Language

My fascination with English began in the summer of 2001, when the government officially incorporated it into the national curriculum as a subject in secondary school. Before that reform, English had been taught only during the final two years of high school and at the university level through a bachelor’s degree program. Several factors contributed to the government’s growing interest in English, with globalization playing a major role. This national shift, combined with my own curiosity and desire to connect with the wider world, motivated me to pursue a B.A. in English Language and Literature at the University of Nouakchott. After graduation, I chose to dedicate myself to English language teaching by completing a degree in English Teaching at the École Normale Supérieure, the National Teacher Training College.

My experience at SIT was a turning point that transformed how I understand language and how I see myself as both learner and teacher. The courses Second Language Acquisition (SLA), English Applied Linguistics (EAL), and Language Analysis for Lesson Planning greatly broadened my awareness of language and deepened my technical skills. SLA helped me make sense of my own learning experience by introducing diverse perspectives on how languages develop. EAL encouraged me to explore English not only in terms of structure, meaning, and use but also through the lenses of learners, teachers, and linguists.

Through these experiences, I expanded my understanding of all the components of English and became more reflective in analyzing my teaching practices. I also refined my ability to design lesson plans and apply effective error correction strategies. Most importantly, I developed a richer appreciation of English as both a linguistic and cultural system. Today, I see language not as a fixed set of forms but as a living, evolving phenomenon—a complex adaptive system shaped by interaction, context, and human creativity

Sub-Competency A.2 : Teachers Need to Be Knowledgeable About Language as Subject Matter in Language Teaching

Supporting Documents

When I graduated from the University of Nouakchott in 2009, the combination of “English” and “Teaching” was far from what initially drew my interest to language. Although I completed a course in General Linguistics, the main focus of my degree was rooted in the humanities—particularly literature and the history of the English language. At the Teacher Training College, however, there was a stronger emphasis on content knowledge, especially the practical “know-how” of teaching through methodology and linguistics courses.

My theoretical foundation in English language teaching underwent a significant transformation during my studies at SIT. I developed a deeper understanding not only of the linguistic aspects of language—such as grammar and the evolving theories of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) across decades and linguistic traditions—but also of the social dimensions of teaching.

The range of theories about how languages are learned broadened my perspective and helped me contextualize my own language learning experience within the larger field. Initially, I began to analyze my acquisition of English from a cognitive perspective. In a paper written for the Second Language Acquisition course, I combined insights from SLA research to narrate my language development within a context where English is taught but rarely used for communication, as is the case in Mauritania. Using the lens of sociocultural theory, I explored the role of interaction in language development. While much of the current literature emphasizes verbal interaction as essential to learning, I proposed interaction with texts as an alternative form of engagement—particularly valuable in environments where verbal communication in English is limited.

The paper Interaction with Texts and Language Development represents an effort to explore my own second language development by linking theoretical knowledge from the field of SLA to my lived learning experience. It reflects both the breadth of knowledge gained and its application to personal and professional contexts. Through this process, I formulated a context-oriented hypothesis of learning by investigating the strategies, stages, and processes that shaped my journey as a learner of English in an EFL setting such as Mauritania.

Similarly, in the Pragmatics Group Presentation, I explored key issues related to language norms and communicative competence. The question of whose linguistic norms should serve as reference—the native speaker’s or the learner’s—sparked important reflection. As a non-native speaker myself, I argued in favor of a norm-flouting stance, one that recognizes communication as a shared, egalitarian process between interlocutors. Elka Todeva’s feedback on the presentation affirmed this perspective, noting that “at the heart of plurilinguistic pedagogy” lies the teacher’s conviction to promote shared responsibility in communication rather than adherence to rigid native-speaker norms.

This experience reinforced the importance of finding balance in our linguistic choices, regardless of whether we are native or non-native speakers. It also highlighted the need to cultivate pragmatic awareness in the classroom, since effective communication depends on an evolving understanding of cultural and contextual nuances. Ultimately, the dynamic and ever-changing nature of language suggests that strict conformity to native norms is incompatible with language’s own emergent and adaptive character.

Sub-Competency B.3 : Teachers Need to Be Skilled at Exploring and Analyzing Linguistic Phenomena and Applying These Analyses to Their Teaching Context(s)

Supporting Documents

Teaching a language requires a deep understanding of its linguistic forms, meanings, and uses, as well as the ability to determine which aspects to teach, in which contexts, and to which learners. Before attending SIT, I had already acquired a solid theoretical foundation in English linguistics. However, in the classroom, I often felt that my teaching was driven more by the textbook than by my students’ actual needs. At times, my instructional decisions were based on my own comfort level rather than on a clear understanding of what learners most needed to develop. The courses Language Analysis for Lesson Planning (LALP) and English Applied Linguistics (EAL) equipped me with the analytical and pedagogical skills to connect linguistic knowledge directly to teaching contexts, starting from learners’ needs rather than the textbook.

My ability to explore and analyze linguistic phenomena was particularly strengthened through EAL and LALP, which introduced the concepts of core and peripheral language features. Understanding this distinction has been invaluable for lesson planning and prioritizing instructional focus. Determining what constitutes the core of a linguistic structure—what students must learn to communicate effectively—has helped me design lessons that are more targeted and meaningful. In my EAL exploration of the Simple Present Tense, for example, I analyzed its form, multiple meanings (habitual actions, general truths, physical laws, customs, and future events), and uses (present actions, speech acts, and the conversational historical present). This exercise deepened my awareness of how grammatical forms function differently across communicative contexts and how that knowledge can inform classroom practice.

Reflecting on the Mauritanian teaching context, I have often found it challenging to decide which grammatical concepts should be prioritized. Insights gained from EAL and LALP helped me identify core elements across grammar, lexicon, and phonology while selecting appropriate activities to teach them effectively. One example is the classroom activity “Present Simple: Discuss and Agree,” which I designed for the EAL class. In this activity, students create statements in the Present Simple that everyone in their group must agree with, such as “Teenagers spend too much time texting” or “Old people complain too much.” To guide the activity, I provided language prompts and discussion topics either on the board or in worksheets. Elka Todeva’s feedback described this as a “wise, unpredictable (content-wise), engaging, output-flooding” task that captured the essence of grammaring by integrating meaning, form, and use in a dynamic way.

Both my LALP Lexicon Lesson Plan and Lexicon Review demonstrate my effort to apply these analytical skills in designing lessons that align linguistic knowledge with communicative goals. The Lexicon Lesson Plan focused on core vocabulary related to health and illness, aiming to prepare students to engage in conversations with a doctor. In the Clarify stage of the ECRIF lesson framework, I began by identifying what students already knew. Assessing prior knowledge proved essential to building on their existing understanding rather than making assumptions about it. During this stage, students worked in groups to teach each other the vocabulary, then used dictionaries to confirm or expand their understanding. Later, they matched words and definitions using dictionary support.

This sequence reflects a Vygotskian approach to scaffolding—providing support that encourages learners to take greater responsibility without oversimplifying the task. By gradually increasing cognitive demand, the activity allowed students to construct knowledge collaboratively and meaningfully. Through these experiences, I learned to approach language not as a static body of rules but as a system that becomes accessible through exploration, analysis, and thoughtful connection to learners’ real communicative needs.

Sub-Competency C.7: Teachers Need to Hold Attitudes of Engagement in Understanding Language

Supporting Documents

The skills and awareness developed through Second Language Acquisition (SLA), English Applied Linguistics (EAL), and Language Analysis for Lesson Planning (LALP) transformed my understanding of what language truly is. Earlier in my teaching career, I tended to approach English as a fixed system composed of grammatical structures and vocabulary lists. Teaching, for me, meant transmitting this information to students as efficiently as possible. At the Teacher Training College, much of the focus was on integrating the four skills—reading, writing, listening, and speaking—into lesson plans. However, little attention was given to clarifying the distinctions among these skills, their connection to real-life communication, or the rationale behind when and how to teach them.

Over time, I began to question why certain aspects of language were emphasized in specific contexts while others were neglected. I often wondered: How does teaching reading differ from teaching writing or listening? How exactly does listening occur? Are there different types of listening? My limited exposure to listening-based activities as a student had left me with a vague understanding of how to approach this skill in my teaching. The absence of clear methodologies for teaching listening hindered my ability to appreciate its full scope and role in language learning.

The Four Skills course provided an opportunity to explore these questions in depth. Engaging with the literature on listening allowed me to reflect critically on my assumptions and to construct a new, more coherent understanding of how listening functions in the language classroom. I came to recognize that listening establishes an essential connection between the It (language) and the Thou (learner)—a relationship that naturally scaffolds acquisition. This awareness marked a significant shift in my attitude toward teaching listening. My Listening Reflection Paper documents this evolution, describing the process of “unfreezing” previous conceptions, “moving” toward new insights, and ultimately “refreezing” an updated understanding of listening as an interactive, meaning-making process (see Listening Reflection Paper, paragraphs 3, 4, and 6).

A similar engagement with understanding language emerged through my English Applied Linguistics Review, where I devised a teaching strategy called Understanding by Comparison. This approach was inspired by Thomas Kuhn’s principle that “to understand something, understand what it is not.” In my teaching experience, students often struggled with the dual meanings of certain English expressions, particularly phrasal verbs. They tended to retain only the literal meaning while overlooking the idiomatic one. To address this, I used visual aids—pictures or short video clips—to highlight the difference between literal and figurative meanings.

For instance, when teaching the phrasal verb run into, I would show two contrasting images: one depicting two soccer players colliding in midair (literal meaning) and another showing Barack Obama unexpectedly meeting someone on the street (idiomatic meaning). In some cases, however, images could overlap semantically—as in the case of shake in “shake hands.” In such instances, I used gestures or mimicry to clarify the intended meaning of “meeting someone unexpectedly.” This method, documented in my EAL Review, reflects an ongoing engagement in understanding language not as a static object but as a dynamic, meaning-rich system that requires constant exploration, reflection, and contextual adaptation.

Sub-Competency D.8: Teachers Need to Hold Attitudes of Engagement in Understanding Language

Supporting Documents

Studying a second language involves navigating a complex process of accommodating diverse linguistic and cultural norms. Nowhere is this more evident than in second language writing, where learners must negotiate both voice and identity to achieve proficiency in the target language (TL). Writing serves as a unique space where language and culture continually intersect. My four years of studying American history and literature provided a strong foundation for understanding different genres and compositional styles in English. Yet, as a native Arabic speaker, I consistently noticed how the stylistic conventions of my first language (L1) influenced my writing in English (L2).

In my Writing Reflection Paper, I examined some of these patterns of transfer between Arabic and English writing. For instance: In the context of form/mechanics, the appropriate use of punctuation is hindered by the style and structural organization of Arabic sentences and paragraphs where a comma is used multiple times, throughout a paragraph, to separate sentences. Another aspect of logical identity is the syntactic problems such as sentence fragments and run-on sentences created as a result of replicating the oral style of the first language (Arabic/Hasaniya) into a composition in the target language, resulting in a form of writing not in conformity with the target language stylistic norms. (Writing Reflection Paper, para. 4).

Other examples of transfer include the frequent use of the passive voice, lengthy and ornate sentences, and the tendency toward a decorative and expressive prose style that favors a spiral progression of ideas rather than a linear, concise structure. At the same time, integrating the stylistic norms of the target language has been a deeply transformative process—one that goes beyond writing conventions and touches the level of identity. In my Four Skills Writing Reflection, I explored this intersection of language and culture through comparison with Fan Shen’s article, The Classroom and the Wider Culture: Identity as a Key to Learning English Composition. Shen’s struggle to reconcile Chinese rhetorical conventions with English academic writing closely mirrors my own experience as an Arabic speaker. Like Shen, I experienced an internal conflict between the rhetorical patterns of my first language and the expectations of English composition. Because English teachers are often native speakers who do not share their students’ L1 or cultural background, they may overlook these rhetorical differences, leading learners to feel a sense of dissonance or alienation similar to that which Shen describes.

My second paper, a summary of the first part of Lisa Delpit’s Other People’s Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom, further expanded my understanding of how culture shapes writing instruction. I included this piece because it provides a complementary perspective on the relationship between language and culture—particularly through the discussion of skills-based versus process-based approaches to writing. While Shen’s conflict is internal, rooted in identity negotiation between L1 and L2 rhetorical systems, Delpit addresses an external conflict occurring within classroom structures. She argues that the dominance of process writing in U.S. classrooms often privileges the norms and needs of white, middle-class students, while marginalizing those of Black students and other minority learners.

Together, Shen’s and Delpit’s perspectives illuminate both the internal and external dimensions of linguistic and cultural conflict. Shen highlights how cross-cultural differences in writing can affect a learner’s sense of self, while Delpit exposes how pedagogical choices can perpetuate systemic inequities. Both perspectives underscore the need for teachers to recognize and bridge these cultural divides. In practice, this means helping students compare and contrast composition patterns between their first and second languages, encouraging them to see difference as an asset rather than a deficiency. Such awareness allows learners to master new writing conventions without erasing their original cultural identities. For teachers, this awareness cultivates empathy and flexibility, essential qualities for fostering inclusive learning environments.

This intersection of language, culture, and pedagogy continues to be a particularly thought-provoking area of inquiry for me. It resonates deeply with the challenges faced by minority and multilingual students in Mauritania, where questions of linguistic identity, equity, and belonging remain central to the educational experience.

Agenda for Future Learning

• The current and future direction of language study appears to be moving toward viewing language as a dynamic and complex system rather than an abstract set of symbols in the mind. This shift already influences how languages are taught, and I am eager to continue exploring evolving theories of language development. I am particularly curious about what English language teaching will look like ten years from now.

• As a non-native speaker, maintaining a high level of English proficiency depends greatly on continued engagement in an English-speaking environment. Returning to Mauritania—where English remains a foreign rather than a second language—means I must find alternative ways to sustain my language use. Reading extensively will be an essential means of maintaining interaction with English in the absence of regular communication opportunities.

• Read Doing Teacher Research: From Inquiry to Understanding by Donald Freeman. Documents