You are on page 1of 2

Name Student Number S. HUNSTON AND D.


: Dwi Maharrani : 20112506052

In the first chapter of the book, Willis comes up with idea about familiar situation faced by language learners where they can mostly produce a language form under controlled condition, for example in grammar test, but cannot do it spontaneously. Indeed, findings of research of second language acquisition convince that there is no direct link between teaching and learning. Willis gives example that the learners may have conceptual understanding about past tense form and can produce the required form when they focus on it, but at the same time they may fail to produce it spontaneously in uncontrolled circumstances. Using the language description as a starting point, Willis argues three reasons that we should recognize in answering the question why the link between teaching and learning is indirect. Firstly, Willis discusses about complexity and the grammar of orientation. According to him, grammar of orientation deals with how elements in the message are related to one another in space and time, and whether or not a participant in a text is identifiable by the receiver. He says that these grammatical devices are extremely complex and obviously impossible to teach the learners every rule for every context. Contextual features and speakers choice are sometimes more subtle than the hard and fast rules. For this reason, Willis suggests that it is compulsory for the learners to go beyond the hard and fast rules and use the rules as trigger in acquiring the ability to exploit the meaning potential of the system to its full. In addition, Willis gives an example about two different ways of the use of articles the and a first text : Police were last night searching for the eight-years-old who attempted to hold up a sweet shop with a pistol. A boy, wearing the balaclava, threw a carrier bag to a shop keeper at a corner store in Ashton-under-lime, and ordered her to fill it up. Police were last night searching for an eight-years-old who attempted to hold up a sweet shop with a pistol. The boy, wearing the balaclava, threw a carrier bag to the shop keeper at a corner store in Ashton-under-lime, and ordered her to fill it up. Willis explains that the second text applies more usual strategy of using a for the first boy mentioned and the for the second boy mentioned, while the first text does it in contrast. However, he says that both of texts are perfectly grammatical since they exploit the article use in different ways. The first is genuine, taken from Guardian newspaper of February 22, 1994, and the second one is doctored. From the example, Willis attempted to say that it is better to give learners useful generalization than give hard and rules about article. Secondly, Willis points out that some systems in the language are too extensive to be completely covered. Taking pattern grammar as an example, Willis describes how a single second text :

word of preposition about or for has various meaning depends on its association with particular sets of words. For example, about has three basic meanings: 1. Concerning on particular subject: Think about it; I have read a book about that recently. 2. Approximately: It takes about two hours to drive to London; Itll cost about a hundred quid. 3. To indicate spatial orientation: We spent the morning walking about town; Im just looking about. Willis also says that according to Francis (1996), there are 120 words associated with the first meaning of about, ranging from the more frequently used words such as ask, know, talk, and think through the most advanced ones, such as quibble and whinge. Considering this extensive matter, Willis offers to make useful generalization as guidelines for the learners just like what he suggests in the case of the preposition for. There are 20 semantic groups of verbs which are followed by the preposition for, for example the plan group (plan, arrange, provide etc), the work group (act, fight, play, speak etc) and the care group (feel, grieve etc). By grouping the verbs followed by for semantically, a useful generalization can be drawn. For example, the plan group might answer the question why? and the work and care groups can be seen as answering the question who benefits? Or who wants or needs...? Why? She was waiting for a friend. What are they for? For example.... Look for more ideas. Who wants or needs? Can you spell your name for me? Ill do that for you. This is for you. However, having this kind of systematic meaning relationship to particular groups of words is not more than giving useful guidelines for the learners and encouraging them to look at the language for themselves. Thirdly, citing the Widdowson (1979:179), Willis argues that the gap between learning and teaching may occur because of the learners concern about operating a meaning system. Learners try to adjust their knowledge of language forms to the communicative use. At this point, learners sometimes fail to incorporate their knowledge into spontaneous production. It takes time before the learners can internalize their knowledge into their subconscious mind. As the time they succeed in doing it, they will be able to deploy in real time. In conclusion, Williss idea tends to say that as teachers our role is more about equipping the learners, for example by giving them useful generalization or other kinds of guidelines, to explore the language by themselves productively. Since the language system is so complex and so extensive and varied, we are not able to offer a full pedagogic description. Therefore, exposure the language and opportunities for language use becomes the core of language learning.