Categorization
By Kevin (Torus Volunteer)
This blog post is all about something we have to do if we’re going to teach individuals. If you want to refer to it favorably, you might call it customization or tailoring. If you wanted to refer to it unfavorably, you might call it generalization or even stereotyping. But let’s face it, we all do that every time we lay eyes on someone—we classify them by how they look and dress; then, after thirty seconds’ conversation, we classify them further; and so on. It’s a natural human tendency and not even necessarily inaccurate or counterproductive. At least, it saves time (which is why our brains are hardwired to do it—friend or foe?).
So, we generalize. And lest you think I was going to ramble on forever about this without getting to the point, fear not. I’d like to generalize about ESL learners based on demographics. Naturally, you’ll find out more and more about learners as individuals as time goes on and you’ll be able to see if these generalizations remain valid or not. In each of the below cases, I’m talking about ESL learners, and all statements are strictly “ceteris paribus,” or “all other things being equal.” So, keeping that in mind:
Socioeconomic status: poorer people tend to be less proficient in English than those who are better off. However, poorer people tend to be better at speaking English than wealthier ones; one reason is that they tend to have more people contact day-to-day (more tightly packed communities; customer service jobs).
Gender: many studies have shown that females tend to be somewhat better than males at learning conversational skills in another language. There appears to be no difference in academic language skills.
Age: a universal truth: the older you are, the harder it is to learn a new language.
First language: this influences how well a person is able to learn English as a second language. The variable is how similar a given language is to English:
Romance languages: They contain many cognates with English (revolution/revolucion or beef/boeuf, for example) and the grammar and syntax are fairly similar. In those languages, gender is connoted by word endings rather than by context or helping words, meaning that English is actually simpler in this regard.
German and Scandinavian languages: many similar words/roots; grammar is somewhat different from English but not too much so. Noun-linked articles are not present in English (“das Boot”).
Russian: Russian verb conjugation is far more complex than English. There are something like seventeen noun cases. A Russian learner might actually find English’s somewhat wacko rules refreshingly simple.
Chinese: the real stumbling block isn’t the difference in writing systems. It’s the fact that Chinese doesn’t use articles (a, the), pronouns (him, her, they), and referents (that, which, those). So the sentence “Buy chicken thirty dollar” is perfectly grammatical in Chinese. Who’s buying it? You are; I’m talking to you. What chicken? This chicken that I’m holding by the neck. Why did you say “dollar” and not “dollars”? Because “thirty” already means more than one.
Japanese: much different rules in grammar and syntax; three writing systems. Almost no cognates other than borrowed words.
Cultural origins: we all know that the best way to learn a language is to get out there and speak it. Unfortunately, many cultures are much more conservative than the US in this regard. Furthermore, a learner from another country may naturally feel intimidated by American culture and fear embarrassment by speaking poor English. You meet an American in an airport or bus station, and five minutes later he’s showing you pictures of the kids and inviting you over to his house for some barbecue. Someone from a conservative culture might feel more than a little bit freaked out by this. So probably the single greatest stumbling block that ESL learners face is that they are disinclined to do the one thing that would help them learn the fastest. I’ve traveled throughout Europe and Asia, and no matter where I’ve gone, I’ve found it much more rewarding to try to learn the local language, even if I butchered it (which I usually did), rather than shouting at the locals, “WHERE…IS…THE…MCDONALDS???” The locals have always appreciated it, and I’ve usually managed to get my point across (even if it involved a lot of silly gestures). (The exception is the French, who will understand you but pretend not to, then go back to the kitchen and spit in your food.) So please tell your students to speak English every chance they get, even when it’s embarrassing or uncomfortable—especially when it’s embarrassing or uncomfortable. We’re a bunch of wackadoodles here in the US, but we’re nothing if not friendly.
So the takeaway I’d like you to glean from this post is that proficiency in a language is like intelligence: it has multiple facets and can’t be adequately expressed by a number or a single phrase. And we all know that it takes quite a while to tease out of someone where they’re OK and where they need help with their English proficiency (and we also know that simply asking them is a very poor way to find that out). Therefore, we’ll need to generalize at first. I firmly believe that getting to know learners before you do anything, including instruction as such, saves time in the long run. As you build your mental profile of a learner, you might find that she’s great at some aspects of English and terrible at others. Using the generalizations I’ve listed might help you be less surprised when you find out those things.