[Robert Greco]

in reply to: Shona's Response to "Thinking At the Edge" #723

This is an extremely interesting question both of you Shona and Sarah are raising.
As an ESL student myself, and thank you for bringing me into your discussion, I have mixed feelings about it.

In my own theoretical thinking about language, I believe that speaking multiple languages creates a multi-layered conscious experience. Same concepts have different emotional and bodily senses in each language. For instance, with my multi-lingual friends I speak only in English when we discuss an emotionally sensitive topic. Having learned English mostly from textbooks and science, it is a language of logic for me, free of emotional turmoils. So speaking in English allows me to step back from my feelings when I need to and experience it in a more neutral way. This sense of English is primarily due to my being socialized into English through detached writings of mainstream psychology.

What does it mean for TAE? it can have dual implications: 1) it might, and it did for me as I was learning english, make an emerging learner feel handicapped, and thus be discouraging. You have a sense of what you would like to say, but no words are coming, and consequently you feel incapable and stupid. I would say that you are being trapped at the edge with no possibility of release. Not the most pleasant situation, and I was there my first few years in college, when i felt the answer but was unable to articulate it. 2) On the other hand, it can enhance the felt sense experience. Not having a word for an idea both figuratively and literally does allow one to prolong and deeper feel that felt sense moment. An ESL student would not be rushed to slam an already known word on it just to alleviate the discomfort.

The success of teaching TAE to ESL students, I feel, would depend on the patience of both teacher and students. But it can be a very rewarding experience. Consistent with Gendlin’s rejection of language as the master of us all, introducing TAE in ESL courses might give students a greater freedom of using language and creating the new meanings beyond those formally acquired through translation manuals or situational use. This might in fact give them more control over what type of English they learn and how they sense it.

In addition to this thinking into which you so generously invited me, I can’t help but add that I agree with Gendlin that teaching and learning TAE is a very political endeavor. He states that “People, especially intellectuals, believe that they cannot think! They are trained to say what fits into a pre-existing public discourse. They remain numb about what could arise from themselves in response to the literature and the world. People live through a great deal which cannot be said.” WE too often believe that we can’t break through, regardless of what language we speak. Language becomes the means of control. Genglin’s framework allows for some agency, while not denying social constructionism, it gives us an opportunity to stand out against its determinism. And at some level, learning a language is a great opportunity to experiment with this type of break through because a new language is like a blank page on which you can write new meanings.

[Robert Greco]

in reply to: Robert's Response #682

I’m starting to see what you’re saying. And now I’m thinking of those times when I had a “language comes from” response, and I see what you mean by the ah-ha moment, but the sensations have certain similar characteristics, but the going out seems a key distinction. The ah-ha moment is about loss in many ways. I get it but when I try to put it into language, I lose it. Then with the BFS, I’m starting from the place of loss and flowing into the language. I’m not sure I’m clear here, but I think I’m starting to get it. 🙂

[Author]

Posts