Text VIII, for questions from 44 through 47.

Hangman, Spare That Word: The English

Purge Their Language

1 For feminists examining muliebrity (the condition of

being a woman), or soothsayers putting out their latest

vaticination (prophecy), the available lexicon may soon get

4 slimmer. The lexicographers behind Britain's Collins English

Dictionary have decided to exuviate (shed) rarely used and

archaic words as part of an abstergent (cleansing) process to

7 make room for up to 2,000 new entries. "We want the

dictionary to be a reflection of English as it is currently

spoken," says Ian Brookes, managing editor of Collins, "rather

10 than a fossilized version of the language."

Good luck with that. Here in Old Blighty, the

birthplace of English, the dictionary's compilers face

13 passionate resistance from language lovers who believe that

any cull reduces the richness and variety that make language

powerful — and leaves us all a bit dumber. "Newspapers are

16 often accused of setting their reading level for 12-year-olds,"

one opponent wrote on an online message board.

Collins' editors know that old words die hard — and

19 that some people will regard with contempt any execution

without a fair trial. So they've offered the chance of a reprieve.

They have made public 24 words that face deletion because

22 editors could find no example of their use in their database of

English-language books, newspapers, broadcasts and other

media. If, by February 2009, a word reappears in that

25 database with at least six "high quality" citations, it could be

spared from the semantic dustbin. "We're looking to see if

dropping a little stone in the pond of language actually does

28 generate ripples," says Brookes.

A number of public figures in Britain have stepped

forward to champion specific words, hoping to demonstrate

31 they are compossible (possible in coexistence) with everyday

speech. Andrew Motion, Britain's poet laureate since 1999,

selected skirr, which refers to the rattling, scratchy noise that

34 a bird's wings make during flight. "It's an appealing word with

an onomatopoeic value and resonance," he said. Motion, an

avid bird watcher, has already used the word on an evening

37 radio program and hopes to include it in a poem if he can do

so without "wrenching things around too much."

But reaction to the potential axing of words has

40 revealed specialized meanings that seem to have escaped

the dictionary's compilers. David Pybus, a perfumer in

London, says agrestic's alternate meaning should qualify it for

43 preservation: "It is used," he says, "in the perfume and flavor

industry quite extensively to describe an aroma note or type

which is 'of the countryside,' such as hay, heather, forest

46 depths or meadow." Who knew? Elsewhere, fantasy-game

devotees have rushed to the defense of periapt (a charm or

amulet), which they know from the popular Dungeons &

49 Dragons game, and geologists have pointed out the utility of

griseous (streaked or mixed with gray) in describing rocks and

minerals. Apparently, one man's linguistic recrement (waste,

52 refuse) is another man's treasure.

William Lee Adams. Internet: <http://www.time.com> (adapted).

Text VIII, for questions from 44 through 47.

Hangman, Spare That Word: The English

Purge Their Language

1 For feminists examining muliebrity (the condition of

being a woman), or soothsayers putting out their latest

vaticination (prophecy), the available lexicon may soon get

4 slimmer. The lexicographers behind Britain's Collins English

Dictionary have decided to exuviate (shed) rarely used and

archaic words as part of an abstergent (cleansing) process to

7 make room for up to 2,000 new entries. "We want the

dictionary to be a reflection of English as it is currently

spoken," says Ian Brookes, managing editor of Collins, "rather

10 than a fossilized version of the language."

Good luck with that. Here in Old Blighty, the

birthplace of English, the dictionary's compilers face

13 passionate resistance from language lovers who believe that

any cull reduces the richness and variety that make language

powerful — and leaves us all a bit dumber. "Newspapers are

16 often accused of setting their reading level for 12-year-olds,"

one opponent wrote on an online message board.

Collins' editors know that old words die hard — and

19 that some people will regard with contempt any execution

without a fair trial. So they've offered the chance of a reprieve.

They have made public 24 words that face deletion because

22 editors could find no example of their use in their database of

English-language books, newspapers, broadcasts and other

media. If, by February 2009, a word reappears in that

25 database with at least six "high quality" citations, it could be

spared from the semantic dustbin. "We're looking to see if

dropping a little stone in the pond of language actually does

28 generate ripples," says Brookes.

A number of public figures in Britain have stepped

forward to champion specific words, hoping to demonstrate

31 they are compossible (possible in coexistence) with everyday

speech. Andrew Motion, Britain's poet laureate since 1999,

selected skirr, which refers to the rattling, scratchy noise that

34 a bird's wings make during flight. "It's an appealing word with

an onomatopoeic value and resonance," he said. Motion, an

avid bird watcher, has already used the word on an evening

37 radio program and hopes to include it in a poem if he can do

so without "wrenching things around too much."

But reaction to the potential axing of words has

40 revealed specialized meanings that seem to have escaped

the dictionary's compilers. David Pybus, a perfumer in

London, says agrestic's alternate meaning should qualify it for

43 preservation: "It is used," he says, "in the perfume and flavor

industry quite extensively to describe an aroma note or type

which is 'of the countryside,' such as hay, heather, forest

46 depths or meadow." Who knew? Elsewhere, fantasy-game

devotees have rushed to the defense of periapt (a charm or

amulet), which they know from the popular Dungeons &

49 Dragons game, and geologists have pointed out the utility of

griseous (streaked or mixed with gray) in describing rocks and

minerals. Apparently, one man's linguistic recrement (waste,

52 refuse) is another man's treasure.

William Lee Adams. Internet: <http://www.time.com> (adapted).

Text VII, for questions from 39 through 43.

Grammar-Based Teaching (GBT) vs.

Focus on Form (FonF)

1 Grammar teaching has received renewed attention in

academic circles since the late 1980s or early 1990s, when

the naturalist movement began to fade. This attention has

4 generally taken on the nomenclature of Focus on Form

(FonF), even though a focus on grammar includes a great

deal more than simply a focus on form. Form and meaning

7 are inseparable, especially in any worthwhile L2 grammar

instruction. Basically, FonF, in my understanding, seeks ways

of introducing grammar instruction into Communicative

10 Language Teaching (CLT), which is often content- or

task-based.

Both GBT and FonF mingle grammar and

13 communicative teaching, but approach the integration of

grammar into a curriculum differently. Generally speaking,

FonF seeks to integrate a grammar component into a CLT

16 curriculum. GBT seeks to integrate CLT into a structural

syllabus, usually in one class within a larger, varied

curriculum. Simply stated, the issue facing practitioners today

19 is whether to teach grammar separately but integrated with

CLT methods and materials as one component out of many in

a well-balanced program of second language instruction, or to

22 integrate grammar into a content- and/or task-focused

approach, either incidentally as opportunities arise (reactively)

or by a predetermined grammar syllabus (proactively).

25Though I have limited experience with FonF, I have

taught variations of it, most notably in some basal series and

in composition classes. For reactive teaching of grammar in

28 composition classes, I would excerpt common errors from the

students' writing and use them for a grammar-teaching

segment within the composition syllabus. However, it was not

31 difficult to notice that semester after semester students made

the same errors, so I decided it would be more efficient and

effective to prepare a grammar syllabus to integrate into the

34 writing syllabus in a systematic way.

I observed that students in my writing class who had

experienced grammar instruction had an advantage over

37 those students who had not. Students with a good grounding

in grammar needed only to be reminded that, for example,

they were trying to say "I was really bored" not "I was really

40 boring." Those without that grounding in grammar needed a

lot more teaching time in order to understand, just as one

example, the difference between –ing and –ed adjectives.

Betty Azar. Internet: <http://tesl-ej.org> (adapted).

Text VII, for questions from 39 through 43.

Grammar-Based Teaching (GBT) vs.

Focus on Form (FonF)

1 Grammar teaching has received renewed attention in

academic circles since the late 1980s or early 1990s, when

the naturalist movement began to fade. This attention has

4 generally taken on the nomenclature of Focus on Form

(FonF), even though a focus on grammar includes a great

deal more than simply a focus on form. Form and meaning

7 are inseparable, especially in any worthwhile L2 grammar

instruction. Basically, FonF, in my understanding, seeks ways

of introducing grammar instruction into Communicative

10 Language Teaching (CLT), which is often content- or

task-based.

Both GBT and FonF mingle grammar and

13 communicative teaching, but approach the integration of

grammar into a curriculum differently. Generally speaking,

FonF seeks to integrate a grammar component into a CLT

16 curriculum. GBT seeks to integrate CLT into a structural

syllabus, usually in one class within a larger, varied

curriculum. Simply stated, the issue facing practitioners today

19 is whether to teach grammar separately but integrated with

CLT methods and materials as one component out of many in

a well-balanced program of second language instruction, or to

22 integrate grammar into a content- and/or task-focused

approach, either incidentally as opportunities arise (reactively)

or by a predetermined grammar syllabus (proactively).

25Though I have limited experience with FonF, I have

taught variations of it, most notably in some basal series and

in composition classes. For reactive teaching of grammar in

28 composition classes, I would excerpt common errors from the

students' writing and use them for a grammar-teaching

segment within the composition syllabus. However, it was not

31 difficult to notice that semester after semester students made

the same errors, so I decided it would be more efficient and

effective to prepare a grammar syllabus to integrate into the

34 writing syllabus in a systematic way.

I observed that students in my writing class who had

experienced grammar instruction had an advantage over

37 those students who had not. Students with a good grounding

in grammar needed only to be reminded that, for example,

they were trying to say "I was really bored" not "I was really

40 boring." Those without that grounding in grammar needed a

lot more teaching time in order to understand, just as one

example, the difference between –ing and –ed adjectives.

Betty Azar. Internet: <http://tesl-ej.org> (adapted).

Text VII, for questions from 39 through 43.

Grammar-Based Teaching (GBT) vs.

Focus on Form (FonF)

1 Grammar teaching has received renewed attention in

academic circles since the late 1980s or early 1990s, when

the naturalist movement began to fade. This attention has

4 generally taken on the nomenclature of Focus on Form

(FonF), even though a focus on grammar includes a great

deal more than simply a focus on form. Form and meaning

7 are inseparable, especially in any worthwhile L2 grammar

instruction. Basically, FonF, in my understanding, seeks ways

of introducing grammar instruction into Communicative

10 Language Teaching (CLT), which is often content- or

task-based.

Both GBT and FonF mingle grammar and

13 communicative teaching, but approach the integration of

grammar into a curriculum differently. Generally speaking,

FonF seeks to integrate a grammar component into a CLT

16 curriculum. GBT seeks to integrate CLT into a structural

syllabus, usually in one class within a larger, varied

curriculum. Simply stated, the issue facing practitioners today

19 is whether to teach grammar separately but integrated with

CLT methods and materials as one component out of many in

a well-balanced program of second language instruction, or to

22 integrate grammar into a content- and/or task-focused

approach, either incidentally as opportunities arise (reactively)

or by a predetermined grammar syllabus (proactively).

25Though I have limited experience with FonF, I have

taught variations of it, most notably in some basal series and

in composition classes. For reactive teaching of grammar in

28 composition classes, I would excerpt common errors from the

students' writing and use them for a grammar-teaching

segment within the composition syllabus. However, it was not

31 difficult to notice that semester after semester students made

the same errors, so I decided it would be more efficient and

effective to prepare a grammar syllabus to integrate into the

34 writing syllabus in a systematic way.

I observed that students in my writing class who had

experienced grammar instruction had an advantage over

37 those students who had not. Students with a good grounding

in grammar needed only to be reminded that, for example,

they were trying to say "I was really bored" not "I was really

40 boring." Those without that grounding in grammar needed a

lot more teaching time in order to understand, just as one

example, the difference between –ing and –ed adjectives.

Betty Azar. Internet: <http://tesl-ej.org> (adapted).

Text VII, for questions from 39 through 43.

Grammar-Based Teaching (GBT) vs.

Focus on Form (FonF)

1 Grammar teaching has received renewed attention in

academic circles since the late 1980s or early 1990s, when

the naturalist movement began to fade. This attention has

4 generally taken on the nomenclature of Focus on Form

(FonF), even though a focus on grammar includes a great

deal more than simply a focus on form. Form and meaning

7 are inseparable, especially in any worthwhile L2 grammar

instruction. Basically, FonF, in my understanding, seeks ways

of introducing grammar instruction into Communicative

10 Language Teaching (CLT), which is often content- or

task-based.

Both GBT and FonF mingle grammar and

13 communicative teaching, but approach the integration of

grammar into a curriculum differently. Generally speaking,

FonF seeks to integrate a grammar component into a CLT

16 curriculum. GBT seeks to integrate CLT into a structural

syllabus, usually in one class within a larger, varied

curriculum. Simply stated, the issue facing practitioners today

19 is whether to teach grammar separately but integrated with

CLT methods and materials as one component out of many in

a well-balanced program of second language instruction, or to

22 integrate grammar into a content- and/or task-focused

approach, either incidentally as opportunities arise (reactively)

or by a predetermined grammar syllabus (proactively).

25Though I have limited experience with FonF, I have

taught variations of it, most notably in some basal series and

in composition classes. For reactive teaching of grammar in

28 composition classes, I would excerpt common errors from the

students' writing and use them for a grammar-teaching

segment within the composition syllabus. However, it was not

31 difficult to notice that semester after semester students made

the same errors, so I decided it would be more efficient and

effective to prepare a grammar syllabus to integrate into the

34 writing syllabus in a systematic way.

I observed that students in my writing class who had

experienced grammar instruction had an advantage over

37 those students who had not. Students with a good grounding

in grammar needed only to be reminded that, for example,

they were trying to say "I was really bored" not "I was really

40 boring." Those without that grounding in grammar needed a

lot more teaching time in order to understand, just as one

example, the difference between –ing and –ed adjectives.

Betty Azar. Internet: <http://tesl-ej.org> (adapted).

Text VII, for questions from 39 through 43.

Grammar-Based Teaching (GBT) vs.

Focus on Form (FonF)

1 Grammar teaching has received renewed attention in

academic circles since the late 1980s or early 1990s, when

the naturalist movement began to fade. This attention has

4 generally taken on the nomenclature of Focus on Form

(FonF), even though a focus on grammar includes a great

deal more than simply a focus on form. Form and meaning

7 are inseparable, especially in any worthwhile L2 grammar

instruction. Basically, FonF, in my understanding, seeks ways

of introducing grammar instruction into Communicative

10 Language Teaching (CLT), which is often content- or

task-based.

Both GBT and FonF mingle grammar and

13 communicative teaching, but approach the integration of

grammar into a curriculum differently. Generally speaking,

FonF seeks to integrate a grammar component into a CLT

16 curriculum. GBT seeks to integrate CLT into a structural

syllabus, usually in one class within a larger, varied

curriculum. Simply stated, the issue facing practitioners today

19 is whether to teach grammar separately but integrated with

CLT methods and materials as one component out of many in

a well-balanced program of second language instruction, or to

22 integrate grammar into a content- and/or task-focused

approach, either incidentally as opportunities arise (reactively)

or by a predetermined grammar syllabus (proactively).

25Though I have limited experience with FonF, I have

taught variations of it, most notably in some basal series and

in composition classes. For reactive teaching of grammar in

28 composition classes, I would excerpt common errors from the

students' writing and use them for a grammar-teaching

segment within the composition syllabus. However, it was not

31 difficult to notice that semester after semester students made

the same errors, so I decided it would be more efficient and

effective to prepare a grammar syllabus to integrate into the

34 writing syllabus in a systematic way.

I observed that students in my writing class who had

experienced grammar instruction had an advantage over

37 those students who had not. Students with a good grounding

in grammar needed only to be reminded that, for example,

they were trying to say "I was really bored" not "I was really

40 boring." Those without that grounding in grammar needed a

lot more teaching time in order to understand, just as one

example, the difference between –ing and –ed adjectives.

Betty Azar. Internet: <http://tesl-ej.org> (adapted).

Text VI, for questions from 34 through 38.

1 Popular tradition would have you believe that

children are effortless second language learners and far

superior to adults in their eventual success. On both counts,

4 some qualifications are in order.

First, children’s widespread success in acquiring

second languages belies a tremendous subconscious effort

7 devoted to the task. Children exercise a good deal of both

cognitive and effective effort in order to internalize both native

and second languages. The difference between children and

10 adults lies primarily in the contrast between the child’s

spontaneous, peripheral attention to language forms and the

adult’s overt, focal awareness of and attention to those forms.

13 Second, adults are not necessarily less successful in

their efforts. Studies have shown that adults, in fact, can be

superior in a number of aspects of acquisition. They can learn

16 and retain a larger vocabulary. They can utilize various

deductive and abstract processes to shortcut the learning of

grammatical and other linguistic concepts. And, in classroom

19 learning, their superior intellect usually helps them to learn

faster than a child. So, while children’s fluency and

naturalness are often the envy of adults struggling with

22 second language, the context of classroom instruction may

introduce some difficulties to children learning a second

language.

25 Third, the popular claim fails to differentiate very

young children (say, four- to six-year-olds) from

pre-pubescent children (twelve to thirteen) and the whole

28 range of ages in between. There are actually many instances

of six- to twelve-year-old children manifesting significant

difficulty in acquiring a second language for a multitude of

31 reasons. Ranking high on that list of reasons are a number of

complex personal, social, cultural, and political factors at play

in elementary school education.

34 Teaching ESL to school-age children, therefore, is

not merely a matter of setting them loose on a plethora of

authentic language tasks in the classroom. To successfully

37 teach children a second language requires specific skills and

intuitions that differ from those appropriate for adult teaching.

H. Douglas Brown. Teaching by Principles.

Longman, 2001, p. 87 (adapted).

Text VI, for questions from 34 through 38.

1 Popular tradition would have you believe that

children are effortless second language learners and far

superior to adults in their eventual success. On both counts,

4 some qualifications are in order.

First, children’s widespread success in acquiring

second languages belies a tremendous subconscious effort

7 devoted to the task. Children exercise a good deal of both

cognitive and effective effort in order to internalize both native

and second languages. The difference between children and

10 adults lies primarily in the contrast between the child’s

spontaneous, peripheral attention to language forms and the

adult’s overt, focal awareness of and attention to those forms.

13 Second, adults are not necessarily less successful in

their efforts. Studies have shown that adults, in fact, can be

superior in a number of aspects of acquisition. They can learn

16 and retain a larger vocabulary. They can utilize various

deductive and abstract processes to shortcut the learning of

grammatical and other linguistic concepts. And, in classroom

19 learning, their superior intellect usually helps them to learn

faster than a child. So, while children’s fluency and

naturalness are often the envy of adults struggling with

22 second language, the context of classroom instruction may

introduce some difficulties to children learning a second

language.

25 Third, the popular claim fails to differentiate very

young children (say, four- to six-year-olds) from

pre-pubescent children (twelve to thirteen) and the whole

28 range of ages in between. There are actually many instances

of six- to twelve-year-old children manifesting significant

difficulty in acquiring a second language for a multitude of

31 reasons. Ranking high on that list of reasons are a number of

complex personal, social, cultural, and political factors at play

in elementary school education.

34 Teaching ESL to school-age children, therefore, is

not merely a matter of setting them loose on a plethora of

authentic language tasks in the classroom. To successfully

37 teach children a second language requires specific skills and

intuitions that differ from those appropriate for adult teaching.

H. Douglas Brown. Teaching by Principles.

Longman, 2001, p. 87 (adapted).

Text VI, for questions from 34 through 38.

1 Popular tradition would have you believe that

children are effortless second language learners and far

superior to adults in their eventual success. On both counts,

4 some qualifications are in order.

First, children’s widespread success in acquiring

second languages belies a tremendous subconscious effort

7 devoted to the task. Children exercise a good deal of both

cognitive and effective effort in order to internalize both native

and second languages. The difference between children and

10 adults lies primarily in the contrast between the child’s

spontaneous, peripheral attention to language forms and the

adult’s overt, focal awareness of and attention to those forms.

13 Second, adults are not necessarily less successful in

their efforts. Studies have shown that adults, in fact, can be

superior in a number of aspects of acquisition. They can learn

16 and retain a larger vocabulary. They can utilize various

deductive and abstract processes to shortcut the learning of

grammatical and other linguistic concepts. And, in classroom

19 learning, their superior intellect usually helps them to learn

faster than a child. So, while children’s fluency and

naturalness are often the envy of adults struggling with

22 second language, the context of classroom instruction may

introduce some difficulties to children learning a second

language.

25 Third, the popular claim fails to differentiate very

young children (say, four- to six-year-olds) from

pre-pubescent children (twelve to thirteen) and the whole

28 range of ages in between. There are actually many instances

of six- to twelve-year-old children manifesting significant

difficulty in acquiring a second language for a multitude of

31 reasons. Ranking high on that list of reasons are a number of

complex personal, social, cultural, and political factors at play

in elementary school education.

34 Teaching ESL to school-age children, therefore, is

not merely a matter of setting them loose on a plethora of

authentic language tasks in the classroom. To successfully

37 teach children a second language requires specific skills and

intuitions that differ from those appropriate for adult teaching.

H. Douglas Brown. Teaching by Principles.

Longman, 2001, p. 87 (adapted).