From the article, Kaplan analyzesses differences between teaching of reading and composition writing to native and non-native America students. Basically, his interest was focused in the inference of a first language that was culturally bound to the pattern and thought on writing in a second language. He mentioned “because a student can write an adequate essay in his native language...[does not mean he can] write an adequate essay in a second language” (13) affirming that different languages had their own specific and culturally bound conventions and patterns of writing and thus differed greatly. In conclusion, Kaplan came up with a graphical representation of the pattern of discourse of five major languages (English, Semitic, Oriental, Russian, and Romance) under the statement that developing one’s ideas in texts differed in disparate languages. Studying this, Kaplan pursued that L2 students can improve their logical thinking better in writing essay with the base of L1 English speaker through a proper teaching.
that, “[s]tudents who are fluent in English often are heard speaking in Japanese or a combination of Japanese and English when with their peers” (Rohrer, 28). This suggests that returnees are not in an environment to speak in English even though they are in an English class. It is enervating to pretend that one has a bad pronunciation or to listen to what teachers have said carefully, and it will not help students to enhance their English skills. Another environmental reason is that the train is one of the most convenient transportation systems in Japan, yet it would be challenging for people to ride the train if they were used to riding a car or a school bus to go to school. For instance, when I came back to Japan, I was nervous just to get off at a station ahead.
Content: refers to the knowledge, skills, and other attributes to be presented by the assessment tasks. As Messick (1996) states, content standards need to be relevant and representative of the construct domain. Tests which represent a weak relationship between the content being tested and the test construct, undoubtedly show low validity because the test takers won't have opportunity to demonstrate their ability. As stated by Fulcher in an example (2003), if a speaking test is designed to measure achievement on a particular program of study, we must ask to what extent the test content provides the opportunity for the test-takers to demonstrate that their ability on the constructs of interest have
It can ideally be traced back to Dell Hymes in 1970s where he was reacting to Noam Chomsky’s work, which was described as being inadequate in distinguishing between competence and performance. This was a period where the strong emphasis was made on how knowledgeable people were in regards to linguistics. Dell Hymes version was then the alternative to Noam Chomsky’s work, which was considered more understandable, realistic and was covering a wide range of the linguistic field (ibid 1-2). Hymes defined communicative competence not only as an inherent grammatical competence but also as the ability to use grammatical competence in a variety of communicative situations. Communicative competence can be described as dynamic rather than static because it keeps changing with time.
“My language; my Foundational security, without it, who knows who I would be”. This point is a reiteration of a universal concept linked to language; namely, the value that humanity places on language almost unconsciously in order to give them a sense of meaningful individual and cultural identity in and amongst the world. Also generally there is the value the world places as a whole on language. There are various stigmas attached to different spoken languages and the people who are connected to them. This refers to one of the most controversial topics of racism but also to the variations of languages; as referenced by Lippi-Green, “How did the idea of a perfect, unchanging language become so instilled?” (Lippi-Green, 1997).
The relation between the concept of equivalence and translation is therefore indissociable. As translation is an communicative event by explaining of the message of one language to another, if the content in the text of target language has no elements equivalent to any potion of the original text of the source language, it fails to do the translation work and cannot be defined or accepted as a translation. Based on the definition of translation, Nida and Koller put forward their theories of
Moreover, regularly just a solitary angle is being inquired about, so it is selective. Concentrates on that exploration communication issues with the assistance of monocausal clarification approaches stay unavoidable inadequate, since they neither consider further impact elements nor they examine their interdependency. Concerning the current learn, a developed comprehension of society is being expected that legitimates a different clarification methodology of impacting elements outside of nation related social boondocks (Welsch, 1999; Hansen, 2000; Bolten, 2004; Lösch, 2005; Bhabha, 2011). Considering this, two social impact components for the accomplishment of intercultural cooperation are picked and researched: nation society (CC) and authoritative society (OC). For the intercultural joint effort of representatives of a universal endeavor, especially the national and the hierarchical level must be recognized from each other (Kumbruck and Derboven, 2009, p. 25).
He claimed that this was because English language is not his strongest language and the quick pauses are the moments when he formulates his responses from Malay to English. However, his deficiency of fluency in English did not hinder him to speak in English for that he acknowledges that English is highly essential for life particularly for the development of his education (Ozog, 1996). Jones (2007) argued that even though English language competency represents success and privilege, the users of English language in situations where Malay language is the appropriate language to use are abused and vilified by the non-proficient English speakers. With regards to this, my brother only communicates in English depending on his
In the early 1970s, in an attempt to overcome more traditional and grammatical approaches, classes adopted a more communicative behaviour, with interaction being the central point of language teaching and learning. The theory of Communicative Competence introduced by the sociolinguist Dell Hymes (1966) was developed as an answer to Chomsky’s idea of linguistic competence. Chomsky (1965) made a distinction between “competence - knowledge of the language” and “performance - the actual use of language in concrete situations”, considering the first an innate process (Universal Grammar). Hymes, on the other hand, spoke of the learner’s competence to combine grammatical and sociocultural knowledge as well. This theory was further enhanced by Canale and Swain (1980) who stressed the division of communicative competence into strategic, grammatical, and sociolinguistic.
That answer alone could raise a lot of issues. It only shows that the concept of standard is problematic. According to Fairclough (1995), there is a need for a particular standard in order to rationalize policies on the teaching of Standard English. He further states that appropriateness figures within dominant conceptions of language variations (234). Is there an implied claim then that students of English as a second language or as a foreign language speak a substandard kind of English because they do not follow the standards of General American variety?