Descriptive linguists had as much to say about the "how" of teaching second languages as about the "what." Their fundamental ideas were contrary to many
of the practices common to the typical classroom in the first half of the twentieth century. Clearly a shift to their way of thinking involved basic changes in the approach to language teaching. The implications for revision and change revolved around the following points:
1. Traditional classes had begun with and emphasized written work. The new approach should begin with and center around oral practice. The ear and the tongue should be trained first. Oral language was not only more important; it also involved those skills that were prerequisite to gaining a satisfactory command of the written skills.
2. In grammar-translation classes, the students had learned the second language by comparing it to the native language. However, the rules of one language should not be used to learn another. Learning a second language should bfegin with that language, not another. All languages are different, and comparisons are not beneficial to the language learner.
3. At the same time, descriptive linguists believed that most errors in second- language learning were due to interference from native-language habits. Therefore, the focus of the activity in the classroom should center around these conflicting structures. The traditional approach had been to analyze these contrasts. The new approach should be to develop new habits to overcome the old ones.
4. The traditional method had stressed written forms. The new method should emphasize the sounds of the language. Language is a stream of sounds, and oral speech is basic to learning a language. Therefore, the sounds and oral patterns should be learned.
5. Modern languages should not be described in terms of Latin grammar rules. New descriptions of language based on scientific analysis of the spoken language should be substituted for the traditional grammatical terms. The descriptions included the oral aspects of language as well as the written.
6. The classical approach had been to learn by heart the rules of the language. The new linguistic approach recognized that the first-language learner is not aware of the rules he is applying. Therefore, the second language should be practiced, not studied. The learner should learn by analogy, i.e., the recognition of identical elements in recurring patterns, not by analysis of grammar per se.
7. The traditional approach had been to spend a considerable amount of time studying about the language. The new linguists stressed that language should be overlearned. Language consists of a set of habits, not knowledge about how the language is put together.
8. A common practice in the past had been to learn grammar in isolated sentences and vocabulary in lists. The newer methodology maintained that both should be taught in context. Language does not occur in isolated segments; it occurs as part of a communicative situation.