A Non-Culture-Bound Theory of Language Education

Paolo Balboni

doi:10.30687/elle/2280-6792/2020/01/001

Abstract

Educational linguistics is a dyadic science. The noun, linguistics, is a broad term which includes neuro-, psycho-, socio-, pragma-, ethno-linguistics and communication studies: areas where national ‘schools’ non longer exist. Educational, on the contrary, is a culture-bound term: language teaching is carried out according to laws which concern syllabi, exams and certifications, the language(s) of instruction, the teaching of the host language to migrant students, teacher training programmes etc. These juridical and administrative acts are meant for the local educational systems. We propose that it is possible to find a number of principles and models (we call them “hypotheses”) which can be accepted by culture-bound educational decision-makers, thus increasing consistency within language teaching and research throughout the world.

Highlights

The opposition can be defined as Educational linguistics vs. Language pedagogy
We propose that it is possible to find a number of principles, which we call ‘hypotheses’, that can be accepted by globalized edulinguists, but by culture-bound educational decision-makers as well, increasing consistency in language teaching research and practice in the world
If a non-culture-bound paradigm exists, as we think it does, each culture-bound educational system has the possibility of checking its traditional way of teaching native and non-native languages against the ‘true’ principles of the framework

Summary

Introduction

Paolo Balboni A Non-Culture-Bound Theory of Language Education We propose that it is possible to find a number of principles, which we call ‘hypotheses’, that can be accepted by globalized edulinguists, but by culture-bound educational decision-makers as well, increasing consistency in language teaching research and practice in the world. If a non-culture-bound paradigm exists, as we think it does, each culture-bound educational system has the possibility of checking its traditional way of teaching native and non-native languages against the ‘true’ principles of the framework.

Results

Conclusion