primarily from the social and topical dimensions. This is one reason why some linguistically brilliant textbooks have been pedagogical flops.
The social dimension ('Who is talking with whom?')
It is therefore a good idea, before starting to adapt existing lessons, to draw up a simple two-dimensional matrix. The social dimension lists the kinds of people with whom the student most urgently needs to interact, by occupation of course, but also according to their social status with reference to the communication event. The choice of interlocutors determines not only the content of what one says, but also the style in which one says it. If the training site is a junior high school in an entirely English-speaking town, the original list might include only the teacher and the other students. The reality to which the matrix refers may be prospective as well as immediate, however. Many teachers prefer to operate on the principle of 'now now and later later:' stick to present realities while the students are coping with the rudiments of the language, and begin to use more distant ones in the intermediate stage. Policemen, taxi drivers, landlords and many others may thus be added to the matrix. But they may only be added if the prospect of encountering them is psychologically real to the students themselves. To add them at the whim of the teacher or for the convenience of the materials writer would result in a spurious matrix, invalid from the point of view of the student, and a source of weakness rather than strength.
The same principle applies to the training of adults who expect to go immediately to jobs where they will use the language. The roles that make up the social dimension will be more numerous, and the prospects will be more clearly defined, but care in selecting and defining the roles can still make the difference between strength and weakness.
51
