Most developments in foreign language teaching since the Second World War have been based on the assumption that language is a form of behavior.Even where there is no explicit statement of the theoretical foundations of a method，the underlying attitude can be inferred from the use of such terms as‘skill’or‘habit’.To quote the title of the fifth chapter in Rivers，‘Foreign-language learning is basically a mechanical process of habit formation.’More deeply committed to such a point of view is Nelson Brooks：“The single paramount fact about language learning is that it concerns，not problem solving，but the formation and performance of habits”（Brooks，1960：46-7）.On the previous page he has also used the word‘skill’.Analogies between language and‘other skills’abound.Learning a language is like learning to type，to ride a bicycle or to carry out any of the other routines that we characterize as habits.They are forms of human activity that，once learned，can be learned out without the conscious use of one's cognitive processes.The beliefs that conscious attention to the principles underlying the skill does not assist the learning of the skill.It is only fair to point out that use of these two terms in writings on foreign language teaching does not necessarily imply a commitment to all the details of a behaviorist theory such as that outlined above.As often as not they are used as a corrective to the view that a foreign language is just another subject to be learned in school，a set of facts together with some rules for solving problems.Even so，it is the function of applied linguistics to make the implications of such terms explicit and this is necessary if the study of language teaching is to be properly scientific.Here the author of the present study is concerned with cases where the terminology of behaviorism is openly applied to foreign language teaching.From what have been seen，a behaviorist method of language teaching should embody at least the following principles.It should be firmly anchored in spoken language.One might expect an even greater salience to be given to speech than the goals of the course might justify.The teaching of writing would follow the teaching of spoken language.Since one can only learn responses by responding oneself，one would expect a great deal of language activity by the pupils themselves.One would be given the opportunity to repeat numerous times each new piece of language that one encountered.By contrast，little of what one was learning would be explained to him.One would notice the absence of formal explanations and rules from the teacher's language.

One might be struck by how easy much of the work that the pupils were doing seemed to be.The teacher would appear to be giving a considerable amount of assistance to the learner to enable him to get his response right.Indeed，at first，the class may be doing no more than imitate what the teacher was saying.In the practice that followed the pupils would be left with little or no choice about what to say or how to say it.The practice would proceed rapidly and correctly.The justification for making correct responding easy is that the pupil does not learn by making mistakes but by having correct responses properly reinforced.If one can arrange the practice in such a way that the learner utters only correct sentences，he will learn that much more quickly.It is this principle that lies behind language drilling in contrast to the more traditional exercises in which a correct response is possible only if one has already learned the point in question.Drills are a form of practice；exercises are often a form of test.As soon as the learner is given the opportunity to make his own choice of language，he is likely to commit errors.In such teaching therefore there would probably be an absence of occasions for the learner to select his language.The language itself would be organized into a careful sequence so that the burden of new material would never be very large.Each unit would constitute only a small increment of language content over the last.This too would facilitate correct responding，since error is often caused by trying to teach a number of different points at the same time.

Reinforcement，to be effective，should follow the response as quickly as possible.In the classroom it might take the form of approval from the teacher or satisfaction by the pupil that he has got his response right.There might be discouragement of any technique that cannot provide for immediate reinforcement.One sometimes meets the argument that homework should not be set，since the teacher cannot see it until long after it was done and by the time it is returned to the learner any reinforcement is lost.The only benefit to be gained from such work is that it has provided some further opportunity for language practice.However，the language being practiced is as likely to be incorrect as correct.If the errors could be pointed out immediately，no harm might be done.But the inevitable time interval means that correction by the teacher is less effective in extinguishing the wrong response than the original repetition of the response was in strengthening learning.

The notion of immediate reinforcement is employed most powerfully in language laboratory drilling.The tape is produced to provide a sequence of stimulus-response-reinforcement.It further meets the requirements of the behaviorist model by demanding from each pupil numerous repetitions of correct spoken responses.Whereas in the classroom the teacher is present to judge the appropriateness of a response and a certain amount of flexibility is permissible，in the laboratory the learner is alone with the material.He therefore has to evaluate his own performance and provide his own reinforcement.This takes the form of knowledge that his response is a correct one.To enable him to make this evaluation the correct response is pre-recorded on the tape so that the learner can compare his own response with it.His recognition that the two pieces of language are identical provides the reinforcement that ensures that learning takes place.Of course it is only possible to prerecord a response if there is only a single possible correct answer.If more than one response was possible，one would know neither which response to record，nor which response the learner might select.These considerations lead to the by now familiar type of drill in which a stimulus sentence is recorded on the tape，followed by a pause during which the learner makes his response according to some predetermined pattern，and then by the pre-recorded correct response to provide the reinforcement.If the drill is left at that stage，it is called a three-phase drill.Sometimes，however，the reinforcement itself is used as the stimulus to a further imitative response（four-phase drill）with possibly further reinforcement（five-phase drill）.Whether in classroom or laboratory，behaviorist teaching relies more on analogy than on rules for teaching the structure of the language.Teaching which encourages the learner to construct sentences according to a previously learned set of rules is thought to hinder the instinctive production of language.It does not resemble the‘natural’learning process，in which the child attempts to construct new forms on the analogy of the forms of language that he has already met.By being exposed to the language，the child comes to recognize and operate the structure of the language in an unconscious way.In language teaching this analogizing process can be facilitated，not by giving the rule to the child，but by arranging each drill repetition so that the pupil constructs his new response along exactly the same lines as his previous response.All the responses in any one drill will have exactly the same grammatical structure.With enough properly reinforced repetition of the structure，the‘rule’will be acquired in a way that is not only unconscious but also more conducive to spontaneous language use thereafter.

This leaves till last the question of meaning.If one bases a teaching method narrowly on a theory of learning，the method will reflect the strengths and weaknesses of the theory.It is conceivable that a set of procedures like those will produce a reasonable mastery of the forms of language.There are doubts as to how well the meaning of language will be acquired，since the original analysis of meaning itself seems very naive.If thisisso，it is a serious deficiency，since the whole object of language is to communicate meaning.If people assume for a moment that learning the meaning of a language is indeed acquiring a thematic repertoire of responses，it would appear that such a method，with its numerous opportunities for the pupil to respond to language stimuli in drills，would indeed teach the meaning of language adequately.Yet if one looks closely at the language that typically occurs in such drills.It is found that the relationship between stimulus and response sentences is quite unlike any that might occur in natural language use.The drills require the learner to transform，replace，substitute，expand or otherwise manipulate the stimulus sentence in a totally artificial way.Although a student may succeed in mastering the forms of language by such devices，he is hardly learning to respond to stimuli in an acceptable fashion.The very structural similarity in a set of responses is itself highly unnatural.It is true that drills can be made to appear more naturalistic and that dialogues can be introduced to make more realistic exchanges of language，but although this is probably an improvement，it still depends on the assumption that what precedes an utterance，or is physically present in the situation，is the actual determinant of that utterance.To make proper scientific use of the stimulus-response relationship for the teaching of meaning，one would have to be capable of identifying the stimuli in any situation before the language was uttered，and in practice this is utterly impossible.There might be a useful non-technical use of the word stimulus，which permits us to say that a question provides the stimulus for an answering statement，but one could not argue that the question determines what the answer is going to be.The form and content of the answer depend on many factors，most of them unknowable to the observer of the situation.

It is interesting that this point about meaning is not a somewhat esoteric academic squabble.In practice，the greatest deficiency of the Audio-Lingual Method，the method that is most closely based on behaviorist principles，is its failure to prepare the learner to use his language for communication.The meaning of language needs to be much more carefully planned and taught than assigning it to a simplestimulus-response relationship permits.It is of course perfectly possible to teach meaning satisfactorily while retaining many of the features of behaviorist teaching that have been mentioned.In practice this is probably what often happens，but it does mean that the original theory is not being applied consistently.