adminYES, exactly what I said last week. The teaching of English Language is complex . . . very complex. But that is not the same as saying it is very difficult. This only means that a good teacher of English Language must be skilful – highly skilled in using the language in speech, writing and understanding. Is that all? Certainly not!
The Queen of England, herself the symbolic root and pride of the English Language, may not be the best teacher of English Language. Why is this? Because using it and teaching it are two unrelated skills!
Relating the two and applying them effectively takes a teacher who understands the concept of explicit attention, namely one who knows how to break up the language aspects into portions that can be assimilated gradually and in a graded way.
“These skills are too numerous to be communicated (taught) ordinarily . . . ” Yes “ordinarily” I re-emphasise. I emphasised that last week. A good English Language teacher is not an ordinary “rabbi”. He or she is a special mentor who knows English Language skills cannot be assimilated in toto.
He or she knows how and what aspects or features of the language to select . . . aspects which are fundamentally important to be learnt . . . to be responded to. That is what every average teacher of English knows as the syllabus. Fine! Extremely important too! But again that only is simply not enough.
A good English Language teacher, perhaps what my guest teacher of last week referred to as “an excellent teacher”, goes beyond just knowing the syllabus. He or she smartly and purposefully designs a progressive order of teaching. This refers to teaching the knowledge and skills first acquired as a means of gaining insight into more complex skills.
Let me illustrate this.
Assume that you have completed teaching basic Sentence Construction: Subject + Verb+ Object> The fox jumped over the dog. The fox (Subj./ the doer-the agent) jumped (instrumental/action Verb) over (positional verb) the dog (object).
The next stage is adding value. This means making the sentence more complex. Look! The quick fox jumped over the lazy dog. Then – The quick brown fox instinctively jumped over the lazy dog.
These are three “wavelengths” of expression if I can use that word, stretching from the very simple to the more complex, each obviously communicating better meaning (detail) than another. That is clearly not the best that can be said or the only way of expression.
(Subject+ Verb+ Obj)
Consider these other options: 1. Instinctively, the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 2 . . . Over the lazy dog, the quick brown fox jumped instinctively. The point I am making here is that though the Sub + verb+ object construction is fundamental . . . basic, it is not necessarily the only order or the better one for that matter.
A lot depends on the speaker, where he or she is and to whom the speech is made (context). This already encroaches on a different aspect of language altogether: Register. Is it mere conversational language or it is journalistic? Each way of saying something best suits the situation, the speaker, writer and context.
Beyond all this, much also depends on the writer or speaker’s instinct or flair for descriptive detail. There is not one way of expressing yourself in English Language. It all depends on one’s mastery of the skills and preferred style.
Instead of worrying about the positioning of the words in a sentence…in an expression, one may be more inclined to figurative expression. For example, where one says, “He physically resembles his father closely,” another may choose to say, “He is a chip off the old block.”
The two are saying exactly the same thing, but the latter is more stylish and the figure of speech (also called metaphor) candidly brings out a picture of what the resemblance of father and son is like.
Or in another example, one can say, “I was extremely excited . . . overjoyed or jubilant” – all brilliant expressions, but another may choose to say, “I was in seventh heaven” or “walking on air.” The latter speaker or writer is more effective. He has a complex way of expressing very simple things. So long as he knows where to stop.
You do not flood a piece of writing with metaphors. You do not want to promiscuously decorate your sentences with metaphor. Two or three well-chosen figures of speech effectively and adequately flavour a fairly short piece of speech or writing.
Knowing how much colour to use on any “make-up” is a skill very few beauty practitioners know. Splashing mascara, face powder and lipstick all over does not make anyone beautiful. If anything it exposes and exaggerates the ugliness of the make-up user. Andizvopi here madhodha naanaMachumwase, ndombi dzaMwari?
Kugona drawing or fine art is not messing up the image with colours of the rainbow. Tichiti “high command of the English Language, hatitauri verbosity . . . using big words dzisina anonzwa. Not at all! You will never win this battle for English Language Learning if you labour to speak or write to intimidate, to scare or impress.
You cannot scare anyone with your language? Who? Those who know the Language will know if you are hiding your poverty of English language behind heavy or high-sounding words. We do not find this chronic disease amongst English Language learners (students / candidates) alone.
Some authors or journalists, TV and radio presenters especially the younger generation, writers and reporters, mess up their effort in bizarre attempts to sound big.
They miserably break acknowledged rules of grammar and make themselves horribly ridiculous in this effort to write for fame. What fame? They forget the purpose of their writing.
They think they are taking part in an essay-writing competition and every reader must know they know all the words in the Advanced Oxford Learner’s or Collin’s Dictionary. What a shame! How can you impress readers by making them fail to understand what you are writing or saying?
Am I saying therefore writers or speakers must use “is” and “was” to express their thoughts or tell their story? Certainly not! I am simply saying a skilful speaker or writer traverses on simple complexity. What is this? Sounds like a terrible paradox. Maybe it is!
But what I mean is this: “The complexity of teaching or learning English Language effectively lies in your ability to walk the thin line between ugly verbosity and beautiful simplicity.”
And to get to this point (what my last guest called excellent), a learner of English Language develops a thorough and complex educative process.
The teaching of English Language is truly educative in its effect of how an individual learner shares or participates in some conjoint deliberation. He or she appropriates the purpose which actuates learning, becoming familiar at every stage of complexity with the verbal craftsmanship or acquisition of needed skills.
Sometimes as you teach, you need to deliberately illustrate these endowments . . . these skills, this capability, as opposed to just talking and telling notorious grammatical fairy tales to pupils. A good teacher of English Language owns the skills. He does not know about them.
Be the example that you want your pupils or students to be. Do not always “tell” them what you want them to be, like a coach who depends on a coaching script or text book but has never or cannot kick the ball.
Munozwa here zvendinoreketa anaana msharuka naana taita kana kuti ndinobhuya ndega . . . nje? Musadaro mani! Ngatidzidzise vana vedu ngemwoyo weshe varekete nokubaanyora Chiyungu chemene kunoti mhera narini.
Teach with a sense of patriotism and pride. These are our children, aren’t they? Hinoo! Kana musina kurwa hondo yeChimurenga, this is your war of liberation. Free these children from verbal impoverishment . . . from the shackles of communication imprisonment!
Free them from backwardness caused by limited skills of communication and understanding! Muyungu kudini kwake? We must show them (vaYunguvo) that we can write and speak their mother tongue better, to express our hopes, wishes and aspirations, our problems and challenges; our fears, discomforts and comforts, as indeed we confidently and proudly celebrate our culture, our values and our ubunthu!
The “owners” of this language colonised our land. We fought to take it back. We must colonise their language, too, and make it our own and use it to celebrate our victories and intrinsic sovereignty . . . celebrating being Zimbabwean in their language to spite them.
Some of us have already done so. We studied and continue to study the language to cleanse it of all pejorative terms and aspects of verbal brutality . . . racial epithets, purified it and made it our own chief instrument of learning and democratic engagement . . . our own politics.
No examination must intimidate our children because we cannot teach effectively or because they cannot learn effectively.
Next week I continue with the process of the complexity of the science of teaching English Language. And remember I am not just a theorist or language philosopher, but an initiated classroom practitioner, vested with abundant teaching experience and new ideas of getting there. I don’t preach what I do not believe in, know and do. Let us declare war against this irritating obstacle called English Language. Together we can do it!
Until next week, tinobonga madhodha . . . mwashuma kwemene! Thank you very much!
Online Reporter