Learning Linguistics by Doing: The Secret Virtues of a Language Constructed in the Classroom

Abstract

The teaching of second languages in school classrooms is often conducted through the use of 'direct' and 'immersion' methods, while grammar is reserved for the first language. However, pupils spontaneously raise important questions for general and theoretical linguistics which could be better addressed through an interlinguistic comparison of first and second language grammars in the pupils' repertoires. This paper explains the method used in a pilot experiment in fieldwork. The experiment was conducted in * The author thanks all the staff of the Montessori school in via Milazzo, Milan, Italy for the collaboration in the fieldwork, and in particular: the teachers Chiara Bonizzoli and Patrizia Pradella, and the head Costanza Buttafava, for the possibility to inspect Maria Montessori's manuscript Psicogrammatica, which we all hope that will be published soon. A special acknowledgement goes to Grazia Honegger Fresco, who offered a wonderful tea time to the author, where language teaching and many other stuffs were discussed. 114 Learning Linguistics by Doing: The Secret Virtues of a Languaget he fourth class of a Montessori primary school, where pupils constructed from scratch a posteriori language to be used for secret communication among themselves-but not to be used with the rest of the school. During the process of the construction of this language, all aspects were discussed in the class: phonetics and writing systems, morphology and syntax, semantics and pragmatics. The main educational result was the increase in pupils' metalinguistic awareness, as well as the confidence that they gained in their own language proficiency.

Language Games Children Play: Language Invention in a Montessori Primary School

“…In fact, although some sporadic experiences of using language invention in the classroom do exist (Sanders 2016;Schreyer 2011), to the extent of the author's knowledge, no such fieldwork exists in the specific context of primary schools. The purposes of the laboratory described in the position paper of the language laboratory (Gobbo 2013) and elaborated after the conclusion of the first edition, i.e., the first 2-year cycle (Gobbo et al 2016), were the following: first, the laboratory may increase pupils' metalinguistic awareness through a continuous collaborative and collective activity of "learning-bydoing," typical of the Montessori method, and second, it may encourage comparative analysis of the natural languages present in the class member repertoires, including home languages of early bilinguals, so to understand the commonalities existing across language diversity. During subsequent editions of the laboratory, the team members observed a potentiality of strengthening the self-esteem of children with dyslexia and other specific difficulties concerning language learning, and in general the laboratory seems to have positive emotional aspects for all participants, as in general they participate willingly and with enthusiasm (Gobbo 2017a).…”

Are planned languages less complex than natural languages?

“…In a pilot experiment performed in a Montessori primary school in Milan, Italy, Gobbo (2016bGobbo ( , 2013 shows that a secret language developed in the classroom can reinforce the sense of belonging of the children to the class itself as a group. Two language laboratoriescalled "language games" by the childrenwere proposed in the last two years of school.…”

“…Two language laboratoriescalled "language games" by the childrenwere proposed in the last two years of school. The aim was not to establish a rigorous protocol, with a control group, but only to define the rules of the language games, in order to possibly replicate the laboratories in other, more structured, contexts (Gobbo, 2013;Gobbo, 2016a). There is a considerable difference between these language laboratories and the literature published to date: in this case, children learn language by doing so in a concrete manner, entering the world of language planning directly.…”

“…The two laboratories emphasize two sociolinguistic aspects: the sense of belonging and the desire of communication. The first laboratory, described in Gobbo (2013) in its first implementation, is called Markuskica, and it is directed more towards the sense of belonging. This name comes from the secret language Markuska, elaborated by Bausani (1974Bausani ( , 1970.…”