The Folk Linguistics of Language Teaching and Learning

Chapter
Part of the Second Language Learning and Teaching book series (SLLT)

Abstract

This chapter reports on an ongoing ethnographic study of folk beliefs about language teaching and learning among 108 teachers and learners of nine languages at secondary and university levels in the United States. Folk linguistics (e.g. Niedzielski and Preston 2003) emphasizes, among other things, the need for an understanding of beliefs in all areas of applied linguistics, suggesting that intervention is always improved when language professionals know the often strongly held beliefs of non-linguists and the folk theories that underlie such beliefs. Scholars such as Kalaja (2003) have pointed to the need for such research in language teaching and learning in particular. After these data were acquired, we prepared a topical outline and developed a taxonomy based on it. The details of that taxonomy with sample interpretations of respondent comment are the main focus of this chapter. The major factors discussed by the respondents were categorized as: (1) psycholinguistic, (2) structural linguistic, (3) instructional, and (4) rationales and outcomes. We believe this macrotaxonomy reflects actual concerns and beliefs teachers and students hold and are ones most deserving of more detailed investigation.

Keywords

Foreign Language Language Teaching Language Teacher Discourse Marker Applied Linguistic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Barcelos, A. M. 1995. A cultura de aprender lingua estrangeira (inglés) de alunos de Letras. MA thesis: UNICAMP, University of Campinas, Brazil.Google Scholar
  2. DeKeyser, R. 2005. Implicit and explicit learning. Handbook of second language acquisition, eds. C. J. Doughty and M. H. Long, 313-348. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  3. Horwitz, E. K. 1995. Using student beliefs about language learning and teaching in the foreign language methods course. Foreign Language Annals 18: 333-340.Google Scholar
  4. Kalaja, P. 1995. Student beliefs (or metacognitive knowledge) about SLA reconsidered. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 5: 191-204.Google Scholar
  5. Kalaja, P. 2003. Research on students’ beliefs about SLA within a discursive approach. In Beliefs about SLA: New research approaches, eds. P. Kalaja and A. M. Ferreira Barcelos, 87-108. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  6. Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Niedzielski, N. and D. R. Preston. 2003. Folk linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  8. Preston, D. R. 1994. Content-oriented discourse analysis and folk linguistics. Language Sciences 16: 285-330.Google Scholar
  9. Schiffrin, D. 1985. Everyday argument: the organization of diversity in talk. In Handbook of discourse analysis, Vol. 3: Discourse and dialogues, ed. T. Van Dijk, 35-46. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Stalnaker, R. 1978. Assertion, In Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics, ed. P. Cole, 315-322. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cornerstone UniversityGrand RapidsUS
  2. 2.Oklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUS

Personalised recommendations