Feb 6 Chapter 4

As a foreign language teacher, I ascribe to the accommodationist view that we should teach students what they need to survive in particular environments in which they will be using their foreign language(s). I believe there is a so-called native English standard, but this notion of “native” is not equivalent to that of “native speaker”; it stands for the literacy norm most people conform to in a certain situation for the purpose of avoiding the breakdown in communication. For instance, slang words are not allowed for both speaking and writing in a formal announcement of an industrial workplace. This kind of standards comes from conventional language behaviors, but should be specified in certain tasks and genres. After all, habit is the second nature.

There is no denying that language diversities take up the roles, but they are just like the seasoning of a dish, rather than its main ingredients. In China, a department of the government (I forgot its name) publish a list of the top ten popular expressions each year for the sake of tracking the development of the Chinese language. Chinese people, especially the youth, are really keen on using those words or phrases in their daily life, so does the learners who are learning Chinese in China. However, there is a prerequisite: they should master the basic usage of grammar, syntax and lexicon so as to convey their meanings appropriately. It seems awkward to imagine a Chinese learner speaks and writes to the full varieties of dialects and registers without the correct word order. And this is more compelling to be obeyed in written languages.

Nevertheless, I personally find code-meshing to be very useful in the instruction of Chinese in the US. Due the lack of second language environments outside the classes, students are more likely to resort to their first language(s) in thinking and producing Chinese. I often found them to be extremely distressed when they tried really hard to oppress the voice of their native language(s). Perhaps we could be more lenient towards the use of L1 in foreign language classes. I am not saying that immense programs are no good, but sometimes the scaffolding of L1 can be more straightforward and efficient.