ELT Journal

in association with
C
Articles
A.S. Hornby and the Hornby Trust
Learning of routine formulae
The myth of the natural-born linguist
Developing speaking
Developing multiliteracies in ELT
Learner negotiation of L2 form
Culture in ELT
Transnational peer review of teaching
Improving teacher talk
Point and counterpoint
ELF
Technology for the language teacher
Digital literacies
Readers respond
CLIL and immersion
Reviews
The Bilingual Reform
Teaching and Learning Pragmatics
The NNEST Lens: Non-native English Speakers
in TESOL
The Construction of English: Culture, Consumerism
and Promotion in the ELT Global Coursebook
IATEFL 2010 Harrogate Conference Selections
Shakespeare on Toast
Provoking Thought: Memory and Thinking in ELT
Towards Multilingual Education
Service, Satisfaction and Climate: Perspectives on
Management in English Language Teaching
The Language and Intercultural Communication Reader
Developing Courses in English for Specific Purposes
E
L
T
B
V
o
l
u
m
e

6
6
/
1

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
2
Volume
66/1
January 2012

ELTB
An international journal for teachers of English to speakers of other languages
1
2
Every effort has been made to trace the owners
of copyright material in this issue, but we shall be
pleased to hear from any copyright holder whom we
have been unable to contact. If notified, the publisher
will attempt to rectify any errors or omissions at the
earliest opportunity.
Oxford University Press 2012

All rights reserved; no part of this publication
may be produced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without either the prior written permission of the
Publishers, or a licence permitting restricted copying
issued in the UK by the Copyright Licensing Agency
Ltd, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1PS 9HE,
or in the USA by the Copyright Clearing Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, Massachusetts 01923, USA.
UK ISSN 0951-0893 (print); 1477-4526 (online)
Typeset by TnQ Books and Journals Pvt. Ltd.,
Chennai, India.
Printed by C.O.S. Printers Pte Ltd, Singapore
Advertising
Inquiries about advertising should be sent to:
Linda Hann
Oxford Journals Advertising
60 Upper Broadmoor Road
Crowthorne RG45 7DE
UK
Email: lhann@talktalk.net
Tel: +44 (0)1344 779945
Fax: +44 (0)1344 779945
Website
Article titles, abstracts, and Key concepts appear free
online through the ELT Journal website:
http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org
Abstracting and Indexing
Arts and Humanities Citation Index (from 2009)
British Education Index
Social Sciences Citation Index (from 2009)
The Advisory Board
Michael Carrier
ELT Adviser
Catherine Walter
IATEFL
Catherine Kneafsey
Oxford University Press
Norman Whitney
ELT Consultant
The Editor
Keith Morrow
The Reviews Editor
Philip Prowse
The Editorial Panel
Sasan Baleghizadeh
Shahid Beheshti University, Islamic Republic
of Iran
Adriana Boffi Cnepa
Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Argentina
Alessia Cogo
University of Southampton
Jeremy Cross
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Eliana Hirano
Georgia State University
Li-Shih Huang
University of Victoria, BC, Canada
John Knagg
British Council
Gordon Lewis
USA
Rama Mathew
Delhi University, Delhi
Jane Mok
University of Hong Kong
Julie Norton
University of Leicester
Ayako Suzuki
Tamagawa University, Tokyo
Tan Bee Tin
University of Auckland
Marion Williams
IATEFL
Alla Zareva
Old Dominion University, Virginia
Key Concepts Editor
Graham Hall
Northumbria University
Text Messages Editors
Jill and Charles Hadfield
Editorial Front Office
Jane Magrane
Consultant to the Editors
Cristina Whitecross
Consultant on Research Design
Catherine Walter
Department of Education, University of Oxford
Cover image: Photolibrary (Class presentation/Radius Images).
Aims
ELT Journal is a quarterly publication for all those involved in the eld
of teaching English as a second or foreign language. The journal links
the everyday concerns of practitioners with insights gained from related
academic disciplines such as applied linguistics, education, psychology,
and sociology.
ELT Journal aims to provide a medium for informed discussion of the
principles and practice which determine the ways in which the English
language is taught and learnt around the world. It also provides a forum
for the exchange of information among members of the profession
worldwide.
The Editor of ELT Journal is supported by an Editorial Advisory Panel
whose members referee submissions. Their decisions are based upon the
relevance, clarity, and value of the articles submitted.
The views expressed in ELT Journal are the contributors own, and not
necessarily those of the Editor, the Editorial Advisory Panel, or the
Publisher.
Contributions
Contributions are welcome from anyone involved in ELT. Contributors
should consult the current online Instructions to authors before
submitting articles, as this contains important information about the focus
and format of articles. Articles not submitted in accordance with the
Instructions to authors will not be considered for publication. See our
website:
http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org
If you wish to write a review for ELT Journal, please contact the Reviews
Editor. Unsolicited reviews cannot be accepted for publication.
Correspondence
editorial: The Editor, ELT Journal, Bosham, Olley Road, West Runton
NR27 9QN, UK.
Email: editor@eltj.org
reviews: The Reviews Editor, ELT Journal, po Box 83, Cambridge
cb3 9pw, UK. Fax +44 (0) 1223 572390
Email: reviews@eltj.org
ELT Journal Volume 66/1 January 2012
The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
A. S. Hornby and 50 years of the
Hornby Trust
Richard Smith and Roger Bowers
A. S. Hornby can justly be considered the father of UK-based ELT. He was the
founder and rst Editor of English Language Teaching (now known as ELT
Journal); he established the ground rules for situational language teaching, the
dominant ELTmethodology in the United Kingdomup until the 1970s; he was the
chief originator of the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary; and, last but not
least, he set up the A. S. Hornby Educational Trust, which has just completed its
50th year of charitable activity. In the following article, Richard Smith provides an
overview of Hornbys career and important overall legacy to ELTand then Roger
Bowers describes the history, nature, and current activities of the Hornby Trust.
A. S. Hornbys life and legacy
Richard Smith
Biography Albert Sydney Hornby (known to his friends and colleagues as ASH) was
bornon10August 1898, inChester.
1
He was educated at the local grammar
school and then studied English at University College London. In 1923, he
was recruited to teach English in a college in Kyushu, Japan. Although
originally employed to teach literature, he found it equally if not more
necessary to focus on the teaching of language. His developing interests in
this area brought him into contact with the pioneering Institute for
Research in English Teaching (IRET), which had been set up in Tokyo by
Harold E. Palmer (18771949). Hornby became an active member, and he
was invited by Palmer in 1931 to assist with IRETs developing programme
of vocabulary research.
In1934, Hornby moved to Tokyo, and, whenPalmer left Japanin1936, took
over the leadership of IRETresearch activities and the editorship of its
Bulletin. He and his IRETcolleagues also brought to fruition a project
initially conceived by Palmer, namely the compilationof a special dictionary
for learners of English. Originally published in Tokyo in 1942, this
dictionary was republished by Oxford University Press (OUP) in 1948 as
ALearners Dictionary of Current English. It was retitled in1952 The Advanced
Learners Dictionary of Current English and is the achievement for which
Hornby is perhaps best remembered today.
ELT Journal Volume 66/1 January 2012; doi:10.1093/elt/ccr085 1

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Hornby returned to England (in
1942) and immediately departed again to take up a British Council post as
lecturer and teacher trainer in Teheran. When the war ended, he was
appointed to the prestigious-sounding newposition of Linguistic Adviser at
British Council headquarters in London. However, as Hornby himself
recalled, this
meant chiey desk-work: the reading of reports from British Council
centres in many parts of the world, much correspondence, and dealing
with les. [ . . . ] I felt that whatever knowledge and abilities I might
possess were not being used in the best way, and I became impatient.
(Hornby 1966: 3)
Practically minded as he was, and with his several years experience of
editingthe IRET Bulletininthe pre-war years, Hornby quickly came upwith
the idea of launching a new journal, English Language Teaching, and
succeeded in persuading the head of the Education Division at the Council
to fund the venture, despite post-war paper shortages.
At the same time as he was editing English Language Teaching, Hornby was
contributing ina major way to BBCEnglishby Radio programmes. He was
also being courted by OUP. Following the successful publication of the
Learners Dictionary in 1948, Hornby accepted an invitation from the Press
to write materials full time, and in 1950 he resigned both from the Council
andfromthe editorshipof English Language Teaching, althoughhe remained
on its editorial advisory board. A series of inuential publications then
followed: AGuide to Patterns and Usage in English (1954), the popular course
Oxford Progressive English for Adult Learners (three volumes, 19541956), and
The Teaching of Structural Words and Sentence Patterns (four volumes, 1959
1966). Primarily it was Hornby, through these publications and his early
articles for English Language Teaching, who established the situational
approach which formed the mainstay of UK-based EFL until the advent of
communicative language teaching in the 1970s.
During the 1950s, in particular, Hornby engaged in several long lecture
tours overseas for the British Council, travelling through the Middle East,
Latin America, and South Asia. With the addition of Africa and South East
Asia, these were to be the main beneciary regions for aid from the A. S.
Hornby Educational Trust, which Hornby set up originally in 1961 as a way
to put a considerable proportionof his royalties to gooduse for the benet of
the ELTprofession. Since 1969, when the rst grants were made, the Trust
has principally been devoted to providing scholarships and grants to
selected teachers indeveloping countries for the purpose of furthering their
studies, usually at Masters level, in the United Kingdom. Hornbys primary
motivation as the slightly bewildered recipient of, in his view, a somewhat
excessive returnof worldly goods (Brown1978: x) was toput some of it back
where it came from (ibid.). The last years of Hornbys life were marked by
a series of honours, notably the award of a Fellowship at University College
London in 1976, an honorary degree at Oxford in 1977, and, in 1978, the
publication of an 80th birthday festschrift, In Honour of A. S. Hornby
(Strevens 1978), with which he was presented shortly before he died. As
Howatt (1984: 317) has recorded, He was greatly loved, kind, modest, and
gently humorous, and his inuence on the profession has been profound.
2 Richard Smith and Roger Bowers

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Hornbys legacy to
ELT
Even on the basis of the above brief synopsis, three areas in which A. S.
Hornbys work had a lasting impact may already be clear: ELT Journal itself,
situational language teaching, and his Advanced Learners Dictionary, eachof
which I shall consider in more detail now. The more specic, indeed, literal
legacy represented by the A. S. Hornby Educational Trust (the Hornby
Trust) will then be described by Roger Bowers, further below.
English Language
Teaching ( Journal)
In October 1946, the rst issue of English Language Teaching was sent out
around the world from the British Councils ofces in Hanover Street,
London. Since then, the journal has continuously served as a focal point for
the profession, to the extent indeed that its title, abbreviated to ELT, came
to be adopted as an umbrella term for the whole enterprise of teaching
Englishas a foreignor secondlanguage. This abbreviationgainedevenwider
currency after English Language Teaching was renamed English Language
Teaching Journal (ELTJ) in 1973 and then simply ELT Journal in 1981.
It is mainly due to Hornbys close association with the periodical in its
earliest years that he deserves to be called the father of ELT in post-war
Britain. During the rst four years of its existence, Hornby was himself by
far the most prolic contributor to English Language Teaching, writing 18 out
of a total of 119 articles. As he later admitted, the rst issue inparticular was
something in the nature of a one-man band (Hornby 1966: 4). Of course,
other contributors did start to come forward, for the most part Hornbys
BritishCouncil colleagues, withjust a fewarticles beingwrittenbyacademic
phoneticians. However, expertise was generally thin on the ground at this
time, thus, evenas late as 1952, R. T. Butlin, Hornbys successor as Editor of
English Language Teaching, lamented the very limited number of experts
available to contribute.
2
Before World War II, indeed, the teaching of English as a foreign language
(EFL) was not muchengagedinor thought about as a specic activity within
the UKat all. Overall, the foundation of English Language Teaching signalled
the start of a new era, both in the way it clearly indicated, for the rst time,
ofcial (British Council) acknowledgment of the importance and specicity
of EFL and due to the fact that it heralded and facilitated an increase in
overall UK-basedactivity inthe eld. At the same time, while the early issues
reveal an evident desire to establish a sense of centrea sense in which the
British possessed a special expertise in the area of EFLsuch expertise did
not yet, in reality run very deep, with a rather small group of men [sic] based
in London being called upon to full multiple roles, Hornby most
prominently among them.
Situational language
teaching
Infact, inthe absenceof a pre-existingUKpower basefor ELTor of academic
applied linguistics as a source of authority, it was the pre-war overseas
experience which Hornby, in particular, brought to bear that set the tone of
UK-based ELT for many years to come. More than anyone else, it was
Hornby, through early articles in English Language Teaching and books like
The Teaching of Structural Words andSentence Patterns (19591966), wholaid
the foundations for situational language teaching, the dominant
methodology inUK-basedELT (andELTas exported fromthe UK) before the
rise of communicative language teaching (CLT) in the 1970s. Situational
language teaching differedfromaudiolingual orthodoxy as developedinthe
A. S. Hornby and 50 years of the Hornby Trust 3

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

United States primarily in the stress it placed on setting up meaningful
(though not communicative) classroomsituations for the presentation and
controlled practice of grammar and vocabulary, primarily by means of
pictures, objects, andactions. Althoughit is rarely mentioned inaccounts of
teaching methods these days, situational language teaching retains its
signicance in having informed the rst two stages of P- P- P (Presentation-
Practice-Production) in weak versions of contemporary CLT, to a much
greater extent, indeed, than has generally been recognized.
Fromwhat sources of experience, though, didHornby derive his authorityto
promote what he termed in his early ELTarticles the situational approach?
His ownanswer came inthe followingreminiscence, nearly at the endof his
life:
I felt that I had had this long experienceactually in the classroom, then
Id beenround the world and seen conditions inmany parts of the world.
[ . . . ] So that gave me what I felt was a solid background. Then there was
the research that wed done in Tokyo. So I felt I was qualied to put
something downonpaper. I wouldnt have dared to do that if I hadnt had
that experience. (Hornby 1974: 9)
Underlying Hornbys condent assertion of certain ideas and principles
during the immediate post-war years, then, were almost 20years of pre-war
classroom experience in Japan, combined with the lessons he had derived
fromactive participation (over the same length of time) in the research and
development work of IRET in Tokyo. In a wide variety of ways, indeed,
Hornbys post-war efforts to help establish a base of EFL expertise in the
United Kingdom can be seen to have drawn sustenance from his
importation of ideas and practices that had been thoroughly experimented
with in pre-war Japan. These experiments were carried out by Japanese as
well as foreignteachers like Hornby himself, under the auspices of IRET, an
instituteor, more properly speaking, a research- and reform-oriented
teachers associationwhich, it is no exaggeration to say, had constituted
the only true centre of EFL expertise worldwide during the pre-war period.
The Advanced
Learners Dictionary
As Cowie (1998, 1999) has demonstrated, Hornbys pioneering Advanced
Learners Dictionary was itself the product of a longperiodof gestationwithin
IRETinpre-war Tokyo. Indeed, the 1948 OUP rst edition of the dictionary
was photographically reprinted with only a few details changed from the
Idiomatic and Syntactic English Dictionary rst issued by IRETs publisher
Kaitakusha in1942. The dictionary was notable for the detailed information
it provided on collocations and verb patterns (hence idiomatic and
syntactic in the original title), as well as the distinction it made throughout
between countable and uncountable nouns. On this basis, the dictionary
aimed to be useful for productive (encoding) purposes as much as for
reception (decoding), and it enjoyed such success following publication
that Hornby was enabled to resign from the British Council in 1950 and
devote himself full time to materials and further dictionary production.
The dictionary remained fundamentally unchanged fromthe original 1942
edition until 1963, when a second edition was produced. Although
correspondence in the OUP Archive shows that Hornby had hoped, from
the outset, that Oxford could appear in the title, this was not to be granted

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

until 1974, with the third edition Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of
Current English. After Hornbys death in 1978, the pace of revision has
steadily increased, with the current (2010) Oxford Advanced Learners
Dictionary being the eighth edition. This bears witness to the rapidity of
recent technological developments but also, more particularly, to the
phenomenal success the dictionary has continued to enjoy as OUPs best-
selling book in any domain, after the Bible.
The following are the great corner-stones of the Hornby legacyaccording
to Cowie (1998: 265)where learners dictionaries in general are
concerned:
a balanced concern for the needs of the learner as reader and writer;
a continuing recognition of the central importance of grammatical words
and patterns; an insistence on descriptive rigour as well as usability; and,
above all, perhaps, an acknowledgement of the crucial role in language
learning and useand thus in the dictionary recordof collocations and
idioms.
The A. S. Hornby Educational Trust
Roger Bowers
Overview Richard Smith has set out three reasons why A. S. Hornby is remembered
and respected worldwide. There is a fourth and unique reason why the
Hornby name is knowninsomany countries aroundthe world, andfor which
the termlegacy has a specic as well as a general resonance: the A. S. Hornby
Educational Trust which, inNovember 2011, celebratedits 50thanniversary.
Two decades before his death in 1978, ASH explored ways in which the
continuing income from his publications and the future use of his
intellectual property, including the Advanced Learners Dictionary (ALD),
could not only support his family but alsothrough the creation of
a charitable trustprovide support to teachers in the expanding profession
that he had helped to shape. In 1961, as described more fully by Collier,
Neale, and Quirk (1978: 3):
ASH outlined a proposal of outstanding generosity: to set aside half his
income for charitable purposespurposes that were strictly relevant to
his life-long work and in furtherance of it. He wanted, he said [. . .], to
have the money used for education and go back to the countries from
which it comes. [ . . . ]
[Earning the money that made such benevolence possible was, he said,]
not the result of any unusual ability on my part, I happen to have
provided three dictionaries . . . and some other textbooks . . . all during
a period of years whenthe demand for English throughout the world was
expanding rapidly.
The Hornby Trust was set up on 17 November 1961 with an initial fund of
ten pounds. The signatories of the Trust Deed were ASH himself, his OUP
Editor and co-author Eric Parnwell, his close associate and a subsequent

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Chairman of the Trust David Neale, and Professor Randolph Quirk of
University College London, who became Chairman of the Trust following
ASHs death in 1978 and whonow Professor Lord Quirk of
Bloomsburyretains a close interest in the Trusts affairs.
The Trust Deed provides for a percentage of the royalties from the sales of
the ALD and other applications of its intellectual property to be received by
the Trust in perpetuity for:
the advancement of the study of English Language and the teaching and
learning of English as a Foreign Language in such manner and by such
means as the Trustees shall fromtimetotimethinkt andinparticular by
providing scholarships and grants to be called the Hornby Scholarships
to enable foreign and commonwealth teachers to come to the United
Kingdom and there to study the English Language.
This remains at the heart of what the Trust does, within a programme of
charitable activity that has grown and diversied as its income and reserves
have allowed and as the changing nature of the ELTprofession around the
world has made possible and necessary. Over the 50 years of the Trust,
among many creative and supportive relationships, two in particular have
continuedto be of key andindeedirreplaceable importance: those withOUP
and the British Council.
OUPhas throughout the 50years not only met its legal obligationto support
the Trust through royalty income: it has sustained a friendship and spirit of
cooperation that is exemplied by those individuals who have worked
within or been published by the Press and at various times also served as
Trustees, including Lord Quirk, David Neale, Peter Collier (each a past
Chairman of the Trust), and Professor Gabriele Stein, Tony Cowie, and
Moira Pavelin (currently Trustees). The industry, professionalism, and
ingenuity of the Press intaking the ALDfromeditionto edition have served
the interests of the Trust well, as also has the diversication into the wide
range of formats, secondary versions, and media and technology
applications in which all publishers are now engaged.
The British Council, too, has a legally binding relationship with the Trust
and one which has been unfailingly friendly and constructive. Much of the
Trusts programme of activity benets not only from the Councils unique
worldwide network but also from its expertise in English teaching
worldwide, its overseas contacts and awareness, and its capacity to provide
parallel funding for activities funded by the Trust. Over the years, a number
of former British Council specialists have served as Trustees and (myself
included) continue to do so.
Other long-standing relationships have extended the reach of the Trust: for
example those with IATEFL (as ATEFL, an early beneciary of Trust
funding), EURALEX (the European Association for Lexicography), VSO
(Voluntary Service Overseas), and various ELTassociations and academic
departments as well as British Council ofces worldwide where a particular
local requirement has been identied.

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

In2011, the aims of the Trust and our corporate relationships remainintact,
as does our determinationto remain, as ASHhimself always was, excitedby
new demands, opportunities, and modes of delivery.
A timeline The remainder of this summary of the Trusts work offers some examples
from our 50 years, before we take a brief glance into the future.
In 1968, as recorded in the minutes of its annual meeting with the British
Council, the Trust agreed its rst programme of donations, supporting 52
teachers from ten different countries to attend ELTsummer schools in the
United Kingdom in 1969.
In 1970, the rst overseas candidate, from Kenya, was accepted for a one
year scholarship at Moray House College, Edinburgh. Peter Collier, ASHs
Editor at OUP, replaced Eric Parnwell onthe Board of Trustees and remains
a Trustee in the Trusts 50th year.
In 1971, the Trust funded a teaching post for a UK lecturer in
Czechoslovakia: such grants were made for a number of years. The Trust
alsomadeits rst grant towhat is nowIATEFLtosupport its conferenceand
the publication of its newsletter.
By 1975, the Trust was able to support six scholarships for study in the
United Kingdom, subsidize the costs of British lecturers abroad, and
contribute to the ESL/EFL work of VSO.
By the late 1970s, support was being given to a growing number of
scholarships, posts abroad including in South Africa, various British
Council ELTprogrammes, and IATEFL conferences in the United
Kingdom and abroad.
ASH died at the age of 80 in 1978. ASHs widow Marian Hornby then
became a Trustee, andprior to her deathin1987 giftedto the Trust her share
of ASHs OUP royalties.
In the early 1980s, along with IATEFL and VSO, the English-Speaking
Union was among the regular grant recipients.
The Trusts records for 1986 include the gift to a project in Brazil of an
electric typewriter, along with new generation language laboratories and
overhead projectors, the hi-tech of the time!
1987 saw a contribution to the Cultura in Chile following earthquake
damage.
In 1989, the Trust contributed to the costs of the library at the Krakow
Institute of English Philology; Eastern Europe has been a signicant
recipient of Hornby support.
By the early 1990s, the Trust no longer funded summer schools in the
United Kingdom or lecturer posts abroad, preferring to concentrate its
resources on scholarships for studies in the UKseven, for example, in
1991, eight in 1992the number each year being guided by the funds
available. Then, as now, the costs were shared with the British Council,
whose network of overseas and UK ofces proposed and managed the
scholarships, reporting annually to the Trust on the Scholars achievement.

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

From1995, the Trust has fundedattendance costs at the biennial conference
of EURALEX.
Since 2000, the Trustguided by the funds available from the continuing
success, edition by edition, of the ALDhas concentrated its resources on
a combination of scholarships, regional schools (British Council managed
teacher educationevents overseas), materials development projects, alumni
activities (proposed and conducted by Hornby Scholars), internet-enabled
networking among teachers, and support to ELT-related projects managed
by VSO directly or within the Comic Relief aid effort.
In 20112012, the Trust is supporting:
n
the MA studies in the United Kingdom of 14 Hornby Scholars from
Africa, Central and South East Asia, India/Sri Lanka, and Latin America;
n
six Hornby schools in Bangladesh, India (three schools), Malaysia, and
Mali;
n
VSO work in Rwanda and Tanzania (Zanzibar);
n
a major Comic Relief/VSOproject for girls educationand employment in
northern Ghana; and
n
local projects by returned Scholars in India and (in collaboration with
IATEFL) teachers associations in Albania and Cuba.
The Trust now and
looking forward
It is a testament toASHs philanthropic visionthat the original intentions of
the Trust remain as valid today as they were half a century ago, although
some of the delivery systems have evolved and diversied!
The Trustees remain committed to postgraduate education for key
individuals as a means of supporting local and national initiatives in
developing and transitional countries, and we remain committed therefore
to providing scholarships for MA studies in the United Kingdom for
carefully selected individuals from locations that vary from year to year. We
value the increased contact with past Hornby Scholars that our
internetworked world makes possible, and an important benet is the
worldwide contextual understandings that Hornby scholarships bringtothe
cooperating UK university departments. Wider outreach also continues to
be offered through teacher workshops overseas, frequently operating on
a regional basis.
The Trustees benet from the skills and presence worldwide of the British
Council, not only through its network of overseas ofces but also from its
online presence andresources. We alsovalue andsupport the long-standing
collaboration with other organizations that share or complement our aims,
in particular, these days, IATEFL, VSO, and EURALEX.
We remain committed to ASHs wish for the Trust to stay lean and mean,
although I suspect that is not a phrase that passed his lips (its usage is well
captured in the eighth edition of the ALD!). With the benet of the British
Council relationship and co-funding from our other partner organizations,
the Trust provides more bang for your buck (yes, the eightheditionhas this
one, too).

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

The Trust welcomes interest from individuals and organizations but does
not respond to individual requests for nancial support. Updates of the
work of the Trust are available at http://www.hornby-trust.org.uk and
through the British Council at http://www.britishcouncil.org
We work within the statutory framework that governs UK charities and
trusts, and all our activity reports and organizational returns, including our
accounts, are freely available on the Charity Commission website at http://
www.charity-commission.gov.uk
Against the backdrop of 50 years of activity which must have exceeded in
durationand extent evenASHs expectations, and inthese straitened times,
we aim to explore opportunities for philanthropic giving from within and
also outside the ELTprofession, inorder to raise funds that will help sustain
the work of the Trust. The need for education and training as part of the
global agenda is no smaller now than 50 years ago. Indeed, geographically
and quantitatively it is far, far greater. There can only be one ASH: a unique
teacher, academic, lexicographer, visionary, and humanitarian. But there
must be others inour profession who share ASHs aims and can contribute
to their continuing realization.
Notes
1 This account incorporates material from Smith
(2005, 2007), where fuller indications of sources
are provided.
2 Minutes, British Council English Studies
Advisory Committee, 22 January 1952, BW 138/1,
in Public Records Ofce, Kew.
References
Brown, J. 1978. Foreword to P. Strevens (ed.).
Collier, P., D. Neale, and R. Quirk. 1978. The Hornby
Educational Trust: the rst ten years in P. Strevens
(ed.).
Cowie, A. P. 1998. A.S. Hornby, 18981998:
a centenary tribute. International Journal of
Lexicography 11/4: 25168.
Cowie, A. P. 1999. English Dictionaries for Foreign
Learners: A History. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hornby, A. S. 1966. Looking back. English Language
Teaching 21/1: 36.
Hornby, A. S. [withC. Ruse]. 1974. Hornby onHornby.
Tokyo: Oxford University Press [cassette tape and
interview transcript]. Audio available online at
http://www.oxfordjournals.org/eltj/about.html
(Oxford University Press ELT Journal website,
accessed on 7 November 2011).
Howatt, A. P. R. 1984. A History of English Language
Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, R. C. 2005. General introduction in R. C.
Smith (ed.). Teaching English as a Foreign Language,
19361961: Foundations of ELT, Volume 1. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Smith, R. C. 2007. The Origins of ELT Journal.
Available at http://www.oxfordjournals.org/eltj/
about.html (Oxford University Press ELTJournal
website, accessed on 7 November 2011).
Strevens, P. (ed.). 1978. In Honour of A.S. Hornby.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The authors
Roger Bowers CMG, OBE is the current Chairmanof
the A. S. Hornby Educational Trust.
Richard Smith (University of Warwick) is Deputy
Chairman of the A. S. Hornby Educational Trust.

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

What learners get for free: learning of
routine formulae in ESL and EFL
environments
Carsten Roever
Routine formulae are highly frequent, situationally bound chunks that are
benecial to L2 learners# pragmatic performance. These formulae are usually
more easily acquired inthe target language setting but they are tosome extent also
learnable in foreign language classrooms. This study investigates the effect of
different lengths of residence abroad on the recognition of situational routine
formulae. A total of 262 ESL and EFL learners completed a test battery
which included assessment of receptive knowledge of routines. Learners with even
short-term residence of two months had increased knowledge of routines, and
further residence led to further improvement in knowledge in this area. Even EFL
learners without residence knewsome routine formulae but knowledge of routines
was independent of general prociency. Learners in the L2 setting get routines for
free through exposure to contextualized L2 discourse, but which specic routines
are acquireddepends onthe interactional settings inwhichlearners communicate.
Introduction Routinized expressions have long beenrecognized as important tools for L2
learners. As early as 1974, Hakuta suggested that routinized chunks form
the foundation of L2 development as they get increasingly analysed and
used for generative purposes (Hakuta 1974). Wong-Fillmore (1976) showed
howchild L2 learners used routine formulae strategically to compensate for
lack of general prociency. However, after a damning paper by Krashen and
Scarcella (1978), this early interest in routine formulae as a central
component of L2 learning waned, but work on formulae persisted in
interlanguage pragmatics (Wildner-Bassett 1986; House 1996) and
intercultural communication research (Coulmas 1981). In recent years,
work on formulaic sequences has enjoyed a renaissance in L2 acquisition
research (Wray 2002; Schmitt 2004) with a particular focus on corpus-
based research and the use of sequences in academic writing. This paper
views the learning of routine formulae from an interlanguage pragmatics
perspective and explores in particular how length of residence in the target
language community might interact with knowledge of routine formulae
and to what extent they can be learnt in the foreign language classroom.
Background A large number of different terms are used to describe chunks of language
that tend to occur as one unit: for example, Wray (op.cit.) shows 57 different
10 ELT Journal Volume 66/1 January 2012; doi:10.1093/elt/ccq090
Advance Access publication April 8, 2011

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

terminological descriptions. In this paper, I will follow Bardovi-Harlig
(2009) in dening routine formulae as those sequences that are used
frequently by speakers in certain prescribed social situations (p. 757).
1
These situations can be highly specic physical settings or more general
social situations. For example, a sequence like Do you have anything to
declare?, only really occurs inone type of situational settingas dosequences
like CanI get you anything else? and For here or to go? Other routines are
more versatile, for example youre welcome as a response to thank you or
nice to meet you in an introduction situation can be used in any physical
context.
Productive and receptive control of routine formulae is highly benecial to
L2 learners. First and foremost, it eases communication with other
language users. Use of an expression like Do you have the time? is
immediately comprehensible to an interlocutor as a request for the current
time, whereas Declare the hour and the minute, please is not.
Furthermore, knowinghowto express meanings quickly andefciently and
knowing what other people will say incertain situations reduces processing
load, whichis animportant advantage, particularly tolearners at lower levels
of prociency for whom routine formulae can constitute islands of
reliability (House op.cit.). Finally, target-like use of routine formulae makes
it easier for learners to t in (as Wong-Fillmore op.cit. showed) at least to
the degree that they choose to do so.
While frequency counts of routine formulae are lacking, many of them
occur with high regularity in general L2 discourse (How are you?, no
worries, thats alright) and others occur predictably in specic situational
settings. The more learners are exposed to L2 discourse or these specic
usage contexts, the more likely they are to learn routine formulae in the
process of being socialized into participantship (Kanagy 1999). Learners
may not actually know the meaning of the individual component words of
a routine formula, but learn their function and their meaning in context.
Because exposure plays such an important role in learning routine
formulae, learners in the L2 context nd them easier to learn than learners
in the foreign language setting. House (op.cit.) showed that German EFL
learners who had spent time in an English-speaking country outperformed
their peers in the use of routine formulae in conversational interaction.
Roever (1996, 2005) founda similar tendency for situational andfunctional
routine formulae. But as Bardovi-Harlig (op.cit.) showed, formulae are not
necessarily unproblematic for ESL learners. She investigated recognition
and production of routine formulae by ESL learners and found that
recognition was a necessary but not sufcient precondition for production
and that learners tended to overuse some expressions while underusing
others.
Instructional studies have shown that it is in principle possible to teach
routine formulae in the classroom. Wildner-Bassett (op.cit.) taught
agreement/disagreement formulae to learners in a business English
setting, and House (op.cit.) found that her German EFL learners improved
in their initiation of requests through explicit and implicit instruction but
not in how they responded to requests. Tateyama, Kasper, Mui, Tay, and
Thananart (1997) successfully taught learners of Japanese as a foreign
Learning of routine formulae in ESL and EFL environments 11

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

language apology and gratitude routines, and DuFon (2003) suggests
approaches for teaching gift giving in an Indonesian context.
However, it is unclear to what extent it is necessary to spend valuable class
time on the teaching of routine formulae. If learners can be expected to
acquire themquickly and unproblematically inthe target language country,
it may not be necessary to teach them in a focused manner, or at least the
focus could be only those that are difcult to acquire. Previous research has
not investigated which formulae are easily acquired through a short stay in
the target language country and which require a longer stay in the target
language country or are not generally learnt. Answering these questions is
important for integrating routine formulae in curricula and for planning
study-abroad and homestay programmes so that learners draw maximum
benet from them.
The study This study uses a test of L2 pragmatics to investigate the effect of length of
residence in an English-speaking country on learners receptive knowledge
of routine formulae in English.
Research questions 1 What is the difculty of routine formulae for learners with and without
residence?
2 Which routine formulae are learnt early and which later?
3 How do different lengths of residence affect test takers overall receptive
knowledge of routines?
4 How does general prociency affect overall knowledge of routines?
Method Instruments
The test instrument was a web-based test battery of ESL pragmalinguistics
(Roever 2005), which assessed learners recognition of routine formulae, as
well as other aspects of pragmatic ability. The focus of this study is
exclusively on routine formulae.
Test takers had 12 minutes for the routines section of the test, which
contained 12 four-option, multiple-choice items (see Appendix).
The section was preceded by an instruction page, and the whole
test started out with a biographical questionnaire asking about
age, gender, native language, length of residence in English-speaking
countries, self-assessment of English prociency, and computer
familiarity.
Test-taker responses together with answer times were captured and sent to
the researcher via email in a text string that could be read into the data
analysis software SPSS. Test takers could choose to viewtheir results onthe
routines section immediately after the test and were sent a detailed score
report with explanations of correct answers.
Two versions of the test were used, which differed only minimally. The
original version was designed based on the pragmatic norms and
conventions of American English, and it was later adapted for Australian
English. The adaptation process primarily involved changes in word choice
(for example replacing roommate with atmate) but three changes in
response options affected the routines section. Item 10 had as its correct
American English (AmE) response For here or to go? and was changed in
12 Carsten Roever

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

the Australian English (AusE) version to the more idiomatic For here or
to take away? In the AmE version, Item 7 had youre welcome as
a correct response tothankyou, andwhile that is alsoa commonformula in
AusE, it was changed to no worries to ensure that this extremely frequent
AusE formula was represented in the test. Finally, no problem replaced
thats okay as a second-pair part for an apology in Item 12 of the AusE
version.
Participants Atotal of 262 ESL and EFL learners took part in the study. They were
located in Germany (128 learners), the United States (64 learners),
Australia (66 learners), and Japan (4 learners). The various sampling
locations were chosen to ensure a balance of learners with and without
exposure as well as a range of lengths of exposure and varied native
languages. The German group encompassed high school students from
13 to19years of age, spanning the thirdtothe ninthyear of secondary school
EFL instruction with prociency levels ranging roughly from beginners to
upper intermediate (A1 to high B2 in the CEFR), as well as university-level
English majors with advanced prociency and non-majors with roughly
intermediate prociency. The US group consisted of university students at
the upper-intermediate level (threshold of B2 and C1 in the CEFR)
undertaking post-admission compulsory courses in an English language
institute in addition to their majors, as well as more advanced students
who had met their universitys English requirement. The Australian
group consisted of roughly intermediate level students around CEFR B2
level undertaking an intensive English language programme with a view
towards entering university at its completion. The small Japanese sample
is the remainder of a larger group of 24 students taking compulsory
English classes at a technical university in Japan. Most students in
this group did not provide sufcient data to be included in this study,
and the four students included are likely to be at the low-intermediate
level. Of course, prociency levels can be assumed to vary within
groups, and prociency designations given here are just a rough
orientation.
The native language of the German group was almost entirely
German, with a few other languages (Russian, Polish) appearing
occasionally. The Australian and US groups were far more diverse in their
L1s, with native languages including (in order of frequency)
Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Thai, Indonesian, Spanish, Arabic, and
Vietnamese.
There were 146 test takers with residence and 116 without, and test
takers withresidence had a meanage of 24comparedto a meanage of 17 for
those without residence. This can be explained by the latter sample
comprising primarily high school students in Germany plus a small
number of university students in Germany and Japan. The residence
sample, on the other hand, consisted entirely of university students in the
United States and Australia. Both samples had more female than
male participants, and the non-residence sample took the
American version of the test exclusively, whereas the residence sample
was nearly equally split betweenthe Americanand Australianversions. The
residence samples mean length of stay in English-speaking countries

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

was 17 months (median of six months), with stays ranging from
a minimum of one week to a maximum of 30 years.
To investigate the effect of different lengths of residence, the residence
sample was split into seven residence groups of roughly equal size in
addition to the non-residence group. Table 1 shows the sizes of the groups.
N %
No residence 116 44.3
Up to 2 months 36 13.7
23 months 22 8.4
37 months 24 9.2
712 months 23 8.8
1224 months 23 8.8
24 months and more 18 6.9
Total 262 100
table 1
Residence groups
Procedures Test takers completed the test in computer laboratories at their
institutions during class time or in specially arranged sessions. The
researcher, or a collaborator, was present during the testing sessions to help
with questions and technical problems. Test-taker answers were sent to the
researcher electronically. All data were subsequently analysed using SPSS
18 software.
Results Table 2 shows the average section means and standard deviations on the
routines section for test takers with and without residence:
Residence N
*
Mean SD Effect size (d)
Routines section Residence 143 77.1 15.2 1.82
Non residence 95 48.1 16.7
table 2
Routines scores for the
residence and non-
residence group and size
of the difference
*
participant numbers above are lower thanthe total populationshowninTable 1 as only
participants whocompleted at least half the sectionreceiveda total score. Data fromall
participants are included in Table 3
It is apparent that the residence group scored much higher on the
routines section than the non-residence group. The score
difference, expressed as Cohens (1992) d, was very large and signicant at
p , .05.
A closer look at which formula are recognized at what time shows that
learners in the EFL setting are already familiar with some formulae,
others are learnt quickly in the ESL setting, but some require more
exposure to learn. Table 3 shows the percentage of correct answers for each
formula at each level of exposure. Correctness levels at or above 70 per
cent are highlighted in light grey and at or above 80 per cent in dark grey.
2
For example, Item1 (Nice tomeet you) was knownat the 80per cent level to
all groups, including the non-residence group. By contrast, Item 10 (For
here or to go?) was not knownto the non-residence group at a highlevel but
it was known to the group with up to two months residence at the 70 per
14 Carsten Roever

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

cent level and to groups with longer residence at the 80 per cent level or
above.
Residence/
item
None Up to
2 months
23
months
37
months
712
months
1224
months
Over 24
months
8 86 95 100 100 100 100 91
1 82 97 96 92 91 85 100
11 52 90 78 83 86 96 100
5 56 82 87 92 100 96 100
9 64 79 100 92 86 100 100
7 44 77 96 92 100 92 95
12 43 70 84 75 84 85 96
10 27 70 88 96 92 96 96
2 26 51 52 54 72 96 83
4 28 41 52 46 48 81 70
3 53 51 48 54 59 58 90
6 16 14 24 21 24 33 48
table 3
Percentage of correct
answers by length of
residence and item
Comparing routine formulae, it is apparent that two greeting routine
formulae, Hello (#8) onthe phone and Nice to meet you (#1), were known
to all groups including the non-residence group. The next two formulae,
Say that again, please (#11) onthe phone andNothanks, Imfull (#5), were
learnt withinthe rst twomonths of residence andanother four, For here or
to go? (#10), Youre welcome (#7), No problem/Thats okay (#12), and
CanI leave a message? (#9), were learnt incipiently duringthe same period
and were rmly established by the end of three months. Two more
formulae, Here you go (#2) and Do you have the time? (#4), were then
learnt withmuchlonger stays of around a year, and one more formula, Can
I get youanythingelse? (#3), tookover twoyears tobecome established. One
nal formula, Do you think you could make it? (#6), was not learnt by this
sample at the 70 or 80 per cent level.
Of course, these are accumulations at the group level and there is variation
for individual learners: for each formula, there were learners at each level of
residence, even in the non-residence group, who knew them. None of the
non-residence learners scoredzero onthis section, but also none scored100
per cent, whereas among the learners with residence, the lowest score was
42 per cent and several achieved a perfect score. Residence is not a pre-
condition or a guarantee for knowledge of routine formulae but it is clearly
facilitative.
This facilitative effect is further supported by considering total scores onthe
routines section. Figure 1 demonstrates that scores leap upwards even with
very little residence, which is followed by a slower increase, stagnation, and
another slow climb.
It could be argued, however, that knowledge of routines might simply be
a function of prociency, which probably also increases as learners spend
more time in an English-speaking country. The present study did not
contain an independent prociency test, but prociency levels could be
ascertainedat least for a subpopulation: the Germanhighschool students in
the non-residence groups differed by year level and therefore by number of

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

years of EFL instruction. If routines scores were indeed a function of
prociency, they shouldincrease by year level for the Germannon-residence
population. However, that was not the case. As Figure 2 shows, the routines
score only increases slightly over ve years of EFL instruction.
3
An analysis
of variance, comparing the ve year levels, conrmed that the difference by
year level was non-signicant.
Discussion This study shows that learning of routine formulae is related to length of
residence in the target language country but this is certainly not the only
place where routine formulae can be learnt. Some knowledge of routine
formulae canbe acquired inthe classroom, so they are learnable outside the
target language context but they seem to be more quickly learnt within the
target language context: the number of formulae that is known to the vast
majority of learners more than doubles by the end of two months and
increases again during the third month. In other words, after three months
gure 1
Mean scores by length of
residence
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
No
residence
Up to 2
months
2 to 3
months
3 to 7
months
7 to 12
months
12 to 24
months
24 months
and more
gure 2
EFL learners by year level
and routines score
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
3rd year EFL 4th year EFL 5th year EFL 6th year EFL 8th year EFL
16 Carsten Roever

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

of residence, four times as many routines are known to four fths of the
learner populationthanthey wouldknowwithout residence. What accounts
for this steepincrease inknowledge? Toanswer this question, it is important
to consider the concept of residence. Residence in the target language
country does not just imply being physically present in that country: for
learners toreceive input and use routine formulae, residence means contact
with target-language speakers in a variety of settings and situations.
Learners with residence in this study would have been exposed to
interactions in restaurant settings, on the phone, in shops, and engaged in
general communication with other target-language users. The use of
routine formulae is modelled for learners through these interactions, and
they have an opportunity to produce formulae themselves and receive
feedback on their use of these.
The learners taskis made easier throughthe strongassociationof a formula
with the setting in which it is used. This association signicantly facilitates
recognition of the meaning of the formula: in a restaurant situation,
language users expect certain formulae to occur, and when they do, there is
no need to process them like new, never-heard-before input. Rather,
listeners simply conrmtheir expectations, which can be done quickly and
efciently. This recognition process does not even require unpacking
where learners understand every part of the formula. For routine formulae,
all that is required is to recognize (and possibly imitate) a certain
combination of words regardless of whether learners know what
the individual words mean. This last characteristic of routine formulae
also explains why prociency does not have much of an impact on
learners knowledge of them. Routine formulae tend to be quite short so
even low-prociency learners can memorize and remember them as
chunks, and higher prociency does not confer much of an advantage.
The implications from these ndings are multifold. Learners going abroad
can be expected to get some routines for free, particularly highly frequent,
situationally bound ones. This already applies to short-term stays of up to
two months, although a stay of three months leads to a more stable
knowledge of routines. The exact routines that learners would become
familiar withprobably dependontheir social roles andthe types of exposure
they receive: 15-year-olds doing a homestay could be expected to learn some
different routines than 25-year-olds studying at university, although there
would certainly be overlaps. If the goal of a stay abroad is to quickly boost
some of the more obvious markers of L2 knowledge, a short sojournis quite
effective. Longer stays do not necessarily add a great deal for routines
knowledge, although if learners were to interact in an increasing variety of
social spheres and settings (for example going from an initial homestay to
part-time work to tertiary study) quite a wide variety of formulae would
probably be learnt.
In terms of classroom instruction in the foreign language context, it is
interesting that learners are able to learn some routine formulae in this
setting. It is questionable whether greater curricular integration of these
formulae might help them learn more: learners do not have much real-
world use for routine formulae in the foreign language setting, and the
situational context, which many formulae are so closely tied to, is lacking in

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

this environment. However, the use of video, role plays, and simply making
them part of assessment would aid in making learners familiar with these
helpful and important expressions.
Like any research endeavour, this study had some limitations. The routines
investigated were not chosen based on a corpus or other systematic
samplingbut rather onprevious research. They are therefore not necessarily
representative of the whole range of formulae learners might know. Also,
the test provided brief, written situation descriptions whereas replicating
real-world contexts by means of video or even virtual reality might have
made the learners task easier. In other words, the test may have under-
diagnosed learners true knowledge of routines.
Still, the routines tested here are undeniably common in interaction, and
the difference between the non-residence and residence groups, as well as
developmental tendencies within the residence group, leads to the
conclusionthat exposure greatly aids learning of routine formulae and even
a short-term stay conveys an advantage.
Conclusion This study demonstrates that learners do get parts of the target language for
free: situationally bound formulae that occur with high frequency in the
communicative settings in which learners interact. These formulae can be
learnt independently of prociency because they do not require
grammatical analysis, and they become familiar to learners very quickly
because they are so highly frequent and useful.
The formulae caninprinciple be learnt inthe foreignlanguage classroomas
well, but the necessity for learners to use themis muchgreater inthe target-
language setting, whichleads to acceleratedlearning. Where study abroadis
a possibility as a component of a programme, it provides a quick way of
learning these important expressions for a large group of learners. At the
same time, there will always be learner variability and evensome learners in
the foreign language setting may achieve surprisingly high knowledge of
formulae.
Final revised version received October 2010
Notes
1 Bardovi-Harlig (2009) actually used the term
conventional expressions but I prefer routine
formulae.
2 No claim is made here that accuracy reects
individual acquisition. Rather, the percentage of
learners whohave learnt a givenformula at a given
level is indicative of the familiarity of that formula
to larger populations of learners.
3 The ninth year group was not included because it
represents a stratied population and is not
readily comparable to the other groups.
References
Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2009. Conventional expressions
as a pragmalinguistics resource: recognition and
production of conventional expressions in L2
pragmatics. Language Learning 59/4: 75595.
Cohen, J. 1992. Apower primer. Psychological
Bulletin 112/1: 1559.
Coulmas, F. 1981. Introduction: conversational
routine in F. Coulmas (ed.). Conversational Routine.
The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton de Gruyter.
DuFon, M. A. 2003. Gift giving in Indonesian:
a model for teaching pragmatic routines in the
foreign language classroom of the less commonly
taught languages in A Mart nez Flor, E. Uso Juan,
and A. Fernandez Guerra (eds.). Pragmatic
Competence and Foreign Language Teaching. Castello
de la Plana, Spain: Publicacions de la Universitat
Jaume I.
18 Carsten Roever

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Hakuta, K. 1974. Prefabricated patterns and the
emergence of structure in second language
acquisition. Language Learning 24: 28797.
House, J. 1996. Developing pragmatic uency in
English as a foreign language: routines and
metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 18/2: 22552.
Kanagy, R. 1999. Interactional routines as
a mechanism for L2 acquisition and socialization in
an immersion context. Journal of Pragmatics
31/11: 146792.
Krashen, S. and R. Scarcella. 1978. On routines and
patterns in second language acquisition and
performance. Language Learning 28/2: 283300.
Roever, C. 1996. Linguistische Routinen:
Systematische, psycholinguistische und
fremdsprachendidaktische U
berlegungen.
Fremdsprachen und Hochschule 46: 4360.
Roever, C. 2005. Testing ESL Pragmatics. Frankfurt
am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
Schmitt, N. (ed.). 2004. Formulaic Sequences.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Tateyama, Y., G. Kasper, L. Mui, M. H-Tay, and
O. Thananart. 1997. Explicit andimplicit teachingof
pragmatic routines in L. Bouton (ed.). Pragmatics
and Language Learning. Urbana, IL: University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Wildner-Bassett, M. 1986. Teaching and learning
polite noises: improving pragmatic aspects of
advanced adult learners interlanguage in G. Kasper
(ed.). Learning, Teaching and Communication in the
Foreign Language Classroom. A
rhus: A
rhus
University Press.
Wong-Fillmore, L. 1976. The second time around:
cognitive and social strategies in second language
acquisition. Unpublished PhD thesis, Stanford
University, Palo Alto, CA.
Wray, A. 2002. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
The author
Carsten Roever is Senior Lecturer in Applied
Linguistics at the University of Melbourne. He was
trained as an ESL teacher at the University of
Duisburg (Germany) and has taught ESL in
Germany and the United States. He holds a PhD in
Second Language Acquisitionfromthe University of
Hawaii. His research interests are second language
learning, interlanguage pragmatics, and language
testing.
Email: carsten@unimelb.edu.au
Appendix
Routines items
1 Jack was just introduced to Jamal by a friend. Theyre shaking hands.
What would Jack probably say?
a Nice to meet you.
b Good to run into you.
c Happy to nd you.
d Glad to see you.
2 Carrie has done some shopping at a grocery store. The man at the cash
register has just nished packing her groceries and gives her the bags.
What would the man probably say?
a Here you go.
b There they are.
c All yours.
d Please.
3 Tom ordered a meal in a restaurant and the waitress just brought it. She
asks him if he wants to order additional items.
What would the waitress probably say?
a Would you like anything extra?
b Is there more for you?
c What can I do for you?
d Can I get you anything else?

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

4 Jane is at the beachandwants toknowwhat time it is. She sees a manwith
a watch.
What would Jane probably say?
a Excuse me, can you say the time?
b Excuse me, how late is it?
c Excuse me, whats your watch show?
d Excuse me, do you have the time?
5 Samis having dinner at a friends house. His friend offers himmore food
but he couldnt possibly eat another bite.
What would Sam probably say?
a No, thanks, Ive nished it.
b No, thanks, Ive eaten.
c No, thanks, Im full.
d No, thanks, Ive done it.
6 Tedis inviting his friendtoa little party hes havingat his house tomorrow
night. Ted: Im having a little party tomorrow night at my place.
How would Ted probably go on?
a How would you like to come in?
b Do you think you could make it?
c How about youre there?
d Why arent you showing up?
7 The person ahead of Kate inline at the cafeteria drops his pen. Kate picks
it up and gives it back to him. He says Thank you.
What would Kate probably reply?
a Thank you.
b Please.
c Youre welcome.
d Dont bother.
8 The phone rings. Stan picks it up.
What would Stan probably say?
a Hi.
b Hello.
c Its me.
d How are you?
9 Claudia calls her college classmate Dennis but his roommate answers the
phone and tells her that Dennis isnt home. Claudia would like the
roommate to tell Dennis something.
What would Claudia probably say?
a Can you write something?
b Can I give you information?
c Can I leave a message?
d Can you take a note?
20 Carsten Roever

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

10 Tim is ordering food at a restaurant where you can sit down or take the
food home with you.
What would the woman behind the counter probably ask Tim?
a For home or here?
b For going or staying?
c For taking it with you?
d For here or to go?
11 Candice is talking to her friend Will from a payphone on a noisy city
street. She cant hear something Will said because a large truck passed
by.
What would Candice probably say?
a Repeat yourself, please.
b Say that again, please.
c Say that another time, please.
d Restate what you said, please.
12 In a crowded subway, a woman steps on Jakes foot. She says Imsorry.
What would Jake probably say?
a Thats okay.
b No bother.
c Its nothing.
d Dont mention it.

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Dispelling the myth of the
natural-born linguist
Sarah Mercer
Anindividuals mindset about the perceived malleability of ability or intelligence is
known to strongly inuence a persons other beliefs, behaviours, and motivation.
This article seeks to provide justication for holding a growth mindset in the
domain of foreign language learning. It discusses contemporary understandings of
ability and intelligence in a range of elds and focuses on deconstructing the belief
that language learning ability is based primarily on an immutable, innate talent.
Instead the article illustrates how it is best understood as a dynamic potential that
individuals can develop to varying degrees depending on a complex range of
personal and contextual factors. The article concludes with a discussion of the
implications of this overview of the literature for research and pedagogy.
Introduction:
mindsets
Mindsets, alsoknownas implicit theories inpsychology, are the specic set
of beliefs individuals have about the malleability of a certain trait or ability
(Dweck 2006). For example, intelligence can either be viewed as being
something that can grow and develop, a growth mindset, or as something
that is predetermined and unchangeable, a xed mindset. Within
psychology, Dweck and her colleagues have repeatedly shown how holding
a particular mindset about intelligence can have a considerable impact on
other learner beliefs, behaviours, and ultimate academic success. Various
studies have indicated that a learner witha growth mindset is more likely to
be motivated to set challenging goals, attribute their successes and failures
to factors within their locus of control, and will be willing to run the risk of
failure in the pursuit of growth and learning.
A language learning mindset reects the extent to which a person believes
that language learning ability is dependent on some immutable, innate
talent or is the result of controllable factors suchas effort andconscious hard
work. Given the widespread belief in the existence and importance of
a natural talent or aptitude for language learning, it is possible that a more
xedmindset may be especially prevalent inthe domainof foreignlanguage
learning (cf. Mercer and Ryan 2010). Language learners holding such
a mindset are more likely to avoid challenges which risk failure, set
themselves lower goals, and are in danger of becoming demotivated
possibly to the extent of a state of helplessness in the face of the perceived
futility of engaginginany strategic behaviour. Learners witha xedmindset
believe that if youdonot havethe gift for languages, thenit is hopeless totry
and make any real efforts to improve as your abilities as a linguist cannot be
22 ELT Journal Volume 66/1 January 2012; doi:10.1093/elt/ccr022

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

developed to any great extent. The perils of a strong belief inthe myth of the
natural-born linguist are self-evident.
While our understandings of mindsets within the domain of foreign
language learning remain extremely limited at present given the absence of
empirical studies in this area (cf. Mercer and Ryan op.cit.), insights from
extensive work within psychology already indicate the importance of
encouragingbothlearners andteachers tobelieve ineverybodys potential to
learn and develop their abilities, in other words to hold a growth mindset.
However, the myth of the naturally gifted linguist is stubbornly persistent
among many learners and even teachers. Therefore, in this article, I would
like to explore developments in an array of elds, in order to challenge the
validity of this myth. I hope toshowhownatural aptitudes andinnate talents
are currently being assigned a considerably diminished role in a range of
achievements and thus provide some justication for supporting a growth
mindset. It is hoped that this article will encourage teachers and learners to
conceptualize language learning in a way that avoids giving undue
emphasis tonatural aptitude andis thereby more empowering tolearners of
all ages, genders, and backgrounds.
Quantifying
intelligence and
aptitude
Since the beginning of the twentieth century, IQ tests have had
a considerable impact on modern thinking about intelligence as
a measurable, xed quantity. During the First World War, the popular
Stanford-Binet IQ test was adopted by the US military and while it has
undergone some revisions over the years, the test has remained popular
being usedby bothcompanies, educational institutions, and eveninrespect
to immigration policies, often with high personal stakes for those taking it,
although its popularity has declined somewhat in recent years. One of the
lasting legacies and ongoing side effects of this and other related IQtests is
their implied message that intelligence is an entity that is xed and
quantiable. Ironically, the original inventor of the test, Alfred Binet (cited
in Shenk 2010: 29), argued against such thinking and criticized those who
believed that intelligence cannot be increased and called for people to
protest and react against this brutal pessimism.
Increasingly, the test has come under criticism for a range of reasons
including the potential variation in responses according to gender, class,
andcultureandalsodisputes over various statistical, correlational, andother
mathematical calculations. However, the most fundamental criticism has
been that such intelligence tests tend to only address one general type of
intelligence (known as g). Acritic of general IQtesting is Robert Sternberg
who has writtenextensively about different types of intelligence and howIQ
tests measure only a small part of the range of an individuals intellectual
skills. Instead, he has argued in his triarchic theory of intelligence
(Sternberg 1985) that different types of intelligences are dynamic,
contextually sensitive and adaptive. A fellow critic perhaps better known
within second language acquisition (SLA) is Howard Gardner. He has
suggested that there are at least eight different types of intelligence
potentials that can be developed and nurtured under the right
environmental and contextual conditions. In clarifying the nature of his
multiple intelligences, he explains that he views an intelligence as
a biopsychological potential that can be realised to a greater or lesser extent
Dispelling the myth of the natural-born linguist 23

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

as a consequence of the experiential, cultural, and motivational factors that
affect a person (Gardner 1999: 82). Fundamentally, at the heart of his
theory is the belief that human minds differ and cannot sensibly be
conceived of in terms of a single intellectual dimension. His work stresses
intellectual diversity and individual uniqueness as well as the potential
rather than end-product state of intelligences in all humans.
Insimilar developments withinthe domainof language learning, a persons
aptitude for languages has alsobeenquantiedandmeasuredusinga series
of tests. Following the Second World War, Carroll and Sapon (1958)
developed The Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT), initially to help
the US army nd individuals who were likely to succeed at language
learning. This test and others based upon it have made a considerable
impact on the perceptions of and beliefs about language learning abilities.
Once again, the message implicit in the existence of such tests was that
some individuals had a certain measurable amount of aptitude for
languages andthis was xedandunchangeableover time, irrespective of the
persons levels of motivation, other personal variables, and any potential
contextual affordances or interpersonal factors.
1
With the emergence of the
communicative approach, the test, which was based on audiolingual
methods, has lost ground in terms of relevance and perceived validity by
practitioners and researchers (for example Safar and Kormos 2008). More
recently, fundamental concerns have been raised about the nature of
aptitude tests, the validity of constructs measured, and the degree to which
they reect contemporary theoretical understandings of potential abilities
(ibid.). Consequently, there has also beena shift to the recognitionof a more
differentiated view of multiple aptitudes contributing to varied aspects of
language learning abilities at different stages inthe learning process, as well
as more situated understandings considering particular and dynamic
contexts, rather than a single, unitary static aptitude. As Ranta (2008: 151)
explains, rather than learner aptitude being equated with a test score, it is
now understood as a reection of an individuals varied strengths and
weaknesses in a range of cognitive abilities, all of which interact with other
factors, such as motivation and contextual affordances.
Both general intelligence and aptitude testing have experienced a shift
towards more contextually sensitive, dynamic modes of understandings,
whichrecognize a broader, more diverse range of multiple intelligences and
abilities that can be affected by an individuals experiences within the
domainand various other personal and contextual variables. While it seems
likely that some form of different aptitudes may exist, the emphasis is now
more clearly ontheir multifacetednature andpotential for development and
change across time and place.
Expertise and genius Another area concerned with the nature of ability focuses on the skills of
those who excel and become experts in a particular domain. Within SLA,
expert language learners were frequently investigated under the body of
work known as the good language learner (GLL) studies. The intention of
much of the initial work was to facilitate anunderstanding of what GLLs do
and consider how this knowledge could be used to help less successful
language learners. However, this early workcame under criticismfor failing
to adequately recognize the potential for individual learner differences and
24 Sarah Mercer

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

contextual variation. As a result and in line with other theoretical
developments, attention has moved from an interest in the good language
learner to good language learners (plural) and the complexity of multiple
variables and individual differences, which together contribute to language
learning success (see Grifths 2008). It is increasingly accepted that there
are likely to be a myriad of pathways to success, each as unique and
individual as the person taking the route, affected by a wide and complex
range of factors bothpersonal andcontextual anddrivenby a strongsense of
motivation. In their conclusions about the state of contemporary
understandings of GLLs, Oxford and Lee (2008: 312) conclude that there is
no single good language learner model, and instead they highlight
individual variation and the more diminished role of aptitude given the
potential inuence in developing learner abilities of motivation, strategic
behaviours, and facilitating affordances.
Within psychology-based studies, much work has examined the notion of
expertise ina range of domains. Perhaps one of the leading gures involved
in this body of work is K. Anders Ericsson. In a key paper, he and his
colleagues convincingly argue that differences in expert performances are
attributable primarily to deliberate practice over an extended period of time
as opposed to any sense of innate talent (Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-
Romer 1993). Deliberate practice is a special formof repetitive practice that
breaks down a holistic ability into subcomponent skills, which are then
practised repeatedly, almost drill-like. The authors stress that this form of
practice is not necessarily an inherently enjoyable activity and as such
requires passion, motivation, dedication, and perseverance. To become an
expert, they explain that a person must engage in many hours and years of
practice, leading to their frequently cited gure of 10,000 hours over ten
years, and the individual also needs to be willing to risk failure, while
maintaining an ability to reect and learn from their experiences. While
expertise may vary across domains in how it is understood and dened, he
and his colleagues have shown that there are commonalities in how
expertise is developed and these do not reside in innate abilities, although
they acknowledge the potential for individual differences inpredispositions
but rather in how the person approaches the task of enhancing their
abilities.
In explaining the development of expertise, Ericsson et al. (ibid.) also stress
the importance of signicant others such as parents, mentors, and teachers
in supporting children in the development of expertise in terms of the
beliefs they convey (especially their mindset beliefs), the motivation they
transmit, and the opportunities they facilitate for the child to develop their
owninterest andhave time andopportunity toengage indeliberate practice.
They showthat the individuals context canconstrainor support a personin
their striving for excellence depending on the opportunities available. The
role of context and affordances of culture, family, and signicant others is
also highlighted by Gladwell (2008). By considering the life histories of
a series of highly successful individuals and groups, he argues that they
excelled not only because of who they are and how much effort they
expended, but essentially because of their surroundings, particularly in
terms of time and place. He argues that success is not just a question of

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

individual merit but also a product of the world in which a person grows up
and hence, the affordances they have.
Extreme cases of expertise are often referred to as genius, and there have
been a number of studies which have attempted to deconstruct the myth
surrounding the natural-born genius. Perhaps one of the best known is
a book entitled Genius Explained by the psychologist Howe (1999), inwhich
he examines the lives of famous gures such as Charles Darwin, Michael
Faraday, and Albert Einstein. Examining their biographies in detail, he
shows how their outstanding achievements are the product of
a combinationof environment, personality, and hard work. He explains that
whilst expertise is seen by many as ordinary and something that can be
gained following lengthy periods of practice and training, genius is often
perceived as being somehow magical, rare, and a formof inborn brilliance.
In fact, he argues that expert and genius are achieved along similar paths of
doggedness, persistence, capacity for intense concentration, and sheer hard
work. He concludes that basedonthe evidenceexamined, the innate gifts or
talents that are commonly believed to be possessed by a minority of
individuals who are thereby imbued with a capacity to excel in particular
areas of expertise are probably mythical rather than real (ibid.: 200).
The expertise studies and those analysing the lives of individuals exhibiting
so-called genius have both contributed to dispelling the myth of the natural
genius or innate talent andhave providedvaluable insights into the complex
interplay of factors that can underlie exceptional performance or abilities.
Fundamentally, the ndings suggest the potential for everyone to achieve
degrees of expertise ina specic domainas well as the relative ordinariness
surrounding genius achievements. They show how a range of factors such
as personality, contextual affordances, and environmental support
contribute to the development of an individuals skills and ultimate
successes.
Neuroscience and
genetics
Other contributions towards demystifying the idea of the natural genius
stem from studies exploring the interaction between genes and
environment as well as research investigating the nature of the brain. Inthe
rst area, studies have examined the relative role of genes in dictating
a persons abilities and intelligence. Shenk (2010) manages to distil this
complex eld into comprehensible terms for the layperson. He argues in
favour of the emerging view held by some geneticists and neuroscientists
that, rather than attempting to distinguish whether ones abilities or traits
stemfrom nature or nurture, it is more likely that each individual has their
own unique developmental path, which is referred to as G E to signify the
dynamic interactionbetweenbothones genes (G) andthe environment (E).
Therefore, as opposed to the traditional dichotomy, he explains that there is
a need for science to understand the ways in which both genes and
environmental factors interact together in the development of abilities.
Indeed, work inthe eld of epigenetics suggests that evengenes themselves
canbe changedandalteredby outside inuences andenvironmental factors
(ibid.). Shenk thus concludes that, intelligence is not an innate aptitude,
hardwiredat conceptionor inthe womb, but a collectionof developing skills
driven by the interaction between genes and environment. No one is born
26 Sarah Mercer

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

with a predetermined amount of intelligence. Intelligence (and IQ scores)
can be improved (ibid.: 29).
A second relevant area of research examines the brain functioning of
exceptional individuals. Darold Treffert, who studies the brains of savants,
explains on his website (http://www.daroldtreffert.com/) that his work in
this eld also offers insights into the general functioning of the brain and
has caused him to reect on what skills may lie dormant within every
individual. As Shenk (op.cit.: 75) explains, the physical damage in the brain
that can cause savant syndrome is not what creates the ability in the
individual but rather it creates the opportunity for the ability to develop.
A well-known savant, Daniel Tammet (2009), cogently argues for
a balanced viewof abilities, whichdoes not viewsuccess or genius as merely
a product of innate talents. Examining the work of neuroscientists such as
Treffert and reecting on his own personal experiences as a savant, he
explains that he has come to believe that everyone is born with certain
talents, which dedication and hard work help to realise (ibid.: 57). He views
talent as being something dynamic that emerges from the complex
interactionof genetic and environmental elements. Specically, he explains
howadult brains are no longer thought of in static, rigid terms but are now
more widely understood as supple, dynamic organs, which can grow and
change throughout a persons lifetime; a potential referred to as
neuroplasticity.
Essentially, these developments inneuroscience and genetics argue against
biological determinism and in favour of a development, interactionist view
of ability, which suggests that a persons abilities emerge from the
interactionbetweentheir genetic predispositionandtheir environment and
that this is anongoing, dynamic process. Sucha viewopens up the potential
for everyone to excel and not be held back by the supposed hard-wiring of
their brains or their genetic inheritance.
Implications for
researchapproaches:
complexity theory
It becomes apparent even from this brief introductory overview that the
factors contributing towards an individuals continually emergent abilities
as a language learner are potentially complex, manifold, and intimately
interconnected with the persons environment. In view of this, the best
theoretical approach to help understand how language learner abilities
develop would seem to be offered by complexity theory. Fundamentally,
a complex systemis dened as one that emerges fromthe interactions of its
components, which can be agents or elements (Larsen-Freeman and
Cameron 2008: 200). The theory emphasizes the dynamic and complex
nature of any process or system, which can be affected by a multitude of
factors in ways that may be difcult to predict. As a theory, it suggests that
a learner cannot meaningfully be separated from their context and that in
fact, it is more appropriate to view the learner and a complex context as
interacting, co-adaptive dynamic systems (ibid.: 205). It recognizes the
uniqueness of every individual learner as a complex dynamic systemwhose
abilities are continually evolving as the learner engages and interacts with
various contexts and other systems. It is an approach that inherently rejects
reductionist, single variable explanations of cause and effect, such as the
concept of a single generic innate talent being solely responsible for
language learning success. As a theory, it recognizes the potential for

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

continual change and development in learners abilities as they interact in
multiple, potentially unique ways with their various language learning and
use contexts. Given the discussion in the preceding sections, it would seem
to offer a more realistically grounded approach to attempting to explain and
understand the complex process of an individual learning a language and it
would appear to support a growth mindset, in which ability is perceived as
a dynamic potential.
Implications for
language learning
and teaching
This article does not intend to propose that everybody can become highly
procient polyglots; however, the trends and developments in
contemporary thinking outlined above do suggest the validity and
appropriacy of advocating a growth mindset about language learning
abilities. As has been shown, abilities are now conceived of as being much
more dynamic, varied, and multidimensional than can be represented by
a single unitary form of general overall intelligence or aptitude. Apicture
emerges in which an individuals ability as a language learner is not
conceived of as a xed, quantiable amount given at birth, but rather as
a complex, ongoing process of multiple developable skills. Althoughthere is
recognition of the potential for individuals to differ in terms of their
natural predispositions, the overwhelming trend is to also accept the
capacity of every learner togrow anddeveloptheir abilities, possibly beyond
their expectations, given the right context, environmental support, and
a personal willingness to invest time and effort and engage in repeated
practice.
In order to promote a growth mindset, educators need to develop a positive
learning culture, which engenders the beliefs underlying such a mindset.
As teachers, we should begin by ensuring that we ourselves truly hold
a growth mindset and believe in the capacity of all of our learners to
continually developandfurther expandtheir language learningabilities. We
have tobecome aware of our owndeeply heldbeliefs andbe conscious of our
classroom behaviours such as how we formulate feedback and our use of
praise. These should highlight effort and progress and avoid implying that
success is the result of a persons natural talent or a so-called gift for
languages (cf. Dweck 2006). Care also needs to be taken in selecting
materials which may contain implicit messages about language learning
abilities and aptitudes. It canalso be benecial to hold anexplicit discussion
about mindset beliefs and their implications for learning behaviours in
classrooms among learners and teachers. Indeed, such a discussion is also
necessary in the inuential contexts of teacher training, curriculum
development, and textbook writing.
As teachers, we must be in a position to help our language learners to
develop a growth mindset about their own abilities. If they do not believe in
their own potential to improve, advance, and develop as linguists, then no
matter howengaging, motivating, or pedagogically soundour materials and
classroomprocedures are, we may fail toreachandmotivate all our learners.
Our message, conveyed through our own behaviours, materials, and
practices, needs to be that a talent for languages is not an immutable, xed,
innate entity that only a privileged few possess, but it is rather a complex,
ongoing process composedof multiple abilities that every single learner can
further develop and extend given a nurturing environment and their own
28 Sarah Mercer

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

inner passionanddrive. Our jobas educators is to foster a language learning
culture that canengender a growthmindset andmotivateevery single one of
our learners to become the best linguist they possibly can.
Final revised version received December 2010
Note
1 The use of the term affordance is intended to
highlight the interaction between an individual
and the perceived resources and characteristics of
a context that offer potential opportunities for
learning and growth. For a detailed discussion of
the concept of affordances, see Chapter 4 of van
Lier 2004, The Ecology and Semiotics of Language
Learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
References
Carroll, J. B. andS. Sapon. 1958. The ModernLanguage
Aptitude Test. New York, NY: The Psychological
Corporation.
Dweck, C. S. 2006. Mindset: The New Psychology of
Success. New York, NY: Random House.
Ericsson, K. A., R. T. Krampe, and C. Tesch-Romer.
1993. The role of deliberate practice in the
acquisition of expert performance. Psychological
Review 100/3: 363406.
Gardner, H. 1999. Intelligence Reframed. New York,
NY: Basic Books.
Gladwell, M. 2008. Outliers: The Story of Success.
London: Penguin.
C. Grifths. (ed.). 2008. Lessons from Good Language
Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Howe, M. J. A. 1999. Genius Explained. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. and L. Cameron. 2008.
Research methodology on language development
from a complex systems perspective. The Modern
Language Journal 92/2: 20013.
Mercer, S. and S. Ryan. 2010. A mindset for EFL:
learners beliefs about the role of natural talent. ELT
Journal 64/4: 43644.
Oxford, R. L. and K. R. Lee. 2008. The learners
landscape and journey: a summary in C. Grifths
(ed.).
Ranta, L. 2008. Aptitude and good language
learners in C. Grifths (ed.).
Safar, A. and J. Kormos. 2008. Revisiting problems
with foreign language aptitude. International Review
of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 46/2:
11336.
Shenk, D. 2010. The Genius inAll of Us. London: Icon
Books.
Sternberg, R. 1985. Beyond IQ: ATriarchic Theory of
Human Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Tammet, D. 2009. Embracing the Wide Sky. London:
Hodder and Stoughton.
The author
Sarah Mercer currently teaches English at the
University of Graz where she has worked for over 12
years. Her research interests include various aspects
of the psychology surrounding the language
learning experience, in particular self-concept,
attributions, and implicit theories.
Email: sarah.mercer@uni-graz.at

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Small Talk: developing uency,
accuracy, and complexity in speaking
James Hunter
A major issue that continues to challenge language teachers is how to ensure that
learners develop accuracy and complexity in their speaking, as well as uency.
Teachers know that too much corrective feedback (CF) can make learners
reluctant to speak, while not enoughmay allowtheir errors tobecome entrenched.
Furthermore, there is controversy over the effectiveness of recasts (the most
common form of CF) in promoting acquisition. This article explores
a methodology, Small Talk, which aims to resolve some of the tensions between
the need to encourage truly communicative language use and the need to develop
complexity and to bring focus on forms into the syllabus in ways that can be
recognized as valid and relevant by both teachers and learners. It presents some
preliminary researchonthe viability of this CFmethodology premisedonattention
to, and arising from the needs of, the individual learner.
Introduction Aperennial struggle for teachers is how to develop both accuracy and
uency in students speaking since one often seems to come at the expense
of the other. Ontopof this, we have the evengreater challenge of coaxingour
students out of their comfort zones towards greater complexity (Skehan
1998), especially when the language they have appears to be adequate for
their communicative purposes. Different theoretical positions have had
dramatic and conicting inuences on teaching methodology, so it is not
always clear what we should be doing to best serve our students. If they
practise pronunciation, vocabulary, and grammar, will they use them
spontaneously and correctly when necessary? Should we teach grammar
explicitly, and if so, which forms should we teach? Should we correct errors,
and if so, how, and which ones? The wise teacher employs an eclectic
combination of methods depending on the teaching context and the
students in the classroom, but it is hard to escape the feeling that eclectic
often simply means unsystematic.
The limitations of
contemporary
language teaching
Many teachers resist the strong form of communicative language teaching
(CLT) because it does not have concrete, tangible content and, therefore,
does not equate with real teaching. This is hardly surprising since the one
area in which language teachers have traditionally had expertise, the
structure of the language, is off-limits in the strong form of CLT; all that
remains is coaching learners on how to get their message across, which in
the nal analysis can be done with very limited linguistic resources,
30 ELT Journal Volume 66/1 January 2012; doi:10.1093/elt/ccq093
Advance Access publication March 15, 2011

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

provided that formal accuracy is not a major concern or a concern at all.
Indeed, Gatbontonand Segalowitz (2005: 327) see no provisions in current
CLTmethodologies to promote language use to a high level of mastery
through repetitive practice, noting that focused practice continues to be
seen as inimical to the inherently open and unpredictable nature of
communicative activities. Thus, while we can fairly assume that a teacher-
centredclassroominwhichthe mainfocus is onlinguistic formwill not lead
to uency, we can also be condent that a focus on authentic
communication alone will not lead to accuracy and complexity.
It could be that the pendulumwill return towards pedagogy that prioritizes
formal accuracy over communicative uency, but I doubt this for several
reasons. First, sociolinguistic research into language varieties has
challenged the notion that there is a monolithic, correct formthat of the
native speakeragainst which the language of learners can be measured.
Second, this challenge has increased pressure on researchers, materials
writers, and teachers to check their linguistic intuitions against ndings
from corpus linguistics, which continue to shed light on the importance of
context at both the linguistic and sociolinguistic level. Finally, language-
teaching methodologies have become increasingly humanistic, stressing
the importance of the learner in the language acquisition process. The
heterogeneity of linguistic competence, learning styles, strategies, and
degree of social investment of language learners is precisely the impetus for
greater research efforts into pedagogical methodologies that depart from
the prescriptive syllabus and encourage our reective and intuitive capacity
as teachers. The time is right for a responsive pedagogy premised oncareful
attention to, and arising from the needs of, the individual learner.
The origins of
accuracy and uency
Brumt (1979) was the rst to highlight the distinction between uency,
which represents the learners truly internalized grammar, contrasting
this with overt and conscious accuracy (115, emphasis in original) and
suggested that uency should be regarded as natural language use,
whether or not it results in native-speaker-like language comprehension or
production (Brumt 1984: 56). When he introduced these terms as key
concepts insecondlanguage acquisition(SLA) andsyllabus design, Brumt
was also arguing for an approach to form- and meaning-focused teaching,
which, it seems, has largely fallen on deaf ears. For instance, he proposed
allowing people to operate as effectively as they [can], and attempting to
mould what they [produce] in the desired direction, rather than explicitly
teaching and expecting convergent imitation. (ibid.: 50)
That is, instead of giving learners language items to imitate and expecting
their imitations gradually to conform to the model, teachers could discover
what learners actually wantedto say and thenteachthemhowto say it inthe
target language. None the less, it is still rare to leave learners to their own
devices to produce natural language use, partly owing to the fear of
exposing students to each others errors, but also because in many
classrooms students rarely have extended opportunities to produce
language for themselves at all. Rarer still is the learner-driven syllabus that
Brumt proposed, one in which teaching is based on language production,
and not the other way around.
Developing uency, accuracy, and complexity in speaking 31

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

The role of corrective
feedback in oral
uency activities
Corrective feedback (CF) literature to date has, with very few exceptions,
examinedfeedbackprovidedby teachers duringteacher-frontedactivities, in
which the teacher controls the activity itself as well as the type and quantity
of language produced. Research into the effects of such feedback has
tentatively suggested a positive role for CF in the form of recasts, but has
been weakened by methodological issues such as the interpretation of
teacher intent and learner perception of recast moves (Mackey, Al-Khalil,
Atanassova, Hama, Logan-Terry, and Nakatsukasa 2007) and the
controversy over learner uptake as an indicator of either noticing or actual
acquisition. Whether or not recasts are the most effective form of CF (see
Ammar and Spada (2006) for a contrasting view) the pedagogical goal
remains, to return to Brumt, convergent imitation.
What would an alternative pedagogy and CF approach look like? Brumt
(1979: 115), talks of the teacher modifying the learners self-developed
systems as reected in the uent language behaviour claiming that
teachers need to look at genuine language use in the classroom, to the
extent that it can ever be really genuine (Brumt 1984: 52). But this
presupposes two conditions: uentand genuinelanguage behaviour
and a way to encourage learners to focus on the formal aspects of their
production. Skehan (1996) suggests that these are unlikely to occur
simultaneously since students engaged in genuine communicative
interaction are likely to be too focused on meaning to pay attention to form.
The same must be said of teachers; however, it is extremely difcult to
participate in, let alone direct, a genuinely communicative interactionwhile
simultaneously paying attention to and remembering the form of the
utterances produced. Therefore a third condition is that teachers be free to
listen carefully to both form and content of student utterances, which
means being free from the responsibility to direct or even to participate in
the interaction. This would permit teachers to become the experts on the
language their students actually use and to design effective pedagogies to
help them progress; and it would bring much-needed content to CLTand
highly relevant content at that. The real teaching that teachers feel is
currently missing would be the language that the learners are striving for at
that moment, rather than the syllabus imposed by textbooks, which is
disconnected fromthe needs of the learner at best, and completely arbitrary
at worst. And nally, since language learning occurs over time and learners
self-developed systems are likely to change at different rates, it is essential
that the CFmethodology be responsive to the needs of the individual learner
and that there be some systematic means of collecting, storing, analysing,
and recalling the data collected.
The communicative
methodology:
Small Talk
Small Talk began as an experiment in learner-centred, reective teaching
of oral communication over 20 years ago (Harris 1998) and has developed
into a comprehensive approach to developing accuracy, uency, and
complexity in oral production. In a Small Talk session, students use their
communicative ability in conversation without intervention by the teacher,
and then receive feedback. Each session has a pre-appointed student leader,
who is responsible for choosing the topic, providing questions and relevant
vocabulary to further the discussion, putting classmates into small groups,
timing the conversation, and leading a check-in session at the end, in
32 James Hunter

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

which each group reports to the whole class on their conversation. The
stages and timing of a Small Talk session are usually similar to that shown
below.
1 The day before the session, the leader announces the
topic.
2 At the beginning of the session, the leader writes
discussion questions and vocabulary on the board,
re-introduces the topic, and claries any confusion;
the leader also puts the students into groups of three
to four and tells the students to begin.
(35 minutes)
3 Groups discuss the topic. (1520 minutes)
4 The leader asks the groups to bring their
conversation to a close and prepare for check in; the
groups decidewhat toreport totheclass andwhowill
do it.
(5 minutes)
5 The leader invites each group to check in with the
class about the highlights of their conversation.
(510 minutes)
6 The leader thanks the class and reminds them of the
next Small Talk date and leader.
(1 minute)
The students are encouraged, in Stages 4 and 5 above, to reect and report
on the dynamics of their interaction and their own part in it. This makes
explicit the quality of conversational interaction as both a cultural construct
(i.e. different cultures do conversation in very different ways) and
a quantiable variable (i.e. we can identify the features of appropriate
interaction and evaluate our use of them).
The teacher, having no role inor responsibility for the conversations, is able
to observe the interactions and afterwards to suggest ways inwhichthey can
be improved. In a typical 50-minute class, there are usually ten minutes at
the end for coaching, when the teacher comments on the interaction and
dynamics of the Small Talk session. For instance, I often teach or remind
quiet or non-uent students ways to get their point across; I remind
dominating talkers to be patient and to invite others to participate; and we
practise howtolistenactively, toshowinterlocutors our comprehension(or
lack of it) and to interrupt for clarication whenever necessary. Small Talk
is thus effective in increasing the students pragmatic competence since it
gives themanopportunitytopractise, ina relatively low-stress environment,
the kinds of speech acts they would need in higher stress interactions
outside the classroom. It also puts students in the position, as leaders, to
practise a variety of speech acts and discourse management strategies that
are usually restricted to the teacher.
Small Talk is very popular withstudents, as the following comments (from
end-of-semester class evaluations) illustrate:
n
its helped me in my speaking a lot.
n
i think it will improve our skills.
n
i really enjoy it because we chose our topic.
n
i recommend it for student.
In addition, at least fromteachers untested observations, it is very effective
in raising the level of uency of lower-intermediate to advanced students in

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

general and particularly of students from cultural backgrounds in which
verbal participation is not encouraged. It is not suitable for true beginners,
who do not have sufcient language for what Willis (2003: 22) calls
improvisation, in which learners are obliged to make the most of the
language they have at their command. For them, perhaps more appropriate
would be what Willis calls consolidation activities, inwhich learners think
through carefully what they want to say, which would more accurately
describe most classroom tasks. However, even in improvisation activities
(and perhaps especially then), students understandably want to know what
they are not doingsuccessfully, andSmall Talk alsogives anopportunity for
teachers, as observers of their students, to focus on accuracy.
Small Talk
worksheets
Since the goal is for teachers not to intrude in the conversation with
comments, recasts, or other corrective moves, CF is provided in the
following way. It would be impossible to listen to four or ve conversations
(or however many groups there are) simultaneously, but teachers can catch
a portion of each conversation, listening to each group in turn and writing
down inaccurate language use, whether it interferes with the
communicative owor not. They thenenter eacherror (typically 15 to 50per
Small Talk session) with the name of the speaker into a computerized
database,
1
notingthe date of the Small Talk sessionandthe topic (Figure 1).
gure 1
Worksheet entry form
from the database
34 James Hunter

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Teachers also occasionally ag an itemfor all students to correct, regardless
of who said it, which allows themto focus on specic language points. This
option is especially useful in cases where several students are making
similar kinds of errors. The database produces a worksheet of these errors
(Figure 2), whichis normally made available tothe students within24hours
of the conversation.
If certain individuals dominate the conversations, of course, this collection
of errors would be biased towards those individuals and some students
would rarely be heard by the teacher. Consequently, two mechanisms are in
place to counteract this effect. First, as mentioned above, the teacher
addresses domination during the coaching sessions and explicitly teaches
discourse strategies to reduce it. Second, because the database keeps
a running tally of the speakers and their errors, it is possible to formgroups
consisting of individuals who have not been heard as frequently (and who
often tend to be quieter and less dominant) and spend more time (even the
whole session, if necessary) listening exclusively to them.
CF options Giving learners a written transcription of their errors enables them to
correct any slips they have made, and it might push them towards a more
stable interlanguage form in cases where there is variability, and this alone
makes the activity worthwhile. However, beyondthat, if learners truly donot
know how to say something because they lack the appropriate structure or
vocabulary, some form of guidance is necessary to facilitate more accurate
production in the future. Two choices present themselves. The rst is to
provide the students with some sort of written metalinguistic feedback to
enable them to locate and correct the error (Figure 3). This option has
intuitive appeal and widespread support in the literature, especially the
literature on feedback in writing (Ellis 2009).
The second option is to provide the students with the printed worksheet of
errors along with reformulated versions, as a competent speaker might say
them, inthe formof anaudio recording. Students thenlistentothis inorder
to work out where the differences lie. As in a dictation, students have to
listenvery carefully to hear some of the less salient grammatical features (in
particular, articles and verb inections). Furthermore, this option gives
teachers the opportunity to introduce alternative, often more complex,
language forms that can express the students intended meanings and has
gure 2
Excerpt from a Small
Talk worksheet

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

the additional advantage of providing a correct model for phonological
errors.
Pedagogically, both these options satisfy teachers concerns that students
actually do something with the CF, and in theoretical terms, the hypothesis
is that this level of focus is more likely to leadto acquisitionthanthe uptake
of simply repeating a teachers recast. Since this is delayed CF, there is no
immediate communicative need for the information, the moment has
passed. However, it might better help students to notice the gap (Schmidt
and Frota 1986) because there is no simultaneous pressure to
communicate. It also constitutes bothexplicit positive evidence and implicit
negative evidence about the language (Long, Inagaki, and Ortega 1998).
However the feedback is provided, the students keep a running list of their
own errors and errors which the teacher has agged, on which they are
tested every three to four weeks. The test requires them to look at these
errors and orally correct as many as they can in a given amount of time,
usually two or three minutes. As an example, the following sentences were
taken from a conversation about Traditional and modern culture from my
class of 22 adult intermediate students (L1 Arabic):
* We can learn what their food, their cultures.
* In the past the womans wear the traditional clothes.
* Yeah, actually Im agree with you.
When I tested the students on these sentences (and many others) six weeks
later, all 22 could uently produce correct forms, typically:
n
We can learn what their food and their cultures are.
n
In the past women wore traditional clothes.
n
Yeah, actually I agree with you.
I do not claim that all the students had acquired all or any of the previously
incorrect forms, and therefore that they wouldbe able to produce the correct
form uently in novel contexts; but the focus on these forms did have the
noticeable effect of promoting self-correction, especially of high-frequency
chunks such as * . . . Im agree . . ., in subsequent Small Talk sessions
without any reduction intheir overall willingness to speak. On the contrary,
gure 3
Worksheet with
metalinguistic feedback
36 James Hunter

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

the students welcomed the individualized attention to their spoken
production and felt more willing to try to express themselves knowing that
I would be listening and providing feedback, as the following comment
shows:
I want to liste all of my sentences duringsmall talk. I amnot usedtospeak
correct sentenses. So I amoften surprised at seeing my mistakes. If I can
get more sentenses, I can edit my sentenses more.
Questions I madea small-scalestudy of the CFpotential of Small Talk witha class of 12
adult intermediate students (mixed L1) in an academic ESL programin the
United States. Ten of the weekly Small Talk sessions were videotaped (see
the Appendix), and four of these were randomly selected for analysis. The
conversations were transcribed and turns witherrors were identied. I then
asked ve experienced teachers to watch the videos independently, without
stoppingor rewinding, andmake worksheets just as I (the class teacher) had
done during the sessions. In doing this, I wanted to address the following
questions:
1 Do students get more speaking practice during Small Talk than during
a traditional, teacher-fronted class? Do they make more errors?
2 What percentage of students errors receives CF, and what percentage of
uptake is there?
3 Do some students receive more CF than others, and if so, why?
Results In answer to the rst question, the results from the four Small Talk
transcripts are shown in Table 1.
Topic Time Word count Turns Errors % of turns with errors
Favourite place 31:53 1,756 308 87 28
Traditional food 33:32 2,795 326 111 34
$1 Million 32:35 2,723 344 95 28
Generation gap 26:20 2,696 279 106 38
Total 124 9,970 1,270 399 31
table 1
Count of words, turns,
and turns with errors in
four transcripts
Inthis study, there were 1,270student turns in124minutes of conversation;
by way of comparison, the oft-cited study by Lyster and Ranta (1997: 52 and
62) documented 3,268 student turns in1,100 minutes. Lyster and Ranta do
not include wordcounts, but inturncount alone the students inSmall Talk
spoke 3.5 times more thanthose inLyster and Rantas study. The percentage
of student turns witherrors inbothstudies is almost the same, 31 per cent in
this study and 34 per cent in Lyster and Rantas (ibid.: 52), meaning that the
speakers left totheir owndevices not only spoke more but also made slightly
fewer errors than those in teacher-controlled activities.
Toaddress the secondquestion, the number of erroneous utterances written
down by each teacher over four Small Talk sessions was calculated as
a percentage of the number of student errors identied in the transcripts
(Table 2).

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Teacher Mean
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
34% 46% 36% 57% 42% 24% 40%
table 2
Percentage of errors
identied by teachers
T1 was the class teacher.
The level of error identicationby the teachers rangedfrom24per cent to57
per cent, giving an overall average of 40 per cent. The gure of 34 per cent
for T1 is the percentage of all errors from these four sessions that I actually
provided to these students as CF. Eventhe lowgure here (T6s 24per cent)
would probably be acceptable: if students knew that even a quarter of their
errors would be identied by their teacher, they would certainly not feel that
they were wasting time, let alone if they could be condent that around
40 per cent of the errors were being targeted. A comparison can again be
made with the study by Lyster and Ranta (1997: 53), in which of the total
number of errors produced by students, only 17 per cent of errors eventually
lead to repair; in Small Talk, an average of 40 per cent of student errors
would eventually leadto uptake and repair since the students have to correct
the worksheets.
In addressing the third question, the number of errors produced by each
student (as identied in the transcripts) was compared to the number for
each student on the teacher worksheets. In addition, I calculated the
number of errors for each student that I (T1) identied over the entire
semester, in other words the amount of CF that the students actually
received over 16 weeks, giving a point of comparison for bias (Figure 4).
(Three students who were not present for the entire semester, S2, S4, and
S11, have been excluded from this analysis.)
The correlation between number of errors for each student found in the
transcripts and numbers of errors for each student appearing on the
worksheets of teachers was high, at .89. It is possible, of course, given the
random sampling procedure (the students were grouped by the leader, the
video recorded only a ve- to seven-minute portion of each groups
conversation), that some students would feature more than others and
therefore that the teacher identication of errors would be skewed more
towards them than others. It turns out, however, that all teachers identied
more errors for students who were more inaccurate overall, regardless of
howmuch they spoke. In other words, the CFprovided closely reected the
needs of individual students.
Conclusion We frequently tell our students that it is okay to make mistakes andthat they
will not make progress unless they talk more. However, we also frequently
complain about the number of basic errors that our students make. Willis
(2003) reminds us that this is bothinevitable anddesirable: errors are part of
the developmental process, and it is the learners attempts to mean that pave
the way for learning (ibid.:110111, emphasis added) and for noticing what
they need to learn. While some might argue that allowing students at an
intermediate or lower level to improvise in the classroom could lead to
linguistic anarchy, I agree withWillis that opportunities for improvisationin
38 James Hunter

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

the classroom are essential. Although space does not permit an analysis of
the discourse structure of the conversations, the transcripts show, as Willis
(1992) notes, that in the absence of the teacher, [students] interaction
becomes far richer (ibid.:180).
However, without some consistent way of observing and recording these
attempts to mean, interpreting them, teaching to them, and assessing
subsequent learning, the teaching syllabus remains largely arbitrary and
disconnected from the needs of the learner. Small Talk is a consistent
methodology for analysing and responding to learner language, and it
appears to target learners differentially in response to their self-developed
systems. It compares very favourably with the study of Lyster and Ranta
(1997) of CFinterms of the quantity of student interactionandCFprovided.
Finally, my research indicates a connection between this methodology and
the development of accuracy, complexity, and uency, and I am currently
looking at ways to evaluate the nature and strength of this connection.
gure 4
Identicationof errors for
each student in
transcripts and by
teachers

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Note
1 A self-contained version of the database is
available for download at http://
www.gonzaga.edu/tesolresearch
References
Ammar, A. and N. Spada. 2006. One size ts all?
Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 28/4: 54374.
Brumt, C. J. 1979. Notional syllabusesa
reassessment. System 7/2: 1116.
Brumt, C. J. 1984. Communicative Methodology in
Language Teaching: The Roles of Accuracy and Fluency.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. 2009. Atypology of written corrective
feedback types. ELT Journal 63/2: 97107.
Gatbonton, E. and N. Segalowitz. 2005. Rethinking
communicative language teaching: a focus onaccess
to uency. The Canadian Modern Language Review
61/3: 32553.
Harris, R. 1998. Making grammar instruction
relevant through student-run conversations. Paper
presented at the TESOL convention, Seattle,
Washington.
Long, M. H., S. Inagaki, and L. Ortega. 1998. The
role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: models
and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. The Modern
Language Journal 82/3: 35771.
Lyster, R. and L. Ranta. 1997. Corrective feedback
and learner uptake: negotiation of form in
communicative classrooms. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 19: 3766.
Mackey, A., M. Al-Khalil, G. Atanassova, M. Hama,
A. Logan-Terry, and K. Nakatsukasa. 2007. Teachers
intentions and learners perceptions about corrective
feedback in the L2 classroom. Innovation in
Language Learning and Teaching 1/1: 12952.
Schmidt, R. and S. Frota. 1986. Developing basic
conversational ability in a second language. A case
study of an adult learner of Portuguese in R. Day
(ed.). Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second
Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Skehan, P. 1996. A framework for the
implementation of task-based instruction. Applied
Linguistics 17/1: 2362.
Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Learning
Language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Willis, D. 2003. Rules, Patterns, and Words: Grammar
and Lexis in English Language Teaching. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Willis, J. 1992. Inner and outer: spoken discourse in
the language classroom in M. Coulthard (ed.).
Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis. London:
Routledge.
The author
James Hunter has been teaching in the ESL and
MATESL programs at Gonzaga University, in
Washington State, for the past ten years and is
currently completing his PhDinApplied Linguistics
at the University of Birmingham, investigating
corrective feedback in language teaching and CALL.
He has taught in Spain, Japan, and most recently in
Abu Dhabi.
Email: hunter@gonzaga.edu
40 James Hunter

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Appendix
Small Talk sessions,
Level 105/6, Spring
2008
Level Date Worksheet no. Topic
105 23 January 2008 1 Sports
105 28 January 2008 2 Childhood
105 4 February 2008 3 Favourite place (31:53)
105 12 February 2008 4 Celebrations
105 18 February 2008 5 Dancing and parties
105 21 February 2008 6 Traditional food (33:32)
105 26 February 2008 7 How to look after your
body
106 25 March 2008 1 Cohabitation
106 27 March 2008 2 Crime and punishment
106 1 April 2008 3 Your dream
106 8 April 2008 4 If you had $1 million
(32:35)
106 15 April 2008 5 Conict
106 17 April 2008 6 Discussion of novel
Whirligig
106 22 April 2008 7 Teamwork
106 24 April 2008 8 Generation gap (26:20)
106 29 April 2008 9 One day left on Earth
Bold items represent videotaped sessions

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Developing multiliteracies in ELT
through telecollaboration
Sarah Guth and Francesca Helm
Communicating and collaborating in online contexts can be quite different from
face-to-face situations and requires students to acquire multiple literacies in
addition to foreign language skills and intercultural communicative competence.
This paper looks at how the development of multiliteracies can be included in the
EFL classroomthrough the practice of telecollaboration, that is internet-mediated
intercultural exchange. The integration of multiliteracies in the task design of the
three stages of a telecollaboration project is illustrated through practical examples
from an exchange which used English as a lingua franca.
Introduction Telecollaboration in language learning contexts is internet-based
intercultural exchange between groups of learners of different cultural/
national backgrounds set up in an institutional blended-learning context
(see ODowd 2007 for an overview) with the aim of developing both
language skills and intercultural communicative competence (ICC) (Byram
1997). The goal for language learners is to become intercultural speakers or
mediators who possess the linguistic skills and intercultural awareness
necessary to allow them to interact effectively in a foreign language with
people from cultures that are different from their own.
Traditionally, telecollaboration exchanges are bilingual and based on the
concept of nationally dened cultures (for example Furstenberg, Levet,
English, and Maillet 2001). However, it is becoming increasingly difcult to
make this distinction between two national cultures as even in binational
exchanges the students involved may be froma variety of national, cultural,
and linguistic backgrounds. A more recent trend is to carry out exchanges
using English as a lingua franca (ELF) between non-native speakers of
English with a focus on different cultural perspectives on local and global
issues. The exchange we describe in this paper is an example of this type of
project.
Telecollaboration is based on a sociocultural view of language learning,
whereby learning takes place in social contexts through interaction and
collaboration. It is a blended approach, with the online environment
providing the eld for experiential learning and the classroom a place
where guided critical reection takes place and where teachers provide
ongoing scaffolding for learning. For researchers, a sociocultural approach
sees the learner as situated insocial, institutional, andcultural settings that
Advance Access publication May 11, 2011

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

need to be considered in order to better understand if and how learning
takes place. In this paper, we focus on task design for telecollaboration and
howthis can take into account the online environments and tools used and
the online literacies required of learners.
Telecollaboration projects have evolved from written and asynchronous
communication such as email or discussion forums to multimodal
environments that offer both synchronous and asynchronous
communication and oral, written, and media-sharing communication
among learners (Lamy and Hampel 2007; Guth and Helm 2010).
Researchers and practitioners argue that these new modes of online
communication, rather than serve as practice for real-life communication
or poor substitutes for study abroad, are high-stakes contexts (Thorne
2003) in themselves. These new environments offer affordances and
constraints for language learning that are different from face-to-face
classroom contexts and thus need to be taken into account in task design
(Hampel 2006; Ellis 2010).
Online literacies Outside of the foreign language learning context, it has beenrecognized for
over a decade nowthat eventhoughcompetence intraditional literacy is still
a must, it is no longer sufcient. In 1996, the New London Group
proposed the idea of multiliteracies, which expanded the traditional
language-based viewof literacy to take into account the many linguistic and
cultural differences insociety (NewLondonGroup1996). In2000, withthe
growth of the world wide web, the same authors argued that educators need
to:
[. . .] extend the idea and scope of literacy pedagogy to account for the
context of our culturally and linguistically diverse and increasingly
globalised societies; to account for the multifarious cultures that
interrelate and the plurality of texts that circulate [. . . and to] account for
the burgeoning variety of text forms associated with information and
multimedia technologies. (New London Group 2000: 9)
In their work on new literacies, Lankshear and Knobel (2006) identied
three dimensions: the operational, cultural, and critical. The operational
dimension refers to the means of literacy or skills such as the ability to
search for information, use a particular online tool, share information and
resources with others, and multitask. The cultural dimension regards
knowledge of literacy practices and appropriate ways of communicating in
particular contexts, such as an understanding of netiquette in discussion
lists and issues regarding intellectual property rights like copyright and
copyleft.
1
The cultural dimension also includes propositional knowledge of
whatever domain the online community is concerned with, for example
knowledge of current affairs in order to be able to participate in a news-
related discussion list. Finally, the critical component regards an awareness
of the power relations involved inthe technologies used, for instance whose
interests and values they serve or reect and whose interests are
marginalized.
In language learning contexts, there has been some recognition of the
importance of multiple literacies for successful learning, particularly in
online contexts (Lamy and Hampel op.cit.), but there has been little
Developing multiliteracies in ELT through telecollaboration 43

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

investigation of how to include literacies development in task design for
telecollaboration. The three dimensions suggested by Lankshear and
Knobel (op.cit.) can be adapted to the telecollaboration context to aid
practitioners in developing tasks that take into consideration not only
language learning and the development of ICC but the development of
online literacies as well. Although the three domains are developed
simultaneously in telecollaboration (see Guth and Helm op.cit.), the focus
of the rest of this paper is on how to foster learner competence in online
literacies in telecollaboration.
Task design for
telecollaboration
The methodological approach adopted in telecollaboration is task-based
language learning (Mueller-Hartmann 2007). ODowd and Ware (2009)
have identied three main categories of tasks commonly used in
telecollaboration: information exchange, comparison and analysis, and
collaborationand product creation. Acomplete telecollaborationproject can
be organized around a collection of sequenced and integrated tasks from
these categories in order to allow for the gradual development of skills and
competences in the operational, cultural, and critical dimensions.
In this section, we will provide practical examples of tasks that we have used
in an exchange where English was used as a lingua franca between teacher
trainees of EFL at a university in Germany and undergraduate students of
EFL at a university in Italy (see http://interculturewiki.pbworks.com/w/
page/25061457/PadovaBochum10). The GermanyItaly exchange was
organizedaroundweekly discussions indyads or small groups usingSkype
2
over a period of six weeks. Awiki
3
was used as a platform for the project to
organize groupings, set out timetables and tasks, publish individual and
group student productions, carry out asynchronous discussion, and post
recordings of Skype sessions. Although the specicities of Skype and wiki
were taken into account when developing the tasks described below, the
considerations made can be generalized and adapted to many different
online environments. In this paper, we use the term task to refer to the
Skype sessions, which are preceded by preparatory pre-task activities and
followed by post-task reective activities (see Figure 1). This notion of task
fi gure 1
Weekly task cycle for the
GermanItalian
telecollaboration project
44 Sarah Guth and Francesca Helm

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

cycle (Leaver and Willis 2004) is applied to all the tasks in the three stages,
examples of which are provided below.
Stage 1: information
exchange
The main aim of the rst stage of any telecollaboration exchange is
familiarizing students with one another and with the online environments
that will serve as the virtual space for the communication. The rst task in
the GermanyItaly exchange was a getting-to-know-one-another interview
using Skype. In order to prepare for this, students had to create their own
personal wiki page where they introduced themselves. They were asked to
read their assigned partners introductions and also encouraged to become
friends on the social networks they might be members of, for example
Facebook, in order to explore each others online identities. On a separate
wiki page, students also collectively preparedquestions to guide theminthe
rst interview. This gavethembothlinguistic preparationfor the taskas well
as questions tofall backonincase of silent moments duringtheir rst Skype
session.
The interviews were carried out using the audio and text functions of Skype
and students were instructed to keep the wiki open in a browser during the
interview. Students spent a lot of time during the rst session becoming
familiar with the technology. Following the interviews, students shared
their initial impressions in the classroom and then reected on their
learning intheir diaries onthe wiki. The extract belowcomes fromthe diary
of an Italian student who described herself as a technophobe and was very
anxious before the rst session. Her entry illustrates that despite her fear
and the common belief that technology-mediated communication is
articial and impersonal, she had a positive experience. She was further
encouragedbycomments toher diary fromone of her Germaninterlocutors
(Hans),
4
inviting further communication and praising her English.
This is my rst learners diary! This morning, when we were ready to
start, I was kind of nervous; this was a brand newexperience for me, and I
really wanted to make a good impression. I think I did quite a good work,
even though sometimes words failed and I ended up stummering
something, which did not sound very English. :) By the way, Kirsten and
Hans, my German partners, were very nice and ready to help me out
when I got stuck while talking. They always understood what I wanted to
say, and they often met me half way. [. . .]
We tried to followall the points of the outline, and I think we managed to
talk about them in an exhaustive way. [. . .] Even though, our cultural
backgrounds are very different, I am pretty sure well can enrich our
concepts of the other culture.
Comment from Hans:
Unfortunately, I dont have any facebook account . . . maybe we can talk
via skype a bit more. Feel free to contact me, whenever you want! Really
liked our chat and dont feel sorry for your English!! Its very good! take
care
In addition to the linguistic and intercultural skills needed, learners had to
develop online literacies to successfully complete the task. For all the
students, this was their rst experience editing a wiki, hence on the

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

operational level, they were required to create and edit a wiki page and
comment on wiki pages. Ona cultural level, this led to knowledge about the
collaborative style of wiki technology and how it differs from traditional
print media and web publishing. Finally, on a critical level, it led students to
consider the issue of multiple identities and decide how much or which of
their identities they wanted to share with their university peers.
Stage 2: comparison
and analysis
In order to move beyond mere information exchange, Stage 2 of
telecollaboration engages students in a series of comparison and analysis
tasks. The input can involve different cultural artefacts, for example parallel
texts, class responses to questionnaires, or the same news story in different
online resources. One such task in the GermanyItaly exchange involved
comparing media coverage of a current news event. At the time, the
referendum in Switzerland about the building of minarets became a major
global issue. The moment the results of the referendumcame out, reactions
were almost immediate across the globe through online media and social
networks. To prepare for a synchronous discussion on this issue, students
were asked to look at media reports in both their national and English-
language newspapers and websites, such as Al Jazeera English, the
Guardian, andthe NewYork Times, andreader reactions throughthe Twitter
5
feeds and forums of these sites. They had to summarize their ndings on
the wiki and cut and paste examples of comments from the English-
speaking sources with links to the original source. They were asked to take
a critical approach by considering how the story was framed in different
media, why this was the case, who the intended audience was, and to
consider the role played by image, video and text, and reader comments.
This process also allowed them to prepare themselves linguistically for the
conversation and have a series of resources ready to be shared with their
peers during the Skype session to simultaneously viewimages, videos, and
other online sources. Students also accessed online dictionaries and
translation services they had learnt to use in order to assist them in
comprehension and in expressing themselves in English. The post-task
activity was toreect not only onthe contents of the conversationbut onhow
they felt they were or were not able to manage the multitasking required in
this particular task. As an Italian student commented, being online may
offer opportunities that are not possible in face-to-face conversation. In her
learner diary, she wrote:
I really like it that we have the opportunity to browse the web during the
callsduring the last session for instance we looked for the poster that
the Swiss party created for the anti-minaret campaign or for pictures in
which the already existing minarets are shown and compared with
steeples of Catholic or Protestant churches. So this gave us the possibility
to look for more topics of conversation.
On an operational level, learners were required to nd a variety of online
resources on a specic topic and share them rst on the wiki and then by
using the text chat inSkype. The degree of multitasking involvedduring the
conversation was more complex at this stage as learners used both oral and
text chat and often switched from the Skype window to browser windows
with news articles and online dictionaries to support the discussion. On the

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

cultural and critical levels, their knowledge of the topic at hand and the role
of online news media were initially addressed in the pre-task activities and
further developedindiscussionandreectiontasks. Throughthe process of
searching and sharing resources, learners considered whose interests the
various sources serve andhowinteractive features, suchas Twitter feeds, are
used and for what purposes. For example, with reference to reader
comments to an online article, one German student observed in his learner
diary:
The debate about the minaret matter in Switzerland is quite interesting
because many users seem to use this platform to post their insults and
personal stories having nothing to do with the topic. In fact, as it can be
observed very often in forum discussions, the number of off-topic
comments is increasingly high so that it is very difcult to sort out the
real discussion.
Students also learnt how audio conferencing can be quite different from
face-to-face interactions in that, for example, they lack the paralinguistic
cues often used to take the oor making it necessary for speakers to
negotiate turn-taking rules. For example, one Germanstudent commented:
I have no problems to talk to one or more persons at the same time as long
as everybody cares about some rules, i.e. to integrate all members of the
group into the conversation or erverybody, who started a comment, is
allowed to nish his thoughts. Despite these challenges, as an Italian
student commented, online audio chat can be very authentic: It was like
a normal conversation among friends, where you have to take your time to
say something important or useful for the whole group . . . And all via web!
Stage 3: collaboration
and product creation
Collaborationonproduct creationis the most challengingtaskas inaddition
to the online literacies required to operate effectively online in a foreign
language, learners need the intercultural competence and collaborative
skills necessary to engage in team work. In order to help learners develop
these competences, task design needs to build in positive interdependence
and place emphasis on the process, not just on the nal product. The
product may be anything froma co-constructed web page to a collaborative
short video project.
The nal task in the GermanyItaly exchange was the collaborative
development of a digital collage of images that could represent what it
means to be a global citizenand anintercultural communicator. There were
two pre-task activities. The rst involved a series of readings on global
citizenship and intercultural communication followed by questions for
reection. The second required students to look for images they wanted to
include inthe collage and upload themto the wiki. Learning about the risks
of copyright infringement on the web was an important precursor to this
activity. During the Skype session, students co-constructed the collage by
deciding which images to include in it, where to place them, etc. Students
had to negotiate roles and deadlines and establish a mode of
communication, be it through the wiki or Facebook, in order to collaborate
outside of the Skype sessions. In their diaries, students were asked to reect
on the collaborative process and how their group managed, or did not
manage, to work together.

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Task Operational Cultural Critical
Stage 1 Skype
interviews
How
to use
wiki and
Skype.
Knowledge
of wiki
literacy
practices and
privacy issues.
Online identities?
Personal, public,
academic?
Overlap between
these?
Stage 2 Current
news
event in
different
online
media
How to
navigate
the web
and speak
and listen
on Skype
at the
same time.
Knowledge of
the current news
event and the rules
that govern
synchronous
online
communication.
Interests behind
online media
sources?Availability
and use of
interactive/
social features?
Face-to-face vs.
online interaction?
Stage 3 Intercultural
collage
How to
search for
legally useable
online contents
and share them
with others.
Knowledge of
the rules that
govern
synchronous
online
communication
in groups of
46 speakers.
Inuence of
design on
meaning?
Inuence
of culture and
identity on
interpretation of
images? Assumptions
and ideas behind
texts and images?
table 1
Link between the three
stages of
a telecollaboration:
project, tasks, and
multiliteracies
For the groupproject, we brought together dyads or triads intolarger groups
so that students had to collaborate with new partners. Not only were there
more participants, but they found themselves having to speak with peers
they may not have spoken with before. The entries about this session in
learner diaries pointed out two signicant points. First of all, engaging with
new peers highlighted the fact that students felt as though they had
establisheda real relationshipwiththe peer(s) they hadbeenspeakingwith
during the rst ve sessions. Secondly, they felt muchmore condent about
dealing with the challenges involved in group communication. On the
operational level, they felt they had learnt how to manage many different
speakers, and on the cultural level, how to respect the rules of
communication in Skype when there are more than two to three speakers.
One Italian students comment demonstrates these factors.
I particularly enjoyed this session even if at the beginning I was a bit
worriedof speakingwithsomany peopleat onetime [. . .] I alsowouldlove
to say that I am proud of the connection and relationship that Ute and I
established and I was glad to see that we were the couple who interacted
the most. Theres already a lot of condence between us so I think we
managed putting other girls at ease too, by asking questions and giving
our opinion.
Finally, on the critical level, students were encouraged to focus on the
language of the images they were usingintheir intercultural collages. Each
student was asked to both explain why they had chosen particular images

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

and to explore what this might say about their own culture or cultural
assumptions.
To sumup the contents of this section, <xref ref-type="table" rid="tbl1xref>
links the three stages, example tasks, and the online skills (operational),
knowledge (cultural), and awareness (critical) that can be developed in
a telecollaboration project. links the three stages, example tasks, and the
online skills (operational), knowledge (cultural), and awareness (critical)
that can be developed in a telecollaboration project.
Observations One of the benets of using digital technologies is that a permanent record
of the interactions can be used for both language learning and research.
Students were asked to listen to and analyse the recordings of their
conversations at different stages of the exchange to identify strengths and
weaknesses as well as points for improvement. Through this process, the
learners themselves noticed the progress they had made incommunicating
online, as reected in this comment by an Italian student:
I also listened to our recordings and I thinkas Maria already
wrotethat there was a development between Skype [session] 2 and
Skype [session] 5, the interaction was more uent and there were less
hesitations to start talking . . . I also think that it depends on the topics we
were talking about, if you share your thoughts and somebody expresses
the thoughts you also have inmind, you caneasily pick up the vocabulary
the partner already used. [. . .] I could recognize the Italian and the
German accent but I cant really say why.
Some EFL teachers and learners may have concerns about interaction
between non-native speakers and exposure to incorrect forms of
language. Most of the learners in this particular exchange felt that the
partnership in this exchange was positive, particularly from a culture-
learning point of view. The Germanstudents hadthe opportunity topractise
their Englishand as trainee Englishteachers they were engagedina process
of learning-by-doing as they learnt how they might be able to implement
telecollaboration in their future language classrooms. The Italian students
felt they hadimproved their English, particularly their uency, conversation
skills, and condence. As seen in the comment above, most students were
aware of eachothers style anddifferent accents whenspeaking English, but
this was seen in a positive light by the majority and as representative of an
authentic communicative event, as illustratedinthis comment by a German
student:
Every opportunity for active oral language use should be appreciated.
Althoughthe Skype project creates semi-realistic situationsas we know
the topics beforehand and have the chance to prepareit has helped me
to see where I am currently standing with regard to my uency. The
lingua franca situation and the fact that we do not talk face-to-face but via
the computer, makes me more self-condent because I do not have to be
ashamed of making myself sound ridiculous before a native speaker. The
Italians English is awesome, plus nowadays a lingua franca context will
be more probable that coming across s.o. who speaks RP.

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Conclusion Task designfor telecollaborationis undoubtedly a challenge and, as we have
tried to lay out inthis paper, requires consideration of the specicities of the
online context in order to be effective. The competences developed through
telecollaboration extend beyond the domain of foreign language skills and
encompass other areas necessary for successful participation and
collaborationintodays online world. Inanattempt toprovide indications as
to how tasks may be designed, we have provided an example of how the
categorizations proposed by ODowd and Ware (op.cit.), combined with
attention given to developing online literacies, can serve as guiding
principles for developing the three stages of a telecollaboration project. We
illustrated how a complete telecollaboration exchange can be designed to
facilitate learners progression through the three stages, which gradually
place increasingly complex processing demands on learners. With specic
regards to developing online literacies, we demonstrated how the three
dimensions, operational, cultural, and critical, can be developed in each
stage. Although the focus of the tasks in each stage is on meaning, we have
explained how pre- and post-task activities can be developed to
support learners and provide the necessary scaffolding for them to
successfully engage in language, intercultural, and literacy
development.
The research into task design in telecollaboration is still in its infancy and
there are many issues which require further research. Some critical areas
are: teacher and learner roles; howto best exploit environments and tools in
relation to their affordances based on task and exchange objectives; and the
collaboration that must take place between the respective teachers when
designing, implementing, and evaluating a telecollaboration project.
Final revised version received February 2011
Notes
1 The concept of copyleft plays on the term
copyright, i.e. some rights reserved versus all
rights reserved. See creativecommons.org.
2 Skype is a free voice over internet protocol (VoIP)
service that allows users to audio, video, and text
conference with one another.
3 Awiki is a website that allows for the collaborative
development of online content. See http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki.
4 All student names have been changed and errors
in the texts have been left as they were written by
students on the wiki.
5 Twitter is an online microblogging service that
enables users to send and read other users
tweets, which are text-based posts of up to 140
characters. See http://twitter.com/
References
Byram, M. 1997. Teaching and Assessing Intercultural
Communicative Competence. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Ellis, R. 2010. Forward in M. Thomas and H.
Reinders (eds.). Task-Based Language Learning and
Teaching with Technology. London: Continuum.
Furstenberg, G., S. Levet, K. English, and K. Maillet.
2001. Giving a virtual voice to the silent language of
culture: the CULTURAproject. Language Learning &
Technology 5/1: 55102.
Guth, S. and F. Helm. (eds.). 2010. Telecollaboration
2.0: Language, Literacies and Intercultural Learning in
the 21st Century. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
Hampel, R. 2006. Rethinking task design for the
digital age: a framework for language teaching and
learning in a synchronous online environment.
ReCALL 18/1: 10521.
Lamy, M.-N. and R. Hampel. 2007. Online
Communication in Language Teaching and Learning.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lankshear, C. and M. Knobel. 2006. New Literacies:
Everyday Practices and Classroom Learning.
(Second edition). Maidenhead: Open University
Press.

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Leaver, B. L. andJ. Willis. 2004. Task-based Instruction
inForeignLanguage Education: Practices and Program.
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Mueller-Hartmann, A. 2007. Teacher role in
telecollaboration: setting up and managing
exchanges in R. ODowd (ed.).
New London Group. 1996. Apedagogy of
multiliteracies: designing social futures. Harvard
Educational Review 66/1: 6092.
New London Group 2000. Apedagogy of
multiliteracies: designing social futures, in B. Cope
and M. Kalantzis (eds.). Multiliteracies: Literacy
Learning and the Design of Social Futures. London:
Routledge.
ODowd, R. (ed.). 2007. Online Intercultural
Exchange. An Introduction for Foreign Language
Teachers. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
ODowd, R. and P. Ware. 2009. Critical issues in
telecollaborative task design. CALL Journal 22/2:
17388.
Thorne, S. 2003. Artifacts and cultures-of-use in
intercultural communication. Language Learning
and Technology 7/2: 3867.
The authors
Sarah Guth teaches English as a foreign language
(EFL) at the University of Padova, Italy. She is
currently a PhD candidate at the Ruhr Universitaet,
Bochum, Germany. She has published numerous
articles and book chapters on language learning and
testing, computer-mediated communication,
intercultural competence, and culture learning. Her
current research focuses on the use of English as
a lingua franca inonline language learning contexts.
She recently co-edited the book Telecollaboration 2.0:
Language, Literacies and Intercultural Learning in the
21st Century.
Email: sarah.guth@unipd.it
Francesca Helmis a researcher at the Department of
International Studies, University of Padova, where
she teaches English. Her research is on language
learning and literacies, computer-mediated
communication, and intercultural competence. She
recently co-edited the book Telecollaboration 2.0:
Language, Literacies and Intercultural Learning in the
21st Century.
Email: francesca.helm@unipd.it

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Learner negotiation of L2 form in
transcription exercises
Paul Mennim
Negotiation of language form is thought to engage learning processes by helping
learners to notice gaps in their developing L2 and nd target-like ways of lling
them. Self-transcription, where learners work together to nd language errors in
recordings of their own oral output, is an awareness raising exercise that
encourages such negotiation. This paper examines the problem-solving efforts of
a class of Japanese students as they worked on a transcription exercise inEnglish. It
describes the various resources they made use of while tackling L2 problems and
considers some of the cognitive processes underlying their decisions. This small-
scale study shows how these learners effectively negotiated form while working
independently of the teacher. Recordings of their discussions reveal a depth of
cognitive processing thought to be benecial to language development.
Introduction This paper considers learner negotiation of language formin the context of
a self-transcription exercise. In the exercise, described more fully below,
a class of Japanese university students made written transcripts of
recordings of their own English classroom presentations. They scrutinized
these transcripts in groups and discussed any language problems they
found there. The exercise therefore allowed a focus on language form
through post-task discussion and collaboration.
There has been considerable interest in self-transcription in the language
classroom over the last few years and encouraging results have been
reported of students noticing and reformulating L2 errors (Lynch 2001;
Stillwell, Curabba, Alexander, Kidd, Kim, Stone, and Wyle 2010), making
short- and long-term language gains (Lynch 2007; Mennim 2007) and
editing their output for easier comprehension and greater sophistication of
expression (Mennim 2003). All these studies of transcription include
a stage where learners attempt to correct their ownerrors, usually inpairs or
in small groups. Lynch (2007) and Stillwell et al. (op.cit.) report favourable
responses fromstudent questionnaires about the usefulness of the exercise.
Moreover, the latter study and also Lynch (2001) include gures indicating
that a clear majority of the corrections produced during the discussionstage
were in a target-like direction. This is an interesting nding as it suggests
that learners can drawon their own resources to expand their knowledge of
the L2.

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

The present paper considers examples of problem solving from recordings
of student groups as they made their corrections. I was interestedto see how
learners, working without direct assistance fromthe teacher, could manage
corrections and try to identify the sources of knowledge they would drawon
to do this. Would it be justiable to use classroomtime having the students
attempt this activity ontheir own? This includedaninterest inthe quality of
their discussion, to see whether they engaged in the kind of discourse
thought to benet language development. In other words, to consider
evidence of intake, a proposedstageof L2acquisition(Gass 1997), inwhich
learners test hypotheses about the L2 as a precursor to integrating new
forms into their developing interlanguage (see below).
Learners as problem
solvers
Swains (1995) Output hypothesis describes the crucial role that dialogue
can play in problemsolving and L2 development. While speaking, learners
are more likely to make use of cognitive functions suchas noticing the gap,
hypothesis testing, and metatalk. That is to say, they can identify
problems, try alternatives, and discuss these specically with peers. Such
activity is observable in language-related episodes (LREs), dened as any
part of a dialogue in which students talk about the language they are
producing, question their language use, or other- or self-correct (Swain
1998: 70). Studies of LRE production have explored the relationship
between language development and discussion of L2 form.
Ohta (2000) provides anexample of a more procient peer helping to guide
another learners oral performance. She presents transcripts of two learners
of Japanese at an American university practising a fairly complex
desiderative constructionin the L2 which described actions or favours they
wanted done on their behalf. The more procient of the two assisted his
partner by correcting her lexical choices and grammatical particle selection
until she could produce the construction without his help. In another study
of classroomgroup work, Donato (1994) shows howproblemsolving is not
dependent on one learner having greater overall expertise than another. He
presents the collaborationbetweenthree Americanuniversity students who
were jointly preparing for a classroom oral activity but could not
immediately render the phrase you remembered into French. He shows
how the students each contributed a piece of knowledge to their nal
formulation: one student supplied the correct auxiliary verb, another the
correct reexive pronoun, until, through the accumulation of those
individual contributions, they arrived at tu tes souvenu, a target-like solution
to their problem.
Negotiation and
intake
Swain(2000) shows howanexaminationof learner negotiationof formcan
reveal a rich seam of problem-solving strategies. In this extract, two French
language immersion students (aged 13- to 14-years old) are attempting to
translate new threats into French (de nouvelles menaces).
1 Rachel Cher[chez] nou . . . des nouveaux menaces. (Look up new[as
in] new threats.)
2 Sophie Good one!
3 Rachel Yeah, nouveaux, des nouveaux, de nouveaux. Is it des
nouveaux or de nouveaux?
4 Sophie Des nouveaux or des nouvelles?
Learner negotiation of L2 form in transcription exercises 53

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

5 Rachel Nou[veaux], des nou[veaux], de nou[veaux].
6 Sophie Its menace, un menace, une menace, un menace, menace
ay ay ay! [exasperated]
7 Rachel Je vais le pauser. (Im going to put it on pause [i.e. the tape-
recorder].) [They look up menace in the dictionary.]
8 Sophie Cest des nouvelles! [triumphantly]
9 Rachel Cest feminin . . . des nouvelles menaces.
(Swain 2000: 101)
According to Swains analysis, to incorporate the phrase new threats into
their dialogue, the students had to negotiate two decisions about the form.
First, in Turns 3 and 5, Rachel was concerned with the form of the
accompanying partitive (de or des) and tested out her initial hypothesis from
Turn 1 that she should use des. She did this in Turn 3, both by repeating
alternate forms to herself to see which sounded correct, and then by asking
her partner for advice. Meanwhile, in Turns 4 and 6, Sophie addressed the
gender of the noun menace. In Turn 6, she drew from her existing
knowledge of the L2, repeating the noun to try to hear if it tted best with
a masculine or feminine article as gender affects the form of the
accompanying adjective (nouveaux versus nouvelles). After Turn7, they used
the dictionary as an alternative source of knowledge which conrmed
menace as a feminine noun, which Rachel conrmed using the
metalinguistic term in French.
In this example, the learners output becomes available for conscious
reectionas intake, the stage at whichlearners attend togrammatical rules
and the relationships betweenformand meaning. Here, Rachel and Sophie
notice gaps in their L2 knowledge, attempt solutions, and use various
resources (previous L2knowledge, peer advice, dictionary) toconrmthem.
Swain (2000: 113) calls this type of negotiation knowledge-building
dialogue and in a separate study (1998) suggests that encouraging deeper
reection about language form, including a greater use of metalanguage,
will lead to better learning. Metalinguistic knowledge can act as a hook on
which to hang new insights into L2 forms, increasing the likelihood of
learning. This, again, argues that negotiationof formcanbe viewedinterms
of quality: that new knowledge arising from deeper cognitive processing
may be more likely to be retained in memory and integrated into the
learners developing interlanguage.
The transcription exercise in my own study gave students the chance to
reect on their L2 output in a way that may not have been possible when
their primary focus was on conveying meaning, as it was during the
classroom presentations. While giving their presentation, any errors may
have passed unnoticed, whereas this post-task activity required a group
effort to reformulate the transcript with the production of LREs,
which could then engage learning processes in the ways suggested by
Swain.
The transcription
exercise
The exercise was used as part of an oral presentation course for rst year
students majoring in Social Policy at a private university in Japan. The
course was designated higher level, meaning that the class members had
achieved TOEFL scores of over 500. Englishwas one of their minor subjects
54 Paul Mennim

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

withfour obligatory classes per week. The course was process basedandhad
no preset list of grammar structures or vocabulary. Instead, students were
required to use L2 sources to prepare a talk, coming into contact with
English while researching a subject of their own choice. Students formed
groups of twoor three accordingtoa sharedinterest ina topic andgave three
presentations on that topic during the course of the academic year (the
whole group presenting together).
At Stage 1 of the transcription exercise, I asked students to transcribe
recordings I had made of one of their earlier presentations.
These recordings represented fairly spontaneous output as the students
were not allowed to use scripts as they spoke, though I allowed the use of
short cue cards. The presentations ranged from 10 to 20 minutes but I
advised the students to transcribe just a sectionof their ownoutput, enough
to ll one double-spaced side of A4 paper, as this would be enough to give
them some idea of the errors they were making. I asked them to include
any errors they noticed while listening to the tape and producing the
transcript as the point of the exercise was for the students, during Stage 2,
to negotiate with each other to correct in red pen any mistakes they
found. I hoped that the students would notice problems intheir oral output,
employ metatalk during discussions with peers, and nally
come up with reformulations. After Stage 2, they passed their
corrected version on to me and I added any further corrections they had
missed (Stage 3).
The students
negotiation of form
The episodes in this section come from recordings of the six groups (from
a class of 17 students) as they discussed their transcripts. They have been
selected to exemplify the various resources the students made use of while
tackling language problems and the quality of negotiation involved in their
corrections.
As in the above studies, the groups refer to dictionaries, recognize their
peers as sources of information, andcombinetheir L2knowledge toarrive at
solutions collaboratively. Like the students in Swains (2000) study, they
draw on their existing L2 knowledge to determine what sounds right.
Additionally, they speculate as to whether the rules they already knowmight
apply in different contexts.
The episodes also reveal a range of cognitive processes involved in the
students problem solving. They employ metalinguistic terminology
(Episodes 4 and 7), drawon their L1 to conrmmessage meaning (Episode
7), make cognitive comparisons between problem forms and their existing
knowledge of English (Episodes 3 and 7), formulate hypotheses about the
behaviour of L2 forms (Episodes 5 and 7), and reapply or reformulate these
hypotheses subsequently (Episodes 6and7). These will be discussedinturn
below.
All student names are pseudonyms. The text in block capitals indicates
either the original transcript or shows where the students are reading
verbatim from it. Underlined text denotes the students own emphasis.
Square brackets denote overlapping speech. Aplus sign indicates a short
pause.

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Episode 1 VISITED SHOPS AND RESEARCHED THROUGH INTERNET
Nina Do we need the internet? the internet or just internet?
Reina the the internet
Here, Nina notices a problem in her own transcript and asks her partner to
comment. Reina replies, both stressing and repeating the target-like use of
the article. In this way, one student appeals to a more procient peer for
information and is provided with the correct solution.
Episode 2 1 Kaoru ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND JAPANESE WHO ARE
WANTING TO SEE ICHIRO VISIT SEATTLE AND
THREE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AUDIENCE IN
THE STADIUM uh?
2 Miki uh stadium there was three thousand and one hundred
3 Kaoru Seattle and three thousand one hundred thousand audience
of the stadium stadium
4 Miki Three thousand and one hundred increase
5 Kaoru hmm? No + the audience of the stadium increased
6 Miki Oh + the audience of the stadium increased by three
thousand and one hundred per one game
Kaoru is reading Mikis transcript in Turn 1, but stops when his
comprehension of the sentence breaks down, perhaps because an audience
of 3,100 for a major baseball game seems small. In Turn 4, Miki indicates
that the gure refers not to the total attendance but to an increase in
spectators. This allows Kaoru to change the phrase to the audience of the
stadium increased in Turn 5. Miki then contributes the correct preposition
by in Turn 6, to introduce the size of the increase. In this Episode, as with
the excerpt from Donato (op.cit.), both students have contributed distinct
parts of the reformulation.
Episode 3 ONE DAY, HE VISITED TOJAPAN AND HE SAID, OHTHERE ARE
MANYGARBAGES IN JAPAN
1 Katsu ONE DAY, HE VISITED TO JAPAN AND HE SAID, OH
THERE ARE MANY GARBAGES garbages?
2 Toru IN JAPAN you dont need to say that. Japan because he is
3 Katsu Ah okay he is in Japan. garbages or garbage?
4 Toru garbage?
5 Katsu I looked into the dictionary [?] garbages
6 Toru you cant say that
7 Katsu yeah you cant say that [garbage
8 Toru [garbage + like informations its like
information not informations
9 Katsu yeah yeah
10 Toru garbage.
Although he was initially distracted by another point, Toru picks up on
Katsus questionabout garbage inTurn4. InTurn5, Katsuexplains howhe
hadlookedupthe wordinthe dictionary. This particular recordingis of poor
quality and his whole statement is inaudible, but it seems likely that his
56 Paul Mennim

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

comment relates to the countability of garbage as he immediately agrees
withToruwho has judgedgarbages tobe unacceptable inTurn6. Although
Toru seems to lack the grammatical terminology to describe this point, he
makes use of the analogy withinformation inorder to make the point clear.
This Episode also shows Katsus appeal to an external resource (in this case
a dictionary) to help solve a language problem, which is conrmed by his
partners knowledge.
Episode 4 MUSIC IS __________ PRODUCTS MADE FROM INDIVIDUAL
SOUND SHAT HOWEVER CAN THE DEFINITION OF MUSIC,
DIFFERENCEBETWEEN SOUND AND MUSIC BE SO SIMPLE OR
FIRM?
1 Haruka I dont understand this sentences grammar. MUSIC IS +
PRODUCT This is verb? noun? MADE FROM
INDIVIDUAL SOUND that however
2 Sumire The sound?
3 Haruka That however?
4 Sumire Huh?
5 Haruka I dont understand.
6 Sumire MADE FROM INDIVIDUAL SOUND
7 Ken I dont understand.
11 Sumire I think its However + can the denition of music. Well,

thats right. I guess you say something like this but I dont
know whats happening here.
13 Sumire And not or + and I think
16 Sumire Ah! I reckon its

17 Haruka sound however that can
18 Sumire whoa whoa whoa I think this that comes to here what Im
thinking discriminate music in general that music is
something is
21 Haruka should be s-[shat?

22 Sumire [shat? (laughter at typo on transcript page)
23 Ken I dont know
24 Haruka So its up to Mennim
25 Ken Mister
This presentation related to the difference in denition between music and
sound, and the group is trying to make sense of a gap in the transcript. Ken
has drawn a line to represent a section of his own speech that he could not
make out onthe tape. The missingwordwas articial whichmay havebeen
a newpiece of vocabulary recalledduring the presentationbut subsequently
forgotten. The section that however represents a false start in Kens
performance, obscured here by his verbatim transcription, and however
actually marks the start of a new sentence. Such factors make this a tricky
passage to unravel but the group does its best and their discussion (edited
here) includes 25 individual turns in which the group also made a spelling
correction and a conjunction substitution. To ll the blank space, Haruka

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

tries to parse the grammar of the line in Turn 1 and employs metalinguistic
terminology. Sumire seems to recognize the false start in Turn 11 but she is
not condent and her suggestion is not taken up by the rest of the group.
Harukas summing up at Turn 24 alludes to the teacher as a resource who
might be relied upon for an authoritative resolution. In Turn 25 Ken points
out that a title might be added to Harukas use of the teachers surname,
a correction of her current speech rather than of the transcript.
Episode 5 The following longer discussion, spanning four episodes, relates to another
groups use of the determiner any. Although they seem to resolve their
doubts about this form at rst, problems arise as they come across new
instances of any in their output. Their negotiation includes a variety of
strategies for problem solving. The groups presentation was on the racist
ideology of the Ku Klux Klan.
THEY HATED THE IDEA BLACK PEOPLE GAINING ANY RIGHT
LIKE VOTING IN ELECTION OR PRACTISING ANY RIGHTS.
Lisa gaining any rights?
Midori gaining any rights. Any rights?
Lisa any rights? + any right anybody
Midori so is it anybody?
Lisa yeah anybody. In election or practising any right any right.
Midori Hmm
Their deliberationshows theuse of analogy toarrive at a resolution. They are
wonderingwhether the nounright shouldbe inthe singular or plural. Lisa,
drawing on the form anybody as a comparison, hypothesizes that the
appearance of any before the noun is associated with singular number, as
body is singular inanybody. She therefore suggests any right andMidori
concurs. They changedpractisingany rights to any right onthe transcript.
Episode 6 THEY BELIEVEDTHATWHITE AMERICANSHOULDALWAYS BE
FIRST BEFORE ANY ALIEN INFLUENCE OR INTEREST.
Lisa Alright. Should be always the rst before any alien inuence or
interests or interest?
Midori rst before any
Lisa any interest
This LRE occurred some moments after the one above. Lisa questions the
noun number of interest and Midori points out the occurrence of any.
This is aninteresting episode interms of problemsolving as they seemtobe
drawing on the hypothesis formed in the previous LRE. Recalling and
applying that knowledge to the subsequent appearance of the form, they
agree on interest in the singular.
Episode 7 The rst question mark in Turn 19 denotes a short inaudible section of the
recording.
THENEW KLAN DIRECTED ITS ACTIVITY AGAINST NOT JUST
BLACKSBUT ANY OTHER GROUP IT CONSIDERED
NON- AMERICAN
1 Yoko any other group [groups
58 Paul Mennim

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

2 Midori [groups any other groups
3 Lisa yeah
4 Yoko so
5 Midori wait wait wait other groups
6 Lisa yeah maybe thats right
7 Yoko any other groups
8 Midori Yeah that sounds right any other groups
9 Lisa yeah
10 Midori ah but it has other
11 Lisa oh yeah right
12 Midori anybody anyone any
13 Lisa idea? Do you have any idea?
14 Midori Do- does teachers like, do teachers, other teachers ask you
does anybody have ideas?
15 Yoko huh?
16 Lisa I think they say [ideas
17 Midori [do you have any idea do you have any
ideas
18 Yoko I have no idea
19 Midori Wait any what does it mean Japanese ? ikanaru is any
singular or plural? any we say anybody or anyone and
thats similar. Any other any other ideas. In this case it
might be special because its other [after any
20 Lisa [yeah
21 Yoko Is it incorrect to use this?
22 Midori No, thats right.
23 Lisa Thats right.
24 Midori any other groups. But were not sure about like others. Oh
well, lets go.
Here the group runs into a problem. Up until Turn 9, the phrase any other
groups seems to t well with their intuitions about what sounds right in
English. However, the phrase is not consistent with their previous
hypothesis about any as a good predictor of singular forms, which Midori
recalls bothinTurn12and againvery specically inTurn19. The discussion
from Turns 13 to 17 shows the students revising that hypothesis as they
question whether a plural form might indeed be possible after any and
draw on the analogy of a typical classroom question to see if that might
suggest singular or plural. Finally, the use of other suggests to Midori an
exception that allows the plural form and thus it is any other groups that
appears in the corrected transcript. Yokos question at Turn 21 is worth
mentioning as she requests a nal conrmation, perhaps recognizing the
lead her two partners have taken in thinking through this problem and
attributing an expert status to them in this instance.
At the very end of the exercise, Lisa made the following comment:
Episode 8 Lisa We have to talk about any
Midori Ah yeah. Ah thats all. Okay.
Here we see that the end of this particular discussion did not draw a line
under the students investment in the activity. Lisas proposal is similar to

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Harukas nal turn in Episode 4 as both look towards a resolution in the
future and in fact this group approached me later to ask about the
grammatical behaviour of any.
Conclusion The excerpts above show a serious engagement in the exercise and
reveal that the students recognized various sources of information on L2
form, bothinternal andexternal, tohelpthemcomplete it. Astrikingfeature
of their negotiation is the way in which they were willing to knuckle
down and think through the L2 problems they encountered, often in
sophisticated ways. The length of some of these LREs indicates a sustained
effort of cognitive processing such as hypothesis testing, generalizations,
and use of metalanguage. This is analysis at the level of intake: the
students have assimilated linguistic material (Gass op.cit.) through
knowledge-building dialogue, giving them new insights into the English
language.
These learners, and those in the transcription studies mentioned above,
responded positively to the exercise and the recordings here suggest why: it
let them tackle language problems that were relevant to their own L2
performance and led to effective teamwork and successful problemsolving:
a satisfying activity in any learning environment. Although it is apparent
that the students were not able to resolve every problem, this didnot seemto
result in frustration, perhaps because they were aware that they could
consult the teacher if they reached an impasse, as shown in two of the
episodes. Unresolved negotiation itself can be viewed as a preliminary part
of the acquisition process; noticing an L2 gap may have a priming effect
(Lightbown 1998), which is to say that learners attention to a form during
the exercise might act as a catalyst for themto notice it again in subsequent
input.
The extensive deliberation reported here might be attributable to Japanese
high school education, where foreign language study even today is largely
analytical and the grammar of Englishclosely compared to that of Japanese.
It is ironic that although such an approach to language teaching is
sometimes criticizedinJapanfor its inability to help students communicate
in English (Kobayashi 2001), a grounding in grammatical metalanguage
may have helped these students negotiate L2 form in the context of this
exercise. Further research would be welcome to show whether learners in
other settings, or with different levels of prociency, would deliberate about
L2 form as extensively.
This study supports the view that correcting L2 errors is not the teachers
responsibility alone. Oxford (1990) includes self-correction activities in her
extensive taxonomy of learner strategies and the exercise here helped
introduce the strategy to these students. Withina single lesson, the self- and
peer-correction phase allowed more time to be spent on examining each
transcript than would have been possible if the teacher had had to
participate ineach discussion. But the absence of a teacher did not meanan
absence of assistance or support. As we saw from these recordings, certain
students had expertise to share by addressing problems other students had
either not previously noticed or could not x themselves.
60 Paul Mennim

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

This small-scale study might help recommend self-transcription as an
effective way of generating discussion about language and encouraging
learners to think about their own language use. It gives recognition to the
ways in which learners can tackle language problems through discussion
with peers and in so doing add to their knowledge of the L2.
Final revised version received January 2011
References
Donato, R. 1994. Collective scaffolding in second
language learning in J. Lantolf and G. Appel (eds.).
Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Doughty, C. and J. Williams. (eds.). 1998. Focus on
Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gass, S. 1997. Input, Interaction, and the Second
Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Kobayashi, Y. 2001. The learning of English at
academic high schools in Japan: students caught
between exams and internationalisation. Language
Learning Journal 23: 6772.
Lantolf, J. (ed.). 2000. Sociocultural Theory andSecond
Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lightbown, P. 1998. The importance of timing in
focus on form in C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds.).
Lynch, T. 2001. Seeing what they meant:
transcribing as a route to noticing. ELT Journal
55/2: 12432.
Lynch, T. 2007. Learning from the transcripts of an
oral communication task. ELT Journal 61/4: 31120.
Mennim, P. 2003. Rehearsed oral L2 output and
reactive focus on form. ELT Journal 57/2: 1308.
Mennim, P. 2007. Longtermeffectsof noticingonoral
output. Language Teaching Research 11/3: 26580.
Ohta, A. 2000. Rethinking interaction in SLA:
developmentally appropriate assistance in the ZPD
andthe acquisitionof L2grammar inJ. Lantolf (ed.).
Oxford, R. 1990. Language Learning Strategies.
Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
Stillwell, C., B. Curabba, K. Alexander, A. Kidd, E. Kim,
P. Stone, and C. Wyle. 2010. Students
transcribing tasks: noticing uency,
accuracy, and complexity. ELT Journal
64/4: 44555.
Swain, M. 1995. Three functions of output in
second language learning in G. Cook and B.
Seidlhofer (eds.). Principle and Practice in
Applied Linguistics. Studies in Honour of
H.G. Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. 1998. Focus on form through conscious
reection in C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds.).
Swain, M. 2000. The output hypothesis andbeyond
in J. Lantolf (ed.).
The author
Paul Mennim has taught English in Europe and
Japan. His research interests focus on oral output
arising from task-based learning. He is an Associate
Professor in English within the Law Faculty of
Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo.
Email: mennim@hotmail.com

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

From cultural awareness to
intercultural awareness: culture
in ELT
Will Baker
Cultural awareness (CA) has emerged over the last few decades as a signicant
part of conceptualizing the cultural dimension to language teaching. That is, L2
users need to understand L2 communication as a cultural process and to be aware
of their own culturally based communicative behaviour and that of others.
However, while CA has provided a vital base of knowledge in relation to the
cultural aspects of language use and teaching, it is still rooted in a national
conception of culture and language. This is problematic given that English is now
used as a global lingua franca. Intercultural awareness (I CA) is presented here as
an alternative non-essentialist viewof culture and language that better accounts
for the uid and dynamic relationship between them. Key components of I CA are
discussed along with their relevance to ELT practices and suggestions as to how
they can be translated into classroom pedagogy.
Introduction The cultural dimension to language has always been present in language
pedagogy (Risager 2007), even if it is not always explicit. Given the closely
intertwined nature of culture and language, it is difcult to teach language
without an acknowledgement of the cultural context in which it is used.
Indeed, culture has been a component of our understanding of
communicative competence from early conceptions with Hymes (1972)
emphasis on the importance of sociocultural knowledge. More recently,
intercultural communicative competence, underpinned by the notion of
critical cultural awareness (CA) (Byram 1997), has extended the role of
culture in successfully preparing language learners for intercultural
communication. However, with the English language now used as a global
lingua franca in a huge range of different cultural contexts, a correlation
between the English language and a particular culture and nation is clearly
problematic. This paper argues that while CA has been important, it needs
re-evaluation in the light of the more uid communicative practices of
English used as a global lingua franca. In its place, intercultural awareness
(ICA) is proposed as a more relevant concept for these dynamic contexts of
English use.
Globalization,
English as a lingua
franca, and ELT
Globalizationaffects all Englishlanguage teachers fromtheir choices of what
materials to use, to which variety of English is most appropriate. As Block
(2004) highlights, the role of English in globalization is multifaceted and
neither exclusively benign nor evil. Furthermore, the extensive use of
English in such a diverse range of global settings calls into question our
understanding of the ownership and forms of the English language. In
particular, the growth inthe use of English inthe expanding circle (Kachru
1990), in which it is neither an L1 nor an ofcial L2 within a country,
problematizes native speaker-based conceptions of English use. Crystals
(2008) gures suggest that English is now most extensively used in this
expanding circle and it thus follows that the majority of ELTclassrooms will
also be inthis circle. Englishis therefore used most commonly not by native
speakers but as a contact language between interlocutors with different
languacultures (linguistic and cultural backgrounds). As Kramsch (2009:
190) argues in relation to foreign language teaching, this has fundamental
implications:
the goals of traditional language teaching have been found wanting in this
new era of globalization. Its main tenets (monolingual native speakers,
homogeneous national cultures, pure standard national languages,
instrumental goals of education, functional criteria of success) have all
become problematic in a world that is increasingly multilingual and
multicultural.
This is even more so for ELT in environments where English functions as
a lingua franca with no native speakers.
The use of English globally as a contact language has been addressed
extensively, and at times controversially, in the eld of ELF (English as
a lingua franca) research(see for example, Seidlhofer 2005; Jenkins 2007).
1
While the native speaker is generally not considered to be excluded from
ELF communication, the norms of such communication are not driven by
native speakers. Rather ELF communication is seen as emergent and
situated with common features negotiated by the participants. For users of
English to communicate effectively, they will need a mastery of more than
the features of syntax, lexis, and phonology that are the traditional focus in
ELT. Equally important is the ability to make use of linguistic and other
communicative resources in the negotiation of meaning, roles, and
relationships in the diverse sociocultural settings of intercultural
communication through English.
To address communication in these kinds of multilingual and multicultural
settings, the skills of multilingual communicators are needed. These
include the role of accommodation in adapting language to be closer to that
of ones interlocutor in order to aid understanding and solidarity.
Negotiation and mediationskills are also key, particularly betweendifferent
culturally based frames of reference, which have the potential to cause
misunderstanding or miscommunication. Suchskills result inthe ability of
interlocutors to adjust and align themselves to different communicative
systems and cooperate in communication.
Culture, language,
and ELT
As already noted, knowledge of the lexis, grammar, and phonology of one
particular linguistic code (for example Standard British English) is not
From cultural to intercultural awareness 63
adequate for successful intercultural communicationthroughEnglish. This
needs to be supplemented by an understanding of the sociocultural context
in which communication takes place and an understanding of the
sociocultural norms of one particular native-speaker community, for
example the United Kingdom or United States, is clearly not sufcient for
global uses of English. A more extensive treatment and understanding of
the varied cultural contexts of English use is necessary (see for example
Porto 2010; Suzuki 2010).
However, we are faced with a difculty. If, as has been suggested above, the
global uses of English detach it from the traditional native-speaking
countries, how are we to make sense of the cultural contexts of English
communication? Is English inevitably linked to these native-speaker
contexts evenwhenused invery different settings, as inthe strongest forms
of linguistic relativity where our world view is determined by linguistic
boundaries? Alternatively, is English as a lingua franca a culturally neutral
language? Neither of these views is adequate for explaining the relationship
betweenthe English language and its sociocultural settings inglobal lingua
franca uses. The diverse forms, meanings, and uses of different Englishes,
as documented by World Englishes studies (for example Kachru op.cit.),
have demonstrated that English is not restricted to the linguistic or
sociocultural norms of the traditional native-speaker countries.
Furthermore, language, evenusedas a lingua franca, cannever be culturally
neutral. Language used for communication always involves people, places,
and purposes, none of which exist in a cultural vacuum.
To understand the sociocultural contexts of English as a global lingua
franca, we need to approach culture in a non-essentialist and dynamic
manner. It should be seen as an emergent, negotiated resource in
communicationwhichmoves betweenandacross local, national, andglobal
contexts (Baker 2009b). One way of conceiving of this relationship is the
inuential notion of a third place in L2 use (see Kramsch op.cit. for
a discussion of its inuence and current relevance), in which
communication takes place in a sphere that is neither part of a rst
language/culture (L1/C1) or a target language/culture (TL/TC). Rather
culture is somethingfreer andmoreuidinthesense of creatingsomething
new and different. Importantly though, Kramsch also recognizes the
continued inuence and pull of the L1/C1 and TL/TC. This results in
a tension between established xed forms of communicative practice and
the more situated dynamic communicative practices of an L2.
In specic relation to the English language, Pennycook (2007) has
described the manner in which both linguistic and cultural forms and
practices of English exist in global ows. They move through both local and
global environments being inuenced and changed by both. The
importance of being able to negotiate these complex and dynamic cultural
references in communicating successfully across cultures underscores the
need to incorporate this into our understanding of communicative
competence and subsequently ELT.
Cultural awareness Anapproachtoconceptualizingthe kinds of knowledge, skills, andattitudes
needed to undertake successful intercultural communication, which
explicitly recognizes the cultural dimensionof communicative competence,
64 Will Baker
has been CA (see for example Tomalin and Stempleski 1993; Byram 1997).
At the most basic level, CA can be dened as a conscious understanding of
the role culture plays inlanguage learningandcommunication(inbothrst
andforeignlanguages). The details of CAare conceivedof andimplemented
in teaching practice in a number of different ways. Nevertheless, many of
the approaches agree on the importance of a systematic framework for
teaching culture and language together, in which the relationship between
them is explicitly explored with learners. Conceptions of CA also stress the
needfor learners tobecomeaware of theculturally basednorms, beliefs, and
behaviours of their own culture and other cultures. Furthermore, all share
a goal of increased understanding of culture and language leading to
successful intercultural communication.
The most detailed account of CA is that offered by Byram (ibid.). as part of
a framework of intercultural communicative competence. The crucial
component of this critical CA is an understanding of the relative nature of
cultural norms which leads to an ability to evaluate, critically and on the
basis of explicit criteria, perspectives, practices and products in ones own
and other cultures and countries (ibid.: 101). Moreover, in examining the
learners culture and foreign cultures, as well as different perspectives of
them, Byramhighlights the need to understand the multi-voiced diglossic
nature of culture, which contains conicting and contradictory views.
Finally, CA, as conceivedhere, rejects the monolingual native speaker as the
ideal model andinsteadproposes the intercultural speaker andintercultural
citizen as an alternative. This alternative acknowledges the importance of
identity and afliation in the negotiated communication of intercultural
communication, with no one interlocutor providing the norms or ideal
model to which the other has to conform. Most importantly, what Byrams
and many other accounts of CA share is a notionof CAas knowledge, skills,
and attitudes to be developed by the language learner, which can then be
utilized in understanding specic cultures and in communicating across
diverse cultures.
Perhaps the most signicant limitation to CA, as it has just been described,
is that it has commonly been conceived in relation to intercultural
communication between dened cultural groupings, typically at the
national level. This can be seen for example in Byrams association of CA
withones ownand other cultures and countries (ibid.: 101, my italics). Thus,
CA is most usually related to developing an understanding of and
comparisons between a C1 and a C2 or a number of C2s, for example, the
United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. This is not an appropriate
aimin expanding circle environments. Given the variety and heterogeneity
of English use in such settings, a user or learner of English could not be
expected to have a knowledge of all the different cultural contexts of
communication they may encounter and even less so the languacultures of
the participants in this communication.
Therefore, while many of the attributes associated withCAmay be relevant,
they needto be developedinrelationtointercultural communicationandan
understanding of the dynamic way sociocultural contexts are constructed.
Knowledge of specic cultures may still have an important role to play in
developing an awareness of cultural differences and relativization.
However, knowledge of specic cultures has to be combined with an
awareness of cultural inuences in intercultural communication as uid,
fragmented, hybrid, and emergent with cultural groupings or boundaries
less easily dened and referenced. Thus, what is needed for successful
communication through English inexpanding circle lingua franca contexts
is not just CA but ICA.
I CA ICAis best conceived as anextension of the earlier conceptions of CAthat is
more relevant to needs of intercultural communication in expanding circle
and global lingua franca contexts, in which cultural inuences are likely to
be varied, dynamic, and emergent.
Abasic denition of ICA, as envisaged here, is as follows:
Intercultural awareness is a conscious understanding of the role
culturally based forms, practices, and frames of understanding can have
in intercultural communication, and an ability to put these conceptions
into practice in a exible and context specic manner in real time
communication.
Tobetter understandthis denitionandwhat it entails, a number of features
of ICA can be identied and are listed below (Figure 1). These 12
components attempt to build on the previously discussed features of CA,
especially those highlightedby Byram(op.cit.), andextendthemtothe more
uidconceptions of intercultural communicationthroughEnglishinglobal
lingua franca settings.
2
fi gure 1
Twelve components of
I CA
Level 1: basic cultural awareness
An awareness of:
1 culture as a set of shared behaviours, beliefs, and values;
2 the role culture and context play in any interpretation of meaning;
3 our own culturally induced behaviour, values, and beliefs and the ability to
articulate this;
4 others culturally induced behaviour, values, and beliefs and the ability to
compare this with our own culturally induced behaviour, values, and beliefs.
Level 2: advanced cultural awareness
An awareness of:
5 the relative nature of cultural norms;
6 cultural understanding as provisional and open to revision;
7 multiple voices or perspectives within any cultural grouping;
8 individuals as members of many social groupings including cultural ones;
9 common ground between specific cultures as well as an awareness of
possibilities for mismatch and misco mmunication between specific cultures.
Level 3: intercultural awareness
An awareness of:
10 culturally based frames of reference, forms, and communicative practices as
being related both to specific cultures and also as emergent and hybrid in
intercultural communication;
11 initial interaction in intercultural communication as possibly based on cultural
stereotypes or generaliza tions but an ability to move beyond these through:
12 a capacity to negotiate and mediate between different emergent socioculturally
grounded communication modes and frames of reference based on the above
understanding of culture in intercultural communication.
66 Will Baker
These 12 elements of ICAdelineate the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that
a user of English as a global lingua franca needs to be able to successfully
communicate in these complex settings. They are presented in an order
which builds from a basic understanding of cultural contexts in
communication, particularly in relation to the L1 (Level 1: Basic CA,
Figure 1), to a more complex understanding of language and culture (Level
2: Advanced CA, Figure 1), and nally to the uid, hybrid, and emergent
understanding of cultures and languages in intercultural communication
needed for English used in global settings (Level 3: ICA, Figure 1).
However, it is recognized that learners of English may not develop these
elements in this exact order. For example, it may well be that learners of
English who have grown up in multilingual environments may be
unconsciously or consciously aware of the later elements of ICA.
Furthermore, the elements of ICA are deliberately general in nature since
the details will inevitably depend on the particular contexts of English
learning and use.
As with CA, knowledge of specic cultures and the inuence this may have
on communication is still a part of ICA (see Levels 1 and 2, Figure 1), and
there is a recognition that participants may initially begin communication
bymakinguse of nationally basedcultural generalizations (Figure1, Feature
11). Crucially though, there is also an attempt to go beyond single cultural
frames of reference inintercultural communication. The features of Level 3
(Figure 1) proposes that, in parallel to knowledge of specic cultures, an
understanding of emergent cultural references and practices is needed and
that this needs to be combined with the ability to negotiate and mediate
between these dynamic resources in intercultural communication. Such
abilities andawareness enable users to cope withthe diversity and uidity of
intercultural communication in which cultural frames of reference cannot
be deneda priori. ICAshouldthus be of direct relevance tousers of English
inglobal contexts, especially inexpandingcircle andELFsettings, bothas an
attempt toconceptualize the cultural dimensiontocommunicationandalso
as a set of pedagogic aims.
This emphasis on skills and the ability to viewcultures as dynamic, diverse,
and emergent raises a dilemma though. To develop ICA learners need to
have an in-depth understanding of culture, and to achieve this, it is
necessary for learners to have cultural knowledge, even if that knowledge is
no longer the end product of learning. Choosing the content of that cultural
knowledge brings us back to the problems already raised in settings
associated with English in global contexts. Yet, if the nal outcome is to
develop skills in and an awareness of intercultural communication, then
cultural knowledge and content more appropriate to those skills and the
components of CA identied earlier can be selected.
It is not necessary tofocus exclusively onone culture, for example the typical
focus on the United States or United Kingdom in English; instead cultural
content appropriate to the variety of intercultural interactions a learner may
encounter in their environment can be selected, which highlight the
different components of ICA. In particular, it is necessary to focus on
intercultural encounters themselves and examine the different ways in
which culturally inuenced behaviours are manifested in such
communication and the way these are negotiated by the participants in the
exchange.
None of this denies the importance of knowledge of other cultures or rejects
the idea that detailed knowledge of a specic culture is valuable in
developing ICA. Rather, it recognizes the limitations of this kind of
knowledge and incorporates the need for a more wide ranging
understanding of culture for intercultural communicationinthe expanding
range of contexts in which it occurs for global languages such as English.
Thus, the knowledge, awareness, and skills associated with ICA will be
constantly under revision and change based on each new intercultural
encounter andas suchare never a fully formedcomplete entity but always in
progress towards a goal that is constantly changing.
Applying I CA in
classroom teaching
While, as indicatedabove, the manner inwhichICAcanbe made relevant to
different learning contexts will depend partly on that context, there are
a number of broad areas, which can be used to develop ICA within the ELT
classroom. These are presented here as a set of suggestions, not all of which
will be relevant inall settings. Equally, there may be other opportunities not
presented here which can be used to develop ICAinspecic settings. These
proposals can be divided into six strands as follows.
Exploring local
cultures
This begins withlearners exploring the diversity and complexity of different
local and national cultural groupings. This should lead to an awareness of
the multi-voiced nature of cultural characterizations. It should also
highlight the manner in which cultural groupings can cut across national
cultures and the way in which local communities may connect with global
communities, whether it is religious or ethnic groups, identifying with
other learners and users of English or groups such as music or sports fans.
A discussion between the students within any class, even in supposedly
monolingual and monocultural settings, oftenreveals a surprising diversity
of linguistic and cultural inuences.
Exploring language-
learning materials
These can be used to critically evaluate images and descriptions of cultures
in locally produced textbooks and images of other cultures in local and
imported ELT textbooks. For instance, learners can explore how well the
images of their own culture presented in their textbooks (if there are any)
match their own experiences.
Exploring the
traditional mediaand
arts through English
This can include lm, television, radio, newspapers, novels, and magazines
andcanbe usedina similar manner tothe secondstrandtocritically explore
the images of local and other cultures. For example, literature has been
extensively used for such purposes, although English language literature
should clearly extend beyond that produced in the inner circle countries.
Exploring IT/
electronic media
through English
The internet, email, chat rooms, instant messaging, and tandem learning
can be used in a similar manner to the previous two strands to explore
cultural representations. Furthermore, these resources can be used to
engage in actual instances of intercultural communication, enabling
students to develop ICA and reect on its relevance to their experiences.
68 Will Baker
These may include asynchronous email exchanges and synchronous chat
room-type communication with language students and teachers in other
countries.
Cultural informants Non-local English-speaking teachers and local English teachers with
experience of intercultural communication and other cultures can be used
to provide information about these experiences and cultures. This can also
provide another chance toreect uponthe relevance of different elements of
ICA in these situations. Teachers can present their experiences of other
cultures as content for the classroomthrough, for example, reading texts or
discussion topics.
Face-to-face
intercultural
communication
(often with non-local
English teachers)
These are valuable both in themselves as offering opportunities to develop
and put ICA into practice and for providing materials and experiences to
reect onintheclassroomthat canfurther aidinthe development of ICA. In
situations where there are non-local teachers or non-local students (as may
be the case in further education settings), opportunities for intercultural
communication clearly exist. Even where such opportunities do not exist,
students and teachers can bring their own experiences of intercultural
communication to the class for discussion and reection, for example
considering what was successful or not successful or howthey felt about the
experience.
These strands attempt to utilize all the resources available in the language
classroomincludingthe textbookandteacher, as well as those resources that
may be available to learners outside the classroom, such as the internet, but
can then be reected on in the classroom. The six strands provide
opportunities to gain the necessary experience of intercultural
communication and investigating local and other cultures. This is balanced
with the equally important task of exploring and evaluating those
experiences. It is important to recognize that all of these sources will only
provide partial accounts of cultures and will inevitably be biased. However,
as long as this is made clear and learners and teachers approachthe cultural
images and information presented in a critical manner, these can provide
valuable opportunities for experience of and reection on intercultural
communication and contact with other cultures that can aid in the
development of ICA.
Conclusion The use of English as the global lingua franca highlights the need for an
understanding of cultural contexts and communicative practices to
successfully communicate across diverse cultures. Yet, it also raises the
problem of naively associating the English language with a specic culture
or nation. Traditional conceptions of communicative competence andCAin
ELT have focused on an understanding of particular cultures and countries
such as the USAor UK and their associated sociocultural norms. English as
a global lingua franca forces us to go beyond notions of teaching a xed
language and cultural context as adequate for successful communication.
Most signicant whenexaminingculture inELT are the types of knowledge,
skills, and attitudes envisaged in ICA. These relate to understanding
culture, language, and communication in general, as well as in relation to
particular contexts, and an awareness of the dynamic relationship between
English and its diverse sociocultural settings. An awareness of the
multilingual and multicultural settings of English use, therefore, should be
a key element of any attempt toteachcommunication. The ELT classroomis
a site in which learners, and ideally teachers, are necessarily engaged in
multilingual and multicultural practices and thus provides the ideal
environment in which to develop ICA and to prepare users of English to
communicate in global settings.
Notes
1 ELF is also sometimes referred to as English as an
international language; although, there is some
debate as to whether the two terms are
interchangeable (see Jenkins op.cit.).
2 These are based in part on an earlier empirical
study of English use inanexpanding circle setting
(see Baker 2009a for a more detailed explanation
of this).
References
Baker, W. 2009a. Intercultural awareness and
intercultural communication through English: an
investigation of Thai English language users in
higher education. Unpublished doctorate,
University of Southampton.
Baker, W. 2009b. The cultures of Englishas a lingua
franca. TESOL Quarterly 43/4: 56792.
Block, D. 2004. Globalization and language
teaching. ELT Journal 58/1: 757.
Byram, M. 1997. Teaching and Assessing Intercultural
Communicative Competence. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Crystal, D. 2008. Two thousand million? English
Today 24/1: 36.
Hymes, D. 1972. Oncommunicative competence in
J. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.). Sociolinguistics.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Jenkins, J. 2007. English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude
and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kachru, B. 1990. The Alchemy of English. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press.
Kramsch, C. 2009. The Multilingual Subject. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Pennycook, A. 2007. Global Englishes and
Transcultural Flows. London: Routledge.
Porto, M. 2010. Culturally responsive L2 education:
an awareness-raising proposal. ELT Journal
64/1: 4553.
Risager, K. 2007. Language and Culture Pedagogy.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Seidlhofer, B. 2005. English as a lingua franca. ELT
Journal 59/4: 33941.
Suzuki, A. 2010. Introducing diversity of English
into ELT: student teachers responses. ELT Journal
65/2: 14553.
Tomalin, B. and S. Stempleski. 1993. Cultural
Awareness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The author
Will Baker teaches Applied Linguistics and ELTat
the University of Southampton, UK. He is also
a founding member of the Universitys Centre for
Global Englishes. Before this, he was an English
language teacher in both the United Kingdom and
Thailand. His current research interests include
intercultural communication, ELF, culture and
language, e-learning, and ELT. He has publishedand
presented internationally on all these areas. The
research reported here was made possible by an
Economic and Social Research Council doctoral
studentship award.
Email: w.baker@soton.ac.uk
70 Will Baker
Reections on a transnational peer
review of teaching
Lynne Carolan and Lijuan Wang
Peer observation of teaching often occurs at a local level or national level, seldom
internationally. Victoria University, Australia, and Chinese institutions Henan
University and Central University of Finance and Economics have a transnational
partnership involving local students studying courses originating in Australia and
Chinese students who move countries to continue study. Apilot transnational peer
project was carried out matching up English teachers in the English-speaking
country with English teachers in the home country. This could be very important in
helping students who move from preparatory courses in their home country to
higher level courses inanEnglish-speaking one. Peer observationusedtechnologies
such as, video recording a class, email, and Skype. Teachers reected on their own
andeachothers practice, methodology, students, andinstitutions. This paper may
provide a model for exploring cross-cultural teaching practices and helping
students who move between countries to study.
Introduction Increasing liaison with international colleagues is important for a number
of reasons. Universities in English-speaking countries deliver English and
other programmes offshore in a number of countries. Often the students
who take up these courses come to the English-speaking universities to
continue their study. Offshore courses delivered by universities in English-
speaking countries follow their own curriculum. These factors mean that
teachers in the universities and their international colleagues need to be
working closely and sharing knowledge about students, pathways, ideology
andmethodology, andcultures. This helps toensure a smoothtransitionfor
those students who move from their home countries to English-speaking
environments to complete higher level courses. Also, there are many
benets for the teachers in reecting on practices internationally and their
own practices, linked by a common concern for the students.
This project was set uptocreate more links betweenChinese andAustralian
teachers where there was already an established pathway for students
between the institutions. The aim was for individual teachers to share
knowledge about their teaching and the students. Volunteer teachers from
two institutions in China were matched with volunteer teachers from
Melbourne in pairs. Each member of the pair used Skype and email to
introduce themselves and to decide which part of a lesson would be most
helpful to video for comparison and illustration of teaching methods. Each
member of the pair then recorded a lesson on CD and swapped them for

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

comment. Both members of the pair detailed the stages of their lessons and
the methodology behind these in emails to each other before the viewing of
the CD. Each pair used Skype to hold regular discussions, after the CDwas
viewed, about the lessons, methodology, or any other matter raised by the
experience.
Background Peer review of teaching raises many issues. It can be seen as a way to
improve teachingandlearningas a learningactivity for teachers anda way
to develop collegiality (Bell 2002)and contributes to developing teacher
skills (Bell 2001). It can provide fresh orientation on teaching, on student
reaction and engagement, on subject delivery and on all sorts of subtle
dimensions of teaching that teachers might be otherwise unaware of
(Moore, Walsh, and Risquez 2007: 17).
It also
acknowledges and capitalizes on educative expertise and judgement of
teachers inthe same eld, provides feedback that afrms good practice as
well as suggests areas in teaching where development would be helpful
. . . recognizes the inuence of disciplines on teaching and learning
practices, strengthens the teaching culture of an institution. (Harris,
Farrell, Bell, Devlin, and James 2008: 6)
1
It benets each of the peers as it allows the observed to get feedback and the
observer to reect and gain insight into his/her own practice (ibid.).
Through the peer review conducted between colleagues in China and the
English-speaking environment, we would also conclude that we gained
valuable insight into how Chinese students were instructed in the home
country which could help our institutions to help them when they move
from China to continue their education.
Universities are nowjudged by their teaching as well as by the research they
produce, so peer review of teaching is important. However, it raises
questions about howwell-qualiedpeers are to assess eachothers teaching,
how the process may affect relationships, and the weight given and the
repercussions of negative judgements made through this relatively new
process. To be useful, peer observationneeds to be seenas only one of many
types of evidence including student feedback, assessment processes, and
student learning outcomes (Gosling 2002). Potential problems were with
what is reported, how it is reported and to whom (McMahon, Barrett, and
ONeill 2007: 504). As peer observation/reviewbecomes more established,
more models and means of recording are becoming available (Fullerton
1999). There are now university handbooks which detail various models
and case studies.
As one pair of teachers, we selected Goslings peer observation model
(Gosling op.cit.) as suitable for a project takenup by interested teachers who
wanted to experience different teaching methods. The objective of our pairs
peer review was discussion of teaching for our own development. The fact
that we are both trained teachers meant we could compare our
methodologies aware that there would be signicant differences based on
cultural differences in teaching and learning. The review was based solely
on our observations of each other and information was only to be shared
72 Lynne Carolan and Lijuan Wang

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

between the partners. We observed the teaching, the students, and learning
materials used, with the outcome being in-depth discussion and analysis of
teaching methods. This was the recommended non-judgemental,
constructive feedback (Gosling ibid.: 5) based on the mutual interest of two
English teachers in two different countries in observing how pathway
students were being taught. This process prompted us to start thinking
about howthe student transition could be made easier in terms of teaching
methodology.
Peer review between subject staff means a more collective approach to
teaching responsibilities. Collective peer observation/review could be used
by a whole school or department which identies the key issues that need to
be addressed (Hammersley-Fletcher and Orsmond 2005). Brawley (2008)
suggests that university teachers could collect material about their teaching
(including videos, etc.) into e-portfolios which could be shared with
neighbouring institutions or across the country to make evaluation a public
process. Fullerton (op.cit.) suggests that peer reviewcould be shared widely,
across sectors and between institutions.
The technology we had available (Skype and email) allowed the feedback
meetings to take place very soon after viewing the lesson (recommended by
Martin and Double 1998) and we nominated an area of most relevance to
our pair (recommended by Harris et al. op.cit.): vocabulary teaching. We
workedonnotingthestrengths of the lessonthat wesawas well as lookingat
differences (recommended by Moore et al. op.cit.).
Evaluation of teaching across cultures has previously been used to attempt
to establish broad elements of teaching which students universally value
(Marsh 1986). Also, the value of video recording lessons from different
cultures for analysis of comparative teaching and learning practices was
noted by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational
Achievement (IEA) (see Stigler, Gallimore, and Hiebert 2000). These
videos were promoted as giving teachers insight into the diversity of
teachingpractices that have evolvedaroundthe world (ibid.: 87). Theyargue
that videoing of lessons gives the participants the opportunity to discover
unanticipated ideas and alternative analytic categories (from checklists),
concrete referents to words and concepts used to describe instruction, e.g.
problem solving (which is not usually culturally dened), and are
amenable to analysis from multiple perspectives (ibid.: 90).
Methods Firstly, we individually taught a class in a Reading module and this was
videoed. We concentrated on vocabulary presentation as a recognizably
commonprocess. We structured the class instages (see Appendixes 1 and 2)
and then wrote a lesson plan with rationale for each stage. This period of
writing up the lesson allowed time for our own personal reection on
methodology. We then observed each others class via the DVD and noted
the differences and similarities in vocabulary presentation. In the teacher-
centred, non-English-speaking environment, the teacher introduced each
word, modelled pronunciation, explained the word using examples and
connections with word class, and then translated the word. The teacher
introduced many new words before the reading. In the English-speaking
environment, the teacher introduced vocabulary before the reading from
Reections on a transnational peer review of teaching 73

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a context situation or example by eliciting from students where possible.
The teacher modelled pronunciation but elicited word stress and concept
checked the words. Translation was not used and the list of vocabulary was
much shorter, other words being left to students to work out from context.
We were able to compare andcontrast our students reactions to this stage of
a lesson and our methodology. This done, as in Goslings model, the video
was used to drawout further topics about the whole lesson and beyond, for
example activities, responses, staging, methodology, and cultures, through
email and Skype where queries could be answered.
The following topics were discussed in subsequent Skype sessions and the
discussion did become wide-ranging as envisaged by Gosling:
dthe wider context of the lesson (what happened just prior and what would
happen next);
d the stage of learning and characteristics of the learners;
d the expectations and attitudes of the learners;
d the language problems of ESL students as opposed to an EFL student;
d the impact of the expectations of the institutions and other stake holders
(for example parents in China) on teachers and students;
d pressures of the teaching load;
d the effect of the timetable on the learners; and
d the life experience of the learners.
This helped give a detailed context for the lesson that we viewed. We also
talked about howEnglishttedinwithstudents future plans, the role of the
universities in encouraging innovation in teaching, how teachers could
improve their methodology, and cultural expectations. Effectively we had
a cultural exchange of knowledge which ranged from nding meanings of
words (English and Chinese) to discovering how Chinese and Australian
students would tackle a reading text, what they would look for in a text, and
the methods of learning that they were used to. The clearest results of these
discussions were to talk about ways the English-speaking university could
accommodate the non-English-speakingstudents by observingthe way they
were used to learning. Also, howtheir home country teachers could prepare
them for study in the English-speaking environment. The Skype sessions
lasted from 40 minutes to over an hour.
Observations of
Lauras English
lesson in China by
Lynne (from DVD)
Lauras class was an English class of 36 full-time students aged between
17- and 19-years-old at a university campus.
Students had prepared the reading by studying the vocabulary and
completing exercises. Laura focused on introducing, explaining, and
looking at the vocabulary within the context of the text. She modelled the
pronunciation of the words and then explained each item of vocabulary
(more than 20 words) following a number of steps. Explanations were
delivered in English and students asked to translate into Chinese or
explained in Chinese and students asked to translate into English.
Students were reminded of previously learnt synonyms.
The structure of the text was examinedandstudents were askedtomatchup
the theme with each paragraph. Individual students read sentences and the
teacher corrected pronunciation and word stress. She also dealt with the

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

authors point of view and sentence structures which were copied to help
student writing.
Findings drawn
from Lauras class
by Lynne
Interms of vocabulary introduction, we covered the same features of words:
pronunciation, word class, register, usage, spelling collocations, and
meaning. The signicant difference was that the communicative
methodology used in Australia means teachers constantly try to elicit
information and ask questions to push students to discover meaning. The
students spend a lot of time talking in small groups rather than in silence
while the teacher leads. Translation was not an option in the Australian
multilingual class. Laura (in China) did not have to use check questions as
she translated if the students did not grasp the word meaning.
What Lynne gained from Lauras class
1 The younger Chinese students were required to prepare the text before
the class which would be a strategic idea to be tried (where feasible) with
the mature-age Australian group.
2 Lauras approach was very systematic, so students would know that the
teacher would go back to words learnt previously and remind students of
a link, synonyms or antonyms, spelling, etc. Also, they would know that
the teacher would translate if in doubt.
3 It was useful to watch a presentation to an EFL class as in an ESL
classroom, it is easy to presume knowledge that students may not have
despite a high level of (sometimes) supercial uency.
4 It brought home the striking differences in instruction between this
English class in China and an English class in Australia and the
confronting elements of a communicative approachfor Chinese students
studying in an English-speaking environment. This would include
asking them to work in English in small groups without personal input
from the teacher, becoming very active in working towards discovering
meaning, not having a quick translation for problem words. They would
get less help with individual vocabulary items and be asked to get
comfortable with trying to deduce meaning from context.
Observation of
Lynnes English
lesson in Australia by
Laura (from DVD)
There were 13 students inLynnes class who sat ina circle andcouldeasily be
approached by the teacher. It is more like having an informal talk. By
contrast, the students in my class have to sit in xed seats (a feature of the
majority of universities in China). The teacher delivers the lesson on the
platform in front of the classroom which tends to discourage interaction.
Lynne started with setting a context, by asking three open questions which
students discussedinsmall groups. After the discussion, the vocabulary was
introduced. She asked the students to work with her in working out the
meaning following a number of steps. Translation was impossible as the
students were multilingual and the lesson was delivered in English. In
China, translation can be used and I usually explain the new words by
asking themto translate Chinese sentences into English or vice versa. Next,
Lynne focused on reading skills of scanning and predicting and asked the
students to nd the topic sentence of each paragraph. Comparatively
speaking, Lynne was delivering extensive reading and mine was intensive
reading.

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Besides reading skills, I probably dealt with more details, including
language points, sentence patterns, text structure, paraphrase, and
messages conveyed to the readers. By analysing the text structure and
focusingonsome sentence patterns inthe text, I make the students aware of
the writing methods of the authors, so they can apply them to their own
writing.
Findings drawn
from Lynnes class
by Laura
1 In the monolingual environment, the students have to communicate in
the target language pushing them to develop their language.
2 The teaching objectives are enlarging the students vocabulary and
improving reading skills.
3 The objectives are clear and fullled: the students gured out the
meaning of the new words quickly and correctly and found the topic
sentences in paragraphs.
4 The students listen attentively and are required to actively participate in
the discussion and keep up with the ow of the lesson.
5 There is a highextent of interactionandthe students needs are met inthe
interactions.
6 Communicative methodology is used.
7 Interactions between students and students and the teacher are very
important and provide more chances for the students to speak and
communicate with each other.
8 The teacher performs as a facilitator, offering guidance and instruction.
The students are encouraged to think critically and develop their
creativity; the methodology is student-centred.
Conclusion As noted by Gosling (op. cit.), this project worked very well because the peer
relationship was equal and mutual and the feedback was constructive. The
experience was less about judging the teaching model and more about
directly observing how students are taught in a different country which led
to discussions about teaching and thinking about the perceptions of
students transitioning fromone teaching method to another. We concluded
that strategies tohelpstudents transitionfromone teaching style to another
(at the teacher level) may include:
1 Explicit explanationof the differences inteaching styles to students based
on the teachers personal observation.
2 Establishing a transitional period, where the teacher in the English-
speaking country could make the lessonmore teacher-centred and slowly
incorporate more unstructured group work and more independent
individual student work.
3 Writing reective pieces where students compare and contrast teaching
and learning styles in the rst country and second country.
4 Allowing students to use translation (dictionaries) at rst then slowly
guiding them into understanding by deducing meaning from context.
5 Keeping assessments on skills that are not emphasized in Chinese
classrooms (for example informal speaking, unstructured group
work, etc.) until very late in the teaching semester in the host
country.

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

6 Teachers inthe rst country couldinformstudents of expectedchanges in
teaching styles and incorporate some of the activities of the host country
into classes in the home country.
7 Mentioning to students that current teachers had had contact with
previous teachers in their home country would help students feel that
their educational path was connected between countries.
Peer reviewusingthe technology of Skype, video, andemail has a number of
advantages. The obvious one is being able to observe colleagues and
students in geographically distant places. Skype was an easy and cheap way
to make personal contact withanother teacher. Making a video of a class and
allowing someone else to view it requires a relationship of trust. This was
established by teachers being able to choose partners and having a personal
email exchange to try to build the relationship a little before viewing each
others class. The established focus was discussion about teaching and one
fruitful result was considering strategies to help students transition
between countries.
Using a video meant that teachers could watch the whole lesson for an
overall understandingandthengobacktoreviewdifferent stages tosee how
students were reacting. Teachers could refer to different stages of the videos
indiscussion. Most productively, the process allowed access to colleagues in
a different country and culture, so information about students in general as
well as specics (pronunciationof words, cultural events) couldbe swapped.
While face-to-face feedback immediately after a teaching session could be
confronting, the use of technology helped create a bit of distance between
the teachers. Skype sessions allowed for a long discussion on a number of
topics beyond the original topic of observing the vocabulary presentation
and aim of sharing knowledge. We felt we had both had a fair bit of time to
watch and think about the lesson on the video and this would help in
making the observations comprehensive and balanced. We were also able to
go back to the videos to clarify questions and observations, after exchanging
comments.
Peer review across borders and cultures is a very informative and
worthwhile activity. Most importantly, in a world where students move
countries and cultures connected to the same institutions, it is an essential
activity to help maximize the students success. Teachers can build bridges
across cultures with the help of available technology and peer observation
can take place across the world via Skype, email, teleconference, and
watching a videoed class. This offers teachers more opportunities to
exchange teaching experience, reect on cross-cultural teaching practices,
and develop an integrated pedagogy.
Note
1 Support for the original work was provided by the
Australian Learning and Teaching Council Ltd, an
initiative of the Australian Government
Department of Education, Employment, and
Workplace Relations.
References
Bell, M. 2001. Supported reective practice:
a program of peer observation and feedback for
academic teaching development. The International
Journal for Academic Development 6/1: 2939.

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Bell, M. 2002. Peer Observation of Teaching in
Australia (Monograph on the Internet). Wollongong,
Australia: LTSN Generic Center. Available at http://
www.pu.uu.se/pu-wiki/mediawiki/images/f/fd/
CF_Australia.pdf (accessed on 20 July 2009).
Brawley, S. 2008. Internationalizing peer review in
teaching and learning. International Journal for the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 2/1: 19.
Fullerton, H. 1999. Observation of teaching in H.
Fry, S. Ketteridge, andS. Marshall (eds.). AHandbook
for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education.
London: Kogan Page.
Gosling, D. 2002. Models of peer observation.
Available at http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/
resources/detail/resource_database/id200_
Models_of_Peer_Observation_of_Teaching
(accessed on 20 July 2009).
Hammersley-Fletcher, L. and P. Orsmond. 2005.
Reecting on reective practices within peer
observation. Studies in Higher Education 30/2:
21324.
Harris, K. L., K. Farrell, M. Bell, M. Devlin, and
R. James 2008. Peer Review of Teaching in Higher
Education Handbook: A Handbook to Support
Institutions in Developing an Embedding Effective
Policies and Practices. Available at http://
www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/resources_teach/
feedback (accessed on 22 July 2009).
Marsh, H. W. 1986. Applicability paradigm:
students evaluations of teaching effectiveness in
different countries. Journal of Educational Psychology
78/6: 46573.
Martin, G. and J. Double. 1998. Developing higher
education teaching skills through peer observation
andcollaborative reection. Innovations inEducation
and Training International 35/2: 1619.
McMahon, T., T. Barrett, andG. ONeill. 2007. Using
observation of teaching to improve quality: nding
your way through the muddle of competing
conceptions, confusion of practice and mutually
exclusive intentions. Teaching in Higher Education
12/4: 499511.
Moore, S., G. Walsh, and A. Risquez. 2007. Teaching
at College and University: Effective Strategies and
Key Principles. Maidenhead: Open University Press
McGraw-Hill Education.
Stigler, J. W., R. Gallimore, and J. Hiebert. 2000.
Using video surveys to compare classrooms and
teaching across cultures: examples and lessons from
the TIMSS video studies. Educational Psychologist
35/2: 87100.
The authors
Lynne Carolan has taught in France, Spain, Egypt,
and Italy. She is currently teaching at Victoria
University Melbourne Australia.
Email: Lynne.Carolan@vu.edu.au
Lijuan Wang teaches English at Henan University,
Kaifeng, Henan Province, China.
Email: Wlj8076@yahoo.com.cn
Appendix 1
Australian ESL class
The Certicate IV English as a Second Language (Further Study) class
consists of 20 students. They come from Vietnam, Sri Lanka, China, Hong
Kong, Sudan, Ethiopia, ex-Yugoslavia, and Iran. Many of them have
qualications from their rst countries (for example Bachelor of
Education). They are studying a one-year English course to enter into
a TAFE certicate course, bridging courses into degrees or degree courses.
Inpresenting vocabulary, the following process was followed. Areading text
is selectedandvocabulary judgedtobe unknowntothe students is takenout
andpreparedbythe teacher. Words whichcouldbe reasonably guessedfrom
the sentence or topic context are not included. Vocabulary presentation
steps:

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

n
explanation of the word in the context and in other situations (to show
where the word ts outside the text) with pictures, etc.
n
elicitation of word class and any other forms of the word
n
elicitation spelling
n
highlighting collocations
n
pronunciation word stress and phonemes
n
usage of the word, i.e. informal/formal, spoken, or written
n
use of check questions to ensure understanding (testing where it applies
and does not apply).
The teacher introduces the topic with personal questions to elicit the main
points and vocabulary, for example:
Topic: New suburbs
Questions: Do you live in an old or a newsuburb? What are the differences
between them? The teacher elicits any known helpful words and records
these onto the board. After feedback, the teacher introduces newvocabulary
in steps: context situation/model pronunciation/meaning check/
writingcollocation/word class/sample sentence. Students rst read for
gist (answering a global question) then for detailed understanding. Lastly,
students read and the teacher checks the meaning of the words which were
guessed from context.
Appendix 2
Chinese English
class
The Certicate IVEnglishas a SecondLanguage (Further Study) class inthe
Sino-Australian programconsists of 36 students, majoring in international
business, accounting, or computer. Quite a few of them go to Australia to
continue their studies after two years at Henan University if they pass the
IELTS test and canafford it. Those who do not want to go abroadbecause,
for example, the familycannot affordthe costs or students prefer studyingin
Chinawill stay at university and nish four years study. All the rst year
students are required to have DET (Diploma Entry Test) in the second
semester to get enrolled in Victoria University. The local English teachers
take charge of the Reading and Listening courses and the Australian
teachers teach Speaking and Writing. The local English Reading teachers
use the prescribed textbooks, New Horizon College EnglishReading
published by a prominent publisher in China. A large number of
universities inChina use these textbooks. One bookconsists of tenunits and
each unit is composed of three passages. One book is nished each
semester. As the vocabulary listed after each passage is fairly large (3650
words, 12 phrases), it is impossible to cover it all in one session. About 15
words judgedtobe important andfrequently usedare selectedandprepared
by the teacher. Other words are left to the students as their own work. The
stages are:
n
explanations of the word in the context and a number of other situations
(to show where the word ts outside the text)
n
word class and any other forms of the word
n
highlighting collocations
n
usage of the word by providing sample sentences.

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

The teacher introduces the topic of the passage by asking personal
questions, introducing background information, or giving a relevant topic
for students to discuss and use new words they have learnt, for example:
Topic: How do you make a good impression?
Topics for discussion: Do you knowhow to make a good impression? Have
you ever looked back on a rst meeting and wished you had handled it
differently?
You are divided into four groups, each group chooses one of the following
topics.
n
Think about your rst day at Henan University, what did you do to make
a goodimpressionat your dormitory, onyour classmates, or your teacher?
n
If you were a teacher, how would you make a good impression on your
students?
n
Very often, at weekends, we like to eat outside the southgate, west gate, or
east gate of our university. What is your impression of these restaurants?
Howwouldyoumakeyour restaurant impressive toyour customers if you
were the boss?
n
If you got a new job, how would you create a good impression on your
colleagues or on your boss?
After 510 minutes discussion, a representative from each group
presents what they have discussed. The class move on to the text and the
teacher does most of the explaining, including language points, sentence
patterns, grammar, and difcult sentences.

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Improving teacher talk through
a task-based approach
Jason Moser, Justin Harris, and John Carle
This article reports on a teacher-talk training course for Japanese primary school
teachers, who are preparing to teach communicative English for the rst time.
The article argues that teacher-talk training is important for communicative
classes with young students because most of the input and interaction is by default
teacher centred. In our course, through a task-based approach including the use of
digital recorders for self-transcribing, teachers were able to practise providing rich
comprehensible input as well as scaffolding in English through role-playing
classroomtasks. The before and after performances of two teachers doing a listen-
and-draw task is analysed to demonstrate the importance of training in teacher
talk. In concluding the article, we review the participants survey feedback for the
course. Our hope is that the article provides a convincing argument for teacher-
talk training as well as offering a model for similar courses.
Background The introduction of English in primary schools is now being widely
implemented throughout Asia (Butler 2004). In Japan, foreign language
learning has been adopted in varying degrees at the primary school level
since 2002. Starting from 2011, English oral communication will become
a required classroom activity for 10- to 12-years olds in the fth and sixth
grades of primary school. The Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports and Technology (MEXT) selected our university English department
to design and trial a teacher-training programme for primary school
teachers. The programme was advertisedthroughlocal Boards of Education
and during a two and a half year period over 320 teachers enrolled on it.
We decided that the mainfocus of our programme shouldbe onteacher-talk
training. There were two reasons for this. Firstly, the recommended
government textbooks for the new curriculum, Eigo Note 1 and Eigo Note 2,
are communicative. These textbooks are based on a sociocultural approach
to language learning (see Vygotsky 1978) where student learning is
facilitated through social interaction regulated by the teachers own
language use. Language is thus the primary tool for learning in the
classroom. The second reason is that as Pinter (2006: 12) rightly notes,
a teachers language use is most oftenthe mainsource of language input for
childreninthe primary school language classroom. For students of primary
school age inJapan, pair worktasks usually constitutea verysmall part of the
lesson, if they happen at all.

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

For training in teacher talk, we decided to prioritize how teachers, through
their own L2 use, could both provide rich input and scaffold their students
language performances. Our decision to focus on teacher talk may seem
obvious, but accordingtoWalsh(2002), teacher-talkeducationis moreoften
than not absent from language teacher education programmes. Walsh
(ibid.) explains that there is often an unappreciated or missed relationship
betweenteacher talkand learning opportunities. He adds that whenteacher
talk matches the pedagogical focus of the task, learning opportunities
emerge, but when it does not, teacher talk becomes obstructive.
The teacher-talk
programme
Our overall programme for training teachers consisted of two 90-minute
classes held consecutively, once every two weeks for a total of 15 weeks. The
rst class, called Skill-up, was a task-based oral communicative class. The
purpose of this class was to help teachers improve their basic
communicative skills. The second class, called Classroom English, which
is the focus of this paper, was designed to provide teachers with practice in
using English for pedagogical purposes during teacher-led communicative
task work. Most of the teachers who joined the teacher-talk course had little
or no experience teaching English. Even the few teachers who currently
taught English had never taken a course solely focused on teacher talk.
Classroom English, at a basic level, is just classroom management
language. As a pedagogical tool, it involves the teacher providing rich
comprehensible input through his/her oral production as well as
scaffolding students production and learning. While not specically
addressed in this paper, scaffolding as McKay (2006: 17) explains, is an
instructional strategy where the teacher provides cognitive and language
support tohelpstudents completea task. Richcomprehensibleinput, which
is critical for language acquisition (Krashen 1985) and is the main focus of
this paper, involves providing students with language that, besides being
meaningful, is understandable enough for students to successfully
complete the task. According to Pinter (op.cit.: 45), there are four speaking
actions a teacher must often simultaneously carry out in order to make the
processing of language comprehensible for students:
1 adjust speed of speech
2 modify language
3 repeat messages
4 use gestures and facial expressions.
We would add to the rst feature all the prosodic features of spoken
language (stress, intonation, pronunciation, and clearness of speech). For
modifyinglanguage, we wouldsuggest that as well as simplifying language,
this skill involves rephrasing language. Finally, we would add to the list the
managing of visual aids as another required skill for improving input for
students.
The classroom
English course
The sequencing of teacher-talk tasks progressed from classroom
management tasks that focused on starting and ending lessons in English,
to tasks with pedagogical purposes, for example, introducing or reviewing
vocabulary. For the next set of tasks, teachers practised using their speaking
as rich input for students through listen and draw, listen and make, and
82 Jason Moser et al.

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

listen and do tasks. Our nal set of tasks required teachers to scaffold
students freer speaking monologues. Atypical lesson for classroom
English followed a task-based learning (TBL) sequence of pre-task, task
cycle, andpost-task(see Willis 1996). Inaddition, eachteacher was provided
with a digital recorder for recording and transcribing his/her performance.
Walshs (op.cit.) self-evaluation of teacher talk encourages the use of audio
recordings for teachers to help develop awareness of the effect teacher talk
has on students learning. Lynchs (2001, 2007) studies have demonstrated
that self-transcribing of recorded performances by students followed by
correction and reformulation of the transcripts leads to improved
subsequent task performances.
The listen-and-draw
task
Below is the lesson sequence for the listen-and-draw task. With this task,
teachers specically practised how to provide rich comprehensible input.
Pre-task Step 1
The focus at this stage was to introduce teachers to a listen-and-draw task
and provide them with initial language input for their later task
performances. We used a scripted recording fromSlattery and Willis (2001)
of a teacher conducting the same task type with some young students.
Teachers assumed the role of students and drew what the model teacher in
the audio recording described.
Step 2
Firstly, teachers in pairs brainstormed what language and discourse
strategies they heardusedinthe audiorecording. Teachers thenindividually
prepared their own listen-and-draw task. In keeping with the TBL spirit of
learning by doing, deliberate spoon-feeding of language was avoided. For
a typical listen-and-draw task, the language targets were prepositions,
prepositional phrases, and basic nouns, for example, There is a bird next to
the tree.
Task cycle Step 3
Each teachers main role in the task stage was to describe his/her picture
clearly enough so as to enable their partner to draw it. Teachers were
reminded that they were to role-play a classroom situation. The listen-and-
draw task seems quite simple, but for teachers with limited language
prociency, the challenge was immense. Beloware the performances from
two teachers, one who had very little English ability (Teacher 1) and another
who had basic ability (Teacher 2).
Teacher 1 (T1) rst performance:
Draw. . . a lion. . . onthe left side . . . and. . . drawa pineapple. . . onthe top
side . . . and drawtwo cherries on the right side . . . and draw a car on the
down side.
T1s recording lasted about a minute, but she managed to use only 31 words.
Despite the small word total relative to the length of time, the performance
was hard to comprehend as T1 struggled with her pronunciation and
intonation. She overgeneralized the formulaic on the . . . side, and thus
producedthe less thanideal topside anddownside. The rst performance
Improving teacher talk 83

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

contained none of the prepositions from the model audio script nor any
repeating, rephrasing, and other teacher language that she could have
borrowed from the pre-task input. While we do not know how her partner
responded to the performance, we did often see the person in the student
role struggling to understand the teachers language production during the
task work. This lack of comprehensibility from a teacher would probably
have a negative impact on the students motivation and learning, not to
mention the teachers own condence. Finally, with T1s task, we could
imagine students struggling with trying to drawa picture of objects that do
not normally go together. The rst recordings provided us with a powerful
reinforcement of why this course was important.
Teacher 2 (T2) rst performance:
T2 did very well in her initial recording despite having never actually
taught English before.
T2 rst attempt:
Are youready? lets drawa picture . . . there is a house onyour right . . . it is
a big house . . . and infront of the house there is a dog . . . okay? There are
three owers on your left side . . . at the corner . . . okay next there is
a buttery. . . ying above the ower . . . nished? the last itemis a swing,
do you know a swing? swing . . . there is a swing on your left side, at the
corner . . . thats all . . . thank you.
T2 used a variety of targeted prepositional phrases: on your right, on your
left, in front of, above the owers, at the corner. She repeated and
rephrasedlanguage (There is a house onyour right . . . it is a bighouse) and
engaged in interactional language (are you ready?, okay?, do you know
a swing?, nished?) to frame and push the task forward. She had clear
speech and enlivened her performance by having her buttery y (there is
a buttery . . . yingabove the ower). This value adding idea was not inour
pre-taskinput. Lastly, T2providedanoverall tasksequence for her partner to
follow, not to mention pausing inorder for her partner to draw(Lets draw,
next, the last item, thats all). Her rst recording did lack some of the key
features subsequently focused on at the post-task stage, but much of what
she did do was excellent for a rst performance.
Post-task Step 4
Once teachers had nished their task performance, the next step was to
listen to their recording and transcribe it. They then compared their
performance with the audio script from the model at Step 1. This
comparison was supposed to help teachers notice holes and gaps in
their performances. As Williams (2005) explains, noticing a gap is when
the student notices that his/her performance language is different
from the target, while noticing a hole refers to the moment when
a student realises that she/he does not have the language to say what she/he
wants to say.
Step 5
In Step 5, we did a variety of group consciousness-raising (CR) activities
using the original audio script. Firstly, we focusedonprepositions. Teachers

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

were asked to circle all the prepositional phrases that contained the
nountree (near the tree, under the tree, ontop of the tree). Secondly, we
focused on the prosodic features of the model recording, in particular word
stress. This was reinforced through listen and repeat practice.
Thirdly, discourse features of the input were highlighted, for example, how
the model teacher sequenced instructions into clear stages that
were demarcatedby pausing andthe repeating of key language andphrases.
For our last CR activity, we focused teacher attention on where and how
often the model teacher praised his students. This was again supported
with listen and repeat practice. While praising students is a very
important part of teacher talk, it was non-existent in most of the rst
performances. Once we completed all the CR activities, teachers
reformulated and corrected their transcripts in preparation for a second
performance.
Task redo Step 6
After a few minutes of rehearsal, the teachers did the task again with just
their original drawingas reference. Beloware the secondattempts by T1 and
T2.
T1:
Okay draw. . . are you ready to draw? . . . okay drawa . . . on the left, draw
a liona big lion. . . uma big and cute lion . . . okay . . . and theres a lion on
the left side inthe picture and th . . . and drawa pineapple at the top . . . in
the middle . . . okay. . . at the top in the middle drawa pineapple there is
a pineapple . . . yeah fantastic and . . . and next two cherries . . . drawtwo
cherries anywhere anywhere you like . . . somewhere okay . . . yeah yeah
thats somewhere, somewhere you like . . . anywhere okay . . . um you
could . . . draw a . . . ah? you could you could . . . you could be like by the
pineapple.
The rst noticeable feature of T1s second performance is the length. T1
managed to include a number of the features focused on during the CR
activities that had previously been absent from her performance. She
repeated words and phrases and provided extra vocabulary around the main
language targets. She even personalized the task for the students by giving
them a choice of where to draw the cherries (draw two cherries anywhere
anywhere youlike . . . somewhere okay). She includedpraise (fantastic) and
interactional language (Are you ready to draw?, Yeah thats somewhere).
What cannot be seen in the above orthographic transcript is
how dramatically the prosodic features of T1s speech improved. For
example, in regards to stress, there was a noticeable difference between the
rst and second attempts. In the rst attempt, her delivery was at and
monotone. In the second attempt, T1 managed to stress key words (Draw
a LIONa BIG lion . . . uma big and CUTE lion okay . . . and theres a LION
on the LEFTside). The effect was a much more natural and lively
performance. Overall, there was a substantial improvement in her
second performance, so much so, that we deemed it suitable for the
classroom.
Comparedtothe rst teacher, the secondteacher hadfewer problems andso
the question would be what she would try to improve on.

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

T2:
Are you ready? lets draw a picture . . . rst, there is a big house on your
right . . . its a big house . . . are youokay? next infront of the house there is
a dog . . . the dog is very cute . . . he enjoys running . . . bow-wow. . . are you
okay? next there are three owers on your left side . . . not only one ower
there are three owers . . . canyousee three owers? Youhave got a house
a dog and three owers . . . are you okay?
Firstly, T2 deliberately reduced her target vocabulary by two words. We
believe that she did this to focus more on repeating and rephrasing
fewer target words. In this sense, she prioritized the quality of the input
rather than the quantity of it. In the rst performance, T2 rephrased her
vocabulary target (ower) only twice (there are three owers, ying
above the ower). In the second performance, she created richer and more
comprehensible input by rephrasing ower four times (there are
three owers onyour left side . . . not only one ower there are three owers,
can you see the owers?). The other key vocabulary target (dog) was only
said once in the rst performance (in front of the house there is a dog . . .
okay?). This contrasts sharply with the richer more animated input
she produced the second time (next in front of the house there is a dog . . .
the dog is very cute . . . he enjoys running . . . bow-wow). Finally, unlike in
her rst performance, T2 provided a useful summary of all that
she had described previously. Overall, in her second
performance, T2 demonstrated a better awareness of the pedagogical
purpose her language production should serve during listen-and-drawtask
work.
Teacher feedback on
classroom English
All teachers who attended the course were required to ll out individual
lesson feedback surveys, as well as one nal survey at the end
of the programme. This information was required as part of our evaluation
by MEXT. From individual lesson feedback, teachers demonstrated to
us their awareness of the specic teacher-talk focus for each lesson.
At the end of the listen-and-draw task, one teacher wrote in her survey
feedback:
In my own classes, I thought it was okay to just say things once and that
was enough, but I realized that to be a good language teacher, its
necessary to repeat and be aware of what Im saying in class.
In another lesson that involved practising recasting, a teacher remarked:
I particularly remember the key word recasting. Making the
children aware of their mistakes by giving them the right words to say
rather than explicitly correcting is something I will value and try to use
from now.
In the nal survey, most of the questions focused on the practicality of the
teacher-talk course and the TBL approach, including the use of digital
recorders. Many teachers commented that once they got over the
embarrassment of hearing themselves, they found digital recorders to be an
indispensible part of the learning process. In particular, they highlighted
howhearing their performances helped themimprove prosodic features of
their speaking. One teacher noted:

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

I was able to check the speed of my speech and the ow of my English
words, which was very helpful. I want to try recording my own classes
now.
During the rst few classes, the task-based approach caused some
confusion among teachers. Many had expected a transmission model of
teaching, and had not anticipated how active they would be in their own
learning. However, after this initial uncertainty from the teachers, survey
feedback clearly indicated that they found TBL to be extremely motivating.
Specically, they praised the try rst approach to the lesson sequence,
which also involved brainstorming ideas with their partners before
receiving help from us. Many teachers noted that the programme
instructors had provided a learning environment that encouraged risk
taking and making mistakes. Overall, teachers clearly embracedlearning by
doing and the responsibility of actively having to contribute to the lesson.
They also appreciated the collaborative learning:
I was very impressed withhowthe class was designed. The way that we as
students were able to discuss together and create our own ideas is
a wonderful new way of doing things for me.
Another teacher wrote:
As opposed to traditional classes it was fun. Trying to do the same task by
ourselves was fresh and new for me. I learned a lot from analysing our
performances.
One of the most rewarding aspects for us was that a number of teachers
wrote that they realized that TBL could be applied to other subjects they
teach. In relation to the practicality of the course, teacher feedback showed
that the overwhelmingmajority of teachers foundthe course very relevant to
their needs. The message we received was the more practical, the better.
Teachers regularly commented that the practical nature of the course
improved their condence and willingness to teach English. Afewteachers
evenmentionedinthe follow-upclasses that they hadtriedout some of our
tasks in their classes.
Summary When we designed the course, we recognized that what we are teaching
should not be divorced fromhow we teach it. The task-based approach was
ideal for demonstratingthe potential for dialogical learningbetweenteacher
and student. The most basic goal of the programme was to have teachers
gain experience conducting communicative tasks in English. We tried to
demonstrate to teachers that even with limited prociency they could,
through proper planning and preparation, conduct successful
communicative lessons. This was not empty rhetoric and was reinforced
when teachers compared their own before and after task performances.
Their second performances were always better than their rst
performances. The second task performances were in most cases good
enough to use in class. The task-based approach with the use of digital
recorders was ideal for showing teachers how to plan initial tasks and
improve on them. One positive side effect of this is that if teachers are
hesitant to do tasks real-time in their class, then they can plan and record
performances to use in class. The nal goal of the programme was to

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

demystify what constitutes communication at the primary school level in
Japan. In particular, that it is not conversation and is mostly teacher
facilitated. This clearly eased the anxiety of many teachers. Our hope is that
this paper provides readers with a strong argument for prioritizing teacher
talk in language teacher-training courses and, moreover, that it provides
some practical ideas for setting up programmes in contexts where teachers
lack experience and condence in using English.
References
Butler, Y. G. 2004. What level of English prociency
do elementary school teachers need to attainto teach
EFL? Case studies from Korea, Taiwan, and Japan.
TESOL Quarterly 38/2: 24578.
Krashen, S. 1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and
Implications. London: Longman.
Lynch, T. 2001. Seeing what they meant:
transcribing as a route to noticing. ELT Journal 55/2:
12432.
Lynch, T. 2007. Learning from the transcriptions of
an oral communication task. ELT Journal 61/4:
31120.
McKay, P. 2006. Assessing Young Language Learners.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports and
Technology (MEXT). 2009. Eigo Note 1. Tokyo:
Kairyudo Publishing.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports and
Technology (MEXT). 2009. Eigo Note 2. Tokyo:
Kairyudo Publishing.
Pinter, A. 2006. Teaching Young Language Learners.
Slattery, M. and J. Willis. 2001. English for Primary
Teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Walsh, S. 2002. Construction or obstruction:
teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL
classroom. Language Teaching Research
6/1: 323.
Walsh, S. 2006. Talking the talk of the TESOL
classroom. ELT Journal 60/2: 13340.
Williams, J. 2005. Form-focused instruction in
E. Hinkel (ed.). Handbook of Research in Second
Language Teaching and Learning. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Willis, J. 1996. A Framework for Task-Based Learning.
Harlow: Longman.
The authors
Jason Moser is a language teacher at Osaka Shoin
Womens University and a doctoral candidate at the
University of Birmingham, UK. His research
interest is language pedagogy.
Email: jason.moser@osaka-shoin.ac.jp
Justin Harris is a language teacher at Osaka Shoin
Womens University. His research interests include
task-based language learning, teacher training, and
language education in primary schools in Japan.
Email: justinharris@nike.eonet.ne.jp
John Carle is a language teacher at Osaka Shoin
Womens University. His main research interest is
young language learners. He operates the childrens
Oak Hills Language School in Kashiba, Nara.
Email: johncarlejapan@gmail.com

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

point and counterpoint
ELF on a mushroom: the overnight
growth in English as a Lingua Franca
Colin Sowden
In an effort to curtail native-speaker dominance of global English, and in
recognition of the growing role of the language among non-native speakers from
different rst-language backgrounds, some academics have been urging the
teaching of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF). Althoughat rst this proposal seems
to offer a plausible alternative to the traditional standard version, it raises both
practical and theoretical concerns. Moreover, since neither World English nor
nativized local Englishes have yet gained full legitimacy, it is clear that the native-
speaker model still has an important role to play, though one modied by new
cultural and pedagogical priorities.
The colonial
inheritance
In the aftermath of independence achieved in the years following the
Second World War, many former British colonies sought to repudiate their
previous subordinationbydemotingEnglish, the languageof their erstwhile
masters, fromits inherited position of dominance and replacing it with one
or more native languages. As a political gesture, this move often had wide
appeal, but the ghost of imperialism could not be exorcised overnight
(Rahman 2009: 15), and the resulting difculties soon became apparent. In
countries where several major languages were spoken, English had
provided an effective means of communication between different ethnic
andlinguistic groups, who didnot always take kindly to one native language
being given precedence over another. One example here is provided by
India, where the Ofcial Languages Act of 1967 declared Hindi to be equal
to English for all ofcial purposes. This caused signicant resentment
among Tamil speakers in the south of the country, with protests leading to
civil unrest and actual violence, forcing the government in New Delhi to
suspend the implementation of the law in the state of Tamil Nadu. In
the same way, the replacement of English by Malay in the new Malaysian
Confederation led in 1965 to the secession of Singapore, where the majority
Chinese population feared that the policy would lead to their
marginalization within the larger state, where they constituted a minority.
Even where new language policies were designed to ensure equal status
among native languages, it often proved impossible to accommodate all of
these. In Nigeria, for example, while in 1969 Yoruba, Hausa, and Ibo were
all declaredtobeofcial languages, more than380other languages were not
granted such status, so disadvantaging all their respective speakers. Apart
from practical considerations, the real concern here was that attempting to

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

accommodate more local languages (inthe provisionof educationandother
services) would tend to limit professional mobility and to undermine that
sense of national unity which the new governments were so keen to
promote. Indeed, speaking of Zambia, which faced a situation comparable
to Nigeria after independence, but which chose to maintain the special
status of English for longer, Nichindila (2009: 330) concludes that . . .
English has been one of the cardinal unifying factors for Zambian society,
although as a consequence literacy in local languages noticeably suffered
before the policy was eventually modied.
There were other relevant factors too. Few educational materials in the
chosen native languages were available, especially at tertiary level, and
subsequent attempts to limit schooling in English tended to drive the more
afuent and informed into sending their children to private English-
medium academies or to schools abroad. As Nichindila (ibid.) comments
again:
. . . very fewof the Zambiangovernment ministers send their childrento
government schools where the policy of teaching in local languages
applies now. Most of them send their children to private schools . . .
Even when it was relatively straightforward to promote a single native
language as a replacement for English, as with Bangla in largely
monolingual Bangladesh, the consequences of doingsowereoftena decline
in general English prociency among the educated section of the
population, as happened in this country following the implementation of
the Bangla Introduction Law of 1983, leading the government to
subsequently modify its position, with English being reintroduced as
a language of instruction at university and as a parallel language of
administration at both local and national levels (Rahman op. cit.: 18).
The development
and nature of English
as a Lingua Franca
So it has proved difcult for former colonial and other peoples subjected to
anglophone hegemony to escape fromthe linguistic legacy of the past. One
response has been to attempt to neutralize English, to sheer it of its cultural
baggage, to remove it from the hands of its Anglo-Saxon native speakers,
and to emphasize its role as a value-free means of international
communication belonging equally to all who speak it as a rst or second
language. It is in this context that the notion of English as a Lingua Franca
(ELF) has developed and been recently fostered. However, there remains
some uncertainty over exactly what this termmeans inpractice. It is usually
seen to refer to the end result of the gradual abandonment, avoidance, or
alterationby non-native speakers of those parts of English that tend to cause
signicant misunderstanding in interactions with other non-native
speakers or are redundant in that situation, thus producing a reduced
version of the language which allows more straightforward interchange to
take place. But what is the nature of this abbreviated alternative?
Seidlhofer (2004: 222) is adamant that:
. . . ELF is a natural language and can thus be expected to undergo the
same processes that affect other natural languages, especially in contact
situations.
90 Colin Sowden

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

This wouldsuggest that ELFcanbe viewedas anidentiable, discrete entity,
yet this idea is called into question by the pronouncements of other writers
in the eld. Jenkins (2007: 41) is clear that it does not refer to a monolithic
construct which will merely replace traditional native-speaker norms with
newbut equally inexible standards. Instead, it wouldconsist of a variety of
local versions of English, each inuenced by the local native language.
Dewey and Cogo (2007: 11) argue that it should be seen:
not as a uniform set of norms or practices but rather a set of linguistic
resources which, while sharing common ground, is typically more
variable than other language varieties.
This apparent contradiction undermines attempts to give a clear status to
ELF, a problem reminiscent of the dilemma which exercised philosophers
of the Middle Ages in Europe: whether types or categories of things actually
exist in their own right (as the Realists asserted) or whether they are merely
abstractions deriving from multiple concrete instances of things, which
alone have true being (as the Nominalists maintained).
Leaving aside this ontological issue, the purpose of the simplicationseems
clear: to exclude culturally restricted items (what Seidlhofer op. cit.: 220
terms unilateral idiomaticity), particularly Anglo-Saxonones, so easingthe
process of communication and curbing the authority of native speakers.
Another key reason for encouraging the use of ELF, though, is that it is said
to more closely resemble the versions of English actually spoken by various
groups of non-native speakers, who are known to outnumber native
speakers in their use of English by a large margin and whose
communications witheachother are saidtoconstitute the majority of global
interchanges in the language. So it could be considered both a more
achievable and relevant target for the majority of learners. To this end, some
core features have beendescribed, pre-eminently on the basis of the VOICE
corpus, allowing certain awkward and apparently insignicant elements of
traditional Standard English (such as the third person s ending in the
present tense of verbs) to be ignored (Seidlhofer op. cit.: 119).
Practical and
theoretical problems
Although at rst glance this seems feasible, indeed attractive, there are
fundamental problems, both practical and theoretical, with the whole ELF
project. While some elements of a lingua franca core have been thus
isolated, a complete and denitive description remains elusive. Shim
(2009: 113) comments:
The fallacy in the lingua franca core perspective is that . . . [i]t is not
possible to get to a uniform lingua franca core that is shared by uent
bilinguals from different rst-language backgrounds.
Kachru (1992: 66) too is clear that what he terms a monomodal approach
to non-native English cannot be defended and that attempts to subsume
different local variations within a common version are doomed to failure
because the functional roles assigned to English and the contexts in which
these apply differ fromone place to another. Kirkpatrick (2007: 163) makes
the same point when discussing the varieties of English used in South East
Asia: while they are very similar,
ELF on a mushroom 91

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

. . . it would be impossible to describe ASEAN lingua franca as a single
systematic systemthat could be codied and then used as a model for the
ASEAN English language classroom.
In fact, as he admits, it is the mutual understanding, cooperation and
tolerance of variation of the different national groups that allows them to
communicate so well, indicating that cultural sympathy and interpersonal
skills are just as important in lingua franca exchanges as sharing a broadly
common language.
Inadditionto this problemof codication, there is the difculty inany given
situation of distinguishing between authentic non-standard alternatives
and persistent error. By way of guidance, here Kachru(op. cit.: 62) contrasts
mistakes with deviations. While the former
. . . cannot be justied with reference to the socio-cultural context of
a non-native variety and is not the result of the production processes
used in an institutionalized non-native variety,
the latter is the result of such a process,
which marks the typical variety-specic features; and it is systematic
within the variety and not idiosyncratic.
Kirkpatrick (op. cit.: 163) suggests that where a process of simplicationhas
taken place as a result of transferring the parameter settings of either
universal grammar or a local language, then a legitimate variation of
Standard English has occurred; in contrast . . . the addition of inections
in contexts where they are not needed is a potential marker of learner
English. In both these formulations, though, the distinction remains
notional and rather tentative, and therefore decient for practical purposes:
without clearer reference points, it is difcult to see how teachers of ELF
could be adequately trained or supplied with appropriate classroom
resources.
Besides this pedagogical difculty, bothteachers andstudents wouldface an
attitudinal one: they would be obliged to embrace and foster a variety of
English which up to nowthey have learnt to treat as inferior and by doing so
risk undermining their academic self-image and limiting their professional
aspirations. Reports suggest that neither group wishes to make this
compromise:
Research shows that EFL teachers seem to recognize the usefulness of
ELF-based skills mentioned in NSNNS [native-speakernon-native-
speaker] communication, but are prone to taking up an NS-oriented
perspective when asked specically about language teaching. (Sifakis
2009: 232)
Norrish (2008: 5) agrees:
An obstacle . . . to the ELFapproach . . . is the opinion expressed by many
learners that they wish to learn a NS version of the language . . . [I]n my
own experience, this was strongly the case with teacher trainers in
Shanghai in 1992 who expressed very strong feelings against any other
target than Standard English.
92 Colin Sowden

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Of course attitudes may change where the case for ELF becomes persuasive
and it is ofcially adopted.
Misconceived ideas
of language learning
At a more fundamental level, though, the ELF project needs to take more
account of the nature and purpose of second language learning. The
majority of those who learn a language other than their rst native tongue
(or tongues, if they are effectively multilingual fromchildhood) tend only to
reach a moderate level of competence; they rarely achieve full prociency.
Arguably, therefore, it is less crucial that the model presented for teaching
can be precisely reproduced, since it will not usually be completely
mastered, than that it serves as a clear marker for the classroom and, with
more ambitious students, for the wider world beyond. This is the point
made by Chien (2007: 5) when speaking of non-native speaker teachers in
Taiwan:
Although the majority may agree that conveying meaning is more
important than perfect conformity with a native-speaker standard, they
are generally inclined to keep the native form as a teaching model.
Kirkpatrick (op. cit.: 191) concedes the same point when he allows that
native-speaker norms serve not for imitation but as a benchmark against
which to monitor output.
Of course, classroommodels must be offeredintelligently andexibly: good
teachers soon learn to avoid complex idioms when dealing with beginners,
to not insist on unimportant grammatical inexions (the third-person
singular verb ending again), and to make allowance for local accent and
manners of speech. As Norrish (op.cit.: 5) says:
. . . teachers will continue to be guided by the wants, wishes and needs of
the learners and the social, professional or pedagogic contexts in which
they may need to use the language.
Mimatsu (2007: 6) makes this point with reference to teachers of English
in Japan, arguing that they naturally adapt the received native-speaker
models by making use of their knowledge of their learners mother tongue:
. . . they communicate in a Japanese version of English that naturally
occurs under the inuence of Japanese linguistic and socio-cultural
factors.
This kind of adjustment, like those between non-native speakers with
different rst languages seeking to communicate, has always taken place
and will continue to do so; seeking to derive articial norms from these ad
hoc procedures is inappropriate.
Even if a convincing lingua franca core could be agreed and teachers and
students persuaded and enabled to teach and learn it, the outcome might
well be less benecial than expected. As there would still be demand for
native-speaker models among some sections of the non-native-speaker
population, decisions would have to be taken about curriculum choice in
schools. It is highly likely that where choice existed, the more afuent,
ambitious, and well connected would opt for schools where native-speaker
standards prevailed, and the poorer sections of the community would be

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

relegatedto schools where ELFwas the norm. Prodromou(2007: 10) makes
this point forcibly:
ELF scholars would constrain L1 and L2 users within the limits of ELF
varieties. Inthis way, ELF will serve to strengthenthe power of those who
already have the full range of repertoires available inexisting models. The
two models would compete for the same space and it is not difcult to
see which model will prevail.
A similar division of teachers would probably occur too, those attaining
near-native competence teaching in the former while those less procient
wouldteachinthe latter. Boththese processes wouldhave a divisiveeffect on
the society and would end up exacerbating rather thandiminishing existing
inequalities by limiting the scope of the majority and conrming the
privileges of the policymakers.
Alternative futures While ELF does not seem to offer a plausible future for English language
development and teaching, other possible scenarios may do so. One such is
the notion of Globish (Shim op.cit.), which draws on the standard usages
of English in different parts of the world in order to create a World English
owned by and accessible to all; although heavily dependent on the Anglo-
Saxon native-speaker model, this agglomeration would in theory make
space for and actually give way to other norms as respective peoples (for
example speakers of Indian and Nigerian English) exert increasing
inuence on the world stage. This process can already be observed in the
way that American English has tended to supplant British English as the
leading native-speaker model in certain parts of the globe.
It is unlikely, however, that such a World English would signicantly depart
from existing Anglo-Saxon norms as long as America remained
economically and culturally dominant among the worlds elites. For this
reason, a more signicant development is the one alluded to above: the
current diversication of English around the world, spawning varieties
whichhave achieveda degree of recognitionintheir respective geographical
spheres. In this case, the local English exists and is accepted alongside both
the local native language or languages and the traditional native-speaker
model of English, each being used in different contexts and being allotted
different roles. This situation is well described by Duruoha (2009: 202ff)
with reference to Nigeria. He comments that Nigerian English operates as
an indigenous lingua franca . . . (ibid.: 209) and adds that:
[a]lthough [some people] see the newEnglishes as interference varieties,
they are adequate and have become institutionalized and close to native-
like English. (ibid.: 207)
Of course the problems faced in establishing the legitimacy of such local
varieties, and in institutionalizing their use, are similar to those discussed
above regarding ELF. Even when supported by a shared sociocultural
context, nativized Englishes have not been convincingly codied and may
also elude being so in a way which wins wide acceptance in other than
informal situations. In discussing the setting of norms in international
prociency tests, Davies, Hamp-Lyons, and Kemp (2003: 575) refer to the
opinion of Lukami, a teacher of English in India, who
94 Colin Sowden

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

. . . argues that many Indian speakers of English produce an
interlanguage, which is not systematic, either in grammar or discourse
. . . Politically . . . no-one in India accepts the existence of Indian English
as anacceptable written variety and there are no models on which to base
it.
Inthe opinionof this Indianteacher at least, there is danger inmoving away
fromnative-speaker norms, evenwhere recognizedlocal varieties of English
are concerned. The reference here towriting brings intofocus another point
on which the concept of ELF is unhelpful: it only really takes account of the
spoken language; when formal writing is involved, it has little to offer. On
paper, the need for precision, clarity, and rhetorical coherence, in the
absence of scope for interpersonal negotiation and with a potentially
heterogeneous audience, forces both writer and reader to give greater
weight to recognized rules of grammar and syntax. Moreover, since such
writing often takes place within a specic hierarchical and professional
context, it must also take account of the appropriate lexis andregister, which
would be compromised by a less rigorous approach to the use of language,
thus signicantly disadvantaging anyone who had command only of ELF.
Conclusion So, given the various constraints outlined above, it seems probable that the
Anglo-Saxon native-speaker model will retain its leading role for some time
to come rather than be replaced by its ELF shadow, although it will have to
compete increasingly with developing nativized varieties in certain parts of
the world. This does not mean, of course, that this model should be the
preserve of the native-speaker alone. In fact, non-native-speaker teachers,
who should be seen as successful multilingual practitioners rather than
second-rate users of English, bring to the classroomvital knowledge of local
languages and cultures, whichoftenrenders themmore effective thanthose
from a monolingual background. As the communicative methodology,
which in its heyday helped promote the use of native-speaker expatriates,
gives way to an eclectic approach more sympathetic to local pedagogic styles
and priorities, so the value of local teachers will be recognized and their
status enhanced. It is this shift in perspective and attitude rather than the
pursuit of anuncertainsubstitute for authentic Englishwhichwill really help
empower both learners and teachers because it validates their own cultural
experiences without devaluing the content of what they are studying.
References
Chien, S. -C. 2007. ELF: emerging awareness in
Taiwan. IATEFL Voices 199: 5.
Davies, A., L. Hamp-Lyons, and C. Kemp. 2003.
Whose norms? International prociency tests in
English. World Englishes 22/4: 57184.
Dewey, M. and A. Cogo. 2007. Adopting an English
as a lingua franca perspective in ELT. IATEFLVoices
199: 11.
Duruoha, S. I. 2009. Teaching the other English
for communication in Nigeria in M. Krzanowski
(ed.).
Jenkins, J. 2007. English as a Lingua Franca:
Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Kachru, B. B. (ed.). 1992. The Other Tongue: English
Across Cultures. (Second edition). Urbana, IL:
University of Illinois Press.
Kirkpatrick, A. 2007. World Englishes: Implications
for International Communication and English
Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Krzanowski, M. (ed.). 2009. Current Developments in
English for Academic and Specic Purposes in

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Developing, Emerging and Least-developed Countries.
Reading: Garnet Education.
Mimatsu, T. 2007. English for international
understanding in Japan. IATEFL Voices 199: 6.
Nichindila, B. 2009. Burying the ghost of Englishin
Zambia in M. Krzanowski (ed.).
Norrish, J. 2008. Adopting an English as a lingua
franca perspective. IATEFL Voices 200: 45.
Prodromou, L. 2007. ELF models and linguistic
capital. IATEFL Voices 199: 910.
Rahman, S. 2009. ELT, ESPandEAPinBangladesh:
an overviewof the status and the need for English in
M. Krzanowski (ed.).
Seidlhofer, B. 2004. Research perspectives on
teaching Englishas a lingua franca. Annual Reviewof
Applied Linguistics 24: 20939.
Shim, R. J. 2009. Empowering EFL students
through teaching World Englishes in B. Beaven
(ed.). IATEFL 2008 Exeter Conference Selections.
Canterbury: IATEFL.
Sifakis, N. 2009. Challenges in teaching ELF in the
periphery: the Greek context. ELT Journal 63/3:
2307.
The author
Colin Sowden used to be Course Director of BA
Modern History and Politics at the University of
Wales Institute, Cardiff (UWIC), where previously
he had been in charge of the International
Foundation Course. Before joining UWIC, he
worked as a teacher, translator, and writer in Italy,
Britain, andthe UnitedArab Emirates inthe elds of
general English, ESP, and EAP. His main interests
are cross-cultural communication and the politics of
empire.
Email: casowden@gmail.com
96 Colin Sowden

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

English as a Lingua Franca: concepts,
use, and implications
Alessia Cogo
Sowdens article raises a number of questions concerning English as a Lingua
Franca (ELF) and criticizes it as a simplied and culturally neutral means of
communication. In this response, I address the issues concerning the
conceptualization and use of ELF as well as the implications for ELT. I provide
up-to-date evidence of ELF research and show the variability, richness, and
creativity of ELF communication.
Introduction:
dening what we are
talking about
For business, studying, trading, socializing, or tourism, English is
nowadays a truly international language. And this is a fact Sowden and
I agree on. However, this internationalization of English has inevitable
consequences not only for the way it is used but also the way it is
conceptualized, and implications for the way it is taught. And these are the
three areas where we disagree. Inaddressing some of Sowdens points, I am
therefore going to focus on these in the rest of this paper.
Before I do that, though, a certain amount of denition of the area we are
referringtois needed. Infact, inSowdens paper, there is a certainconfusion
of terms, especially English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) and World Englishes
(WE). Whenwe talk of ELF, we are not referring to the Englishof the former
British colonies. Inthose precise geographical areas, English has developed
into local nativized varieties, which the WE literature has described as
Indian English, Nigerian English, etc. While ELF and WE have some
commonground, suchas the emphasis onthe pluricentricity of Englishand
the idea that language changes and adapts to new environments, WE is
a eld of research concerned with the identication and localization of
nativized varieties of English in specic geographical locations (see, for
example, the entries on the post-colonial countries in Kirkpatrick 2010).
Thus, researchinthis area has the purpose of identifying core linguistic and
pragmatic features that are then deemed to be characteristic of a particular
variety.
ELF, on the other hand, is used in contexts which, though traditionally
linked with the expanding circle countries (for example in Europe or South
America), are not necessarily geographically located but can be virtual and
transient in nature, and can also involve speakers from both the mother
tongue and post-colonial contexts. ELF encounters, for example, can take
place over the internet, on Facebook, as well as in an ofce in Beijing,

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a university lecture in Amsterdam, a market stall in Marrakesh, a bar in
Milan, and a hostel in Sao Paulo. ELF, then, is spoken as a contact language
by speakers from varying linguacultural backgrounds, where both the
community of speakers and the location can be changing and are often not
associatedwitha specic nation. Therefore, researchinthis area is not about
identifying the core features that make ELFa variety (which it is not), but, as
I explainindetail later, it is about describing the practices involved inlingua
franca communication.
Having claried the terms and their main differences, I now intend to
address exclusively the parts in Sowdens paper that refer to ELF. In my
response, I rst explore a number of concepts related to this new
phenomenon and try to explain some issues raised by the author, then
I provide some examples of ELF communication and nish by exploring
the implications of this research for teaching.
Conceptualizing ELF Sowdens underlying assumption in his paper is that ELF research is
about codifying a variety of English. This is not the case. Firstly, it is
important to note that ELF communication normally occurs in highly
variable socio/linguacultural groups or networks, where the people taking
part come fromnumerous linguacultural backgrounds, as opposed to more
clearly denable communities. In a globalized world, these groups can be
especially transient in nature. However, the fact that communication in
ELF transcends conventional regions and borders does not mean that
ELF cannot be located geographically or that ELF corresponds to
a monolithic international variety. The reality is that ELF communication
can both show characteristics that localize it and make it typical of a certain
region, but it canalsobe uidandrealizedintransnational, or international,
networks, and movements. Therefore, what is certain is that ELF is not
monolithic or a single variety because cultural and linguistic resources
are inevitably transformed as they are locally appropriated.
Secondly, the fact that spokencommunicationinELFtypically takes place in
more or less changing communities, or, in other words, that stability is not
a criterion for dening these kinds of communities, makes us rethink the
notion of community and the very closely linked notion of variety. Put
differently, what we need is a rethinking of these two concepts, that is
community and variety, and also the relationship between them.
Traditionally, a variety is the type of language spoken by a precise speech
community and both concepts imply a certain level of stability, where the
speech community is identied in a precise geographical area including
a homogeneous group of people frequently interacting witheachother. The
variety spoken by this group is traditionally seen as a xed entity, one which
is also used to identify the group itself. The problem here lies in the
conceptualization of these as xed and interdependent; that is, a language
variety is identied in relation to the precise speech community to which it
belongs. The ELF community of speakers, however, is not clearly
identiable within the traditional parameters. It is not homogeneous, as it
includes people with different linguacultural backgrounds, and is highly
variable, as the speakers may change more or less frequently over time
and space. ELF researchers have so far used the community of practice
(cf. Seidlhofer 2007) as a more viable concept for describingthe ELFgroups,
98 Alessia Cogo

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

as the traditional terms community and variety do not capture the uidity,
variability, and creativity that are inherent in ELF.
Another of Sowdens claims is that ELF research is about identifying a core
of features used in this kind of talk. However, this is not true. Even earlier
work (Jenkins 2000, as referred by Sowden, and others), while exploring
language forms, has always emphasized the importance of
accommodation, that is, speakers ability to change their speech patterns to
make themselves more understandable to their interlocutors. More
recently, this emphasis has been still further underlined. And even where
description of emerging language forms seemed dominant in earlier
research, it was done not in an attempt to establish ELFas a distinct variety,
but rather to show the language practices, motivations, and processes
underlining these forms. The main purpose of ELF research today is, of
course, to reveal some of the forms that emerge in ELF interaction in
specic communities, but more importantly to highlight the pragmatic
strategies speakers draw on as they collaboratively engage in
communication. Therefore, the aim of research in this eld is to describe
and make sense of the processes in operation in lingua franca talk and the
strategies used by its speakers, not to uncover core features (and note that
the term core has never been used in ELF research outside phonology).
More precisely, it is the functional properties of the processes that are of
most signicance, not the surface-level features themselves.
Finally, Sowdens paper suggests that researchers inELF encourage the use
of ELF (page 91) and allow the use of certain features and not others. First
of all, ELF is not encouraged. ELFresearchers have never seen themselves
as having a role in deciding what is/is not allowed in ELF. Then, describing
what features and processes are typical of ELF is not an arbitrary decision
but the result of empirical research ndings which show what speakers of
ELF do. And what speakers do is where I now turn.
Using ELF A lot of research has gone into exploring naturally occurring real ELF data,
with the creation of small- and larger-scale corpus studies, which have
shown that ELF communication is by nature especially uid and speakers
use of linguistic forms is especially variable (for a selection of studies see
Mauranenand Ranta 2009; Archibald, Cogo, and Jenkins 2011). Therefore,
the primary concern, as pointed out above, has for some time beennot with
identifying a set of core linguistic features but with exploring the strategies
and processes that make ELFcommunicationpossible. Research has found
that speakers adapt and blend Englishinnovatively and creatively inorder to
co-construct meaning and ensure understanding (cf. for example Cogo and
Dewey 2012).
I nowlook at three examples of ELF talk taken froma corpus of data, which
consist of naturally occurring conversations at the workplace (for more
information, see Cogo and Dewey ibid.). The rst example is used here to
illustrate the strategies employed to support communication, the second
exemplies a moment of negotiation, and the third shows ELFmultilingual
resources. The rst extract is anexample of small talkover a coffee breakand
the speakers are chatting about the DVD player that S1s husband (Franz)
has bought.
English as a Lingua Franca 99

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Extract 1: the DVD player (S1: German; S2: French)
S1: [ah Franz bought . . . Franz bought a dvd player for us yesterday
@@@(everybody laughing)
S2: / cause its winter
S1: yeah its cold
S2: no its great . . . and dvd the quality is good as well yeah I must
say
S1: I always toldhimno I dont want a dvd player . . . because I dont
like to watch
S2: / movies at home?
S1: but then on Friday . . . we didnt want to go out and we really
wanted to see a lm . . . and there was [NOTHING on tv so:
S2: [ah ah
This extract is interesting as it shows various strategies used in ELF talk to
support the smooth development of the conversation, among which are
utterance completions (indicated by the arrows), latching (indicated by the
equal sign), and backchannelling (indicated by the square brackets). The
rst one, utterance completion or continuation, recurs twice in the extract.
After S1s introduction of her new purchase, the DVD player, S2 continues
her utterance with a turn which is added on to the preceding one, as
a continuation of it and providing the reason for buying the DVD, i.e.
because it is winter. In fact, S2s utterance has another, more important,
function: apart fromproviding the reason, it has the function of reselecting
the previous speaker as the next speaker. In other words, S2 is supporting
S1s communication and with the utterance continuation S2 gets the
original speaker to carry on with the story and elaborate further on the
purchase.
This kind of facilitation and support by S2 is in fact continued later when
performing another utterance completion. In the second completion, S1
starts by saying that she does not like to watch and S2 continues her
utterance with movies at home?, which is clearly accepted by S1 who
smoothly moves on with her story. As with the rst example of completion,
in this one, the continuation provided an added value, that of expressing
surprise at the idea that S1 does not like watching movies at home. The
surprised intonation is here indicated by the question mark, suggesting
raised tone.
It is important to notice that these utterance completions are not meant as
word searches. When indicating a word search (that is when a second
speaker provides the missing word that the current speaker is looking for),
utterance completions are usually introduced by hesitations or repetitions
signalling that the current speaker is at a loss for words. InExtract 1, though,
there is no hesitation or repetition and both utterance completions are
performed as a way of facilitating and supporting the communication, and
with a high degree of attentiveness and collaboration on the part of the
speakers.
100 Alessia Cogo

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

The other two strategies exemplied in this extract are latchings and
backchannels, the former involving the timed taking of the turn by the
interlocutor signalling involvement and attention to the talk. The latter,
backchannels, provide prompt minimal responses (such as ah ah, mhm,
ok, etc.) to the interlocutor, which are aimed at supporting the ongoing
conversation without taking over the turn. Latchings and backchannels,
together with utterance completions, are obviously collaborative strategies
as they involve the concerted and timed work of two speakers, and they have
proved to be particularly important in supporting ELF communication.
With Extract 1, I have shown some of the strategies that ELF speakers
employ to facilitate and support communication with interlocutors of
different linguacultural backgrounds. The second example illustrates
a moment of negotiation of forms and meaning. Here, three colleagues are
talking about good work relations in the ofce (cf. Cogo 2010):
Extract 2: the boat (Isabel: Portuguese; Nana: Japanese; Anna: Italian)
Isabel: I mean we dont have problems . . . we all get on yeah
Nana: yeahI think we are all onthe same . . . on in. . . ah: what is it . . .
on the same boat?
Isabel: yeah?
Nana: yeah? . . . how do you say? On the same boat?
Isabel: I dont knowyeah. . . onthe same boat I think . . . onthe bus on
the train
Anna: anyway we understand you
Isabel: yeah . . . we are all foreigners
Nana: all foreigners (laughing)
This is an example of the kind of rich (rather than simplied) ELF
communication most empirical ELFresearch has demonstrated. If we look
at it more closely, we see that the three colleagues are commenting on the
good work relations in their ofce and Nana wants to say that all the
workmates are in the same boat. In the conversation, Nana shows her
uncertainty about the preposition that collocates with the idiomatic
expression in the same boat, whether on or in, and requests the help of
Isabel (what is it?). Isabel, on the other hand, does not want to assume
authority over the preposition that collocates with the idiomatic expression
(I dont know). Instead, she starts playing with the meaning by suggesting
other means of transport that could substitute the boat concept, such as
the bus and the train. After Anna has added that the colleagues
understand what Nana is saying, Isabel justies that understanding by
saying we are all foreigners. That foreignness is what brings together the
colleagues andit is this drawingonbeingnon-native speakers that facilitates
their communication and enhances understanding (cf Hulmbauer 2009).
Their beingnon-native speakers is playedupfromthe very beginning, when
Nana searches for the correct prepositionandexplicitlyasks for helpwithit.
Her colleague, Isabel, however, downplays the need for a correct

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

preposition and enhances the need for creativity while building on the
idiomatic meaning and its metaphoricity (Pitzl 2009).
Sowdens claim that ELF is a reduced version of the language (page 90)
nds little credibility when submitted to the force of empirical data.
Playfulness and creativity in spoken interaction show the richness of the
language as well as the positive attitudes to being non-native. Even in this
short extract, the participants foreignness is played up and explicitly
enhanced, rst by Nana, who questions the preposition and requests the
help of the Portuguese colleague, and then by Isabel, who refuses to know
and to take responsibility for knowing the correct preposition. Then both
Anna and Isabel align with the others: Anna by clearly indicating group
understanding and Isabel by identifying the group as foreigners and
including all of themin it, a choral identity, which is accepted and repeated
by Nana in the end. Nana does not seem to be disappointed with Isabels
playing with the expression and underestimating the importance of nding
the correct preposition, and Isabel seems to enjoy creatively playing with
the idiom, which also serves to establish a sense of in-group belonging.
This creative use of the language and co-construction of meaning are key
elements of ELFcommunication and evident inthe following extract. Here,
the speakers are talking about pictures posted on a website and referring to
them as cheesy.
Extract 3: eur bleue (Jean: French; Karen: German; Anna: Italian)
Jean: cheesy
Karen: [YE::AH
Anna: [YE::AH
Karen: yeah a bit too much I think (laughing)
Jean: so . . . blue ower we say, . . . eur bleue
Anna: why . . . [to say that its cheesy?
Jean: [euryeah. . . eur bleue means . . . youknowwhenyou
have these pictures with little angels of
Karen: a:::h [yeah
Anna: [yeah eur bleue
Jean: eur bleue
Karen: kitsch- [kitschig
Jean: [kitschig yeah
Jeanis introducingthe Frenchexpressioneur bleue toprovide analternative
for the English idiomatic expression cheesy. Even though all the speakers
involved do understand the meaning of the English term, Jean still
introduces the French expression as its meaning covers a different, more
extended, aspect of cheesy: something sweet, like the pictures with little
angels. Jeans code-switching to French eur bleue is then followed by
Karens code-switching to German, with the result of producing an
expression that is culturally closer, and very probably more appropriate, to
102 Alessia Cogo

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

her and the other participants. The German word kitschig is immediately
understood by Jean, who overlaps and accommodates to Karenby repeating
the term and converging to her. The multilingual resources used in this
extract are not meant toll gaps inthe speakers knowledge but toexpandon
meaning and enhance speakers multicultural backgrounds and identities.
To returnto my response, the point here is that throughout Sowdens paper,
there seems to be an implication that ELF has been designed with a precise
and planned aim in mind, that is to neutralize English, to sheer it of its
cultural baggage, to remove it from the hands of its Anglo-Saxon native
speakers (page 90). It is almost too obvious topoint out that ELFis a natural
language, not an attempt at linguistic engineering of the kind that so-called
Globish is (see Seidlhofer 2011: 1567 onthe failings of Globish including
its lack of any empirical support) and is certainly not the result of a sort of
plot. More importantly, as these last twoextracts show(andmany others that
couldnot be reportedhere for lackof space), ELFis not about simplication,
as speakers do not avoid idiomatic language, instead they use expressions
they are more familiar with or create idiomatic expressions that are more
appropriate and understandable intheir contexts (for more onthis see Cogo
and Dewey op.cit.).
Therefore, to claim that ELF is a value-free means of international
communication belonging equally to all who speak it as a rst or second
language (page 90) is almost a contradiction in terms. As shown in my
data, and in other work by Jenkins (2007), Cogo (2010), and Baker (2011),
ELF is not in any way neutral and this is precisely because it belongs to all
who use it, with all the sociocultural values, backgrounds, and
understanding that speakers are bringing with them and co-constructing.
In this sense, the speakers foreignness, or non-nativeness, cannot be seen
as a disadvantage. On the contrary, their different (and often multilingual)
backgrounds provide themwith invaluable resources and strategies, which
they can draw upon to achieve their communicative purposes. Therefore,
their different backgrounds should not be seen as obstructing their
communication, instead, ELF speakers are more effective precisely because
they speak other languages and are multicompetent (Cogo and Jenkins
2010: 273).
The second extract also shows that speakers are aware of their
multicompetence, or foreignness, as they put it. Their being foreigners is
directly linkedwitha better understandingof ELFcommunication, andthey
showpositive attitudes towards it. Opinions towards ELF or other different
ways of speaking English are already changing, and though still heavily
inuenced by identity and ideology (cf. Jenkins 2007; Cogo in press), they
seem to be moving towards appreciation of diversity and feelings of
ownership of English.
Implications for ELT It is true that, as Sowden states, an obstacle to the ELF approach is the
opinion of learners and teachers (page 92), but some positive changes have
already materialized, especially among young people (see Cogo and Jenkins
op.cit.). ELF researchers have started encouraging learners, teachers, and
ELTpractitioners in general, to engage in the debate of what a language is
and issues of English ownership (Dewey 2011; Cogo in press), and it is

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

hoped that this engagement will continue to ourish. However, to take
the step from this to claim that ELF academics have been urging the
teaching of English as a Lingua Franca (Sowdens abstract) is a long and
completely inaccurate one. ELF is about awareness and choicemaking
students aware of different ways of speaking English, of language
variability and changeand about offering choice to them, i.e. they can
choose to speak like native speakers when and if they want to, but they may
want to speak ELF and in certain situations, this may even be more
appropriate.
As for teaching itself, the argument presented by Sowden seems to be that
teachers have previously expressed a preference for native-speaker English,
so this must automatically be right. There is no attempt to explainor explore
why this may be so (the standard NSideology dominating inELTcircles and
materials, for one) and a lot of research on attitudes to English is generally
ignored. There is also an assumption that ELT is all about grammar,
vocabulary, and pronunciation and that this is the sum of communication.
Many researchers (not only ELF ones!) would prefer to approach language
teaching from a different perspective, one which would see language
teaching as a much wider process involving a whole range of
communication skills, knowledge, and attitudes such as communication
strategies, pragmatic competence, and language and cultural awareness.
It is certainly a pity that the ELF readings Sowden is referring to are rather
dated, as, in a relatively new and highly dynamic eld like ELF, things
develop fast and a lot of new research ndings have been published since
the early 2000s, which show that the eld has moved on, and earlier
questions/issues have already been answered or taken on a different shape
(cf. Cogo 2008). Inorder to engage ina fruitful andconstructive debate, and
avoid repeating the same tired issues that have already been resolved, it is
advisable for commentators on ELF to read and refer to more recent
publications, some of which I have listed below.
Final revised version received October 2011
References
Archibald, A., A. Cogo, and J. Jenkins (eds.). 2011.
Latest Trends in ELF Research. Newcastle upon Tyne:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Baker, W. 2011. Culture and identity through ELF
inAsia: fact or ction? inA. Archibald, A. Cogo, and
J. Jenkins (eds.).
Cogo, A. 2008. English as a lingua franca: form
follows function. English Today 24/3: 5861.
Cogo, A. 2010. Strategic use and perceptions of
English as a Lingua Franca. Poznan Studies in
Contemporary Linguistics 46/3: 295312. Available at
http://versita.metapress.com/content/
t4274578759531p2/fulltext.pdf (accessed on 1
November 2011).
Cogo, A. (in press). French is French, English is
English: standard language ideology in ELF
debates in P. Studer and I. Werlen (eds.).
Linguistic Diversity in Europe. Current Trends and
Discourses. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cogo, A. and M. Dewey. 2012. Analysing English as
a Lingua Franca: A Corpus-Driven Investigation.
London: Continuum.
Cogo, A. and J. Jenkins. 2010. English as a Lingua
Franca in Europe: a mismatch between policy and
practice. European Journal of Language Policy 2/2:
27194.
Dewey, M. 2011. Accommodative ELF talk
and teacher knowledge in A. Archibald, A. Cogo,
and J. Jenkins (eds.).
Hulmbauer, C. 2009. We dont take the right way.
We just take the way that we think you will
understandthe shifting relationship between
correctness and effectiveness in ELF in
A. Mauranen and E. Ranta (eds.).
104 Alessia Cogo

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Jenkins, J. 2000. The Phonology of English as an
International Language. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Kirkpatrick, A. (ed.). 2010. The Routledge Handbook of
World Englishes. London: Routledge.
Mauranen, A. and E. Ranta (eds.). 2009.
English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings.
Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing.
Pitzl, M.-L. 2009. We should not wake up any
dogs: idiom and metaphor in ELF in A. Mauranen
and E. Ranta (eds.).
Seidlhofer, B. 2007. English as a Lingua
Franca and communities of practice inS. Volk-Birke
and J. Lippert (eds.). Anglistentag 2006 Halle
Proceedings 30718. Trier, Germany:
Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.
Seidlhofer, B. 2011. Understanding English as a Lingua
Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The author
Alessia Cogo is a Lecturer in Applied Linguistics at
the University of Southampton (UK), where she
teaches in the MA Applied Linguistics programmes
andsupervises PhDstudents. Before that, she taught
English, Italian, and Applied Linguistics at Kings
College London and the University of Surrey (UK).
She has written on ELFpragmatics and the interface
between ELF and multilingualism. She is co-author
with Martin Dewey of Analysing English as a Lingua
Franca: A Corpus-driven Investigation (Continuum
2012).
Email: a.cogo@soton.ac.uk

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

A reply to Alessia Cogo
Colin Sowden
Contrary to what Cogo asserts, I do not seek to expose a sort of plot to
replaceStandardEnglishwithELFinthe eldof Englishlanguage teaching,
rather to examine what appears to me an incoherence in the concepts and
objectives that ELF proponents formulate and apply. I use the word
proponents deliberately since Cogos declared neutrality as a researcher
strikes me as disingenuous. She reveals as much later when she avows that
the role of teachers and academics is merely to make students aware of the
different types of English in use so that they can choose to speak like native
speakers when and if they want to or to speak ELF if they prefer. For such
a choice to be meaningful in the classroom context, concrete alternatives
must be on offer, which means that a clear syllabus must have been
proposed, sanctioned, and rendered teachable and that interested parties
will have been involved in the consultation process.
Of course, languages, concepts of language, and teaching methods change,
and the pedagogical response to these developments should always be
informed by academic insights while continuing to respond to declared
learner andteacher preferences. This is a nebalance tomaintain, andthere
is the implication in what Cogo says, despite her disavowals, that
researchers actually do know best and that a preference for native-speaker
English cannot be automatically right and must be challenged. This is
reminiscent of the comments by Jenkins (2007: 105):
. . . ELTseems somewhat bizarrely to be the only educational subject
where an important curriculum decision (which kind of English should
be taught) is seen as being to some extent the prerogative of students or
their parents.
Such sentiments indicate that the researcher has passed beyond the duty of
raising awareness to actual advocacy.
But such issues are secondary to the main question, which concerns the
ontological status of ELF. At certain points, Cogo is clear that ELF is
a natural language andthat it is spokenas a languageof contact by speakers
fromvarying lingua-cultural backgrounds. However, we construe the word
language, for it to constitute a meaningful denotation, it must also have
tangible identity. Conceivably a language may involve strategies and
processes, but it must certainly also include grammar, vocabulary and
pronunciation, even if uidly described, especially if the resulting model is
to be taught.

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Yet the need to provide some such working template is consistently avoided
in Cogos analysis; instead, the playfulness and creativity in spoken
interaction is emphasizedinthe three examples she provides, andrichness
of language is dened in terms of these pragmatic manoeuvres. I would
argue, on the contrary, that the conversations documented are typical of any
intelligent L1 or L2exchangeinwhichspeakers are exploringsharedideas or
aiming to bridge communication gaps caused by a lack of ready lexical or
syntactic resources. In other words, they do not exemplify a language so
much as language use in general. Being rich in language in fact involves
having at ones disposal sophisticated mastery of its constituent elements
(be these of a native-speaker or nativized variety) not just knowing how to
deploy them effectively. These may be the same tired issues that Cogo
complains about, but they will not go away.
Reference
A reply to Alessia Cogo 107

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

technology for the language teacher
Digital literacies
Nicky Hockly
In this series, we explore current technology-related themes and topics. The series
aims to discuss and demystify what may be new areas for some readers and to
consider their relevance to English language teachers. In future articles, we will be
covering topics such as mobile learning, learning technologies in low-resource
environments, and personal learning networks.
In this second article of the series, we explore the idea of the digital
literacies: what they are, why they are important, and how language
teachers can start to include them in their English language classes.
What are digital
literacies?
Newtechnologies have transformed the way we live and communicate, and
most educators are in agreement that new technologies require new skills.
The Partnership for 21st Century Skills in the USA, for example, is an
organization that advocates the inclusion in education of skills which
prepare students for life in the twenty-rst century; these skills include
information, media and technology skills, also known as digital literacies.
National curricula are increasingly taking digital literacies into account,
although not everyone agrees on the terminology to use; thus, we nd that
digital competency is part of the national curriculum in Norway, in
Australia educators talk of digital media literacy, and in the UK of media
literacy. A recent report by researchers at the University of Phoenix
Research Institute (Davies, Fidler, and Gorbis 2011: 67) identies
a number of key skills for future workers, whichinclude newmedia literacy
and virtual collaboration skills, among others.
Of course literacy has always been a primary goal of education, but the
constantly evolvingdigital landscape means that newskills andliteracies are
required. The umbrella term digital literacies can be applied to these.
What do digital
literacies look like?
A number of ways of conceptualizing digital literacies have been put
forward. Pegrum(2011; Dudeney, Hockly, and Pegrum2012) suggests a set
of four overlapping skill sets corresponding to four main areas:
1 language
2 information
3 connections
4 (re-)design.
Language-based
literacies
For Pegrum, these include not only traditional print literacy but also the
skills to decode online text genres, such as blogs, wikis, or forum
discussions. He also includes texting literacy: the ability to read and create
the abbreviated forms used in text messaging or in taking part in real-time
online text chat conversations. Another facet is hypertext literacy: the
ability to navigate and read online texts which contain hyperlinks. Others
are visual and multimedia literacy, gaming literacy (a macro literacy
involving linguistic, multimedia, spatial and kinaesthetic skills (Dudeney
et al. op.cit.), and mobile literacy: the skills needed to effectively use mobile
or handheld devices. Finally, we have technological literacy and code
literacy, whichinclude a basic understandingof codingsoas tonot be tiedto
the exclusive use of commercial templates in online tools and gives one the
ability to route around restrictions where deemed appropriate.
Information-based
literacies
These are fundamental skills that help us navigate the ood of digital
informationprovidedbytheinternet. Theseincludesearchliteracy (theability
to search effectively for information online), tagging literacy (labelling or
taggingonlinematerials sotheyarendable), informationliteracy (beingable
tocritically evaluatesources andinformation), lteringliteracy (knowinghow
to manage information overload), and attention literacy (knowing when to
switch off as well as on).
Connection-based
literacies
These include knowing how to manage your digital identity or online
persona (personal literacy) and network literacy, which helps you lter
informationreceived fromyour online networks while youyourself become
a node in these networks by passing on relevant information or news (see
also Pegrum 2010). Participatory literacy involves being able to create and
produce digital content; this inturnincludes cultural/intercultural literacy
when working with international virtual teams.
(Re-)design-based
literacies
These consist primarily of remix literacy, a macro literacy which includes
the ability to recreate and re-purpose already-made digital content in
innovative ways. YouTube parodies based on news or lm clips are
examples of this and include knowledge about related issues of copyright
and plagiarism.
Belshaw (2011) outlines eight key elements that characterize digital
literacies:
1 Cultural: the need to understand different online contexts and how to
interact appropriately in them. For example, interaction in an online
gaming environment such as World of Warcraft is very different to
interaction in a formal online course environment.
2 Cognitive: for Belshaw this is about ways of conceptualizing digitality
rather thanthe practice of using tools. To develop this, we need to expose
learners to various ways of conceptualising digital spaces (and
interactions within them) (Belshaw ibid.: chapter 9).
3 Constructive: this includes the ability to create remixes (Pegrums remix
literacy) and also to take part effectively in online networks (Pegrums
network literacy).
4 Communicative: this is understanding how communications media
work. It is, basically, the nuts and bolts of howto communicate in digital
environments (Belshaw op.cit.: chapter 9).
Digital literacies 109
5 Condent: Belshaw suggests that we need to be condent users of
technology and have enough technical expertise to be able to use
technology for our own ends, rather than to be manipulated by it.
Experimentationandanopenmindset is a plus indigital contexts andcan
lead to improved problem-solving skills (OECD 2001: 9, quoted in
Belshaw op.cit.).
6 Creative: the ability to nd new ways to do new things with new tools
(in short, to be creative with new technologies).
7 Critical: Belshaw suggests that we need to learn to curate and critically
understand the resources that we nd, not just supercially skim over
oceans of information.
8 Civic: knowing how to use technology to increase civic engagement and
social action.
Both Pegrum and Belshaw make clear that digital literacies are not
a checklist of discrete skills that are simply acquired and then ticked off.
Althoughdigital literacies doinclude procedural skills (suchas howtoinsert
an image into a word-processed document), they also include less clearly
dened skills, such as communicating effectively in distributed virtual
communities. Bawden (2008) suggests that it is more useful to conceive of
digital literacies as a state or condition that changes over time. As technology
evolves and changes, so new skills and literacies emerge and become
increasingly important.
Implications for
language teachers
Although some national curricula make provision for the development of
digital literacies within mainstream primary and secondary schooling, it is
sometimes challenging for teachers to know how to operationalize these
literacies inthe classroom. This is particularly true for teachers whomay not
feel condent with technology themselves or have received little or no
training in how to use technology in a principled manner with learners.
As English language teachers, we can help our learners acquire not only the
language skills needed for communication in an increasingly globalized
world but also some of the digital skills that they will inevitably also need.
It is increasingly difcult for us to separate language from the digital
environment in which it is being used. As such, one could argue that by
integrating newtechnologies into our classroom, we can also help learners
develop key digital literacies and that it is indeed our duty as language
teachers to do so. But the question remains: how?
Digital literacies in
the English language
classroom
Below are ve activities that focus on a number of Pegrums digital
literacies. These activities can be integrated into most, if not all, English
language teaching syllabi, even when these are coursebook driven, by
tying the activity to the current topic being explored in class.
Txtng
(texting literacy)
Learners decode sample text messages into standard English. They then
decide inwhichcontexts text messagingis acceptable, andinwhichcontexts
it is not, from a series of prompts/situations. Discuss the linguistic norms
and the appropriate use of texting language, in both English and in the
learners L1. In what ways are they similar or different? Even if you do not
expect your learners to produce texting language, familiarity with norms in
the target language is useful as it becomes an increasingly common genre.
110 Nicky Hockly
Follow the link
(hypertext literacy)
Find two online texts of a similar length on the same topic (for example
a news item): one text with few or no hyperlinks and one text with many
hyperlinks. Ask learners to read each text online and to follow any
hyperlinks. Give a one- or two-minute time limit for learners to read each
text. Discuss which text was easier to read and why. Hypertext literacy
includes not just knowing when to ignore hyperlinks in the text so as not to
lose the thread, but also knowing how many hyperlinks to include in ones
own text, in the interests of readability and credibility.
The tree octopus
(information literacy)
Ask students to visit a spoof website, such as that dedicated to the Pacic
Northwest tree octopus (http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus). Set
a comprehension task on the website content without telling students it is
a spoof. Ask themto choose one of the ways they couldshowsupport for this
endangeredspecies. Finally, asktheclass if they thinkthis is all true. Analyse
what makes this site look believable (layout, links to real sites such as the
World Wildlife Fund, links to other research, informational style of
language, maps, etc.). Point out the clues (apart fromthe content!) that show
the site is a spoof (URL, headers and footers, tagline . . .). Pairs can then
examine less obvious spoof sites (see http://www.philb.com/fakesites.htm)
and real sites, and then report back to the class on which is which and how
they know. Akey element of informationliteracy is the ability to evaluate the
veracity, reliability, and source of information on websites.
Copycat (visual/
multimedia literacy)
Choose a topic/theme that you are currently working on with the class (for
example animals). Ask students to search Google images of a given animal
and to choose the three images they like the most. In pairs, they compare
their images and explain their choices. Ask students to then prepare a short
blog entry about the animal/topic, which they will illustrate with one of the
images. Ask students to look again at their chosen images online and the
copyright license for each. With a Google image search, the percentage of
all rights reserved copyright images will usually be high. In Google
Advanced search, show learners how they can lter their image search
results to include only images that can be reused. Ensure that everyone is
familiar with Creative Commons licensing. Tell learners to also search
popular image banks such as Flickr (http://www.ickr.com), where there is
a higher percentage of creative commons images. Learners make a nal
choice of (copyright free) image with which to illustrate their blog post.
Showstudents howto acknowledge the source of creative commons images
in their post. Knowledge and appropriate use of copyright is an essential
part of participatory literature; if students are creating their own online
content, they need to know what images they can legally reuse in their
digital contributions and how to acknowledge the source.
Teachers and digital
literacies
The activities briey outlined above assume that the teacher herself is
digitally literate or at least willing to become so. Teachers may need to take
part in staff development or training for this. Futurelab has some excellent
resources in the eld of digital literacies, which could be integrated into
a staff development plan or used by teachers as part of a self-study plan for
professional development (see http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/
digital-literacy-professional-development-resource). So, if you are a teacher
who feels less condent with technology, do not despair: rather, skill up.
Digital literacies 111
References
Belshaw, D. 2011. What is digital literacy?
Apragmatic investigation. Ed.D thesis, Durham
University. Available at http://
neverendingthesis.com (accessed on 18 July 2011).
Bawden, D. 2008. Origins and concepts of digital
literacy inC. Lankshear andM. Knobel (eds.). Digital
Literacies: Concepts, Policies and Practices. New York,
NY: Peter Lang.
Davies, A., D. Fidler, and M. Gorbis. 2011. Future
Work Skills 2020. Palo Alto, CA: University of
Phoenix Research Institute. Available at http://
tinyurl.com/3m6cpc9 (accessed on 18 July 2011).
Dudeney, G., N. Hockly, and M. Pegrum. 2012
forthcoming. Digital Literacies. Harlow: Pearson.
OECD. 2001. Learning to change: ICT in schools.
Paris, France: Centre for Educational Research and
Innovation. Partnershipfor 21st CenturySkills. Available
at http://www.p21.org (accessed on 18 July 2011).
Pegrum, M. 2010. I link, therefore I am: network
literacy as a core digital literacy. E-learning and
Digital Media 7/4: 34654.
Pegrum, M. 2011. Modied, multiplied and
(re-)mixed: social media and digital literacies
in M. Thomas (ed.). Digital Education: Opportunities
for Social Collaboration. New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.
The author
Nicky Hockly is a Director of Pedagogy of The
Consultants-E (www.theconsultants-e.com), an
online training and development organization. She
has been involved in EFL teaching and teacher
training since 1987 and is co-author of How to Teach
English with Technology, Learning English as a Foreign
Language for Dummies, and most recently of Teaching
Online. She maintains a blog about e-learning at
www.emoderationskills.com and is a keen user of
new technologies.
Email: nicky.hockly@theconsultants-e.com
112 Nicky Hockly
readers respond
CLI L and immersion: how clear-cut
are they?
Thomas Somers and Jill Surmont
Introduction It was with high expectations that we read Lasagabaster and Sierras (2010)
contribution to this Journal, in which they set out to differentiate between
CLIL andimmersion. While we agree withthe needtoresolve the confusion
surrounding these two approaches, we were disappointed with the manner
in which an intended clear-cut distinction was attempted.
Working from the Spanish context, yet claiming universal applicability,
Lasagabaster and Sierra (hereafter L&S) found more differences than
similarities between CLIL and immersion. It not only pains us to see that
a qualitative distinction is reduced to the mere quantication of differences,
but after critically examining L&Ss argumentation, we have found it to be
neither clear nor universally tenable.
Similarities
according to L&S
Without substantiation, Lasagabaster and Sierra (ibid.: 370) list ve
principles they claim CLIL and immersion share:
1 The nal objective of immersion programmes is that the students
become procient inboththe L1 and the L2, without any detriment to the
acquisition of academic knowledge.
2 The language the students are taught in must be newto them, so that its
learning resembles the L1 acquisition process.
3 Parents of students choose immersionprogrammes because they believe
they are the best L2 learning option.
4 The teaching staff must be bilingual [. . .].
5 The communicative approach is fundamental to all immersion
programmes.
We were much surprised at Similarity 2. It no longer ts the changing
demographics in Spain, Canada, or elsewhere (Lyster and Ballinger 2011:
281): Basque-medium schools in the Basque Autonomous Community
have both Spanish and Basque NS students; Catalan immersion
programmes in Catalonia can have as many as 30 per cent native Catalan-
speaking students; eveninQuebec, classrooms are increasingly made up of
French NS, English NS, and French-English bilingual students; this equally
goes for Welsh- and Irish-medium education in Wales and Ireland,
respectively. Also, to tip the numerical balance, we can think of a few more
similarities: overt support for the students L1, the aim for additive
bilingualism, integration of language and content, etc.

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Differences
according to L&S
L&S list seven differences, each of which we will consider separately.
Language of
instruction
The authors state:
Unlike immersion programmes, which are carried out in languages
present in the students context (be it home, society at large, or both home
and society), the languages of instruction for CLIL programmes are
foreign languages and many of the students only have contact withthemin
formal instruction contexts. (op.cit.: 370; our italics)
Bearing Similarity 2 inmind, this seems contradictory. The claimis also far
from representative globally. French immersion students in Canada, for
example, have little or no contact with French out of school as in most cases
the French immersion programmes are situated in English language
environments (Wesche 2002). Counterexamples fromCLIL include the use
of Frisianinthe Netherlands (Maljers, Marsh, andWolff 2007) or Dutchand
French in Belgium (Van de Craen, Ceuleers, Lochtman, Allain, and Mondt
2007). There is indeed no reason why CLIL cannot accommodate a second,
heritage, or community language (Coyle, Hood, and Marsh 2010: 1).
Teachers According to L&S, immersion teachers are mostly NSs, whereas CLIL
teachers are usually not (op.cit.: 371). First, this follows from the near-NS
prociency goal in immersion. Second, NS teachers of immersion
languages are usually widely available, in contrast to NS teachers of
a foreignlanguage. (But this merely follows fromL&Ss distinctionbetween
CLIL and immersion; see Language of instruction above.) Third, while it is
true that many immersion programmes suffer from the NS fallacy
(Phillipson 1992), the problematization and demystication of the belief in
the NS as the ideal teacher has already entered immersion as it has CLIL
(Chiasson 2002).
Starting age L&S claim: [t]he vast majority of immersion programmes are of the early
(starting age) immersion type, whereas the CLIL approach shows certain
similarities with the late immersion programmes implemented in
secondary education in Canada (op.cit.: 371). Regardless of the implication
that CLIL shares yet more similarities with immersion, 16 European
countries, including Spain, offer CLIL (as dened by L&S; see Language of
instruction above) from primary level onwards according to Delhaxhe
(2008). The assertion that CLIL programmes endeavour to develop the
language skills of students who have had traditional foreign language
teaching throughout their primary education (Lasagabaster and Sierra
op.cit.: 371) is not only a misrepresentation, it is contradictory with L&Ss
second similarity.
Teaching materials According to Lasagabaster and Sierra (ibid.: 372), the materials used in
immersion programmes are aimed at native speakers, whereas CLIL
teachers oftenuse abridgedmaterials. However, obtainingdevelopmentally
appropriate materials is a longstanding issue in immersion (Johnson and
Swain 1997). Furthermore, the confusion among FL teachers between the
use of authentic materials and unadapted NS materials is a result of poor
professionalization, rather than characteristic of immersion.
114 Thomas Somers and Jill Surmont

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Language objective The goal of immersion programmes is to reach an L2 prociency similar
to that of native speakers, whereas CLIL programmes cannot have such
a far reaching objective. (Lasagabaster and Sierra op.cit.: 372)
True, CLIL strives for functional prociency (Marsh 2002). Yet, late and
partial immersionprogrammes cannot hope to reach NS prociency either.
Immigrant
students
L&S observe that [i]mmigrant students are usually enrolled in immersion
programmes in all Spanish bilingual autonomous communities, whereas
they seldom [. . .] take part in CLIL programmes (Lasagabaster and Sierra
op.cit.: 372) because students willing to join CLIL classes are assessed
beforehand, and immigrant students rarely meet the required standard.
Althoughwe lendfull support to L&Ss warning that suchpractices may put
CLIL programmes around the world in danger of becoming elitist (ibid.:
373), this does not constitute any generalizable difference betweenCLIL and
immersion. Nor should it be inferred that immigrants cannot cope in CLIL
programmes.
Research The bulk of CLIL programmes in Spain are experimental, whereas
immersion programmes have been in force for more than two decades
and can rely on a signicant amount of research into both their linguistic
and non-linguistic effects. (Lasagabaster and Sierra op.cit.: 373)
This is of course true, yet in itself little of a means to discern between CLIL
and immersion. L&S further neglect to point out that much immersion
research is of great signicance to CLIL. From the mid-1990s onwards,
immersion research has increasingly focused on processes such as the
integration of content and language. Here are lessons to be learned and
adapted (Coyle 2007: 547).
Conclusion In conclusion, we nd that L&Ss article does little to resolve the confusion
as it suffers frominternal contradictions and ungeneralizable data. We have
shown that most of the proposed differences turned out to be points of
resemblance, that they presented a static and monolithic picture, ignoring
the myriad variations that exist in CLIL and immersion, and the potential
for a convergence (Lyster and Ballinger op.cit.).
References
Chiasson, P.-E. 2002. The nonnative speaker.
Canadian provincial experience. NNEST Newsletter
4/1: 14.
Coyle, D. 2007. Content and language integrated
learning: towards a connected research agenda for
CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism 10/5: 54362.
Coyle, D., P. Hood, and D. Marsh. 2010. CLIL:
Content and Language Integrated Learning.
Delhaxhe, A. (ed.). 2008. Key Data on Teaching
Languages at School in Europe. Brussels: Education,
Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency/
EURYDICE.
Johnson, R. J. and M. Swain. 1997. Immersion
Education: International Perspectives. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lasagabaster, D. and J. M. Sierra. 2010. Immersion
and CLIL in English: more differences than
similarities. ELT Journal 64/4: 36775.
Lyster, R. and S. Ballinger. 2011. Content-based
language teaching: convergent concerns across
divergent contexts. Language Teaching Research 15/3:
27988.
Maljers, A., D. Marsh, and D. Wolff (eds.). 2007.
Windows on CLIL. Content and Language Integrated
Learning in the European Spotlight. Alkmaar:
European Platform for Dutch Education and
ECML.
CLIL and immersion: how clear-cut are they? 115

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Marsh, D. 2002. CLIL/EMILEThe European
Dimension: Actions, Trends and Foresight Potential.
Strasbourg: European Commission.
Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Van de Craen, P., E. Ceuleers, K. Lochtman, L. Allain,
and K. Mondt. 2007. An interdisciplinary research
approach to CLIL learning in primary schools in
Brussels in C. Dalton-Puffer and U. Smit (eds.).
Empirical Perspectives on CLIL Classroom Discourse.
Frankfurt am Mein: Peter Lang.
Wesche, M. 2002. Early French immersion: how
has the original Canadian model stood the test of
time? inP. Burmeister, T. Piske, andA. Rohde (eds.).
AnIntegrated Viewof Language Development: Papers in
Honor of Henning Wode. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher
Verlag Trier.
The authors
Thomas Somers is currently a predoctoral researcher
at the Centre for Linguistics, Vrije Universiteit
Brussel. He taught English for two years at
secondary level and was previously involved in
a project on language sensitive teaching and
language policy. His research interests include
multilingual education and language teaching
methodology.
Email: Thomas.Somers@vub.ac.be
Jill Surmont is a PhDstudent at the Vrije Universiteit
Brussel who is investigating the cognitive effects of
Content Language Integrated Learning. She is part
of the Comenius project E- CLIL and helped to
nalize the data the VUB team had collected for the
DYLAN project.
Email: Jill.Surmont@vub.ac.be
116 Thomas Somers and Jill Surmont

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Reviews
The Bilingual Reform: A Paradigm Shift in Foreign
Language Teaching
W. Butzkamm and J. A. W. Caldwell
Gunter Narr Verlag 2009, 260 pp., V19.90
isbn 978 3 8233 6492 4
Too much mother tongue (MT) in the foreign
language (FL) classroom can be a dangerous thing:
My last English teacher was really nice but she
taught us most of the lesson through German,
telling us she wanted us to really understand
everything. I think we would have learnt more if
she had used German less. We had Spanish only
for one year at this stage but lessons were
conducted nearly completely in Spanish, while
English was taught in German, after seven years of
learning this language! Annika (Butzkamm and
Caldwell p. 16)
No MT in FL teaching can also be dangerous for
learners:
I really hated the fact that the teacher we had in
grades 79 refused to explain English words we
didnt knowinGerman. She just wrote the wordup
on the board, but only a fewpupils understood her
English explanations. Even when we asked her
nicely if she could give us the German equivalent
she became angry. But Id better stoptalking about
her, as it makes me angry. Sonja (ibid.)
Most ELT specialists now recognize that the two
extreme positions depicted above are untenable. And
while no one would question that in an English class
English actually needs to be spoken, it is now
generally agreed that learners own languages can be
used for certain purposes. As, for example, Harmer
(2007: 1335) says, a teacher can use the students L1
to talk about the learning process (for example when
discussing their needs and expectations), to make
comparisons betweenL1 andL2, andtocreate a good
atmosphere in the classroom.
However, according to The Bilingual Reform (p. 18),
this kind of monolingualismwith small concessions
is not the right solution. A little MT in the classroom
can also be a dangerous thing: if it is used in an
unregulated way, some teachers may be tempted to
conduct most of their classes in it. Instead, the MT
should be used systematically with the help of
sophisticated and powerful bilingual techniques. It
is these techniques that according to the authors
(p. 16) are the key to harnessing the linguistic
resources of the learners for effective foreign
language learning (. . .).
The book consists of an introduction, 14 chapters
(each containing study questions and tasks), and an
epilogue. The publisher claims that [with] this book,
change has come to foreign language teaching. It
certainly has, and in more ways than one: not only
do the authors offer a compelling argument for the
MTas the foundation of FL teaching but they also
present their case in such a way that it is difcult to
put down. The clarity of Butzkamm and Caldwells
writing, the ease with which they discuss theory and
combine it withpractice, andthe personal stories told
by learners and teachers, all these make for
a fascinating reading experience.
Following the Introduction, which sketches the
central issues and outlines the authors goals, in
Chapter 1 the authors begin the presentation of their
approach by stressing the fundamental role of FL
input and oral interaction in the process of learning.
Since the amount of exposure is critical to language
acquisition (p. 29), lessons should obviously be
conductedinthe FL. However, this does not meanthe
exclusion of the MT from the classroom: on the
contrary, consistent use of the MT through the
technique of sandwiching (statement in L2,
restatement in L1 and again in L2, p. 33) should
create anFLatmosphere inthe classroomandleadto
message-oriented discourse. This is possible
because the sandwich technique provides only initial
understanding: once the meaning is clear, then only
the L2 expression should be used.
In Chapter 2, Butzkamm and Caldwell introduce the
principle of dual comprehension, which, in their view,
is the essential mechanism behind language
ELT Journal Volume 66/1 January 2012 117

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

acquisition. The principle states that for a learner to
break into the speech code, input must be
comprehended on two levels: the functional/
communicative level and the formal/structural level.
In L1 acquisition, such dual comprehension takes
place through an interaction of childrens natural
intention-reading and pattern-nding abilities
with the way in which parents shape the input the
children receive. In the classroom context, where
much less time is available, these natural inductive
abilities of learners need to be supported to ensure
double comprehension. One way of clarifying form-
meaning pairings to learners is through the use of
the MT.
Chapter 3 sets out in detail the authors reasons for
adopting the bilingual approach. The exposition is
broken down into 11 maxims that present the case for
bilingual FL teaching and refute the arguments that
have been advanced against it. For Butzkamm and
Caldwell, the direct principle is a delusion: as, for
example, word recognition experiments show,
learners ownlanguages cannot be switched off. This,
however, does not mean that they are a necessary evil
that simply has to be accepted: they are the greatest
asset that beginner learners bring into the learning
process. The connection that learners make between
new linguistic knowledge and their L1 skills is vital
until the FL has established an ever more powerful
and complex network for itself (p. 74).
Chapter 4 deals with the questions of communicative
equivalence and cross-linguistic networks. In brief,
Butzkamm and Caldwell argue (p. 90) that whatever
can be said, can be translated, i.e. that MT
approximations can always be provided for initial
understanding. Such MTequivalents, whether exact
or approximate, may be seen as temporary items to
be complemented by other meanings in later stages
of learning. For lexical items toberetained, it isuseful,
the authors argue, to build cross-linguistic networks
in which target language words are linked to MT
cognates.
Clarity is all; confusion equals frustration (p. 103).
Grammar, then, should be made clear, it is argued in
Chapter 5. To doso, we can use MTaids like idiomatic
translations, structural mirroring, and, in particularly
tough cases, additional explanations. Teachers
should, however, beware of the danger of over-
explaining: (translated) examples are normally
easier to understand than lengthy explanation or
rules. Too much grammar may be bad, but too little
of it is equally harmful: if chunks of structure are left
for learners doing three hours per week to analyse
on their own, then many of those chunks will
fossilize.
Grammatical constructions that are claried must
alsobe retainedandput touse. That is, inaccordance
with the generative principle, students need to learn
howtondpatterns amongexemplars andbuildnew
forms according toknownforms (p. 120). Chapters 6
and 7 tell us howto achieve this by using the bilingual
approach, which builds upon Dodsons work in the
second half of the previous century (for example
Dodson1967/1972). The way tostart is throughsemi-
communicative drills: the teacher gives stimulus
sentences in the MT, the students respond in the
target language. The exercise is gradually
personalized with students ultimately being asked to
produce their own examples. When they are
presented, the teacher should use them as an
opportunity for communicative interludes, i.e.
communicative exchanges of information. Further
examples of pedagogical tools that Butzkamm and
Caldwell extensively argue for are dialogues, drama,
and declamation.
Butzkamm and Caldwell do not see language as
nothing but a skill, but as they explain in Chapter 8,
the learning theory behind the procedures in the
previous chapters is skill learning theory. This means
that thereare noquickandeasy shortcuts andthat it
is focused, effortful practice that is crucial (p. 167). As
a result of suchpractice, there are qualitative changes
in the way knowledge is represented in the brain, and
there is also an increase in the speed of performance.
Holistic learning advocated by many proponents of
task-based approaches is dismissed by Butzkamm
and Caldwell as the naturalistic fallacy.
Chapters 9, 10, and 11 all contain further examples of
ways inwhichlearners ownlanguages canbeusedas
aids in FL learning. In Chapter 9, the focus is on input
and how its comprehension can be maximized with
MTsupport (as, for example, in bilingual readers and
subtitled movies). In Chapter 10, the benets of
translation activities are discussed: they include
focus on preciseness and accuracy, possible
integration with communicative activities, and
increasing learners awareness of the leeway of
interpretation. Finally, Chapter 11 delivers more
bilingual practice through, for example, work on
vocabulary items and collocations.
In Chapter 12, the authors argue that the only natural
model which can be adopted in FL teaching is that of
the child who is raised bilingually, as in linguistically
mixed marriages. Although in such contexts the two
linguistic systems develop separately, bilingual
children make use of learning strategies that involve
both languages. The strategies include asking for
equivalent expressions, contrasting such
expressions, and using mixed-language utterances.
118 Reviews

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

For Butzkamm and Caldwell, the fact that these
natural strategies are so common makes the
exclusion of the MT from the FL classroom seem
almost perversely wrong (p. 223).
Spitting and speaking Breton are forbidden,
a railway carriage sign from a not so distant past,
illustrates how minority languages were sometimes
treated(p. 230). The present situationmay not bethat
bad, but as ButzkammandCaldwell say inChapter 13,
minority students would still benet from a greater
recognition of their home languages. In multilingual
classes learners own languages need not be ignored
(or, which is worse, outlawed). There are ways of
incorporating them into instruction, for example
through parallel texts and time-outs for groupwork in
the MT. Research shows that such aids contribute
substantially to overall learning success.
Why are there so many who behave as if the history
of FLT was a succession of failed methods? (. . .)
Why be so arrogantly dismissive of ideas and
practices such as pattern drills and the PPP
paradigm, which have been used by excellent
practitioners quite aware of what they were doing?
(p. 242)
These are just two of many important questions
asked in Chapter 14, the nal chapter of the book. In
asking these questions, Butzkamm and Caldwell
appeal to researchers to heed the lessons of history
and to investigate procedures, which over the
centuries have worked for many teachers and
learners, saying The study of the history of language
teaching deserves a central place in teacher
education (. . .). (p. 241).
FL teachers are often sceptical about new theories
andpractical solutions proposedby SLA researchers.
Teachers practice is often rooted in more traditional
ways of doing things (Swan2007: 295). This is hardly
surprising, given that at different times they have
been told
to ignore the learners mother tongue; to base
teaching on contrasts between the mother tongue
and the second language; to avoid showing
beginners the written word; to establish habits by
drilling; to refuse to explain grammar; to explain
grammar but avoid drilling; to rely exclusively on
comprehensible input; to minimize opportunities
for error; toregarderrors as constructive; not toask
questions to which the teachers knowthe answers;
touse simpliedmaterial; toavoidusingsimplied
material; and so on. (Swan 2005: 397)
The Bilingual Reform by Butzkamm and Caldwell,
however, is a completely different story. It is not
legislation by hypothesis. It is a remarkable
book, which in a masterly way draws upon SLA
research, the accumulated experience of teachers,
and countless testimonies of learners. In each of
these areas, the authors expertise is impressive. If
their proposals are implemented, it will be a true
paradigm shift. This book is an absolute must for
anyone involved in FL instruction: one may not
subscribe to every claim Butzkamm and Caldwell
make, but knowing what these claims are is
a necessary thing.
References
Dodson, C. J. 1967/1972. Language Teaching and the
Bilingual Method. London: Pitman.
Harmer, J. 2007. The Practice of English Language
Teaching.(Fourth edition.) Harlow: Longman ELT.
Swan, M. 2005. Legislation by hypothesis: the case
of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics 26/3:
376401.
Swan, M. 2007. Why is it all sucha muddle, andwhat
is the poor teacher to do? in M. Pawlak (ed.).
Exploring Focus on Form in Language Teaching. Kalisz-
Poznan: Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts.
The reviewer
Pawe1 Schefer is a researcher and lecturer at the
School of English, Adam Mickiewicz University. His
current research interests include Second Language
Acquisition, modern English grammar, and corpus
linguistics. He has published in a variety of journals
both in Poland and abroad. He also writes language
teaching materials for Polish learners of English.
Email: spawel@ifa.amu.edu.pl
doi:10.1093/elt/ccr084
Reviews 119

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Teaching and Learning Pragmatics
N. Ishihara and A. D. Cohen
Pearson Education 2010, 384 pp., 20.99
isbn 978 1 4082 0457 3
Teaching and Learning Pragmatics approaches
language teaching from a sociocultural perspective
and thus contributes to a current focus in ELT
methodology. The book is divided into three parts. In
the rst part, the authors identify the area of
pragmatics in which they are especially interested, in
the secondpart, they focus onteaching pragmatics in
the language classroom, and in the third part, turn to
second-order pedagogical considerations.
Approximately 60 per cent of the book is contributed
by Ishihara, including virtually all of Part 2, with20per
cent contributed by Cohen and 20 per cent jointly
authored. The styles of the two authors are similar
and the book as a whole reads seamlessly. The target
readership is pre-/in-service teachers and graduate
students (p. 186), and for this reason, each chapter
concludes with a series of reader-directed activities,
varying in length between one and nine pages and in
total amounting to approximately a fth of the book.
These activities are mostly designed for
teacher-readers working in small groups rather than
for the more typical individual reader. In order to
enhance readability, in-text citations are given as
footnotes, and in the activities, the task sheets and
example sheets follow the instruction phase. In both
cases, I would have preferred a more integrated
approach, but other readers may like these
innovations.
So much for the content and organization of the
book. Howthen do the authors approach pragmatics
and what are their recommendations for teaching it?
In Part 1, the authors identify speech acts as the
pragmatic focus of the book. They consider various
ways of collecting and eliciting data in order to reveal
how speech acts are used, with a view to identifying
native-speaker norms in relation to which an
appropriate pedagogy can be determined. They reject
introspection and, with some reservations, followthe
well-trodden Discourse Completion Test (DCT) path
established by Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper
(1989) in which language users are asked to indicate
what they think they would say in a closely scripted
scenario. They also focus principally, although not
exclusively, on the two categories, requests and
apologies, investigated by Blum-Kulka et al. (1989).
Having argued, implicitly at least, for the primacy of
native-speaker pragmatic norms in Part 1, in Part 2,
the authors turn to the teaching of L2 pragmatics or
the appropriate use of speech acts in cross-cultural
encounters with native speakers of the target
language. They take the viewthat this ability depends
on the learners developing metapragmatic
awareness of the likely effects of the use of particular
formulas in particular contexts. They argue that such
declarative knowledge needs to be explicitly taught
and is essential in the development of procedural
skills, which would not be achieved through
a predominantly inductive approach. The chapters in
this part of the book discuss the role of noticing and
accommodation in SLA (Chapter 6); provide
descriptions of two extensive instruction projects
designed to raise learners pragmatic awareness
(Chapter 7); note the absence of authentic pragmatic
routines in coursebooks and provide
awareness-raising activities focusing on indirect
complaints, requests, conversational closings,
implicature, and gendered language (Chapter 8);
outline ways in which awareness of conversational
sequencing can be raised and show how corpora
can provide better evidence than elicited data
(Chapter 9); recommend keeping a teacher
journal and making and evaluating lesson plans
(Chapter 10); and argue for the importance of the
discussion of practice in pragmatic routines
(Chapter 11).
For my money, the best chapters are Chapter 7, which
will be found extremely useful by those who accept
the intrinsic methodology (of which more later), and
Chapter 9, which makes good points about corpora
that are likely to be especially useful for the teacher of
advanced learners, and ends with a good activity
suitable also for the individual reader. Chapter 8,
Adapting textbooks for teaching pragmatics, does
not actually do what it says on the tin, which is a pity
as this is an area in which many teachers would nd
advice helpful.
In Part 3, Chapter 12 deals with learner strategies,
Chapter 13 recommends the use of lms and
television series, audio-visual materials together with
transcripts and exercises, instructional software that
students can access individually, and
computer-mediated communication, while
Chapters 14 and 15 demonstrate assessment
techniques, which the authors argue are crucial to
successful instruction.
Underlying this book is the (to my mind,
controversial) belief that it is possible to establish
native-speaker norms, at least with respect to speech
acts, and that these (sometimes in my view, stilted)
models are best assimilated by learners when
approached metalinguistically in the explanatory
120 Reviews

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

tradition of academic style teaching. Implicit in the
authors approach is the view that their students are
learning someone elses pragmatics, L2 pragmatics
as they termit, andthat contexts are presumptive and
therefore determine the proper use of language. But
what of the contrary perspective, that language
learner language is also a context, and that native
speakers do not expect learners to create the contexts
that they create themselves for the very reasons that
learners are not members of the same culture? If we
take this view, we would be likely to regard learners
who do create native-like contexts as unusual, or
perhaps even abnormal.
With this thought in mind, the instruction sequences
in Chapter 7 now look like a reductive functional
syllabus approached from a metalinguistic
perspective. The authors describe this metalinguistic
knowledge of pragmatic norms (p. 24) as
metapragmatic (pp. 23/4 and ff.), as is usual in the
literature that deals with teaching pragmatics.
However, this termhas rarely been used elsewhere in
the pragmatics literature in this sense since
Verschuerens (2000) ground-breaking paper on
metapragmatic awareness, which specically
distinguishes this descriptive (and all too often,
prescriptive) use from the view of metapragmatic
phenomenaas anindexical dimensionof all language
use which guides the hearer in the recovery of
pragmatic meaning. Thus, the choice of the term
discussion rather than the more usual meeting to
describe a supervision session involving a lecturer
and a student is metapragmatic in the sense that it
guides the hearer in recovering a particular
interpretation of how the session went, and quite
possibly a different interpretation depending on
whether used by the supervisor or supervisee, hence
the indexical (i.e. context indexing) nature of
metapragmatic phenomena. This is not the sense in
which Ishihara and Cohen use the term, however: for
them, discussion would be a metapragmatic
naming term for a particular kind of speech event.
This leads me to the further point that pragmatics is
principally concerned with inferential meaning and
the ways in which metapragmatic phenomena point
us towards the inferences a speaker intends us to
draw in our search for an optimal meaning for the
forms usedinspoken and written communication. In
fact, in the huge galaxy of contemporary pragmatics,
(taxonomies of) speech acts are now a relatively
small area of interest. For this reason, the title
Teaching and Learning Pragmatics makes a claim
that the book does not to my mind deliver. I do not
intend to suggest by this that it will not be found
useful, particularly for teachers whose learners hope
to function as non-native members of other
cultures, although I suspect that there are
increasingly few such learners of English, which for
most non-native users today is regarded as
a lingua franca.
Finally, we come to the issue of the language teaching
methodology implicit in this book. In the following
ve summary statements, I try to list the salient
methodological stance of this book (with the
statements in parentheses after each statement
intended to put a contrary position):
1 Teaching and Learning Pragmatics accepts the
concept of intrinsic cultural difference in which
foreign language learners nd themselves at
cross-cultural variance with native speakers.
(English as a Lingua Franca learners need to
establish a common culture, at least for the
purpose of linguistic encounters with others,
which will therefore be intercultural.)
2 Contexts are presumptive and prescribe
appropriate linguistic routines.
(Contexts are made relevant or even perhaps
created by the way language is used, and are not
therefore predetermined.)
3 Appropriate linguistic routines are best
characterized as speech acts whose form is
revealed through DCTs which enable model
utterances to be determined.
(The vast majority of utterances are highly
context-sensitive and cannot be reduced to a set
of formulas. Trying to do this is tantamount to
endorsing the contradictory notion of a
decontextualized pragmatics.)
4 Model utterances can be presentedtolearners as
targets and discussed metalinguistically.
(Sucha product-orientedapproachoverlooks the
processes that speakers undertake in nding an
optimal form for a meaning and that hearers
undertake in nding an optimal meaning for a
form.)
5 Explicit metapragmatic awareness and
declarative knowledge are crucial to the
development of L2 pragmatic competence.
(Implicit metapragmatic awareness and
procedural skill are at the heart of all normal
language use.)
My conclusion is that this book uses native-speaker
pragmatic norms as a way of determining
a socioculturally inspired learn-in-order-to-use
Reviews 121

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

language teaching methodology. The alternative
wouldbe to see pragmatics, and especially inferential
and indexical meaning, informing a use-in-order-to-
learn methodology. This book therefore sits rmly
within what Canagarajah (2005: xxvii) terms a
hierarchical approach in which native norms are
regarded as the target. It will be welcomed by those
who subscribe to this view of pedagogy and are
looking for speech act models to put in front of
learners. As you can probably tell, Im a subscriber
to the leveled approach in which English is regarded
as a plural systemand in which a speakers identity is
revealed in their own distinct pragmatic and
metapragmatic choices.
References
Blum-Kulka, S., J. House, and G. Kasper (eds.). 1989.
Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Canagarajah, A. S. (ed.). 2005. Reclaiming the Local in
Language Policy and Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Verschueren, J. 2000. Notes on the role of
metapragmatic awareness in language use.
Pragmatics 10/4: 43956.
The reviewer
Peter Grundy is currently a Visiting Professor at the
University of Vienna and an Honorary Fellow in the
Language Centre at Durham University. His most
recent books are English through Art (Helbling 2010)
co-authored with Hania Bociek and Kevin Parker, and
The Pragmatics Reader (Routledge 2011) co-edited
with Dawn Archer. He is also the author of Doing
Pragmatics (third edition, Hodder 2008) and is
currently editing a pragmatics handbook. He is a past
President of I ATEFL and currently chairs the I ATEFL
Wider Membership Advisory Committee.
Email: grundypeter@btinternet.com
122 Reviews

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

The NNEST Lens: Non-native English Speakers in
TESOL
A. Mahboob (ed.)
Cambridge Scholars Publishing 2010, 349 pp., 44.99
isbn 978 1 4438 1910 7
In the Foreword to this edited volume, Jun Liu,
a well-known advocate of the NNEST (Non-native
English speakers in TESOL) cause, has this to say:
Credibility needs to be earned, whether you are
a native speaker or nonnative speaker of the
language (p. xi). I consider this remark important for
two reasons: it acknowledges (1) that NESTs (Native
English speakers in TESOL) and NNESTs are two
different species and (2) that birth into either group
accords no privileges for its members. The playing
eld is level. In theory, yes; in practice, well, not
always, as several authors in the volume point out.
I love the title, The NNEST Lens, because it urges me
torunfor the dictionary. Is/are lens singular or plural?
Can you say one len, two lens, three lenses? After all,
I ama NNEST whose language instinct (inEnglish) is
wont to lead me astray. No need for the dictionary
though since Dr Mahboob claims in one of the
opening sentences of Chapter 1: The NNEST lens is
a lens of multilingualism, multinationalism, and
multiculturalism through which NNESTs [. . .] take
diversity as a starting point, rather than as a result
(p. 1). Andthis is exactly the greatest virtue of the book:
while it offers enormous diversity interms of the topics
discussed and the approaches adopted, it remains
coherent by examining all facets of being a NNEST
through a single lens. The volume is varied and
convergent at the same time.
The 16 chapters were written by 21 authors, both
NESTs and NNESTs. The settings in which the
studies were carried out encompass two of the
three concentric circles, visualized by Kachru (1992),
the inner and expanding circles. While most of the
studies draw their data from a US background,
the expanding circle is also represented by Japan,
Thailand, Turkey, Taiwan, Indonesia, andBrazil. At the
same time, several authors originate from the outer
circle, including the editor himself.
In addition to providing a chapter-by-chapter
summary of the papers to follow, in the introductory
chapter, the editor makes no bones about his
allegiance to the NNEST cause when he criticizes the
native-speaker fallacy, the decit discourse, as well as
the ideological undercurrents of interlanguage and
fossilization theories. He stresses that although the
shift fromdependency onthe native-speaker model is
122 Reviews

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

not yet complete, today the emphasis is laid on the
NNESTs pedagogical skills and credentials rather
than ontheir ability to achieve native-like prociency
in the English language.
Of the six questions Mary Romney asks in Chapter 2,
the second seems to be the most provocative one:
Is there a contrast between the perception and the
reality of the English language? (p. 18). And her
answer is a resounding yes: linguistic proling is
paramount. Despite the fact that the majority of
English speakers the world over are people of colour,
English is still regarded as the language of white
native speakers. To quote her oxymoron, people
prefer listening with their eyes (p. 26).
Albeit Chapter 3 is not directly linked to TESOL,
Noriko Ishihara touches upon a salient issue, that of
the pragmatics of non-native speakers English
language use. She asserts that they carry their own
bilingual identities into any kind of discourse, which
is loaded with their complex and sometimes
conicting values, beliefs, morals, and worldviews
(p. 37). Thisbeingthecase, non-natives areill-advised
to conform to monocultural native-speaker norms.
Nor are they expected to produce such mimicry; in
fact, sociopragmatic perfection may lead to
bewilderment rather than appreciation on the part of
native speakers.
Ross Forman in Chapter 4 argues for the judicious
use of L1 in the classroom, emphasizing that L2
learners should be regarded as bilingual plus
instead of the long-held view that they are
monolingual minus. In agreement with Cook
(1999), he points out that despite the teachers best
effortstosticktoL2inclass, L1 will beinvariably present
in the learners minds. If so, why not make the best of
this resource, instead of excommunicating it from
classroomdiscourseat theurgeof monolingual bigots?
Based on lesson observation and follow-up teacher
interviews at a Thai university, he then puts forward
a list of well-established principles in support of L1 use.
Alsoset inThailand, Chapter 5 runs withthe innocent-
looking title: Does a good language teacher have to
be a native speaker?. After drawing attention to the
ambiguities residing in the culturally loaded term of
the good teacher, Barbara Mullock presents a study
that involves a large sample of undergraduate
students. The results showthat only a tiny percentage
of therespondents expressa preferencefor NESTs on
thebasis of their nativecompetence. Whereas NESTs
are endowed with a higher degree of procedural
knowledge (that is, they are more procient users of
English), runs the authors argument, NNESTs are
stronger in the area of declarative knowledge (that is,
they are able to provide clearer explanations of
grammar or vocabulary).
After a paper written by Sibel Tatar and Senem Yildiz
(Chapter 6), which highlights the urgent need to
improve NNESTs English language prociency in
Turkey, Ekaterina Nemtchinova (Chapter 7) revisits
the Whos worth more? question originally
formulated by Medgyes (1992). Focusing on the
opinion of mentor teachers, she examines the
performance of NEST versus NNEST trainees during
their classroom practicum. Out of the seven
categories set up to measure teaching efcacy, the
author nds statistically signicant differences
between the two groups in only one dimension, that
of cultural awareness: NNEST trainees provetobefar
more capable of handling the cultural complexities of
an ESL class in the United States than their native
English-speaker peers.
In Chapter 8, Caroline Lipovsky and Ahmar Mahboob
undertook the daunting task of analysing their
student respondents essays in search of their
preferences for either NESTs or NNESTs. Two
quibbles in this regard. Firstly, some of the essays are
so poorly written as to become virtually unintelligible.
Secondly, in their zeal to justify the benets of
appraisal analysis over thematic analysis, the
authors forget to respond to the two research
questions that they had raised at the beginning of
their paper.
Chapter 9 was a pleasure to read for the wealth of
ideas and recommendations about how prospective
teachers might be able to get rid of their monolingual
bias through strategy training. Led by the conviction
that NNESTs frequently fall victim to unequal
treatment in the United States and elsewhere, Leslie
Barratt warns that unless training programmes
include awareness raising, discourse inclusion,
equity management, and professional
development for their students, their future
teachers will be condemned to the status quo or to
a changing world they are not prepared for. (p. 198)
If the preceding chapter was lauded for its pragmatic
approach, the authors of Chapter 10, Ana Wu, John
Liang, and Tunde Csepelyi, deserve even more credit.
On the one hand, they advise NNEST trainees to set
attainable linguistic goals for themselves, instead of
the mirage of achieving native-like prociency in
English. On the other hand, the authors remind
training institutions in the United States that the
educational traditions awaiting novice teachers upon
return to their home country are often in sharp
conict with mainstream US pedagogical models.
Although the intended users of the strategies
Reviews 123

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

presented inthis paper are NNESTs, I wouldstrongly
recommend it for NESTs as well.
The next chapter, co-authored by Ekaterina
Nemtchinova, Ahmar Mahboob, Zohreh Eslami, and
Seran Dogancay-Aktuna, draws attention to the
importance of creating opportunities for NNEST
trainees to improve their language skills during
training programmes, including the development of
their pragmatic and sociolinguistic competence. No
less heed should be paid to expanding the
prospective teachers metalinguistic repertoire, that
is, the language resources to help themmanage their
classes in English.
The authors of Chapter 12, Rebecca L. Oxford and
Rashi Jain, present anMA/PhDTESOL course whose
purpose was to persuade the participants to critically
review their prejudices concerning the World
Englishes and the NEST/NNEST debate. The
excerpts quoted from the journal entries and course
assignments produced by the trainees give a subtle
and, onoccasion, emotionally chargedpicture of their
awakening process.
Thenext twochapters offer practical ideas about ways
of beneting fromthe availability of NEST colleagues
in the staff. The impetus for the study conducted by
Wen-Hsing Luo (Chapter 13) comes from a major
initiative launched by the Taiwanese authorities to
import qualied NESTs with the aimof alleviating the
shortage of English teachers in primary education.
During her research, Luo was sad to realize that,
instead of shared responsibility, it largely fell upon
NESTs to do the teaching while NNESTs merely
acted as monitors or assistants. To remedy the
situation, the author lays down a few basic principles
to produce a more expedient and equitable form of
collaboration between native and non-native
colleagues.
In her highly illuminating paper (Chapter 14), Jan
Edwards Dormer extends the focus to collaboration
beyond the classroom door. Drawing on data
collected from Brazil and Indonesia, respectively, the
author offers ways in which ongoing interaction
between the partners may help improve their
teaching and language skills (in the latter case, they
take turns teaching each others mother tongue) for
mutual benet. Dormer argues that our egg-carton
profession (Lortie 1975), in which isolation and zero
interaction are the norm, should be turned into
knowledge communities (Clandinin and Connelly
1995), in which theory becomes practice through
dialogue and reection (p. 296).
The book might as well have ended on this happy
note, if the editor had not attached two more
chapters to the volume, both written by specialists in
corpus linguistics. In spite of the efforts expended by
authors Dilin Liu and Monika Bednarek, respectively,
to produce some kind of introduction to the eld,
both papers appear to be irrelevant add-ons.
Aneditedvolume inwhich all the chapters are equally
fascinating and indispensable is yet to be published.
Dr Mahboob might also have been a bit more
rigorous in weeding out typographical errors, big and
small. The reviewer would have welcomed an index
too! Nevertheless, thanks to the editors thorough
familiarity with the literature on the NEST/NNEST
debate and his choice of eminent researchers,
a quality item has been added to the ever-growing
collection of books and papers on the topic.
References
Clandinin, D. J. and M. Connelly. 1995. Teachers
Professional Knowledge Landscapes. New York, NY:
Teachers College, Columbia University.
Cook, V. 1999. Going beyond the native speaker in
language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 33/2: 185209.
Kachru, B. B. 1992. World Englishes: approaches,
issues, and resources. Language Teaching 25/1: 114.
Lortie, D. 1975. Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Medgyes, P. 1992. Native or non-native: whos worth
more?. ELT Journal 46/4: 3409.
The reviewer
Peter Medgyes is Professor of Applied Linguistics at
the Eo tvo s LorandUniversity of Budapest. Previously,
he was a schoolteacher, teacher trainer, Vice Rector
of his university, Deputy State Secretary at the
Hungarian Ministry of Education, and the
Ambassador of Hungary in Damascus. Professor
Medgyes is the author of numerous articles and
books, including The Non-native Teacher (Macmillan
1994, winner of the Duke of Edinburgh Book
Competition), Changing Perspectives in Teacher
Education (co-edited with A. Malderez, Heinemann
1996), The Language Teacher (Corvina1997), Laughing
Matters (Cambridge University Press 2002), and The
Golden Age of Foreign Language Education in Hungary:
19892009 (National Textbook Publishing Company
2011).
Email: petermedgyes@yahoo.com
doi:101093/elt/ccr083
124 Reviews

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

The Construction of English: Culture, Consumerism
and Promotion in the ELT Global Coursebook
J. Gray
Palgrave Macmillan 2010, 218 pp., 20.00
isbn 978 0 230 22258 8
The place of coursebooks in English language
classrooms is a topic that has never been far fromthe
forefront of controversy within ELT (in particular
since the Allwright (1981)/ONeill (1982) exchange in
this Journal), and it remains a vibrant topic of debate
both within magazines and journals and on blogs.
The rationale, content, and application of
coursebooks are contested vigorously and, in the
main, healthily; for example, Harmers (2010)
posting about Dogme inELT attracted 213 comments
over the course of a month (many, of course, fromthe
same people), essentially debating the issue of
coursebooks.
The book under review has as its subject the ELT
global coursebookcoursebooks produced by (UK)
publishing houses and marketed, sold, and used in
various places around the worldand represents
another step on what has been an extended ongoing
journey for the author (see, for example, Gray 2000,
2002). In the authors words, the global coursebook
is anartefact whichis predicatedonthe questionable
assumption that one size ts allregardless of the
social, geographical and educational context of use
(p. 3), and he sets out his stall similarly early: it is to
question the viability of such artefacts. His aim is
threefold (p. 19): to describe the cultural content of
various ELT coursebooks producedover thelast 40or
so years; to explain the form this content takes; and
to discover what some practising teachers think
about it in a world where global international English
is increasingly the target of learning.
The book opens with an introduction (Chapter 1)
which lays out the essential premises of the book and
also includes three snapshots illustrating moments
in the authors life when the nature of the role of
coursebooks in ELT became (yet more) apparent to
him: this is a welcome personal touch which may
resonate with many readers and indicates the strong
personal voice that comes through in many of the
later pages (a positive for this reader, who found the
anecdote concerning self-editing to ring very true).
Gray also explores the area of globalization and
suggests that language is far from immune to its
inuence and that of neoliberalism.
Chapter 2 (Culture and English language teaching)
is a closely argued, though occasionally rather dense,
exposition of the notion of culture based upon which,
later in the book, ELT coursebooks will be analysed.
Gray espouses (p. 26) a view of culture as
a battleeld in which the meanings which are
constructed on the pages of the coursebook are not
unproblematically transferred to the mind of the
reader. (In this, he is somewhat aligned with the
views of writers such as Thornbury and Meddings
(2001: 12), who refer to coursebook texts in a similar
tone: More insidiously, they have subtextsthe
dissemination of cultural and educational values that
may have little to do with the needs of the learner of
English as an International Language.) This is, Gray
states, the view of culture which lies at the heart of
this study (ibid.) and which he sees as quite different
fromother, earlier, perspectivesonculture withinELT.
Gray draws heavily on the work of Kramsch and
Byramand is highly and rightly critical of the position
of essentialism wherein groups of people, indeed
whole nationalities, are seen as being basically the
same and reducible to a few generalized
characteristics.
Chapter 3 is concerned with the description and
analysis of coursebooks, and Gray puts forward
a descriptive framework within which elements of
content (grammar, lexis, phonology, and various
texts) are considered fromthe point of viewof a set of
representational repertoires: thus, for example,
grammar is tobe consideredfroma number of points
of view, includingwhether or not a distinctionis made
between spoken and written forms and whether there
are any representations of L2 varieties. All the
repertoires are based within the area of culture
discussed in the previous chapter, which the author
then wants to look at from a historical perspective in
the chapters that follow.
Chapters 4 and 5 take the representational
repertoires established earlier and use them to look
at the intermediate levels of four coursebook series
published between 1979 and 2003, namely,
n
Streamline Connections (Hartley and Viney)
n
Building Strategies (Abbs and Freebairn)
n
The New Cambridge English Course 2 (Swan and
Walter)
n
New Headway (Soars and Soars).
In particular, the use of photographs and line
drawings, and attitudes with regard to the way in
which women are depicted, together with variations
in these areas over the period in which the
coursebooks were published, are explored. Other
areas considered are the place of minorities, the
range of accents includedandthe social/professional
roles to which they are linked and questions of
Reviews 125

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

identity; in a telling phrase, Gray makes a statement
about one of the coursebooks which could well refer
to many others:
What is overwhelmingly highlighted[here] is the. . .
unbridled individualism of those who are
motivated by choice and the quest for sensation
and success and the identity of the student as
consumer. What is overwhelmingly neglected is
the range of other afliations students might be
expected to have or to identify with. (p. 107)
This clearly has connections toa point made earlier in
the book concerning the growth over the last two
decades of celebrity celebration within ELT materials,
wherein famous people (famous at least in the
Western world) such as sportsmen and women,
Hollywood names, talent-show winners, and even IT
magnates, appear with clunking regularity. This,
though, is a tendency which I believe is now
beginning to recede: Global English (Clandeld,
Pickering, McAvoy, Robb Benne, Jeffries, Campbell,
Watkins, Moore, and Coxall 2009), for example,
makes its lack of reference to celebrity culture one of
its major selling points.
Chapter 6 is entitled Production and regulation of
content and considers how publishing houses may
endeavour to ensure that what gets written is
commercially viable in a worldwide context. Gray
analyses various publisher-produced guidelines for
authors and reports interviews held with editors and
publishing managers. For him, the desire to make
coursebooks as sellable as possible in as many
markets as possible results in the commodication
of content, in terms of language as well as content
and methodology, whereby publishers put out
materials inwhich[everyone is] assumedtowant and
need exactly the same thing (p. 138). The author
argues here that it is product regulationthat results in
the promotion of certain identities and lifestyles. It
also results in a certain tidiness with respect to
language; coursebooks tend to put forward a version
of English which does not reect the many variations
within both L1 and L2 communities and (a point I
would like to have seen taken further) variations
between spoken and written genres.
Gray goes oninChapter 7 (Consumptionof content)
to investigate whether or not teachers subscribe to
suchviews. This chapter reports a series of interviews
held with 20 or so teachers of differing ages,
nationality, and experience (although all have at least
ve years in the classroom), all based at the time in
the Barcelona area. The respondents were
encouraged to express their views on the extent to
which they feel their work does, or should, include
aspects of culture and also on four pieces of material
(two pieces put forward by Gray and two of their own
selection). The resulting discussionis interesting: the
teachers had a wide range of opinions both on the
coursebook material and on their own role as
deliverers of material and on the growing awareness
of their learners with regard to English as an
international language. That said, it is difcult not to
feel that the teachers consulted represent a not only
very small but also highly selective section of the
community of teachers whouse coursebooks. I heard
the voices of teachers whomight well, for example, be
prepared to handle untidy English with among other
things its ellipsis and wide range of accents, but as
editors and authors know, there are very many
teachers around the world who would be made very
uncomfortable by such things in their teaching
material. In this area, at least, I see a tension which is
not really explored here: including a far wider range of
language that would be valuable and would
contribute to the experience of learners, but equally
its presence might unnerve teachers and/or lead
some teachers and institutions not to adopt the
material at all, in which case the objective is not
achieved.
In the eighth and nal chapter, Future directions,
Gray offers his views on how teacher education
might be encouraged to include a more strongly
cultural perspective; how the growth of English as
an International Language ought to impinge on the
language offered in coursebook material; and what
the future of global coursebooks might be. Quite
rightly, in my view, he stresses the need for more
research into how learners (rather than teachers)
view the materials they use in classrooms, difcult
though such research would be. He also
acknowledges the important distinction between
analysing materials and analysing materials-in-
action and the need for further research into the
latter.
I found this book to be very stimulating, if perhaps
somewhat skewed towards a negative view of the
global coursebook. Many, if not most, of the
criticisms levelled at global coursebooks would be
difcult to refute, and as such, the book makes
illuminating reading for authors, potential authors,
editors, and perhaps teachers on MA courses. The
discussions of the place and potential impact of
visuals within coursebook materials are of particular
interest.
However, there were disappointing aspects too.
Firstly, while accepting that it is nigh impossible to be
completely up to date, I found that the decision to
take a historical perspective on the cultural and
126 Reviews

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

presentational content of coursebooks meant that
more recent developments (for example the
increasedemphasis onELF and accent variety shown
in, for example, Clandeld et al.s Global English or
English Unlimited of Clementson, Doff, Goldstein,
Hendra, Rea, and Tilbury (2010) ) were neglected: for
all its unfortunate inuence, the Headway series (the
most recent considered) is in my view no longer very
representative of the range of coursebook materials
for adults. Things are changing, and at least partly
due to the existence of studies such as this one and
earlier articles by its author, as Clandeld
acknowledges on Scott Thornburys blog N is for
neoliberalism (Thornbury 2010). Secondly, the
author decided to base the study on coursebooks for
adults rather than coursebooks for the secondary
teenage market, where, for this reviewer at least, any
questions about the promotion of consumerism or
aspirational content in an educational context would
be of much greater concern. And lastly, as mentioned
above, there is insufcient evidence from learners
about any impact that coursebooks may or may not
have on them. Teachers, after all, are the ones with
expectations concerning teaching materials and are
the ones who spend extended periods of time with
them. Learner contact is more transient. Teachers
might see coursebook material as an integral part of
their professional lives and therefore of great
importance. Learners might see coursebook material
assomethingthey comeintocontact withfor a couple
of hours a week, for a fewmonths, andof more or less
interest. One wonders whether extended research
into the views of learners, especially teenagers, as to
how inuential coursebook material is on their lives
and their (developing) view of the world might
disappoint both the proponents and the critics of
global ELT coursebooks.
References
Allwright, R. L. 1981. What do we want teaching
materials for?. ELT Journal 36/1: 518.
Clandeld, L., K. Pickering, J. McAvoy, R. Robb Benne,
A. Jeffries, R. Campbell, F. Watkins, J. Moore,
and J. Coxall. 2009. Global English. Oxford:
Macmillan.
Clementson, T., A. Doff, B. Goldstein, L. A. Hendra,
D. Rea, and A. Tilbury. 2010. English Unlimited.
Gray, J. 2000. The ELT coursebook as cultural
artefact: howteachers censor and adapt. ELT Journal
54/3: 27483.
Gray, J. 2002. The global coursebook in English
language teaching in D. Block and D. Cameron
(eds.). Globalization and Language Teaching. London:
Routledge.
Harmer, J. 2010. No dogma for EFLaway from a
pedagogy of essential bareness. Available at http://
jeremyharmer.wordpress.com/2010/10/10/no-
dogma-for-e-away-from-a-pedagogy-of-essential-
bareness/ (accessed on 20 March 2011).
ONeill, R. 1982. Why use textbooks?. ELT Journal
36/2: 10411.
Thornbury, S. 2010. Nis for neoliberalism. Available
at http://scottthornbury.wordpress.com/2010/12/
(accessed on 30 March 2011).
Thornbury, S. and L. Meddings. 2001. Coursebooks:
the roaring in the chimney. Modern English Teacher
10/3: 1113.
The reviewer
Jeff Stranks is a freelance teacher trainer and
materials writer based in Brazil. He was formerly
Senior Tutor inELT at Bell College SaffronWaldenand
Director of DOTE (Diploma for Overseas Teachers of
English) and DELTA (Diploma in English Language
Teaching to Adults) courses at Cultura Inglesa Rio de
Janeiro. He is co-author, principally with Herbert
Puchta, of a number of coursebooks, both for
teenagers and for adults and both for global and for
local markets.
Email: jstranks@uol.com.br
Reviews 127

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

I ATEFL 2010 Harrogate Conference Selections
T. Pattison (ed.)
I ATEFL 2011, 240 pp., free to members, 12.00 from
https://secure.iate.org/onl/shop.php
isbn 978 1901095 33 3
Attending conferences has never been easier: from
home, live internet access to key talks and presenter
interviews are often available; get involved in those
interviews through twitter or online chat, and you are
virtually there! Perhaps easier still is the opportunity
to read, at leisure, a selection of presentations and
plenary sessions. This also enables you to walk in
andout of any talk youplease, dipping intothose you
nd immediately appealing or staying in a session
you did not expect to be gripped by! Such is my
experience with the I ATEFL 2010 Harrogate
Conference Selections, based on the 44th conference.
Tania Pattisons welcoming editorial introduction
puts the volume in context (ve days of
presentations, symposiums, Special Interest Group
(SIG) programmes, posters, debates, etc.), and is
followed by three perspectives on the conference as
a whole, which also point out what readers missed:
write-ups not included (for example Scott Thornbury,
Dave Willis), the pecha kucha night, and Harrogate
spas, which no publication can provide! The
contributions are grouped into 11 topic areas.
Ema Ushiodas plenary paper opens Section 2 on
The learner, forefronting the innate role of natural
interactions for motivation. Subsequent papers
range from the study of a Chinese student in the
United Kingdom (Stuart Perrin 2.2) to a more
scientic analysis of learner autonomy (Fumiko
Murase and David Hall 2.4) and the discussion of
hybrid identities for learners in the United Kingdom
(Mikio Iguchi 2.3). Feeding directly into the
classroom are ready-made activities involving
movement (Juliet du Mont 2.7). A nal symposium
paper discusses the good language learner and
reminds us to identify and understand individual
learners, like snowakeseach having a unique
shape and structure (Kerstin Dofs and Moira Hobbs
2.6: 34).
Tessa Woodwards plenary, under Teacher training,
Section 3, described models of professional life
cycles. Her engaging style probably reects an
enjoyable and informative talk. The subsequent nine
papers are by representatives from the United
Kingdom, Germany, India, Turkey, and Sri Lanka and
include scholarship winner Padmini Bhuyan
(Boruah) (3.3), whose paper anticipates later ones on
global education and critical thinking (Section 6,
Reading). While storytelling has its own section,
Briony Beavens paper on teacher-training stories is
appropriately included here (3.6). The nal three
papers in this section describe large-scale teacher-
training projects: Suzanne Mordue (3.8) involving
teachers in the Black Sea area on Moodle, Seamus
Harkin and Wasantha Yapa on teacher journals in
Sri Lanka (3.9), and Alan S. MacKenzie in India
(3.10) on a framework for monitoring large-scale
projects.
In Section 4, The global educator, focus is on
expatriate teacher communities (SusanBarduhn4.1),
strategies for addressing political issues in class
(Danny Whitehead4.3), andthe unusual Bus project
in South Korea. The paper summarizing the Hornby
Scholars presentation(4.5) draws ina geographically
wide spread of teachers. Other papers here address
cultural issues in coursebooks (Prem Bahadur Phyak
4.6), as well as the relevance of coursebook selection
criteria (Shu-er Huang 4.10), leading to the
symposium paper on materials writing (4.11).
The fth section, Grammar, vocabulary andspelling,
goes for the jugular, with papers demonstrating the
importance for teachers of understanding tense
versus aspect, as well as epistemic meaning (Peter
Grundy 5.1). Accuracy versus uency is brought
up-to-date in Martin Parrotts paper (5.3), which
challenges TEFLspeak within the context of everyday
language. Focusing on lexis, subsequent papers look
at ways of learning vocabulary (5.4, 5.5) and contrast
with two lighter papers on acronyms (Mark Bartram
5.6) and the Spelling gym, for example, in Johanna
Stirlings talk (5.8).
Sections 6 and 7 relate to skills work: reading, and
speaking and writing. Not surprisingly, the rst looks
more at the bigger picture of ways of approaching
texts. Peter Watkins paper (6.1) is key in this aspect
and is followed by papers that discuss ways of getting
students to interact with texts and develop critical
thinking skills (6.3, 6.4), as well as how to motivate
students (Hiroki Uchida 6.5). In-class tasks are also
represented, by, for example, the nicely personalized
idea Philip Prowse includes, with convincing
rationale, for the often frowned-upon reading aloud
activity (6.6). By contrast, Section 7 focuses in more
specically on subskills: Robert Wilkinsons paper
compares gestures used in L1 and L2 presentations
(7.3), while Edward de Chazal (7.5) challenges what is
understood by cohesiveness in text. For those
wishing to broaden their students writing horizons,
Kuangyun Tings paper on using blogs for teaching
writing (7.9) stages an approach for developing
students online public condence.
128 Reviews

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

From skills, we move to more specialist areas of
teaching, with papers covering aspects of ESP,
Business English (BE), and teaching younger
learners. Some of the topics covered could equally
well apply toother areas of teaching but are grounded
here through research and project work in the
presenters specic elds of work. In the ESP/BE
section, issues discussed include multiple
intelligences in engineering (8.3) and English as
a Lingua Franca in Prague (8.4) and Botswana (8.6).
On home ground, Barbara Skinner (8.1) describes
ways of helping international students integrate into
university life inBritain. In terms of encapsulating the
current range of issues faced when teaching learners
from 5 to 18 years of age, there is discussion of
bilingual teaching and plurilingual competencies
(9.6 and 9.4, respectively) and a summary of the
ELTJ /I ATEFL Debate (9.2) this year on the feasibility
of CLI L, renamed Content and Languagean
ILlusion?. Two further papers I found particularly
interesting were the Question-Answer-Relationship
(QAR) method for developing reading skills (Sanja
Wagner 9.7) and Maureen Rajuans case on raising
cultural awareness and positive attitudes across the
JewishArab divide (9.9).
The lengthier Section 10, Teaching with technology,
highlights not only the what but also the how of
some current teaching contexts (Nicky Hockly 10.1).
Josena C. Santanas paper (10.6) illustrates why
two-language Skype communication between
students in Guadalajara, Mexico and the United
States promoted considerably more engagement
than encouraging the Mexicans to use technology for
learning vocabulary or developing a podcast, again
proving the need for real communication. Such
a section would obviously be incomplete without
focus on Twitter (Graham Stanley 10.9) and Virtual
Learning Environments (Joe Pereira 10.8); other
papers lend support for how to set up e-learning
environments (Richard Pinner 10.3; Kalyan
Chattopadhyay 10.4).
In Testing, feedback and evaluation, Dawn Rogier
(11.2) highlights teachers lack of skills in assessment
and advocates what needs working on to integrate
assessment into course delivery. Melanie Shaul (11.3)
discusses testing that draws both on classroomwork
and students cultural backgrounds for more
efcient, improved results. Subsequent papers detail
assessing speaking and dealing with errors, and Tilly
Harrison (11.9) evaluates online peer reviewing. The
symposium paper (11.7) on responding to students
writing looks at four action research studies, one of
particular interest on using audio les, an issue taken
up by Jane Nolan and Elizabeth Poynter (11.8).
Finally, Section 12, Stories for all ages, opens with
a symposiumpaper onusing narratives inELT. As the
index illustrates, stories pervade language teaching,
but specically here the reader nds both classroom
approaches with stories, such as Hitomi Masuharas
EEEE: Engage, Express, Enjoy, andbe Empowered, as
well as ways of incorporatingstories intothe syllabus,
involving learners stories, and indeedusing the class
itself as a story (Alan Maley, Symposium paper 12.1).
Subsequent papers lookat usingvisuals withyounger
learners (Symposium paper 12.2; Hege Emma
Rimmereide 12.3), students collaborating on story
projects (Sharon Ahlquist 12.4), and using literature
for developing sociocultural competency (Jennifer
Schumm Fauster 12.5).
A wholly professional publication, the range of
topics covered in this volume accurately reects
the wide variety of our teaching contexts. Overtly
academic papers are balanced by many practical
sessions. The Contents pages show at a glance
what the reader can expect, and the
comprehensive indices of both author and topic
further facilitate this. The title of each paper, its
introduction, andin most casesa clear
conclusion, enable efcient reading. This could be
down to the guidelines Tania Pattison provides
online (Pattison 2011), especially her RI CH
acronym (relevant, interesting, coherent, and a hot
topic). Email addresses are given, and some online
links. Each paper is referenced, although
a bibliography straddling three pages seems
excessive (2.1), and could have excluded another
paper. The topic index includes most cross-
references, but not all. Could perhaps a tag or label
system, common to blogs, be used in future to
enhance referencing?
Withthe poster presentations, I was disappointednot
knowing in advance what to expect when reading
these summaries. Some are, in effect, research
papers (5.5, 6.2) and lack much sense of reader
interaction. Maybe illustrations of posters wouldhelp
here.
Sent to nearly 4,000 I ATEFL members globally,
Harrogate Conference Selections will have a wide
audience. For some, seeing their name inprint for the
rst time is a signicant milestone; others may look
for the talks they missed; those further aeld could
usefully use one or more sections for in-service
teacher development discussions. However, not
merely a snapshot of the breadth of issues currently
under discussion, Harrogate Conference Selections
undoubtedly illustrates the treasures such
a conference affords, and as such, is an enormous
credit to the industry.
Reviews 129

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Reference
Pattison, T. 2011. Howto Write Successfully for I ATEFL
Conference Selections. Available at http://
iate.britishcouncil.org/2011/sessions/2011-04-19/
how-write-successfully-iate-conference-selections
(accessed on 11 September 2011).
The reviewer
Rachel Appleby works at ELTE University in
Budapest, Hungary, teaching methodology,
language, cultural studies, andcommunicationskills.
She is also a freelance Business English teacher/
teacher trainer. She is a CELTA trainer and writes
Business Englishteachingmaterials. She is co-author
of International Express Upper Intermediate (third
edition, in press) and the Business one:one series
(advanced, intermediate+, pre-intermediate), all
Oxford University Press. She is also co-author of The
Business Advanced (Macmillan). Rachel has anMSc in
TEFL from Aston University and has also taught
English in the UK, Spain, Portugal, and Slovakia for
International House and the British Council.
Email: rachelappleby@mail.datanet.hu
130 Reviews

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Shakespeare on Toast
B. Crystal
Icon Books 2008, 263 pp., 7.99
isbn 978 184 83 105 44
Shakespeare on Toast sits happily with other popular
readings based on the bard, namely, Brysons (2007)
Shakespeare and Dromgooles (2007) Will & Me.
Whereas Dromgoole playfully recounts the role
Shakespeares drama had on his life and
understanding of the world, Crystal intends to show
his readers how to make Shakespeare their own. He
gives them the linguistic tools for decoding the
dramatists meaning making methods, constantly
asserting that we must see the plays as dramatic
speech. They should be watched not read. Thus
Crystal helps us to appreciate Shakespearean drama
in three main ways: as language in action, as
stagecraft, and thirdly as a window into the
entertainment industry of London in the reigns of
Elizabeth 1 and James 1. His book introduces readers
to Shakespeares language and playwriting
techniques, fromBen Crystals own perspective as an
actor.
Crystal outlines the historical background underlying
the original composition process of the play scripts.
He discusses Shakespeares drama within the
context in which he wrote, directed, and acted in his
own plays. Written in a colloquial style, this book
demysties Shakespeare as an icon of high culture.
Shakespeare on Toast can be dipped in and out of in
various contexts, from the interval of a play to an
open-air tourist bus. Or an English teacher could
consult it to nd ways of linking Shakespeare to our
contemporary brand of popular culture (see Taylor
1999). There are examples of lexical false friends
(pp. 968) and original Shakespearean
pronunciation (p. 79): gurative expressions (p. 31)
that thebardrst coinedandwhichhavenowbecome
part of the currency of everyday English.
The book is organized into ve separate chapters or
acts. Each act has a different number of scenes, for
example, Act 1, Scene 7 is entitled A soap opera set.
The contents page contains the titles for the ve acts,
but it would have been helpful if the titles of scenes
had also been listed. There are also fact le boxes
within each of the ve acts, but again a labelled list of
all gures or diagrams would have been welcome.
There is no bibliography and no footnotes. Pages
2545 recommend nine books and two websites,
including the online edition of the rst
comprehensive collection of all Shakespeares plays,
The First Folio (1623). Alist of all theprintedandmedia
130 Reviews

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

sources that Crystal used to compile the book would
be useful, especially since his references to movies
(Star Trek, Dr Who 2007, Shakespeare in Love) whet our
appetite to reconsider these appropriations in the
light of how Shakespeares plays are reconceived by
contemporary audiences own cultural predilections.
In this regard, Crystals examples of intertextual lms,
hip hop songs, and soap operas support Hawkes
(1992) aphorism: its not what Shakespeare means
but what we mean by Shakespeare.
The book assumes a youngadult readershiprelatively
unfamiliar with Shakespearean dramas universal
concepts: love, loss, betrayal, death, regeneration,
and the making and breaking of public and personal
power. It focuses on Shakespeares dramatic
techniques inextracts fromthree plays: Macbeth, King
Lear, and Titus Andronicus. Sample speeches and
scenes are used to illustrate principles of iambic
pentameter, code-switching, andpunctuationchanges
that have been imposed on the dramatic scripts by
editors of modern day editions, for example Penguin.
Crystal explains how the syntactic, visual, and
auditory elements of Shakespeares language all
cohere to create dramatic speech. We need to make
inferences about the arrangement of images, sound
patterns, and the juxtaposition of owing and broken
lines. Since theatre celebrates language as action,
Shakespeares original actors were directed by the
cues incorporated into his written speech. An actor
knows when to look surprised, how to use his hands
or his eyes if he decodes the verbal allusions to parts
of the body or the metaphors that Shakespeare
embedded in the lines. According to Crystal, sudden
changes in metre, syntax, and modes of address are
the methods Shakespeare used to convey turning
points in characters attitudes, relationships, and
moods.
Crystal provides reasons for Shakespeares use of
code-switching within dialogues and scenes; he
explores why certain characters switch from
addressing each other using the more intimate thou
form to using you, as in the case of the Macbeth
couples dialogue, immediately after husband and
wife have murdered King Duncan together.
Furthermore, the author explains how King Lear and
Macbeth conate verse and prose. He draws on very
well-chosen citations to examine why Shakespeare
made characters switch from expressing themselves
in prose to verse, in the middle of a dialogue, as in
a scene from King Lear where Kent, who is disguised
as a vagrant, mocks the intellectual paucity of his
interviewer, the Duke of Cornwall (pp. 889) by
switching from prose to verse.
Four out of the approximately 39 plays were
completely written in verse. Shakespeares fusion of
poetry and prose in King Lear and Macbeth indicates
his mature experimentation with traditional dramatic
genres and classical playwriting conventions.
Interestingly, Crystal comments (p. 81) that people in
Shakespeares England were not really differentiated
by accents. Being able to think and communicate in
verse was the benchmark of intellectual prowess and
educational status. In his view, Shakespeare may
have used different registers and verse to indicate
social distinctions between characters, particularly
for ironic effect, when they have tried to conceal this
information from other characters by disguising
themselves. Revealing key ways in which
Shakespeares language works on stage, Crystal
reminds us that if we take away the poetry, we are just
left with the story (p. 86). We not only lose some of
the imaginative magic, we lose ironic possibilities
and interpretive freedom.
Shakespeare wrote in early modern English; so
Crystal afrms that his range of vocabulary is not
necessarily a stumbling block for our contemporary
comprehension. In fact, he asserts (p. 86) that only
about ve per cent of the lexis is obsolete today.
Rather, the difcultly lies more in our understanding
of the plays as texts of their time and in translating all
their allusions to stories, politics, and current topics
that Shakespeares rst audiences would have
relished (see Bullough 1957; Danson 2000; Egan
2007). His plays were at the centre of a state-
controlled communications or media system. In
Shakespeares lifetime (15641616), England was
governed by the absolute religious monarchies of
Queen Elizabeth I and then the Scottish successor to
the crown, James 1 (Gurr 2004). Consequently,
Crystal regularly gives us props or some background
knowledge to help us understand how some of the
bards theatrical productions, particularly Macbeth
(1606), were rst presented to King James 1 as larger
metaphors of social instability and religious conicts
in early seventeenth century England. Thus, the
historical informationenables Crystals readers tosee
Shakespeares plays from the point of view of the
audiences for whomthey were rst written and within
the subversive political subtext of the playwrights
day.
One of the strongest sections of the book is where
Crystal deconstructs the metrical system in samples
of Shakespeares poetry and plays. We are led to see
how Shakespeare exploited the communicative
possibilities of iambic pentameter. This metrical
system of ve alternating unstressed and stressed
sounds inthe same line (for example Shall I compare
Reviews 131

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

thee to a summers day?) complements English as
a stress-timed language. The metre is the most
authentic form of punctuation that we nd in
Shakespearean drama. He further discusses how
Shakespeares metrical system functioned as
a form of stage instructions for actors such as
John Heminges and Henry Condell, who
later edited the 1623 posthumous edition of 36
plays.
Shakespeares creative exploitation of iambic
pentameter is testimony to his mastery of the
rhythms of natural English speech. This sound
system echoes the cadences of English as a stress-
timed language. In sooth, or like a linguistic sleuth,
Crystal teaches us how to read the lines with our ears
and voices. Moreover, his way of decoding the metre
is transferable to all of Shakespeares other plays and
poems. Much of the joy of this book is that its author
explains key technical details about the language and
craftsmanship of Shakespeare in a very transparent
and fun way.
Similarly, Crystal alludes to the murder scene of King
Duncan in Macbeth to show how Shakespeare
adapted classical rhetorical techniques, such as
stichomythia, where players engage ina sort of verbal
ping pong to nish each others lines or thought
process in the course of a dialogue. Stichomythia is
especially powerful in situations where the tension or
conict between two characters, for example Lord
and Lady Macbeth, reaches a crescendo. In sum,
Shakespeare used metre to control the energy,
intonation, and pace of his writing. A metrical
diagram (p. 217) is even provided to underscore how
thecentral murder scene inMacbethwouldhavebeen
delivered by actors in 1606. There is also an
interesting exercise (pp. 2039) where Crystal uses
extracts from two different editions of Macbeth to
show variations in the textual layout and the
contrastinginterpretiveimplications of themetreas a
result.
According to Crystal, Shakespeare wrote at a time
when most of his plays were not edited as coherent
complete play scripts. In fact, only 18 were printed in
Quarto form during his lifetime. Neither had English
punctuation evolved as an element of written
grammar and as a system for clarifying meaning in
written texts. Crystal thus discusses liberties that
editors and publishers have taken in inserting
punctuation symbols into Shakespeares speeches.
To examine this further, he provides an incisive
comparative task based on a core speech from Titus
Andronicus (5.1.2039) as in the 1623 Folio, with
the same speech, printed in a Penguin edition
(pp. 1723).
If we analyse a shorter version of this speech, below,
we see how spelling and punctuation modications
change the implications of the Goths speech. We
note how the contrasting use of commas, capital
letters, a question mark, and an exclamation
mark in each of these quotations suggest different
editors interpretations of Shakespeares dramatic
poetry:
The 1623 Folio edition (as cited by Crystal p. 173)
Peace Tawny slaue, halfe me, and halfe thy Dam,
Did not thy Hue bewray whose brat thou art?
Had nature lent thee, but thy Mothers looke,
Villaine thou mightst haue bene an Emperour.
(Titus Andronicus:V. i. 2932)
Compare the Penguin edition (as cited in Crystal
p. 172)
Peace, tawny slave, half me and half thy dam!
Did not thy hue bewray whose brat thou art,
Had nature lent thee but thy mothers look,
Villain, thou mightst have been an emperor.
(Titus Andronicus:V. i. 2932)
Carefully chosen extracts and interesting exercises
such as these encourage critical readings of the
characters roles, for example the Goth in this play.
Furthermore, for Crystal, they are another way of
indicating how changing literacy practices, such as
the spread of reading, have affected the development
of modernEnglishsincethetime Titus Andronicus was
rst conceived in the late sixteenth century.
Despite Crystals disclaimer (p. 1) that his book is not
intended to be a scholarly work, there are times when
some of its generalizations are hard to swallow. It
guesses that there are 39 plays and 154 sonnets
written by someone called Shakespeare (p. 16). There
is no account of the sources of the plays and no
consideration of some of the complex issues of
authorship, for example the likelihood that Measure
for Measure was co-authored by Thomas Middleton
(cf. p. 248). Crystal assumes that all Shakespearean
drama is artfully shapedsothat the formandfunction
of the lines complement each other. While this is easy
to accept in his careful elucidation of Shakespeares
metrical choices, it is not necessarily true that the
quality of the writing is sustained in complete play
scripts. We have only got to think of the high and low
points in The Merchant of Venice or how the three
different versions of Hamlet (pp. 267) have created
some arbitrary and not always aesthetically pleasing
132 Reviews

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

effects. Even though Crystal discusses the way the
plays often evolved from Quarto and prompt
books, he overlooks the impact of collaborative and
process-oriented theatrical writing. The latter has
given rise to much of what we have inherited in the
1623 edited collection of Shakespeares plays.
No matter how complicated, no matter how
ostensibly random, how annoying, boring or just
plain bad a scene or line seems to be, there is
always a reason for it being there. You have to nd
out what it is. (p. 246)
Given what Crystal (pp. 223) has said earlier about
how the plays evolved into print and posterity, this
assertion is hard to digest.
To conclude, this book is a very readable overview of
Shakespeares writing style and cultural
preoccupations. Crystal makes Shakespeares
language and theatrical world more intellectually
accessible to the popular reader. His book explores
howElizabethan and then Jacobean audiences would
have engaged with the rst rudimentary play scripts.
But what a book like this cannot really address is
whether the meanings of these plays reside in
Shakespeares interpretation of other readings. In
other words, the book does not cover how
Shakespeare reinvented his own extensive reading
diet. Nor does it consider his voracious appetite for
re-imagining narrative, poetic, and classical sources.
None the less, by making analogies between todays
forms of popular entertainment and the original
social purpose of Shakespeares drama, Crystal
suggests how the meanings of Shakespeares works
will always reside in their contemporary readerships
or audiences. In a light-hearted, pedagogical manner
(p. 32), he feeds us with information about the social
and commercial inuences underlying the inception
and reception of Shakespearean drama. Ultimately,
the meanings of the play scripts may lie in the further
purpose to which they are put, such as Crystals
extraction of core Shakespearean characteristics into
an eclectic bardic recipe. Shakespeare on Toast makes
consumers hungry for more of the plays and more
details about them, though this book doth seek to
satisfy.
References
Bullough, G. (ed.). 1957. Narrative and Dramatic
Sources of Shakespeare. Volume VI I . London:
Routledge.
Bryson, B. 2007. Shakespeare. London: Harper Press.
Danson, L. 2000. Shakespeares Dramatic Genres.
Dromgoole, D. 2007. Will & Me. London: Penguin.
Egan, G. 2007. Shakespeare. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Gurr, A. 2004. Playgoing in Shakespeares London.
(Third edition.) Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Hawkes, T. 1992. Meaning by Shakespeare. London:
Routledge.
Taylor, G. 1999. Afterword: the incredible shrinking
bard in C. Desmet and R. Sawyer (eds.). Shakespeare
and Appropriation. London: Routledge.
The reviewer
Stella Smyth has taught literature in universities in
Ireland, England, China, Romania, Japan, and
Bhutan. Her current research interests include all
things of Shakespeare, and ways of integrating
interdisciplinary methodologies in the eld of
teaching EAP to international students taking
courses in the English Language Teaching Unit,
University of Leicester.
Email: sks6@le.ac.uk
Reviews 133

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Provoking Thought: Memory and Thinking in ELT
H. Houston
BookSurge Publishing 2009, 222 pp., 10.29
isbn 978 1 4392 5119 7
Most people get excited when they get or buy a new
book. All English teachers get excited when they buy
or get a new resource book. A new resource book
means newideas: sometimes brand new, sometimes
ideas once used but forgotten. Most often it means
ideas that could not necessarily be exploited as
presented in the book, but something that could be
developed, adapted, downgraded (made easier), or
upgraded (made more challenging) for a particular
classroom. The book under reviewis noexceptionbut
at the same time, it is one.
This resource book aims at encouraging students,
motivatingthem, developingtheir academicskills, and
creating a student-centred atmosphere in the
classroom. Onthe one hand, it is very student centred,
on the other hand very teacher friendly because in the
Preparation section of the teachers notes, the most
common note is Preparation: none. All the activities
in the resource book are integrated skills activities
that develop a number of skills (for example reading,
listening, and speaking) within one activity. And this
is something that teachers doappreciate. The book is
all about ideas that require no or limited resources
and no special preparation for the activity. In this way,
teachers can get ideas fromthe book to complement
the textbook they use daily, ideas that can be used to
accelerate learning and make routine classroom
activities more enjoyable and more participatory.
The book consists of an introduction and ve
chapters. In the Introduction, the author revisits the
updated version of Blooms taxonomy and stresses
the importance of developing thinking skills in all
subjects including language lessons. The author
reminds teachers that in order to be uent in
language, students need more than just words and
grammar, they need thoughts to express. He offers
teaching tips for using thinking as a resource and for
using the activities in the book, together with a list of
error correction techniques teachers can choose
from. Educational reforms in a number of countries
(including Estonia) stress the importance of
developing critical and creative thinking. This could
be done by using appropriate techniques and
activities in the lessons. And it is exactly what the
book under review provides.
The rst chapter expands on the topic of thinking.
It provides 19 different activities as warmers,
middlers, or lesson enders. In the introduction to
the chapter, the author gives a brief overview of
thinking styles and the concept of reective teaching.
One of the activities that I will denitely start using is
a warmer (Thought of the day) that encourages
teachers to make use of quotes by famous people on
a variety of topics, for example thinking about and
discussing the quote with the students. Other
activities that looked intriguing (as well as
eye-opening) were Hindrances to thinking, which
discusses six habits that hinder thinkingandCreative
and critical thinking, which discusses the essence
and differences between them. The last two activities
mentionedcanbe usedwith advancedadult students
as well as in ESP classes. The activities are presented
with a step-by-step procedure, suggestions for
variations, and the chapter ends with further reading
recommendations.
The second chapter is dedicated to the topic of
memory. The author briey describes the types of
memory, outlines ten effects that could accelerate
language learning, and provides a list of tips that help
to remember vocabulary. The introductory part is
goodreadingright beforethenewschool year torecall
and remember the theory that underpins practical
activity. There are 22 versatile activities from
mnemonic ones to learning to learn ones in this
chapter. I ampersonally very interested in the topic of
memory and try to nd ideas and activities that
support learning and remembering and I got
a number of useful activities that help to enhance
learning names, new words, phrases, etc. The
activities in this chapter provide students with study
skills such as classic memory techniques,
sensememoryfantasy technique, invite students
to share their learning techniques, and offer
solutions to common memory problems. The
chapter ends with an interviewwith Marilee Sprenger
(an author of books on memory and learning, see
Sprenger 2007) that expands on the topic of
memory further.
The third chapter is related to the topic of creativity.
The introductionoutlines the basics of brainstorming
and offers a wide range of quick brainstorming,
problem-solving brainstorming, and mini-project
brainstorming techniques. The author provides
a short list of examples in each category and teachers
candosome brainstorminginorder toextendthe list.
Most of the activities in this chapter will work in
classes where the language level of students is quite
advanced, though there are some ideas that could be
adapted for lower-level language students. The
majority of activities in this chapter help students to
come up with solutions for different problems they
134 Reviews

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

face or might encounter in their future life. The
last activity, 10 ways to boost your creativity,
includes reading onthe same topic. The chapter ends
with an interview with Starko (2009) who has
written Creativity in the Classroom, which as its name
implies is a book about fostering creativity in the
classroom.
The fourth chapter focuses on critical thinking. The
author believes that a critical thinking approach can
add a new layer to language learning and teaching.
The rst ve activities are follow-up activities to the
brainstorming activities of the previous chapter.
These can make good bridging activities from one
lesson to another where the teacher can do
a brainstorming activity in the end of one lesson and
start the next lesson with a critical thinking activity
that uses thematerial developedinthe brainstorming
activity. Other activities help the students to learn to
distinguish facts and opinions, explore their values
and beliefs, become better at stating and supporting
their opinions on different topics or recognizing
weasel words (misleading words and expressions
often used by advertisers). Most of the activities in
this chapter are meant for adult learners with quite
a good command of the target language. I will
denitely use them with my university students as
well as in teacher training. The chapter ends with an
interview with Ruggiero (2004) who is an expert on
critical thinking. The last chapter of the book consists
of 16 activities and is divided into three sections:
working with topics and texts, generating ideas, and
getting feedback. The rst sectionintroduces six ways
of graphic organization. In language classrooms,
students most often operate with linear texts
although graphic organizers can help people learn
quicker and organize their ideas better. Visual
learners often both organize and store information in
the form of pictures, charts, graphs, etc. The section
reintroduces the Venn diagram, the KWHL
technique,
n
K what we already know
n
W what we would like to know
n
H how we can learn more
n
L what we learnt
timelines, and the six-question (who, what, when,
where, why, and how) technique that is used in
journalism to develop a story. The activities in the
second section of this chapter offer three ideas that
promote generating ideas. One is Idea Constellation,
which starts off as a regular mindmap brainstorming
activity, whereas the second step in the procedure is
a pair/group work activity where students expand
words into phrases. Finally, the students develop
sentences and paragraphs from phrases and edit
them together. As a result, single words are put into
context.
The last section of this chapter is dedicated to the
ways of getting constructive feedback from the
students. The sevenactivities providedinthis section
will teach students how to give feedback and will
denitely provide the teacher with valuable
information that could be used for developing the
course.
One of the valuable assets of the book is the Further
Reading and Recommended Websites sections. The
Index at the back of the book divides theactivities into
11 categories according to the technique (for example
guessing, role play, discussion, etc.), function in the
lesson (warmers, getting to know each other),
learning style (kinaesthetic, reading), or resource
(internet/computer).
The book was so inspiring that I decided to share
some of its ideas at the Summer Seminar of the
EstonianAssociationof Teachers of EnglishinAugust
2011. The title of the workshopwas YouARE creative!
No excuses! More than 100 teachers participated in
this workshop. One of the activities we discussed is
Thought of the day which encourages teachers to
use a quote for sharing opinions and interpretations
in the beginning of the lesson. Teachers willingly
shared their own favourite quotes and together we
compiled a list of quotes to take with us. Another
activity that teachers decided to store in their
repertoire was Guessing words. The game could be
played in teams and you need a dice and index cards
with words to play the game. Every number on the
dice corresponds to a certain action (1: mime the
word, 2: translate the word, 3: make a sentence,
4: draw a picture, 5: make a collocation, 6: give
a denition, with 3 and 5 one has to use a wordblank
instead of the word on the index card) and teams
take turns to roll the dice, pick a word from a pile, do
what the number suggests, and let the team guess
the word. Although the workshop was only an hour
and half long and I managed to share only a tenth
of the ideas and activities, one participant
commented that she got ideas for the whole
semester from it.
And last but not least, I have been taught not to
judge the book by its cover. However, I have to
confess that I did so with this one. The title was
intriguing and the picture on the cover of an old
blackboard with a speech bubble inspiring. The
resource book itself is full of inspiring ideas and
easy-to-use materials. In this particular case, the
cover and the contents complement each other.
Provoking Thought is an exceptional resource book
Reviews 135

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

because the activities in the book enhance learning,
learning how to learn, learning how to teach, and
teaching.
References
Ruggiero, V. R. 2004. Beyond Feelings. New York, NY:
McGraw Hill.
Starko, A. 2009. Creativity in the Classroom. NewYork,
NY: Routledge.
Sprenger, M. 2007. Memory 101 for Educators.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
The reviewer
Piret Kartner has been a language teacher in Estonia
for 27 years and has taught students of all ages. She
has also taught ESP in a vocational school. She has
been teaching methodology of teaching English and
SLA since 1996 at the University of Tartu. At present,
she is working at the University of Tartu as a lecturer
delivering pre- and in-service training seminars for
teachers of English, other foreign languages, and
Estonian as an L2. She has published four
methodology booklets on developing the four skills,
several articles in Open, the journal of the Estonian
Association of Teachers of English, and reviews of
textbooks and resource materials.
Email: piret.kartner@ut.ee
136 Reviews

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Towards Multilingual Education: Basque Educational
Research from an International Perspective
J. Cenoz
Multilingual Matters 2009, 288 pp., 79.95
isbn 978 1 8476 9193 4
Any book that consists principally of a highly detailed
and specic case study will determine its own level of
interest and relevance on how well it meets certain
criteria. For its specialist context, does it present
a sufciently full and critical picture for other experts
and aspiring researchers to feel condence in its
authority? For those whostudy parallel contexts, does
it offer sufcient generalizability to contribute to their
research programmes, either in terms of content or
methodology? For the wider community in dissimilar
contexts, does it propose routes to knowledge or
practice that could generate new research directions
or perspectives?
Aglance at the 11 chapter headings of this substantial
book suggests immediately that it has strong
potential as regards the rst two of those criteria. The
review will evaluate this premise and also explore the
books wider contribution.
The Basque Autonomous Community (BAC) of
Spain is a strongly bilingual context with a national
language that is unrelated to the others spoken
nearby and to its bilingual partner language, Castilian
Spanish. In this sense, it is different even from
Catalunya where the national language is
linguistically closely related to its bilingual partner
language. Inturn, boththese are different fromWelsh
or Maltese where the bilingual language is English,
the recognized major lingua franca of Europe. While
perhaps not completely unique in the world, Basque
speakers have a clearly established additional need
for uency in two other languages, Spanish and
English, even before the case for others such as
French is made. Therefore, the title of the book is
chosen deliberately, as it will present the issues and
suggest pathways to manage three languages for all
as a minimum entitlement.
The very early chapters set out to be international in
their scope while the middle and later chapters have
more material specic to the context. There is a very
clear attempt in the rst 50 pages to make the
approachas generalizableas possible. We reada brief
account of selected multilingual contexts around the
world and a rationale, based on the spread of English
and the regrowth of several minority languages, for
a policy in favour of multilingualism. Usefully, also in
the rst chapter, the theme of CLI L is briey
136 Reviews

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

introduced, which brings to the surface at an early
stage the learning language/using language contrast
highlighted by Mohan (1986). The nature of
multilingual education is then explored more
theoretically inthe secondchapter wherea typology is
approached, but througha structure calledcontinua
(building on the work of Hornberger 2003, in
biliteracy) where different aspects of the school and
its provision are each located on a continuum line.
The aimof this is to showthat multilingual education
can and will vary according to context but that this
approach is intended to resist hard denitions which
obscure rather than enlighten. Models from around
the world are compared, involving different
combinations of languages that are more or less
closely related and in different power hierarchies. At
this stage, the discussion is centred on policy rather
than pedagogy, although the valuable point is made
that as part of one continuum the use of several
languages of instruction is contrasted with the
teaching of more than one language. Clearly,
multilingual education in the current age should be
concerned with learning content in more than one
language and that case is explored here along with
others. The last section of Chapter 2 applies the
continua to the Basque context and this bridges into
a focus on the case for its own sake alongside a focus
on the case as a case for comparison with elsewhere.
At this point the discussion explores this through
listing a set of variations on the three ofcial models
of language of instruction in the BAC.
The remainder of the book can be seen as three
sections: Chapters 3 and4present a focus onlearning
through Basque and Spanish and are followed by
three chapters that address the role of English as
a language of instruction, rst descriptively, thenas in
research outcomes, and nally fromthe perspectives
that in the BAC bilinguals are learning a third
language. The last section deals with disparate
themes of identities and attitudes, the age factor, and
university-level learning before a nal short
concluding chapter closes the book.
The pattern of these chapters now tends towards
a short opening section on the international context
of the chapter theme followed by a more detailed
exploration of that theme inthe BAC. The intentionis
clearly to allow detailed analysis of the case while
setting it into the research context in a more global
sense. This is not unsuccessful, although given the
number of angles investigated (and therefore the
relative brevity of each individual chapter) it has
requiredselectivity inthereferencingandespecially in
the development of the ideas noted. The presentation
is extremely clear, however, with much in the form of
tabular data or explanation together with short
paragraphing and clearly structured and headed
sections.
Avery successful chapter using this model is Chapter
7 (The inuence of bilingualism on L3), which is
clearly at the heart of the book, both in a physical and
thematicsense. It bothseeks togivedetailednewdata
on its own context and also to be representative of all
communities where an additional language (very
often English) is being learnt within an established
bilingual context. The initial review brings in brief
mention of a wide range of research from designated
bilingual programmes and in general education
programmes across Europe. It then presents in more
detail data from seven studies in the BAC, which
looked at different aspects of inuence on L3. The
clear data tables and the direct statement of ndings
make this a very efcient route to establish what there
is tondout, as well as a checklist of potential parallel
studies for other contexts. This chapter, like the
others, ends with a concluding summary and a set of
key points in a box for maximum clarity.
Chapters 8 and 9 wisely centre heavily on research
ndings in the BAC; these topics (Identities and
attitudes and the Age factor) are too huge to
attempt a brief condensed summary of more
international research (although key gures are
referenced). Both are slightly inconclusive in the way
that all research in these two areas must be.
Chapter 10 is an important section. More and more
now university courses are delivered in English
around the world, with a greater or lesser attention to
the pedagogy of such teaching or to the needs of the
students. This chapter takes a close look at the
structure of Higher Education (HE) teaching in
Basque, showing what is possible and what might be
some pitfalls. Inthis way, it is a challenge tothe sweep
of English into minority language HE communities
and as a case offers an exemplar of how this can link
back into the multilingual structure in schools.
The concluding chapter rightly indicates that there is
a dearth of more ethnographic research, looking
closely at classroomsinactionandthat this shouldbe
the direction for the future. It disappoints slightly
(from a CLI L perspective) that it does not highlight
here, as it has hintedearlier, that the important role of
learning different subjects in different languages
should be a high-prole focus. But the book has
already proved itself valuable by this stage in the
reading and such a detailed complex theme can
certainly not be summarized briey.
This is an important contribution to an important
subject ineducation globally. The detail both interms
Reviews 137

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

of the data offered and in the related discussions
makes it a very comprehensive case study that has
clear relevance both in the BAC and in parallel
communities. Much can be gained by academics and
professionals fromthe careful andaccessibleanalysis
of this context. And it does make its case for wider
generalizability; its central message, that we need to
become multilingual but not by neglecting any of our
languages, is key. It is also clear from the book that
how we do this is a crucial ongoing discussion.
References
Hornberger, N. H. (ed.). 2003. Continua of Biliteracy:
An Ecological Framework for Educational Policy,
Research and Practice in Multilingual Settings.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Mohan, B. 1986. Language and Content. Boston, MA:
Addison Wesley.
The reviewer
Philip Hood has worked for 35 years in the eld of
language learning and related research. He has
specialized in CLI L for over ten years, developed the
CLI L courses at the University of Nottingham with
Do Coyle, and has had a close relationship with the
development of CLI L inCatalunya. He is co-author of
Content andLanguage IntegratedLearning (Cambridge
University Press 2010) and Modern Languages in the
Primary School (Sage 2009).
Email: philip.hood@nottingham.ac.uk
138 Reviews

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Service, Satisfaction and Climate: Perspectives on
Management in English Language Teaching
J. Walker
Emerald 2010, 271 pp., 67.95
isbn 978 1 84950 996 1
Ask ELT practitioners for the most frequent
collocationof the wordmanagement andthey might
answer classroommanagement. While it is true that
organizing students during lessons is probably the
biggest concern for teachers, having practised
classroom discipline for many years, some may later
nd themselves interested in another type of
management. If so, they have a model in John Walker
whostartedhis career as anEnglishlanguageteacher,
then did some managing without qualications, next
studied management formally, and now teaches
management studies at the Business School of
Massey University, New Zealand. Perhaps, this
reviewshouldstart with a disclaimer that I have never
managed an ELTC (English language teaching
centre), although many of their teachers have been
students in courses I have taught.
The book is based on data collected from
commercial- and university-based institutions in
40%of the total ELTCs identied in New Zealand at
the time of the study (p. 117) and the results are
presented in measured academic language that
makes serious points while avoiding generalizations.
The three chapters of Part 1 summarize the literature
on service aspects in general and of ELT service in
particular. From time to time, Walker acknowledges
that teachers are not always happy with management
terms such as service providers. Yet insummarizing
their roles as published within the profession, he
makes the case that ELT writers . . . have used
virtually identical terminology todescribesome of the
key roles of ESL teachers (p. 15). Details follow of
communicative, interpersonal, and other skills which
are part of professional discussions. Following this
rst chapter about ELT as a service, the second
chapter looks at student satisfactionwiththis service.
Readers are introducedtotheliterature onmeasuring
the satisfaction level of students/clients. (Although
heuses thetermclient inthediscussions, the author
stops short of using it in his headings.) Service
climate is dealt with in Chapter 3. A distinction is
made here between the words culture and climate
which have, wrongly it seems, often been used
synonymously. Walker alsotouches onthe interesting
point that workplaces have subgroups among their
staff and that where one group is outnumbered, there
may be signicantly different perceptions of . . . the
138 Reviews

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

work climate (p. 47). This gure is supported by
reference to a New Zealand study in which females
made up 87 per cent of one sector of the ELT
workforce.
The two chapters of Part 2 turn to student
perceptions. Chapter 4 reports what they think about
the service they receive, including attributes they
wouldlike tosee intheir teachers. The toprankings of
professionalism and effectiveness in the
classroom were not surprising, but it was interesting
to see that correcting students spoken errors was
lowest equal. My surprise was based on the
impression that students are far more anxious than
are their teachers to have this correction. Chapter 5
moves from the classroom to the wider service area
including homestays, facilities, and activities. Not
surprisingly, experiences varied considerably.
The four chapters of Part 3 deal with the perceptions
of ELT providers, starting with Chapter 6, which is
based on a report rst published in The TESOLANZ
Journal (see Walker 2000). Six themes emergedinthe
interviews, one being the environment. It must be
encouraging for the management of a school to read
the statement that staff enjoy working together
(p. 103), but more challenging to hear concerns such
as the feeling of compromise mentioned by one
respondent who believed that students [who] are fee
paying . . . perceive they have the right to dictate what
they want (p. 106). Chapter 7 discusses service
climate, concluding that there is a generally positive
perception (p. 133) of this among faculty and
administrative staff. More tellingly, Chapter 8
compares the different perceptions of staff and
students about quality in what has been called the
task of delightingrather than merely satisfying
(p. 143) the students without whomtherewouldbeno
industry. The results were ambiguous, with ratings
ranging fromworse to better in the subcategories. As
just one example of the detail pursued, the research
even investigated whether length of teaching service
affected perceptions. It did. Chapter 9, tellingly titled
Finding an identity, brings the view of the tertiary
manager, based on interviews conducted in ten
tertiary institutions of various types. Walker notes
that many of these managers actually lack
qualications in the management eld. However,
ELTCs were not alone in this respect. The same
picture emerged in an earlier survey of managers in
the top 200 New Zealand companies (p. 161).
Finally, in Part 4, Chapters 10, 11, and 12 discuss the
studys applications and issues, one chapter each for
service operation, research, and managers. Chapter
10s ideas are presented in a mixture of text and
gures and include options, two being the chance to
learn English easily through fun and adventure, and
helping students achieve their dream of entry to an
English-medium university (p. 184). A range of staff
will be needed, the former calling for young friendly
teachers (p. 183) andthelatter for staff specializingin
Academic English, including examination
preparation. Chapter 11, Researching ELT
management, includes an invitation to help redress
the lack of empirical research on this subject. For
anyone wanting to replicate this study, Walkers
detailed discussion of his methods could provide
guidance. Focus groups were used for faculty,
administrative staff, and students, with additional
questionnaires (provided in the 15 pages of
appendices) for students. The latter were translated
intothelanguages of themajor ELTC student groups
in New Zealand at the time (p. 70). The result is
a wealth of statistical and descriptive data on macro
and micro issues, all presented in an academic style
that reects its research base. By the time readers
arrive at the last chapter, Issues and implications for
managers, they will probably have ideas of their own
about what these might be and can compare their
thinking with Walkers eight pages of clearly written
summary. Somepoints that stoodout for mewere the
challenge of the educational/commercial mix and the
competitive environment versus the collegiality that
must exist between teachers who belong to the same
professional organizations. Another complex
challenge is choosing and monitoring homestay
environments.
In publishing a study from one small country,
Emerald is suggesting that the book has wider
implications. The attractive, thoughtful volume asks
andanswers pertinent questions, althoughthe lack of
an index means that readers need to identify areas of
interest via the table of contents alone. What will
really count is the use made of this material by the
target groups. One ELTC manager has already asked
to read the book, based on a discussion about its
contents. Perhaps things have changed since the rst
interviews in 1998. Do more ELTC managers now
holdmanagement qualications? Havemanagement
courses been included in ELT training programmes?
As well as its interest to the huge ELT industry
worldwide, the messages for teachers are extensive
and could well nd their way on to the agenda of staff
meetings. According to the author, the rst empirical
research into ELT management was only in 1981
(p. 157). Interest grew by 1994 Barlow (1994) was
asking the question Does ELT management exist?.
Nobody reading the present book will doubt the
answer to that.
Although the material in some chapters has already
been published in articles, this volume includes
Reviews 139

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

information which has not been seen before. That
leaves the question of whether research carried out in
one country at one time is particular only tothat place
and time. The extensive international sourcing and
referencing of the literature in which his study is set
suggests the answer no. Walkers volume is
recommended to readers in a wider catchment area.
If it also inspires others to replicate the study in their
own countries, then the details of the methodology
are here as a starting point.
References
Barlow, R. 1994. Does ELT management exist? ELT
Management 14: 15.
Walker, J. 2000. Staff perceptions of the service
dimension in TESOL. The TESOLANZ Journal 8:
3955.
The reviewer
Marilyn Lewis is an Honorary Research Fellowat The
University of Auckland. Her retirement projects
include organizing language teacher education
workshops in South East Asia. In New Zealand, she
does some writing and book reviewing as well as
working fromtime to time with the volunteer English
Language Partners who offer their time to refugees
and other immigrants.
Email: mn.lewis@auckland.ac.nz
140 Reviews

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

The Language and Intercultural Communication
Reader
Z. Hua (ed.)
Routledge 2011, 434 pp., 25.99
isbn 978 0 415 54913 4
The Language and Intercultural Communication Reader
(hereafter The Reader) is a collection of 22
republished articles aimed at advanced
undergraduate and beginning postgraduate courses
on intercultural communication, language teaching
and learning, pragmatics, and other topics related to
linguistics. The editors picks range from classics
such as Whorf and Scollon and Scollon, to more
recent developments in this expanding eld of
research. The Reader offers thus a broad-ranging
manual of the interconnected areas of language and
intercultural communication to students and
teachers alike.
The volume is organized into six thematic parts
dealing with different facets of intercultural
communication; each section is preceded by an
introduction, in which the editor provides a concise,
yet substantial, background to the area taken into
consideration, together with a brief outline of the
texts included. Inthe opening introduction, the editor
sets the background for each section and illustrates
the rationale for the selection of the material in the
volume, aimed at covering different theoretical
orientations inthe discipline, witha balance between
the languages and cultures represented, and the
classics and contemporary work (p. 8).
Part I, Culture, language and thought, presents
some of the most inuential theoretical models inthe
eld, and opens with the well-known 1956 essay by
Whorf on the relationship between language and
habitual thinking processes; Nisbett (2003)
examines cultural differences in cognition, and
Samovar, Porter, and Stefani (1998) review
fundamental concepts on cultural patterns, namely
Hofstedes value dimensions and Halls high- and
low-context cultures.
The ve articles in Part II, Cultural approaches to
discourse and pragmatics: theoretical
considerations, deal with cultural differences and
language use, providing an account from
a theoretical point of view of the most inuential
approaches to discourse analysis and pragmatics in
intercultural communication. The rst three chapters
elaborate on Brown and Levinsons politeness theory
and particularly on the notion of face: Scollon and
Scollon (2001) redene these concepts from an
140 Reviews

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

interpersonal communication angle, proposing an
alternative to positive versus negative face:
involvement versus independence. Gu (1990) and
Ide (2005) further develop this notion, the rst
illustrating through the Chinese case of limao how
politeness is a culture-specic concept, and the
second drawing on the ritualistic aspects of language
use in Japanese honorics. In Chapter 7, Spencer-
Oatey (2002) relates the notion of face to rapport
management, with a framework based on
motivational concerns in interactions and on the
notions of quality face and social identity face. In
the nal chapter of Part II, Goddard and Wierzbicka
(2004) widely exemplify their culturally and
linguistically neutral framework in cultural scripts
expressing cultural norms, values, and practices.
The four essays in Part I I I , Communication patterns
across cultures: empirical explorations, provide an
empirical overview as to culturally specic
interactional speech acts and communication
patterns across a variety of languages. Blum-Kulka
and Olshtain (1984) illustrate the Cross-Cultural
Speech Act Realization Pattern (CCSARP) project,
which investigated requests and apologies as speech
acts in eight languages and has constituted
a landmark from a methodological as well as
a theoretical point of view. In Chapter 10, Katriel
(1986) deals with the Israeli culturally specic dugri
ritual talk, discussing forms, functions, and cultural
implications via an ethnographic approach; Nazzal
(2005) in Chapter 11 with the communicative-
pragmatic functions of Quranic verses in
interactions by Muslims; and Sajavaara and
Lehtonen(1997) lookintothe communicativeaims of
silenceoften represented as a stereotypical
national characteristicin Finnish contexts, arguing
for the need for common denominators to evaluate
culturally context-specic forms of talk and silence.
Part IV, Teaching and learning cultural variations of
language use, appears particularly interesting in the
three different perspectives of language teaching and
learning it presents. This area has aroused particular
interest in recent years: as the editor points out in the
introductory section, intercultural communication
often takes place between speakers who use
a language other thantheir native languages (p. 195).
The debate over the inclusion of culture in language
teaching has seen differentiated issues at stake,
among which are the target-culture/native-speaker
controversy, the value of an intercultural approach,
and the need to include in teaching practices
culturally appropriate pragmatic and discourse
strategies. In Chapter 13, Holliday (1999) argues for
the inclusion in language learning curricula of small
rather than large cultures, where the latter refer to
ethnic, national, or international perspectives, often
linked to the notion of (linguistic) imperialismby the
Western world, while the former are closely connected
to small social groupings and on interaction between
several cultures. Kasper andRose (2002) inChapter 14
illustrate the main research ndings in the area of
second language pragmatics, looking into
developmental patterns, as well as commonalities and
differences in speech acts, pragmatics, and discourse
across learners of different languages such as, besides
English, Japanese and Brazilian. The growing body of
research into English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) is
signicantly acknowledged in the volume with the
inclusion of Mauranens (2006) article in Chapter 15,
where repair and clarication strategies in ELF
academic interactions to signal and prevent
misunderstanding are investigated, stressing the
highly cooperative strategies employed in ELF talk.
The inclusionof ELF issues inthesectiononteaching
and learning appears signicant, particularly as
a central tenet in ELF is the fact that lingua franca
speakers are viewed in their role of language users
rather than (permanent) learners.
The three essays in Part V, Interculturality
reconceptualising cultural differences illustrate
some recent developments in the analysis of
intercultural encounters, which look at cultural
differences by problematizing the issue rather than
assuming they are a source of misunderstandings in
intercultural encounters: sociocultural identities are
not xedbut multiple andspeakers uctuate between
them, constructing and negotiating differences
according to the context of interaction. Traditional
notions of culture and cultural categories are
challenged by Sarangi (1994) in Chapter 16 and
Nishizaka (1995) in Chapter 17; the rst argues that
a unied static notion of culture should be overcome
in intercultural studies adopting a more context-set
perspective, and the second questions labelling-
categorizing practices since supposed cultural
differences can only be seen and investigated in
actual interactions rather than as preset categories,
a view well supported by the data that involve
a Japanese and a non-Japanese informant. Higgins
(2007) inChapter 18investigates howcode-switching
and other linguistic strategies can be employed in
constructing social identity and in-group/member
alignment, by drawing on a corpus of interactions
among Tanzanian journalists.
Part VI, Intercultural communication in
a professional context, includes four studies related
to a variety of professional, linguistic, and cultural
contexts such as the workplace, television
Reviews 141

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

commercials, management meetings, and service
encounters; the articles cover a diversity of national
and international contexts. Clyne, Ball, and Neil
(1991) in Chapter 19 investigate non-native English
speakers turn-taking strategies at a workplace in
Australia, and Bargiela-Chiappini and Harris (1996) in
Chapter 21 look at native speakers interruptive
strategies in British and Italian business management
meetings, showing that they have a supportive
function. Schmidt, Shimura, Wang, and Jeong (1995)
in Chapter 20investigate the specicities of pragmatic
strategies in advertising discourse in the USA, Japan,
China, and South Korea. Chapter 22, by Marquez
Reiter and Placencia (2004), deals with the language
of service encounters in two Spanish-speaking
contexts where, despite a shared L1, language use is
marked by sociocultural differences.
Each chapter concludes with Notes for students and
instructors, which include study questions on the
material, as well as activities; the latter can be
employed in class or in the development of projects
by the students. The Further reading in each section
is organized by topic and a more comprehensive
resource list is provided at the end of the volume,
containing key textbooks, book series, and journals.
An annotated section is dedicated to relevant
websites, electronic mailing lists, and organizations;
the last part relates to general, language learner, and
lingua franca corpora and includes basic information
for all the previously mentionedcorpora. Aglossary is
provided too.
Particularly valuable is the concluding chapter, in
which the editor gives a synoptic but clear and
complete overviewof methodological issues with the
illustration of research designs and data collection
techniques in language and intercultural
communication research, providing exemplications
from the articles in The Reader; this section thus
constitutes a very useful set of guidelines for
students research projects.
The eld of research into language and intercultural
communication has signicantly expanded in recent
decades, spanning diverse areas and domains of
enquiry. The selection in The Language and
Intercultural Communication Reader includes major
contributions in research on intercultural
communication, featuring both theoretical and
empirical articles tackling a diversity of key topics.
Possible further interesting areas to be covered in
a new edition of The Reader could include those of
language, (inter)culture, and identity, as well as an
expansion of the section related to the increasingly
researched eld of language learning and teaching,
particularly from a globalized perspective.
The contributions are taken from a range of sources
and cover several contexts and methods, as well as
developments in time and latest research issues.
Care has also been taken not to narrow the selection
to specic (geographical) settings and languages,
providing exemplications from different areas.
The Reader thus represents a valuable overviewof the
eld and an essential tool particularly in advanced
undergraduate and postgraduate courses, which
include perspectives on intercultural
communication.
The reviewer
Paola Vettorel is a Researcher andAssistant Professor
in the Department of Foreign Languages and
Literatures, Faculty of Foreign Languages, University
of Verona. She has worked as an EFL teacher and
teacher trainer, and at the Language Centre of Verona
University teaching Italian L2 and as a Language
Consultant. She has presented papers in various
international conferences and her main research
interests include English as a Lingua Franca, its
implications for the language classroom, and
Intercultural Communicative Competence.
Email: paola.vettorel@univr.it
142 Reviews

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Developing Courses in English for Specic Purposes
H. Basturkmen
Palgrave Macmillan 2010, xiv + 157 pp., 18.99
isbn 978 0 230 22798 8
When I rst started teaching English for Specic
Purposes (ESP) about 15 years ago, I was not aware of
the best ways to organize my classes. Fortunately, in
those days, there were already some good Business
English coursebooks whose accompanying
teachers manuals helped with a number of things
like business culture, terminology, and so on.
However, I always missed some additional things
such as guidelines to orientate my classes, ideas to
collect appropriate materials, hints on how to
search for relevant lexis, etc. Developing Courses in
English for Specic Purposes is a welcome volume. In
this sense, readers will nd both theoretical and
practical ideas to orientate their classes. As the
author states:
It aims to make the topic of ESP course
development . . . accessible . . . to . . . teachers and
prospective teachers, andtoshowhowideas about
how course development in the literature can be
related to practice. (p. x)
Teaching ESP often requires a number of duties that
go beyond the classroom walls and need to be
dened (Chapter 1). ESP courses are usually tailored
to t the specic needs of the students. According to
Basturkmen, we can classify ESP courses into wide
angled and narrowangled (Chapter 4) according to
the specic course attendees. The former are courses
that can be valuable for a large number of students
and are usually held in educational settings like
professional schools or universities (for example
English for business), while the latter are very
specic and are usually delivered in (or associated
with) the workplace (such as Writing letters for bank
secretaries). But there is also a wide range of
possibilities between both extremes. Thus,
a cornerstone of ESP teaching is analysing the
students needs (Chapter 2).
The book is divided into two parts which comprise
nine chapters, but the rst part is preceded by
a 14-page introductory chapter that could have been
another part. The rst part presents three main areas
inESP course design: needs analysis, investigationof
specialist discourse, and curriculum planning. The
author rst denes what ESP is and what the main
areas of current work are (such as English for
Academic Purposes and English for Professional
Purposes). The author also provides a classication
of ESP branches. However, unlike other authors like
Harding (2007), whose divisions are based on two
maintypes(Englishfor Specic PurposesandEnglish
for Occupational Purposes) within each topic (such
as Business, Science and Technology and English for
Social Science), Basturkmen establishes
a three-branch system including EAP, English for
Professional Purposes (EPP), and English for
Occupational Purposes (EOP) and each of the three
is subdivided into more general and specic
purposes. However, unlike the work of Harding and
others (Varela Mendez 2007), the distinction
between EPP and EOP is difcult to outline because
the author bases the limits on two examples without
providing a clear denition of each type. Basturkmen
also establishes the different stages in course design
in relation to the work or study experience of
learners: pre-experience, during-experience, and
post-experience. It is also her idea that these stages
can be related to the language and genre demands as
well as the context and location.
Chapter 2 focuses on needs analysis. In this section,
the author presents the way to collect information to
develop the course, identifying the type of
information to collect as well as the means (mainly
questionnaires and interviews). However, the most
interesting aspect of this chapter is the analysis of the
dynamics of needs analysis as an ongoing process
from the pre-course needs analysis to the revision of
the course design. According to the author, as the
course is run, the analysis also evolves through
constant revision providing the teacher with the
capacity to adapt or change materials and teaching
processes. Chapter 3 refers to the investigation of
specialist discourse in communication and
researching the works of Hyland (2002, 2006) in
connection to the community of practice. Another
signicant part of the chapter is devoted to
researching ESP discourse through three main
approaches: ethnography, genre analysis, and corpus
analysis. Additionally, the writer suggests ways in
which practitioners can track down and make use
of published descriptions and specialist discourse
(p. xi). Based on the dichotomy between wide and
narrow courses, Chapter 4 discusses the nal
organization of courses including aspects such as
types of contents (real versus carrier) and materials
(authentic versus non-authentic). I really think that
prospective readers will agree with the writers
perspectivethat thereis not aclear borderlinebetween
these two pairs of apparent opposites, especially in
reference to materials development and use.
The second part presents four different types of
courses: English for the police, English for medical
Reviews 143

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

doctors, Academic illiteracies in visual
communication, and English for thesis writing.
These courses were developed by experienced
teachers or course developers and their description
follows the same structure: description of the context,
investigation of the students needs, investigation of
the specialist discourse, course and materials design
andselection, presentationandresponsetodifculties
and constraints, a summary, and a nal discussion.
According to Basturkmen, the cases differ in the topic
but also in regard to the focus of instruction (p. xi).
The concluding chapter reviews the main concepts
addressed in the book and links them to the four case
studies included in the volume.
On the whole, the book addresses a number of
interesting ideas. Many are certainly not new but the
shift in the focus of what ESP course design is
provides new food for thought. For instance, the
reader may wonder why the author has chosen four
narrow-angled courses to exemplify her principles.
This could be due to the authors emphasis on
planning the courses from the individuals needs. In
this sense, Basturkmen describes a pyramidal
situation in which needs analysis and the research
into the specialist discourse come before the course
is designed and the curriculum determined. For
instance, the course for doctors is a useful example
because what they learnt in their course was daily
non-technical languagethat they use todeal withtheir
patients. In this way, the author makes a statement in
favour of approaching and designing ESP courses
based on the unique and very specic needs of the
students. Thus, the traditional general perspective
with the speciality genre and content coming rst is
turned into using individuality as the leading gear in
course design. It is this perspective that also shapes
the search and selection of the curriculum and
materials and even the conceptual content (p. 139).
Developing Courses in English for Specic Purposes is
a valuable volume for course designers and teachers
alike. However, it may not be praised alike by all.
Teachers who teach large or standardized courses
(for example business courses in universities) will
benet from the philosophy and principles, but the
examples may not be very relevant because their
problems may be different. Besides, teachers inthese
courses may not be able to detect the individual
students needs or even have a close contact to
content informants. Readers will also not nd in the
book practical teaching tips (however, it is not the
nal goal of the book to show how to teach) nor
suggestions for specic techniques or materials. The
book, on the other hand, is very valid for practitioners
in contexts where no materials or lesson plans are
available. Besides, the approach to individual needs
as the cornerstone of teaching and course design is
universal and, at this point, I guess if we followed this
principle, our classes would certainly be a little better.
In memory of Raquel Varela Mendez who worked and
researched in ESP for Tourism in Spain.
References
Harding, K. 2007. English for Specic Purposes. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K. 2002. Specicity revisited: howfar should
we go now?. English for Specic Purposes 21/4: 38595.
Hyland, K. 2006. English for Academic Purposes: An
Advanced Resource Book. London: Routledge.
Varela Mendez, R. 2007. Hacia una caracterizacion
del ingles para nes espec cos (turismo). Didactica
(Lengua y Literatura) 19: 32745.
The reviewer
Jesus Garc a Laborda PhD, EdD, MA, MEd, is an
Associate Professor of Linguistics and English
Philology at the University of Alcala (Madrid, Spain).
He has published book reviews in many of the most
important journals in the eld of ESP, CALL, and
teacher education and is currently interested in
low-stakes language testing, ESP, and computer
language testing. His professional website is https://
portal.uah.es/portal/page/portal/epd2_profesores/
prof153604 .
Email: jesus.garcialaborda@uah.es
144 Reviews

a
t

I
z
m
i
r

E
k
o
n
o
m
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
8
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

ELT Journal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ELT Journal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

in association with

Oxford University Press 2012

11 Sumire I think its However + can the denition of music. Well,

13 Sumire And not or + and I think

16 Sumire Ah! I reckon its

21 Haruka should be s-[shat?

You might also like