order to code intentions.Instead of dichotomizing the two ends, thecontinuum attempts to see interventions thataim at enabling communicative competenceand studies that investigate the fluid use ofcommunicative competence along the


continuum. While doing so, the authors pointout that languages are still seen as codesbut their borders are permeable and thatthe two concepts (i.e., acquiring languagecompetence and using the language

competence) are dynamic, and they interactand develop over time. The schematicdiagram not only summarizes the perspectivebut also points out the professional interestof researchers.

Operationalising the framework, the studiesreported in this book would find a place oneither end of the continuum. Studies that fallalong the ‘becoming multilingual’ end includepedagogic efforts such as: a systematicintegration of Chinese as a cognitive supportto enable science knowledge in school goinglearners in Hongkong (in Luk and Lin’schapter); integrating multilingual strategies inpeer-collaborations (in Ballinger’s chapter);and tapping cognate relationship betweenlanguages (Arteagoitia and Howard’s chapter).In his chapter Levine proposes the need toanalyze the nexus of eventualities that triggercode-choices in multilingual practices and thenargues for “curricular initiatives for enhancing

multilingual competencies”. Kramsch andHuffmaster point out the “paradox of foreignlanguage learning” where teaching the‘standard’ language becomes the norm, whichcontradicts the fluid blending of languages indynamic and situated contexts of meaningmaking. Basing their chapter on how theirstudents bring in their multilingual resourcesin a series of translation projects, they arguefor the need to integrate such practices intoforeign language teaching.Falling on the ‘being’ multilingual end of thecontinuum, the authors of the chaptershighlight how ‘being’ multilinguals alreadyimpacts the participants’ language usebehaviour. Fuller, reporting on the fluid

Figure 1: The ‘Multilingual’ Continuum (Cenoze & Gorter, 2015, p.6)


language choice behaviour of learners engagedin a task completion, contends that bilingualclassrooms possess the potential to questionand resist the normative monolingualideologies in the educational space. Creese,Blackedge and Takki report that ‘semioticreorientation’ could result in the extremelysituated, dynamic and constructed negotiationsbetween teacher and learner interactions in acomplementary school context. In a similartone, Wei, through ‘moment analysis’, talksof how the participants bring in theirrepertoires of experiences in their critical andcreative language use events. Gracias et al. intheir chapter argue for the need to create spaceswhere ‘being’ multilinguals can mediate‘becoming’ multilinguals and vice versa.David Block in the final chapter drawssimilarities between the being and becomingends of the continuum to the debate on‘language learning’ and ‘language use’between Susan Gass (1998) and Firth andWagner (1997), and calls for a change throughcurricular integration of the tenets of‘becoming’ and ‘being’ multilingual and achange that can transpose into pedagogicpractices and policy-based innovations – achallenge indeed for researchers and policymakers to garner evidence to counter the all-prevalent monolingual mindset in curriculum,practice and policy.In conclusion, whether one reads the bookas a teacher or as a researcher who isinterested in the ‘becoming’ or the ‘being’end of the continuum, one has valuable take-away points. For the teacher the bookpresents a possible array of strategies,components of language resources and waysin which learner repertoires of resources canbe tapped for enabling language capabilities

in a pedagogic space. For the researcher, thebook presents a wide array of theoreticalarguments, research designs andmethodologies, procedures of data analysesand conclusions. Beyond doubt this book isa welcome addition to the literature onmultilingual education.AcknowledgementThe reviewer acknowledges the supportprovided by the University GrantsCommission in the form of a contingencygrant awarded.ReferencesCanagarajah, S. (2011). Code-meshing inacademic writing: Identifying teachablestrategies of translanguageing. The ModernLanguage Journal, 95(3): 403-417.Clyne, Michale. (2008). The monolingualmindset as an impediment to the developmentof plurilingual potential in Australia.Sociolinguistic studies, 2 (3), 347-368.

Gass, S. (1998). Apples and oranges: or Whyapples are not oranges and don’t need to be. Aresponse to Firth and Wagner. The ModernLanguage Journal, 82 (1), 286-306. Firth andWagner (1997). On discourse, communicationand some fundamental concepts in SLAresearch. The Modern Language Journal,81(3), 286- 300.

Firth and Wagner (1998). SLA Property: Notrespassing! The Modern Language Journal,82 (1), 91-104. Uma Maheshwari Email:[email protected]. Uma Maheshwari, Nalsar University ofLaw, Hyderabad.This review was earlier published in JELT,Vol.57, No.3, May-June 2015 (Golden JubileeYear Issue).

The English Language Teachers’ Association of India was registered on August 7, 1974 by the late Padmashri S. Natarajan, a noted educationist of our country.

Objectives of the Association

l To provide a forum for teachers of English to meet periodically and discuss problems relating to the teaching of English in India.

l To help teachers interact with educational administrators on matters relating to the teaching of English.

l TodisseminateinformationintheELTfieldamong teachers of English.

l To undertake innovative projects aimed at the improvement of learners’ proficiencyin English.

l To promote professional solidarity among teachers of English at primary, secondary and university levels.

l To promote professional excellence among its members in all possible ways.

The Journal is sent free to all the registered and active members of the Association. In addition to this print journal, ELTAI brings out three quarterly online journals: Journal of Teaching and Research in English Literature, The Journal of Taechnology for ELT, and The ELT Practitioner.

ELTAI also conducts professional development activities including offline and onlineworkshops, webinars, and discussion meetings on current needs and trends in ELT.We host annual, national and international conferences and regional programmes on specific areasrelevant to ELT today. Delegates from all over the country as well as from outside participate in them, present papers and conduct workshops.

PRESENT OFFICE-BEARERSPatron - Dr. S. Rajagopalan President - Dr. Sanjay Arora Vice President - Dr. Shravan Kumar Vice President - Dr. Reddy Sekhar Reddy Secretary - Dr. K. ElangoJoint Secretary - Dr. Ramakrishna BhiseJoint Secretary - Mr. R. H. Prakash Treasurer - Mr. P. R. KesavuluCoordinator - Dr. J. Mangayarkarasi

ADDITIONAL MEMBERS OF THE ECDr. P. N. RamaniDr. S. MohanrajDr. C.A. Lal

PRESIDENTS Prof. R. Krishnamurthy (Aug. 1974 – Oct. 1985)Dr. S. Rajagopalan (Nov. 1985 - July 2008) Dr. Amol Padwad (Aug. 2008 - Mar. 2012)Dr. Sanjay Arora (Apr. 2012 - Dec.2014)Dr. G. A. Ghanshyam (Jan. 2015 - Oct. 2018)Dr. Sanjay Arora (Jan. 2019 - till date)

SECRETARIES Prof. M. Duraiswamy (Aug. 1974 - June 1981)Prof. B. Ardhanareeswaran (July 1981 - Oct. 1985)Dr. K. K.Mohamed Iqbal (Nov. 1985 - Aug. 1989Dr. V. Saraswathi (Sep. 1989 - Mar. 2007)Dr. K. Elango (Apr. 2007 - till date)We sincerely appeal to ALL teachers of English as well as post-graduate students and research scholars to become members of ELTAI and strengthen the association so that it may serve the cause of English language and literature education in India.ALL correspondence relating to the association should be addressed either to: [email protected] or to: [email protected].

Website: www.eltai.inPh.: 9344425159

JOURNAL OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING (JELT)Journal of English Language Teaching (JELT), launched in 1965, is the oldest and

flagship journal of the English Language Teachers’ Association of India (ELTAI).

Dr. Neeru Tandon (EDITOR)Dr Anjita Singh Dr Vandhana SharmaProf. Binod Mishra Dr Vasistha BhargaviProf. Prantik Banerjee Dr Veena SelvamDr Sudhir K Arora Dr Uma Maheswari Chimirala

EDITORIAL BOARD

All correspondence relating to the journal, JELT, should be addressed to the Editor, Dr. Neeru Tandon, at: [email protected]

EDITORSProf. R. Krishnamurthy (June 1965 - Oct. 1984)Prof. B. Ardhanareeswaran (Nov. 1984 - Oct. 1985)Dr. K. K. Mohamed Iqbal (Nov. 1985 - Dec. 1994) Mr. Francis P. Jayachandran (Jan. 1995 - June 2001)Dr. V. Saraswathi (July 2001 - Aug. 2013)Dr. P. N. Ramani (Sept. 2013 - Aug. 2016)Dr. Albert P. Rayan (Sept. 2016 – Feb. 2019)Dr. P. N. Ramani (Mar. 2019 - Dec. 2020)Dr. Neeru Tandon (Jan. 2021 - till date)

PUBLISHERS

Sri. S. Natarajan (June 1965 - Apr. 1974)

Prof. M. Duraiswamy (May 1974 - Oct. 1984)

Ms. N. Krishna Bai (Nov. 1984 - Dec. 1992)

Dr. S. Rajagopalan (Jan. 1993 - Mar. 2004)

Dr. K. Elango (Apr. 2004 - till date)


Periodicity

Journal of English Language Teaching (JELT) is published six times a year: Jan.-Feb.; Mar.-Apr.; May-June; July-Aug.; Sept.-Oct.; and Nov.-Dec.

Contributions

Articles on ELT are welcome. Share your ideas, innovations, experiences, teaching tips, teaching-learning resources with your fellow professionals.

Length: 2000-2500 words

There should be an abstract in about 100 words at the beginning and all the necessary

Recommended by the Director of School Education (Proceedings D Dis No. 75301/76 dt 21 March 1979)and the Director of Collegiate Education (RC No. 11059 / J3 / 2000 dt 28 February 2000)

information about all the references cited.

Articles should be sent only as an email attachment (AS A WORD DOCUMENT) to: [email protected] or [email protected] (copy to: [email protected]).

CDs and hard copies will not be accepted.

It should be declared by the author(s) that the article submitted is free from plagiarised sections, that it has not already been published, and that it is not being considered by any other journal for publication.

The views expressed in the articles published in JELT are the contributors’ own, and not necessarily those of the Journal.

A f

oru

A f

oru

m f

or p

rofe

ssio

nal

dev

elop

men

tELT@IRNI No. 8469/1965

JOURNAL OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING, English Bimonthly

Journal of English Language Teaching (JELT) is the oldest journal of the English Language Teachers’ Association of India. It is a bimonthly, which offers a forum for teachers and researchers to voice their views on the teaching of English language and literature.


16/20, Sowrashtra Nagar, II Street, Choolaimedu

Chennai - 600 094.

E-mail: [email protected] & [email protected] Web: www.eltai.inPh: 9344425159

Printed and Published by Dr. K. Elango on behalf of the Society

for the Promotion of Education in India. Printed at SRI

AIYNAR PRINTERS, New No. 10, Sowrashtra Nagar, II Street,

Choolaimedu, Chennai-600 094.

ISSN 0973-5208

Vol. 63/5 September - October 2021Rs. 15/-

(A Peer Reviewed Journal)

Documents

JOURNAL OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING, English Bimonthly …