Psychological reality of teaching
Lingua Franca Core |
|
Michał Remiszewski (Vienna)
|
The rapidly changing status of English,
functioning worldwide primarily as a lingua franca, has motivated a number of
researchers to propose a new model of the language for learners of English as
an international language (henceforth EIL). In the area of phonology, Jennifer
Jenkins proposed the so-called Lingua Franca Core (henceforth LFC) – a set of
element of English phonology necessary to ensure mutual intelligibility in the
EIL context. Features present in the native model of English, which remain
outside the LFC, are not recommended as elements of instruction because they
are regarded as unteachable and useless from the point of view of communicative
needs of the learner of EIL. In this way the role of the native speaker and
their pronunciation norms is eradicated from the model.
Paradoxically, although proponents of LFC to a large extent justify
their standpoint on psychological grounds, it is the psychological aspect of
the model which is one of its major weaknesses. It will be argued that the
argumentation in favor of LFC is deficient at at least three levels of its
psychological reality.
At the first
level, the issue of the “market demand” for the model will be discussed.
Although the advocates of the LFC speak of the urgent need for changing the
existing model of English as a foreign language, little if any relevant
supporting data follow these claims. As a result, while LFC proposes far-reaching
concrete measures to be employed in concrete educational contexts, there is
hardly any reference made to “market data” which would show whether learners of
EIL really need the new “product.”
As for the second
level of the psychological reality of LFC, affective mechanisms present during
the actual learning process will be reviewed. It will be argued that in an
attempt to provide a psychological justification for the model, advocates of
the LFC have selected an extremely narrow type of the learner, leaving aside
the vast diversity of motivations varying according to the learner’s age and
cultural background.
At the third
level the discussion will concern possible socio-psychological side effects,
should the new model find a wide implementation. One of the main problems in
this department comes from the fact that by focusing on efficiency of
communication as the only function of EIL, supporters of LFC dismiss
socio-psychological aspects inherent in most types of language use, also in the
EIL context. This point is closely connected with the feasibility of
introducing LFC as a means to deliver learners of EIL from the feeling of
anxiety. According to the supporters of LFC, the model promises to alleviate
the stress and the sense of inferiority generated in the learner of EIL by the
feeling of failure in meeting native-like standards of English pronunciation.
It is claimed that while LFC may help fight this sort of anxiety, it will cause
the problem of stress to pop up elsewhere, and to more detriment to the
learners. Consequently, in the long run, the measure is likely to prove
counterproductive.