Adapting and Writing Language Lessons/Appendix B

by Earl W. Stevick

APPENDIX B

TO

CHAPTER 3

ADAPTING A 'MICROWAVE' FORMAT. (TELUGU)

In recent years, particularly under the auspices of the Peace Corps, a number of language courses have been written which have consisted entirely, or almost entirely, of Cummings devices. Some of these courses have been surprisingly successful in spite of their lack of variety in pedagogical format. A relatively good example is Conversational Telugu, written in 1965 by Judith Beinstein. At the time of this writer's visit to Brattleboro in August 1970, staff members of the Experiment in International Living under the direction of Ray Clark were adapting this course for a Peace Corps training program. Their work illustrates some of the principles of Chapter 3.

The first lesson in the original course consisted of a single Cummings device (Chapter 3, p. 59, and Chapter 6): 'What is (this, that)?' '(This, that) is a (banana).' The individual lines are short and the things that they name are concrete, portable, and demonstrable; accordingly, they are relatively light and transparent. Because the things named are edible and everybody gets hungry, the lesson is also fairly strong.

But 'strength' in this sense is always relative to the needs and interests of a particular class. In this instance, the materials were being used to train Peace Corps Volunteers who were to help in conducting workshops for science teachers in Andhra Pradesh, India. The adapter's first step was to replace the nouns of the lesson, substituting instead the names of eight tools which the students would be using early in the technical part of

1.1

A.

idi ēmi?	What is this?	adi ēmi?	What is that?
idi sutti	This is a hammer	adi sutti	That is a hammer.
idi rampamu	⁠"⁠saw.	adi rampamu	⁠"⁠saw.
idi paṭṭakaru	⁠"⁠pliers.	adi paṭṭakaru	⁠"⁠pliers.
idi screwdriveru	⁠"⁠screwdriver.	adi screwdriveru	screw-driver.
idi skēlu	⁠"⁠ruler.	adi skēlu	⁠"⁠scale.
idi mēku	⁠"⁠nail.	adi mēku	⁠"⁠nail.
idi barama	⁠"⁠drill.	adi barama	⁠"⁠drill.
idi cadaramu	⁠"⁠square.	adi cadaramu	⁠"⁠square.

B.

idi ēmiti?	What is this?	adi ēmiti?	What is that?
idi sutti	This is a hammer.	adi rampamu	That is a saw.
idi nā sutti	This is my hammer.	adi mi rampamu	That is your saw.

Notes

1. There is no difference in meaning or usage between /ēmi/ and /ēmiti/.
2. Telugu does not use the verb is in this situation.

their training. He added the words for 'my' and 'your', together with two very brief grammar notes (see p. 75 ).

At this point, the lesson still consisted of a single Cummings device, which explored one small section of the vocabular of Telugu, and at the same time exemplified one very simple and very useful structure. Its two lines actually make up what might be considered to be an embryonic conversation. The question 'What is (this)?' can furthermore be used to elicit the names of other objects in which the student is interested. The adaption is therefore highly appropriate and was presumably successful.

Experience with Cummings devices in many languages has however raised the question of whether a two-line conversation is really viable as a 'sample of language use.' Certainly it can simulate communication within the confines of a classroom, but it is seldom adequate for genuine interaction in the outside world. Would it be possible to provide a closer approximation to genuine interaction without a prohibitive increase in the length and difficulty of the lesson? Such a 'sample of language use,' might take the form of a Telugu counterpart of the following English dialog:

Please hand me the ________.

Here you are.

Thank you.

Do you want the ________?

No, thanks.

This dialog adds five new sentences, but except for the list of tools, each sentence is to be treated as an indivisible unit. Each of these sentences is extremely useful. The longest consists of 9 syllables. At least three of them provide opportunities for learning courteous non-verbal concomitants such as facial expressions, gestures, and body postures.

The grammatical structures that are of interest in this lesson are: (a) equational (is, are') sentences with no verb, (b) 'this' vs. 'that!, (c) 'my' vs. 'your.'

Since the first of these is exemplified in every line, there is no occasion for practicing it in relationship to something with which it contrasts. The second and third points, with respect to their 'symbolic' and 'iconic' representations,^[1] are perfectly clear to a speaker of English, since the Telugu demonstratives apparently correspond closely to English 'this' and 'that,' and the possessive pronouns precede the nouns they modify. From the 'enactive' point of view, however, there is still exploration to be done. This might, for example, be accomplished through the use of substitution drills in which the student is given nouns, possessives and demonstratives as cues, and has to decide which slot of the model sentence he should put each cue word into. Such drills could either be done as pure linguistic manipulation, or accompanied by appropriate pointing actions.

If the lesson is adapted in this way it can lead to such occasions for use as the following:

1. Hand to an Indian colleague each of a set of tools, as he asks you for them. Observe and use any gestures or other expressions of courtesy that are appropriate in this situation.
2. Outside of class, learn the names of two objects that you want to be able to talk about. Teach these to your classmates tomorrow.
3. Make (or draw on the blackboard) a tool rack, with outlines of the various tools. One person points to a space, and another asks him whether he wants a particular tool.
4. Speak Telugu for 30 seconds so as to impress a stranger with your fluency.

Note that each of these 'occasions' has a social side as well as a linguistic side.

The second lesson of the original course introduced the negative of the pattern that was covered in the first lesson. The instructors working in this training program, however, felt that the negative would cause too much confusion at this point, so it was postponed. The second lesson in the new series therefore was structurally identical with the first, and differed only in sociotopical content: 'What is (this, that)? (This, that) is a tree, etc.)' The vocabulary consisted of some gross physical features of the training site (see p. 79).

Although the format and grammatical content of the second lesson as it stands are identical with the first lesson, the sociotopical difference leads to some interesting differences in further development. Instead of two colleagues in a workshop, we have students with their Telugu teacher, improving the time as they walk across the campus. The 'sample' might therefore take the form of another dialog:

What's that, please?

It's a ( tree). (' Tree' )?

That's right.

1.2

A.	idi ēmi?	What is this?	B.	adi ēmi?	What is that?
	idi ceṭṭu	This is a tree		adi ceṭṭu	That is a tree.
	idi kāru	This is a car.
	idi knoḍa	This is a hillock.
	idi gaḍḍi	This is grass.
	idi pandu	This is fruit.
	idi hostel	This is a dorm.
	idi āsupatri	This is the infirmary.
	idi kukka	This is a dog.

And that?

That's a (car).

That's a (dorm). Right?

No, it's (the infirmary).

Thanks.

The parts of this dialog that go beyond the Cummings device have been underlined. As in the dialog for Lesson 1, what is done through words in English may be done in some other way in Telugu, and in any event the non-verbal aspects of communication should receive attention along with each spoken sentence.

This lesson also differs from Lesson 1 with respect to the occasions which it can provide for using Telugu. Some possibilities are:

1. At your own initiative outside of class, ask one of the Te1ugu speakers (preferably not your own instructor) the name of something you see, or check with him/her to be sure that you have the word right. Report how many times you actually did this within a 24-hour period.
2. With reference to a rough map of the campus, ask and answer questions about what things are.
3. Look at a series of 4-8 color slides of India, and talk with your instructor about them within the Telugu that you have learned in these lessons.
4. Have the same slides shown in the same sequence, each for no more than 5-10 seconds. Students take turns narrating the entire sequence. Then do the same thing but with the slides in random order. (For a humorous final touch, put slides in backward, upside down, and sideways.)

Note that Lesson 2 provides more opportunities than Lesson 1 for transferring initiative to the trainees (in Occasion 1) and for transferring from present reality to prospective reality (in Occasions 3, 4).

Where Lessons 1 and 2 in the new series had to do with identifying objects, Lesson 3 (p. 82) is concerned with identifying people. It is based on Lessons 3, 4 and 5 of the original course: 'Who are you? Who is he? Who is John?' The answers are in terms of general classifications (girl, man, etc.), occupations (teacher, student), or personal names. An obvious way to tailor the vocabulary to the training project is to include the names of all instructors, as well as the names of any other Telugu speakers known to the trainees. As for structural exploration, the difference between abbāyi and abbāyini requires some sort of explanatory comment or diagram, as well as practice in making sentences that contain those words.

So do the differences between formal and informal reference, a contrast that was introduced into the revised lessons at the insistence of the instructors. If there is a significant contrast between mīru evaru? and evaru mīru?, then this also deserves attention. The relationship between īyana, 'he here' and āyana 'he there' may be related to the difference in Lessons I and 2 between idi 'this' and adi 'that.'

Some objectives for use will be reminiscent of Lessons I and 2: learn to identify all instructors by name, in formal or informal style as appropriate: learn the names and occupations of service and administrative personnel with whom you have dealings: identify photographs of people who will be important to you during your time in India.

But the introduction of personal names also provides an unexcelled opportunity for working on pronunciation. One of the hard facts about teaching pronunciation is that human beings cannot be equally strict at all times. A teacher may insist

1.3

A.

mīru evaru?	Who are you?
nēnu Subhanu.	I am Subha.
vnēnu vidyārthini.	I am a student
nēnu ammāyini.	I am a girl.
nēnu abbāyini.	I am a boy.
āyana evaru?	Who is he? (there)
āyana mastarugāru.	He is the master
āme evaru?	Who is she?
āme maithili	She is Mythili. (informal)
āme rajammagaru	She is (Mrs.) Rajamma (formal)

B.

John evaru?	Who is John?
John abbāyi.	John is a boy.
evaru mīru?	Who are you?
nenu tīcarini.	I am a teacher.
evaru īyana?	Who is he? (here)
iyana mastargāru.	He is the master.
atanu evaru?	Who is he (there) (familiar)
atanu vidhyārthi.	He is a student

on maximum phonetic accuracy for short periods, but most of the time he has to be satisfied if he is getting back a reasonably high percentage of correct phonemes. In the area of people's names, however, phonetic accuracy coincides with personal courtesy. The teacher's standards are likely to be higher and the student's efforts greater, particularly if the owners of the names are fellow-residents of the same school or training site.

It may be objected that the original Telugu lessons are hardly recognizable after so much adaptation and supplementation, and that the adapter might as well have started from scratch. If the course were no longer than these three sample lessons, that might be true. But the existing course has picked out a large number of points to be learned, has placed them in one practicable order, and has provided as examples materials which are themselves usable. It thus provides a framework on which the adapter and his staff may hang their own ideas and their own efforts, and a fabric of lessons that they can press into service if their own adaptations fall behind schedule.

1. For explanation of this terminology, see reference to F. Bosco, in Chapter 3, P.61.