This article is © Copyright 1999 Pilgrims Ltd.  The copyright owners reserve all rights to its reproduction.

The Jackendoff  “Skeptic”  on Humanistic Language Teaching

Jane Arnold               ( General)
University of Seville, Spain

[ editorial note: HLT thanks the editor of  the IATEFL TT  SIG Newsletter 
   for permission to re-publish this article that first appeared  in the 3/2000, 
  December Issue of the Newsletter. Thanks also to Jane.

   Background:  1999 saw the publication of Jane Arnold’ (ed) AFFECT IN LANGUAGE   
   LEARNING with Cambridge. Scott Thornbury reviewed the book in the Newsletter and
   this led to Arnold and Rinvolucri writing critical pieces about the review.
   This is a second article by Jane in the debate around Scott’s review.  ]

With any change from established ways of thinking, a stimulating debate often occurs.  This can be very useful as it gives us the opportunity to pause and reflect on why we hold a particular position; in the ensuing re-examination and renewal we can reach a greater awareness of the implications of our position and make any necessary adaptions to improve it or to clarify it to avoid misinterpretations.  Adding a focus on affect and humanistic teaching to the EFL/ESL picture is no exception; interesting reactions have come forth in recent years to encourage us to engage in this process of 
reflection.

In his book Patterns in the Mind: Language and Human Nature (1993) Jackendoff carries on a dialogue with an imaginary skeptic who keeps raising pesky questions about the author’s position on how modern linguistics centers around the existence of a mental grammar. The Jackendoff skeptic always seems to be objecting for the sake of objection, no matter how many convincing arguments are put forth.  Similarly, many critics of a humanistic, affective focus on language learning seem to enjoy criticizing more than exploring and dialoguing about the issues involved.  What often seems to be going on is that these critics have preconceived notions that they want to prove at all costs, so instead of really reading “mainstream” humanistic authors, they read into them what they would like to read. (Strangely enough, they often seem to adopt an overly emotional tone to criticize the affective approach.  However, they do us a service by raising issues to be discussed and clarified. The Jackendoff skeptic might bring up the following points as he reacts, like these critics, to affective/humanistic language teaching.

Supporters of humanistic language teaching (HLT) with all their emphasis on affect are forgetting the real business of their profession: language learning.

Attention to the emotional side of learning is an important part of a holistic approach; but HLT practitioners are very aware that to be concerned with the whole person is not to be only concerned with the emotional side but rather with all sides of the learner.  It is inclusive where its critics’ approaches are often exclusive of all but cognition.  What Damasio (1994) has shown in neuroscience is that reason is  compromised if emotion is not brought into the picture. HLT emphasizes including the affective side, not to exclude cognition but because in many approaches affect is what is missing and  needs, therefore, to be added to the already existing cognitive focus in order to optimize language learning:  “it is not a question of lowering standards for students’ cognitive development, but of recognizing that it can be very beneficial for teachers to choose to focus at times on affective matters also” (Arnold, 1998:8).  Moskowitz (1978:53) proposes linguistic goals (“to practice the vocabulary of colours, parts of the body…, to practice giving and comprehending directions”) for her exercises, along with the affective goals (“to encourage being observant of  others, to encourage creativity in responses…”).  Similarly, Rinvolucri and Davis (1995:xii) suggest working with grammatical structures but in a format which has learners focusing on expressing things about themselves and others; “they absorb the grammar, at it were, through peripheral vision.  With some types of learner this is much more effective than direct, primary focus on the grammar”.  What is important is to take a broader perspective on the learning process, using more tools at our command in order to maximize language learning.

Obviously, an English class is not going to be based only or principally on  special “humanistic” activities.  Even a cursory reading of Moskowitz (1978) makes it very clear that these activities are designed to be supplemental to the main teaching programme, whatever that may be:  “Humanistic techniques can be included to supplement, review and introduce your already existing materials… The intention is not to discard (existing materials).  Include an awareness activity wherever one relates to what the students are studying or where you find it appropriate” (p.23, emphasis added).  For example, if the material being covered deals with the subjunctive “if I were you” construction or with the function of giving advice, students could be invited to think of a problem they feel comfortable discussing and in groups present their problems and receive advice from their classmates.  So in no way does HLT mean ignoring the main task of learning the language but rather integrating activities which support language learning by favourably predisposing the learner.  It means developing an atmosphere conducive to the learning process and making the learning relevant to the learner.

But it is impossible to prove that affective learning is more effective.  Humanistic teachers make extravagant claims that can’t be backed up by empirical evidence.

Stevick (1990) advises coming to an understanding of humanistic language teaching by using Popper’s method of critical thinking as a model.  According to the Popperian paradigm of scientific investigation, theories should be testable and conceivably falsifiable.  However, even Popper recognizes that not everything is as well-suited to his critical method as the physical or biological sciences are.  Some areas of thinking may be “criticizable though not testable” and an idea may “have some explanatory power even though… it is difficult to test” (1976:151,187).  When dealing with human behaviour, and language learning is a very good example, not everything can be accounted for by theories and methods which can be proved empirically.   Brumfit has questioned the testability of any teaching method because a claim to the contrary

…can only be based on either the view that human beings are more mechanical in their learning  responses than any recent discussion would allow, or the notion that we can measure and predict the quantities and qualities of all these factors.  Neither of these seems to be a sensible point of view to take. (Brumfit 1984:18-19)

In any event, affective/humanistic language teaching could be said to be a matter not of a specific method which might be contrasted empirically to other methods but of attitudes and awareness on the part of the teacher.  The questions empirical research traditionally asks are not always appropriate for the answers that affective teaching can provide.  If one holds a transmission view of the learning process which takes knowledge as “something that can be parcelled and transmitted in a linear fashion”, then perhaps those types of questions might be appropriate;  however, in a social constructivist view “learners are all individuals who will bring a different set of knowledge and experiences to the learning process and will make sense of the world and the situations they are faced with in ways that are personal to them”  (Williams, 1999:12).  From this perspective, one cannot so easily get empirical evidence about effectiveness about techniques and methods because learners bring so many different worlds into the classroom-test tube that measurement of the sort called for is indeed difficult. And then the empirical research in language acquisition studies has greatly increased our knowledge about the learning process but has so far dealt mainly with describing linguistic behaviour - the what - without arriving at many definitive answers to the how and why questions which would be of prime importance for teachers.  And researchers consistently recognize that these anwers are not to be expected for the moment, if at all.  Obviously, classroom teachers cannot wait for this research to determine their practice.

This is not to say, however, that research is not being done on the area of affective language learning, but as Reid has pointed out, we are coming to conceive of research in a broader manner.

No longer  do we confine the term to work with statistical analyses and empirical methods (although these can, of course, offer valuable insights and information).  Instead, teachers are observing, making notes, identifying and testing hypotheses…using informal as well as formal survey instruments to collect information, keeping reflective journals, and sharing ideas orally (Reid 1999:300)

It is often the case that the researcher with a humanistic focus is in close contact with the practitioner, whose classroom concerns, often of an affective, attitudinal nature, provide a useful stimulus for studies both of a qualitive and quantitative nature.  It is reasonable to expect that the growing awareness of the significance of affect for language teaching and learning will generate more research and there are indications
already of this happening (Rubio, 2000).

It is also important to keep in mind the experiential nature of the development of humanistic thought in the field of language teaching.  Teachers often move towards an affective/humanistic style of teaching when they feel dissatisfaction with something in their own context.  Underhill (1999) has described the quantum leaps that can occur first of all when the Lecturer (concerned only with the subject matter) discovers that this is not enough and so develops vertically through a new interest in methodology, becoming a Teacher, and then again when the Teacher experiences the need for further growth  and seeks the interpersonal expertise and awareness which lead to becoming a Facilitator.  Once again, perhaps the difference resulting from this teacher development cannot be measured statistically; however, the proof here could very possibly be found in the classroom experience pudding on both the learners’ and the teacher’s  plates.

Yes, but if you can’t prove a type of teaching is better, at least it should meet the criterion of usefulness.  As Gadd (1998:229) says, humanistic activities might be amusing, but “they are not of much use in training students to participate in public or academic spheres: to engage in a difficult interview at the job centre,  participate in business negotiations, write a letter to their local MP, write an essay or scientific report,… ask a landlord why repairs have not been carried out, make a speech…”

This somewhat narrow point of view seems to reduce English language teaching to a limited context. Basically, this position refers to adult learners living in an English-speaking country such as England or Australia.  Who else would need or want to do most of the things Gadd suggests?  Numan (1988) has discussed the importance of a learner-centred curriculum in which the needs and wants of students are the basis of the teaching programme.  Any EFL learner and young and adolescent learners in an ESL setting - a large part of the total learners of English - would be hard pressed to find anything more useless, less in tune with their present and short term needs and wants, than many of the suggestions offered above.

Even with communicative language teaching, which purports to provide for meaningful communication, it is not always true that this goal is achieved.  CLT class work frequently has to do with language use in specific situations: tourists in a hotel, visiting a doctor’s office, etc. However helpful this may be for some learners, many learners of English as a foreign language and of the “world Englishes” described by Crystal (1997) may never be in those situations - certainly they aren’t there now in the moment of learning - and so work based on such situations  will not be very meaningful.  Following Dewey, Csikszentmihalyi (1990) warned against mortgaging present learning to some possible future goal, and writing a letter to the local MP is certainly a distant goal for the majority of non-native learners/speakers of English.  Given the diversity of learners of English, one can never assume that any popular topic - rock music, football, cinema, travelling to London - is going to be of interest and meaningful to all.  Course planners can predict neither the very specific needs (talking to the landlord) nor the particular interests of learners.  It is just this reality that provides strong justification for humanistic language teaching.  Possibly the only topic in existence that is of interest to all students everywhere is that which HLT proposes including at times as a part of the classroom activities: oneself.

Many of these “self” activities are rather far-fetched.  I can’t imagine a Saudi businessman telling some story about his hair in an activity  that Moskowitz (1978:118-19) suggests or hyperactive teenagers doing a visualization exercise.

HLT writers are quick to point out that not all the activities they may propose are appropriate or useful for all situations.  For many reasons, including neurobiological (Schumann 1999), NO method or activity can be said to be right  for all situations and all students.  Rinvolucri and Davis (1995:114) admit that sometimes teenagers may consider rather childish some of their activities which are accepted and enjoyed precisely by businessmen, for example.  Some of these exercises may be very effective indeed with other groups;  Ehrman (1999:77) stresses the utility of what is referred to clinically as “regression in the service of the ego”, which involves a “certain amount  of reduction in psychic controls and disinhibition”.  Used properly, games and role-play can lead to a relaxation of self-imposed limits, to higher levels of creativity and empathy and to a greater acceptance of a new language identity.  All of these can bring about a more active interaction in the second language.

And techniques of visualization and mental imagery can be used in many ways to promote the language learning process; even teenagers have been shown to respond very positively  to work with mental imagery (Avila, in press).  In the area of teacher training, Thornbury (1999:4) has  provided convincing support for an image-based, metaphor-related approach to help trainees develop appropriate mental scripts, a sort of “internalized representation of a lesson’s overall shape” with which to plan effective, coherent lessons.

What is important to understand regarding  focusing on the “self” is that studies of the brain indicate that learning is optimized when personal meaning is involved. Referring to the brain’s constant tendency to search for meaning through  patterning, Caine and Caine (1994: 90) note that “for teaching to be effective, a learner must be able to create meaningful and personally relevant patterns”.  They argue that personal meaningfulness is closely related to intrinsic motivation, which has been identified as the most effective type of motivation for learning.  As Brumfit (1984:122) has said, “Only when there are messages being carried which are significant to users will there be full engagement with the linguistic code”.  Personal meaning, however, is not synonymous with therapeutic work on the self; in fact, Lozanov (1979) and others have strongly cautioned against attempts at therapy in the classroom.  Personal meaning is related to activity that connects to students’ experience and to their emotions, two key ingredients in a humanistic focus.

But with so much “touchy-feely” emphasis, classrooms  provide little more than fun and games without moving learners any closer to their language learning goals.

This could happen if humanistic teaching were misunderstood.  However, Hooper Hansen (1999:1) points out that paradoxically, though it may have an image of playfulness, humanistic/holistic teaching “has to be the strictest of disciplines” and we must avoid wasting learners’ time and intelligence with activities that do not advance their learning goals.  However, as McIver (2000:25) says, “grammar, while essential, is often not intrinsically absorbing.  Only the teacher can inject the necessary interest into a presentation lesson”, so the best alternative would seem to be language work that is focused and carefully orchestrated  and at the same time is enjoyable, personally meaningful for learners and thus highly motivating. Something we find in good affective/humanistic language teaching.  Along the same lines of avoiding misunderstandings, it should also be remembered that from a humanistic point of view self-esteem is not increased by empty praise but by ensuring learner achievement in the language.

I strongly object to the dogmatic language used by affective-humanistic authors.  For example, Moskowitz (1978:7) writes “Today’s youth cry for education that will help them make sense of their lives and the world around them.  They want learning that is more personal and human”.

Would anyone want to say that this is not true, that what today’s youth want is education that makes their lives and the world around them more confusing and learning that is impersonal and unhuman?  Her statement is even more coherent and even truer today than when  it was written over twenty years ago.   If one looks at the world facing youth today and the reactions of an unfortunately increasing number of young people who turn to violent and self-destructive acts, can we not say that education - all education, including language teaching - has a responsibility for dealing with developing personally and socially appropriate responses, with educating in the wider sense?

Actually, the language used by HLT writers is generally far from dogmatic.  In Moskowitz (1978) one finds this type of expression:  “Don’t expect instant miracles…(p.2)…I have come to believe in these strategies because they do seem to work (p.4)”.  And Stevick (1990:144) writes in these terms:  “It is hoped that what has been done here will make it easier for others in the profession to examine more fully, and in Popper’s sense more critically, the ‘humanistic’ - and even the humanistic - aspects of language teaching”.

Language such as this seems quite undogmatic. In contrast, HLT critics themselves frequently seem very prone to use loaded, emotional language, certainly not the type of language most appropriate for scientific inquiry or open dialogue.  To describe humanistic teachers’ use of activities that promote  personal development (though, let us not forget, at the same time designed to stimulate language learning), Gadd (1998) uses expressions such as “an unfortunate  determination to drag everything back into the personal sphere” (p.229) or “trapped within the prison of the self” (p.232) and recommends “liberating the teacher from the inappropriate and oppressive role of nurturer of the inner self” (p.227).  Another critic compares Moskowitz’ statements of concern for the fact that schools in the 1970’s were not addressing many of the real needs of youth with Marx’s Communist Manifesto (Bruton 1999:12) and speaks of humanistic practitioners as “believers and converts” (Bruton1999:11).  Language used in these ways presents affective/humanistic models of teaching as if they were part of the “lunatic fringe”, when it is the case that recognition of the importance of affect in all areas of experience is becoming more and more universal.  For example, Goleman’s (1995) work on the need to educate the emotions  as well as the intellect has generated enormous interest world-wide.

Conclusion
As stated above, new areas in a discipline that are seen as challenging established thought, or at least stretching it beyond its present limits, are often taken to task without a clear understanding of what they represent.  This article has made an attempt to clarify some aspects of the area of affective/humanistic models in order to
integrate what may be most useful in them into the whole picture of EFL/ESL learning and teaching.  In a profession prone to pendulum swinging, the area of affect and humanistic language teaching could best be considered neither a new bandwagon  to jump on nor a bull’s-eye to shoot our critical arrows at, but rather another small piece of the many we need to complete the still mysterious puzzle of the language
learning/teaching process.

References
Arnold. J. (1998) Affective factors and language learning, IATEFL Issues, 145, 8-9.
Avila, J. La visualizacion y su relacion con la memoria. Potential didactico en la clase de lengua extranjera.  (Visualization and its relationship with memory.  Teaching potential in the foreign language classroom).  Proceedings, Nuevas Perspectivas en Investigacion y Didactica, University of Cadiz, 1999.
Brumfit, C.  (1984) Communicative Methodology in Language Teaching, (Cambridge: CUP).
Bruton, A.  (1999)  Humanistic teaching in ESOL:  Why the on-going polemic?” GRETA Revista para Profesores de Ingles, 7/2, 11-15.
Caine, R.N. and G.Caine (1994) Making Connections:  Teaching and the Human Brain, Menlo Park,CA: Addison-Wesley).
Crystal, D. (1977):  English as a Global Language, (Cambridge: CUP)
Csikszentmihaly, M. (1990) Flow.  The Psychology of Optimal Experience, (New York: CUP).
Damasio, A. (1994) Descartes’ Error:  Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain (New York: Avon).
Ehrmann, M. (1999) Ego Boundaries and tolerance of ambiguity. In J.Arnold (ed.) (1999) Affect in Language Learning, (Cambridge: CUP)
Gadd, N.  (1998) Towards less humanistic English teaching, ELT Journal, 52/3, 223-34.
Goleman, D. (1995) Emotional Intelligence, New York:  Bantam Books).
Hooper Hansen, G. (1999) Are we ready for Holism?,  Humanising Language Teaching, ( Pilgrims Web magazine, < old.hltmag.co.uk> ) 1,4.
Jackendoff, R.  (1993)  Patterns in the Mind:  Language and Human Nature, New York:  Harvester)
Lozanov, G.  (1979) Suggestology and Outlines of Suggestopedy, New York:  Gordon and Breach)
Mciver, N. (2000) How do I teach grammar? ETp, 14, 25-6.
Moskowitz, G.  (1978)  Caring and Sharing in the Foreign Language Class:  A Sourcebook on Humanistic Techniques  Boston: Heinle & Heinle)
Nunan, D.  (1988) The Learner-centred Curriculum, (Cambridge: CUP)
Popper, K.  (1976)  Unended Quest, (Glasgow: Collins).
Reid, J.   Affect in the classroom:  problems, politics and pragmatics. In J.Arnold (ed.) (1999):  Affect in Language Learning, (Cambridge:  CUP)
Rinvolucri, M. and P.Davies. (1995) More Grammar Games: Cognitive, Affective and Movement Activities for EFL Students, (Cambridge: CUP).
Rubio, F.  (2000) La ansiedad en el aprendizaje del ingles como lengua extranjera. Uso de un Enfoque Integral en un estudio de casos particulares.  Doctoral dissertation, University of Seville.
Schumann, J.  (1999) A neurobiological perspective on affect   In J. Arnold (ed.) Affect in Language Learning, (Cambridge,CUP).
Stevick, E.W.  (1990)  Humanism in Language Teaching, (Oxford:OUP)
Thornbury, S. (1999  Lesson art  and design  ELT Journal, 53/ 1, 4-11.
Underhill, A. (1999)  Facilitation in language teaching   In J.Arnold (ed.) Affect in Language Learning, (Cambridge: CUP)
Williams, M.  (1999):  Learning Teaching:  A social constructivist approach.  In H.Trappes Lomax and I.McGrath (eds.), Theory in Language Teacher Education, (Harlow: Longman).