Page 226 - Beyond Methods

214 Contextualizing linguistic input Contextualizing Linguistic Input
In spite of the paramount importance of context in language devel- opment, not much work has been done to investigate the precise manner in which various components of language use interact with each other in the acquisition of a language. However, even the lim- ited number of studies that have been conducted show the impor- tance of contextual features in comprehension and production. In a series of studies, Elizabeth Bates and Brian MacWhinney (1982) provided evidence to show that sentence comprehension and pro- duction involve a rapid and simultaneous integration of semantic, pragmatic, and discourse phenomena. In a study to determine how L2 learners resolve the problem of competing factors of syntax, se- mantics, and pragmatics in processing L2 utterances, Gass (1986, p. 35) concluded that “syntax, semantics and pragmatic acquisition cannot be understood as isolated grammatical components with a unidirectional information flow.”
While insights from L2 acquisition research has been sparse, ex- periential knowledge has helped language educators realize that linguistic input to learners should be presented in units of text, or what we now call discourse, so that learners can benefit from the interactive effect of various components and contexts. Nearly a century ago, Henry Sweet intuitively argued that “the main foun- dation of the practical study of language should be connected texts” (1899/1964, p. 100). Before Sweet, Wilhelm Vietor (1882, cited in Howatt, 1984) had stated that words should be presented in sen- tences, and sentences should be practiced in meaningful contexts and not be taught as isolated, disconnected elements. Introducing iso- lated sentences will result in pragmatic dissonance, depriving learn- ers of necessary contextual clues, thereby rendering the process of meaning-making harder.
The idea of presenting language as text or discourse got a boost during the late 1970s and 1980s with the widespread acceptance of communicative approaches to language teaching. During the early days of communicative language teaching, attempts to contextual- ize linguistic input were directed more toward grammar-oriented, mechanical drills that were embedded within an artificially created text and context than toward fostering authentic communication in class. Teachers were advised to use three classes of drills—mechan- ical, meaningful, and communicative—and proceed sequentially