Professional Documents
Culture Documents
English Language Teaching in Its Social Context Candlin Christopher N Mercer Neil PDF
English Language Teaching in Its Social Context Candlin Christopher N Mercer Neil PDF
in its socialGontext
Teaching
EnglishLanguage
s o c i o l i n g u i s tei ct h, n o g r a p h iacn, d
_ - r l l i s hL a n g u a gTee a c h i ni gn i t s s o c i a lc o n t e x t o f f e r s
o sn T E S 0 L t e a c h i n ga n d l e a r n i n ga n d i n t r o d u c etsh e
, , , a l - p s y c h o l o g i cpaelr s p e c t i v e
. . = . a n tl i t e r a t u r e
o n s e c o n dl a n g u a gaec q u i s i t i o nI t. p r e s e n tEs n g l i s hl a n g u a gtee a c h i n g
i cn dc u l t u r acl o n t e x t s '
, ographa
. . a r i e t yo f s p e c i fc i n s t i t u t i o n agl e
p i e c e -s h a v eb e e n
. : . : i c l e s- w h i c hi n c l u d eb o t hc l a s s i ca n d s p e c i a l lcyo m m i s s i o n e d
teaching'
- _ .. . , y c h o s e n
a n o e d i t e dt o p r e s e ntth e m a i np r i n c i p l eosf E n g l i s hl a n g u a g e
i
n
d
i
v
i d u a l i toyf
t
h
e
r
e
c
o
g
n
i
s
e
snd learners,
: , 3 c u so n t h e r o l e sp l a y e db y t e a c h e r a
g u i d a n c ef o r s t u d e n t s '
j . a g e l e a r n e r ss, u p p o r t e a c h e r si n t h e p r o v i s i o no f a c t i v e
betweenlearners
interaction
and examinebothpositiveand negativepatternsof
=-.- r1g,
:-,rteacherS.
of
- -ls
u n f a m i l i awr i t h r e s e a r cihn t h i sf i e l da n o v e r a lul n d e r s t a n d i n g
R e a d eor f f e r sp e o p l e
g h i l ea l l o w i n tgh em o r ee x p e r i e n c e d
. = . ui s s u eisn c o n t e m p o r a E
r yn g l i s hl a n g u a gtee a c h i nw
presented'
.=aderthe
o p p o r t u n i ttyo r e l a t eh i so r h e re x p e r i e n c teost h et h e o r i e s
; od
J '; l ( e i t hc h i c l < R
; n n eB u r n s ;A . S u r e s hc a n a g a r a j a h
l . B r e e nA
A r t i c l e sb y : M i c h a e P
l '
; a t s yM . L i g h t b o w nA;n g e lM . Y ' L i n ; M i c h a eH
G i b b o n sP; a u ll ( n i g h t P
illls; Pauline
e y l e s ;D a v i dN u n a nJ; a c l <c ' R i c h a r d s ;
; l o r e n cM
d i t c h e l lF
L o n g ;N e i lM e r c e r ;R o s a m o nM
J o a ns w a n n ;L e ov a n L i e r
c e l i a R o b e r t sP; e t e rS k e h a nA; s s i aS l i m a n i ;N i n aS p a d a ;
L i n g u i s t i casn d D i r e c t o ro f t h e
C h r i s t o p h eNr . C a n d l i ni s C h a i r P r o f e s s oor f A p p l i e d
Researca
ht the city
c e n t r e f o r E n g l i s hL a n g u a g eE d u c a t i o na n d c o m m u n i c a t i o n
nn
sd
L a n g u a gaen dc o m m u n i c a t i o a
U n i v e r s i toyf H o n gl ( o n g .N e i lM e r c e ri s P r o f e s s oorf
l
(
'
a t t h e 0 p e nU n i v e r s i t yU'
D i r e c t oor f t h e C e n t r ef o r L a n g u a gaen dC o m m u n i c a t i o n s
volumes
Companion
T h ec o m p a n i ovno l u m e isn t h i ss e r i e sa r e :
by AnneBurnsand CarolineCoffin
AnalysingEnglishin a GtobalContextedited
editedby DavidR. Hall and Ann Hewings
Innovationin EnglishLanguageTeaching
T h e s et h r e e r e a d e r sa r e p a r t o f a s c h e m eo f s t u d yj o i n t l y d e v e l o p ebdy M a c q u a r i e
' t the Qpen
U n i v e r s i t yS, y d n e yA, u s t r a l i aa, n d t h e 0 p e n U n i v e r s i t yU, n i t e dl ( i n g d o mA
of
Speakers
to
English
Teaching
part
course,
of a single
the threereadersare
University,
Education
in
MA
Worldilde whichforms part of the OpenUniversity
1ther Languages
s f Other
D i p l o m ai n T e a c h i n gE n g l i s ht o s p e a k e r o
( A p p l i e dL i n g u i s t i c sa)n d A d v a n c e d
s
i
n
g l es t u d y
t
o
a
t
t
a
c
h
e
d
e
a
c
h
a
r
e
U n i v e r s i t yt h, e t h r e er e a d e r s
L a n g u a g eA
s .t M a c q u a r i e
L
i
n
t ei p l o m aa n d M a s t e ro f A p p l i e d g u i s t i c s
u n i t s ,w h i c hf o r m p a r t o f t h e P o s t g r a d u a D
p r 0 gr a m m e s .
postgraduate
y A i n E d u c a t i oins n o we s t a b l i s h ea dst h em o s tp o p u l a r
T h e0 p e nU n i v e r s i tM
r
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
i nega c hy e a r '
l si,t h o v e r3 , 5 0 0 s t u d e n t s
n r o f e s s i o n aw
d e g r e ef o r U l ( e d u c a t i o p
e o r l d w i d eT. h e M A i n E d u c a t i o ins d e s i g n e d
From 2001 it will alsobe availablw
p a r t i c u l a r lfyo r t h o s ew i t h e x p e r i e n cien t e a c h i n ge, d u c a t i o n a ld m i n i s t r a t i oonr a l l i e d
e n ds t u d e n tasr ef r e et o s e l e c tf ,r o m a r a n g eo f o p t i o n s ,
f i e l d sT
. h eM A i s a m o d u l adr e g r e a
in
t h e p r o g r a m m teh a t b e s tf i t s i n w i t h t h e i r i n t e r e s tasn d p r o f e s s i o ngaol a l s .T h e M A
p
a
c
e
in
a
n
d
o
w
n
t
h
e
i
r
a
t
s
t
u
d
y
E d u c a t i opnr o g r a m m pe r o v i d egs r e a tf l e x i b i l i t yS. t u d e n t s
b
s t u d ym a t e r i a l sa, n d a r e s u p p o r t e d y
t h e i r o w n t i m e . T h e y r e c e i v es p e c i a l l py r e p a r e d
( A p p l i e dL i n g u i s t i c s )
a p e r s o n at lu t o r . ( S u c c e s s f cuol m p l e t i o on f t h e M A i n E d u c a t i o n
D
o
c
t
o
r
a
t ien E d u c a t i o (nE d D )
e n t i l e ss t u d e n ttso a p p l yf o r e n t r yt o t h e O p e nU n i v e r s i t y
programme.)
Dle v e l o p m einnt E d u c a t i opnr o s p e c t ucso n t a i nfsu r t h e ri n f o r m a t i oann d
Theprofessiona
a p p l i c a t i ofno r m s .T o f i n d o u t m o r ea b o u tt h e Q p e nU n i v e r s i tay n d r e q u e syt o u r c 6 p y
w r i t et o t h e C o u r s eR e s e r v a t i oanns d S a l e sC e n t r eT, h e O p e nU n i v e r s i t yP, O B o x
olease
or telephone
724,W altonHall, M ilton l(eynesMl<76ZW, or e-mailces-gen@open.ac.ul<,
on the
information
For
more
g
+44 (0)1g0 65323I or visitthe website,www.open.ac.uk.
uisitwww.open.ac.uk/applied-linguistics.
MA in Education(AppliedLinguistics)
in
degrees
versions
of its influentialon-campus
distance
MacquarieUniversityintroduced
Diploma
]994 and now has studentsin over thirty countries.Both the Postgraduate
L
i
n
guistics
A
p
p
l
i
e
d
a n d t h e M a s t e r sa r e o f f e r e di n t h r e ev e r s i o n sA: p p l i e dL i n g u i s t i c s ,
( T E S O L )a n d A p p l i e dL i n g u i s t i c(sL i t e r a c y )C. r e d i t sa r e f r e e l yt r a n s f e r a b lbee t w e etnh e
Diplomaand the Mastersand betweenthe three versions,and studentsmay change
s o 0 e so r m i x m o d e si f d e s i r e dS. t u d e n tsst u d ya t t h e i r
e n d o n - c a m p um
b e t w e e dn i s t a n c a
k rovided
t ndfeedbacp
d a t e r i a l sa n d w i t h s u p p o r a
y e v e l o p em
o w n p a c e ,w i t h s p e c i a l l d
p
h
o n ea n d
f
a
x
,
w
e
b
,
e
m
a
i
l
,
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
d i r e c t l yf r o m l e c t u r e risn t h e L i n g u i s t i cDs e p a r t m e n t
p r o v i d e tdh r o u g ht h e R e s o u r c eCse n t r eo f t h e N a t i o n a l
p o s t .A s p e c i a l i s el idb r a r ys e r v i c e
. x t e r n a ld o c t o r a l
T
e
C e n t r ef o r E n g l i s hL a n g u a g e a c h i n ga n d R e s e a r c (hN ' C E L T R ) E
p r o g r a m m easr e a l s oa v a i l a b l e '
on
p r o g r a m m easn d a p p l i c a t i ofno r m sa r e a v a i l a b l e
I n f o r m a t i o na b o u tt h e M a c q u a r i e
Office,Macquarie
or by writing to the LinguisticsPostgraduate
www.ling.mq.edu.au
(
t
e
l
:
+
6
1
2
9
8 5 0 9 3 5 2 ;e - m a i l :
+
6
1
298509243;fax:
U n i v e r s i tN
y ,S W2 1 0 9 ,A u s t r a l i a
i nl g . m q . e d u . a u ) .
lingdl@
EnglishLanguage
Teaching
in its SocialContext
'Candlin's
Teaching
EnglishLanguage
Worldwide
A selection of readers' comments on the series:
'This
three-part series olfers a map to ELT research and practice . . . it represents the best
that ELT, as an Anglo-Saxon institution, has developed over the last thirtl. vears lbr the
teaching of English around the rl-orld . . . Readers will find in this series the Who's Who
guide to this dvnamic and expanding communitv.' Clairc Kramsch,[JniversityoJ CattJornia,
Berkeley,CaltJornia
'Experienced
series provides a collection of essential readings r,r'hich r,r'ili not only provide the
TEFL/TESOL student and teacher rvith access to the most up,to-date thinking and
approaches to the subject but u'ill gir.e anv person interested in the subject an overvi,ew of
I
I
rl
the phenomenon of the use and usage of English in the modern '"vorid. Perhaps more
importantly, this series r'r'ill be crucial to those students w.ho do not have available to thern
articles that provide both a w'ide spectrum of information and the necessary analytical tools
to investigate the language further.' Joseph A. Fole1, SoutheastAsia lLinisten of Education
Organisation,RegionolLanguageCentre,Singapore
'The
F i r s tp u b l i s h e2d0 0 1
by Routledge
1 1 N e wF e t t e rL a n e ,L o n d o nE C 4 P4 E E
n t h e US A a n dC a n a d a
S i m u l t a n e o up
s luyb l i s h ei d
by Routledge
, e wY o r k ,N Y 1 0 0 0 1
2 9 W e s t3 5 t h S t r e e tN
Routledgeis an imprint of the Taylor & FrancisGroup
e n i v e r s i tayn d
l a c q u a r iU
l a t e r i aM
@ 2 0 0 1 C o m p i l a t i oonr, i g i n aal n de d i t o r i am
s t h e i ra u t h o r s
T h e0 p e nU n l v e r s i t yi n; d i v i d u aalr t i c l e @
L o d g eW
, olverhampton
T y p e s eitn P e r p e t u a n d B e l l G o t h l cb y l ( e y s t r o l <Jea, c a r a n d a
P r i n t e da n d b o u n di n G r e a tB r i t a i nb y T J I n t e r n a t i o n aLlt d , P a d s t o wC, o r n w a l l
o r r e p r o d u c eodr
A l l r i g h t sr e s e r v e dN. o p a r t o f t h i s b o o km a y b e r e p r i n t e d
c , e c h a n l c oa rl o t h e rm e a n s /
u t i l i z e dl n a n yf o r m o r b y a n ye l e c t r o n i m
, c l u d i n gp h o t o c o p y i nagn d r e c o r d i n g ,
n o w k n o w no r h e r e a f t eirn v e n t e di n
o r i n a n y i n f o r m a t i o sn t o r a g eo r r e t r i e v asl y s t e mw/ i t h o u tp e r m i s s i o n
i n w r i t i n gf r o mt h e p u b l i s h e r s .
in PublicationData
British Library Cataloguing
A c a t a l o g uree c o r df o r t h i sb o o ki s a v a i l a b lfer o mt h e B r i t i s hL i b r a r y
Catalogingin PublicationData
Libraryof Congress
Nr. C a n d l i n
l a n g u a gtee a c h i n ign i t s s o c i acl o n t e x/t e d i t e db y C h r i s t o p h e
English
a n d N e i lM e r c e r .
gn g l i s h
p . c m .- ( T e a c h i nE
l a n g u a gweo r l d w i d e )
e lf e r e n c ea sn di n d e x .
b
i
b
l
i
o
g
r
a
p
h
i cr a
Includes
l a n g u a g e - S t uadnydt e a c h i n g - F o r e isgpne a k e r s2.. E n g l i s h
1. English
, hristopher.
a yn dt e a c h i n g - S o c i a sl p e c t s I. . C a n d l i nC
language-Stud
I I . M e r c e rN, e i i .I I I . S e r i e s
P E 7 I 2 8 . A 2E 4 9 2 0 0 0
428'.0071-dc2l
I SBN 0 - 4 1 5 - 2 4 t 2 r - 9 ( h b k )
IS B N 0-415-24122-7 $bk)
00-059195
---:
\LUa/*.-_?--P' dz'?
-=
,Ar-ln
I I i-22.,
o do
.
t
/,
GOntentStttttt 2 i
v'2d,i"
6./l
-4
C/t.
=
Uzt-t ro:
r'h
=
"
tt:
5/6
" /;
trt,
v-'
'.g8d
@)
Listof illustrations
Acknowledgements
xii
PART ONE
I o w i s l a n g u a g el e a r n i n g e x p l a i n e d ?
RosamondMitchell and Florence Myles
SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING: I(EY CONCEPTS
AND ISSUES
11
28
Rod Ellis
SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION: RESEARCH AND
LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY
44
Peter Sl<ehan
COMPREHENSION AND PRODUCTION STRATEGIES IN
LANGUAGE LEARNING
7q
90
Viii
CONTENTS
Celia Roberts
LANGUAGE ACQUISITION OR LANGUAGE SOC]ALISATiON
IN AND THROUGH DlSCOURSE? TOWARDS A REDEFINITION
OF THE DOMAIN OF SLA
lOB
Michael P. Breen
THE SOCIAL CONTEXT FOR LANGUAGE TEARNING:
A NEGLECTED SITUATION?
r22
P A R TT W O
S t r a t e g i e sa n d g o a l si n t h e c l a s s r o o mc o n t e x t
Paul l(night
THE DEVELOP[,iENT OF EFL METHODOLOGY
t47
Jack C. Richards
BEYOND METHODS
167
Michael H. Long
10
180
David Nunan
11
191
200
. - : , : 'A . S u r e s h C a n a g a r a j a h
13
IN STUDENT OPPOSITION TO
208
J. l(eith Chick
T4
227
PART THREE
A n a l y s i n gt e a c h i n g a n d l e a r n i n g
"\/
Tq,Neil
I15
Mercer
/LANGUAGE
243
Pauline Gibbons
16
258
CONTENTS
IX
27t
Assia Slimani
EVALUATION OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
287
Michael P. Breen
T9
306
Joan Swann
20
-1
SETTINGS
.l
IUC
tzJ
345
Illustrations
Figures
1.1
2.r
3.r
3.2
5.1
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
10.1
12.I
20.r
20.2
20.3
20.4
20.5
20.6
20.7
20.8
20.9
2 0 . 10
20 . 1 1
20.12
l o d eo
l a n g u a glee a r n i n g
l f second
S p o l s l < yg' e
s n e r am
B a r c h a r t ss h o w i n tgh e l a n g u a glee v e l so f p r e -a n dp o s t - p u b e r t y
l e a r n e rosf En gIi s h
' M o m e n t so' f a c t i o nr e s e a r c h
R e l a t i nd
g i s c i p l i n a rt h
y e o r ya n d l a n g u a gpee d a g o g y
IRFcontinuum
g aterial
S i t u a t i o n al al n g u a gtee a c h i n m
A t y p i c aal u d i o - l i n g udar li l l
s h i c he n c o u r a gger o u p w o rak n dp a r t i c i p a t i o n
C L T m a t e r i a lw
A t y p i c a lP r a b h ut a s k
An example
o f u n i to b j e c t i v ewsi t h i na t e x t - b a s eadp p r o a c h
N o u np h r a s ea c c e s s iIbi tiy h i e r a r c h y
T h et e a c h i n g - l e a r n icnygc l e
F i e l d - n o t eosf a n a s s e m b liyn a s c h o oiln s o u t h - e a sEtn g l a n d
Transcription
of teacher-student
talk
T r a n s c r i p t i oonf s m a l lg r o u pt a l k : s t a n d a r d
layout
T r a n s c r i p t i oonf s m a l lg r o u pt a l l < c: o l u m nl a y o u t
T r a n s c r i p t i oonf g r o u pt a l k :s t a v el a y o u t
Representation
of nonverbal
featuresin an oral narrative
Representation
of teacher'sgazetowardsfemaleand malestudents
T r a n s c r i pi tl l u s t r a t i nagl t e r n a t i obne t w e e E
n n g l i s ha n d M a l t e s e
T r a n s c r i pi tl l u s t r a t i nagl t e r n a t i obne t w e e S
n a n s l < rai tn d E n g l i s h
T r a n s c r i p t i oonf a c o n v e r s a t i ouns i n gC r e o l ea n d L o n d o nE n g l i s h
R e p r e s e n t a t ioofnp r o n u n c i a t i ouns i n gp h o n e t iscy m b o l s
I n c i d e n coel ' c o sa n db e c a u sien p r i m a r vs c h o ocl h i l d r e n 'tsa l k
I3
3B
5B
65
94
150
151
156
t62
164
l85
202
329
33r
332
333
??q
336
337
338
339
339
342
ILLUSTRATIONS
Xi
-ables
I
I
I
I
2
3
I
g t d i f f e r e nat g e s
C o m p a r i s oonf l a n g u a glee a r n i n a
Attributesof innovation
S o m et e c h n i q u et hs a t t e a c h e rus s e
e c r e a sfeo r e a c hg r o u p
Average
s c o r e sa n dp e r c e n t a gi n
Effectof topicalisation
P e r c e n t a goef c l a i m sm a d eb y r e p o r t e rosn e a c hl i n g u i s t ifce a t u r e
Numberandtypeof student-initiated
movesin two typesof lesson
4t
62
293
296
299
340
Acknowledgements
The editors and publishers r,r'ould like to thank the follou'ing for permission to use
copyright material:
'The
social context of language
Michael P. Breen and Cambridge Unir,ersitt' Press for
Acquisition,7, 1985.
Language
in Second
learning: a neglected situation' in Studres
the discourse:
for'Navigating
Centre
Michael P. Bte.n a.rd SEAMEO Regional Language
on what is learned in the language classroom' in Proceedings of the 1997 RELC
Seminar.
Anne Burns for'Genre-based approachesto r'r'riting and beginning adult ESL learners',
Vol. 5, No. 3, Mav 1990 rvith permission from the National
reprinted from Prospecr
Centre for English LanguageTeachingand Research(NCELTR), Australia. (Macquarie
Universitv). Includes material in Fig. 2 adapted from Learning Stylesin Adult Migrant
EducationbyWilling K., also rvith permission from the National Centre for Engiish
LanguageTeachingand Research(N CELTR), Australia (Macquarie Universitv).
'Evaiuation
of classroominteraction' in J.C.
Cumbridge University Pressfor Assia Slimani
Education,1992.
Language
Alderson and A. Beretta (eds) EvaluatingSecond
A. Suresh Cangarajaand TESOL for'Critical ethnographv of a Sri Lankan classroom:
ambiguities in student opposition to reproduction through ESOL' in TESOL@Lartetly,
Y o l . 2 1. N o . 4 , ( T E S O L 1 9 9 3 ) .
'Safe-talk:
collusion in apartheid
Press for
J. Keith Chick and Cambridge Universitv
e d u c a t i o n ' i n H . c o l e m a n ( e d . ) S o c t e tay n d t h eL a n g u a gcel a s s r o o m , 7 9 9 6 .
Rod Ellis for'second ianguage acquisition research and languagepedagogy' in Sl,4 Research
and LanguageTeachingbv Rod Ellis ( Rod Ellis 1997). Reproduced by permission of
Oxford Universitv Press.
Patsv M. Lightborvn and Nina Spadafor'Factors affecting second language learning' in How
1anguogi,are Learned(Second Edition) bv Patsv M. Lightbou'n and Nina Spada(Patsv M.
Lightbown and Nina Spada 1999.) Reproduced bv permission of Oxford University
Press.
'Doing-English-lessons in the reproduction or
Angel M.Y. Lin and TESOL for
transformation of social rvorlds?'in fESOI @Larterly,Yol.33, No. 3, (TESOL 1999).
Michael Long and John Benjamin's Publishing Co. for'Focus on form: a design feature in
Perspective.
in a Cross-cultural
languageteaching methodolog ,-' in FotetgnLanguageResearch
Co.,
Publishing
Ediiedbv K. de Bot, R.B. Ginsberg and C. Krausch. John Benjamin's
1991.
ACI(NOWLEDGEMENTS Xiii
Rosamond Mitchell and Florence Mvles for'Second languagelearning: kev concepts and
7999.
LearningTheories,
Language
issues'in Second
David Nunan andELTJournal for'Teachinggrammar in context' in ELTJournal,Vol. 5 2, N o.
2, 1998. Reproduced bv permission of ELTJournal and Oxford University Press.
'Bevond
methods' in The Language
jack Richards and Cambridge Universitv Press for
T
I . u) Ln' t, th
L ri yn n V n r r i v
199Q.
Critical readers
ProfessorVijavK. Bhatia (Department of English, Citv Universitr', Hong Kong)
Geoff Thompson (Applied English LanguageStudiesUnit, Liverpool Universitv, UK)
ProfessorLeo van Lier (EducationalLinguistics,Universitv of Monterev, USA).
External assessor
ProfessorRonald Carter (Department of English Studies,Nottingham Universitq UK).
Developmental testers
Ilona Czirakl'(ltalv)
Eladyr Maria Norberto da Silva (Brazil)
Chitrita Mukerjee (Australia)
Dorien Gonzales(UK)
Patricia Williams (Denmark).
XiV
ACI(NOWLEDGEMENTS
N. Gandlin
Christopher
andNeilMercer
INTRODUCTION
. :..n Macquarie Universitr'-,in Svdnev,Australia, and The Open University, in Milton
' :: Des, England,decided to collaborateon the developmentof neu' curriculum materiais
: study at Master's level, the partnership brought together The Open University's
.:'-rience in open learning in the lield of education,and Macquarie'sexperiencein applied
: .uistics and languageeducation, backedbv its or,vnexisting distancelearning programme.
'...
collection of articlesin this book and its trl-o companion volumes are one result of that
..aboration.While the edited coliections har.ebeen designedasone part of an overall study
: {ramme, complementedb1'other learning and studv materialscomprising study guides
, .i accompanving video and audio recordings, the-vstand alone as extensive vet focused
liections of articles rvhich addressket. contemporarv issuesin English languageteaching
I a p p l i e dl i n g u i s t i c s .
.{ major concern in editing these three volumes has been t}re desire to present English
rrguage teaching (ELT) in a varietv ofspecihc institutional, geographicand cultural contexts.
:{ence, as far as possible acrossthe three r,olumes, we have attempted to highllght debate,
.cussionand illustration ofcurrent issuesfrom different parts ofthe English-speakingand
:rqlish-using world, including those rvhere Englishis not learned asa first language.In doing
.'ris rve recognize that English languageteaching comprises a
global communitv of teachers
.rd learnersin a range ofsocial contexts.
Itis EngltshLanguageTeaching
in jts SocialContextrvhich is the title of this second volume
:.rthe series, and it lvill be useful to decide earlv on lvhat lve mean bv this term.We have
. number of interpretations and perspectivesin mind. One that is central is that of the
.tssroomcontextin w'hich interactions betrveen teachers and learners have an effect on the
:,ature and qualitv of languageiearning. No languageteaching and learning takes place
:rowever,in a classroom lvhich is isolated from the rvorld of experiences and personal
..ngagementsand investmentsof learners outside the classroomitself. In that sensethe w.ider
,acialcontextof life outside the classroomhasan important effect on lvhat takesolace in thesc
interactionsbetrveen learners and teachers,and among learners. For manv j""rn"rs, the
rontexts outside the classroom are not onlv r,vherethey make use of the English they have
learned in class,but tiev can aiso constitute a por,verfulincentive (or disincentive) for further
learning. Moreover, it is not onlv the contexts of learning and using English that are
rmportant. We need also to understand the proJessional
contextof teachers' practices
themselvesrvitlin this interactive process of classroom teaching-and-learning. Finall1.,w.e
need to take account of the socio-culturalcontextbv rt.hich communicating partners in this
INTRODUCTION
process evoke and create shared knou'ledge and use it for making sensetogether, in a sense
constructing the overarching context for successfullanguageiearning.
No col[ction of papers about E.rglishLanguageTeachingcan hope to be comprehensive.
The rvorld ofELT in its diversitv,oflearners, teachers,ofschools and institutions, cultures,
countries,contents,and pedagogiescannotbe capturedevenin a seriesof three books'What
and fill
a structured coilection oi r.t.".tJa papers like this can do is to map out the territory,
in enough of the topographical f""i..i", so that the beginning reader can obtain an overall
rich
i-pr.rri"io., of it, .urt{tiphr,, r,vhilethe experienced reader can bring her or his own
which
of
of ttauelii.r! und-rn"p-.nuking to fill in the details of those territories
"*p..i..r."
is
thev have special .*'u...r"., and knorvledge. We need to be cautious, how'ever' No map
was
a
world
their
Europe,
so
of
.r".,trul. Th. first maps lvere products of the cartographers
just
were
in their ou.n Sino-centric lval', those devisedbv the Chinese
Euro-centric o.r",
"rd,
as biased. Readershave been alerted, therefore, to a natural tendencv tow-ardsa particular
on
projection. Our ELT map in this book of{'ersa social and socio-cultural perspective
would
it
and
iu.rgrrug"learning. At the same time, maps have to be true to their territories,
U" JU.,i.a to igno"rea psvchological perspective on languagelearning, one which highlighted
of the individual learner, engagingwith the intricacies of a new
the cognitiv{ro."rr.,
served
comminicatile code. Maps are not onlv to be follolved, horvever.Thev have ahvays
-o.. relined map-making. In the sameway, teachers do not just
asincentives for further
".td
follow a set ofpresented instructions, thev activelv create and chart their own Progress
through the teriitories of learning in their orvn ciassrooms'Accordinglv, it isimportant that
,,rch Jfo.rrr"d collection asthis gii-esa major placeto classroom-basedresearch,in particular,
researchw-hichexamines the processesof teaching-and-learning,using that evidence which
is most to hand in classrooms,namelv the productive talk of teachersand learners.
What a collection of papers needsto have,is an argument, one'i""'hichcarries the reader
ju-st
towards engagementu,ith particular issuesand questions,offering through its structure
right
the
we
have
gauged
that amount Jf guidunce r-r"."..rtt'. Ultimatelv, though, r,vhether
can say'What
nose,
only
bv
the
vou
readers
led
simplv
or
required,
that
of
degree
giidu.r..
language
English
on
main
three
to
take
perspectives
is
a guiding itructure
orrJh"u. dorr.
",
its
and
learning
Processes;an
teaching: an explanatio.t of ,orr-r.hvpothesesabout language
interprJtatio.r ofl"...r"rr' and teachers' strategiesand goalsin the classroom context, their
learners'
prr.ptr.. and their beliefs; and, finallr', a description and analvsis.ofteachers' and
language
about
think
thev
do,
what
t"huuiotr., and practices, rvho thev are, rvhat thev
learning and rvhat their attitudes are'
:NTRODUCTION 3
..-arning,and in which rvays,is a centrai question for teachers of language.Patsv Lightbor,vn
lnd Nina Spada take up this necessarvdualism in their account of the cognitive and
'good
'rehavioural
language
characteristicsof rvhat some researchershavereferred to asthe
to
be
a
third
to
book,
there
has
aspect
of
this
in
argument
later
the
u.ill
see
we
As
rearner'.
language
learning
on
the
social
conditions
of
the
:nv such account, namelv the influence of
of languagelearning.Manl learnersdon't learn languagesin classrooms.Ther'
:l-fectiveness
or lessr,vellor badlr',on the street, in the communitv, and in the u'orkplace
more
them
iearn
Certainly,Lightborvn'sand Spada'sterritorv abutsthat of Mitchell and Mvles. Factorssuch
r, -otiuution-, aptitude, p.rro.rulitu, intelligence, learner preferencesand learner beliefs, rvill
:e high on any teacher's list, but so rvili factors of age, social background, gender and
d u c a t i o n aal t t a i n m e n t .
Researchingsecondlanguagelearning, and exploring the relationship between researchrnq and teaching is a kev element in lvhat some have referred to as the teacher as'reflective'
practitioner. Rod Ellis' paper on research and pedagogv in the context of second language
:cquisition squarelv addressesthis relationship. Questions of decision-driven research
..manatingfrom practical classroom problems, or knowledge-driven researchstarting from
theoretical hypotleses, are but trvo sides of the same coin. At the heart are the practices of
rhe classroom, or encounters rvith the target languagein other contexts. That these worlds
:,iteaching and research have often been at odds is an issuefor this paper, and for this book
as a r,vholeto explore.What Ellis identifies, how-ever,is the importance of mapping the
rultures ofteaching and researchingand achievingat Ieastmutual understanding,ifnot active
collaboration.Whatis clear after reading Ellis is that it isn't going to be enough for teachers
'Here
r:o u.rite
be dragons' and steer the teaching ship alvav from the rockv coastline of
re search. One useful and productive ground for such collaboration is that of researching
languagelearning, looking at what learners do asaspectsof their
and strategiesin
.earners'styles
personality, or in response to problems and tasks that teaching, or just life itself, confronts
them. Peter Skehan'spaper has this dual focus and he locates his discussionin the kev area
of learners' comprehensionof foreign languagetexts, u-ritten or spoken, examining the
relationship between input to the learner, lr'hat the learner confronts, and u,'hatthe learner
produceshlrself, the ouiput oflearning. Important for Skehan,and for our general argument
in this book, are the \4-aysin which learners neBotjatemeaning,guided bv teachers, in their
road towards understanding the foreign language.
If negotiation of meaning smacksof the marketplace, then perhapsthat is no bad image
ior the exchange of language goods rvhich characterizesboth classrooms and social
interactions more generallv. Estimating the values to be placed on these goods is, after all,
u'hat a good deal of teaching (and learning) is all about. Leo van Lier's, Celia Roberts'
and Michael Breen'spapers are all sited in the marketplace of learning and teaching.It is time,
oJlearning.Nou-a nelv set of questions arise. How
then, to begin to look at the contexts
learners interact rvith eachother and other speakers,lvhat do thev do r,vhenthey are learning
a language,what effect their attitudes, beliefs and feelings have on languagelearning, what
kinds of personalinvestment thev are prepared to make, holv far thev can draw on the support
ofothers, what effects teaching has on learning, and to rvhat extent the social conditions and
priorities of the social rvorld outside the classroom, and the learners' piaces in that world,
affect what learners do in classroomsand hou' effectivelv thev can learn'
Addressing these questions suggestsa need for some redrauing of the dimensions of the
second language learning map. In fact, as u'e rvill see in the papers rvhich follor,v in the
collection, such questionsmake us redrau'our projection in a number of important ways:
to take account of the Iearning of strategic competence not merelv of languagecomPetence;
of the appraisalof learning sites,contexts and modes askev variabiesin languageacquisition;
INTRODUCTION
of the variably positive and negative effects of learners' social and personal commitment to
Ianguagelearning; of the need to take into account the multiple identities of learners, affected
as they are by issuesofgender, class,race and po!\r; and, especially,ofthe need to engage
in micro-exploration of the interactions of learners rvitl learners and learners with teachers,
or other target languagespeakers.
In his paper, Leo van Lier drau.s on exactlv this shift of perspective towards the social
contextualisation and construction ofsecond languagelearning. He also takesup in practice
many of the issuesraised earlier in the Ellis paper, particuiarlv his account of interpretative
research.What he adds,however, in his account of the possiblett.pes of interaction and types
of discourse to be found in the second languageclassroom, is the importance of the effect
ofpower and control on rvhat kinds oftalk are encouraged, discouragedor even forbidden.
Such issuesare also central to Celia Roberts' paper w'ith its critical evaluation of more
traditional and cognitive approaches rvhich see second language learning as essentially a
matter of personal endeavour and accomplishment. Her focus on learner identities and the
effects of learning contexts on languagelearning r'r'ithin an overall sociolinguistic and social
constructionist model, links learning to living in an original way, and, in so doing, addresses
some of the questions w.eidentified earlier as important to the argument of this collection
of papers.It is important to note, though, that this shift of emphasisis not one u,hich abandons
the necessaryinclusion of the personal and cognitive development of the learner's language
learning capacity.Thepoint is to forge a connection betrveen both paradigms.This is in large
measure achievedin Michael Breen's paper on the social context of languagelearning. In his
anthropological metaphor ofthe classroom as coralgarden,teacher-researchersare directed
at the importance of the multiple discoursesof the classroom, where w.hatis said and how
it is expressed among the participants of this cuitural rvorld takes on a key significancefor
the explanation of the processesof languagelearning, and in particular for our understanding
of the essentialdifferences among languagelearners. His defining characteristicsof the
classroom as a specialsocio-cultural r.vorld,together r,vithhis emphasison the analysisof the
discoursesof teaching and learning, offer the teacher-researchera means by which he or she
can stand outside the realitl', much like a cartographer, and chart more dispassionatelythis
now newly-imagined and newlv-perspectivized setting.
Strategies
context
As active participants in teaching and learnin$, teachers and learners do not simply
Possessand display inherent or sociallv acquired characteristicsin some vacuum; like the
inhabitants of Malinow'ki's coralgarden(adopted and adapted bv Breen), they draw on them
to Pursue their orn-nstrategic goals.Thus, in order to advance the argument of this active
participation, all the papers in this second major section of the book target the realization
of t}ese strategic goals in classroom action, and the unique role played bv teachers in the
facilitation and structuring of that action. The way in rvhich teachers carry out this characteristic work hastraditionalh' been captured bv the metaphors of methodan'dmethodology.We
refer to them as metaphors,
in that thev stand for particular, ideologically invested systemsof
belief, about language,about learning, and about teaching.Like all metaphors they are to be
approached r,varily and treated rvith caution. Lakoff and Johnson's critical account of the
'metaphors
rve live by'gives a senseof their porverful inf'luence.We make no apology for
being critical in this book of such languagelearning and languageteaching metaphors. In our
experience, and tlat of the authors of some of the papers in this section, methodoloqies
are frequentlv theorized rvithout a close grounding in teaching experience, and mau be
.,il1
ili1
iltm
di'
n
,tr
nm
rD
INTRODUCTION
.:rsensitiveto particular local and cultural conditions. Methods, on the other hand, mav shift
.,ildlv from one theoretical position about languageand learning to another.Whether they
.:e form-focused,function-focused,or learning-focused,methodologiesand methods often
i-rve to concealthe rich varietv of classroomlanguagelearning and teachingr'r.orkbv offering
.:n-rplelabelsfor what are ahvavscomplex and contingentProcesses.
It is important, therefore, to stand back and take a conceptual and historical perspective
:: n'e lvant to understand horv such methods and methodologies came to be popular and
.,,r u'idel)'adopted. Such a perspective is provided bv Paul Knight's paper, surveving
:cvelopmentsin ELT methodologv and illustrating some of their characteristicfeaturesFrom this paper \rrecome to seethat despite their individualizing labels, manv methods and
nethodologies sharefeaturesin common, that thev are rarelv except in some extreme cases
rursued in some'pure' form, and that, in the end, thev remain profoundlv unexplanatorv
,i some of the ket-factors affecting languagelearning, both cognitive and social, that we have
lentified earlier. It is from this starting point that Jack Richards' paper begins. Questioning
:he dominance of methods and methodologies,Richards'perspectiveis that we should be
.rss concerned n-ith stipulating u-hat methods to follo*' and much more concerned with
effect of some
,liscoveringwhat effective teachersactuallv do. Resistingthe deproJesstonalizlng
.lar.ishadherenceto methods frees us and teachersmore generallv to examine what the
cractices of reflective and effective languageteaching might be.What these practices are is
a matter of teachers'strategic choices in relation to some particular content, and taken
together with teachers' beliefs and theories about teaching and learning, these constitute a
rationale for teaching.
The three papers that follow', bv Michael Long, David Nunan, andAnne Burns illustrate
rhesepracticesin different contexts and rvith different subject-matter,and involve distinctive
{enres and modes of communication. Implicitlr' (or explicitlv in the caseof Michael Long)
rhev all resist the concept of method, and focus instead on hor,v teachers' varied and
and productsof languagelearning
are the means bv u.hich the processes
.:ontingent procedures
are made to interact. Long's paper has as its central tenet the important distinction to be
drawn betrveen a focus onJorm (i.e. the development of arvarenessbv the learner of the
sr-stematicnature of language) and a focus onJorms (that is, the teaching of isolated and
unconnected sentence structures). What is important for the reader of Long's paper is his
reliance for his argument on experimentallv obtained evidence about learner behaviour.To
return, if onll' briefly, to our map-making metaphor, Long displavsthe indispensablevalue
of grounding conclusions about the shape of the second languagelearning territory in
carefully observed and recorded data from learner performance.
The issue of form and forms naturallv evokes a central area of content in language
teaching and learning, the approach that teacherstake to the teaching of grammar, itself the
topic of David Nunan's paper.With grammar asits focus, lvhat is notable in Nunan's argument
is how the lvav w-edefine grammar is contingent on ho'iv lve go about teaching it to learners.
Many might not easilv associatethe formal character of grammar u'ith an interactive and
participatory, task-basedapproach to pedagogv,so strong has been the focus in ELT on the
didactic instruction of grammatical forms.Yet this paper makes such a connection, and in so
doing redefinesgrammar lessassome asocialand technicist form than asa functional resource
for making meaning, a meansbv rvhich speakersand uriters can get things done. How writers
get things done is the topic of Anne Burns'paPel; focusing in particular, though, on how
teachers can assistlearners to get things done in *'riting. Drawing on work in systemic
functional grammar and the concept of genre, she reports on a national project conducted
by the National Centre for English LanguageTeachingand Research(NCELfR) at Macquarie
University, Svdnev,involving teachers in studving hor,va genre-basedapproach to w'riting
INTRODUCTION
could be used bv adult secondlanguagelearners at the beginning stagesoflearning a second
language.Of particular interest in the paper is her exposition of what she and her colleagues
refer to as the'teaching-learningcvcle'.
We have emphasizedthe importance to our understanding of second languagelearning
of exploring the socio-culturalcontexts of learning inside and outside the ciassroom.This
hasbeen and is a core theme of manv papersin this book. There has,however,been a tacit
assumption, though perhaps not so much in the paper bl Roberts earlier, that such contexts
learners.That this mav not be so, and often
called up differentiated, but essentiallt cooperatirz
i.r not so, is the theme of the two final papers in this second section of the book, those by
Suresh Canagarajahand Keith Chick. Both papers focus on the degree to which external
socio-culturalfactors,and learners'self-perceptionsoftheir identitiesaslearnersofEnglish,
affect what thev do in class, and rvhat they are preparedto do in class, and thus ultimately
impinge on their second ianguagelearning performance. In particular, the papers identify'
processesoflearners'reistance,inthecaseofCanagarajah,andinthecaseofChick,learners'
and teachers' collusiontofrustrate the successfulimplementation of particular methodologies
consideredas imported and as culturallv alien. Such issueshave recently taken on considerable importance in discussionsof the cultural appropriatenessof some English language
teaching. Both these papers have another significance,hor,vever,one r.r'hichrelates to Ellis'
earlier accounts ofresearching ianguagelearning.The papers are valuable not only for their
innovative re-examination of the goals and practices of languageteaching, but also for their
clear and detailed accounting of a critical ethnographic research methodology intended to
be revelatorv not onlv of the goings-on of classroomsbut more deeplv explanatory of the
wav in which t}e learning and teaching of English in particular is deeply embedded in the
poiiti.ul, social and educational fabric of post-colonial societies. Once again they reinforce
our vierv that the beliefs and ideologies of teachers about all aspectsof their subject-matter
and their practice have a profound effect on the planning and the moment-by-moment
decisions thev take in class.Torefer to these latter as intuitive, or personal, downplays both
their effect and our capacityto explore their underpinnings.Thattheseare deepiy engendered
by the social contexualization of learning and teaching, and the educational, social and
political contexts ofclassroom practice can, after reading these latter papers,hardly be in
doubt.
INTRODUCTION
: onl\- a medium for exchanging and constructing information but also as a tool for
' ..rking. Languageis seenbvVvgotskv both as a cultural and a cognitivetool, heiping us to
:.:nize our thoughts but also used for reasoning, planning and revierving. Of greatest
...:ihcance for the argument and the map of this book, then, isVygotskv'sinsistencethat
,::ninq is interactive and social. Such a position resonatesu.ell lr'ith the earlier papers in
-. .. eollection, notablv those br.r,an Lier and Breen, especiallvr'vith their highlighting of the
::.rortance of studving teacher and learner discourses.Neil Mercer's paper provides an
r.rmple of an in-depth studv of these discoursesof classroomlife, as the data from u.dich
mav be dralvn about the processesof languagelearning.Mercer's socio-cultural
:'.::.rences
.: nroach to the analvsisof classroom behaviour sits u'ell r'r-ithearlier papers in Part II of this
: ,,,k, and pavesthe u'av for a detailed discursive and linguistic analvsisof such classroom
:.:traction provided bv Pauline Gibbons' exhaustive example in her paper. She draws on
-:llidavan systemicfunctional grammaticalanalvsisto provide her description,incidentally
, -:;qesting a link betr,veenthe u'ork of Michael Hailidav and that of LevVygotskv, one which
...^t oth"". contemporarv researchersof classroominteraction have also mad". Gibbons'
- rper is also noter,vorthvfor her careful anaivsisof the immediate contexts of that meaning
:.-.lotiation u'hich w-ehave earlier identified as central to languagelearning.
It may be useful to recall here our comment at the outset of this Introduction that the
. rpers in this collection are all in different \\'avsintimateiv concerned w'ith the definition of
.::itext,in its various interpretations.The relationshipbetween languageand context is neither
rlrect nor unitarv. We can see in the papers bv Gibbons and Mercer two possible
.rterpretationsof this relationship.On the one hand, context is a featureof texts, somethinq
.nduring that belongs to the text-as-entitv that linguists seek to describe. In this sense,
:crhaps that found more in Pauline Gibbons' paper, context mav be the texts that learners
:inclteachersproduce, or the ph-vsicalsettings rvithin r,vhichtheir texts are produced. On the
,,therhand, perhapsmore along the lines suggestedbv Mercer, context is dvnamic, a product
,f people's thinking, more the configuration of information that people use for making sense
,ilanguage in particular situations.In this sense,conrextis more of a mental rather than a
ohvsicai phenomenon, something dvnamic and momentarv, but dependent for its creation
jn the classroom on the careful constructing bv the teacher of a continuity and a community
, l s h a r e du n d e r s t a n d i n gu i t h l e a r n e r s .
Such aVvgotskian vierv of context placesa premium on the exploration of the emotional
and affective engagement of learners in the acts and processesof learning. Such an
engagementis not explicable, hor,vever,onlv from an analvsisin terms of the activities of the
classroom.As in earlier papersin this collection, rvider socialfactors play a role. In her paper,
into secondlanguagelearning in Hong Kong
.\ngel Lin's experienceasa teacher-researcher
is linked to the work of the French sociologist Bourdieu in an attempt to explain the nature
of these factors. Are classroomsreplicative of learners' social worlds or do thev have the
power to challenge and transform them? In reading horv Lin addressesthis question there is
a clear resonancervith the papers bv Canagarajahand Chick in the secondpart ofthis book.
One kev exampie of a site for such a transformation is that of the cultural perspectives and
ideologies present in tvpical textbooks and the degree to rvhich classroompracticesmaintain
a conformist, or can exercise a challenging stancein relation to them.
The papersbv Mercer, Gibbonsand Lin all presentanalvsesof the interactiveprocesses
ofteaching and learning. Although rather different, the research described in each ofthem
encourages the vieu' that the qualitv of the interaction betlveen teachers and learners in
the languageclassroom, and betlveen learners if thev rvork together, is a strong determining
factor on rn'hat,and horv much, is learned and understood bv learners.The issue of hou'
classroominteraction can be related to assessmentof the outcomes of student learning is the
INTRODUCTION
'
'
rART
ONE
learning
How is language
explained?
i cte r 1
Rosamond
MitchellandFlorence
Myles
SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING:
I<EY CONCEPTSAND ISSUES
lntroduction
H I S C H A P T E R P R O V I D E S A N O V E R V I E W o f k e v c o n c e o t sa n d i s s u e s
i n o u r d i s c u s s i o no
s f i n d i r i d u a l p e r s p e c t i r e so n s e c o n dl u n g r u g . l e a r n i n g W
. e olfer
:-.:roductorvdefinitions of a range of kev terms, and trv to equip the reader u'ith the
:r'--ansto compare the goals and claims of particular theories '"vith one another. \\re also
-.mmarize key issues,and indicate w'herethev rvill be explored in more detail later.
The main themes to be dealt lvith in follouing sections are:
1
2
3
,f
5
'second
First, however, \\.'emust offer a preliminarv definition of our most basic concept,
languagelearning'. We de6ne this broadlv to include the learning of any language to any
1evel,provided onlv that the learning of the'second' languagetakesplace sometime later than
the acquisition of the first language. (Simultaneous infant bilingualism is a specialist topic,
u'ith its ow-n literature. See for example relevant sections in Hamers and Blanc 1989;
R o m a i n e1 9 9 5 . )
'second
ianguages'are anv languagesother than the learner's'native
For us, therefore,
'mother
tongue'. Thev encompassboth languagesof r,vidercommunication
language'or
encountered within the local region or communit)' (..g. at the u.orkplace, or in the media),
and truly foreign languages,rvhichhave no immediatelv local usesor speakers.Thevmay
indeed be the second languagethe learner is rvorking rvith, in a literal sense,or they may be
their third, fourth, fifth language . . . We believe it is sensibleto include'foreign' languages
'second'
under our more general term of
languages,becauselve believe that the underlving
learning processesare essentiallvthe same for more local and for more remote target
languages,despite differing learning purposes and circumstances.
We are also interested in all kinds of learning, rvhether formal, planned and systematic
(as in classroom-basedlearning), or informal and unstructured (as r'vhena nelv language
12
i s ' p i c k e du p '
broad .,r'-av
proposed here, and unless speciallv indicated rve rvill be using both terms
interchangeablv.
'model
ofsecondlanguage1earningisshorvninFiguret.1,takenr..sp@
'general
model of second language learning', as the propose-TffifiE3
represents a
this researcher'stheoreticalviews on the
it (Spolskv 1989, p. 14).The model encapsulates
overall relationship betr,veencontextual factors, individual learner differences, learning
opportunities, and learning outcomes. It is thus an ambitious model, in the breadth of
phenomena it is trving to explain. The rectangular boxes shou' the factors (or variables)
lvhich the researcherbelieves are most significant for learning, i .e. r""-herevariation can lead
to differencesin successor failure.The arrolvs connecting the various boxes shor,l'directions
ofinfluence.The contents ofthe r.ariousboxes are defined at great length, as consistingof
c l u s t e r so f i n t e r a c t i n g ' C o n d i t i o n s ' ( 7 4 i n a l l : 1 9 8 9 , p p . 1 6 - 2 5 ) , I v h i c h m a k e l a n g u a g e
Attitudes
(ofvariouskinds)
which appear in the
learneras
14
clear and explicit statements of the ground the theorv is supposed to cover, and the
claims which it is making;
systematic procedures for confirming/disconfirming the theorl', through data
gatheringand interpretationI
not onlv descriptions of L2 phenomena, but attempts to explain whv thev are so, and
to propose mechanismsfor change;
last but not least, engagementrvith other theories in the field, and serious attempts to
'common
ground' in ongoing
account for at least some of the phenomena rvhich are
The
remaining
sections
this
chapter offer a
(Long
1990a).
of
discussion
public
preliminarv overvierv of numbers of these.
Competenceand perJormance
Throughout the trventieth century, linguists have also disagreed in other lvays over their
main focus of interest and of studr'.Should this be the collection and anah'sisof actual attested
samplesof languagein use, for example bv recording and analvsingpeople's speech?Or
16
Modularity
A further issueof controversy for students of the human brain hasbeen the extent to which
the brain should be view'ed as modularor unitary.That is, should \\'e seethe brain as a single,
flexible organism, lr'ith one general set of procedures for learning and storing different kinds
S E C O N D L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G : C O N C E P T SA N D I S S U E S } 7
of knowledge and skills? Or, is it more helpfuilv understood as a bundle of modules,w-ith
distinctivemechanismsrelevant to different tvpes of knorvledge(e.g.Fodor 1983)?
The modular vierv hasconsistentlvfound support from rvithin linguistics,most famously
in the further debatebetu'een Chomskv and the chlld deo-elopmentpsi.chologist,JeanPiagei.
This debateis reported in Piatelli-Palmarini( 1980), and hasbeen re-examinedmany times;
a helpful recent summary is offered bv Johnson(1996, pp. 5-30). Briefl1.,Piagetarguedthat
languagewas simpll'one manifestation of the more general skill of svmbolic representation,
acquired as a stagein general cognitive development; no speciai mechanism was therefore
required to account for hrst languageacquisition. Chomskl"s general vierv is that not onh'
rs languagetoo complex to be iearned from environmentai exposure (his criticism of
Skinner), it is also too distinctive in its structure to be learnable bv general cognitive means.
Universal Grammar is thus endorved rvith its olvn distinctive mechanismsfor learning.
There are manv linguiststoday u-ho support the concept of a distinctive languagemodule
in the mind.There are also those n-ho argue that languagecompetence itself is modular, with
different aspectsof languageknow'ledge being stored and accessedin distinctive wavs.
However,there is no generalagreementon the number and nature of suchmodules, nor on
how thel'relate to other aspectsof cognition.
2
3
that the-vcontinue to operate during second languagelearning, and make kev aspects
of second languagelearning possible, in the same rvav that thev make {irst language
l e a r n i n gp o s s i b l e ;
that after the acquisition of the first language in earlv childhood, these mechanisms
ceaseto be operable,and secondlanguagesmust be learned bv other means;
that the mechanisms themselves are no longer operable, but that the first language
'copied'
in
provides a model of a natural language and how' it rvorks, rvhich can be
some way when learning a second ianguage;
that distinctive learning mechanisms for languageremain available,but onlv in part,
and must be supplemented bv other means.
The first position rvaspopularized in the second languagelearning Iield bv Stephen Krashen
in the 1970s,in a basicform.While Krashen'stheoreticalviervshavebeen criticized, this has
by no means led to the disappearanceof modular proposalsto account for SLL. Instead, this
particular perspective has been rer-italized bv the continuing development of Chomsky's
Universal Grammar proposals (Cook and Neu.son 1996).
On the other hand, thinking about those general learning mechanisms which may
be operating at least for adult learners ofsecond languageshas also developed further, since
e.g. the original proposalsof Mclaughlin (1987, pp. 133-53). Most obviously,the work of
the cognitive psychologistJ. R. Anderson on human learning, from an information processing
perspective, has been applied to various aspectsof second language learning b,v different
researchers(Johnson1995; O'Mallev and Chamot 1990;Toweliand Hawkins 19945.
11*
if.
I V I I T C H E L LA N D F L O R E N C E M Y L E S
1B ROSAIVIOND
Systematicity and variability
in L2 learning
When the utterances produced bv L2 learners are examined and compared with target
languagenorms, thev are often condemned as full of errors or mistakes.Traditionally,
languageteachershave often vier,vedthese errors as the result of carelessness
or lack of
concentration on the part of learners. If onlv learners w.ould trv harder, surelv their
productions could accuratelvreflect theTL rules u'hich thel-had been taught! In tlre midtwentieth centur\, under the influence of behaviourist learning theorl',
were often
".io.,
'bad
vierved as the result of
habits', rvhich could be eradicated if onl-vlearners did enough
rote learning and pattern drilling using target languagemodels.
One of the big lessonsu.hich has been learned from the researchof recent decadesis
that though learners' L2 utterancesmav be deviant bv comparison w.ith target language
norms , they are bv no meanslacking in svstem
. Errors and mis akesare patterned, and though
some
e. this is bv no meanstrue of
all of the
of
them.
Instead,
there
is
a
good deaTiT-ev-idencethat
llefrners r'vork their r'vavthrough a number of developmental
stages,
from very primitive and
deviantversionsof the L2, to progressivelvmore elaborateand target-likeversions.Just like
fullv prolicient users of a language,their ianguageproductions can be described by a set of
underlving rules; these interim rules have their orvn integrity and are notjust inadequatelv
applied versionsof theTL rules.
A clear example, rvhich has been studied for a range of target languages,has to do with
the formation of negative sentences.It has commonit been found that learners start off br
tacking a negative particle of some kind on to the end of an utterance (no you are playing
here); next, thev learn to insert a basic negative particle into the verb phrase (Mariana
not comingtoday); and finalir', thet' learn to manipulate modifications to auxiliaries and
other details of negation morphologr., in line with the full TL rules for negation (l can't plar
that one)(examplesfrom Ellis 1994, p. 100) .This kind of datahascommonly been interpreted
to show'that, at leastas far as kev parts of the L2 grammar are concerned, learners'development follorvs a common route,even if the rate at which learners actually travel along this
common route mav be verv different.
TLis systematicitv
in the ianguageproduced bv L2 learners is of course paralleled in the
early stagesthrough which first languageiearners also passin a highlv regular manner.Towell
and Hawkins identifv it as one of the key features rvhich L2 learning theories are required
t o e x p l a i n( 1 9 9 4 , p . 5 ) .
H o r t ' e v e r ,l e a r n e r l a n g u a g e( o r i n t e r l a n g u a g e
a ,s i t i s c o m m o n l v c a l l e d l i s n o t o n l r '
chafEacterized
bv sr stematicit\'.Learner Ianguagesystemsare presumabll'- indeed, hopefullr'
- un-Sfa5leand rn course-dfdrangd; certainl-v,thev are characterized also by'high degrees of
variability(Torvelland Hau-kins 1994,p.5). Most obviousll',Iearners'utterances seem to var\
'errors'
from moment to moment, in the types of
rvhich are made, and learners,."* li"bl.
to su,'itchbetu'een a range of correct and incorrect forms over lengthy periods of time. .\
well-knon'n example offered bv Ellis invoivesa child learner of Englishas L2 who seemed
to produce the utteranc es no look mv'card, don't lookmy cardinterchangeablvover an extended
period (1985). M-vleset al. (.1998)have produced similar data from a classroomlearner's
French as L2 , who l-ariablv produced forms such as non animal,je n'ai pas de animal rvithin
the same 20 minutes or so (to savthat he did not have a pet; the correctTL form should be
1en'ai pasd' animal). Here, in contrast to the underlving svstematicity earlier claimed for the
development of rules of negation, we see performance varying quite substantialll from
moment to moment.
Like svste-miIii-it1',
r,ariabilitv is alsofound in child languagedevelopment. However, the
variability found among L2 learners is undoubtedh' more 'extreme' than that found lbr
I
19
r'_---
11-:
underl1'ingrulesl'ste@imitiveanddeviantcomparedlr.iththetarget
languagesyStem'Itlogicallvfollolr-sthut1nces,i.e.ttat
their rule slstem cangenerateu
u giue.rcontext,*.hiE-tlElEl?ier
:
,:
n a sn e v e r n e a r oD e l o r e .
@lentvofCommon_senseer-idencethatlearnersCanPuttheirL2
klowledge to creative use, even at the verl' earliest stagesof L2 learning. It becomes most
obvious that this is happening, r'r'henlearners produce utterances like the highly deviant non
'l
animal (no animal = haven't got anv pet'), w.hich r'vecited before. This is not an utterance
n'hich anv native speakerof French rvould produce (other than, perhaps,a very young child)
;
rr-r,rch
the most likelv rvavthat the learnerhasproducedit i, rhio"gh:;ottt"*;;
";?;i,
primitiveinterlanguage
rule for negation,in combinationr,r,ith,"-? u.'ri. ,..i"u"r".,
But how did this same learner manageto produce the near-target n'ai pasde animai,
1e
s ith its negative particles correctlv inserted w'ithin the verb phrase,and corresponding
almost-periect modification to tle morphologv of the .ro.r.rphrur", rvithin a fer,, minutes oi
the other form? For us, the most likelv expianation is that at this point he w-asreproduci
Proouclng
an utterance u,hich he has indeed heard before (and
blv rehearsedlu
. h i c h h a sb e e n
tl
memorized as an unanalysedr,vhole.a formula
n-s
#tFril.--\
D 4T-l<-,r
Work in corpus hnguistics has led us to theh
-+eee#ntat
formulas ancl/
routlnes
lSinclair
children
20
Lt i., Ll
-Gemln-g",aowever, becauseof their
preoccupation rvith identifving creative processesat r.l'ork
in L2 development; thev pointed out that manv L2 errors could not be traced to L-linflucnle,
and *'ere primarilv .o
this creative front.
Theorists todar, as rve shall see,lvould generallv accept once more that cross-linguistic
influences play an important role in L2 learning. Horver.er,rve u'ill still find rvidely differing
views on the extent and nature of these influences. Some researchershave in fact claimed
that learners r,r.ith different L1s progress at somervhat different rates, and even follou'
different acquisitionalroutes, at leastin some areasof the target grammar (e.g. Keller-Cohen
1979,Zobl 1982, quoted in Gass 1996, pp. 322-3).
s!''
I
I
ar ln recen
22
receiving.This ensuresthat the input is rvell adapted to their orvn internal needs (i . e. to the
present state of development of their L2 knorvledge).What this means is that learners
need the chanceto talk rvith native speakersin a fairlv open-ended way, to ask questions,and
to clarifv meanings rvhen thev do not immediatelv understand. Under these conditions, it
is believed that the utterances that result rvill be at the right level of difficult-v to promote
learning;in Krashen'sterms, thev r'r'illprovide true'comprehensibleinput'. Conversational
"pi,od"-sfi'-ol@6,n,go,,o,ionoJmeaninghu""b"",,intensiveI1.studiedb,vmany
,:,fthe Krashen-influencedresearchers.
Interaction is also interesting to iinguistic theorists, becauseofrecent controversiesover
is necessarvor helpful for L2 development _4'
rvhc-therthe provision of negativeevtdence
'neqati\-e
evidence' is meant some kind of input rvhich iets the learner know that a particular
t o t a r g e tl a n g u a g en o r m s . l n L l l n l e r a c t l o nt n l s m l g n l t a K e
: . . r n ll s n o ra c c e p t a D laec c o r c l l n g
a more informal rePhrasing of
: learner's L2 utterance, offered bv a native-speakingconversationalpartner.
Whv is there a controversv about negative evidence in L2 Iearning?The problem is that
:,,rrection often seemsineffective and not onlv becauseL2 learners are laz,v.I!:eglg!-lthgt
^.arners often cannot benefit from correction, but continue to make the shme mistakes
rsts,any na
is otlered. For some current
:lrl\\'ever mucn lee
irrelevant.
one'
.:i---:-^-./----,-.-f\----
rl-inuetosee1.aluF-lncoIrecI1onsanone@it]s}Ffia;ilyatcepted
onlv u-henthev relate to'hot spots' currentlv being restructured in
::--lrthesew'ill be useful
+
: : r ql e a r n e r ' se m e r g i n gL 2 s v s t e m .
iervs haveone thing in common, holvever; they view
--n.learner asoperatiQand der.elopinga relativelv autonomous L2 system,angjgs intelgction
r. a \vay of feeding that s,ystemlvith more or less fine-tuned input data. whether positive_or
. Sociolinouistic view's
S E C O N D L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G : C O N C E P T SA N D I S S U E S 2 3
Indeed, in the late trventieth centurv, the target languageis highl-vlikelv to be English;
.r recent estimate suggeststhat r.vhilearound 300 million people speak English as their first
ianguage,another 700 million or so are using it as a second language,or learning to do so
Crystal 1987,p.358). Certainlv it is true that much researchon secondlanguagelearning,
rvhether rvith children or adults, is concerned r'vith the learning of English, or w-ith a verv
.mall number of other languages,mostlv Europeanones (French, German, Spanish).There
are manv multilingual communities todav (e.g. tow'nshipsaround manv fast-growing cities)
n-here L2 learning involves a much wider range of ianguages.Holvever, these have been
comparativelv little studied.
Dffirences
between individual
learners
Real-life observation quicklv tells us, how-ever,that er,enif L2 learners can be sho',vnto be
following a common ievelopmental route, thev differ greatlv in the degree of ultimate
successwhich the-v achieve. Sociai psvchologists have argued consistentlv that these
differences in learning outcomes must be due to individual diferencesbetween learners, and
many proposalshavebeen made concerning the characteristicslvhich supposedlvcausethese
differences.
In a recent two-part revie*' (199), 1993), Gardner and MaclntFe divide what they see
asthemostimportanilearnertraitsintotwogrou@cr;l,e(emotional).
Herewefollort.theiraccount,andsummu..i,.'",.
most significant influence on L2 learning success.For fuller treatment of this social
psychological perspective on learner difference, lve would refer the reader to sources such
a s G a r d n e r ( 1 9 8 5 ) , S k e h a n( 1 9 8 9 ) , a n d E l l i s ( 1 9 9 + , p p . + 6 7 - 5 6 0 ) .
24
CognitiveJactors
lntelligence:Not verv surprisinglv perhaps, there is clear evidence that L2 students lvho are
of i.ttelligence and/or general academicattainment tend
o., fo.*ul *".r,i..,
.bfi;;;G"
to do well in L2 learning, at leastin formal classroomsettings.
Is there realh' such a thing asa'gift' for languagelearning, distinct from
Language
' r , .aButude:
L
'Y
folk rvisdom often holds?The most famous formal test of language
as
general intelligence,
iptitude was designedin the 1950s,bv Carroll and Sapon(1959, in Gardner and Maclnt,vre
a number of subskillsbelieved
l-992,p.214). This'Modern LanguageAptitudeTest' assesses
(b) grammatical sensitivitr,
coding
abilitv,
(a)
success:
L2
learning
phonetic
to be predictive of
In
(c) memorv abilities,and (d) inductive languagelearning abilitv. general,iearners' scores
'correiate
r,vith . . . achievement in a second
on this and other similar tests do indeed
and
in a range of contexts measuresof
1992,
215),
Maclntvre
p.
and
language'(Gardner
aptitude have been show'nto be one of the strongest availabiepredictors of success(Harler
and Hart 1997).
Do more successfullanguagelearners set about the task in
Languagelearning strcteflies:
,orn" ditii.tna;fr-Dffiev
learning, or strat"gtei?[f this ulere true, could these even be taught to other, hitherto less
successfullearners? Much research has been done to describe and categorize the strategies
used by learners at different levels, and to link strategv use to iearning outcomes; it is clear
that more proficient learners do indeed emplov strategiesthat are different from those used
bv the lessproficient (Oxford and Crookall 1989, quoted in Gardner and Maclntvre 1992,
p.217).Whether the strategiescausethe learning, or the learning itself enablesdifferent
strategiesto be used, has not been fullv clarified, horvever.
Afectivefactors
LanguageaI!l!!&!;ocial psvchologistshaveiong been interested in the idea that the attitudes
tire target language,itJspeakers, and the learning context, may all
of ti. i"G?I*rds
plav some part in explaining successor lack of it. Researchon L2 languageattitudes has
largely been conducted lvithin the framervork of broader research on motivation, of which
attitudes form one part.
'is
one who lvants to
Motivatjon:For Gardner and Maclnt,vre, the motivated individual
and experiences
this
effort
to
achieve
goal,
devotes
considerable
a
achieve particular goal,
(1993,
2).
So, motivation
this
p.
goal'
satisfactionin the activitiesassociatedw'ith achieving
'desire
to achieve a goal,
is a complex construct, defined b-vthree main components:
effortexiendedinthi'rdirectio.',u.'dsatisfactionlviththetask'ffil,
have carried out a long programme of rvork on motivation rvith Engllsh
Cafiffin.ill..g.,.r
Canadianschool students learning French as a second language,and have developed a range
of formal instruments to measure motivation. Over the vears consistent relationships have
been demonstrated betw.eenlanguageattitudes, motivation, and L2 achievement; Gardner
acceptsthat these relationships are complex, holvever, as the factors interact, and influence
eachother ( 1985, cited in Gardner and Maclntvre 1993, p. 2).
anxietv:Thefinal learner characteristiclvhich Gardner and Maclntyre consider
Lanquaee
.-r r
,
<-',--l_---1r
r ..
r.
has clearlv been shoun to have a relationship rvith learning successis languageanxiety (and
'is
seen as a stable Person. For these authors, languageanxietv
its obverse, .:]i.gq&rrg)
nervous manner lvhen
to
react
in
a
alitv trait re6rring to the propensitv for an individual
speaking. . . in the secondlanguage'(1993,p. 5).ltis tvpifiedbv self-belittling,feelingsof
apprehension,and even bodilv responsessuch as a faster heartbeatlThe anxious learner ts
S E C O N D L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G : C O N C E P T SA N D I S S U E S 2 5
also less w'illing to speak in class,or to engagetarget ianguagespeakersin informal interaction. Gardner and Maclntvre cite manv studies rvhich suggestthat languageanxietv has a
negativerelationship'ivith learning success,and some others lvhich suggestthe opposite, for
learner self-confidence.
26
References
'lntuition-based
and obserr-ation-based
grammars', in Aijmer, K. ar.Aarts, J. (991)
++-62.
Longman'
Altenberg, B. (eds), Engltshcorpuslinguisrics.Harlo'rr':
'Theorv
Linguistics,14
constructionin SLA'. Specialissueof ,4pp1ied
Beretta,A. (ed.) (1993)
2214.
Brumfit, C.J. and Mitchell, R. (1990)'The languageclassroomas a focus for research,'irELT Document
classroom.
in thelanguage
Brumfit, C. J. and Mitchell, R. (eds),Research
3-15.
British
Council,
133. Modern EnglishPubiications/The
Hague:Mouton.
structures.The
Chomskl',N. (1957) Syntactic
oJthe theoryoJ syntax.Cambridge, MA : NIIT Press.
( 196 5) Aspects
[Jniversa]
Grammar:an introduction.Oxforci
Cook, V and Nervson, M. (1995) Chomskl''s
Blackrvell.
oJlanguage.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversit.
encyclopedia
Crystai, D. (1987) The Cambridge
Press.
5, 118-3 1.
Ellis, R. (1985)'sourcesof variabilitvin interlanguage'AppliedLinguistics
Oxford: Oxford Universitv Press.
languageacquisition.
oJsecond
(1 994) The stud,v
Fodor,J.A. (1983) ThemodularitvoJnind. Cambridge,MA: NIIT Press
oJloungchildren.Harlor,v:Longman.
competence
Foster,S. (1990) Thecommunicative
languagelearning:the role oJ attitudesan:
and second
Gardner, R.C. (1985) Socialpsvchology
London: EdrvardArnold.
motivation.
Gardner, R.C. and Macintvre, P.D. (1992)'A student'scontributions to second languag.
25, 21 1 20.
Iearning.Part I: cognitivevariables',LanguageTeaching
'A
(1993)
student's contributions to second languagelearning. Part II: affectirt
26, I-11.
variables', LanguageTeachtng
Gass,S.M. (1996)'second languageacquisitionand linguistic theorv: the role of languagt
language
acquisitior.
oJsecond
transfer',in Ritchie,WC. and Bhatia,T.K.(eds),Handbook
SanDiego:AcademicPress,311 -+5.
'(Re)creating
perspectiveof face-toour worlds rvith rvords:a sociohistorical
Hall, J.K. (1995)
15,205
32.
faceinteraction', AppltedLinguistics
Hamers, J. and Blanc, N{. (1989) Bt}tngualttvand bilingualism.Cambridge: Cambridg.
UniversitvPress.
'Language
aptitude and second language proficiency irHarley, B. and Hart, D. (1991)
Language
Acquisiilon19.
in Second
classroomlearnersof different starting ages',Srudies
379400.
teaching
andsktlllearning.Oxford: Blackrvell.
Johnson,K. (1996) Language
'The
r:
developmentof pragmaticcompetence'.Specialissueof Studies
Kasper,G. (ed.) (1996)
18, 2 .
Language
Acquisition,
Second
Krashen, S. (1981) Secondlanguage acquisitionand secondlanguagelearning. Oxford,
Pergamon.
Oxford: Pergamon.
language
acquisition.
andprccticein second
119821Principles
Harlo'w':Longman.
issues
and implications.
(1 985) Theinput hlpothesis:
Long, M.H. (1990a)'The leasta secondlanguageacquisitiontheorv needsto explain'. TESOL
@tarterly24, 6+9-66.
'N{aturationalconstraintson languagedevelopment', Srudiesin Second
Languagt
(1990b)
12, 25 1-85.
Acquisition
14,225 -+9.
(1993) 'Assessment
strategiesfor SLA theories'. AppliedLinguistics
(1996)'The role of the linguistic environment in second languageacquisition', in
SanDiego:
oJsecond
language
acquisition.
Ritchie,\A'.C.and Bhatia,T.K. (eds),Handbook
A c a d e m i cP r e s s4, 1 3 5 8 .
learning.London: EdrvardArnold.
oJsecond,language
Mclaughlin, B. ( 1987) Theories
233-s6.
Rcrbinson,P. (1991)'lndividual differencesand the lundamentalsimilaritv of implicit and
Learilng47, +5-99.
explicit adult secondlanguagelearning', Language
R o m a i n eS
, . ( 1 9 9 5 )B i l i n g u a l i s m . 2 nedd n , O x f o r d : B l a c k r v e l l .
Oxford: Oxford UniversitvPress.
collocation.
concordance,
Sinclair,J. ( 1991) Corpus,
critical
look
at
the
period hvpothesisin secondlanguage
critical
(1995i'A
D.
Singleton,
Z. (eds), The ageJactorin second
Lengvel,
D.
and
in
Singleton,
research',
acquisition
1-2
9.
Matters,
Nlultilingual
. Clevedon:
acquisition
language
inJoreignlanguagelearning.London: Edw'ardArnold.
Skehan,R ( 19S9) lndividualdfferences
'The
useof acceptabilitvjudgementsin secondlanguageacquisitionresearch,
Sorace,A. (.1996)
San Diego:
languageacquisition.
in Ritchie,W and Bhatia,T. (eds), HandbookoJ second
AcademicPress,375-409.
Spada,N. (t997)'Form-focussed instruction and secondlanguageacquisition:a review of
30, 73 87.
classroomand laboratoryresearch', LanguageTeaching
learning.Oxford: Oxford UniversitvPress.
language
second
Spolsky,B. (1989) CondittonsJor
Oxford: Blacku'ell.
Stubbs,M. (1996) Tbxtandcorpusanal1sis.
some roles of comprehensibleinput and
competence:
(1985)'Communicative
M.
Swain,
in
der.eiopment'
in
its
output
comprehensible
, Gass, S.M . and Madden,C. G. (eds), lnput
235-53.
Newburt'House,
NIA:
Rorvlev,
languageacquisition.
in second
Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1995)'Problems in output and the cognitive processesthev
16,371-91.
generate:a steptorvardssecondlanguagelearning', ,lppliedLinguistics
to second
languageacqujsition.Clevedon: N'lultiR. and Harvkins, R. (1994) Approaches
Tor,ve1l,
lingual Matters.
Tou,ell,R., Hu*.ki.tr, R. and Bazergui,N. (1995)'The der.elopmentof fluencv in advanced
I 7, 84 1 15.
learnersof French', AppltedLinguistics
'Forks
and hope, pursuing understandingin different rvdys', Applted
Van Lier, L. (199+)
15, 32846.
Lingutstics
'The
role of formulaic languagein secondlanguageacquisition:a revier'r'',
Weinert, R. (1995)
15, 180-205.
AppliedLinguistics
'acquisition-learning'distinction', Applied
'Converging
evidence for the
ZobI, H. (1995)
L i n g u i s t i c1s6 , 3 5 - 5 6 .
Chapter 2
andNinaSpada
PatsyM. Lightbown
FACTORS AFFECTING SECOND
LANGUAGE LEARNING
a n o r m a l u p b r i n g i n ga, r e s u c c e s s f ui nl t h e
LL NORMAL CHILDREN, GMN
of second lalguage
acquisition of their first language.ThirJg419l$1]!b-9!rl-9lpg{ience
greatlv.
learners, u'-hoses,uccess_varies
-have certain characteristicswhich lead to more or less
ilutlEu-:*-.
nf u",nof .rJU"ti.r."
successlul language learning. Such beliefs are usua-llr'-b3se-d-oq'@@Elgrl&;A}ftett.g.tt
lve have known. For example, manv teachers
,^i\ owAexpc;leru;-or that of indil.idual people
wfio
interact rt-i[hout inhibition in their second
extror,e,rtcd]c-af.rgls
that
.o.rvi.r..d
ur"
$.'
to
praciiselinguage iki'lls-w;ill6e tlti -ort successful
manv opportunities
langgaggaqd-_fiqd
to be
_ l"ui".i.. In additioq 1o p..ro.t"lito'characteristics, other fictors generally considered
,,9 ..l"uu.rt,o tung.rug. i""."i"g are intelligence,-aptitude, motivation
attitudes' Another
-and
v
learning
begins.
at
is
the
age
yhigh
important factor
evidence is su,pported bl research findings.
ane{-d_otal
In this chapter, rve u.ill seer,r'[e,tllre-t
To what extent can lve predict differences in the successof second language acquisition in
trvo individuals if ne have information about theirperson{lqq,
intellectual abilities, their motivation, or their age?-
Activity
Characterjstics oJ the
'good
language \earner'
It seems that some people har,e a much easier time of learning than others. Rate of
development variesr,videlvamong first languagelearners. Some children can string together
five-, six-, and seven-rvordsentencesat an agervhen other children are just beginning to label
items in their immediate environment. Nevertheless, all normal children eventually master
their first language.
In second languagelearning, it has been observed countlesstimes that, in the same
classroom setting, some students progress rapidlv through the initial stagesof learning a
new languageu-hile others struggle along making verv slou. progress. Some learners never
achieve native-likecommand of a second language.Are there personal ch?Iacteristics that
make one learner more successfulthan another, and if so, u-hat are they?
The follou.ing is a iist of some of the characteristics commoniy thought to contribute
to successfullanguagelearning. In your experience - as a second languagelearner and as a
1=
I =
3=
{ =
5=
Verv important
Quite important
Important
Not verv important
Not at all important
\ good languagelearner:
a is a willing and accurate guesser
r'\
i3
I2
t2
-..
T2
,',)
speechof others
l)
l1
l1
23
.:..
i
has an above-averageIQ
l1
listedabovecanbe classihed
i",l@;[I
All of the characteristics
1;iqsigg!ll3ji9f ,' v
intelligence.
andlearne-r3.*flSgr. Houerer,manr o[the charac(
aptitude,personalitr'.
to ile categor\'.
For example,the characteristic'i)Gristts .ur-o,-U. ..siFA;;Gi.el.
willing to makemistakes'canbe consiieredu p.r.oiulitv and/or a motivationalfactorif the
Iearneris w'iliingto makemistakesin order to get the messaqe
across.
3 0 P A T S Y M . L I G H T B O W NA N D N I N A S P A D A
Research on learner characteristics
Pr,it{'tt" - "'
r' '
i ,
:'t
\\
Perhapsthe best rvav to begin our discussionis to describe \gwlqse-4qctt ql th" influence of
learner characteristicson secondlanguagelearninghasbeen carried out.When researchers
are interested in findlng out u-hether an individual factor suchas motlvation affects second
languagelearning, thev usuallv seiect a group of learners and give thgm a questionnaire to
of their motivatt-qn.The learners utJth".t given iieit to m-eaiure
,rr"".rri" qh"_typg-4!-d--dggrg.e
language
,,,,.thef
second
pro{iciencr-.Thetest and the questionnaireare both scored and the
._, tesearcher
a correlationon the two measures,to see lr'hether learners w'ith high
' ' " - - ' - . ' - ' nerforms
r-'^
teif are also more likelv to have high scores on the motivation
scores on the f-fi.i.rr."
is
the
case,the researcher concludes that high levels of motivation are
If
this
questionnaire.
correlated rvith successin languagelearning. A similar procedure can be used to assessthe
relationship betr,veenintelligence and secondlanguageacquisitionthrough the use of IQ tests.
Although this procedure seems straightforu.ard, there are several dilliculties with it.
-=*-.-The first pr6blem is that it is no-tpossiblelo directlr, observe and-ineasurequaTitiessuChis
motir,,ation, extroversion, or even intelligence.Th"re u." lgtt I.b.]! for an en[ire range oT
-b"luo.iorr^-lnd-iharaiGrlstici.
such as these are not
Further*o.", becausech.Ft..Gilis
have
often used the same
different
researchers
independent, it r,vill come asno surprise that
,
labels to,-describedifferent sets of behavioural traits.
For example, in motir?tion questionnaires,learners are often asked whether thev
willingly seek out opportunities to use their second languagewith native speakersand if so,
how often thev do this. The assumption behind such a question is that learners who report
that they often seek out opportunities to interact rvith speakers of the second language
are highiy motivated to learn. Although this assumption seemsreasonable,it is problematic
'
'
becauseif a learner respondsbv saving ves to this question, lve mav assumethat the learner
has more opportunities for languagepractice in informal contexts. Becauseit is usuallv
impossible to separatethese trvo factors (i.e. r,villingnessto interact and opportunities to
lnteracr,),some researchershavebeen criticized for concluding that it is the motivation rather
than the opportunitv lvhich makes the greater contribution to success.
Another factor u.hich makesit difficult to reach conclusionsabout relationshipsbetween
individual learner characteristicsand second languageiearning is -ho-r1
langyageproficiencv
ttdt[*-O andiug4!_q{ed.Toillustrate this point ]e1,r, ."f.r once aguinto'motivation'-. ln the
r,vitha higher level of
fr".o"d languagelearning literature, some studies report that learners
lvith
lolver
motivation, while
learners
than
those
/imotivation are more successfullanguage
j,othe. studiesreport that highlv motivated learners do not perform anr,better on a proficiencv
litest than learnersrvith much lessmotivation to learn the secondlanguage.One explanation
used
rvhich hasbeen offered for these conflicting findings is that tLe iqqUegqproficiency't_ests
\ '".
. i. di&rent studiesdo not measurethe sameklnd of k"rou-ledge.Thati., ;.t itriot-il lu.tgn"g"
vrhen the proficiency
flearning setfings, highly motivated learners mar'be-iiiofe successful
highly
motivated learners
In
studies,
hou-et'er,
other
1/, / t"rtr measureoral communication skills.
d/
qf
[ -." not be more successful because the tests.are primarilr. 5gg4!qrg! -r4etalinguistic
vknowledge.
Results such as these implv that motivation to learn a second languagemay be
t
\
"
"rl
FACTORSAFFECTING SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING 3'b;Sanfe r!99_"1{gl bJ!au1e_o{ their motivation? It is aiso plausible that _earl,vlqqlgss
heightenedtheir motivation or that both successand motivation are due to their special
or the-Favouri6le context in whlchThev aaete-arrrrrg.-aputude f&-langu"g-elA-."-g
_>
---:.-\
IntelliB,ence.
''
Aptitude
'is
evidence in the research literature that,some indir.iduals har.'ean exceptional
Tliete
'aptitude'
for languageiearning.Lorraine Obler ( 1989) reports that a man, w-homshe calls
Cj, has suc-ha specializedabilitv. CJ is a native speakerof English rvho grerv up in an English
home. His first true experience u.ith a second languagecame at the age of 15 when he began
learning French in school. CJ also studied German, Spanish,and Latin w'hilein high school.
At age 20, he made a brief visit to Germanv. CJ reported that just hearing German spoken
for a short time rvasenough for him to'recover' the German he had learned in school. Later,
CJ worked in Morocco u.-herehe reported learning Moroccan Arabic through both formal
He also spent some time in Spain and Itall', where he
instruction and informal immersion.
.r-,
r--i
Italian in a'matter of w'eeks'.A remarkable talent
and
up'loth
Spanish
apparentlv'picked
indeej-l
a
factor hasbeen
ol_ggrl4ggrickllis the distinguishing feature of aptitude.The'aptitude'
rn'hich
can be used
in
developing
tests
reseaich-eis'interested
indnsive]i
bv
most
inveitigated
to predict whether individuals rvill be efficient learners of a foreign languagein a classroom
setting.The most widelv used aptitude tests are the Modern LanguageAptitudeTest (ML4T)
rriew that
and the Pimsleur LanguageAptitude Battery 1er-ae).Boih tesislrelasedonih"
aptitude is composed of different t-vpesof abilities:
(1)
32
'.
\t:
instructiof,ir!r""1'1"*-;a*,"d:q,IJiil""6*lon'dil::Tql"hlg:l_tlq
classroom
' explanations.
Succesri-,rllu.rgtrug. learners mav not be strong in all of the goqp-olents o[ aPtitu-de.
Some individuals mar, have strong memories bul onll' average abilities in the other
components of aptitude. Ideallv, one could determine learners' profiles of strengthsand
weaknessesand use this information to place students in appropriate teaching programs. An
In a Canadian
example of how this can be done is describedblMaiorieWes.Ell2ql;'
instructionai
it4lents-were-placed*in-a.n
lurrgrrug"program for adult iearners of French_,
was cdmpatible with tfieir aptitude profile and information about their
p.rt.u-;ni.n
i.ut"i"g experiences. Students who u,.er-e
[gh on an3-[9c abilitg but a'"'erageo1-T-Tot),
i,eg!*:fllgll
,' l*.." uitgn.d to teachiig ihut fogg..J t"g-.t"l.t.tl5{;quctures,_while
class *-here th. 19..h5;;-_
p,!q.idu"rtn'u. rkill. ;te
iir, ..r.rrr,;ii.'biit average &r
,organized iro*.d theTunctional use of the second language in specific situations. Wesche
. reiorted a high level of student and teacher satisfactionwhen stutrents\\,'erematched with
compatible teaching environments. In addition, some evidence indicated that matched
students were able tt attain significantlv higher levels of achievement than those who were
unmatched.
While feu' second language teaching contexts are able to offer such choices to their
students,teachers..rav{i.rdihut knorving the aptitude pro{rle of their students will help them
in selecting appropriate classroom actir,itiesfor particular grouPs of students. Or, if they do
not have snch information, the-v mav u'ish to ensure that their teaching activities are
suf{icientlv varied to accommodate learners rvith different aPtitude profiles.
', "bersonality
,i-.ro*b.. of personalitv characteristicshavebeen proposed aslikely to affect secondlanguage
As with
lheir-e-ffectsin empiricq! stqdies_.
learning, but it hus nof been e1s1:tg dem.o-qstJate
other research investigatingthe effects of individual characteristicson second language
learning, different studiesmeasuring a similar personalitv trait produce different results. For
it is oftelr.argued-that-an-exlrgr.ertedperson is well suited to languagelearnilg
"*u1np|.,
Howelrer, ....ur.h does not ahvavs support this conclusion. Although some studies have
found that successin languagelearning is correlated u'ith learners' scoreson characteristics
often associatedw.ith extroversion such as assertivenessand adventurousness,others have
found that man,vqqgge!!!{ lg"grragSlearners do not get high scores on measuresof extrol'ersion.
Another aspectof personalitr'rvhich hasbeen studied is inhibition. It hasbeen suggested
that inhibition discouragesrisk-takinq u hiih is necessarvfor progress in languagelearning.
This is often consid.rJ to be a particular problem for adolescents,w'ho are more self:
consciousthan vounger learners.In a seriesoi studies,Alexander Guiora and his colleagues
found support for the elaim that-inhjbition is a negative_forc"_,..tl.uf! for sercondl1gulgg=
p.onr.r.iution performance. One studr. inr.olr-edan analvsisof the effects of small dosesof
alcohol on pronunciation (Guiora er al. 1971i.Thev found that subjectswho received small
t.'
fh"r. hu, been a great deal of research on the role, of attitudes and motivation in second
language learning.lhe overall findings r!'1:1he, pos,itire attjlude-san{ mqtra-t-iqLarc,rela[edUnfortunatelv, the research cannot
second languagelearning?Glrdner 1985.;'..
to succeqs_in
indicate precisely hor motivation is relaied to learningiAs indicated above,we do not knowol successful]gitlil-gj!.,
whether it is the motivation ihat produces succ_essful_learning
_ _r,
factors.
As not6dE)'P.i&31;8"""2
other
br
enhancesmotivation o;itRahtsolli=ar"c",ffited
or'
(i9q, tIe questffiEl-are iearnersmore highl)'motivatedbecausethey are successful,
becausethev arehighlvmotivated?
arethev successful
-Motiaafiirninsecondlanguage
rvhichcanbe defined
lEaintng-isa-compiexp.henomenon
factors: learners' communicative needsand their attitudestowards the second
in terms of t.r",.o
*ng-" of* ,to.iul
l.nguuq.;;;d.
^Ianquase
- - : a : : b : - - ; - : -communit\.lfm.d
-.:^
-,
--i'i.'
- r
,
o,
:-
and
oti
'
.f-
/n,
l
/r
/t
/ )
-\
rl
).r
,"
E tr
Kir S;oi.n tfi'tf-ttdre tvpes of motivation are related to successin second language learning.
On the other hand, lve should keep in mind that an individual's identity is closely linked
):
with the wav he or she speaks.lt follou's that u'hen spsaking a n9Ll4g998r glgrydgPtiqg
attitudes,
the
learner's
on
Depending
cukg:1g.":p.
olnother
s9rye-9llh-9jde$rlyrnarkers
liarning a second language."tr-b. i source of_eniiZFment or a sourceof resentment. If the
internal
speaker-s onli-rearo-n-for-l.utning the second language it
a"
"lt.Irql3t_essure,
-.1'Tii
;-g"tfi . .
m o ti vati on 4qay-b-em-iuim-al-aqd.g e;e r al attitu d es t onla. di 1 u. ffi
"
-, r'
34
One factor rvhich often affects motivatio,n is th-esocial d):IlaEriq gr,pp,!:ef re-lationship
pe_tryee-4
6e-lafrgUug"s.That is, members of a minoritv group learning the language of a
f
and motivation from those o[ majority group
if majorit_vgroup ma-vhave different attitudes
learning a minoritv language.Even though it is impossibleto predict the exact
ii*e.nb.ts
'reffect
of such societal factors on second languagelearning, the fact that ianguagesexist in
social contexts cannot be overlooked lvhen u'e seekto understand the variablesw'hich affect
successin learning. Children as r'vell as adults are sensitive to social dvnamics and power
relationships.
-
. l 4 o t i v a t i o nt n t i"
,toru*.tirirroo
motivation to learn.
pedagogJ' interacts with
;lo, Although little research has been done to investig,atg_h_owfrlotir arion in .".ond languageclassrooms,considerable.r ork hasbeen donelLthi.qlhg ficl{
In a revierv of some of this rvofk, Graham_Crgokesand Richardof educatio-nalps,l-chologv.
Gchmiatl 991)fioint to several areasrvhere educational research has reported increased
levels oTmotivation for students in relation to pedagogicalpractices. Included among these
are:
:,
',}l
!,.
'-1
u'"
lrl
L.a.|-clr
{lr
of all learners.
J;,
Learner beliefs
Second language learners are not alu-al'sconscious of their individual learning str-les,
about I
opinio_ns
bujry_rually"l_L!e{L"l!rp"lll.ylllllol_d.rls.us].!r.1lg0:._q!ry_ag_b_qlieq."d
how tAeir instruction s,houlille delivered.Thesebeliefs are usuallvbat:d_ql pfgfifsqs learning
_
_- -.;--,4a-.
t_1Tassuinid-o_nGIt or u.rong) that a particul_11,,rp. of instruction is the
df@iqFEsenffthe
bEst u'av for them to Iearn.This is inoiher area u-here little rvork has been done. How'ever,
the auuiiableresearih inilicates that learner beliefs can be strong mediating factors in their
experience in the classroom.For example, in a survev of international students learning
e sl in a highlv communicative program at an English-speakinguniversit,v,Carlos Yorio
-
":1
)!
'
36
the-:
to learn neu, material.Teachers can use this information to help Iearners expand
L:
\\'av
in
their
develop
flexibilitv
thus
and
greater
strategies
repertoire of learning
approaching languagelcarning'
z'-==---R--
a cqui s ition-",.
,.-'A g e of
We nou'turn to a learner characteristic of a different type: age.This characteristic is easier
to define and measure than personalitr',aptitude, or motivation. Nevertheless,the relationship betw.eena learner's age and his or her potential for successin second language
acquisition is the subject of much liveh' debate.
It hasbeen u'idelv observed that children from rry11gg1_1!11_llleseventuallv speakthe
;th nati'"-lik" flE...:,-ir.,i ilrii. p4...,t, .arely achieve
languageof their .r"* .o--trnit)
such high levels of masten' of the spoken language.To be sure, there are caseswhere adult
second languagelearners have distinguished themselvesbv their exceptional performance.
For example, one often seesreference to Joseph Conrad, a native speakerof Polish who
became a major writer in the English language.Many'adult secondlanguagelearners become
capable of communicating ver-v successfullyin the language but, for most, differences of
accent, word choice, or grammatical features distinguish them from native speakers and
from secondlanguagespeakerswho beganlearning the languagewhile they were very young.
One explanation for this difference is thalas in first langu4ggagqui-sltion, $ery,19 a_g11ical
r1
'l
tlat there is
pe.iod for secondlanguageacquisition.TheiCriticalPeriod Hrpothesis gtLggests
38
20
Q .^
6't
9)
,,u
,ll|ll
'l$ll
|I|lili
iilb
r[n
th
*
\
Q .^
d't
q)
2+33+
learners
Post-puberty
levelsof pre- andpost-pubertvlearnersof English
Figure2.1 Bar chartsshou:ingthe language
1980
Source:Patkorvski
Patkow'ski's{irst question,'Will there be a difference betrveen learners who began to
Iearn Englishbefore pubertv and those rvho beganlearning Englishlater?', was ansu'eredw'ith
'ves'.
When he examined the othg1'faqgptl rvhich might be thought to
a very resounding
affect successin second language acquisition, thelicturerl-as much less clear.There was,
naturally, some relationship betlveen these other factors and learning success.However, it
often turned out that age was so closeiv related to the other factors that it rvas not really
possible to separatethem completelv. For example, length of residence in the United States
sometimes seemed to be a fairlv good predictor. Holvever, r,vhileit was true that a person
*'ho had lived in the countrv for 15 vears might speakbetter than one who had been there
for onlv 10 vears, it rvas often the casethat the one lr-ith longer residence had also arrived
at an earlier age. Horvever, a person rvho had arrived in the United Statesat the age of 18
and had lived there for 20 vears did not score significantlv better than someone w'ho had
arrived at the age of 18 but had onlv iived there for 10 vears.Similarly,amoun! o{iry[9c-ti9$r
prgdict successto the extent that age of immig-ratio_1did
when,_se_paratgd
ft_o,p-'1ge,--did-4qt
Thus, Patkorvskifound that age of acquisition is a terv important factor in setting limits
on the development of native-like masterv of a secondlanguageand that this limitation does
tl'
./1
lu,rg,r"!Su.tti"i.
==_-\
.\
-''1-'7-"''^
-o'
and-MarianlloefnageLHohlegublished
an article based on a
ln 1978, QEtherile Sn-or.v
research project thev had carried out in Holland. Thev had studied the progress of a group
of English speakerswho rvere learning Dutch asa secondlanguage. What madl their research
especialivvaluable r,vasthat the learners thev rvere follou.ing included children as voung as
three vearsold asrl,ell asolder children, adolescents,and adults.Furtlermore, a large number
of taskswas used, to measure different tvpes of languageuse and languageknowledge.
Pronunciationr'vastested bv having learners pronounce 80 Dutchl,vords twice: the first
time immediately after hearing a native speakersavthe rvord; the secondtime, a fer,vminutes
later, thev w'ere askedto savthe u.ord represented in a picture, lvithout a model to imitate.
Tape recordings of the iearners lvere rated bv a native speakerof Dutch on a six-point scale.
ln an ouditorSdiscrimination
test, learners salv pictures of four objects. In each group
of four there $'ere two rvhosenamesformed a minimal pair, that is, alike except for one sound
(an example in Englishrvould b9'shp' and'sheep'). Learnersheard one of the rvords and
were askedto indicate r.'-hichpicture *as namedbv the word thev heard.
Morphologs,was tested using a procedure like the'rvug test', r'vhich required learners
to complete sentencesbv adding the correct grammatical markers to w'ords which
were supplied by the researchers.Again, to take an example from English, Iearners rn'ere
askedto complete sentencessuch as'Here is one bor'.Nolv there are two of them.There are
two
40
length
Ihe sentencerepetition task required learners to repeat 37 sentencesofincreasing
and grammatical comPlexitv'
English to
\o, ,"nrrn1- translation,i"u..t.., u'ere given 60 sentencesto translate from
correct
the
into
Dutch. A point lvasgir.enfor eachgrammaticai structure rvhich lr-asrendered
Dutch equivalent.
ejudgemenncsfr,learners \vere to judge lvhich of trvo sentenceswas better.
In the sentenc
The same content \\'as exPressedin both sentences,but one sentence l\''asgrammatically
correct r,r'hilethe other containederrors.
7Zsr,learners sarvfour pictures and heard one isolated
ln the peabodyPicturelbcabulary
'"vord spoken bv the tester'
r,vord.Their task rvas to indicate r'vhichpicture matched the
task,learnersheard a storv in Dutch and r'verethen askedto
For the storycomprehension
retell the story in Englishor Dutch (accordingto their preference).
Finallv,rh'estorytJlltnrrasftrequired learners to tell a ston'in Dutch, using a set of pictures
content
thev were given. Rate oi d.liu"- of speech mattered more than the expression of
or formal accurac\'.
The learners rvere divided into severalage groups, but for our discussionwe will divide
adults
them into just three groups: children (aged31o 1O), adolescents( 12 to 15 vears),_and
adults
of
the
Some
.
schools
Dutch
ail
attended
( 1B to 60 vears).The chilire.r and adoleicents
English
spoke
,uo.k.d ln Dutch lvork environments, but most of their Dutch colleagues
had
well. Other adults were Parents u'ho did not u'ork outside their homes and thus
subjects.
other
the
of
somewhat less contact rvith Dutch than most
The learners lvere tested three times, at four- to five-month intervals' They u'ere first
starting
tested within six months of their arrival in Holland and rvithin six weeks of their
environment.
school or work in a Dutch-lanquaqe
Activity
Which group do vou think did best on the {irst test (that is, u'ho learned fastest)?Whichgroup
do -uo,,ihi.rk rvasbest bv the end of the vear?Do vou think some grouPs would do better on
."ri"i., tasksthan others?For example, rvho do vou think would do best on the pronunciation
tasks,and lvho lvould do best on the tasksrequiring more metalinguistic awareness?Compare
vour predictions u,ith the results for the different tasksu'hich are presented inTable 2. 1 . An
iX'
indi.u,". that the group was the best on the test at the beginning of the vear (an indication
r'Y'indicates the group that did best at the end of the year (an
of the rate of learning),
".,d
indication of eventual attainment) '
In the Snorvand Hoefnagel-Hohle studr',the adolescents',verebv far the most successful
learners.They \\'ere aheadoflvervone on all but one of the tests (pronunciation) on the {irst
test session.That is, rvithin the Iirst ferv months the adolescentshad already made the most
the
progress in learning Dutch. As the table indicates, it rvasthe adults who were better than
also
was
it
Surprisingly,
session.
first
test
in
the
and adoleicents on pronunciation
"niid.".r
the adults, not the children , ll'hose scoresn'ere secondbest on the other tests at the first test
session.In other rvords, adolescentsand adults learned faster than children in the first fern'
months of exposure to Dutch.
of the vear, the children u'ere catchinS rPl o. had surpassed,the adults on
Bv the
"r,d
of
,..ro".ulmeasures.Nerertheless,it rvas the adolescentsw-horetained the highest levels
performance overall.
child
Adult
Y
XY
Pronunciation
Auditory discrimination
Morphologv
Adolescent
XY
Sentence repetition
Sentence translation
Sentence judgement
Peabody picture vocabularv test
Storv comprehension
Storvtelling
XY
XY
XY
XY
X
X
l-Hohle concl
Snow'andHoef
no critical Deriod for lan
other rvavsas well:
i)
1 Some of the tasks (for example, sentencejudgement or translation) u'ere too hard for
young learners. Even in their native language,these tasks u-ould have been unfamiliar and
difficult. In fact, young Dutch native speakersto u.hom the second languagelearners rvere
compared also had trouble rvith these tasks.
2 Aclubr and-adolgsggr,tsruaulearn-farterin the e:q\'stges qf second lang9ag9-der.etop-"nf
(especiallv if thev are learning a language r'r'hichis similar to their first languageLlgllg
to_theJa4girgg" 1*"t
children eveqtuallv catch-u,p 1n4_etqg surpass-lhsm,rf their exp-q-s-ufg
pft
3 Adults and adolesc-entscan make considerable and rapid progress tow'ards mastery of a
se"ond 1i-.r$ia!e 1n contexts rvhere thev can make use of the language on a dailv basis in
social, p".iggl-plgfessional, or academicinteraction.
At what age should secondlanguage instruction begin?':
Even people r,vhoknou'nothing about the critical period researchare certain that, in school
'vounger
is better'. Horvever, both
programs for second or foreign languageteaching,
experience and researchshorv that older learners can attain high, ifnot'native', levels of
proficiency in their secondlanguage.Furthermore, it is essentialto think carefully'about the
goals of an instructional program and the context in r'vhich it occurs before we jump to
conclusions about the necessitv- or even the desirabilitv - ofthe earliest possible start.
The role of the critical period in second languageacquisition is still much debated.
For ever-v researcher vrho holds that there are maturational constraints on language
acquisition, there is another rvho considers that the 1ge factor cannot be sepal?ted from
factors such as motivation, social identitr', and the conditions for learning, T!*e:y argug that oldei lear'riers mav r'r,'ellipeak u'ith an accenl'be..r.tr" th"t' want to continue being
identified u'ith their first language cultural group, and adu!!qlel9!IS!qgeTs
quantity and qualitt' of languageinput that children receir.-ein_plavsettings.
11tLe_sylme
42
\/
--:J-=>
/'"
or Neu'port
such
as
those
br'Pl4o*tki
basis
oisrudi-s
on
the
Manv people conclude
and Johnsonthat it is better to begin secondlan;uag.-in.truction a/earlv as possible.Yetit
--:-:-- :-:.\: : ::^tst studies.Thet'deal u'ith the highest
is ven'important tc,L.earlr' nr:. 1
. , - - . . : : - = - . ' . . , a r . r h i c h 4 s e c o n { l a n g u a g e s p e a k e ri s
p o s s i b l el e r e l o i s . . , - , n c, . t : ^ _ . - : . 1. <
.
.
'
n
r
=-.: b..: .-:-. ':r.r .rnlti, e-likemaiten' of the second
.
.
i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b ll.r .
",,.
language
' * " s " _ * sis' "not
- ' _ "a- :g,--,alt",r al, ... "r,: ,r:-.3:.-
f;
\ young tlierir'lnere u:hen thev began.
I
L_.
Summary
The learner's ageis one of the characteristicswhich determine the w-ayin which an individual
approachessecond language learning. But the opportunities for learninS (both inside and
outside the classroom), the motivation to learn, and individual differences in aptitude for
Ianguagelearning are alsoimportant determining factors in both rate of learning and eventual
successin learning.
In this chapter, rve have looked at the rvavsin which intelligence, aptitude, personality
motivational
characteristics,learngr preferences, and age have been found to influence
and
l,
learner variables is
ianguage
second
_!93141,tg,%have leained that the stud)- .!l!!itt1"al
t, , \,
I+.
of lhe*Jackof clear definitions and methods for the individuai characteristics.It is also due
,to the fact thafLhggg-learner-gharacteristicsare,no,t-independentof one another: learner So far, researchersknou'very little about the nature of
,-- rariables interact in complex \\-at's-.
/
it
remains
difficult to make precise predictions about how
i.rt"r".Tio.rr.Th,rr,
th-ese
compG*
.
A
influence
his or her successas a languagelearner.
characteristics
individual's
a
particular
l :y"
Nonetheless,in a classroom,a sensitiveteacher,u'ho takeslearners'indiv_idual
personalities ,
i' \ii
1and learning stvles iirto account, can create a learning environment in *'hich virtually all
,
!
i
't\r,\'
l
/\
t2_ ,
Chapter 3
RodEllis
SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION:
RESEARCHAND LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY
Introduction
Starting from the 1960s, two approachesto addressingthis lacuna have been evident.
The {irst, a continuation of the approach adopted in earlier research, consistsof attempts to
i n v e s t i q a t et h e r e l a t i v ee f f e c t i v e n e sosf d i f f e r e n t u a v s o f t e a c h i n gl a n g u a g ei n t e r m s o f t h e
products of lea.rniqg.Experimental studiesbv SchererandWertheimer (1964) and Smith
\.
-]---:--
ol!.rgggh
ffir..-ri
W
bI
f1
o
F"*l.G-Fin"-t""gil.gethev.@!g!iysyrtrryttcfashion.
Thus,{lrereas global method studiessoon fell out of fashion,istudies of L2 learningtook
off;,,6n\u.bJr.'.
Much of this earlv rvork in SLA u'as pedagogicallvmotivated.That is, researchers
pedadoffi-ssues.
c o n d u c t e ds t u d i e so f L 2 l e a. r n i ni . gn i t h t h e e r p| r e_s si n t e n t i o n o f a d d r e s s i n g
_
..-......_-_-,---!__b__....-:_:>
l6"oryJfuFTh*
to
"dd..r,
r_.
lhgrist-ics.
Other sub-fields of SL-{ hlre continued the tradition of strong links with language
pedagogv.Tivoin particular stand out.The flrst is the studv ofthe role ofinput and interaction
iql-iucquisitio.t ie.g. Lone 198r .',d P
l.'P@i'Pot"ntialho[considerabIere]eiancetoteachers.indeed,o-''"l
tunitieQ-hian
rr
l
to
and usfE-e L2. The-theorieslnd findings 'ihi.
\i
ieieirch, as,for example, in studiesu'hich haveinvestigatedthe kinds of input and
ciJssr-oo-m
interaction afforded b;'different l'pes_ollanguage ta_sks(see Crookes and Gass 1993) and
b-vdifferent modes of .lurrro*
pnEiclpition (eg Pica and Doughtv 1985).The second*2
sub held ot SLA u'ith clear links to lanquagepedaqoq! rs the studv ot tglrn:lesu:ed]nstlyjtion. SLA researchershave investigated l.hether teaching learners particular grammatical ]
actuallv results in theirieing learnt (e.g. Spad"aand Lighibou,n 199"3)and, also, I
ffi.,,r.",
what metlodological options for teaching grammatical structures are most effective (e.g.
\
)
VanPattenand Cadierno 1993).
Hou'ever, irrespective of *'hether SLA addressesissuesof likelv t"i".gttglolg4gbSlt,
there is the problem o-TT-dp-Eet$enSLA
- - - = . - ; i and langua
-a
#r
not so much
a ouestlon
addresseE.
.;"a".mkethatofa11academl.di'.ip-Ii"ei,xto.1o.ntributetotechnica1,]
k n o w l 1 d g 9 . t h , i s r e f l e c i e di n t h e f a c t t h a t S L . \ i s . b r a n d l u . g e .G e p i e s e r v eo f u n i r e r s i t l basedresearchers,rvhoseprimarv allegianceis to the conduct of n-ell-designedstudiesand
theorv development in their lield.This is astrue of t}ose researchersrvho are concerned'r'vith
areasof potential relevance to languagepedagogr'(e.g. igpgLlntglagllgn qn-dt\"_11g._-,'.hf
form-focusgd instructiolr) as it is of researcherslvho see SLA as a means of contributing to
other disciplines such as linguistics or cognitive psvchologv.In contrast, Ianguagepedag,ogy
is concerned with plggqg?i.lqqftlqlge. Textbook u.riters drarv on their experience of the
kinds of activities that rvork in classrooms and, of course, on their familiaritv t'ith other
published materials. Teachersdrau' on their hands-on knou'ledge to perform the myriad of
tasks that comprise teaching.
Given that a gap exists betrveen SLA and languagepedagogv and assumingthat SLA is,
at least, of some potential relevance,the question arisesas to horv the gap can be bridged.
1I
IV
\\
ROD ELLIS
46
._of
"
D
I
(r'
V
t,
u@
thesereasonsi
l l l . l
ilxamined
r@sr'"g
l . # , .
r.
i-----^^--:---llE?lft--.t-^^.^-t:^-r
ments that earl DcaDDlled to manv oartlcular cases.f or lnrs reason. lt cannot easrlv De aDDlg,o
rapiddecision-makinq
neededto dealu'ith pry!]"-r ur tg.L rg9y.
I
l'
'}1
iI
I
I
ln cla\'-to-cla)tr\.'tg.
o'er the vears,SQlHerspro'ided a substantiai
P5[o.[t"1h'd99w^led_g:lbo,uthow
people learn a second language.This is reflected in the evFg?oTinfset of tec6nJcalterms
usedlo laliel this knowledge: overgeneralizationand transfer errors, order and sequenceof
acquisition,foreigner talk, input and intake, noticing, learning and communication strategies,
the teachability hypothesis (seethgglgssarv in Ellis I 994 t.This technical knowlede and the
irefullv suardedb,r'practitioners
oI SLA.
bel it constitute the's(
terms
In contrast.oracticallnorr 'ledge is,.implicit and intuitive.IMe are generally ng! awale of
what u'e o.u.ti.r**horr-.
For e x a m o l e .I k n o u h o u t o t i e m v s h o e l a c e sb u t I h a v el i t t l e
of actions I must perform to do this and could certainly not
u*ffin.". aT-oillF$Gn6ce
describe them verv w'ell. In colllqst t-ateeh[ica] knou-ie-dge,pqgf*icalknon led]gbgcquired
al experiehg: in the context of performing actionsEE;-n:;f
i?nilarl\apractical
knolrledgeis Fulh e
ible only in
are only Poorlv unders
a
d
PI
q!-anagqof practical knowledge is that it is groceduralized and t}us can be drawn on rapidly
....w
PractisinqoroGsslonalsr lalr vers. doctors. and teacherst are orimarilv concerned with
actioninvoIvingparticularcasesandforthisreasondql
b"oul9@rk.Freidson(1977,citedinEraut1994:53)describes
how medical practitioners operate :
1
f
i
:
\
,
j
C DOCI\
for publl-ati6fr'Tn journals and books that rvili be read bv other researchers even if they
addressissuesofdirect concern to teachers.In fact. then, much ofthe SLA researchthat
apparentlvbelongsto the decision-driven model is more trulv representativeofWeiss' second
model
the know'ledge-drivenmodel.
chi
-to contribute to a specific
I is to advancethe knou'led baseof the disciolinebrt6i-struct
'.
r.--:---i
o g i . A s * e h a ' e s e e n ,o n e
and testtnge4Phctt th
wav of characterizing the development of SLA as a field of study is in terms of a gradual
rval descriptive
movement torvardsknow'ledge-drivenresearch.Much of the earlier researct-r
1."rn1;t,
.f- *d"nd""l
in nature (e.g. the studies of l"u..r.. errors and t6? cile;t,rd*,
in
a
form
that was
motivated quite explicitlv bv a desire to inform pedagogv and published
relativelv accessibleto teachers.Later research,although certainlv not all, hasbeen designed
to test specific SLA theories, has been incr_eg1ngry_gr(lerimentalrnnaru-e;nfrhafbe-enrese;r.h.rr * tlr. i"t""a.a audience. Researchersmav feel theii
written ;bout \\.ith;il;
t often see little need to consider its
r
y
cnSdiDIInE.lts prlmar
t
applications directlr'.
lnteractjvemodel Here tec-hnr:gllne\\ ledge and practical knon'ledge are inte_r-L+tgd in the
. The ',vav in which this is achieved is highly
perfor-unce of some proft
complex. Weiss(1977 : 87-8) comments:
the process is not of linear order from research to decision but a disorderly r"l---l
of i.rt"..orr.rections and back-and-forthnessthat defies neat diagrams.All kinds of
people involved in an issue area pool their talents, beliefs, and understandings in a n r
effort to make senseof a problem.
Not surprisinglv,then, the interactive model is problematic. As Eraut (1994) points out
there_4re.variousfactors that constrain the professional's ability_llqnlqke_u;e_ofthe knorvledge
qgetr$blo"gh.
g. Fervresourcesare available
for effectingin interaction. Funding for research, for example, is tvpicallv au'arded to
48
ROD ELLIS
.-
i l v a s s e s s eGd i.r e nt h e r e q
u i r e m e nt h
t at
quently, its rel
t
valid,
researchers
is
demog.strabll'reliabie
and
knou.ledge
generall@,refertechnical
1994) notes, researchers'own
o\\'n practical
practica
knor,t'ledgeSHou'eler,\ Eraut ((1994)
ence to practical knox-iedqeSHou.ever,-4s
Fiperiences mar ot'Lenlnlluencetherr \\'ork rn subtleand unstatedil-vs.To a certain extent
- - - 1
..r""..fio-tf,Eil-published aiti.lof
m.etrorp".t, horr;er;ei,
I amnot sosurethatresearchers
Sh;ila t...h"iliotE"
:;ii:!:r|"
ghtbor,r'n,tIS
.<1
Dut rat
or ne\\' teacrunqaDDroacnes
ches, su-chas
Iending support to particular a
lnnovattve tecnn
11ea1chrvill help
ies not in identiflinq
ins expectanc-iElendin
From
tanguage
ffitedrelevancetolanguagepedagogy,forasLightbown
( t b t d . : 1 8 2 c) o m m e n t s :
acquisitionresearchdoesnot teli teacherswhat to teach, and lvhat it
Second-language
saysabout howto teach thev have alreadr' figured out.
If this is all SLA can do for teachers, one might rvell ask w'hether it is w-orth their rvhi le
)
making the effort to become familiar rvith it.
Not all researchers/theorists have felt the need to plav dor.vnthe contribution that SLA
can make to languagepedagogr'.Sorne have looked for navs of bridging the gap between
researchand classroompractice. One u'ar'|s to construct a theon'of L2 acquisitionthat is
compatible n'ith the ar ailable researth-Efr-n hiiilIio-C tuned]oThej-neeAsoftr-actreiiTh-it-
ls w
p;;-.II
'theon''
becau
he failure of linsuistic
he claims thatGacher\have grolvn suspiciousqf
dTlle
believesthat SLA theory, because
es to solve
and
',
"*
alsoarguesthut(i.e.basedonactuaIL2research,;
rather than on armchair speculation.
lf:f9q51Fl"-ance
Krashen
5 0 R O D:
- \ l u c h r i l i : : . : - . : ' . . : - r - r . n e d u . o r k h a s b e e n c o n c e r n e du ' i t h t h e a p p l i c a t i o n so f h i s
o*-n forcetuli., pr,-,n-,,,rejiheort ti.e. the Monitor Model and, more recentl,v,the Input
Hr-pothesisr. asin KrashenandTerrell ( 1983). It should be noted, horvever,that contrary to
some cntrcrsn'rsle.e ll.-d at him (seeWiddorvson 1990: 34) Kr{'hgLIg! ng"t5:ougbl t9
optionsterived from ideT 9]rtrid" httjleoretical
preclude teachers erploring pra_gmatic
-+-*--js{rlis rvork.aSE
(rashe}l{g}lg!
trame\,vo
n earcsh\ \e' l rl lsa@
l csl e a sa n o l n t u l u o n s
n
xxD
n ossannoduiln
q tDuriltni o
gn
h ee eelplicitlv
plllicct iut-vl- rir:.e-r-ceocgonqr znei sztten- sa t ht eaatct e
A I s o ., he
t h e o r \ ' . Also,
theorr.
T:og"i15
basedon their owi-practiFalTiperrglgllo dffi"
LC
There
researihsPd
necessaril)'loSglgd
qip::fc contexts,
gqntlxls. In contrasqiqdifl_dual
Also,
salsof g.n.4uFF1i.f,5i.]Iv.
makinq it difficult-- to advance
p.gl"rul: basedon a
-i-_:_-
applicationof inqgd3al
tlggy-ar" Ii\g!_94orscss a -ca-heryrlgq
bckqg rn 1le_geceTreal
attractions of Krashen's
Krashen's theorv
theorv is thatt it off"r,
oiters teacherran
overarching
tei?EEilTn6ueraiihins
studies. One of the attractions
studies.
u'hat
and
how-tqieach.
r.ien'of
Hou'ever, there are obvious dangersoftheorv-based applications.As Beretta ( 199 1) and
L o ncpI r l 9 9 l r h a r e o o i n t e do u t . S L A t h e o r i e sd o n o t t e n d t o e o a \ \ ' a \ 'e. v e n n h e n t h e v a r e i n
opposition to each other In a thoughtful discussion of u'h)' this is so, Schumann
9-bllp".
(1993) points out that it is extremelv dif6cult to falsify a theorr'. One reason is that whefe.*as
hvoothesesare tvpicallv testedin isolationthev exist in'a netlvork of auxiliarv assumptions'
(ibid.:259) with the result that even if a particular hvpothesisis not supported ilclnnot be
iismissed b"."r.r..i-t-L-irnp
m lies. Thus. theorists
l
U
,r*.t*t *
"
*i.*
counte;;;aG;
s:
---==--
-ql
------T---
despite
ffiothesis is based. Krash?n has pror-en adept a@
concerted criticism from prominent researchersand applied linguists. But if theories cannot
be falsifiedand, therefore, are able to survir.emore or iessindefinitelv hoq then, can teachers
evaluatethe legitimacv of proposalsbasedon them? In the caseof Krashen, for example, how
can teachers evaluate his principal propo_s_al,
namelv that teachers-should_!e primarily
concerned u'ith providingl plentiful comprehensibleinpub so that acquisition (i.e.
------T-l---------==;-i
- r
-r--i-|*.*_
r
|
languagelearnlng)can taKe+Bq3j ln snort. aDDllcatlons
Dasedon an )LA tneorv
_suD_consclous
are riskt- -becausether haveto be taken on taith.Thismight not mJtteisb-hucfiTThe-orvwerc
used to advancesuggestionsfor teachers to test out in their own practice but, more often
than not. theorr'-derir-edapplicationsare vestedu-ith an authoritv that r.r'orksaqainstsuch
p{ugggi. experimentation. For example, Krashen's claim that learningliG. the conscious
study of linguistic forms) has a relativelv minor role to piav in L2 acquisition w'orks against
teachers'investigating, in the context of their olvn teachin$, how'form-focused instruction
can complement and perhapsenhanceacquisition.
There isjr more serious o-b+ettp4-to Krashen's p]_qlgsalt
ojrld guide
pedagogr'
h""''-hinted
lanquage
one that has alreadY
at in the discussionof technical
-+*
accessible
t.@1o-duy*o.k,
-_.--'_.'-.
"l$oiF
t<ilGffi;a.".
asgoodajob
i,h,
','''
.
,',
J;h;i.; &u*'Jui'"nulog'blt*-e"n 't*
loh"
',
*
r*
tnut n..EiiFifi""ring hassuccesslullv
deti"ned
itsou'n
.'o
9ngin."llrl;;d lgslring.Heargues
Jcb
"d |t
,.i"q..h. In this..rp
,.r---.larir-I:::'_rh\:-t-,-r-|
"ig.,".that.ourt""lamentsthe|actthatitL--,
ods Cou.ses
ha*stvpically
in the United Statesand Canada.Onlr' l8ozoincluded
in Masters prograffiei*TeSOl
reference to classroom-centredresearch (CCR). Long(ibid.: 284) suggeststhat this may
practical orlentatlon
methods cours
courses butt he argues that classroom-centred
e Dractlcal
orientation oI
of metnoos
cla
reflect the
'concerned
'eminentlv
practical' becauseit is
lvith u.hat actualh' qoes on in the
research is
classrooms,ur opposed-toovhatissupposedto go o"@olcou.qelf
r+ff
t h e r e s e a r c h e r a c c e D t st h e r e a l r t l e so l c l a s s r o o m b e h a v l o u r a n d m a k e s n o a t t e m p t t o m a n r p u -
d research
lut. lt foi."r"-.;;hTr4llr.r
shouldbe included in methods courses:it hasalreadvproduced some practicalinformation;
teachers can use the research toois that har.ebeen emploved to investigate their own
about relying
classrooms;classroom-centredresearchu'ill help teachersbecome sceptical
-*i
'
-^
Ar"
o n s i n g l e i e a c h - i r gm e t h o d s . I n a s u b i e q u e n t p a p e r . - t o n g ( 1 9 9 0 ) a r g u e st h e n e e d f o r a
-"--_-....t---41..
/
.
I
Ir
lr.
|
|
,
l|
|
-l
wliich can be transmitted to teachers in rnuch the same way as
common Dooy or r<nolr,'ledfue
u c;
.T'.=_--..r..__--/::-
t" A;.t"".J6t"gg.rtr
itrui
research
is Imited in arumber of respects
it constitutes'a
althougfL2 classroom
grou-irg
bodyoftangible@"chi.'g'(ibld.:1i51.ro'Long,thisconstitutes
u.hich he believes
hard evidencen'hich is bettFi tEanThe preludicesand suppositions
decision-making.
Like Johnston,then, Lglg
characterizemost pedagogical
"lo'Ugeq_slassroom research as the means bv rvhich researchers can most effectively influence language
pedagogv.
There are seriousreasonsfor disputingthe optimism that both Johnston,Long, and
others shareregarding the effect such researchr,villhave on languagepedagogv.As Stenhouse
52
ROD ELLIS
"*"p"@.Sitttho"s"
"
---
ffirro*-ed
idcannotbe 6lledb1glrssroom
somervha(but
6;;;h,".'..,"'h"qlhist91,iiEu-Fo.,I"th..thu^
*ffir*:ff;;id"r"d
q!tq!!+s.
inform languagepedagogr'.
helPing
Wb." thr
identifi"d.@touch
have
teachers solr,ethe p;t.J;;Et"qlth.i
-can
itself but rather the questions
be for@p.mi-ifi"iSlA
'both
in the privacv of their classroomsand in the more public
that teachers have askedher
(ibid.
: 50) . Pica offers a list of ten guestions dealing with
meetings'
domain of professional
and production, the role of explicit
impqlgnggpleslqpr.+ension
such matteis asthe relative
--:.-rs------:
.l
'
." l'lca Provldesanswersto tnese
g1ggrmqrUltruction, and the u
q".rtlo"i b"sed on her understanding ofthe SLA research literature.
The obvious advantage of such an approach to applving SLA is that the information
provided is more likelv to be heeded bv teachers becauseit addressesissuesthev have
identified as important. Bahns(1990: 115) goes so far as to claim:
field of practice
1 -Tl. iniriative for applving research results of anv kind to anv
\'(
rvhatsoeverghould come from the practitioners themselves.
\_ _./'\
Such a statement ignores, holvever, some obvious limitations in this insider approaJ:
Teacherscan onlv ask questions based on their olr'n experience. They cannot ask questi,:,:
, . , _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ l n - _
\/notha@ple,teachersrvouldhar.ebeenunlikeIvtoask.Whatistheh..:
Vru
C *uy to organize a svllabus- in terms of structures, notions, or tasks?'becausethey l'ou- 'tasks'
(in its technical sense)lvere.These conceptsha'..
not haveknolvn what'notions' or
been derived from the w.ork of linguistsor applied linguists,but havenot arisenspontaneou:,
through the practice of teaching.Thus, although much can be said in favour of an insicapproach, there is also a casefor the outsider application ofSLA
b.ffi*J
-
--
)'
'
1-
/
{
reiearchers and teachers can effectivelv collaborate is complex. It is one that has been I
addr
researchershave paid scant attention to this literature.
-Frorn
this inifa-I eTploration of u-hat it means to applv SLA researchit is clear that
there is no easv ans\\:er.For some, the immaturitv of SLA as a field of enquirr- precludes
applications.For others, SLA can onh'hope to shapeteachers'expectationsofu'hat is possible
in the classroom.Others havedeveiopedspecificproposalson the basisof generaltheories
of L2 acquisition. Others have suggestedthat the gap betrveen SLA and teaching can be filled ,
by conducting research in and on L2 classrooms.Finallv, some researchershave argued for
an approach u'here thev act asconsultants addressingissuesraised bv teachers or where thev
t
participate in coilaborativeresearchwith teacher.. Ar ',,r-.haveseen,eachof these approaches
has something in its favour but none of them is entirelv successfulin closing the gap between
SLA researchand languagepedagogv.In the next section rve consider the iiews of a number
ofeducators on how'researchcan be made relevantto teachers.
Educational perspectives
Earlier we noted that the once close connection rvhich SLA researchersinitiallv envisaged
between SLA and languagepedagogvhasnot continued.Tounderstandthe gulf that-frequentlv
onlqqrp-haryl, and the th-eor)'andpr&Iic--f.
divides the theorv a@
n'e need to examine thegurding principies and assumptionsof each.We
teaching on the oth-e-r,
need to conslder the culture ol research and the culture ol teacfung.
ru-_
Let us begin with research. It is customarv to distinguish tr,vo broad traditions in empirical
li interven'-
tio'nisL'lt is
)' designedexperiments,suchasthe agriculturalexperiments
(1935) in the United Stjrtes,rvhichlr.eiE
of R. A. Fischer
^r
--1
---"----'ti6atment produced the best crop rields.Th"
_t1gd_$on
@(i.e'subjectsarerandomlvdistributedintoanexperimental
and a control group) and the careful controlofextraLeous variables(i.e. those variablesthat
54
ROD ELLIS
Thg,ialqggstative
ion ) '.Thgi
under investigation
ralr4urL
L I U U r 4 l variable
t o9 . confound the studv of the particular
might
Pdr
Bot
.u,"esestudiesfocusedonindividuallearners,
occurring
collecting samples of spoke., Ianguagebv observing the learners in naturallv
the
examining
by
learning
These .ure ,trrdie, investigated naturalistic
"rr,riro.#".rts.!
t[e-p1ote."i ind tli*
b1 l"art'ets,
Iangu3ggg-rodu99d
;d;ffiJi;lloi.
ffitf,waS
development.
of the w'orkbasedon UniversalGrammar
Th,e-qo4firqutoti'-ltiqiti9"]l:I!9ryI--uch
of suchinsinrmentsas
(e.s.Flynnand Martohar-djdtl9ttJ"@+E9tg.d{-#i1s
with different
learners
grr---.ti.ulitv ludg"-.nit"rt, huu"b".., ,,ridJoE"-ilL-"fi.iF-..
ErstIanguag".*""@iplesoflanguug".tti."l.oeiiFentinstudies.
,VlfiPattenand Cadierno 1993).
of for*]fo.-rrseilin
tradition frequentlv
con{irmator-v
the
Where applicationsto t.u.hl"g are concerned,
competent.
entailsu patticularview of u.hatit meansfor a teacherto be professionallv
do researslrrdiscov9ring
is anaPpliedscienT'..Researchers
Accordinito thisrier,r,education
hGse
aE-then passedon.to
rh; b"ffi.lJ
t
f)
t""r1"r,;*i';
f"
tEEu19}tt",+rcscr+dons'This
preSuppoSeSu*"".,,-t),lvher9.!h9curriculumisviewed
about the most effecti\e me,ans
p;tidt.gT"iormation
ffi;r;h
with r4eans--tst4g than
curri
ffiEih--e
*gllr:d
ina,,',t'i.r'u-i"tuk"nasgiven'T@t\\eenreSearchandeducation
ffiohnston(1987)and,inpart,ofLong(1983a,1990)discussed
in the previous se.tio.t.
Th"." ur. manv problems u'ith the applied science vievr of the relationship between
research and practice. A, .t" have alreadv note_d,theinformation provided b1' even the best
designed explrimental studv mav not be applicablelo otJrg.!:jc.bing cglle&t' AEo, it is
doubtfulrvhethertheffiexperimentaI'.,""'.hhastheobjective
statusoften claimed for it, assubjectiveand socialfactors piav a crucial role in the production
of anv kind of knorvledge, including that obtained experimentallv (see Kuhn 1970) . As Carr
and Kemmis (1936) pJint out, the separationof ends (or values) and means is notreallr'
possible.Also, ends iould not be taken as given but should themselves be the subject of
critical scrutiny, as protagonists of critical pedagogv have argued (see Pennycook 1989). A
.good example of tie need to consider ends u: *'"lbcqt94lt@igations
of L2 studies have investigated the effect of display and
if t.".h"rr; qrr"riio.rJ,ru*be.
o., l"ur.". output te. g. Brock 1985). In thesestudiesit is assumedthat
..GG.tiuGi"rtlo"r
teachers will and should ask questions and the onlv issueis what kind of questions work best
p r o b l e m i s t h a t t h e a p p l r e d s c l e n c e v l e \ \ ' o t t e a c n l n g a l l o c a t e sP a r t l c u l a r r o l e s t o r e s e a r c n e r s
ers are tn
\alue laoen ln nalure. t(e
and to teachers, lr.hich are nece
o\l-leoge \\
LJ
rela
t\\'een-Tesearc
*[iEft;ists
kind
"F.{iitJid
aiguaSffi
Bv adheringto what van Lier t 1990t callsthe emic principle (i.e. tr.v to understandh.
s o c i a lc o n t e x t \ v o r k st h r o u g h t h e p e r s p e c t l \ e so t t h e p a r t l c l P a n t sa) n c lt n e n o l l s t l cP r l n c
slllroundings). it mar ma
sornsthi.lg jln lerms of its_n4_!_U4l
clearlv
w I I te
LcacIuIIg
own
nelr o
\ \ ' n e t n e rer Itherr
L r r c contexts
uvrrLl
!r
u l r l c l E l r L from,
r r w l r r , the
Llrc 5
5, u
as.
orl different
d l c the
drlrtr d
same
c o l l L c x L 5 are
ffixts
@kesavirtueofseekingoutsubjectiveknou'ledge.
interpretative researchmav havetheorl construction asits ultimate goal, it can be considered
practical in nature. Carr and Kemmis ( 1986) expiain horv interpretative accounts facilitate
dialoguebetu.eeninterestedparties (i.e. researchersand teachers).Thevcan lead to changes
'practices
are understood bv
in the way actors comprehend themselvesand their situations;
changingthe rvavsin rvhich thev are understood' (ibid.:91). In fact, interpretative research
achievesvaliditv r,r'henit passesthe test of participant confirmation.Thus, the beliefs, values,
and perceptionsofteachers are not ignored (or controlled) asin educationalresearchin the
confirmatorv tradition, but are given a constitutive place in the research.The traffic of ideas
between researcher and teacher is, potentiallv at least, trl.o lva\'.
is that because interpretative research
Again, though, there are problems.
.One
insiststn e*planutionst-Flt-a?econsistentu ith the participlnts' orvri percepiionsit runs the
r i s k o f u . . . p t t . r g i c c o T n G - f f i f a r e i l l u * o r r l O b r i o u s l r . a c t o r s c a n b e m i s t a k e n .s o t h e i r
ned criticalli'. In oth., words, aclherenc-tothq
interpre
emic principlq can lead to faultv understandings.The hoJiStlcprincipleis also problemati-c.
in information that is too rich, so detailed that the rvood cannot be seen for the
f{unresult
rmato;i;;;-E;Gi"th.i"latlonshlp,
,r""rJh-rn@withc-onfr
..r"u..h"r an thg teachqr. For, althorrghthe gap h., b..ttiu.rowed, they stiil
b.t*=.i-th.
worlds. Carr and Kemmis (1986: 99) put it this u'av:
different
inhabit
. both the'interpretative'and the positivist [i.e. con--".
Despite their differences
firmutor-vl approach convey a similar understanding of educational researchersand of
,'
the relationship to the research act. In both approaches,the researcher standsoutside /
the researcheJ situation adopting a disinterested stancein w-hichan-vexplicit concern ]
w.ith critically evaluating and changing the educational realities being analysedis (
l
rejected.
The truth ofthis is evident in rvhat is perhapsthe best piece ofinterpretative researchin SLA
to date -van Lier's (1988) studv of aspectsof classroomdiscourse(i.e. turn-taking, topic
and activitri and repair rvork). Although van Lier offers a fen' comments on hou' teachers
56
ROD ELLIS
.r-i!.i-i.
=-,.=
"f
t.liubilio'
J=,
researchnilsiE[ibGTiate
- - - - - - lr',-,
ttratlTmeetsestablified
l-;T.-
diaf (i.e. that it is rvell designedand that the results warrant the
or---ito demonstrate that ltls reievant to them. Still lessare thev required to rvork w'ith teachers
to 6nd r,vavsin u-hich research can be converted into action. Indeed, it mav rvell be that in
the depariments r,vherethe researchers rvork practical research receives less recognition
than oure research.
As we have seen, teachers have verv different agendasand operate from a different
kno*'ledge base.Whereas researchersare concerned in establishingthe truth, teachers are
interested in linding out rvhat rvorks, Teachersselect tasks that thev believe will contribute
to their students' learning but thev are rarelv able to investigate whether their predictions
are borne out. Thev determine the successof the tasks in other ways (".g. by impressionisticallvevaluating*-hether the task stimulates active participation bv the learners).
Teachersw-ork from practical knorvledge.They use their experience of teaching (and
of learning) in classroomsto develop a bodv of knowledge as habit and custom, as skill
know-ledge (e.g. how-to deal rvith a student who dominates classroom discussion),as
common-sense know-ledgeabout practice, as contextual knor,vledge(i.e. regarding the
particular classthev are teaching) and, over time, asa set of beliefs about holr,'learnerslearn
anL2. Polanvi (1958) refers to this kind of knowledge as personal knowledge.As Schon
( 1983) has obser.r,ed,and as w'e noted earlier, much of this knorvledge is onlv evident in use
(i.e. it is revealed in actual teaching but the teacher cannot articulate it) although some of it
mav become espousedthrough reflection (i.e. the teacher can provide an explicit account
of it).
Given these differences in goals and in u'hat counts as know'ledge, the gap between
research and pedagogv and the gulf betr'r'eenresearchersand teachers is not surprising.
Zahorik (1985), cited in Freemanand Richards(1993), hasidentified anumber of different
w'aysin w.hich teaching can be conceptualized. Scientificallv based conceptions emphasize
the development of models of effective classroom practice basedon the results of empirical
research.This is the kind of conception we are likelv to find in researchers.Alternative
conceptions are r.alues-based1i.e. effective practice is that w'hich takes into account the
identitv and indiridualitv of learners) and art-craft (i .e . effectivepractice is built up gradually
through experience and reflection). It is these conceptions that 1r'eare more likely to find in
teachers.As a consequence,some teachersmav feel that researchis of little value to them,
not just becauseit is d'ifficult to access(a familiai complaint ) , but becauseit doesnot conform
lvith their olvn ideas of lvhat teaching is and, therefore, does not addresstheir concerns.
Other teachers, horn'ever,mav feel that their own conceptions of teaching lack value and
statusin comparison to the scientificallv-basedconceptionsof researchers.As Bolitho (1991:
'teachers
often take up extreme positions,often deferring blindly to theory or
25) notes,
rejecting it out of hand as irrelevant to classroomissues'.In either case,the outcome is
unsatisfactorv' .
A., .r.n-f,tion of manv educators, is that both pre-service and in-service teacher
education courses should provide students r'r'ith an understanding of a range of academic
issues considered relevant to their lvork as teachers.Teacher preparation and further
to familiarize teachers
educationprogrammes, therefore, tvpicallv offer courses,designed
with these basic elements. In the case o.f progr.+mmes fuLLLlqaching there is a broad
consensusregarding u-hat t}reseelements consistof: r.vhatlanguageisl horv it is used inlpgsgh
w'language
L
'' OnE6
and
hor,v
languge
is
learnt.
and
er,aluated
developed,
taught,
curricula can be
#
qrou
an a\\'aren
rinq this kind of educall4is to d".=
l<', u<.
er ootions from rvhich teachers must select
to teach a lanqua
1-?h"cls ' ,
with the Darticular contexts in r.vhichthel'lvork
ow'1
1pP'ta^L
need for a foundation in t}ese basic elements has been stronqlv argued by Stern
in LanguageTeaching,
Concepts
Stern argues
( 1983). In t}re introduction to his book Fundamental
the need for guides to help the student teacher'pick his rvavthrough the massof accumulated
information, opinion, and conflicting advice; to make senseof the vast literature, and to
\r
distinguishbetu'eensolidtruthandephemeralfadsorplainmisinformation'(ibrd.:1-2).He
seessuchguides asnot telling teachersu.hat to think but rather helping them to sharpentheir
own judgements. He w-orks on the common-sense premise that judgements that are
informed, basedon sound theoretical foundations, u.ill produce better results than those that
are not. Stern's ou.n guide is comprehensive,involving sections dealing r,vithhistorical
perspectives,conceptsof language,conceptsof societv,conceptsof languagelearning and
concepts of languageteaching. Other guides have focused on specific areas,including SLA
(e.g. Larsen-Freemanand Long 1991, Lightbou-nand Spada1993, Ellis 199+).
The aim of these guides is to make technical knorvledge availableto teachers in a
digestible form.There is still the question of horv teachers are to integrate this knowledge
i n t o t h e i r o n ' n p r a c t i c e-.\ s H i r s t t 1 9 o 6 : 4 0 t h a sp o i n t e do u t :
To trv to understand the nature and pattern of some practical discourse in terms of
the nature and patterns of some pr,."lr: theoreticai dir.o,l.r. can onlv result in its beins
radicallv misconceived.
Often enough, teachersin training, particularlv pre-service, complain about the lack of
relevance of the foundation courses thev har,etaken to the actuai task of teaching (see for
example Schuvler and Sitterlev 1995).This has led to the suggestionthat teachqra sh_-o"ld
become more than consumers of theories anffreseiich: thev should become researchers
----
it
ROD ELLIS
58
factorl'
(tE_r::.-utt.d
r,vhateffect involving rvorkers in the decision-making Process
""
H
a
rr,rood
t
h
e
@entin
bv
workers
ed on
substantiallv,that qfuq representativesof the
ment,
-----:-.
d e c i s i o n - m a I 0 n g . ' . 1 V I o r eimportantlv
1 m P o r t a n I r vfor
I O rL.oui.,
L c w . t I l 't-d
rLuclr'1Ul]!]1:5,rffiMore
-<'----------?"1
-r
--,t-*l^^^
t^.,-:-.'-..,^*1,;-^ti-+aractl-^-'".^itrptlertcthe
to education:a@J9!93=L
r.t.ut.h, asit hasbeenappliedsubsequently
tw--gllC;i".t-"
asa meansfor emancipating
serve
to
practice
and
also
is intlded both to improveclassroom
'
teachers.lt nasDotnan instrumerrt"lfrr.t.tio
Caseof the latter, it mav be politicallv charged and, for that reason, potentialll'-risky'
there ij"-technicalactiln
It is customarv to identifv three kinds of ugtio.rI"rgg.h.8.tq
d
cor.r"ut.h
outside researchers
u'here outside
research,
research,u'here
-..---'---'1--:--1-:
I
l r o m t n e o r v o r p r e v l o u sr e s e a r c nL. r o o K e s1 r e e l ; i h u t u c t e r i z e st h i s k i n d o F a c t i o nr e s e a r c h
L y scholars
worKlg9trsneu by
to result in-worklgblished
ls likelv
Il{9
i! is
that tt
noting that
conservative li.te, ttottttg
refaTl\-.ATydserl'atGlfr-e,
5.s
a reEtiie-It
ts a
i;,
"
tffi;
-
researcn.
it fgltgf9glr]igliT
ecause
.tundlrdrli-Elffiott"1
m""l r.rr..r,*ntl" -.ii.i.,;.,g tih.values
".,d
Reconstructive
4 Reflect
Discour/se
/
amodgParticiPants
I
-------------> 1 Plan
II
,],
\\
I
Praci\e
intheso'eQl-context3 Observe <-Figure 3. 1
Constructi\
2 Act
__
D""*,g"h
'\',
v
6)
6O ROD ELLIS
deem necessary.Crookes (1993), horvever,argues that n'hen research is entirelrvlocal and
no attempt to generalizeis made it is less necessarvto conform to the requirements of
reliability, validitv, and trust*-orthiness. He also suggeststhat action researchreports do not
need to be academicin styie.Thev can take the form of'teacher-oriented reports' and thus
be more discursive, subjective, and anecdotal.The difference betrveen the positions of
Brumfit and Mitchell and Crookes are indicative of the iack of clear criteria for determining
u'hat constitutes good qualitv action research.
From the educational perspective described above, the gap between the researcher/
theorist on the one hand and the practitioner on the other is seen as the inevitable product
of the social (and, one might add, political) lr-orlds'"vhichthev inhabit.As Kramsch (1995)
has pointed out the behaviours that these tu'o social groups tvpicallv manifest are s,vmbolic
of the value svstemsto u.hich thev adhere.The move to involve teachersin researchcan
be seen,in part, as a move to reshapethe sl'mbolic capital of teachers'behaviourbv investigating it rvith the authoritv to be derived from research.Thisis one reasonwhy the rationale
for action research so frequentlv makes reference to its contribution to professionalism in
the teachingfraternitr.
One lvav of viewing action researchis as a meansbl'rvhich teachers can test'provisional
specifications
specifications'(Stenhouse19751inthe context of their or'vnclassrooms.These
can be dralvn from the teacher'sown practical knolvledge, in rvhich caseaction research can
help to make explicit the principles, assumptions,and proceduresfor action that comprise
this kind of knorvledge. Alternativelv, the specificationscan be drau'n from the technical
knowledge provided bv research.Action research servesas an empirical test of whether the
generalizationsprovided bv confirmatorv researchor the understandingsprovided by interpretative research are applicabie to specifrcclassroom settings.When teachers consistently
find the results of their own research do not support the findings of confirmatory or
interpretative research thev need to be prepared to reject these as inapplicable to their
own contexts. Action research,then, functions as a u'av of implementing the third of Weiss'
models of research use the interactive model - bv bridging the gap between technical
knowledge and practical knovuledge.
The question arisesas to r,r'hetherthe applicabilitv of proposalsbasedon researchmust
necessarilv be submitted to an empirical test bv requiring teachers to take on the role of
researcher(asStenhouseadvocates)or rvhether it might be possibleto predict r,vhichproposals
are likeiy to be acted on through an examination of the proposalsthemselves.It seems
reasonableto supposethat some proposals are inherentiv more practical than ot}ers.What
makes them so?Toaddressthis cuestion w'e turn to the studv of the uptake of innovations.
Innovationist perspective
*\7
Y
A number of applied linguists have recentlv turned to u'ork on innovation to help them
fI understand the variable successther,have observed in both large-scalelanguageprojects in
, the developing world and the variabieresponseto nel\'ideas among teachersin the developed
w o r l d . K e n n e d v ( 1 9 8 8 ) , W h i t e ( 1 9 8 8 a n d 1 9 9 3 ) a n d N { a r k e e( 1 9 9 3 ) h a v e a l l d r a w n o n
\-innovation
researchin a varietv of disciplines(e.g. Rogers (1983) in sociologt',Lambright
and Flvnn ( 1980) in urban planning,Cooper ( 1989t in languageplanning and Fullan (198)1
a a d ( 1 9 9 3 ) i n e d u c a t i o n ) .H e n r i c h s e n( 1 9 8 9 . r ,B e r e t t a( 1 9 9 0 ) , S t o l l e r ( 1 9 9 + ) a n d M a r k e e
(199+b) havereported actualstudiesofinnovation in languageteaching.It should be noted,
however,that to date there hasbeen no studv of innovationsstemming from proposalsbased
on SLA.12
Th@n
'l
rl
I
A
U
What then determines lvhether and to uhat extent teachers cope r,vith these threats?The
answ-erto this questioninvolvesa considerationoffour setsoffactors:
'
.
'
'
ti(
"/t
rvhich any
hierarchv ol
intglleb.cingllrb-svstems
in \\'nlcn
any
of rnterrelatrng
suD-svstems ln
First, as Kennedv ( 1988) notes, there is aa nrerarcnv
'
.:
l,
ssource)."g
ortrce)reqardinoclaSSroomDIactice"d,,."iio'
19"u1,
'the
Kennedvcomments:
svstemis
administrative.
nolitical.or iultural
culturalfactors.
factors.Kennedv
comments:'thecultural
cum;fsvitem
administrative.political.
as it rvill influ-e4*cg._[gtll_pljgggl-]l$ldminlitra6rc
a.silmed qq be the -ffiooo".lul
stn4tulgtgqdbq!3vlour'(ibtd.:332).ThisisapointthatWiddowson(1993)alsoemphasizes.
He cites an unpublished paper bv Scollon and Scollon to the effect that'gonversational
methods' ma.y q!19 take root in China b"
"
Confucian emphasison benevolence and respect betrveen teacher and.students.
p*a on the p..ro.r"litv and quaiities
uidty
Itr{dlrcatgd ur,d
of indi.,id-uat t-".tr"
"p*
Personal
factorsarelikelvto plava majorpart in determining
*ujo-ryudgpt*r,g$gp$t.
to.
!\ hichcategorra teacherbelongs
62
ROD ELLIS
'
Attribute
Definition
Initial dissatisJaction
Feasibilttv
Acceptabilitl
Relevance
Complexitl'
Explicitness
The extent to rl,hich the rationale for the rnnovation is clear and
convincing.
Triabihty
ObservabtlitS,
Originaliq,
uwnefsnlP
orientation (i.e. the teacher demonstrateshe/she does not really understand the
innovation and is unable to implement it)
routine (i.e. the teacher understandsthe rationale of the CTP and is able to implement
it in a relativelv stable fashion), and
renewal (i.e. the teacher has adopted a critical perspective on the innovation,
demonstrating awarenessof its strengths and lveaknesses).
Fortv per cent of the teachers rvere rated at Level 1 , 47 per cent of teachers at Let'el 2
and 13 per cent at Level 3. Beretta considered Levels 2 and 3 demonstrated an adequateler,'el
of adoption. However, u.hen he distinguished betrveen regular and non-regular classroom
teachersinvolved in the project, he found that three out offour ofthe regular teachers were
at Level 1 . He concludedthat:
'
to rea4_st lgggplgb-Je-1s19-f
-of
He points out that the fajJyrs.of the--regular-teachers
implementationref]ectstf,-eirlackofowt@obIemsregarding-
64
ROD ELLIS
the innovation's feasibilitv because, for example, the teachers lacked the command
teaching.Therea@iudy
for
Eample, we cannot be sule-uhether the regular teachersreallr.failed to adopt the innovation
or w'hether thev simplv lacked the English needed to produce narrative accounts of their
experience- but, nevertheless,it demonstratesthe potential of an innovationistperspective
for evaluatingpedagogicproposalsderived from SLA theor-vand research.
Probablv the most comprehensive studv of innovation in language pedagogy is to be
found in Stoller's (199+) studv of innovation in intensive English languageprogrammes
in the United States.Stoller obtained completed questionnairesfrom 43 such programmes
and also conducted in-depth intervier'vs u-ith fir-e programme administrators. She found
that the most frequentlv cited innovations related to the development of nerv curricula or
th. r.rtr@s"r"*."
p.-;;;a.r
rn.* t*fitant
tha.rot-6irs
1,_,rw
evaldating t
Eourse, to make very precise predictions about rvhich proposalswill be taken up and
rvhich ones u.ill not, but, arguablr',the verv act of evaluating their potential will help
researchersto make them more practical. One might also add that an innovationist analvsis,
using the kinds of categoriesdiscussedin this section,ma\.provide teacherswith an explicit
and relativelv svstematic u'ay of determining whether specific proposals derived from SLA
are of useto them.The studl of innovations,therefore, offers another possiblervay of bridging
the gap betrveen SLA and languagepedagogr'.
f*.
t/
-.*.lJ L-wn<-t".-<.'<r1
.tr-t--,n^^^^roJ+t,_rr.zrrS-uN
i'<'a.*r.-il-?
D rsl ,,ra.r-u"nn^1 ..=a"
Applied lingriist's *11,-"-.1
perspective
;
- Jrs,,lA,
.-,,..."_L+LiftJ+
--/ |
I
\J
I
LJ
rhare
dehned
anapptiSd
l-g-:,,,*r:,." ,*;*1.J. ,ffG&i1.?*6*:.Ift'T*i.f*'
psvcholinguistics.
sociolinguistics.education.
education, and arn'oTher
anio[Fer area of potentiallv
relevir
psvcholinguistics,sociolinggrsrqlcs,
potentially relevant
l
r..
e n o u l r \ t o l a n g u a p eD e o a g o g \ . l t l s l m D o r t a n t t o m a K e a c l e a r c l r s t l n c t l o nD e t w e e n a n n l l (
"l
:
linguists to consider the criteria for an educationallv relevant approach to language' (ibid.:
17) and that this cannot be achier,edbl simplv applving linguistic theorv. This is becausethe
of their task is inherentlv different from the rvav teachers conceive
irvaylinguists conceive
t
t
"
i
.
.
.
L
i
n
q
u
i
s
t
s
a
r
e
c o n c e r n e d u - i t h t h e p r e c i s ed e s c r i p t i o no l , ] C ! g . u r 3 l d u ' i t h i 1 s
[f
i
Practice
66
ROD ELLIS
We saw'eariier
in our discussion
of the educational
that thereis_a-compellingcase
perspective
IorlnvoI\'lnqteacnerSin.esearchiJo..,,"io.,
lt.!tt--.-
theoriesofian
learnins and teachinslEat-Ire
reler.anttotheirorr-nclassroomcontextS'Theadr.ocac'ofteacheffi
1
r 990)
) )v ) in
rrrrecGnt
r cLclrLiearFrEllects
urc lncreasrngall'areness
vedrs fellecLsmaiftreasilg
all-areness
thai languageteacrung
mat
teachingis
ts an ed"ucational
educatlona^
enterprise and, thus, needsto be informed bv mainstream educational thinking.Widdowson
(1990) seesthe need for teachersto be engagedin the active processof exp'erimentingin
their classroomsas a r,vavof determining the practical effect of ideas in action.
There is still a role for SLA in teacher'ledresearch,hou.er,'er.
AsWiddorvson ( 1993) has
pointed out, action research,like anr-other kind of research,cannot take place w.ithout
theorizing. Teachersneed to engagein the process of conceptual evaluation in order to
identifv research problems. A familiaritv rvith SLA, then, can help teachers shapeproblems
5B ROD ELLiS
in a wav that makes them researchabie.In so doing, holvever, it must not impose issuesor.r
teachersbut rather act asa resourcebv which teacherscan refine questionsderived from their
o\vn experience.AsWiddo\\'son (1993) puts it, theorizing must be client-centred.
SLA can help in another u'ar'.It can provide teachers w'ith information about the kinds
of instruments and procedures thev rvili need to usein order to collect and analysedata. Some
thirty vearsof researchingL2 acquisitionhaveled to the development of a number of research
tools (seeLarsen-Freemanand Long 1991 , Alhvright and Baile-v1991), manl' of which can
be used bv teachersin their ou,n classrooms.
As lve noted earlier, the idea of the teacher as researcher r,vill not always be lvelcomed
bv teachers. For some teachers, at least, horvever, SLA can be made real through the
discoveriesthev make about holv their olvn learners learn a second language.
From an applied linguist's perspecti"'e,then, SLA is relevant to language pedagogy in
a number of lva-vs.It can contribute to the appraisal of pedagogic issues.To this end, the
applied SLA u,orker can assistbv making research accessibleto teachers,bv developing
theories ofinstructed L2 acquisitionand bv advancingpedagogicproposalsbasedon t}ese
theories. SLA also has a role in application.The appiied SLA researchercan seekto illuminate pedagogic problems and their possible solutions through conducting experimental and
interpretative studies in and, particularlv on L2 classrooms.Finalh', the SLA worker can act
as a facilitator of teachers' o$,-nresearchbv helping them formulate research questions and
choose appropriate research methods. These functions can be seen as strung out on a
continuum with'outsider activitv' at one pole and'insider-activitv'at the other.While it can
be argued that the relevanceof SI-A increasesas one moves ulong the continuum, outsider
activity should not be disparaged,ashasbecome fashionablein some quarters.Teacherscan
and do benefit from an understanding of the issuesdiscussedin SLA. How.ever,the determination of reievance is ultimatelv the dutv of the teacher, not the applied SLA worker,
although the latter can aid the process and, doubtlesslv,should try to do so.
Finally, it must be clearlv acknou.ledgedthat SLA does not constitute a body of
knowledge that is necessarvfor the development of effective teaching skills. As Brumfit
( 1983: 61) hasobserved,'learningto perform competentlvis never the sameaslearninghow
to understand the processofperformance and to explain it'. SLA can contribute to teachers'
'there
is
understanding; it cannot ensure competent practice and, to quote Brumfit again,
alw'aysthe possibiiitv that practice u'ill run aheadof theorl', aslvell asthe reverse' (rbid.: 68 ) .
Notes
1
2
3
10
lt
12
References
Adelman, C. (1993)'Kurt
1 :7 - 2 4 .
7O
ROD ELLIS
Boston, Mass.:
Agard, p. and Dunkel, H. (1948) An lnvestigationoJ SecondLanguageTeaching.
Ginn.
andPublicPolicr,'.
Svracuse,N.Y.:Svracuse Universitr.
Agnevl.,J ("d ) (1980) Innovatton,Research
(
J
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
v
o
J
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
R
o
u
n
d
T
d
bleonLanguageandLinguistics.Washington
Al-atis,J.(ed.)(1991)
D.C. : Georgetor,vn Universitl Press.
Alatis, J., Stern, H. and Stevens,P. (eds) (1933) AppltedLinguisticsand the PreparationoJTeachers,
hward a Rationale. Wishington D. C. : Georgeton'n Unil'ersitv Press.
London: Longman.
in the LanguageClassroom.
Alhvright, R. ( 1988) Observation
An Introduction rc Classroom
Classroom:
the
Language
(
Focus
on
K.
1991)
Allu,'right, D. and Bailev,
Press.
ResearchJorTbachers.Cambridge: Cambridge Universitv
'Consultant
not initiator: the role of the applied SLA researcher' . ELTJournal
Bahns, J. ( 1990)
44:110-16.
to grammar', inWanner and
Bates,E. and MacWhinner',B. (1982)'Functionalistapproaches
(
e
d
s
)
(
1
9
8
2
)
.
Gleitman
New'York:
,MulfiplePerspectives,
Language
,i'cquisition:
Beebe, L. (ed.) (1988) lssuesin Second
Ner,vburl'House.
'lmplementationof the BangaloreProject' AppltedLinguistics
11 321-40.
Beretta,A. (1990)
,
'Theor-v
in Second
(1991)
constructionin SLA: complementaritvand opposition', Studies
511.
73
493
Acquisition
Language
Bolitho, R. (1991)'A place for secondianguageacquisitionsin teacherdevelopmentand in
t e a c h e re d u c a t i o np r o g r a m m e s 'i,n S a d t o n o( e d . ) ( 1 9 91 ) .
'Process
for the languageclassroom'in Brumfit (ed.) (19Sab).
svllabuses
Breen,M. (1984)
6:60_70.
Breen,M. (1985)'Authenticitr.in the languageil"sr.oorn' , AppliedLinguistics
suide'in
a c o n s u m e r ' sa n d d e s i g n e r ' g
B r e e n ,M . a n d C a n d l i n ,C . ( 1 9 8 7 ) ' W h i c h m a t e r i a l s ?
(
e
d
.
)
(
1
9
8
7
)
.
Sheldon
Language,
London: Longman.
Englishasa Second
Bright, J. and McGregor, G. (1910). Teaching
Brindiev,G. (1990)'lnquirv-basedteachereducation:a casestudy'. Paperpresentedat24tn
AnnualTESOL Convention,SanFranciscoMarch 6-10,1990'
'The
effectsof referentialquestionson ESL classroomdiscourse'. TESOL
Brock, C. (1985)
@rarterly2O: 4148.
Learning.NervYork:Harcourt BraceandWorld.
andLanguage
Brooks,N. (1950) Language
Ann Arbor, Mich.: Language
Language
Acquisition.
Brown, H. (ed.) (1915) Papersin Second
Learning, Universitv of Michigan.
' T T . W a s h i n g t oD
n.C.:TESOL.
B r o u , n ,H . , Y o r i o ,C . a n d C r v m e s ,R . ( e d s )( 1 9 7 7 )O n T E S O L
'The
integrationof theorv and practice',in Alatis er a1.(eds)(1983).
Brumfit, C. (1983)
Design.ELT Documents 1 18. Oxford: Pergamon.
EngltshSvllabus
(ed.) (1984) General
'The
languageclassroomas a focus for research',in
Brumfit, C. and Mitchell, R. (1990a)
Brumlit and Mitchell (eds)(1990b).
Brumfit, c. and Nlitchell, R. (eds) (1990b)'Research in the Languageclassroom'. EIr
13 3. London: Modern EnglishPublications.
Documents
Learninq.London: Falmer.
("d
Calderhead,J
) (1938) Teachers'Professional
Knowledge
and ActionResearch.
Crjtical:Education,
Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming
London: Falmer.
E. and Schumann,l. (1915) SecondLanguageAcquisitionin
Cazden,C., Cancino,E., Rosanskr',
and Aduhs. Final Report. \{'ashington D.C.: National Institute of
Children,Adolescents
Education.
C l a r k e ,M . a n d H a n d s c o m b eJ,. ( e d s )( 1 9 8 3 ) O n T E S O L ' E 2 : P a c t f c P e r s p e cotni vLeasn g u a gaen d
D. C. : TESOL.
Teachtng.Washington,
in AppliedLinguistics:
Studiesin
Cook. G. and Seidlhofer,B. (eds) (199;) Principleand Practice
Oxlbrd: Oxford UniversitvPress.
HonouroJH. G.Widdouson.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversitvPress.
andSocialChange.
Cooper,R. (1989)LanguagePlanning
2 4 5 - s8 .
'On
sourcesof errors in foreign languagelearning',|KAL'7:11 36.
Duskova,L. (.1969)
Language
Eckman, F., Highland, D., Lee, P., N{ileham,J. andWeber, J. (eds) (1995) Second
and Pedagogl
. N{ahrva,N.J.: LalvrenceErlbaum.
AcquisitionTheorv
AcilonResearch
in Schools.
NewYork:
Elliott, J. and Ebutt, D. (1985) FacilitatingEducational
Longman.
Acquisirion.
oJ Second
Language
Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
Ellis, R. (199+) The Stud),
(.1995)'Appraisingsecondlanguageacquisitiontheorv in reiatronto pedagogv',in Cook
a n d S e i d l h o f e(re d s )( 1 9 9 5 ) .
Knowledge
and Competence.
London: Falmer.
ProJessional
Eraut, NI. (199+) Developing
Edinburgh:
Oliver and Bovd.
Fischer,R. (1935) TheDesignoJExperiments.
Teacher
on Second
Language
Flow.erde'ur,',
J., Brooks, M. and Hsia, S. (eds) (1992) Perspectives
Education.
Hong Kong: Hong Kong Citl'Polvtechnic.
Flynn, S. and Nlartohardjono,G. (1995)'Ton'ards theon'-driven languagepedagogr'. in
E c k m a ne ra 1 .( e d s )( 1 9 9 5 ) .
Freeman,D. and Richards,J. (1993)'Conceptionsof teachingand the educationof second
27: 193-211.
languageteachers'. TESOL@tarterlr'
Nes']brk:
of AppliedKnowledge.
Freidson, E. (1977) ProJesionoJMedicine:ASmdvoJ Sociolog,v
Dodd, N{eadand Co.
Change.
NervYork:Teachers
oJEducational
CollegePress.
Fullan,M. (1982) The,Meaning
Forces:Probing
theDepthsoJEducational
ReJorn.London: Falmer.
Fullan,M. (1993) Change
Leicester:LeicesterUniversitvPress.
Change.
Galton,M. (ed.) (1980) Curriculum
Learning)9:
Gass,S. (1989)'Languageuniversalsand secondlanguageacquisition'.Language
+91-53+.
Gass.S. (1995)'Learning and teaching:the necessarvintersection',in Eckman er a1. (eds)
(1ees).
'
in Constructing
Classroom
Research.
Second
Language
Gass,S. and Schachter,J. (eds) (199+) lssues
N.J.
Larvrence
Erlbaum.
Hillsdale,
:
(tr.T. Mccarthl'). Boston:Beacon
andtheEvolution
of Society
Habermas,I. (.1979)Communication
Press.
of Second
Language
Harlev,B, Allen, P., Cummins,J. and Su.ain,M. (eds)( 1990) TheDevelopment
Profciency.Cambridge: Cambridge Unir-ersitv Press.
'Appll'
Acquisition
2: 123-43.
rvith caution'. kudiesin Second
Language
Hatch, E. (1978)
Haveiock,R. (1971)'The utilizationof educationalresearchand development'.BritishJournal
2: 81-9'7.
oJEducationalTechnologv
Ner,v
;n EnglishTeaching:The
ELECffirt in_.ilcpan.
Henrichsen,L. (1989) Dffision o;fInnovations
York: Greenu-oodPress.
'Educational
t h e o r r ' 'i n T i b b l e s( e d . ) ( 1 9 5 5 ) .
H i r s t , P .( 1 9 6 6 )
Research.
Milton Keynes:Open University
Hopkins, D. (1985) Akacher's Guideto Classroom
Press.
72
ROD ELLIS
( 1e 8 3 ) .
'Five
principlesin a "communicative"exercisetYPe',in Johnson,K. (19821
Johnson,K. ( 1982)
Communicative SvIl abus D esign and,ll ethodo1og;', Oxford : Pergamon.
' Numan(ed.)(1987).
e a r n e rl a n g u a g ei n
J o h n s t o nM
, . ( 1 9 8 7 ) ' U n d e r s t a n d i nl g
'From
(ed.) (1980).
in
Galton
to
adaptabilitr'',
innovation
(1980)
P.
Kelly,
Victoria, Australia:Deakin
Research
Planner.
The
Action
(1981)
R.
Kemmis, S. and N1cTiggert,
UniversitvPress.
'Er-aluation
and the managementof changein ELT projects'. Applted
Kenned1.,G. (1988)
9: 329-42.
Linguistics
'The
lecture,Annual Conferenceof
politicsof appliedlinguistics'. Plenar.,'
Kramsch,C. ( 1995)
Beach,
California'
Linguistics,
Long
Applied
for
Association
the American
Cross-Disciplinary
Text
and
Context:
(eds)
(1992)
S.
Kramsch, C. and McConnell-Ginet,
Srud,r.Lexington, N{ass.:D.C. Heath and Companv.
on Language
Perspectives
Krashen,S. (1983)'second languageacquisitiontheon'and the preparationofteachers', in
A l a t i se t a 1 .( e d s )( 19 83 ) .
in the Classroom.
Acquisition
Language
Krashen,S. and Terrell, T. (1983) The NaturalApproach:
Oxford: Pergamon.
(2nd edn.). Chicago: Chicago University
of ScienttfcRevolutions
Kuhn, T. (1910) The Structure
Press.
'The
coalitionsin
role of local bureaucracv-centered
Lambright,W and Flvnn, P (1980)
technologvtransferto the citv' in Agnerv(ed.) (1980).
'second
languageacquisitiontheorr''. Plenarvaddress,1995Annual BAAL
Lantolf, J. (1995)
Conference,Southampton,UK.
L a r s e n - F r e e m a n , D . a n d L o n g , N( 1
l .9 9 1 ) A n l n t r o d u c t i o n t o S e c o n d L a n g u a g e A c q u i s i t i o n R e s e a r c h .
London: Longman.
Lightbown,P. (1985)'Great expectation:secondlanguageacquisitionresearchand classroom
t e a c h i n g. '. 4 p p l r eLdi n g u r s t t6c :s l 7 l - 8 9 .
are Learned Oxford: Oxford University
Lightbow.n, P. and Spada,N. (1993) How Languages
Press.
a c q u i s i t i o n ' i n W i n i t z( e d . ) ( 1 9 8 1 b )
L o n g ,N I . ( 1 9 8 1 ) ' l n p u t ,i n t e r a c t i o na n d s e c o n dl a n g u a g e
'Training
researcher'in Alatis et a1.
teacher
as
classroom
language
the
second
11983a.y
( e d s )( 1 9 8 3 ) .
'Natil'e
speaker/non-nativespeaker conversationin the second language
(1983b)
classroom',in Clarke and Handscombe(eds)(1983).
(1990)'second languageclassroomresearchand teacher education',in Brumfit and
M i t c h e l l ( e d s )( 1 9 9 0 b ) .
( 1 9 9 3 , ; ' . { s s e s s m esnt rt a t e g i efso r S L A t h e o r i e s.' A p p l i e d L t n g u i s t1i c4s: 2 2 5 4 9 .
'The
oJApplied
differenceof innovationin languageteaching'. AnnualReview
Markee,N. (1993)
13: 229-43.
Linguistics
'Tor,vards
an ethnomethodological respectification of second-language
Markee, N. (1994a)
acquisitionstudies',in Gassand Schachter(eds)(199+).
Learning5: 1-30.
(1994b)'Curricularinnovation:issuesand problems'. AppliedLanguage
ELTJournal44:
(i990)'What's
the
use
of
research?'
McDonough,
S.
and
McDonough, J.
t02-9.
'Hou
not to interfere in language learning' , InternationalJournal of
Ne',r'mark, L. (.1966)
A m e r i c aLni n g u i s t i c3s2 : 1 1 - 8 1 .
Nervmeyer,F. and Steinberg(1988)'The ontogenesisof the field of secondlanguagelearning
r e s e a r c h ' i nF l v n na n d O ' N e i l l ( e d s )( 1 9 8 8 1 .
Practtcally
.lction Research:
Becoming
Noffke, S. and Stevenson,R. (eds) (1995) Educattonal
Critical.Neu'York:Teachers'CollegePress.
(1ee2).
a n d W i l l i s( e d s )( 19 9 5 ) .
Smith, P. (1970)'A comparisonof the Audiolingualand Cognitive Approachesto Foreign
Foreign LanguageProject.' Philadelphia:Center
LanguageInstruction:The Pennsr'lr'ania
DeveloPment.
for Curriculum
P (1993)'lnstruction and the developmento[ questionsin L2
Spada,N. and Lightbor.r-n,
75 205 21.
Acquisition
Language
in Second
. Studies
classrooms'
London:
and Development.
Stenhouse,L. (1975) "4n lntroductionto Curriculum Research
Heinemann.
' U s i n gr e s e a r c hm e a n sd o i n gr e s e a r c h 'i,n D a h ] ( e d . ) ( 1 9 7 9 ) .
(1919)
S t e n h o u s eL,. , V e r m a ,G . , W i l d , R . a n dN i x o n , l . ( 1 9 8 2 ) T e a c h i nagb o u rR a c eR e l a t i o nLso. n d o n :
Routledge.
Oxford: Oxford UniversitvPress.
of LanguageTeachtng.
Concepts
Stern,H. (1983) Fundamental
'The
diffusion of innovationsin intensiveESL programs'.ApphedLinguistics
Stoller,F. (199+)
15:300-27.
'Some
limitationsto the classroomapplications
Tarone,E., Su,ain,M. and Fathman,A. (1915)
of current secondlanguageacquisitionresearch'. TESOLQyarteily10: 19-3 1.
London: Routledgeand KeganPaul.
Tibbles,I ("d ) (1966) The StudyoJ Educatton.
Chicago:ChicagoUniversitvPress.
andInstruction.
oJCurriculum
Principles
1,vler,R. (]9+9) Basic
74
ROD ELLIS
Learner.
London: Longman.
andtheLanguage
Van Lier, L. (1988) TheClassroom
Brumfit and Mitchell (eds)
handvragon,
or
contraband'in
bandaid,
(1990)'Ethnographr':
( 1e e O b ) .
in
VanPatten,B. and Cadierno,T. (1993)'Explicit instruction and input processing'.Studies
l5: 22541 .
Acquisition
Language
Second
Stateof the.4rt.Nen'York:
Wanner,E. and Gleitman, L. (eds) (1982) Language,Tcquisiilon:The
Cambridge Universitv Press.
New'York:TheFree Press.
Organizatton.
andEconomic
Weber,M. (1951) TheTheorl'oJSoctal
Lexington:D. C. Heath.
in PublicPolic,r'-making.
Weiss,C. (ed.) (.1911)using SocialResearch
Oxford: Basil
White, R. (1988) The ELT Currjculum:Design,Innovationand tVanagemenr.
-
Blackwell.
'lnnovation
73:
. Annual ReviewoJAppliedLinguistics
in program der,elopment'
(1993)
2++-s9.
W i d d o w s o n ,H . ( 1 9 S 4 ) ' A p p l i e dl i n g u i s t i c st:h e p u r s u i t o f r e l e v a n c e ' i n W i d d o w s o n( 1 9 8 a )
2. Oxford: Oxford Universitv Press.
in AppliedLinguistics
Explorattons
Oxford: Oxford UniversitvPress.
(1990) Aspects
oJLangrageTeaching.
(.1993) 'lnnovation in teacher development'. Annual Rev)ewoJ Applied Llnguistics13:
260 15.
Oxford: Oxford Universitl'Press.
Wilkins, D. (1916) NotionalSr'llabuses.
Teaching.
Oxford:
and Changein Language
Willis, J. and Willis, D. (eds) (1996) Challenge
Heinemann.
. AnnalsoJtheNew
Winitz, H. (ed.) (1981)'Native Languageand ForeignLanguageAcquisition'
379.
of Sciences
YorkAcademy
'Classroom
research and teacher education: torvards a collaborative
Wright, T. (1992)
approach', in Florverdel et al. (eds)( 1992).
'Acquiring
Education27 : 21-25 .
teaching skills' , rlourncI of Teacher
Zahorik, J. ( 19 86)
Chapter 4
PeterSkehan
COMPREHENSION AND PRODUCTION
STRA TEGiES IN LANGUAGE LEARNING
N AN INFTUENTIAL
PAPER WHICH
d i s c u s s eds i f f e r e n c e sb e t w e e n f i r s t
f
|. und second languagelearning, Blev-Vroman (1989) drarvsattention to the extent'lq
*hi.h .".ord lung!3g9_(
.lfirst ]qlguge
-tittr*.tt""-"nr.ttti"gt'ot. of;;;nffiA
:--"."-;1,
- it is hardlv srlrpfrfinglEatlFelanguage teaching profession has explored manv alternatives
in the search to find more effective methods (Larsen-Freeman 1985). And it is equallv
unsurprisingthat one of the responsesthe professionhasmade is to seervhetherupprou.h",
to second languageteaching w.hich connect rvithfrsr languageacquisition hold out anv
promise.
This chapter u'ill review t$.o such instructional approaches.The first is broadlr'
concerned ouith .o.r.pr"hension-drir.en learning, regarding second language development
aslikelv to proceed,under the right conditions,simplv asa result of exposureto meaningful
input. The second, lvhich in some wavs arose out of dissatisfactionwith the {irst, proposes
that engagingin interaction and producing output w'ill be sufficient to drive secondlanguage
development forw-ard.In each case,clearlr',interlanguagedevelopment is seen to be the
bv-product of engagingin meaning-processing- in the first casethrough comprehension,
and in the secondthrough production. As a broader aim, the chapter developsthe claim that
instructionai activities that emphasizemeaning, whether comprehension or production
based, mav induce learners to reiv on strategiesfor communication rvhich result in a
bypassingofthe form oflanguage.
'
76
PETER SI(EHAN
Comprehension strategies
The findings become much more understandable if one examines the relevance of nativespeaker comprehensionmodels for the process of second languagelearning. Looking at
comprehensionin more'micro'terms, Clark and Clark 11977)have argued that nativespeaker listeners t1-picallvdrarv upon a range of comprehension strategies when they are
listening.Thev focus on holv svntacticand semanticstrategiesmav be used to recover the
meaning of rvhat is heard in a rather impror-isatorvmanner (ibid.: 57-85). Examples of
s,vntacticstrategiesthat thev discussare:
C O M P R E H E N S I O N A N D P R O D U C T I O NS T R A T E G I E S 7 7
Whenever r'ou find a determiner (a, an, the) or quantifrer(some, all, many, two, six,
etc.) begin a ne\\-noun phrase.
Whenever r,ou find a co-ordinating conjunction (and, or, but, nor) begin a ne\\.
constituent similar to the one tou-juit completed.
Trv to attacheachneu'u.ord to the constituentthat camejust before.
(ibid.:66\
Thev illustrate this last strategv through an advertising campaign run b"' a London
eveningpaper'"vith posters such as'Zoo keeper finds Jaguarqueuing for underground ticket',
Piccadillvand Oxford Street'.Thepaperwanted more
and'Butler findsner'vstationbetr,veen
people to realizeholv useful its small adr,ertisementssection u'asand to attract their attention
to posters ther' rvould normallv glance at onlv brieflv u-hile passing.So thev exploited the
'double-take'
that readers \r'ere led into br- using the third of the abovemicro-strategies.
'qrr.rri.rg'
Readers then had to recognize the improbabilit\: of their first interpretatio. of
'nelr'
station' to'betrveen Piccadiilvand Oxford Street', and
being attachedto'Jaguar' and
rnoo'I th" link to the first noun in each sentence.
Clark arid Clark (;bid.:72*79'1 also discusssemanticstrategies,such as:
4
Fillenbaum (1971) illustrates the operation of this strategvbv showing that rvhen people
w e r e a s k e dt o p a r a p h r a s e ' p e r v e r s es' e n t e n c e sl i k e ' J o h n d r e s s e da n d h a d a b a t h ' , t h e v
'not
a shred
normalized them, lvith more than half of his subjectseven assertingthere u'as
the
original.
ofdifference'betrveen the paraphraseand
Clark and Clark are, in effect, arguing that native-speakercomprehensionis probabilistic
in nature, and does not follorv anv sort of deterministic model rvhich *'ould rely on an
exhaustiveparsing of the utterar." .o.r."..red. Instead,listenersuse a variety of meansto
maximize the chancesthat thel u'ill be able to recover the intended meaning of u,hat is being
saidto them.Thev are not, in other u'ords, using some linguistic model to retrieve meaning
comprehensivelv and unambiguouslr'.Instead, thev cope r'r.iththe problem of having to
process languagein real time bv emploving a varietv of strategiesnhich rvill probably
combine to be effectir,'e, even though there is no guarantee that this rvill be the case.
Presumablv if a comprehension difficultv arisesduring ongoing processing,the listener can
shift to a different mode of meaning extraction, asperhaps in the caseof the zoo keeper and
the Jaguar(asrvasintended bv the authorsofthe poster). But this is not done routinelv: the
primarv strategv is to achieveeffectir,enessin ver1,fast languageprocessing.Most listeners,
in their native language,prefer to make a best-guessand keep up, rather than be accusedof
being slorv-u.itted but accurate pedants (although \ve can all bring to mind some members
ofthis species).
'micro'
These
issuesdiscussedbv Clark and Clark (1977) can be locatedr'vithina wider
model of comprehension,u'hich hasa more macro perspectir.e.Thefollou.ing table is adapted
f r o m A n d e r s o n a n d L v n c h 1 1 9 8 8 : 1 3 ; , n ' h o s u g g e s t h a t c o m p r e h e n s i o n( a g a i n ,f o r t h e
moment, native-speakercomprehension)is dependenton three main sourcesof knowledge:
knov,ledge
Schematic
background knou'ledge
- factual
- sociocultural
7B PETER SI(EHAN
procedural knorvledge
- how'knou'ledgeis used in discourse
Contextualknowledge
knou'ledge of situation
phvsicalsetting,participants,etc.
knol'ledge of co text
n'hat hasbeen, rvill be said
I e'lqe
-i:,:;:: ;n; kno.w:" r^taaiiC
>: il-,lil!i c
::t, ,rnh,_rlogical
C O M P R E H E N S I O NA N D P R O D U C T I O NS T R A T E G I E S 7 9
necessarv
sufficient
eflicient
BO PETER SI(EHAN
'negotiation
W"-::g)
fOr,*raivt17
,.)"'
.J .''lo"n,-7
Sw'ain(1985) arguesthat knon'ing that one u'ill need to rpglk makes one more likely to
attend to syntax 'uvhenone is listening. She suggeststhat if l;iteners are aware that it is not
enoughsimplvtoextraCtmeanin
gfrominput,butthatth"1,q@o'
-ur.
to thJ].r"urrc ty ,r'hi.h -.u.ri.rg,
in ord==-..
to"*" @ri,
"*pr"rr"d
for their ow
yntax
fnderlving speech. It is similar to r,vatchinga top-classtennis plaver, say,and making a
distinction betrveen simplv obserr.ingand admiring a stroke, on the one hand, and observing
and analvsingthe stroke so that it can be emulated later, on the other. So once again, we are
dealing here rvith output having an indirect effect in that it causeSinput and listening to be
used more effectivelvfor interlanguagedevelopment.
'.-a.-=.=-
W
To accept the input hvpothesis is to be dependent on w-hat is said by others. If this is
enlightening, given the learner's current state of interlanguagegrammar, then progress may
result. But one is extremeh'unlikeh.to be so fortunate as to receive relevant information
for specific points of interlanguage development relevant to the areaswhere one is framing
hvpothesesat exactlv the right time. Speaking,in contrast, allou.s the speakerto control the
agendaand to take risks and look for feedback on the points ofuncertainty in a developing
grammar (Swain 1985; 1995). This is unlikelv to make learning more efficient, since
t"h. ,p.uk., can control u'hat is going on and engineer feedback tlhut l, likely to be most
revealrng.
W
To be effective in the use of a language,one needs to be able to use the languagew'ith some
e a s ea n d s p e e d . E a r l i e r , i n t h e s e c t i o n o n c o m p r e h e n s i o n ,t h e ' r e a l t i m e ' p r o b l e m w a s
mentioned, according to rvhich it is important to posit mechanismsof comprehension which
havesome chanceof explaining listening in real time.The samebasicallyapplies to speaking,
the onll'lvav in r.vhichiearners can go bevond carefulll constructed utterances and achieve
some level of natural speedand rhythm.To obtain the automaticitl'that this involves requires
frecuent
rtunrtv to
components of utterances so that they can be
imoortant
[roduced
speechruth". thu. th" .p"".h
this respect, there is an aspectof
speaking which makes it an example of skilied behaviour, like driving a car, or, probably
d"
more reler,antl-v,like plaving a musical instrument. O."lf by fr"q"."t
"r.
of spjechlikel) to he imn.or"d.
This applies to all speech,but it is likelv to appll even more forcefuliv to some aspects
than others. It mav affect morphologv vitalh', but hardlv affects rvord order. Hence the
C O M P R E H E N S I O NA N D P R O D U C T I O N S T R A T E G I E S 8 1
opportunity to practise speechin ianguagesu.here morphologv plavs a more prominent role
may be all the more important.
The previous arguments for the importance of output have not challenged the view' that
interlanguagesvstem.
languagelearning is essentiallvthe developmentof a sentence-based
(Brorvn
and
Yule
198
3)
that
much
ELT
rvork
focuses
excessivel),on
BUt it has been claimed
Il
'short
t u r n s ' . a n d t h a t a sa r e s u l tl e a r n e r s 'c a p a c i t i e tso t a k e D a r t i n e x t e n d e dd i s c o u r s ea r e I I
''
not stretched. Certainlv, current developmentsin discourseanalvsissuggestthat there is a
Iot to be learned if one is to become an effective communicator. Discourse management
(Bygate 1987), turn-taking skills, and a range of similar capacitiesrvhich underlie the
negotiationof meaning in ongoing discourse(Cook 1989), can onlv be achievedbv actuallv
participating in discourse. If meaning-making is a jointlv collaborative activity, then rn'e
cannot read about these skills, or even acquire them passivelv,but instead have to take part
in discourse and realize hou- our resources are put to vuork to build conr,'ersationsand
negotiatemeaning.Extensivespeakingpracticeis ihere fore unaloidable.
develop a oersonal vo
A learner w'ho is com letelv de
82
PETER SI(EHAN
In the literature. r\\'o ienerai ac.ounts of the role of communication in languagedevelopment hal'e been proposed: languagedevelopment through the negotiation of meaning
(Pica 1 994, for exampi. ,: an,l de..lopment through the operation of strategiccompetence
(such as Bialvstok 1990 r. \\ e s ill eramine eachof them in turn to assessr,vhetherthey can
clarifl.rvhether output and interaction havea positive influence, and if so, r,l'hatthat influence
might be.
1
2
Strateqic comDete
The situation is not particulariv different u'ith respect to the operation of strategic
competence and communication strategies,the other more qeneral framew'ork which might
C O M P R E H E N S I O N A N D P R O D U C T I O NS T R A T E G I E S 8 3
provide a rationalefor output-led interlanguagedevelopment.Thisliterature (Tarone 1981;
Ferch and Kasper 1983;Bialvstok 1990; has examined the r,vaysin r,r'hichthe strategies
that learners adopt when faced bv communication problems can be describedcl"arlv ?.rd
classified.Manv categorizationsvstemshar.ebeen proposed, such as Ferch and Kasper's
(1983) distinction betrveenachievementand avoidancestrategies,and Bialvstok's(1990)
contrast between linguistic and cognitive factors. One attraction of such systemsis that thev
account for the range of strategies lvhich are used as parsimoniouslv and vet as comprehensivelvas possible.In addition, it is useful if thev can be grounded in related fields, as is
the caservith Ferch and Kasper's(i983) appealto generalpsvcholinguisticmodels.
Hor,vever,a central issue is rvhether the operation of such strategiesof communication
at a particular time to soh'eparticular problems hasanv implications for interlanguagechange
and development over time.l C)ne could ask, for example, r,vhetherachievement strategies
(that is, retain the original intention of meaning, and use resourcescreativelv to solve a
communication problem) are more iikelv to lead to developmentthan avoidancest.ategies
(that is, do not extend one's linguistic repertoire, but instead changethe messageto be
communicated so that it comes rvithin availableresources). Similarlv, one could askwhether
there are different implications from the use of linguistic strategiescompared rvith cognitive
ones.
A different rvav of examining essentiallvthe same point is to consider the relationship
between communitation strategies and the Can"l" u.rd Srvain (1980) model of communicative competence.This contains three (Canale and Sr.vain1980) or four (Canale 198:7
competences:linguistic, sociolinguistic,discourse,and strategic(discoursebeing the added
fourth competence: seethe discussionin McNamara 1995). Linguistic, sociolinguistic,and
discoursecompetencesare, in a sense,more basic, since thel represent areasof coherent
comPetencein relation to different aspectsof communication.Strategiccompetence,in thts
formulation, has a less integrated qualitv in that it is meant to function in an impro",isaron'
manner w'hen problems are encountered because other competences are lacking (see
Bachman 1990). Presumablvthe capacitvto negotiate meaning would be part of a more
generalstrategiccompetence.
A w'eakinterpretation ofrvhat is happening rvould be that such strategieshave no other
function than to solve some sort of communicative breakdor,vnin order that conversation
can proceed.With this interpretation, all that happensr,vhena problem is encountered is that
some degree of resourcefulnessis drarvn on, and the problem in question may or may not
be solved. In this t'i"t1.,it is not assumedthat there is much rracefrom the activity of solving
the problem in question. Although the'solution' mav enablefurther interaction to take place
(whichis, of course,not a bad thing), its detailsare regardedastransitorv and unimportant.
However, a stronger interpretation is that u'hen communication strategies are used,
thev haveimplications for longer-term languagedevelopment.There are three requirements
for this to happen. First, it is necessarvthat solving current communicative problems leaves
some sort of trace. In other w-ords,u-hat is initiallv an impro','isationto convev one's meanins
w'hen resourcesare limited is noticed and becomesmore than a,.u.,ria.tU,r;
";";"r.#
success;there must be something about the interaction *.hich is sufficientlv ,uli".rt, and,/or
the processing capacitv available allou's such attention. Second, the improvisation w.hich
has become a solution must be useful to future problems - it must have some transfer or
generalizing po\\rer. Such an outcome lvould reflect the u,'avthe interaction itself has led
to useful h,vpothesisgeneration or to svntactic processing (Su.ain 1985; 1995). Third,
the communicativesolution needsto become proceduralized,either becauseit is so striking
during one occurrence (Logan 1998), or becauseits strength is built up more graduallv
through repeated related solutions to essentiallv the same communicative problem
84
PETER SI(EHAN
repertoire
(Anderson 1992).ln anv case,it becomes availableaspart of one's communicative
If all
are
encountered.
one
o.r..,br.qr.nt occasionsrvhen problems similar to the original
indeed have a
these conditions are met, and interlanguage deveiopment occurs, then lve do
engagesa
communicative
problems
solving
In
this
case
bv
talking.
case of learning to talk
rvhat
is
Puts Pressure on the
language l"ar.ring capacitv directlv, since solving problems
c o m m u n i c a t i v es v s t e mt o c h a n g e .
C O M P R E H E N S I O N A N D P R O D U C T I O NS T R A T E G I E S 8 5
being trained to be obtained. The former is based on a five step scale on w.hich
global
proficiencv can be estimated (supplementedby plus scoresfor eachnumeri."l
"ut"go.1:;.Th.
Iatter gives seParateratings for svntax, r.ocabuiarr',fiuencv, and other skill areas.
Ii thi, *uy,
the longitudinal development of the learners can be monitored through an examination of
the profiles generated bv the analvtic markings scheme over ser.eralpoints in time.
Higgs and Clifford ( 1982) report that profiles of students at earlier points of instruction
can be used predictivelv to estimate the likelv later gain of the candidatesin question. Given
the basic five-step scale, candidates lr.hose grammar ratings u,ere abor.eor equal to their
ratings in vocabularvor fluencv tended to continue to progressand reach higher performance
levels as ther,'receivedmore instruction. In other lvords, balancedanalvticratings or higher
grammar predicted continued gain and capacitl' to profit from instruction. In contrast,
students lvhose earlier profiles shor'vedstrong fluencv and vocabularv skills did not manifest
the same degree of sustainedimprovement. Higgs and Clifford (1982) called these learners
'terminal
2's' (from the 6ve-step scale),suggestingthat the earlier profile rvasassociatedrvith
a probable plateaurngin achievementat around Level 2. It seemedasthough the earlier fluency
and vocabularv gains comprised continued development, and mav havebeen associatedwitir
fossilization.These learners corresponded,in some wavs, to Schmidt'sWes, since earlier
communicative effectiveness (and the higher fluencv and vocabularv scores earlier in
instruction might be connectedlvith a communicativeorientation on the part of suchlearners)
represented a short-term advantage
proved expensive in the longer run since it was
"vhich
associatedwith an interlanguagesvstem u'hich became less permeable. Once again, the
suggestion is that unless there is direct involvement of the underlving languag" Jurt"- i.,
communication, it need not develop, even though communicative effectivenessdoes chanqe.
Th eoreti caIIy-b as ed con cern s
In addition to these empiricallv motivated concerns over the usefulnessof communication
strategies,there are some more theoreticalh.-basedworries. First of all, there are r,vhatmight
be termed logical criticisms of the vie'lr'point. For example, it is difficult to imagine
how such strategiescan leave a trace. It is likelv that interesting operations will occur"*u"'alu
when
achievement strategiesare used to cope r,r'ithcommunicative problems whose solution will
require some adaptation of the underh'ing svstem. But in such casesthe need to solve
unforeseen problems lvill ensure that the lion's shareof cognitive resourceslvill be directed
to conveving meanings.As a result, it is not easv to see ho.rvmemory of u-hat exactly has
worked .u.t b" effectivelv retained for the next occasion rvhen the strategv may be .,..fr,rl,
since this outcome u,ould require the spare capacitv to fumble tow-ards,rrit solution and
"
simultaneously to monitor its nature and its effect. It seemsunlikelv that the conflicting
calls
on limited resourcesrvill allou' this r,r'ithanl dependabilitr .VanPattent I 990 I makes a si"mila.
p o i n t i n r e l a t i o n t o c o m p r e h e n s i o n . , r h " . . h e d e m o n s i . a t e st h a t s r n t a c t i c a n d s e m a n t i c
processing seem to conf-lictas far as attentional resources are concerned, and that attention
spanis too limited to aliolv both to be emphasizedsimultaneoush,.One can only assumethat
speaking,as Part of the interaction, u-ill pose significantlv greater problems for l"a.ni.rg.
More generallv, for the use of communication strategies to lr.ork to foster p.ogi.r,
svstematicall-v,
it r.vouldbe necessarvto shorvnot simplv that thev leave a trace, but also that
the use of such strategies has some cumulative brulding potential. For if SLA research has
demonstrated anvthing, it is that developmental sequenceshave considerabie importance.
It would be necessary,therefore, to shorv that the progressive improvisations which solve
communication problems build upon one another, and are not isolated chancemanipulations
of languageelementsin one restricted area,but havesvstem-der.eloping
potential, and push
85
PETER SKEHAN
C O M P R E H E N S I O N A N D P R O D U C T I O NS T R A T E G I E S 8 7
deal of the time. Since it is meanings which are primarr', as long as the speaker feels that
the need for precisesvntax is diminished.This
communication is proceedingsatisfactorih-,
contrasts verv clearlv lr.ith the vounger languagelearner rn'hohas much less schematic and
contextual knorvledge availablepersonallv, and u'ho is also much less able to imagine rvhat
his or her interlocutor has bv rvav of knou-ledge in each of these areas.As a result, the child
hasmuch lesssconeto take svntacticliberties and short cuts.
We are ,ror" fucirrg quite a changed picture regarding the usefulness(or lack of it) of
conversationfor languagedevelopment.Thereis Iessneed, for the older learner,to produce
complete and lvell-formed utterances, becausemost interactions require collaborative
communicative
construction of meaning rather than solipsisticpartv pieces.Further,."r-hen
problems occur, the strategiessecond languagelearners adopt are not likelv to push for'"vard
underlying system change in anv cumulative lvar'.Finallv, there is the issue that, even if
conversationu'ere b\- means of complete, rvell-formed utterances,cnd attempts to cope
with communicative problems u.ere useful, there is stiil the likelihood that attempts to cope
with ongoing processingdemands w'ould not allou-the learner to capitalizeupon such a
temporary breakthrough, establisha memorv trace of it, and use it in the future.
Conclusion
The central theme of this chapter has been that syntax has fragile properties. Normal
communication is pervaded bv the pressures of processing language in real time. We
comprehend and produce languagenot bv exhaustivelv anah'singand computing (although
we can do these things if rve have to, for reasonsof creativitv or precision) but instead br'
drawing shamelesslr'-onprobabilistic strategies r.vhichrvork effeclively enough (given the
support and potential for retrieval of miscommunication that discourse provides) at
considerablespeed of processing.\\'e reiv on time-creating devices, context, prediction
skills, elliptical language,and a range of similar performance factors to reduce the processing
load that rve haveto deal rvith during conversation.And the older rve become (up to a point)
the more adept lve can be at exploiting these resources.
The central point is that languageuse, in itseif, does not lead to the development of an
analvtic knolvledge svstem since meaning distracts attention from form. But clearlv
communication does proceed, so one can infer that speakersdralv upon other non-analytic
knowledge svstemsu'hich, one assumes,havequalities reievant to real-time communication.
Note
In one sense,of course, this point is addressedthrough the distinction between
communication and iearning strategies.The former emphasizessolutions to immediate
communicationproblems,u.hile the latter areconcernedu'ith activitiesw'hichareintended
bv the learner to lead to longer-term development.In some casesthis distinction is clear,
asr,vhen,for example, a communication strategvdealsr,vith(sav)hou. to expressan idea
when a lexical item is missing (and hasno lasting effect) or w'hen a learner deliberatell
for memorization,not attemptingto usetheser,r.ords
immediately,
organizesa list of
"r'ords
but insteadr,vorkingtowards the extension of an underlving vocabulary.But the central
issueis that one can also regard the operation of manv communication strategiesas
containingiearningpotential,for exampleu-hena usefulcommunicationstrategvbecomes
proceduralizedand so reusable.It is preciselvthis tvpe of communication strategythat is
relevant in this section.
BB PETERSI(EHAN
References
Oxford:OxfordUniversitvPress.
A. andLvnch,T.(1988)Listening.
Anderson,
'Automaticitv
105:
ACT theorr''. Amer)can
and
the
JournaloJPsychology
Anderson,
J.R.(1992)
16 5 - 8 0 .
Los
Guidebook.
CompleteTeacher's
Actions:The
LanguageThrough
Asher,J.J.(.1977)LearningAnother
Gatos,Calif.: Skv Oaks Pubiications.
Aston, G. (1936)'Trouble-shooting in interaction rvith learners: the more the merrier?'
1: 128-43.
AppliedLinguistics
Oxford: Oxford Universitv
in LanguageTbsting.
Consideratrons
Bach-an, L. (1990) Fundamental
Press.
LanguageUse.
oJ Second
Analvsis
A Psvchologicdl
Strateg)es:
Bialvstok,E. (1990) Communjcation
Oxford: Blacku'ell.
Blev-Vroman,R. (1989)'The logicalproblem of secondlanguageacquisition',in Grass,S. and
on SecondLanguageAcquisition.Cambridge'
Schachter, J. (eds) LinguisticPerspectives
Cambridge Universitl Press.
Brow.n, G. and Yule, G. (1983) Teachingthe SpokenLanguage. Cambridge: Cambridge
Universitv Press.
Oxford: Oxford UniversitvPress'
Bvgate,M (1987) Speaktng.
e r o f i c i e n c v ' i nO l l e r ( e d . ) .
(
1
9
8
3
)
'
O
n
sf languagp
s o m ed i m e n s i o n o
C a n a l eM
, .
bases
of communicativeapproachesto second
Canale,M. and Srvain,I,1. (1980)'Theoretical
1: 1-17.
languageteachingand testing'. AppliedLinguistics
Neu'York: Harcourt, Brace.
and Language.
Clark, H.H. and Clark, E. (1911) Psvcholog,v
Jovanovitch.
Oxford: Oxford UniversitvPress.
Cook, G. (1989) Discourse.
Eskey,D. (1988)'Holding in the bottom', in Carrell, P., Devine, J. and Eskel',D. (edst
in SecondLanguageAeading.Cambridge: Cambridge Universitv
lnteractiveApproaches
Press.
London: Longman.
Communicatron,
in lnteilanguage
Farch, C. and Kasper,G. (1983) Strategies
'On
. Journai
copingu'ith ordered and unorderedconjunctivesentences'
Fillenbaum,l. (1911)
9
8
.
lPsS
cholog-v
87:
oJExperimental
Foster,P. (1998)'A classroomperspecti\:eon the negotiationof meaning'.AppliedLinguistic:
19/1.
Gass,S. andVaronis,E.M. (1994)'lnput, interaction,and secondlanguageproduction'. Studies
76:283-302
Acquisition
Language
in Second
'Krashen'sMonitor and Occam'sRazor'. AppliedLinBuistics
5: 79-100.
(1984)
K.
Gregg,
and
Morgan,
(.1915)'Logic
in
P.
cole
and
conversation"
Grice, H.P.
J. (eds) sJntaxani
NervYork: Academic Press.
3: Speech.4crs.
Semantics
'The
interlanguageof immersion studentsand its implication:
Harlel', B. and Swain, M. ( 198+)
for secondlanguageteaching', in Davies,A., Criper, C. and Horvatt, A. (eds) lnrerlanguage.Edinburgh: Edinburgh Universitv Press.
'The
push torvard communication', in Higgs, T. (ed.
Higgs, T. and Clifford, R. (1982)
Teacher.
Skokie, Ill.: National Textbook
and the ForeignLanguage
Curriculum,Competence,
Comoanv.
Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Kess,J.E. (19i2) Psvcholtngu)stLcs.
London: Longman'
Krashen,S. (1985) TheInputH,vpothesis.
NervYork: Oxford.
Principles
in LanguageTeaching.
and
(
1985
Techdques
D.
Larsen-Freeman,
)
Review9>
Psychological
Logan, G.D. (1988)'Tou.ardsan instancetheorr-of automatisation'.
+92-s27.
Long, NI. (1985)'lnput and secondlanguageacquisitiontheorl", in Gass,S. and Madden.
Rorvlel',Mass.:Nelvburv House.
Acquisition.
Language
C. (eds) Input and Second
COMPREHENSION
89
159-79.
in LanguageTbsting
ResearcA.
Rorvler',.N{ass.:
Newburv House.
Oller, J.W (1983) (ed.). lssues
'Research
on negotiation:u'hat doesit rer-eaiabout second}anguagelearning,
Pica,T. (199+)
Learning
44:491-521.
conditions,processes,
outcomes?'. Language
'Whv
(1971)
not start speakinglater?',in Burt, M., Dulal',H. and Finocchiaro,
Postovskl',Y.
Language.
NervYork:Regents.
M. (eds) Viewpoints
on Englishasa Second
'lnteraction,
accuituration,
and
the acquisition of communicative
Schmidt, R. (1983)
competence, in \fublfson,N. and Judd, E. (eds) Socrolinguistics
and Second
Language
A cquisiti
on. Rorvlel',Mass.: Ne*-burv House.
'On
the non-magicalnature of foreign languagelearning' . Polvgot5: FicheI .
Skehan,P. ( 1984)
'Formulating
a theorv of second languagelearning'. Studies
in Second
Spolsky,B. (1985)
Language
Acquisition
7 : 259-88.
Slvain, M. (1985)'Communicative competence:some roies of comprehensibleinput and
comprehensibleoutput in its de.,'elopment',in Gass,S. and Madden, C. (eds) lnput in
Rou.lev,N{ass.
Second
Language,lcquisition.
: Ner.vburvHouse.
Sw-ain,M. (1995)'Three functionsof output in secondlanguagelearning', in G. Cook and B.
Seidlhofer (eds) Principlesand Practicein AppliedLinguistlcs.Oxford: Oxford Universitv
Press.
A CanadianCaseStudv
. Clevedon.
Swain,M . and Lapkin, S. ( 19 82) EvaluatingBilingualEducation:
Avon: Multilingual N1atters.
'Some
Tarone, E. ( i 98 1)
thoughts on the notion of communication strategy'. TESOL@rarterlt
15:2845-95.
VanPatten,B. (1990)'Attending to content and form in the input: an experiment in
in Second
Language
Acquisltion
72: 281 301.
consciousness'.
Studies
l0:
Widdowson, H.G. (1989)'Knorvledgeof languageand abilitv for use'. AppltedLinguistics
128 31.
Winitz, H. (1978)'A reconsiderationof comprehensionand productionin languagetraining'.
1: 212-315 .
AppliedHealthandBehavioural
Sciences
Chapter 5
LeovanLier
CONSTRAINTS AND RESOURCES IN
CLASSROOM TALI(: ISSUES OF EQUALITY
AND SYMMETRY
quick
tion," "cooperative learning," "responsive teaching," and many other
terms likithem testifv to a fundamentuT-E-iftfro-. conclrtgiog, association, and other
theGydal'social
laboratorv-basednotions of Iearning to human learning uiiiiilt*.E"
. t
w o r l d o f t h e l ea r n e r .
\A}
l e a r n i n gd o e sn o t m a k e
truction) o
This shift to the
.-./N.'./]\
\\
S- " rl
tthe
h e iniestigation
i n v e s t i o : t i n n of
o f ' 1learning
,
The
security of isolating
the
contrarv.
anv
easier.
On
processes
/qOb" -tA , ,
)i variablesand defining them operationally,a securitv obtained bv laboratory-like experiment-.
U
X-t'r. I
-l
. ,.9)
\u"d statisticalinferences,is largelr-lost,asthe researcheris forced to look for determinants
I iot learning in the fluid dv,lu-iL, of real-time learning contexts.
)\
-k
-r-^l:.:^-^ll---^ L^,,^ +
L ^ , , ^ l ^ + of
^ f scientific
.^;^-+;C^
-research
^.^^*^l^
.c a
. matter
'-rr+6r
^ f looking
l^^Li-^
iinto
nrn n
arrcer
r V
causes
as
of
have thought
Traditionallr- -rve
Lv
and effects, and the benefits have been cast in the shapeof generalizationsfrom a sample to
Q f\
\
a population and ofaccuratepredictionsoffuture occurrences.Thisresearchscenario,while
adequatefor simple phvsicalprocessesand laboratorv-controlledbehaviors,u'ill no longer
lr'ork once w'e venture forth into the real r,vorld of complexitv, in which manv people and
circumstancesact and interact. Here there are no simple causes,and predictability must
aimed at increasing our understanding, both
yield to contingencl'3::gelgb$Qe
holisticalh' and in the smallest details, oflthe-social settinf as a cohp-ldada
-t
lt
-._
u s not
n o t to
t o generalrze-hrHo-DarnrCIIIAnze;TmrTs;TraoaPI
u n c l e r s t a n d l n g alio\\-s
a l l o \ \ s us
c r e a s e c lunderstandrnq
lntreased
ourskills,ideas,andstra?egiestoth.riousinfluence.
C O N S T R A I N T S A N D R E S O U R C E SI N C L A S S R O O MT A L I ( 9 1
understanding are necessar\'.There are manv different kinds of interaction that may occur
in these settings,but I group them into t',vo broad tvpes: teacher learner interaction and
learner-learner interaction. Both hare been-Thffib]Fct ol considerableresearch,and their
r",,^^",*-
-" ^*-,-
I ie
learnrnp
- - - - _ - a >bq$,gss,sucl-deb
nas-E)
arning
ate_di-lobk
-x-
Learner 1 :
Learner 2:
Learner 1:
L e a r n e r2 :
Learner1:
Learner 2:
Learner 1:
Learner 2:
Learner 1 :
Learner 2:
Learner1:
L e a r n e r2 :
Learner 1 :
L e a r n e r2 :
Learner 1 :
HereI - sometimes
go to the beachlxxxxxx)
PebbleBeach?
llot PebbleBeach.My (xxxxxx)
l T h e . rn e a r- O h . .er a h .
[Uhuh
Wow.ls it good?
I thtnk so.
Yeah,
But I think herethe beachnot beautiJul
O:h,re::allv?
It's not white.Thesandis not white.
Yes.
[Uhuh
A n d t h e v a t e r- l o u c a n n ost u i m .
I seebecause
yeah!lVecanswimbut[ T h i sv a t e ri s
[-the wateris co]d.
R F,
92
,tr;M
r,
n e g o t r a t r n g m e a n l n g a n d C r r t l c l z e d l o r b e l n g a c l e l e c t l v em o d e l , r l d d l e C \ \ l t n l n a c c u r a c l e s .
talk studiedhasusualh'be
cld noTTrou-TflfE-the
ch talk-for-la
i,
ff
, (le-a84);...'t.bi@E
ieu (19
teachrng.
learnlng.
in the
tne official
olnclal business
Dusrnessot
language learni
engaged rn
of language
rn language
language
classrooms, engaged
Gpl. reople in
- r ' i classrooms,
, - i ,
tend to behave and talk in lvays that ratifr,that
:-T|_:
Fairclough
taIK approprrately SIee
t 19921 r an tnctslve drscussron
iffiness, most prominent inside the classroom, may remain
t e r m ) . E l e m e n t so
visible also outside the classroom,lvhenever learning talk is carried out in nondesignateri
placesand at nonscheduledtimes (in cafeterias,around picnic tables,and so on), as wher:
two students in the extract of learner learner interaction given above agree to engagein ;
C O N S T R A I N T S A N D R E S O U R C E SI N C L A S S R O O M T A L I < 9 3
conversation at the req uest of a researcher.But time and place mar-make a difference in the
rvar.taIkisconductggi.ancilearningtalkinf,dei8
#
taik outdile lessons.Thispossibilitv needs to be taken into account when learners'and
teachers'interactionsare analvzed.
There are practical consequencesofthis constraints-resourcesvieu'oflanguage learning
contexts. In an article entitled "NoTalking in Class,"J.H. Lii (1994) depictsthe traditional
a n o t n a l o I s t u o e n t s a s m o s u \' l l s t e n l ncgt p a s s l v e' l vl n c l a s s .
role ofteacher aso
hiileed, a student is quoted as savingthat he used6
fit the
th knd@
lectures."Th"r. comments
.o-*..ts
w-asso bored bv lectures."These
-r-:r--------:here is that in the innovative classdescribed (w'hich has tri'entyt
e n o u g h .I h e l n t e r e s t r n' t\\G
five students),the problem is solvednot bv the teacher'schanginghis wav of speakingand
interacting r,viththe students but bv the placing of a computer betu-eenthe teacher and the
taught. Thanks to the insertion of the computer, students "no$- have the opportunitv to
interact n'ith teachersand receive instant feedback."Askepticalperson might ask,Whv do
interaction and feedback recuire an artificial interface?Whv can't professors interact with
t h e i r s t u d e n t su i t h o u t a c o m p u t e r ?
Pierre Bourdieu and Jean-ClaudePassejon,in their u'ork on cultural reproduction,
_-..-;---:--1.--'|-.--------_--1--__
feacner rvith
\\rtn certain
cerfarn distancing
olsrancrngre9nn]gugL_grq
nnosr
rnar rne
the lnsuruuon
institution equrPS
equipsfne
the teacher
techni
t
sugfest
suggeslthat
"theatrical
cher to
efficient technique is "magistEilifdiscourse," \thich condemns th
rnstitutionai control over the teacher's language use,
onorogue.
___--__i:_____K
r.
according to Bourdieu and Passeron(1977) that "efforts to set up dialogue immediately turn
intofictiLnorfarce,,'ThepossibiIit,.th.t,.
-ii-stitutional
constraintsis intriguing.:
This characterization of teacher- student interaction mav seem overdralvn and
unrepresentative of todav's classrooms,manv of r,r'hichare more d).namic and dem
Butthereisnodoubtthatinvariouss,'bt]eoiovert\\.aYsth.i@,,-A
the tvpes of talk thut .u
teldhGTls free to ignore such constraints in the interests ofpedagogical action. Bourdieu
and Passeronare clearlv skeptical about the possibilitv of that freedom, though perhaps
transformation-minded educators may $-ant to seehorv far thev can go, and to what effect.
The institutional setting, of course, offers resourcesand facilitates their deployment in
,h.,u@materials
judgerandgrade,test,pass.lailt; the authori!-Jo-spe;k;EaFo\lfr
ek raeu^4
k
a\
Er r
palpabletfraush perhaps more lmportant, ot authorrty and po\\'er: the authorlty to set the
fg."C1_!bsg"=1,.
*
I L
I r&Sr Ir 5*q-
. - , ,I
vlbu,lq uv,
1lt
initiation-response-feedback exchange
ll'hat ts this called?
Learner: PIastic.
Teacher: Y o u c a l ] e d t r p l a s L i c .G o o d ! l t ' s p l a s t t c . B u t j r s g o r a n o t h e r n a m e I o o
trcnsParencJ.
/x
I 988:\r'ellsffialled
an IRF
stlons. to clant\.
IRF therefore
demanding,
as
shou'n
in
the
figure below
continuum belw'een mechanical and
it would be a
F i g u r e5 . 1 l R F c o n t i n u u m
Display
Cognition
Precision
CONSTRAINTS
Teacher:
Learner:
Whteris heatin7, tt
95
a varietv of third turns are possible.In each case,a different tvpe of task is revealedto be
in progress:
'd''"tVt*1
Teacher:
-,t^..tL WI
(recitation)
Teacher:
k^-o-t
,,
-'
(display)
Teacher: And can),ou think oJsomethlngsthat tt mtght be heattng?
(cognition)
Teacher:
{"Dirw\VT
, " *xu*i:"
(precision)
Adapted from van Lier (1995a)
This example shorvsthat the IRF structure cannot be regarded asa single t,vpeof pedagogical
activitv.All four IRF t-vpesof teacher-learner interaction given abovecan be used to evaluate
or control or to invite participation. Knou-ing the purpose of a particular IRF exercisethough this mav not alu'avsbe easr',is crucial in determining its pedagogicalr-alue.But there
are some things that all IRF sequenceshavein common, and these common featuresmust
++
as a pedagogicaltool.
be examined before IRF can be assessed
( .\_/
) u<A
The central feature of IRF is that the teacher is r'.eouivocallv in charge.This being in charge
-----m a n i f E s t si t s e l fi n a n u m b e r o [ u ' a r s .
Everv IRF exchange is a step in an overall plan designed bv the teacher.The plan mav
be to check lr.hat the s"tudentsknorv (as in recitation or"displuj)rfro construct knowledge
.
o r a n a r g u m e n t . D e r h a p sa l o n g S o c r a t l c l l n e s , o r t o p u s h t n e s t u c l e n t st o \ \ ' a r c lc l a r l t \ '
'
t h a t t h e 'p l a n -i s n o t g c-:-:-;:;
p o r t a n t t o n o t e i::
d f.--e _ x p r e s s i o nl t. i s i m
"r"'--"'
g n s t r u c t e d .l o- r a r r i n q
:degrees,stTdFntsmal be an are of the nature o[ th-eplan and au are of the direction in u hich
the discourse is moving, but usuallv these matters are revealed onl,v gradualh' and
incidentalh'.
The teacherdoesali the initiating and closinq_(inother u'ords,takesall the first and
.
IRF format
format
u-orkis done
doneexclusivelv
exclusivelvin the
the response
responseslot.The
slot.TheIRF
students'u-ork
turnslJftlThe students'
thirdI turnr-
dir.orr.ug"r,trd..!114@d.1,
i.gd
A, D",-ti:Tffi
gh
ansrvers".It is extremelv hard, if qot impossible, in the IRF format, for the stu
self-correct, and so on. Indeed, I found that such student utterances
Fffi
stions
oteru'helm
n
r
j n a n o t e b o o k . l h e I K F t o r m a t d l s c o u r a q e sl n t e r r u p t t o n ( o r d l s r u p t l o n ) a n d c a n t n e r e l o r e
96
be cailed'aclosedre491qh
l a c e .I t i i
urslve gul
uttt'
l,r{
\-'
.' r '].*Jl\
\
g @mrne
rapon*
s l o t , i a n d u i c h e db e t n e e n t \ \ o t e a c h e rt u r n s l r a n T G i 1 9 9 6 a 1t,h e r a l s op r e v e n tt h e s t u d e n r
f, r^o m crl o l n gt u r n t a K t n g ,t o p r c d e v e l o p m e n ta, n d a c t i r i t v s t r u c t u r i n g+u:o- r k . T h e t d o n o t
alJovr,to anv signihcant extent, negotiation of the directioiTT'iiEuition]
Jr\
!V''4
h -z I
,r-,
t4i''."tt'{Gil-enthesebasicfeatur.trecommendationsof
Flinders
1ee0;
t > > V ; )Shul'
n u v l1ee1),
> > l ) r O f o't l l e l n s t r u c -
Lv-LUrrrLruLLr",",_}Sjlljlatrrt\D(j\lcrsdIlQfllnoers
f'^o!tr61'\fr"
r*{ 1+J.+ I
Ff-$I";
,=..*-
do**
/-f\
)-
\_./
'
:H+lo"t
+1:'t'"'tional
con\Ittlg! Hgf":T"$,1t-*:'^':j
l.!)nrp and Gallimore 1988),especiallvif suchrecommendali6i-sare
1-#-
t'ygotsky's
calfotding
\.f)'
rv
,r*io*
kinds of
(Bruner
scarrororng
catlolding
(Dru
I 983;.
-\
-i-J
k exchan
l
scaffolding
i".trygro",a w.ayof developing
.:.--oe\elopment.
o r a u ' a v o l a sslstrng
s s l s t t n qlearners to
a platform of shared knor,vledge that rvill facilitate the introduction and integration of
new know.ledge. IRF used in several steps in a iesson or during one activitl. am-ongother
activities(seeWelis|993),..al.onceithasserved
its purpose, it vields to other lvals of stiucturing
ucrurlng participation.
PartlclPatlon.
Scaffoldi
be oftrue
I benefit, must be temporarv. The scaffold must be
t-allr dismantled as
rner shorrs sjpil
handling more of tl
task in question.
This
over,(BruneFT9S 3 I . and lr.ithout it scaffoldin,,
-t
tt
=-| |
i
-\4'OUlClSlmDh' breed
' l e s s n e s sl .t i s u n c l e a r u ' h e t h e r I R F h a s i n i t s
structure the flexibilitv to effect handover. I suspect that, for handover to be possible, IRF
must be a
ned at some point to make place lor autonomour l.urn"rffirre.
This
switch from IRF to more o
scoursestructures mav be a crucia
slon
U..a-SVtd
tto"*e/V
tc '&
C O N S T R A I N T S A N D R E S O U R C E SI N C L A S S R O O M T A L I ( 9 7
Co'^,*f!ffi,^r,,
,,^^-o\vq,,tl
t*
competence,
@r'(DeciandRr'an1992;Deci,!u1G6d,R.II"ti".,u.'dRy""199D
It expressesitself as a here-and-nor,r'interest in col.dircting an activitv for its orvn sake,for
lv
the pleasure,stimulation, o. challengethe acti,i
ing able to chg/le and of being somehow in contrp4 of orre s
ated to the perceptlon
ieduce
actionf.Acti6-nsthat are perceir-edasbei
(see
aise
or
criticism
rat-ibffAtdo extri nsic reu
intil nft6ffi
N+
Ju.Sutrg
onged
al or praisein the third turn) a extrinsic
ren'ards( in the form of teachera
u_s e o f t h e l R F f o r m a t m a v h a r e a n_e s a t i v e e f l e c t o n i n t r i n s i c m o t i v a t i o n a n d c a u s e a d e c rrl rtex,a, sne
in levels of attention and involr.ement. IRF exchangesare like discoursal traininq w
In bicycle riding the training rvheels must eventuallv come off, and liker,visein interaction v ^..
' Qi,
I R F m u s t b e , e p l a c e db r f r e e s o c i a li n t e r a c t i o n .
a t i o n ( s e e \ . a n L i e r 1 9 9 6 a ) ,p e C l g o e r c a . L
A l
actionmustbeorie@ve]sofintrinsicmotivationu,'dffiffid/r\rl
iftreasingseIf-regulationandautonom\..IRFmustA\
\{
:
,,
::
:i:ii
: i ---T--j--,
,
patterns, ones that allou' student initiative and choice to develop.
FffiiFffi"
"ll
C r i t i c a l p e d a g o g vs e e k st o t r a n s f o r m e x i s t i n gs t r u c t u r e so f c o n t r o l a n d i n e q u a l i t r ' ( Y o u n g
1992: Darder 1991) and to allorv studentsto frnd voicesof their ou-n and become critical
o.".JEqili6l1iG
and autonomous learne.r
f-lourish
in
a climate of equalit)'
Paulo
Freire
(
1972),
can
only
*hich,
according
to
fialogu-,
among_pgrticipants.Freire maintains th"t di
dialosue there is no communication, and rvithout cqlnm
t o b e r e a l i z e d ,d i s c o u r s em u s t m o \ 1 ef r o m t
t t e r n sR ; S e r t T o n n s t 1 9 9 ) t a p t l r c a l l s
6.eTs
@r&ss@
isterial
control-tnitiative,
rformances
ince at least it
else's agenda.
98
a less
Issuesof negotiation and the joint construction of talk. This relates to shared rights and
'r, duties of
icipation, that is,
i interactional ,)'ory,.1
Such svmmetr.)', most clearly visible
participation,
'inconr.ersationamonq"quul,,ffiu.hi.*].fbrIesspi.fi.ie'-tspeakErs.
,in conversationamong equ4-s,E-aF
the conrsatfonEetu.een
conversattonbetu-eent$-o
as tle
quoted above
tu-o ESL
ESLstudents
studentscuoted
abovedemonstrates,
demonstrates.
bv no
no
it is by
ffBqI as
,fry
-*"r
b'v
,,eq,t{c"
impossible.\,r/1,r,ft ,o.uLt
Ul^ak a^-+ "eq,'Jc".).)'*"*
-'{--_
-_
--
..f1
'
J'+-,<- f4*'?
cstl<rta
c-rft<rtal"l<L:^
The phenomena relating to, on the oneland, contiol, power, and equalill'and, on t!e'bt!q,
conversationalsvmmetrv and negotiation of meaning are connected:unequal participants
tend to haveasvmmetrical interactions. But a distinction must be made between interactions
that are oriented tou'ard achieving symmetrv and those that are not (lRF, lectures,
iristructions,and other common teacher talk belong to the secondcategorvfl
<ffi;t.tio,.,-tffieces.sariIvinvolveu,'u.,,i-piionofequality
or some sort of abdication of authorit-v.A separationbetween svmmetry and equality is
crucial for the possibilitv of fruitful communication between teachers and learners and,
indeed, betu'een native speakersand nonnative speakers.If true communication were
possibie onlv betlveen equals, then teachers and learners (and even parents and their
children) would be forever condemnedto pseudo-communication.Thisis obviouslynot so.
Having postulated that communication, lvhether betw'eenequals or unequals, requires
an orientation tow-ard interactional symmetrv, I norv show',first, how' such an orientation
mav be visible and, second, what benefits it might have for languagelearning.
In w'hat wavs can utterances be oriented tolvard svmmetrv? Basicallv.the orientation
expressesitself irlrelations of contingencrtetween an utterance and other entities .
,I
vservsrrrt
/'
Contingency
efers to trvo distinct characteristicsofinte
-
-'--.r
lanquaqe'conrinqenrh,
"^@
i" rffi-"y
prrribr"
C O N S T R A I N T S A N D R E S O U R C E SI N C L A S S R O O M T A L I ( 9 9
e comment, the foregrounded anfu
(unit" the gi""n and the
justifies, and motivates grammaticalencourages,
gy'ounded).Contingent languageuse
'ization.
Noncontingent languageuse or, rather, less contingent, since Se qualit.v of
contingencv exists on a continuum - proceeds more staticallv and encouragesa treatment
insteadof as an organic *'hole.
of la;@
Contingent features are most visible in the kind of talk usualiv referred to as
-#-|
t
Ia
forms of talk. conversationis perhapsthe hardestto dehne. It is. in a
conversati-667[3T-ITl
'
sense,a catchallconceptthat can contain other kinds oftaik - such asinstructions.requests
srorres. Dusinessoears.A complication is that other kinds of talk can have conversation
ffirviervs.lessons,orsalestransactionsmavsuddenIvbecomechatty,
then after a r,vhiles',r-itchback to business.So neat boundaries cannot be drarvn around the
ph-nomenon of conr-ersation.Yetlve usuallv knon'rvhen a conversation is taking place.
In conversation,everv utterance is connected bv manv links some of them overt
manv more of them iovert - to previous utteiances and through them to the shared (or
s for what will
woild of the partlcrpants. L.\,ervutterance setsuP ex
I
b e s a r c l n e x t .u t t e r a n c e s l n c o n \ e r s a t l o n a r e t n u s , a t t n e s a m e t l m e .
ffiants'mutua}engagement(lr.hatRommetr.eit('1974)ca
intersubjectivitr') is achieved and maintained.
-=.+Vlen.rzruls contingent,
rather than planned in
_
n, at
advance.In addition, t
person
monopolizes
the
happens
that
one
"ideallv"
since
it
often
least ideallv.a I sav
conversation and does not let tle others get a word in edqer,vise.But the orientation tou-ard *
: i
lir
:::
:
: :
r
i
i
svfrifrFtFstill holds. since the participantsu'ill note that the conrersatron*
t-dSdTo illustrate w"hatmakes an interaction conversational.I quote two extracts fron-t
nonnative speakerinteractions. In the first there is a high ievel ofcontingencv; in the second.
a m u c h l o r r - e rl e v e l :
1//-"t"-r''--n
_,,)
.-<.l/c
...'
-'
aa
Yww'
--, - w'?L-
a\q[
cl<
lOO
Speaker 2, an ESL learner, is the same person in both interactions, but in the first her
interlocutor is ofroughlv equal proficiencv and in the second her interlocutor is a nativelike
bilingual speaker.The first extract illustrates svmmetry, and all utterances exhibit a high
degree of contingencv.The second extract is more like an intervierv in which speaker 1
encouragesspeaker 2 to speak. Relations of contingencv are weaker, and symmetry is
reduced. If contingen_c1cofd be visgalized-asbundles of jtrilgs connecting utterances,
then the strings u.ould be thicker a"d moie nurmerousin the first conversation and more
se and sprndly rn tne seconcl.
o
6
Pica
modification and hasshou'nt oilitbe;anG c-o'mpreherislon:freeo-rdinp-to
interactional
receptive
re
eceptrve and
ancl
current rnterlanguage
in-erlafrFguage
movebevond
their current
DeYond tnerr
learnersto
to move
enableslearners
what enables
(1987),"What
stan d unfalq ili ar liqgui stic inpur! o1 when
e*pr essiu6-cip ac-ti e@
proouce
proiluce
messagdare
messas(are
a comprehensible
fequfe?-to
reoulred to
dpportunities to modify and restructure
sion is reached".
i-lt"i. i.rt..uction w'ith their interlocutor until-mutual com
----8,\--rsolvrn[cornmunic-atireproblems
-.through the use of interactional modifications
tJ\ resol\ lng communlcatlve
(."q,'estsforcla]rificationorconfirmation,.o-p.".h..,sionchecks,ffi
re
o??n.kEii*T"put
ehe-nsiSlFln'pfit
available
f6r leirniilg. R-esearchhas shown horv learners activelv lr'ork on the language to increase
their knowledge and proficiencr'.
The follo.rving observations, based on these analvsesof repair in inter-language talk,
might help to place repairing in the overall context of interactional languageuse.
First, as Gul'Aston has pointed out, repair '"vork and adjustments of various kinds can
closure on
be used toxpress convergenceof perspectivesamong participants or to "seek
f,-r--<' --:;--=---__
a problem" iRudl_uck 1991), not necessarilvto make something comprehensible.George*
found that more-proficient interlocutors sometimes simplv decide to give up
ffi11996'l
problematic
o]he.
it
on certain
r-- -..'-_-fJ
.,
.----. l- ..- -: -:----:-::=:::Tl-.
ot t.glg."
th'a.jlrncreasedcompre
usits.ht-
----Seco;4,
C O N S T R A I N T S A N D R E S O U R C E S I N C L A S S R O O MT A L I ( 1 0 1
repair can be seenin the analvsisbv Michael Moerman (1988) of interaction among native
speakersofThai. He concludes that"repair is of central importance to the organization
of conversation". Moerman's discussionof repair, horvever, is based on transcripts of
testimonv inThai court cases,rvhere the status of overt repair is probablv different from
that in general conr.ersation.Indeed, ethnomethodologicalanalvsesof repair and related
matters in conversation(Schegloff,Jefferson,and Sacks1977;Heritage 1984; Pomerantz
19 84 ) indi cat=_s-t-19:gp_Iglgrylc e for seif- re p air an
t h a t i s . r e p a i r t h a t f o l l o r ,sr c o m m u n i c a t i o np r o b l e m s .
-Third,
and related to the secondobservation, the interactional activitl of repajringalust
Repairing, .n utt"
g ir,
be placed irti!-!9ed-q?g.
, -L;"------;-'7toward
manv
that
manifest
orientation
of
actions
among
the face of p-oblems, is one set
(inter-subjecti\.itv) and svmmetrv. ilepairing occurs in responseto the
mutual
-.. ---------T-i-,
".rgug.-".,a
,,
l ea \ - o l c e cl n t n e n r s t P l a c e r, t m a K e s
p e r c e p t l o no l t h o s et r o u b l e s .b u t s t n c et r o u D l e ss n o u l cD
mechanisms
for
achier.ing
mutual understanding and
on
other
focus
attention
aiso
senseto
intersubjectivitr'. It makes no sense,from a discourse-analvticalor a pedagogicalperspective,
to assign special status to an activitv that is undertaken onlv lvhen other, more-preferred
activities have been unsuccessful.To use an analog)',ice skaters are iudged more on hovl'
\
continqencv,
tFe-aEhielementof mutual
understandinq.
-;:
'
.
,
'
li---l-il-1
+.
,
',,,.,
ii
i
and lntersublectl\'ttJ - ts clependat-rtg! tne sKrlllul use oI all rele\.antsoclal ano lrngulslrc-'r
es and those that
Ianning,predictin-gltfy--)
fP#;lb
Opening sequences
Cataphora -)
Grounders and preparers
Strategic moves
,z----.=-S_
qE:"-:faking
r \-^.,,.
/ i^-^run
! llJaclr
l.
.^
LU
+L;- |
LttrJ/
Back channels
Gaze
Turnover signals
Empathy markers
\{eaj}l
(Uhuh;Hn)
(eve contact, Iooking ar,r'ar')
(Let mefnish; ltrhat doyou think?)
(Oh; l|bw;Really?1
up)
summarizing,rephrasing,'"vrapping
(Doyou meanx?;Acrualll'tt'sy)
(Oh;l see)
(So;In a nutshell;lYhatyou're sayingis)
The relations betrveen interaction and learning are not explained bv this list or, indeed, bv
anv other that might be devised. But at the very least the analvsisshou'sthat the concept ot
v need to be expanded from Piclls-d_9.fin1{gp;W\en a listener signals to.a
-S
and soeaer vrorkinteracti\e
aker'smessageis not clear,and lis
and concurrent resources
the
includes
(1992)
.
Negotiation
proactive
ve this impasse"
to
u,hatVvg.i@;.-"-rtrq4;;r'.1"p-.nt.unU-Jieveiledon\,
..-senseof
-]fL\@;;..l"pr;".i(r"Lciur*,igl-qlBo;,;-rtu.,dJlir,-ders1990-).
no-ionrllk..o"tingencl'and,ur.r*.,.y rvili becentral,andovertacts
Z'_fi@qpgoath,
/)
.llggqlqg
t990; Plattand
1Ma'cuian?Z{onc-1985;Giaumann
IILL. gFiJEglgqrgrr4l
ft
/,
_r=
Brooks 199+1.Linguistic matter in the environment, to the extent that the learner has access
to it (seevan Lier (1996) for a detailed discussionof access),provides affordancesto the
active and perceptive learner (Gibson 1979;Deci and Rvan 1994.s Whether or not such
affbrdancesare packaged as repair sequencesis likelv to be a minor issue.
A theoretical
conclusion
.)k
'
symmetry.I havesuggested
that interactionis particularlvbeneficialfor learninswhen it is
----'
contingent. Sl'
_tya+s_
b_rrt
5sl'mmetricalinteractionis deficientin contingencl'.Unequaldiscoursepartnerstend to
ifficult to orient their interaction torvard svmmetrv: as a result-Their
iflteractions often look li
uences or intervier,vsll-here one of the pafrners takesi
Two questionsremain:What are some \\.avsin r'vhichunequal discourse partners such
as teachers and learners or native speakers and nonnative speakers - can engage in
symmetrical and contingent interaction, and horv r,vouldthat engagementbenefit learning?
What are the pedagogicaibenefits of r-ariousforms of asymmetrical discourse, such as
lectures and IRF exchanges?
to relevant language material
LCt
^bJ
r i m e e x t e r n a l c o n d i t i o n t o e n s u r ea c c e s sa n d l e a r n e r s 'a c t i r " ee n g a q e m e n t .
Contingentinteractionprovidesan..intrinsitmotivationforlist@
a n d J e f f e r s o n1 9 7 + ) . L e a r n e r s ' n a t u r a l l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s e s , t h r o u g h t h e d e s i r e t o u n d e r s t a n d
and be understood, svnchronize rvith eflicient perception and focusing. Learners will be
vigilant tou-ard linguistic features and rvili *"k. an effort to b. p.ug-"utii;Ily-pi6AFJet
a m b i q u o u sr , r ' h e r ea
ol contingent interaction. To put this idea in the strongest possible (though of course
hypothetical) terms: the organic, self-regulating process of contingent interaction is a
necessarvand sufficient condition for languagedevelopment to occur. In the absenceof
appropriate research,this is ofcour
ulative hvpothesis
t that is onlv one side of the coin. To the exGnt
target of languagelearning
C O N S T R A I N T S A N D R E S O U R C E SI N C L A S S R O O M T A L I ( I O 3
is a standardized,oflicial code (a set of cultural habits) to $'hich the learner has to or wants
to conform, linguistic affordancesmarked as appropriate and desirable must be presented
in the environment, and accessto these affordancesmust be facilitated. Here organic
languagedevelopment and external languagedemands (socioculturallv and institutionally
mandated) meet each other halft'av, and Vr
spacewherein internal and external realms (inner resources and outer constraints) of
langif, F-flFe-ffie-diarTd.
,,-ffimEAl-latlon
takes place under the guidance of parents, teachers, and other
competent persons, and the different u'al-sthev do this can be captured bv terms such as
Bruner's scalfolding.(Teaching,didactics,instruction,training, drilhng, and so on are of course
also terms that havetraditionallr,beenused for such expert-novice activities.)
If this vierv of the reiations between languagelearning and social interaction has merit,
then the dl,namic connections betu'een more didactic (asvmmetrical, less contingent) and
more conversational(svmmetrical, more contingent) forms of interaction are of central
importance in the languagelearning enterprise.
A practical conclusion
In a book on talented teenagers,Mihah' Csikszentmihalyi,Kevin Rathunde, and Samuel
Whalen (1993) compare current teaching u.ith the traditional role of the master in an
apprentice system.Thev observe that theleacher, insteadof being a practitioner in a domain,
and ; t /l^ ,^
e x t e n d e d and
o [ extended
n t of
e s t h e d e v e l o p m e nt
is now' a transmitter of information and thus di
Relarion
suctr--ll-TEosebetrt'een master and apprentjce.
transforffifiT--relationslips
l l
rffib.t*'.en-i.ucfi..t
----'-:-.
I delilerr stsie-mlanJ
Programmatlc,
r@tructionalobjectivescorroboratethistendenc1..ihing'canon]r/=
size{
get worse when, as is currentlv happeningin manv parts of theWestern lvorld, class
------\
*o.klo.d,
io
,.J.h".r'
u,
keep
increasing,
Ir"rdschool sizes
\
Th-eTeareTF-usphrsical and instiiutional constraints that tend to minimize the possi_
bilitiesfor meaninplulinteractronbet\\'eenteachersand studentS.ln (Jlddenss structuratlon
consrraints ideallv direct and guide, facilitating the deplovment of resources.But in
tfi
l:eor1
rauJ^
=
>wy.
)'J
.'
t
\r''
t,
i
,,,
-+--
I04
,)
Learnersneed,inadditiontop""ii''t"'aition,directintera;tto@
thev *,ant-lecture-s,expla!g!g!!_
it is quality interaction. If rve ask learners, manv rvill sa1.-that
and ottr-erloims of explicit teacher guidance. And '"veshould never neglect the univ
po1&-erofstories(Effi
-Th
answeftd a disproportionate amount of highlv controlling and depersonalized
per sebut to find lr-ays
not to minimize
minimize ali teacher
teacher
teachertalk is not
teachertalk per
u-avsto modify
modifv it
ir in moremore-
.*-
corgnge.nt dtr:S]lons. ln addltlon. teacher learner interaction, such as the IRF, that-ii
ej! ed .forj! affo Id ing Iear ner s' Ia{ uage use GGn-iiii?
**l[
i[ the seeds
er (Sruner
ontinuallv be on-the
t fbr signs that learners are readv to be more auton
uageusers.
classroorn nxlsl regularh' pror,ide learners lvith opportunities to engage in
s l m m e t r i c a l i n t e r a c t i o n s , s i n c es u c h i n t e r a c t i o n si m m e r s e I e a r n e r si n c o n t e x t u a l i z e da n d
Hud'
con
rocusrng.I
ln stat
gc-v,
inEqualit)'in
clenc\
aker carn
the main bu
bachers can also experiment u'ith r.r'avsof counterbalancing the inherent inequali
their talk rvith learners (though in most institutional and c
be
for them to preteld
differences betlr.eE-nthem and their learners do not exi-it).
In1 docum-entarl'r'ideo, classesin various British schools set up links with classesin
far-flung places like Finland, Greece, and Portugal (Trvitchin 1993).At one point, a fax
came in from a class in Greece; it contained drawings and descriptions of weaving
techniques,with labelsand expressionsin Greek.The teacher and learners were naturalll'
at the same level w'ith respect to this text, and interaction among them became symmetrical
and exploratorv. When a parent rvho knerv Greek *'as found and invited to classto explain
the text, the teacher and his students r,vereall learners.
er e*amp
he thoushtfulGacher-reseiriEF
looksforwaYstomakeclassroominteractionvariedandffi
n the world of
language,we all embodv different voices on different occasions(Bakhtin 1981;Wertsch
1991; Mavbin 19947.It is usefui for learners to find that their teachershave
and that the learners the
t
such expemmenTatlon
is crucialif thev are to find th"ffi
ts t
:E=
true
purpose of languageeducation.
NOTES
I thank Kathi Bailev for insightful comments on an earlier draft.
1
I realize I gioss over the problems that are inherent in the concept of rule and that have
been highlighted in much of the u'ork of Wittgenstein, for example, Philosophical
tnvestlBatlons.
3
4
C O N S T R A I N T S A N D R E S O U R C E SI N C L A S S R O O MT A L I < 1 0 5
discourse term, the result of interactional '"vork bv participants. Contingencl'
structural
_
'-iJuTognitite
but thisdoesnot meanthatthepe
usualhoccurtogether.
qualitilher
^
.
:":
J&itical. As an analogv,iight and heat often occur together, for example, in flames,
s u n l i g h ta
, n d l i g h t b u l b s ,b u t t h e r a r e n o t t h e 5 a m e.
foilo','r, "The aflordancesof the environmentare r,rhatit
describ;6mU;;>,
GibsJn
ollerstheuni-ulftftffir'ides
or frt
ementaritv of
reGi;To;E to tEe-environmentand the animal. . . . It im
vironment" (127).The term ffirdance speciflcallvrelers to those
animal and
the linguistic environment that become perceivableby the iearner as a result
;p-t-t
of meaningful activitv. Affordance is neither the external languagenor the learner's
internalizationofit.Itreferstotherelatio
signs,and rele'ant p."
References
Aston, G. (1986) "Trouble-shootingin Interactionu'ith Learners:The More the Merrier?"
7: 12343 .
AppliedLinguistics
in Conversation
oJ SoctalAction:Studies
Heritage,
Atkinson, J.M. and
J. (eds) (1984) Structures
Press.
Analysu.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversitv
Austin: Universitvof TexasPress.
Bakhtin,M.M. (19811TheDialogtcImag)nation.
Penguin.
Harmondsr'vorth:
to Curriculum.
Birnei, D. (1976) FromCommunication
Stanford:StanfordUniversitvPress.
Bourdieu,P.(1990) TheLogtcoJPractice.
and Cuhure.London:
in Educatjon,
Society
Bourdieu, P. and Passeron,
J.C. (1971) Reproduction
Sage.
Approach
to Classroom
Ecological
C.A., and Flinders,D.J. (1990) ResponsiveTeaching:An
Bor.r,ers,
Coll.
Press.
NervYork:Gachers
andThought.
Cuhure,
oJLanguage,
Patterns
NervYork:Norton.
Learningto (JseLanguage.
Bruner,l. (1983) Child'sTalk:
andLearning.Cambridge:
Research
onTeaching
Classrooms:
Language
Chaudron,C. (i988) Second
Cambridge Universitv Press.
C r o o k , C . ( 1 9 9 + ) C o m p u t e r s a n d t h e C o l l a b o r a t i v e E x p e r ) e n c e o JLLoenadronni n:Rgo. u t l e d g e .
Roots
oJSuccess
M., Rathunde,K. andWhalen,S. (1993) TalentedTeenagers:The
Csikszentmlhalvi,
andFailure.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversitvPress.
BiculturalEducatton.
CriticalFoundationJor
in the Classroom:A
Darder,A. (1991) CultureandPower
N e r " Y o r k :B e r g i n .
Deci,8.L., and Rvan, R.M. (1992) "The Initiation and Regulationof IntrinsicallvMotivated
Perspective,
and ilotivation:A Social-Development
Learning and Achievement"in ,4chievement
Press.
Universitv
(eds)
Cambridge
Cambridge:
Pittman
S.
andThane
Boggiano
Ann K.
Plenum.
NelvYork:
Behavior.
in
Human
and Sef-Determination
(1985) Intrjnsic;l4otivatjon
, . J . ,P e l l e t i e rL, . G . a n d R v a n ,R . M . ( 1 9 9 1 )" M o t i v a t i o na n d E d u c a t i o n :
D e c i , E . L . , \ ' a l l e r a n dR
)6 : 325-46.
Psvchologist
The Self-Determination Perspective."Educdtional
Duncan, S. (1972) "Some Signalsand Rules forTaking SpeakingTurnsin Conversation."Journal
23: 283 9).
and Sodal Ps,vcholog,v
oJPersonalitv
%1ft.London: Palmer.
(1981)
Classroom
lnvestigating
D.P.G.
andWestgate,
A.D.,
Edrv'ards,
Press.
of
Chicago
Universitv
Chicago:
asStorvtell)ng.
Egan,K. (1986) Teaching
Acquisjrjon.
Oxford: Oxford UniversitvPress.
Language
Ellis, R. (199+) The Stu$'oJ Second
'The
Awareness,
Appropriacv of "Appropriateness"',in CriticalLanguage
Fairclough,N. (1992)
Norman Fairclough(ed.1.London: Longman:33-55.
Neu-York: Herder.
oJtheOppressed.
Freire, P. (1972) Pedagog,v
Englervoodcliffs: Prentice.
Ethnomethodologv'.
in
Garflnkel,H. (1961) Studies
jn
Rorvlev:Nervburv.
Gass,S.M., and N{adden,C.G. (1985) Input SecondLanguageAcquisirion.
106
Approach
rcVisualPerception.
Gibson,J.l. (1979) TheEcological
Boston:Houghton.
Giddens,A . ( 1984) TheConstitution
oJSociery'
. Berkelel':Universityof Caiiforniapress.
Graumann,C.F. (1990) "PerspectivalStructureand Dvnamicsin Dialogue",inTheDynamics
oJ
D i o l o g u eM, a r k o v j . I . a n d F o p p a ,K . r e d s t .N e n y o r k , H a r r . e s t e r .
Gumperz, l.l. (1992) "Contextualizationand Understanding" , in Rethinking
Context:
LanBua7e
as
an Interactive
Phenomenon,
Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C. (eds). Cambridge:Cambrldge
UniversitvPress.
Heritage, J. (1984) "A Change-of-state
Token and Aspectsof Its SequentialPlacement",in
Atkinson and Heritage: 299-345
Kasper, G. (1984) "Variation in Speech Act Realization", in Variationin SecondLanguage
Acquisition,Gass,S., Madden, c., preston, D. and Selinker,L. (eds) clevedon, Lng".:
Multilingual Matters.
Kinginger, C' (199+) "Learner Initiative in ConversationManagement:An Appiication ofVan
Lier's Pilot Coding Scheme."ModernLanguage
JournalJ8:1g +0.
Lii, J.H. "NoTalking in Class."NewYorkTimes
10 Apr. 1994,educ. supp 7.
Long, M. and Porter, P; (1985) "Group wbrk, InterlanguageTalk, and Second Language
Acquisition." TESOLQuarterly19: 201-28 .
Marcus, H. and zajonc, R.B. (1985) "The Cognitive perspectivein Socialpsvchology',,in
Theor,v
and lkthod, LindzeJ',G. and Aronson, E. (eds). Nelr,york: Random. 13J_n1.
\bl. 1 of HandbookoJ SocialPsychologl.
3rd ed.
^\lalbin, J. (199+S"Children'sVoices:Talk, Knowledge, and ldentit).", in Researching
Language
andLiteracy
in SocialContext,
Graddoi,D., Mavbin,J. and Stierer,B. (eds).Cl.,r"don,"E.r!,
A,lultilingualMatters: 13 1-50.
Mehan, H. (.1979) Learning Lessons:Social organization in the Classroom.Cambridge: Harvard
Universitv Press.
f 1
C O N S T R A I N T S A N D R E S O U R C E SI N C L A S S R O O MT A L I ( I O 7
Language
Grammar:Learning
andTeaching.
London: Longman.
Rutherford,W. (1987) Second
for the Organization
Sacks,H., Schegloff,E. and Jefferson,G. (1974)"A SimplestSr.stematics
Language
ofTirrnTakingin Conr.ersation."
50 696 135.
Schegloff,E.A., Jefferson,G. and Sacks,H. (1977l "The Preferencefor Seif-Correctionin the
Language
Organizationof Repairin Conr-ersation."
53: 351 82.
Education:CriticalTbachingJor
SocialChange.Chicago: University of
Shor, L (1992) Emporvering
ChicagoPress.
An Argument for ResponsiveTeaching",
in IAe
Shuv,R. (1991) "SecretarvBennett'sTeaching:
Eve:@rclintiveInquiry'andtheEnhancement
Enlightened
of Educational
Practice,
Elliott Eisner
(ed.). NervYork:N{acmillan.
la1ft.Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
Sinclair,J.M., and Brazil,D. (1982) Tbacher
an Analysis
Sinclair,J.M., and Coulthard, N/t. (1975) Tbwards
oJ Discourse.
Oxford: Oxford
UniversitvPress.
tN[inds
rc l1&. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversitv
Tharp, R. and Gallimore, R. (1988) Rousing
Press.
in Primary Schools.
Mosaic Films. Central Bureau for
T'"vitchin,J. 0993) EuropeanAwareness
Educ.Visitsand Exchanges.
and the LanguageLearner:Ethnographyand Second-LanBua7e
van Lier, L. (1988) The Classroom
London:
Longman.
Classroom
Research.
(1992) "Not the Nine O'clock LinguisticsCiass:InvestigatingContingencvGrammar."
L a n g u a gAew a r e n e7s.s2 : 9 1 - 1 0 8 .
(1994) "LanguageArvareness,Contingencr,,and Interaction", in Conscjousness
in Second
Language
Learning,Hulstijn, J. and Schmidt,R. (eds).llLA Review'
l1t 69-82.
(1996a) Interactionin the LanguageCurriculum:Awareness,
Autonom,tand .luthentictt,t
.
London: Longman.
(1996b) "SocialInteraction and CooperativeLearning at, around, l'ith, and through
Computers."Eler-enthWorldCongressof Applied Linguistics(AILA 96). Unnersitv of
Jyviskr'ld,Finland.5 Aug. 1996.
van Lier, L., and Matsuo, N. (1995) "Varietiesof ConversationaiExperience."Unpublished
essav.Monterev Institute of International Studies.
,MeafingoJPedagogicalThoughtJulness.
van Manen, M. (1991) TheTactoflbaching:The
Albany: State
Universit)' of Neu'York Press.
Vfggt.\fr!"v, S. ( 197 81 I'lind in Sociery'
. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wells, G. (1993) "Reevaluatingthe IRF Sequence: A Proposalfor the Articulation of Theories
of Activitv and Discourse for the Analvsisof Teachingand Learning in the Classroom."
L i n g u i s t i cdsn dE d u c a t i o5n: 1 - 3 7 .
Wertsch,J.\a (1991) lbiceso;fthe;llind:A Sociocultural
Approach
to Mediarcd
Action.Cambridge:
Harvard UniversitvPress.
Wittgenstein, L. ( 195 8) Philosophical
lnvestigations.
Oxford: Blackrveil.
Young,R. (1992) CrjticalTheor,v
and Classroom
?.c1ft.
Clevedon,Eng: Multilingual Matters.
Yule, G. (1990) "lnteractiveConflict Resolutionin English."WbrldEngltshes9:
53-62.
n
l l .
Chapter 6
GeliaRoberts
LANGUAGE ACQUISITION OR LANGUAGE
SOCIALISATION IN AND THR OUGH
DISCOURSE?
Towards a Redefi nition of the Domain
of S LA
Introduction
ll\ l
\-
v E R T H E L A S T T W E N T Y Y E A R S S L A s t u d i e sh a v en o t i g n o r e d i s s u e so f
discourse and the social context. But often the references to social or socio-cultural
context give it onlv a marginal role in the processesof languagedevelopment. Equally, there
is relati'"'eh'Iittle concern r'vith the socialimport of secondlanguagedevelopmenrjilggf4
i n t e r c u l t u r a l i n t e r a c t i o n su - h i c h t a k e o l a c e e v e r v d a v ] a l s o i n c l u d e t h e e l f e c t o f t h e s e
,--'i
I inref6ultural errcounters on individuals - u'ho are. themselves. part of these u'ider social
forces.
ta
rvith second
secondlanguage
mmediate social
this PaPer
is concerneo
concerned wrtn
development and
)o,
So, tnls
paper ls
r'
truct Iocal meani
I
context in r,vhichindividuals succeed.or faii. t
Processesare
ntercultura
..............p
d e ih e c o n d i ti o n s ( o r
for discour
lon ano
ffio un te r s and-16-6 r or.'i
ifiterpr-ation.
L-ngfage socialisation rather than language acquisition better describes holv learners
ine to produce and interpret discourse and hou- such learning is supported (or not) bv
the assumptionsof societv at large about multilingualism and second languagelearners.
These issuesare particularlv saiient rvhen researching SLA u,ith minority group workers.
And here, Gumperz's notion of contextuaiisation illuminates the ways in w-hich local
understandings and misunderstandings have an eftect both on the immediate context for
learning and on the u'ider assumptionsand ideoloqies about linguistic minority groups
n'hich also enter into and have an effect on local interactions and conditions for discourse
,
develooment.
- - l
methodologrcall\'.
There is of course an extensive literature on interaction studiesin SLA u.hich examines ta more dialogic
the conversational devices rvhich foster certaiq ljnguisti.
-in
'.o-p..h".trib1"
\
i,-tpr.,
of
vein, recent v,,.ge,!.i.i@6tiutio.t
socialinteraction. But despitethe concentrationon collaborativedialogue,languageis still
is - into- d ratEer than as a discouiiE---I
conceived ofas a
'socialh
.
tf[:ch' r.r"mbe.-sof a communitr are socialised.Learnersare nori-Efiaif,iteii:ed as
ositions to think and act in certain u'aYs
co
r o o t e d i n t h e i r d i s c u r s i v e h i s t o r i e s " ( L a n t oal fn d P a r , l e n k o1, 9 9 5 , p . 1 1 5 ) b u t t h e g o a l o f
dialogic learning is still the abilit-vto deplo-vlinguistic phenomena. Methodologically,
h
the analvsistends to fo.nt o.t u Putti.,rl.. f..,.t.
l o c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n sa n d r e a c t i o n s .U n s u r p r i s i n g h ,t h e r e l o r e ,t h e r e i s l i t t l e o r n o e t h n o - i
-:
drau.n. The relatively neu' field of interlanguage
to suppEtEiclusions
?raph.-tie"ce
i.ug-uti.. *o.rld seem io b" u more promising areafor looking at the ih=oGTocia-lpEison.
But desniteits concern rvith contextual factors,it is the narro\l-concept of the learner and
Th"
sPge.glLlc-t! \l.hi_.h g"""tu," ,h" k.
_]fg-gpsr+19l9g!s9_sp9-c{c
Ed".,,o,,,remainsu.'essentiui|'cognitir'e"""*thEu"tho'@ntio1
significanceof socioculturalissuesimplies:
It would be a mistaketo vieu'developmentalissuesin ILP (interlanguagepragmaticsf
in purelv cognitive terms becausethe strategiesfor linguullq 4glpn are so closelv tied
to self-identitv and socialidentitr'. (Kasper and Schmidt,1996l'p. 159'
To date, hou.ever, these issuesof social identitv and, indeed, other social issuesoutside the
immediate context of utterance, have not ligured to anv significant extent in interlanguage
pragmatics.
Finalll', the interaction and pragmatics studies in SLA literature continue the tendency
in SLA more generallv to reifv languageso that French, Enghsh and so on are treated
1}O
CELIA ROBERTS
'target
languages'.This essentialisingof a language
unproblematicallv as homogenised
assumesthat there is onlv one variety to be learned and that the languageand communicative
style of the broker's vard or the baker'srs similar to that of the standardvarietv.
fh
,41,0
Language socialisation
One responseto the critique of the relatively asocialcharacter of SLA is tg-sqggesthrg!3ge
iocialisation as an alternati\e p..erspectir-e.The
concept w'asoriginallv developed within
-.r---T--r
inthropoiogl'to describe the processrr-herebva child becomes an emergent member of the
communitv in rvhich they are grou-ing up. More recentlv it has been extended to include
,StlDuff,1996).Itincludesboththesocialisationrequired
\,-i6uselanguageinspecihcinteractionalsequencesund@nth'o!gh
w here 5LA hasused
_language tne rnolrect meansot develoPrngsocro-culturatKno\\'leclge.
-----=--:
modelli-ngand experimentation asthe dominant paradigm to researchhow-linguistic features
are attended to, stored and accessed,Ianguagesocialisationstudieshave used participant
observation. Studies of adult minoritv w'orkers based on naturallv occurring ianguageuse
- provide data that more nearly resembles child languagesocialisationstudies. Su"h d.tu ."n
/ offer insights into the SLS process provided that it is also supplemented by ethnographic
\ data on speech events and local histories and identities ofparticioants.
\In the follor,r.ingexample (from Bremer et a|.,1996, pp 50-51) Marcello, an Italian
rvorker in Germany, is being intervierved bvl a counsellor in the Job Centre. Marcello was
one of the informants on the European Science Foundation project on natural second
languageacquisition. He had been in Heidelberg for about a year rvhen this interview was
taped, having come to Germanv as a real beqinner. He rvas still seeking work and the
interview with the counsellor u'as both an opportunitv to find out about rvork possibilitres
M:
T:
M: ja
TES
T:
7
8
9
10
. l l
bve
M: u'iedersehendanke
b,vethankyou
tl
(xxx)
short pause
additional comments on \,vavof speaking etc.
overlap
inaudible or omitted rvord
At one level, this could be construed as a simple caseof pragmatic failure. Marcello
fails to understand the pre-closing signalsof T including'Ja", "gut" and "dann hatten rvir die
t /./
sachefiir heut" and advice for the future. It is onl-vu'ith the non-verbal cues that Marcello
is interpretive difficultv is not surprising
realisesthat thel a.e in the mi
features such as greetings are acquired
conversational
;ffi;;celia
11982) has argued
before pre,closings. But this rJqr"n." is also an unusuailv explicit moment of language
socialisation*'hen at line 5 Marcello topicalisesthe act of departure. This is more than just
T_
a matter of picking up on some pre-closing signals,and it is u'orth mentioning here that the
crucial nonuerbal rlgtruir r,vhichare part of the interactive environment are rarelv considered
in linguistic pragmatics.
Ii o.d"i foi Marcello to manage this tvpe of institutional discourse and understand
w.hen,holr;andrvhr'theencounterclosesataparticularPoi''t,@d
i<
'gatekeeping'
e n c o u n t e r s .E t h n o g r a p h i c
i n t o t h e n o r m s , r o l e r e l a t i o n s h i p sa n d g o a l s o f
minoritv *.orkers' e*perieniE-f-outtTeTling tnterr.ieu's (Bremer et al., 7996;
;t rd;." f-G u m p e r z , 1 9 8 2 a ,t g 8 U b ; R o b e r t s e t a \ . , 1 9 9 2 1 s u g g e s t st h a t i s s u e so f s p e a k e rr i g h t s a n d
responsibilities,expectationsabout speci6cgoals and the boundaries of rvhat constitutes
IT2
CELIA ROBERTS
the personal mav differ markedlv from that of the majoritv gatekeepers. In this instance.
one of the difficulties for Marcello is the relativelv inconclusive rvav in which the intervieu.
aPPearsto end.Whereascounsellorsseesuch interr.ie\^-s
as an opportunity to discusswork
preferences, minoritY r'r'orkersare more likeh' to expect to b. giu.r, ,p".ifi. information
about particular jobs. Once this information has been given, ther expect the intervien- to
be terminated. But in this instance, the counsellor ends the encounrer once some
information has been elicited from the client and some advice given.
Another frequentlv occurring example of differenc" surrounds the issue of the
categorisation of u'ork experience around skiils and responsibilities and often, therefore.
around socialstatus.In the next example (from Bremer et a\.,1996,p.63), Ilhami, aTirrkish
lvorker from Germanv, is interviewed for an apprenticeship in a garage and is asked what
l o b h l s l a t h e rd o e s :
Data Example 2
I
2
3
4
5
6
9
10
T: Iaha]
I : die machen auch das macht auch papier
l1
an apprenticeshiPmodel
ol
Th"rpfrffiJl!-.n"a.t
thestor;.It doesnotfullyl
"tsl@ofthe discoursesto rvhich learners are exposed and
constructednatureofinterculturalcontactinpIuralandfragmentedsocieties
So, it is not possible to talk unproblematicallv of socialisationthrough languageas the
means of developing sociocultural knorvledge asif there is a stablebodv of such knou'ledge.
The idea of graduallv being inducted into a communitv's pre-existing discoursessuggestsa
simple, functional model lvhich does not accord rvith our data of naturailr. occurrinq
intercultural encounters. In other u'ords, such events are not simplr. opportunities lbr the
transmission, horvever indirectlv, of the necessarvsocio-cultural knou-ledge, but thel are
sites w-heresocial identities are constructed, r",'herethe interactants are positioned and
position themselves.People speakfrom rvithin a particular discursive formation. In the case
of minoritv workers, this inclu
oursesofracis
positioningu'hich em
e s o l e t h n r c a n d c l a s sD o s l t l o n . t n e \ \ ' l c e r
tence and Dercell
N:
then vou might get one for about fiftr- or sixtv * or sa)'fortv eight sixty something
like that
I
/
\
f-
tl
114
2
3
CELIA ROBERTS
S:
\:
N:
A.:
ON:
A:
,veah
its not tlvo bedrooms
mhm
(Roberts and Simonot, 1987)
Mrs
IA:
Mrs
IA:
Mrs
IA:
Mrs
IA:
Mrs
Despite the misunderstandingat line 5, I.\. at lines 8 and 11-12, begins to negotiate
his u'av around the companv rule. He does this hr cappinq \{rs B's asserti,onu.ith his ow.n
assertionsabout voung men and prelents this 1r,rn.rbecoming a distancing strategy by
claiming solidaritv through the joke that roun; nrin are similar to ladies.The condrtions
rtthjderuity,"laa
!Il9!ru++)v
The notion of
fra{1err.J
'practice'has
-Jr;_e;_t
also been used and debated in critical and anthropological
@tTF-atlanguagePracticeSareConStruCtednotonlr.outo@,
outoItnedrscourseSwfuchu'erepro@ucedintheinteractionandin
nt drscourses.
r example, \1'l
criticai perspective,questionshavebeer.r
raised aboui takenI-or granted notions of r.vhatconstitutes a speakerof a particular languaqe
rvhat is a non-native speaker, r,vhat*cert4n qroups count as 'target language,'and io or.t
However, this problematising rvork, although it has influenced applied linquistics, has had \litt|einfluencerr.ithinmainstreamSLA.For"ffiwillbe
positioned,br:thelinguisticideologiesthatcirculate'aSa.no@,,,-/
'poor
speaker'.
communic@r' and so on. These feed into frilit-lnt..actlon itself and f".a off "
i, ajq.i.*ll
.j.,hg ruid..T*orrrr.,
".orn
Within the British tradition there are two comp-Ei!-sets of discoursesaround ethnicity.
,/
/ The first has been u'idelv reflected in government policv and popular discourse.This tenis
to essentialiseethnic groups, equate land,-Ianguageand ethnicitv and cast minority ethnis
(
\r9gPi-aEj@(SeeGilro1.,1987,foradiscussion).IntheNe-t}re'Iu''ds,
van Dijk and his associates
have traced simiiar processesin the discoursesof elite groups
which shor,v
horv ethnic beliefs are strategicallv expressed, acquired and distributed throughout
t}e dominant group, that is as part of managing ethnic affairs and reproducing elite
power and r,vhitegroup dominance. (Van Dijk et al., 1997, p. 165)
An extreme example of this first set of discoursesis from data gathered in multiethnic
British r,vorkplaces
during the Iate 1970s (Roberts et al., 1992).A supervisorwas running
through a routine list of questions in English as part of a simple recruiiment procedure.The
South Asian applicant had ansrveredseveral questions about himself and his previous u.ork
experience rvhen he w-asasked"Do vou speak English?"to rvhich he replied, "What do vou
think I'm talking to you in norv!"The current discoursethat r,vascirculating at the time
*Le-L4r^r.
J-tLn^''
1I6
Il
CELIA ROBERTS
'assumed
to speakEnglish and the
that someone of South ,\sian ba:k;:'-'und " as unlikelv
dent the super\'isor'scertainty that here was
evidenceto the contrarv did not aPPearto
on tie outcomes of such an encounter and
another non-Engiish speaker.We.o,rid .p".,tlate
n'orker rvho both needs to become
the possible teniions set up for the individual minoritr
by a member
u fulrl.ipu.ing member of rr"ot communitv but rr'ho is insultingh'positioned
"
as a non-English speaker'
' of th"t communitv
in
Th" second set of discoursesstem from the British-based Cultural Studies and,
has
called'local
(1985)
Hervitt
u'hat
particular,Hall's (1988) notion of'ne',v ethnicities'and
multiracial vernaculars'. Recent research has sho*'n the destabilisation of inherited
the
ethnicities and the emergence of neu- ethnolinguistic identities which challenge
Rampton,
1986;
Hervitt,
1987;
(Gilrov,
race
and
orthodox essentialistideas of language
1995a).This secondset of discouries suggestthat the processof secondlanguagesocialisation is not a straightfonvard caseof becoming communicativelv competent, within a fixed
a D a r t- o f h a r i n s s e r e r a ls o c i a li d e n t i t
i"atrlffi'idersocialformationsrvhichthemselvesdetermine
s'hat socialisationmeans.
Levinf6i-talksof
;affiia;ls
occur i!
routinely
--6-p-.F.oncern
\
L4--
Ievels.
I,, o.d"ffii,'Gr,rnp".,
4ryryf:-
is nonefthFili.o.et[
Levinson( 1997) suggests,
Analvsis. Gunrperz drau's on pragmatic notions in his
can be found in Conversation
.-.-7---' '
:.
I
i n t e r p r e t i t e p r o c e d u r e s E l u t a s P a r t o I a \ \ I o ( r : o \ ' l o l o g l c a l interest. Similarly, he has been
much influenced bv Conr.'ersation -\nallsi=. Likc C\ his analvsisfocuses on members'
:-
'.
This is in no sense an absolute sharing since anv
."*" t.
t.
"rd"tttt "
conclusions over meaning have to be accomplished, not taken for granted. And, as I have
s u g g e s t eadb o re , b e i n gc o m p e t e n ti s n o t a s i m p l ep r o c e s so f l e a r n i n gt o m a n a g ei n s t i t u t i g n a l
discoursesinceitisjusffiiscbursesrr.hichmal.positiontheminoritv
a
V
a
Cpe1eqglsa:gcues
are definedas:
t-7
118
A
\\l
tr
CELIA ROBERTS
conventionalreminder, like a knot in a handkerchief, u'here the content of the memo
'cue'
cannot be saidto encodeor directly'invoke
is inferentiallv determined.Thus the
the interpretive background, it's simplv a nudge to the inferential process
&
illerpretive processma-vbe guided b)' general pragmatic principles of a -Griceanso4
'ques'
are anvthing but
and thus be in manv lvavs universal in character: but the
al different
g ' \ P '2 9 t .
\-n...
the)'haveto
u.. ,{=l-pr9}-leqs here for minoritv language,p""t"(@
conventional
featurehra+']rave
identifv that thereis a cu,e(for examplea particularprosodic
'
.#
.,
,<-*---fh.
'
rnn-
P .1 s )
The need for this long exposure or immersion is that, as I have said, t[e relationship
Cffg! fualtiot r&!Ig!gliv,
that is in coq!1q!t t!9 vr,\at
bStfy_."" c"e ""d co"te"t l
has not been said, just been said and so qp (Gumperz. 1922DAlso manv of the formal
P'"PffioncueSaredifficuittoProceSS,|orexampleaSPectsofprosodv.
FinalIr',ther.areaboutinrokingw'e-tthe'Iearnerisorientated
processrngLnemessaqelrn sum, contextualisationcuesare srrpperyt.utu.TT\'
-5townrcls
\L
!
Equaliv important is the fact tha\.contextual cues are indexical markers ot membership
of a paiticgllqgloup Kno*'ing ho.u t
to pick
,l* int..uctionll-Eornerr
f-i
\lri,i:1;'='=speaker
cue
not
onlr
creatEffiTsunderstanding
but
sets
the
minoritl'
linguistic
\ i u-p_pl I
-- apart.
\/"
in that interactional
emerfeniffier
rs not ln
rnteractronal moment
moment an emergent
member oT-the
same comapart. She is
ot the same
) municative communitv. As a result, small interactive differences can contribute to large
to be allocated a house
:S!ra]g":
t
orgetajoband,intermsofthesocia]order,feedingintothest@ns
socret]'
Contextualisation, therefore, functions at the micro level, both guiding (or not) minute
bv minute interpretative processesand also indexes "those implicit values of relational
i d e n t i t v a n d p o r v e r t h a t . . . g o b ) ' t h e n a m e o f c u l t u r e " ( S i l v e r s t e i n ,1 , 9 9 2 , p . 5 7 ) a t t h e
macro level. Local situated meaning and u'ider ideological concerns are caught up together
It is not simplr- a caseof pragmatic failure or even of sociaiisationinto some stable bodv of
Lr
o
-D e
,
Per;;;i;;;ducto[th"g"@,asIindicatedabovelnthecaseof
Abdelmalek,ar
orthodoxgggg.t
socialisation.Abdelmalek mav be developing a competence in
."l
interpreting changeof topic cues and er,enin understandingthe goals of such counselling
intervieu's. But the developing competence that results from such socio-cultural knorvledge
mav be
ma),
be matched h)' r- hi gJritTli-5infrEie
sistance. Sffi
Delonglng ln a ne\\- communll\
.,-ru
a n o \ e t l n e l n s i l l u u o n s \ \ ' n e r e l a n g u a g e s o c r a l l s a t t o nc a n . . [
e ano ol
social conditions rvithin lvhich there is the potential for communicative and material success
or not and the potential for language socialisationand the readinessfor it - or not. Given
the wider discoursesthat circulate about ethnic minorities, each intercultural interaction
can both produce relativeiv adverseconditions for ianguagelearning and can feed into these
rvider discourseseach time a misunderstandingremains unresolved.
"@.il;dinteractionalsocioIingui.ti.upp.ou.h,isessentialin
understandingthe sequentialordering of interactionbut it needsto be complementedbv
Wh"..us CA is concernedotith th"ffi
"thqggfeptri-._*.qodr.
by membersin accomplishing
interact/on,a methodlhat will help anall-sts
draw g.jg".r.!1,
aboutonlineinferencingis alsoneeded.I
ltrt
";a;
ttin.esofaparticulargrouPinordertounderstand
rvavsof interpretingmeaning.
conventionalised
Ethnografhic methods are also !reLdSd& uqderstand interactants' subjectivity (Bremer
,, oI,1996;G,r*p.rz,19B2b;
Pre;;lt95
ticfe.tion in the liver oJq-pqq!!!a_rsub-groupconEiEGETe
how minority lvorkersare position
irrl". pu.anah.sts'""derstanding
of p/
m'
ructron
Conclusion
Bv looking at the enr-ironment rvithin r.vhicha particular group of people are expected to
develop communicative competence - minoritv rvorkers in a stratified multilingual society
N,
I2O
CELIA ROBERTS
- a number of questionshave been raised about SLA and its relativelv asocialperspectir.
a socialactor in a new language
Languagesocialisationbetter describesthe processofbeing
connection between micro
the
for
fulll-account
not
butjn its orthodox form it does
racism, indifference
interactionalprocessesand the macro socialissues.Widerdiscoursesof
and
and stratificaiion feed into and off local interactional differences, misunderstandings
and
micro
at
forces,
social
bv
these
created
covert or explicit opposition.The environments
and
understanding
macro leuels, produce complex and often hostile conditions for the
production of iir.o,rrr" in a secondlanguage.Bl examining these conditions,it is possible
io begin to redefine the process of second language acquisition as second language
to
socialiation but in so doing, questions are also raised about anv orthodox SLS' Learning
an
belong to a neu..orn-rr.ritu *a1'also mean learning to resist,_orat the least take up
which
discourse-s
and
knowledge
ambig"uousposition i., reiaiio., to the socio-cultural
constitute it. As in manv other theoretical and practical areas,the transformation of Western
Europe into a multilingual societv illuminates the process of second languagedevelopment
and redefines its domain as centrallv concerned lvith the social.
Acknowledgements
Mv thanks are due to Mike Ba-vnham,Ben Rampton, Jo Arditty and MarieTh6rdseVasseur
for comments on earlier drafts of this PaPer.
References
'lntroduction:
inAuer, P' & dr
Auer, P. (1992)
John Gumperz'sapproachto contextualisation',
Benjamins.
Amsterdam:
(pp.
1-37).
language
of
Luzio, A. (eds) Ifie contextualisatton
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press'
Bourdieu,p. (I9il) OutlineoJa theoryoJpractice.
Bremer, K., Roberts, c., \'asseuf, M., Simonet, M. and Breeder, P. (.1996) Achievin;
s. London : Longman.
in jntercuhuralencounter
: D tscourse
understanding
work.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
at
communicatjon
(1994)lntercuhurdl
Clvne,M.
'Different languages,different practices:Socializationof discoursecomPetenci
p.
Orrff, (1996)
in dual-anguageschoofclurr.oo-. in Hungarv', in Bailey',K. and Nunan, D. (eds) /oi';.
rcseart:
@talitative researchin secondlanguageeducation
Jrom the longrog, classroom:
(pp. a07-a33). NervYork: CambridgeUniversitv Press'
'
CommunicationAnalysts
E"r..ru.rr,S., Prer.ignano,C. andThibault,P. (eds) (1997) Discussing
(pp. 6-23). Lausanne:BetaPress.
JohnJ.Gumperz
Cambridge:Politv Press'
change.
and social
Fairclough,N. ( 1992) Discourse
lJnion
qiF6i\
19 87) Thereain't no blackin the
Jack London: Hutchinson.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversitYPress.
stratelies.
y/ Gurnp"rt). 1t laZu; Discourse
--4<{
(1982b) Languageand socialidentttl'.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
\
'Contextuali..tion u.rd understanding',in Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C. (eci.
(992)
(PP. 229-252). Cambridgt
as an interactive
phenomenon
Rethinkjn1Context:Language
Cambridge Universitv Press.
C. PrevignanoandA' di Luzio
(1997)',{dis.rlssio.rs'ith JohnJ. Gumperz' (discussants:
in Eerdmans,S., Prevignano,C. andThibault,P. (eds),pp' 6-23
H a l l . S . ( 1 9 8 8 ) ' N e r ve t h n i c i t i e s ' , 1 CD, 'o1c u m e n t s , 7 , 2 '371'
Hew-itt,R. (1985) l,Thttetalkblackdk,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Kasper,G. and Schmidt,R. (1995)'Developingissuesin interlanguagepragmatics'.Studies
LanguageAcquisition
Second
, I 8 , 1+9-1 63 '
andThibault,P.(eds),pp. 2+-30.
Cross-linguistic
(Vols. 1 and 2).
perspectives
Perdue,C. (ed.) (1993) Aduh languageacquisition.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversitvPress
P i e r c e ,B . ( 1 9 9 5 ) ' S o c i a li d e n t i t v ,i n v e s t m e n ta n d l a n g u a g el e a r n i n g ' .T E S O LQ u a r t e r \ ; , 2 9 ,
o
?1
andethnicityamongadolescents.
Harlorr':Longman.
Language
Rampton,B. (1995a)Crossing:
(1995b)'Languagecrossingand the problematisationof ethnicitv and socialisation'
P r a g m a t i c s , 5 , 4 8551 5 .
anddiscrimjnation.A
studyo;fcommunication
Roberts,C., Davies,E. and Jupp,T.tl992l Language
Harlou': Longman.
in muhiethnicworkplaces.
Roberts, C. and Simonot, M. (1987) "'This is mv life": Horv languageacquisition is
(.pp.
in context
acquisition
interactionallvaccomplished',in Ellis, R. ted. ) jecondlanguage
13 3 - 1 4 8 ) . H e m e l H e m p s t e a dP: r e n t i c e - H a l l .
Rogoff, B. (1984)'lntroduction: Thinking and learning in socialcontext', in Rogoff, B. and
development
in socialcontext(pp. 1-8). Cambridge,
Cognition:The
Lave,J. @ds)Ever,vdav
Press.
MA: Harvard Universitv
Scarcella,R. (1982)'Discouise accent in secondlanguageproduction', in Selinker,L. and
learning(pp. 306 326). Rou.lev,MA: Ner,r.burr'
inlanguage
Gass,S. (.eds)Languagetransfer
House.
'The
indeterminacvof contextualisation:Whenis enoughenough?',in
Silverstein,M. (1992)
(pp. 5 5-76). Amsterdam.
oJlanguage
Auer, P., and di Luzio,A. (eds) Iie contextualisation
Beniamins.
'Cross-cultural
Thomas,J. (1983)
pragmaticfailure'. AppliedLinguistics,l,91-112.
Tyler,A. (1995)'The co-constructionof cross-culturalmiscommunication'.kudiesin Second
1 7, 129 152.
Language
Acquisttion,
'Discourse,
ethnicit,r,
S., Smitherman,G. andTroutman,D. (.1991)
van Dijk,T.,Ting-Toome-v,
2
studies
associalinteraction:Discourse
culture and racism', in van Dijk,T. (ed.) Discourse
( p p . 1 4 1 8 0 ; . L o n d o n :S a g e .
Chapter 7
MichaelP. Breen
TH E SOCIAL CONTEXT FOR LANGUAGE
LEARNING: A NEGLECTEDSITUATION?
Introduction
P L O R E T H E B E L I E F that therlassroom will have certain effects
f W I SH T O EX
r@heassumptionrestingwithinw.hatIhavetosayisthat
relationships can be discoveredbetw'eenthe socialprocessesof the classroom group and the
individual psychological process of second languagedevelopment. Given the present state
of our knowledge about the learning of foreign languages,this assumption is supported
upon tenuous foundations. As most people at least begin to learn new languagesin
classrooms,the researcher can hardly fail to locate some variable of classroom life that uill
have a systematic effect upon language learning, or some variable of learning behaviour
which has correlational potential with instructional treatment. The researcher may ask,
"What are the spectJiccontributions of the classroom to the process of language development?" The assumption being that we mav be able to explain hora/ classroom-based
instruction influences and interacts with learning if we come to understand the special
workings of the classroom context. The teacher's priorities - perhaps more urgent and
direct - are to build upon those inherent features of the classroom situation which ma.
facilitate the learning of u."*- Ianguage.Tlg.leaclerlguestion may be: "ln what ways miglrt
I exploit theseei'al-relirv-pf th" .Iurrroo-Itus paper olters partlcular ans\\ersto both the researcners and tne teacners questlons.
It begins with an examination of the approachesof current research towards the language
class. I offer a particular evaluation of recent developments in investigations devoted to
second language acquisition and to language learning in the classroom situation. This
evaluation, though necessarilybrief, has three purposes. First, to identify the possible
contributions of the language classroom rvhich are perceived and revealed by current
research. Second, to identifv rvhat seem to be significant contributions of the classroom
which current research appears to neglect. And third, to deduce certain implications for
future research and for languageteaching.
The researcher and the teacher are confronted br. a crucial common problem: how'to
relate social activitl', to psr-chological change and how to relate psychological processing
to the social dvnamics of a group.The researchermust explain these relationships if he is to
understand adequatelvlanguagelearning asit is experienced by most people - in a gathering
.itl
made up of other learners and a teachet.T
^l/ l* a
The classroom
experimental laborator
i bn-Jr*X
tostudiesinrirst;"
j:;#ift:;.'X:m
I24
MICHAEL P. BREEN
facilitalrcomprehensi
learning behavioirs
the teacher
i-rner inclinations
atesies.The SLA
of
effici
a
repertoire
ma.'
*tain
learner
each
that
so
ntal
as
teacher
sur
66m implies
behaviouralreinforcement.
Iearners as subject to
Mofthelanguageclassroomleavesuswlthanilmberofunresolved
problems t}at warrant more attention if we seek to understand the relationship between a
language class and language learning. First, the interesting variables of linguistic input
were not uncovered
anJthe strategic behaviour of learner s are notspecialto classrooms.They
more significant
and
second
life
at
all.2The
perhaps
as prevailing features of classroom
problem is that tw-o crucial intervening variables seem to have been bypassedby SLA
."r.u..h. Both of these variables are centrallv related to the processing of input. Both will
determine rvhat a learner might actually intake.-SLA research whic! emplgglggaQgristic
ilariable and somellter
or exposure) as the
input (provided_llinltruction
'ith-TtTE6-earj
reliance on I
in its
resultant
c[ange
there is a
Ite a 6r plvchological
o
,suPerficiality
| )
o
r---,{4.__j*to learners' internal perceptual processes.The researchtakes f6i-pffihTed-What
\ attention
.
..
--------------.--rr
I
l t
,l
tt,'"l@timalforhim.MorefundamentalIy'itdoesnotaddrejssthe
question oI' howa learner selectir-elrperceives parts of linguir,i. tffi.@T.n-a
lace.Therefore, the interveni@
_worffi
over any actire
utisnegiected'Giveniheimportanceattachedto
.o*p."h".rrion by SLA ,"r.u..h it seems paradoxical that the active reinterpretat)dn and
reconstruction of anv input bt' the learner is not accounted for. The search for correlations
between, for example, the frequency of a grammatical form in input and the frequent
occurrence of that form in some later learner performance seems motivated by a rather
narrow view of human learning. The research leads us to a causalconditioning as opposed
to a cognitive and interactive explanation of languagedevelopment. We are left unsure hor
Ft,-6G'at/
T26
MICHAEL P. BREEN
a classroom. However, even with such an ecologically valid point of departure, cuffent
classroom-oriented research leavesus with tr,vo important areas of uncertainty. We have
to question the extent to which the surface text of classroom discourse can adequatelr
,eu.ul th. underlving social psychological forces which generateit (the exoectations,beliefs
andattitudesofthqpa4q!E!p4!).andaIsoreveaIthesociocog"i@
and learning it provokes). This central issue leads us back into
ifi@.i.tions
t
i@roughour"v.'oiTifweeueiseektoexplainwhatthose
of
dataactuallymean.EvenDel Hvmei, who was foremostin proposingthe ethnographrv
wish
if
we
insisted
that
also
research,
sociolinguistic
speaking*iri.h now underliesmuch
to explain any speechevent we .r".d to discover its existential and experiential
nd"q,-,u,lety
,ig.rifi"u.r.. for. thor. taking part.TThese proposalsimply that the-meanings and values oi
.l"ur..oo- discourse reside behind and beneath what is said and unsaid. {-5eseerrcher's
derived throush the participants'
f the "text" of classroomdiscoursehas
inte
n as error
th" teu
i"@?Eir.tutiontof thuiffir".
'a l."rn.rZ Is a learner'frequest for information - even if
to as sucn
- l
c\utt
bvffipieceoftime-wastingore\.enexpressingsomethingelseentirelr?
Is superficial negotiation of meaning or a learner's generation of further input evidence of
the wish to learn more?
To begin to understand language learning experience in a classroom the researcher
must discover what teacher and taught themselvesperceive asinherent within the discourse
of lessons. More importantly, recent classroom research clearly shows the researcher as
someone who investsinto his text of classroom discourse certain patternedness or
meaningfulness.Classroom communication, like anv text, realizes and carries meaning
potentiJ . Becauseof this, if we wish to discover what the teaching and learning of a language
is for the people undertaking it, we need to know rvhat orderliness and sense
i.r u
"lurrroom
they investinthe overt communication of the class.Put simplyrthe discourseof the classroom
does not itseh re'eal *hut th. t"""hur. arrd th.
inteisubjecti't e experience.The subjectiveexperience of teacher and learners in a classroon
.^-r:r--l^^^-l--^f^*-^1
.,^,.,
of doing things.Th.
and preferred ,ways
attitudes,
is@urposes,
and learner share.
teacher
maintains
intersubjectit'e experience derives from and
ano...on*^Eilr-iG-pur
qtl"gryi:"gprysron
1r
i n p u t a s d i s c o u r s er a t h e r t h a n m e r e l l g r a m m a t i c a l d a t a .
research
@'oom-oriented
perceives the learner as ac
to the discourse.ffi
iffi'non-contributions.oEF*;T.,,'ing?Learnersandteachersare
not dualities of social being and mental being - an idea appareitl@
by the very separateness
of SLA and classroom-orientedresearchpnorrtres. lt rs rncumbent
upon classroom-basedinvestigations of language learning to;count
for those social
psychological forces rvhich generate classroom discourse and for those socio-cognitive
effects of the discourse even3[its objective is primarilv to describe social phenomena. If the
subjective and intersubjective experiences ofand from classroom discourse are reduced to
what we can find in the discourse
^i;
alone, then rve are allowed to deduce that classroom
I
;i.
;;;;;;';ilonditioning
determinism!
Jn"<gIt appears that the tu.oYnelgg[9p-for the classroom u,hich@t
'er
definitions of the classroom situation which se.* to\-"qle.iiE" ,o.i"lrJiit
y teachersand learners.
learnlnq as 1t E exDerl
of lan
metaDhors
unloitunately constrain our understanding of language learning because e@Les
fof_
granted crucial intervening psvchological and social variables w'hich are the fulcra upon
1ffij-chlanguageIearningisbalanced.@tionollearnersandthesociil
____----ii:v--and psvchological forces which permeate the processesof teaching and learning must reside
within anv explanation concerning horv and why people do what they do when they work
together on a new language. More seriouslv, perhaps, both contemporary metaphors
implicitly reduce human action and interaction to classicalconditioning, wherein,learners
though superficiallv participating are essentiall-v
passiverespondentsto observablelinguistic
and discoursal stimuli. It therefore appearsnecessarythat research has still to adopt a
definition of the classroom rvhich will e
h coonitive and social variables so that
their mutual influencecan be better understood. More precis"ly *-nEET...,"t.pFot
classroom
neri can be viewed as thinking social actors
and not reduced to generators of input-ou\p-urifor analyzedas dualities of either conceptual
soclal Dernqs.
rernaPs the
Delngs.rernaPs
or soclal
tne metapnor
metap
1verequrre can proudee a basis
baststor
for the synthesrs
svnthesisol
of
.or
1--;#
SLA and classroom-oriented research endeavourswhilst necessarilybeing more comprehensive than both. These deductions lead me to propose a third metaphor for the
classroom in the hope that it might further facilitate our understanding of classroom
f
. -
rr [7
sP'
P(
6
oI
t'olrecf
&e
128
MICHAEL P. BREEN
initially
couldbe perceivedascoral gardensmaybe
A proposalthat the .lu.ooiill*",ion
d"'iui' from Malino*t[]-:'*t:]t:i:":Y::"::
reactedto as rather oaa fft" metaPhor
he describedin coratGardens
in particuiarthoseinvestigations
;::'rJ":fi;;;i,;,
'h
_
a"no,.atocl'assroomlanguaselearl'"(q'^":^1'"'.::ili::::,lo'*:tH:iJ,l,i:
_r"
ical endeavour.
#
necessarilYan ant
a
w l t h l n a n u m a n grouP'
R I U l P 'our
" : ' , .investigations
j : " " - 5 - * " ; - - f f i p o I o g i-c a l
withinTTilma-n
.-t-
o,
C@;naa'a;r'n*11
1T ttFtlg$-l*
explore.lu.r-'^r'"'
rto,-,ld
vvr )rrvuru
humrutY *"
----i;
@6
s
tr*;st in a social situation\th
,,* 2s oardens ot
ffiustasgardensof
L r 4 J r - outwardlY
a r a n g u a g c class
u'
(@Til i'
t"o5-lqperlelt,
M l n6fi.
. on *hii might be obser'edasi
ili
rs,
:"::,'r::1""-:ffi;ilt;;^;;^;;;:J.o-,,,o.,
- i, q,'u'."a of subiectiue_eld
purpose
"
-" -er
t::::il::,,"":"::il;.,,vhich
':::
and define
locate
^---^,'"r
'utauvav'
s
teulttlttS
anQ
oJteacnlng
thetasks
"thty
orraiiriolbackgrounlio
clntinually specify and mould
existed"before,
nevei
it
if
u,
itr"lf
t1e new language
"ttd
In essence'the metaPhor of cl11.::l
the activities of teaching and learning'
i:::::9:*::
tftilllure hndworth i!Yg!!gt'rg as
classas
insists that we perceive the language
such.8
...-3%-"
situation,.n"t
-n adoptthis definitionof the classroom
: ^i":"1*::1.*,",t-*t'
^- ItA+-^f o l".orr:or-
t-:::..,:1.:]:.c::'
'--^-,.,n':;;;ii""'ii,.;;;;;;;;;";rs we:T
- asiinvolving
r r "PP'ou:n
- ^ rknowledge
- - ^t:,11::"
-.,.l^l^^
.vnlvinq
ssocioocio".
u.,J ."air.overing of lu.,g,.ug..
^f::':::lf^::l::f:i*:'"::'"'::"f
:'#:-J:"J"T;:1';';;;";;;;;";";;""
activities,;T'ot'1"1'"?::::fl::':::,i:i:i
:;r.'_;3;;;;g;.,
L-,
;:il'.il;:i.,;;;;;;;;"';;';iar
!il:"il#;;."mprehension
l^l:.^:+,;^-
o^frilc
ascentral,
*r'ir'tit'. J"'T:'*-A;*H
attu utc r*"1"""
of meantnqlutness
within the intersubjective construction
':omDrehension
""'(--'-l
s
I
n
p
u
t
i
.
.
o
J
u
o
r
d
s
'
o
t
h
e
r
l
n
:
F i
"^-.."hensible.
reinterpretatronoI *ttutt"tt .,'"v o" tttott"diiliLEilibk"llother'w1:t:^'**-
"
in its e
u-nfamiliarby those r'r-hoparticipate
T::::::
J*r:::*:iT1?::
thediscourse
j"tior,. clur...,omloriented
explores
research
*#r,g i.,
.'#ffi;;;;s
islands
across
rvhilstth. tl"'s'Jorn ascultureextends
"t*tt-::"I]::li::::::
of lessons,
surface
touch,the
I:tililrffiil;.
whichonlyrarely
andinterpretations
intentions
lessonswill
oft"r, d'"lib"tately hides' The discourse of
of talk and which th" dlr.or.r.re itself
what
to thot" lt"o"s and it will not signify
mainiy symbolise*fr" f".,i.iPants contribute
from them'
th.v u"t.t"lly invest in ih"t ot derive
justify my own belief in the classroom asgenuine
It is, of course, incumbent uPon me to
or abstract'
that such rn"iuphot may b; too idealised
culture. In order to meet th. .ha.g"
"
I
classroom'
language
the
features of thl cttlt"re of
I need to identifv some of the essJntial
willbrieflYdet.'lb.@
1,)
.__
'qhs{Iure
Although the languageclassmav be one social situation, it is a different social contextfor all
those who participate within it.The culture of th" .l"rr.o
means that the c9!!g{ofl9ss9!L(the
6FEiff.t".rt social rei'iiRfhis
language being taught) /
(the things being done) are both coljlnugll1and the p
4
interpreteddifferenth.u'th"li@heclassroomisthemeeting/
of language,diverse learning purposes, and different
point ofi'arious subjective r-ier,r's
preferences concerning how' Iearning should be done. Such differentiation brings with it
potential for disagreement, frustrated expectations, and conflict. The culture of the
.lur..oo^ do., .roi erasethese differences; it contains them. A major'ca-a'Il6-g?1or%iEF
\
flicting internal iocial realities )
und l"
takindofsubiectiveanarchv|)andanexternalrealitr',,hi/
130
MICHAEL P. BREEN
The outside observer has accessto the compromise lvhich results, but we would be naive
to deduce that such a compromise represents what is actuallv intended or perceived as the
social realit,v for anv one Person in the class.
l(
I'
The culture of the classroom represents a tension between the internal world of the
individual and the socialworld of the group,u.eclllsn! juxtaposition of
experiences and communal teaching-t;#"g
'reality,
s trom thrs tuxtaDosltlon.
a mind of its olvn, which
, eanrngs.
g r o u p s \ - a l u e sm
F-. thu.r the sum of the individual psychological orientations of teacher and learners.
) l
departure for psychological change.A teacher and a learner have to discover rfict definition
of situation r,vhichseemsto maintain the group and its activities - riat definition of situation
which will be relativelv distinct from their personal definitions. This involves all members
of the group in empathising with the roles and views of others and continually checking
such external frames of reference. The individual has to
" participators,
etc., etc.P[f51IEill
"b6fiiners," "adv
theTanguage class is a
members who
are supposed to learn and a member u.ho is supposedto teach. This highly normative
characteristic of classroom life implies for the researcherthat we need to discover the overt
and covert grorrp .rit"ri" (ond 'a
*h
error corrections are consistentlv based upon objective linguistic criteria or are otherwise
apparently random would lead to a superficial analysisof phenomena which, though opaque,
are deeply significant for a teacher and learners in the particular classroom.
fficifture
\.
of the classroom is arymm-dilita*-1
Becauseteaqhers are exBected to knou- lvhat learners are expected not to know, certain
.J[Iu.'dpsychologicalconsequencesinevitablyobtainfor@
class.The culture of the classroom insists upon asymmetrical relationships.The duties and
rightsofteacherandtaughtaredifferent.Mo.uu
beeoua]]vre]uctanttoupsettheasYmmetrvofrolesandidentitie.toffi
n most societies perhaps all, despite some relative variation - an
betu'een teacher and taught is a contradiction of what a classroom
taril@ltp
+l
graoualr\
arners are ver). Teachers
a
relativelr'
w'hich
enables
them
to
maintain
asymmetry
degree
of
the
precise
establishing
harmonious *oi.i.rg gro.ri As teachers,\\'e are also familiar r,vitha classwhich erodes rvhat
they perceive as being too democratic or too authoritarian an approach on our part, even
though we ourselvesmay perceive our teaching style asconsistentlysomething else entirely!
a role and identitv ofteacher.
to
Here is a paradox. Learnersgjut a te
arnlng grouD.
uties in t
And a teacher has ib ta.n
a
teacFer
throug
behind
the
teacher,
and
tribe
marches
of
the
ffiffitFistory
th" pq$i."lu.
unfoldinq culture
"lutttoot
"f
to learners. Indeed, one of the rights andluties of a teacher is to do precisely tlatl However,
relationships do not only exist betw'een teacher and taught. Sub-groupings
ffiffi.i.ul
which are asvmmetrical with the dominant classroomculture also emerqe and orosoer. such
- -
rl
I32
MICHAEL P. BREEN
fbr a tirnc - difl'crcnt views of what should be happening in a class and what should not.
Tlris suggcststhat, although the nature of interpersonal and intergroup relationships within
the language classroom may be complex and changing, the researcher needs to uncover
what these are if we wish to describeiwhat happens in the classand further interpret this
as it is experienced by those within the class.As researchersin the past, we have tended to
be teacher-centred in our assumingthat the major asymmetry in role and identity, and the
likely Iocation of dissonancein perceptions and effects, resides between the teacher and
the rest. We have also perhaps underestimated the possible effects - both negative and
positive - of asymmetry and dissonancewithin the classroom upon the language learning
1o
process.
Perhapsone of the best wavs of revealing the establishedculture of the classroom group is
to try to introduce an innovation which the majority neither expects nor defines as
appropriate. Most teachers have had direct experience of the effort to be radical in their
approach with a class(be it through different material, tasks, or procedure, etc.) and have
suffered the experience of at least initial rejection. A genuine cultureis one in which its
Iative har
membe
actorv milieu. As suchthinss
take time to develop.
inp' which the gro
rceives as chanse will also take time to
be absorbed or it will be resisted as deviant. (This does not mean that harmony will
necessarilyreign in the classroom, for even apparent anarchy - as long as it is the preferred
ethos of that group - may be quite consistent with a definition of classroom life for some
seemingly unsocialisedcollection of learners!). In essence,a classroom group seeksa
particular social and emotional equilibrium just as soon as it can - even one
-
1'
seem to
titheticalto-Iffi
newlv
establishedorder. The indivi
arner risks ostracisation from the group ifhe does not overtly at least conform, and the teacher risks rebellion in various forms if he does not
honour the conventions expected bv the collective definition of what a language teacher
should be. Although thls conservative spirit has its origins in the prior educational
experiences of the learners, each new classroom group reinvents "tle rules of the game" in
ways which both reflect and form the classroom-culture assumptions of the particular
participants who are suddenly sharing each others' company. It has to be said, of course,
that a teacher may participate in this conservatism and, indeed, work throughit in order to
help develop group harmonv, security and efficient ways of working. And teachers are
certainly familiar with the dilemma of wishing to innovate whilst being cautious of
disruption. This means that the very presence of a researcher,or even the awarenesswithin
the group that thev are the focus of apparentlv objective evaluation and study will mobilise
change. Our personal experience of having someone visit our home for the first time and
then looking at it with them, as if seeing it through their eyes, can remind us of the effect
of intrusion. In a sense,the classroom changesin the eyes of those within it and, tJrerefore,
wlLLchangein certain rn'avs.Thisis, of course, the truism of observer effect. But there is also
that the classroom we now see will be in a state of dis-equilibrium:
tglbcryg*fgl4.-1n
it will not be the same cl;ssroom asvesterdayand w-ewill be investigatinga classroomgroup
which is ner,vly adapting in a number of subtle rvays.This phenomenon can be either bad
news or good news for the researcher. It will render short-term, one-shot investigations
into classroom language learning largely"invalid and unreliable. If, on the othe, haid, *e
approach studies of classroom language learning on a longitudinal basis, then we may be
able to explore the process of re-establishment of social and emotional equilibrium which
construct
Whilst we may acceptthe truism that all knowledge is sociallv constructed - most especiallv
if we are working wi{ the knowledge of a language and how it is used between people knowledge. In a language class, the
we need to consider how classroornsre-construcr
togeth"
e (the coiten-t oflessons),
classroomgroup
but toge-theralso jointlv constructs the lessonsiihE-Fiia
r or not thaieacher plans a lessonin advance,the actual we4<jng gut of
ssocial
ociald
t h e g r o u p i n s i s t s t h a t l e s s o n se v o l v e . t h r o q g h e x p l i c i l o r - i m o l i c i t
dvnamic
off the
J r n a m i co
/
negotiation. In whatever wavs the lesson mav be perceived bv those who participate in it, Qpp*
takeswill be drawn bv the joint contributions of most, if not all, of the members
f[iToit
. - -,'n,
of the class.Teachers and learners are well aware that lessons are rarely straightforw ^ra 4//M*
journevs but are punctuated bv hesitant starts, diversions,momentary lossesof momentum, U'
interesting side tracks, and unexpected breakdowns.That it may be better to plan classroom
learning in advance has little to do with this entirely normal and creative evolution of
lessons.tt
Severalimportant implications for the researcher result from the fact that the content
and process of language classesare jointlv constructed. First, any teacher-centred (or
researcher-centred)perspectiveon lessonsis partial. Second,the researcher'sbackground
knowledge of the actual languagebeing worked upon in a classcan be a serious handicap
becauseit potentiallv blinds us to the processof re-invention of tlat languagewhich teacher
and taught engage in together. (This implication warns us againstrelying on external
linguistic criteria alone in assessingthe nature of comprehensible input, for example.)The
problem reminds us of a similar gap betrn-eenthe teacher's definition of the new language
and the different learners'definitions.There are likelv to be as manv versions of the new
Ianguage,and changing versions of it, as there are people in the room.Third, the researcher
has to be continually wary of being dazzled by what seemssalient in classroom life. For
example, even the most passiveor non-contributorv learner in a classcan be a poltergeist
on the proceedings. Silence, encouraged or not, is a characteristic part ofthe culture ofthe
classroom and it has great significance. Silence or w'ithdrawal can change a Iessonjust as
powerfully as their opposites, and not just for the person w'ho w-ithdraws, but also for all
the others who senseit.The fourth implication of the joint construction of the content and
process of a language classis particularlv significant for researcherswho wish to examine
the effects of classroom language learning. The fact that lessons-in-processare communal
endeavoursmeans that any learning outcome,for any member of the class,has been socially
processed.The actual nature of individual achievements has been communally moulded.
The culture of the classroom inevitably mediates between a new languageand a learner in
class.The culture of a particular classwill shape what is made availablefor learning, will
work upon what is made availablein particular ways, will evolve its own criteria for progress
and achievement, and rvill attain specific and various objectives. (lt is worth emphasising
here that linguistic input is only a part of the first of these classroom-basedphenomena.)
What someone learns in a language class will be a dynamic synthesis of individual
and collective experience. Individual definitions of the new language,of what is to be
attended to as rvorth learning, ofhorv to learn, and personal definitions ofprogress will all
T34
MICHAEL P. BREEN
interactwith the particular classroom culture's dehnitions of each of these things. If strictlv
individualised or autonomous languagelearning is desirabie or even possible then the
classroom is necessarih' antlthetica\ torvards it.The \anguage I \earn in a classroom is a
communal product detit ed through a jointlv constructedProcess.
What is overtly done in a classroom and what can be described by an observer are
thev are reductions of classroom reality. How things are done and why things
epiphenomena;
nr" do.r. have particular psychological signilicancefor the individual and for the group. The
particular culture of a languageclassw-iil socially act in certain ways, but these actions are
Lxtensions or manifestationsof the psychology of the group, its collective consciousnessand
subconscious.Individual perceptions and definitions w-ill, of course, feed into and evoh'e
from those of the group. However, the socio-cognitive world of the class- its culture u'ill
be a world other than the sum of the individual worlds within it.What is signtfcant for learners
(and a teacher) in a classroom is not oniy their individual thinking and behaviour nor, for
instance,a longer-term masterv of a syllabus,but the day-to-dayinterpersonal rationalisation
of what is to be done, why, and how. The immediate significance of the experience oi
classroom language learning resides in how individual priorities (teacher and learner
definitions of what, why, and how) can be given social spacehere and now. It is precisely this
interplay between the individual, the individual as group member, and the grouP which
represents and generates the social and psychological nexuswhich I have proposed as the
culture of the languageclassroom.Most often the flow of classroom life is actually under the
surface.What is observableis the rim of a socio-cognitive coral reef! Classroom life seemsto
require that many learners spend surprising amounts of time doing little, whilst a teacher
spends equally surprising amounts of time trying to do too much. As researchers we can
describe such overt peculiarities, but we also need to explain them.We have to ask whether
or not such phenomena are true, and we must doubt the integrity of the observable. If u-e
do, then we are led towards discoveringwhat is, in fact, immediately significantfor the group
of people we started to observe.The search for the significancewhich a person, learner or
teacher, invests in moments of classroom life (and for the significance granted to these
moments by the classroomculture) is neither trivial nor avoidable,though it may be compler
and subtle. We will never understand classroom language learning unless we explore it-.
Iesson-by-lessonsignificancefor those w'ho undertake it.
I}6-lfrlCTfAEL
1
2
3
P. BREEN
If the above objectives are seen to be difficuit or impossible to attain, then our future
investigations into classroom language learning *.ill need to acknowledge more explicitly
those things which we have not accounted for.
#ry
of languageand communicating from rvhich anv new know'ledge and experience must flow.
SF6"9, tlhe teaching-learning p.o."r, requires decisionsto be made, and decision-making
h)rs"ffgh communicative potential. The sharing of decision-making in a language classwill
qenerate
communication u-hich has authentic roots in getting things done here and norv.
'?Ho*
language
can the culture of the classroom help the teacher to facilitate classroom
language
t
h
e
t
e
a
c
h
e
r
t
h
e
r
e
r
e
a
l
t
o
t
o
h
a
s
t
h
e
potential
culture oFlhe class
l-FgiThe
leirning processasit is actually experienced. In this lvay,teachiag languageand investigating
languagelearning may be seen to be synonymous.Teachersrahdlearners alreadv undertake
research in classrooms, but their joint investigation tend( to focus upon subject matter the new language and its use. An additional focus of investigation could be the language
learning process as it actually unfolds and as it is directly experienced in the class. Manr'
teachers and learners alreadv undertake such action research, but it is sometimes rather
implicit and accorded little space and significance. I am suggesting here that genuine
classroom languagelearning researchmay progress to the extent t}at those people who are
immediately involved in its evervdavrealities also become explicitly engagedin a methodical
reflection upon their own learning and teaching.The pedagogtcmotivation would be that
teacher-learner research has the potential to facilitate a delicate understanding and
refinement of language developmentwithin the classroom itself. If this pedagogic purPose
may be seen as valuable, then the researcher can offer knowledge and skills to a classroom
rather than act onlv as a recipient of its riches.ls
138
MICHAEL P. BREE..
Notes
1
This tendency has been captured bv Kuhn's (1962) analysis of scientific research.
Researchexemplifying the first r-ierr-I u'ish to explore is representedin the excellent
and Krashen(1983) and Baily,Long,
anthologiesofHatch (1978), Felix ( 1980t,Scarcella
vieu-is
implied
by recent studiesof classroom
second
prevalent
and Peck (1984).The
of Larsen-Freeman
valuable
collections
language learning, fairlv represented in the
(1980), Seliger and Long f 19E3r and Ferch and Kasper (1983). Of course, much
languagelearning researchmakesno reterenceto the classroomand severalresearchers
do .rot assumethe perspectivesdiscussedin this paper. Mv emphasisis upon currentir
influential views of languaqelearning and l-hat these imply for the functions of the
classroom.
Paradoxically,the featuresof optimal input were initiallv derived from (1) the order of
emergenceof certain linguistic featuresin the production of languagelearners and (2)
the characteristicsof simple codesusedbv people other than learners- e.g., motherese,
foreigner talk, talk to foreigners, etc. Neither phenomenonhasbeen shown to have anv
necessaryrelationship with learning language.(On the relationshipbetween motherese
and learning,for example,seeNewport, Gleitman,and Gleitman 1977; Shantz1982.)
Most work on learning strategieshas tended to be individual casestudies undertaken
outside classroomsor through simulated tasks.These points are not intended critically
but suggestlimitations in relating researchfindingson learning to the languageclassroom.
To try to teach learning strategiesseemsto me an inappropriate interpretation of the
of, inter alia,Naiman,Frcihlich,Stern,andTodesco(1978), Rubin (1981),
investigations
and Cohen and Hosenfeld (1981). Apart from the major problem of the researcher
having to inJerstrategies from retrospections (Mann 1982) or from communication
strategies(Ferch and Kasper,1983), we need to maintain clear distinctionsbetween the
act of iearning and the influencesof teaching.Languagelearning researchcurrently lacks
an approachto learning strategiesand stvleswhich accountsfor key intervening variables
- such asthe context in \4,-hich
the learner rvorks and how the learner strategicallvreacts
to that context. Examplesof a more comprehensiveanalysiscan be found in Gibson and
Levin (1975), Mann (1983) and Marton, Hounsell,and Entwistle(1984).
Although SLA researchevolvedfrom work in L1 acquisition,it haspersistedin a narrow
focus upon linguistic and mentalistic variableswhilst the last decadeof L1 researchhas
been characterisedbv its concern rvith social, contextual and interactive variablesalso
(Waterson and Snow, 1978; Lock, 1978).The significanttheoretical synthesispror,ided
to SLA researchby Krashen (1981, 1982) has encouragedthis asocialperspective.
However, a paradox thrives at present u'herein it is fashionablein some quarters to
belittle Krashen'sinvaluablecontributions to the SLA paradigm lvhilst manv researchers
unquestioningly assume his hypothesesproven as the starting. point of their os n
investigations.Both positions seem equally unjustifed.
..,"
SeeMueiler's (1979) historical analysisof the "science"of psvehologr'.In this paper,I s'ill
arguefor a socio,cognitive
perspectiveon languagelearning.Current influential approaches
to the social psychologv of languagelearning seem to me too narrowlv focused upon
motivational and attitudinal factors (Gardner, 1979) and,although socialpsychology grants
significanceto relationships between the individual and social context, its prevailing
tradition is non-cognitive and somew-hatdeterministic in its evaluationof the effects of
socialexperience.A socio-cognitiveperspectiveallows us to identifv variablesof learning
both within the social situation and within the active cognition of the learner (Forgas,
198 I ). It also encouragesseekingrelationshipsbetween learner cognition and situations
and implies the need to understand,to see through languagelearning in ways cogently
arguedby Ochsner(1979).
Allwright (1983), Gaies (1983) and Long (1983) provide excellent reviews of
c l a s s r o o m - o r i e n t er e
ds e a r c h .
(1972) are, of course, emphasisingcollective meanings and
(1949)
Hvmes
and
Sapir
values.Other scholars,notablvGoffman (1959) and Cicourel (1,973),would alsoassert
intentions and interpretationswithin socialevents.I will argue
the significanceof personal
that we need to account for both and their interrelationships.
The notion of "genuine culture" derivesfrom Sapir'sdiscussionof "Culture, Genuine and
Spurious"(19+9).ln referring to Malinorvskit (1935) study,I do not wish to imply that
we adopt a narrol!' social anthropologicalapproachto the classroom;rather one which
relatessoctalexperience and psvchologicalchange in the tradition of Margaret Mead,
Ruth Benedict, and Clvde Kluckhohn (see, for example, Beattie's1964 overview of
social anthropolog).Perhaps the studv of the classroomgroup might resemble Oscar
10
11
la
IL
l.J
t+
Lewis'sinvestigationsof family life in Mexico ( 1959) but with a particular focus upon the
relationshipsbetween classroomlife and languagedevelopment.
"lnteractivl" is becoming a much-usedterm in languageteaching circles and is, thereby,
expandedto encompassmanv assumptionsand diverse meanings(ashasbeen tle fate of
"communicative,""negotiation,"and, when applied to pedagogy,"natural").
"fu^nctional,"
Ambiguitv residesin the fact that human interaction can be both interpersonal and intrapersoial;'both overtly social and covertly mental. Allwright's (1982, 1984a) fruitful
identification ofinteractive rvork as a defining feature ofclassroomsclearly relatesto the
interpersonal. However, interactive w'ork also occurs in the recreativerelating of mind
to external phenomena (Neisser, 1976). But interaction is more comprehensivethan
(1) overt behaviour between people and 121 covert perception and reconstruction
of perceptions and experiences.We also need to regard social interaction as having
pry"hologl"ul roots and outcomes (Rommetveit 1981) and mental interaction as being
rlrtj".t to socialforces (Gauld and Shotter,7977; Harr6, 1978; Shotter, 1978).Thus,
interaction is also (3) a socio-cognitiveprocesswhich continually relates social action
and experienceto the content and capabilitiesof the mind, and vice versa.
Ou., tir" past t\r.entv yearsthere h"u" b".., a number of interesting studiesof ciassroom
relationshipsand roles within the school system.Jackson's(1968) seminal investigation
is complemented by Hargreaves(1972) and Woods (1919) - the more recent works
echoing Goffman's (1961) revelationsof the effectsupon the perceptions and activities
of people in situationswhich maintain asymmetricalrelationships.Learner experience.s
uni ;,rJg.-.nts have been studied by Taytor (1952) , Nash ( 1974), Meighan (1977) , anQ
Ha.grea.,res(1977), whilst teacher perspectives are considered by Morrison and
Maclntvre (1959).
A well-establishedtradition within the sociology of knowledge arguesthat most of our
learning is socially constructed. Berger and Luckmann's (1965) justification of sueh a
view is basedupon a phenomenologicalapproachto human experience.(Douglas, 1973.
and Luckmann, Tg'/8, offer a range of studieswhilst Filmer, Phillipson, Silverman, and
Walsh, 1972, provide an overview.) Perhapsthe two major influences uPon recent
endeavoursto relate social experience and knowledge have been Schultz (1962-65.
1967) and Husserl (1965, 1967). Investigationsdirectly concerned with the joint
construction of classroomlife are exemplified within Hargreaves(1977) , Nash ( 197 3 I .
Stubbsand Delamont (1976),Woodsand Hammersley(1917), andWoods(1980a,b).
The eight essentialfeatures u'hich I describe are based on my own experience as a
teachei and the sharedexperiencesof many teachersfrom most countries of the world
r,r,.ithn'hom I have worked. The featuresare also influenced by *y interpretation of a
number of scholars.WillardWaller's (1932) evaluationof the teachingprocessis still the
most comprehensive,*'hilst the studiesof teaching and learning referred to in notes 1Cf
and 1 1 provide strongjustification for seeingthe classroomgroup asa specialculture. (.\
helpful overvierv of classroomresearchw'ithin general education is provided by Cohen
a n dM a n i o n 1 9 8 1 . )
Garfinkel assertsthe need for methods of understandingthe everydaylife of the group
we may be investigatingthrough an ethnomethodological approach. (Douglas, 1971.
Tirrner 19J4, and Douglas, 1973 provide examples of this approach, whilst Hughes.
1980, offers a humanistic interpretation of ethnomethodology.) For a broader criticaconsideration of methods of investigation, seeTaylor (1911).Interesting examples ol
current research in classroom language learning which adopt various methods o:
understandingare found in Dingwall (1982), Wenden (1983), Murphy-O'Du-r'e:
(1983),Allwright (1984b), and Bonamy,cherchalii,Johnson,Kubrusly,schwerdtfeger.
(all 1984):
Soule-Susbielles
I examinethe practicalrealitiesofclassroomlanguageand procedure.
(1982),
Breen
In
l5
l5
References
Kevnote paper at the
Allwright, R.L. (1982) InteractiveworkJorinput jn the languageclassroom.
SecondLanguageResearchForum, Los Angeles.
(1983)'Classroom-centeredresearch on languageteaching and learning: \ briei
historical overview' TESOL@tarterly17: 191-20+.
'The
importance of interaction in ciassroomlanguagelearning' ,lppltedLtngutsttcs
(1984a)
5:156-71.
(1984b) Making senseoJ classroominstruction. Presentation at the Spnposium on
Research,AILA TthWorld Congress,Brussels.
Classroom-centred
Rowley,
languageacquisition
studies.
Bailey,K., Long, M.H. and Peck, S. (eds) (198a) Second
MA: Newburv House.
in socialanthropology.London:
Aims,methodsand achievements
Beattie, l. (196+) Other cuhures:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
of reality.Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Berger,P.and Luckmann,T. (1966) Thesocialconsfiuction
Bonamy,D. (1984)'Perceptionsof saliencvin a languageclassroom'.UnpublishedM.A. thesis.
University of Lancaster.
'Authenticity
in the languageclassroom'. Bulletinof the CanadianAssociation
Breen, M. P.( 1982)
(ACLA)
4: 7-23.
oJAppliedLinguistics
-- (1983)'Hor.vwould we recognisea communicativeclassroom?',in B. Coffey (ed.) Tbacher
trainingandthecurriculum,
pp. 132 54. London:TheBritish Council.
(198+)'Processsyllabusesfor the languageclassroom',in C.J. Brumfit (ed.) General
Englishsyllabusdeign, pp. +7-60. Oxford: PergamonPress/The British Council.
Cherchalli, S. (1984) Askinglearnersaboutlanguagelearning.Presentationat the Symposiumon
ClassroomResearch,University of Lancaster.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Cicourel, A.V (1973) Co7nitivesociology.
Cohen, A.D. and Hosenfeld, C. (1981)'Some uses of mentalisticdata in secondlanguage
Learning3 I : 285-31 3.
research'. Language
London: Holt, Rinehart
(1981) Percpectives
on classrooms
and schools,
Manion,
L.
Cohen,L. and
andWinston.
L42
MICHAEL P. BREEN
oJlearningandthinking'
Cole, M., Gay,J., Click, J.A. and Sharp,D'W. ( 1971) Thecuhuralcontext
London: Methuen.
Cole, M. and Scribner,S. (1974) Cuhureandthought'NewYork:Wiley'
in Dingrvall,
Dingwall, s.D. (1982)'Critical self-reflectionand decisionsin doing research"
linguistrc
applied
in
doing
and
s.D., Mann, S.J.and Katamba,F.X. (eds) Methods problems
research
, pp. 3_25. Universitv of Lancaster'
1/?:.London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
everyday
D
Douglas,J
a"d ) (19i1) IJnderst'anding
Harmondsworth: Pengurn'
Oouglas.M. (ed.) (1913) Rulesand meanings.
London:
communication.
in intetlanguage
Strategies
(1983)
(eds)
F-.."h, C. and Kasper, G.
Longman.
Gunter Narr.
and issues,Tiibingen:
development:trends
language
Felix, S.\d(ed.) (1980) Second
in sociological
Filmer, P., Phillipson,M., Silverman,D. andwalsh, D (1972) Newdirections
theory.London: Coliier Macmillan.
NewYork: AcademicPress'
cognition.
Forgas,J.P.(ed.) (1981) Social
17:
Cui!., d.1. (1983)'The investigationof languageclassroomprocesses',TESOL@Larteily
20s-11.
'
'
Gardner,R. c. ( 1979) Socialpsvchologicalaspectsof secondlanguageacquisition , i"gl"t'
T
193-200. London: B{lackwell.
and St. Claia R. (eds)Longuag,oid roriolprychology,pp.
investigltion.London:
Gauld, A. and Shotter, I. (1917) Human action and its psychological
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
cambridge, MAi M.l.T. Press.
oJreadtng.
Gibson,r.1. and Levin, H. (1975) Thepsychology
llfe.Harrnondsworthi Penguin.
oJselJineveryday
Goffman, C.E. (1959) Thepresentation
(1961) Asylums.Harmondsworth: Pengurn'
Hargreaves,D.H. (1972) lnterpersonalrelationsand educationLondon: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
'The
(lgii)
processof typification in classroominteraction' . BritishJournaloJEducational
41 : 274-84.
Psychology
Harr6, if. lf fZa;'Accounts, actionsand meanings:Thepracticeof participatorypsychologv'.
oJnethod.London: Croom Helm.
in M. Brenner er a/. (eds) The socialcontexts
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
acquisition.
language
Second
Hatch, E.M. (ed.) (1918)
London: Longman'
of socialreseatch.
Hughes, J. (1980) The philosophy
NewYork: Harper.
andthe crisisoJphiiosophy.
Huiserl, E. (1955) Phenomenology
Hague: Nijhoff.
(1970) Cartesianmeditations.The
'Models of the interaction of languageand social life', in Gumperz, J.J
Hymes, D. (1972)
The ethnogrophyoJ communicaticc.
and Hymes, D. (eds) Directionsin sociolinguistics.
pp. 35-71. NewYork: Holt RinehartandWinston.
NewYork: Holt RinehartandWinston.
Jackson,P.W (1968) LiJein classrooms.
clr::'
inthe ESLPtacticum
Englishspeakers
non-native
Johnson,P.(1984) Oralcommunicationbetween
Congress.
paper at the Svmposium on Classroom-centredResearch,AILA 7th World
Brussels.
Oxford: Pergamorsecondlanguagelearning.
acquisitionand
Krashen,S.D.(19817 Secondlanguage
Press.
jn second
languageacquisition.Oxford: PergamonPress.
and practice
(1982) Prtnciples
'Do".
the teacher make a difference?'.UnpublishedM.A. thesr.Kubruslv, N,I.H. (i98+r
Universitvof Lancaster'
Chicago:University of ChicagoPress.
Kuhn,T.S.(19521 The:tru;turec{sctenttfcrevolutions.
Rowlel', 11\
languageresearch.
in second
analysis
,
Discourse
Larsen-Freeman.D. red. t 19t0)
\ert bur. Housc.
ca
r tY
y .o r k :B a s i c B o o k .
n s e s t u d i e s i n t h e c u h u r e o J p oNv e w
L e r r - i sO, . r 1 9 l 9 r F : ' : . ' : n ; , r : . , , . l / a r i c a
e .e w Y o r k : A c a d e n : ' l , - : r - . :q . j r u r c, t n d r m b o l : T h ee m e r g e nocJel a n g u a gN
Lock,.\. red., ,iql:
Press.
andreality.New-York:W.H'Freeman.
Neisser,U. (1975) Cognition
Newport, E.L., Gleitman,H. and Gleitman,L.R. (1977)'Mother I'd rather do it mvself:Some
effectsand non-effectsof maternal speechstyle' , in Snow,C. E. and Ferguson,C. .\ . r eds r
inpfi andacquisition.Cambridge:Cambridge Universiil Press
Talkingto children:LanBua7e
Learning29: 5l-80.
languageacquisition.Language
of
second
R.
(i979)A
poetics
Ochsner,
control
of such meaningsin
and
social
situations
of
Rommetveit. R. (1981)'On meanings
oJ situations:An
a
human communication', in Magnussen,D. (ed.) Toward psychology
pp. 151-57. Hillsdale,NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
interactional
pe$pective,
'The
studl of cognitive processesin second languagelearning'. Applied
Rubin, J. (1981)
2:111-31 .
Linguistics
Berkeley: University of
Sapir, E. (19+9) Culture,languageand personality:SelectedessaTs.
California Press.
Rowley,MA:
language
acquisition.
in second
R. and Krashen,S.D. (eds)(1983) Research
Scarcella,
Nelvburv House.
I -3. The Hague: Nijhoff.
PapersVols
Schutz,A. (.1962, 6+, 56) Collected
oJthesocialworld.Chicago:Northwestern University Press.
(1961) Thephenomenology
ExercisesintheJorcignlanguageclassroom:Thepupils'pointoJview.Papet
I.C.(1984)
Schwerdtfeger,
at the Symposiumon Foreign Languagelearning under ClassroomConditions,AILA 7th
World Congress.Brussels.
Shatz,M. (1982)'On mechanismsof languageacquisition:Can featuresof the communicative
environment account for development?', in Wanner, E. and Gleitman, L'R. (eds)
stateoJ theart, pp. 102-27. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Languageacquisition:The
Press.
'Torvards
a social psvchologl' of evervdaylife: A standpoint"in action"' , in
Shotter,J. ( 1978)
Brenner,M. et al. (eds),pp. 33--+3.
Paper at the Symposium
behaviour.
Soule-susbielles,N. ( 1984) Pupilsanalvsetheir ownclassroom
Brussels
Congress,
AILA
TthWorld
Research,
on Classroom-centred
I44
MICHAEL P. BREEN
in classroom
observation.
London:Wilev.
Stubbs,M. and Delamont, S. (edst t19l5t Erplorations
3-5 1.
oJMetaphysicsxxv:
Gylor, C. (1971)'lnterpretationand the sciencesof }lan'. Review
'Children's
evaiuations
of
British
the
characteristics
of
a
teacher'.
(1962)
P.H.
good
Tayloa
3l
:
I
i
Educational
Ps.vcholog.r
E
56.
JournaloJ
dologr'.Harmondsrvorth: Penguin.
T[rner, R. (ed.) (1 9] +) Ethnometho
Waller, W (19 32) Thesociolog,roJrcaching.\eu- \brk: Wilev.
London:Wiley.
Waterson,N. and Snou',C.E. 1eds1(19781Thedevelopment
2f communication.
W e n d e n , A . L ( 1 9 8 3 ) ' T h e p r o c e s s o f i n t e r a c t i o n ' . L a n g u a g e L 3e 3a :r1n0i n3g- 21 .
London: Croom Helm.
Woods, P.and Hammersley,M. (eds)(19711 Schoolexperience.
Woods, P. (1979) Thedividedscfiool.London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
London: Croom Helm.
Woods,P. (ed.) (1980a)Pupils'strategies.
London: Croom Helm.
(1980b) Tbachers'
strategies.
PART TWO
andgoalsin the
Strategies
context
classroom
- Ft?
Chapter 8
Paull(night
THE DEVELOPMENT OF EFL
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
---"/
! '
148
PAUL I(NIGHT
t6GtFil'.n.fii-AG+ffie'
(Stern19831.
The 19s centur). i^*, u gr"d.,ul disillusionment with the grammar-translation method.
which led to a number of observations which w-ereto change language teaching. Marcel.
Prendergast and Gouin each drew on children's language learning to inform new theortes
(Richardl and Rogers 1986: 5). Marcel argued for a focus on meaning; Prendergastnoted
the use of contextual factors in furthering comprehension and Gouin argued for the
'using
language to
importance of context and that language learning was facilitated by
accomplishevents' (Richardsand Rogers 1985: 5 & 6)'
By the end of the 19s centurv iJeas which previously had only had a limited impact
became more widelv promoted. Central to this was the Reform Movement, an internationai
movement which grew. out of the formation of the International Phonetic Association rn
1885. Its most significant British member w'as Henry Sweet, who argued for a scientihc
1!!-roach to t}e practice of language teaching in his Ifie PracticalStudy oJLanguagesin 1899
The key principles of the Reform Movement were:
the primacv of speech, the centrality of the connected text as the kernel of tht
t"u.ffilifi;iff"ss,
in th.
andthe absolute
prioritl' of an oral methodolog)'
c l a s s r o o m(.H o u a t t 1 9 8 4 : 1 71 7
-=F
which art
It is important to note that it is not just the ideasof th. &fot*J4ry,.nt
significant;its approachalso shapeddevelopmentswhich followed. It was the first trul.
sc]entific approachto languagelearning and can be seen as an important step in th.
developmentof the disciplinesof linguisticsand appliedlinguistics.
.-
g.rV-
In the first decadesof the 20'n century, the forerunners of today's applied linguists
started to take the ideas of the Reform Movement furiher. In the United States the
foundationsof.$udio-Ling!alismwerebeinglaid,rvhileintheUKthe@-was
developed bv Palm-Effio?fi6-Tiid
others. The Oral Approach proposed principles of
selection,gradation and presentationr.vhichhad been lacking in the Direct Method (Richards
andRogers1985:33).TheprinciplethatlanguageshouIdb.@"
situations, that is, it should be contextualised, led to the Oral Approach becoming known
@gThi-Tid-notmeanthatasituationalyllabuswasproposed,
rather that referencesshouldbe made to_thereal world in or!r to teach a structural
ia and'.actions'hee
FigureS.l,fo. example).By the 1950s
syllabus,
e.g.bi3
*ris was the standard British approach to languageteaching.It sharedwithAudio-Lingualism
but its
't
Audio-Lingualism
'', 5 3
a1b
\>z
P.
-t
The Second World War and its aftermath provided a great spur to language teaching,
especiallyin the USA.The Armv SpecializedTrainingProgram (ASTP) rvasestablishedin
1,942to provide the large number of foreign language speakersrequired bv the militarr.
This programme influenced the development of what became know'n asAudio-Linguaiism
andwasifo.,,,ofattentionamongstappIiedlinguistslongafteritffi
militarv.
'scientific'
saw itself as the first
language teaching methodology.
4gdlg-!-l"g"alism
'Oral
when he outlined the
Approach', a forerunner of Audio-Lingualism,
-Sfi66ess
of teaching as depending not only on classroom methodology, but also:
fundamentallyupon havingsatisfactor)'materials
selectedandarrangedin accordwith
.'
y+))
souncl llnqurstlc
Drrnclplesj_(t-rres I
ol
The principles he is referring to here r,verethose of structural linguistics, whose main tenets
were that language is primarilv oral, and that it is a rule-governed system understandable
There p@ously
in terms
outlined
"@plexit1..
b}'Blooee,,1914an-d1942(Bloomfield1914,1933,
1e+2).
The other important strand underlyin
dio-Lingualism
psychologv.Behaviouristmodelsof learningessentilllillil
wherel.ui.,... receivea stimulus(suchasa Ju. i.r u d.illF;.Ffi
."
urrerance)uno ffi-rlGG,
as that of behaviourist
as a behavioural skill
t-
lo r
Tfu1,4l
PAUL I(NIGHT
]50
UNIT A ONE
i.
T H E YD O \ s . T H E ' I ' - \ R ED O I N G
andNegatives
OFTEN/NE\-ER,etc.Questions
IllustrativeSituations
A.t the
John Dallas is a film director.
moment he is in a Plane ovelthe
Atlantic. He is on his waY to
Hollywood. There is a glassof
champagne in his hand, a stnile on
his face, and a pretty girl opposite him
Question:What DOES HE DO?
The only answer is: HE DIRECTS FILMS
OT:HE IS A FILM DIRECTOR
Question: What IS HE DOING
Answer: HE IS FLYING TO
Question Prompts:
1. Ask and answer these questions
about John Dallas:
(a) Who (b) Where
2 . U s eD O E S H E D O ?
3. or IS HE DOING? in these
questions:
(a) fiims (b) a glassof chamPagne
(c) to Hollywood (d) at a pretty girl
HOLLYWOOD
HE IS DRINKING A GLASSOF
CHAMPAGNE
HE IS SMILING AT A PRETTY GIRL
ii. Arthur Docker is on the sameplane.
He is a verv rich man. He drives a
Rolls Rovce, often eats caviar, plavs
rouiette at Monte Carlo, hunts lions
and elephantsin Africa, and smokes
large Havanacigars. At the moment
he is having a nap.
Question: What IS HE DOING?
The only answeris: FIE IS HAVING A \AP
he
Question: What are some of the things
DOES
Answers:HE DRIVES A ROLLS RO\-CE'
HE PLAYS ROULETTE. HE HU\TS
LIONS AND ELEPH-\\TS. HE
SMOKES H.\\"\\.\
CIG \RS.
F i g u r e8 . 1 S i t u a t i o n al l. r r . ; - i : . . : ( : . h l r . f m a t c r i a l
What'syouriob?,
/->rr
\)
Exercise 1
\a
rY
Look at 13.
What'shis job?
He's a manager
Lookat 14.
What'sherjob?
She'sa receptionist
L o o ka t 1 5 .
Whataretheirjobs?
They'rewailers.
Look at 16.
2
Look at 17.
Lookat 18.
Lookat 19.
Usethesewords:
,)
cleaners
cook
secretary
porter
1/vA
T52
PAUL KNIGHT
S u b s e q u e nat t t a c k so n \ u d r o - L i n g u a l i s mc l a
communication. TLusis rather unfair as it saw communication as bein
translate o
as bein_qTiiiTilatedbr learners not har
19511.
ill-Klein;ans
havi
a {
t"""t of \udio-Lingualismwastha@g1lggre
i*F..t*rt
t a r q e t l a n g u a g ea n d t h e l e a r n e r s 'f i r s t l a n
N'$9o
66111astlu.urrulrri, of
--=afffiF6eaudio-lingual
-,^.-:----
I qAf l\
learning either
couldbeminimal.Teach6ffiffi
I autonomy
ilimmanagersof
rl f
interference'
s as'facilitffiT6-'
rib ed these-influence
linguists
materials
basedon a
tolrepare
needed
w.ere
that skilled
ffi
ffi@ffi;eant
\
tion over
I and saw this
tarset Ia
@e,judg:s
----'-
| l-ric ntfan
marhl
rrqlno
nreqcrlr)eal
:'Failure
'(hr/'e'
Humanistic methodologies
Duiln&t!&POs a number of methodologiesappearedwhich havebeenbroadlylabelled
Broadlvspeaking,this labelappliesto thosemethodologieswhich-seethe
u(H"-."irtA
Iear:6$.5ffi.Bole' person and the classroomas an environmentwhere more than the
me \1-l
to
an@figtromdirectionsotherthanlinguistic.Wewilllookatfour
methodologies'The Sijent \\ai. Communitv LanguageLearning, SuggestopediaandTotal
PhvsicalResponse.
The Silent ll'at
C a l e bG a t t c ' n : , ': : : and 19lc T:..' i..-
Siient\\ ar in tn-o publicationsin the 1970s (Gattengo 197.,,als are self-expressionin the target language, learne:
::lgestoPedia
..estopedia, the system espoused bv Georgi Lozanov, is perhaps the best-known
- -'.anistic method due to the media interest it attracted and the extent of the claims made
'.s proponents (Lozanov 1978). It is famous for its use of music to create a non, t e n i n ga t m o s p h e r ec o n d u c i t e t o l e a r n i n q .
T54
PAUL I(NIGHT
that makes
It is this focus o
an interesting methodilogfT-ozanov claimed that languagelearning based
Suggesropedia
or,'ii, -"rhod could be 25 times more effective than other metlods (Lozanov 1978). Amid
such claims it is not surprising that Suggestopediahas also had equally ardent critics, most
I'.
C
{(
N!
,6
learning to occur.
"d
part of t}e century, severalpsychological models of learning had argued for a link between
physical activity and learning, including languagelearning (Palmer and Palmer 1925).TPR
dru*, on models of first languageacquisition, in particular the ideasthat comprehension
"lro
comes before output and that earl,vIearning is usually associatedwith the concrete rather
than the abstract.
TVpically,learners respond physicallyto commands given by the teacher.Learner output
is not required until the learner feels he/she is ready.The limitations of t}e method mean
that it is rarely used beyond beginner level. This has meant, however, that the method has
been used more n'idely than the other humanistic methodologies described here. Many
teachers have been huppy to borrow.its techniques and use them with lower level classesas
a prelude to moving on to more mainstream practices, usually CLT. Asher acknowledges
this and considers it a positive trend (Asher 1977).
TPR is not based on a particular model of language. Simple structures are usually
selected and vocabulary is selected for its relevance to learners' needs.Although this might
suggesta structural view' of language,TPR proponents would claim that the linking of the
with a physical response shorvsthat meaning is considered paramount:
language
-tnlheTPR
classroomthe teacher is expected to direct the lesson.The material to be
taught and the actual classroom activities are all selected by the teacher. The learner is
required to listen and act upon the instructions given.The degree of reflection on the content
is not specified, and the method clearly has some links with habit-formation theories of
languagelearning.
The teacher-centrednessand apparently formulaic responsesof the learners might not
appear'humanistic', however, these practices are believed to reduce the stressthatTPR
proponents claim accompanieslearning a language.
,rnrmunicativeLanguageTeaching >t4-
a'tro
F'
6 3
rr@.5
.l br.i. 'JrilTt
CLT which is original; many of the classroom practices with rvhich it is associatedare
A
und elsewhere(seeFigure 8.3 for example).
j--_ r -L:- ^L _.
,r^lJ,Az-D
_:-,-If rve look at the questions asked at the beginning of this chapter, we can answer the
..:.t.aboutthedesiredoutcome,bvsayingthatforcI-rt@
:rner can communicate successfullvin the target languagein real situati,ons,raiFi-I
. rc rvhichconsiderslanguage
ratherdpn asan abstractsvstem.Theconcept
asit is used
is the kev to this (Widdowson 1978,Hymes 1971,Canale
,
".r1."l""1..,fG-."*p.*d
-.-.; ,iwain 19801.A thEEiidlmodel of languagewas developedto include ideasabout
ftrr
' '.' languageis actually used to communicate in real life situations. Chomsky had alreadl'
-.- , r.\A -
.EG-"rbe4PK{
- .p.aker l<lrowsand the lutti. b"rng ryh+th" rp.ukq1 .!q4lly does, r\rt+*6fi seen in--,''
-,:=1.,
Tinguistic terms. TFq_idea was developed to include ideas of appropliacy ari-fthe
. In order
:l use of language,giving .iie
w-ith
four
model
concerned
a
point
'=hne communicative competence, Hymes proposed
1971).ihe points of this model are
i, ublffi
',.t a speakerboth knor,r,'s
iHy-"r
".rd
ngurge, what is feasiblegiven the means of
, 11o.twhat is in fact done.
e*t, and lasffi-v.
:.eme.rtatio
-c
--ffi
.*.ironme@oxy
of Ar@..t
PAUL I(NIGHT
156
AND
LISTENING
SPEAKING
Leaving home
Pre-listening
task
a -.r,:-=: :. i.
' . t ,l - : :
b. If you don't
- would you like to?
- have vou visited your capital city?
- r.r'hatattractions does it have that
your town doesn't have?
lti
'..,':-.:.
i .. : :..\'4...
titm home (for a short or a
- :-. -:j:-a . :: 1 .11..t ,. t.'x;11flou'?
Jig=ar*'listening
Dlr.li. r.:, t\.', a--'rr.
Engiand, talking
Group -\ \'c,u srii hear Darrd SnoK', $'ho lives in the north-west of
about hrs oniv daughter.Jackie.
T.2a
T.2b GroupBYouxillhea.Jaclre,DaTrdSno$''sdaughter,talkingaboutherlifeinLondon'
(continued opposite)
Figure 8. 3 CLT materials u.hich encouragegrouPwork and participation
THE
DEVELOPMENT
OF EFL
METHODOLOGY
L57
9
l0
/a^
//
'
l
Th{ t'veak)"'ersion,rvhich has become more or less standard practice in the last
tenLleafs, stressesthe importance of providing learners withopportunities to
use their English for communicative purposes and, characteristically,attempts
to lntegrate such actllltles lnto a \1lcer Programme or languageteacnlng.(t-lowalt
.98+,;
/:',
, hilstthe 'ftrong',version:
I
/,
w4.
advanFesthe claim that language is acquired throushc o m m u n i c a t i o n ,s o t h a t
n o t m e r e l v a q u e s t i o no f l c t i v a t i n g t n e x i s t i n but iner
aqe s
the develooment of the
but of stimula
(Howatt 1984
2e7)
{*.
A@.@\t'utQ^
i: concludes:
If the former could be describedas
---<198{: 297t
to learnl\Hou'att
dnslish
\__________,
158
P A T J L( \ I G H T
Our third question, concerninllggner and teacher roles, is perhapsthe most oPen.
th
\\'e can see that in all strands ot Cfin
many
is
also
element
A
cooperative
strong
the
material.
and
learners
other
Present
.lurffith"d.fi,tiiio
N
cc
at"
'('
.tl
Ne
ls
f^l14\
'(fr
greeto
ol"t
li-..ct their ow-n learning-:r
,, hi.
rncreaslng
this
Nunan
analysed
question
aleacher.
assigned-br
^-C'learner
indepgndenceu-ithin CLT (Nunan 1989).
Breen and Candlin identifi three kev roles for the ILT teach - facilitator of the
o"p' un5!g59t.\.p-cess, particrpant withi,n the le,arn
.orylun'.ttto"
those of organiser
including
roles
as
these
see
l.u6E 1Bt"en and Candlin 1980).The1,ilso
because
CLT teacheris often more autonomousthanthe
Tlll"l-la..fhe
""di _]i"g4lgggh.r
practicesa.e ,rsuallylesspredicqrble,andin his/her role asfacilitatorof commu.lffi.o
oft"nGl-t"r..ts with the learners in ways rvhich mirror interaction outside
nication tt6t"".h"t
the classroom,e.g.byaskingreal questionsabout t}e learner'sbackground,opinions, etc.
onenewrolefisthatof.needsanal1st',i'e.some-
r tnan an
?n\its elevation by writers such as Mun
in
teachers
individual
1978).
For
(Munby
change
a significant
to
different
collaboration with their learners to decide on the content of courses was very
the audio-lingual tradition where it u'as thought that it rvasthe job of structural linguists to
prescribe course content.THe realisation that learner needs vary can be seen as a Precursor
n
of the trend tovi-ardslearner
--------___--=-=
Immersion progralnmes and the Natural Approach
Parallel to the development of CLT in the late 1970s and early 1980s another methodology
was being developed which had at its base a model of language learning partly based on
studies of students in Canadian immersion programmes. This methodology was called the
Natural Approach and its proponents were Steven Krashen andTracyTerrell.
The Canadian immersion programme dates back to the 1950s, but really became
widespread in the 1970s and 1980s. It marked a move away from the formal teaching o1[
French in Canadianschools to the teaching in French of other subjects.It was felt that while
the content would be clear to the students through the context, they would acquire the
target language through exposure. This process has been described as t}e partial
'deschooling' language(Stern 1992 12).
of
Canadian French immersion programmes seem to have had interesting but mixed
results. Surveying the various studies into their effectiveness,Ellis notes that they do not
seem to have had a negativeimpact on the students'proficiency in English, their L1, and
that they have also tended to break dou-n ethnolinguistic stereotypes. He also notes that
they have led to hlgh levels of proficiencv in the target language, French, in the areas of
discourseand strategic competence.Thev havenot, horvever,been as successfulin promoting
grammatical proficiencr and it has been observed that a fossilised non-standard variant of
the target can result (Ellis 199+).
In 1983 KrashenandTerrellpubiishedfr= \'arural.1pproach,whichessentiallycontained
K r a s h e n ' st h e o r e t i c a lp . r . p e c t i r e s . d e r e l o p e di n e a r l i e r p u b l i c a t i o n s( K r a s h e n 1 9 8 1 a n d
19821,andTerr.li . --r:-:..inesior their classroomapplication(KrashenandTerrell 1983).
T H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F E F L I \ l E T H O D O L O G Y1 5 9
- ,ti'..n andTerrell saw the NaturalApproach as'similar
to other communicative approaches
._.deleloped', and it can be seenas sharingthe sameqoalsas CLT (KrashenandTerrell
-':: 17t.
The Natural Approach's uniqueness lies in its model of learning. Krashen drew a
-:.:..tion between consciouslearning and 'acquisition', u-hich paralielsL1 development.
'acquired'
.- languagewhich is
is seen as being ar-ailablefor natural languageuse.
. .:-rage rvhich has been'learnt' can be used to monitor and correct output based on
, ,-lrr.d' Iearning, but that is all; a function u'hich has obvious time constraints in natural
_.-:ilge Processlng.
l e a r n e r s ' a c q u i r e ' n e r , vl a n g u a g eb y b e i n g e x p o s e dt o ' c o m p r e h e n s i b l ei n p u t ' . S u c h
: -: rs defined by Krashen as being comprehensible to the learner but containing language
- , : :'rot'e the learner's current level. According to Krashen it is only comprehensible input
.:h lacilitates acquisition, learner output is essentiallyirrelevant. Also according to
' :..hen learners are only able to acquire new grammatical structures in a certain
order.
--.i
.: called the Natural Order Hypothesis and is basedon studies of children learning
. :.: Ll rvhich suggested a certain
order of acquisition. This focus on grammatical
'--::ures, usuallv individual morphemes,
suggestsa grammatical view of languagemore
..:-pinq rvith the audio-lingualtradition than CLT (Richardsand Rogers 1985: 130).
Krashen also thought that learning was influenced by the learner's emotional state, an
.':' :hared bv humanistic approaches.Krashen argued that an'Affective Filter'existed,
----:l meant that learners who weren't very
motivated, lacked confidence or who were
-- ,.- 'us u-ould not do as well as thbse w'ho were motivated, confident and reiaxed.
The breadth of Krashen'smodel obviously attracted a lot of attention, and it would not
-:.reasonableto sa,vthat a lot of the claims on which it was basedhave been overturned.
-'ughlin has shown that the acquisition/learning differentiation is hard to support and
- :i irere is no need-to
postTlate-amonitor' basedupon it (Mclaughlin, 1987).
Krashen'sideasconcerning comp\xehensible
input havealso led to a great deal of debate.
-.. been clearly argued that comprehensible
input is not the only, or even the most
. :tant, factor in languagelearning (Mclaughlin, 1987;White, 1987). The Natural order
: '.hesis and Affective Filter Hypothesis have also been subjected to criticism
-:ughlin, 1987).ln the caseof the former for methodological,"urorm concerning the
.---iion of data; in the caseof the latter becauseit is unclear exactlv how such a filter
-. ; rvork, and aiternativemodels seem better able to explain the evidence.
^: u'ould be unfair to leave our discussion of the Natuial Approach on such a critical
- . .,rithout acknowledging its role in increasing
our understandingof the languagelearning
" :)s. Krashen'smodel of languagelearning l\,as an attempt to find a broad universal
---.:u'ork and althoughit is not widely acceptednow,
it hasacted asa spur for a great deal
-:sequent thinking and debate.
160
I.t
o
a(,l
N!
PAUL K\IGHT
Prabhu.s,...io.oiTBLrr'asbuiltaroundasyllabuswhic@stic
ifications but
specllrcatlons
-:r6ilGl
'14r.
'instead
Davis
f6.retra and Davies1985).When evaluatingthe project' Berettaand
'provide
tentative suPPort for the CTP claim
conclude that the results of their investigation:
place
on meaning alone''
a
focus
through
that srarmat-colstruction can take
approach focuses on t1le input the students receive and the cognitive processing
F
"thrr',
it
which th"y u." required to carrv out. Unlike the otherTBL approacheswe will look at,
the
does not focus on interaction as a facilitator of acquisition. Groupwork is allowed in
be
languageclassroom, but not activelv encouraged; the argument being that
-can
consolidated in this way but not acquired (Prabhu 1987:82). Prabhu outlines suitable types
of tasks and a procedri. for their uie, including guidelines for the selection and grading of
tasks (see Figure 8.4 for exdmple). He found that the best activities were'reasoning-gap
activities', *lhi.h'involve deriving some ne\4'information from given information through
or
processesof inference, deduction, practical reasoning, or a PercePtion of relationships
patterns' (Prabhu 1987: 46).
Long and Crookes criticise Prabhu's approach for failings deriving from its being based
o., u pro"."dural svllabus (Long and Crookes 1992:37).Thus they claim that no rationalt
exists for the syllabus content; grading and sequencing of tasks appear arbitrary and tJrt
syllabusdoes.,'i addressspecific languageacquisition issues(Long and Crookes 1992 3i t.
W" could say that the Bangalore Project has proved influential becauseof the questions it
has raised rather than the questions it has answered.
During the 1980s Breen and Candlin started outlining their ownTBL proposals, which
*.'.bu,.jofficaIratherthanpsycho1inguisticprinciples(Lon;
otiated svlla6ii:il]Tfi-b6TFteiitrers anc
and Crooke, t
learnersselectingthe content oIa couise built upon socialand problem-solvinginteraction
capaclt)'
J8-ents'capacitylottglqlqg-,ttt-.-ution-rathcrltrEir
ts aim would be to increase the students
---Ior cg!q1q!-,rl
the.teacherwould be expectec
ough
declaratt"ekno"'l
th"t ,,rffi.ie.rt b.e"dth of languagercontent was included in the course (Breen
6-E"r*"
1984.1987:Breen and candlin 1980; candlin 1984, 1987; Candlin and Murphv 1987).
This approach has been criticised because ,t t:glS.
highly comfergllgachel-nc
self.awarestudentsinordertobesuccessf.,ltto.
exist.These are not insurmountable problem:
four possible theoretical problem,swith *u.
are
that
there
Ho*:.'uer, Long and Crookes feel
approach (Long and Crookes 1992: 4041). First, the lack of preselection of material'
*"un, that leainers' needs might not be adequately assessedor addressed. Secondl'
although the basis of materials sJlection is discussed,ii is not sufficiently outlined. Thirdl'
'.,o
.*pli.it provision is made for a focus on languageform' (Long and Crookes 1'992:41
Finally, the model's lack of a clear psycholinguistic foundation makes it difficult to asse:,
according to current models of languageacquisition.
Pallavan Transport
Corporation
(Madras City)
' - -cnts can buv and use bus tokens for a month, buving a ticket for each bus
.: ne\..
..ie cost of tokens is as follows:
t ' tokens
Rs 7.50
tokens Rs 15.00
- , tokens Rs 22.50
.lrl tokens Rs 30.00
\ studenthasto buv at least 30 tokens a month. He/she cannot buy more than 120
:,,,kensa month.
(lne token is equal to one bus ticket: the student has to give a token to the
conductor of the bus, instead of buving a ticket from him.
Tokens should be used only for the purpose of travelling between one's home and
:he school or college where one is studving.
Tokens should be bought each month between the 1st and the 15th. They can be
used only between the 16th of that month and the 15th of the next month.
\o money will be refunded on unused tokens.
Onlv full-time students of i school, college, or university can buy and use bus
tokens.They have to produce a certificate from the head ofthe institution to shou'
that they are full-time students.
Tokens cannot be transferred from one person to another.
If a student misuseshis/her tokens, helshe will not be allowed to buy any more
tokens during that year.
:''--::sft After a glossing, at the students'request, of some words (for example
'misused')
and a preliminary discussion,involving questions,about the
..iunded',
:.::ure of some rules (for example on the point that tokens can be bought only in
:--ultiplesof thirty and that a direct bus from home to school involves the use of a single
: ,ken while a change of buses involves using one token on eachbus), the following
--aseis discussedas the pre-task:
Ramanis a student of the GovernmentArts College in Nandanam. He lives inT Nagar.
He has classesfrom Monday to Friday each week and eats his lunch at the college
canteen.There are direct buses fromT. Nagar to Nandanam.
I
2
J A bus ticket fromT. Nagar to Nandanam costs Rs 0.50. How much does Raman
saveby buving tokens?
{ How many tokens should he buv each month? Why? How many will he actually
u s e?
5 Raman's brother goes to a
tokens? Holv do vou knorv?
T62
PAUL I(NIGHT
Raman goesto seehis uncle in K. K. Nagar everv Sundav.Can he use his tokens to
go to K. K. \agar? Hou'do vou know?
Icsl Balan studies at the Higher Secondary School in Nungambakkam. His home is in
Advar. He has classesonlv in the afternoons, from Monday to Saturday.Thereare direct
buses from Nungambakkam to Adyar and a ticket costs one rupee.
1 Horv many tokens does Balan need each month?
2
Horv many tokens should he buv each month? How'much money does he save?
3 He bought 50 tokens in July. His school had some holidays in August, so he used
only 30 tokens up to 15 August.
a
b
Having used Long's and Crookes' analysisofTBL, we now come to the model that they
propose,knon'n astask-basedlanguageteaching (TBLT).They arguethat this model is soundly
i"
basedon SLA research,on classroom-centredresearchand on principles of syllabusand
course design (Long and Crookes 1992: 41). A distinctive feature of this model is that it
encouragesa'focus on form'.This is not a traditional structural syllabus approach, but an
can be accelerated if learners' attention is drawn to specilic
linguistic featuresof the target language(Long 1991). In developing the model ofTBLT
fuTTE-er,
Long has outlined those features which should characterisea'task' and attempted
to provide a solid theoretical framew'ork for an approachbasedon them (Long 1,996, et a\.) .
However, there are still questionsTBLT needs to address.Long and Crookes acknowledge this when they compare it to other TBL approaches(Long and Crookes 1992: 46) . lts
researchbaseis still small and no complete programmes have yet been undertaken to access
it. The question of sequencingtasks is still an issue, as is the question of producing a
taxonomy of tasks. Finally, the degree of reduced learner autonomy could invite criticism.
Long and Crookes' model has also never actually been realised in terms of materials
development or classroom practice, in contrast to Prabhu's model or Breen and Candlin's.
Overall,TBL looks like a verv exciting areaand one which is alreadystrongly influencing
thinking in the field of languageteaching methodologr.. It is not just limited to those models
described here; other models are being proposed and specific questions of task definition
and designare also being examined (Skehan1996,1998;Nunan 1989, etc.).
Text-based teaching
Another new post-CLT approachto languageteachinghas been text-basedteaching(also
known asgenre-based).
UnlikeTBL, rr-hich\\'e sa\\-isbasedo.riGod-JiTIEffiGllt.*tf
fr-
I
\
\-/
panguage occurs as whole texts u-hich are embedded in the social contexts in which
fh.y areused.
r..'in-*
--@llidav1973).
u.E-rrt@
The model of learning upon w'hich this method is basedis informed by researchin first
,*.:uageacquisition.LearningisseenaSaProcesso.
ilti-ceship'processas they
through an
ners are expectecl to
gree to w
_t:n m
has been debated by proponents
ow'leoqe a
,=:ffi
i, ,"".r
o g i e s a n d , in general, somE ieclarative knowl
: text-based met
"/
d to become, to some de
..irable, in other words, learners are e
with iearners
-lt
aa--,::-l-r
will bEnteresting to see this methodology develop further as more materials based
n it become avaiiableand it becomes taken up more wideh'.
Conclusion
:1orv does one conclude an outline of a process which has been underway for centuries This searchhas probably never been
: amely the search for better ways to teach languages?
rs intense as it is today, with universities, classroom teachers and publishers all active.The
:ealisationthat this is an'on-going'process is perhaps the first step.This might make us
,pproach more criticalll'the claims of researchersand pubiisherswho are trying to promote
:articular solutions. Instead, lvith a senseof historical perspective, we should assesseach
reu,' development ourselves.This assessmentshould draw on the disciplines which inform
-,ur field, .rot only r.co.rd lu.rg.t"
- u e l l . O u r t h r e e a u e s t i o n sl r o m t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n t h a t w e h a v e u s e f r t o e x a m i n e t h e
ffioil6Togies
presented here can provide a starting point. We should not ignore our own
c\perience either; classroom-centred research has been one of the most important steps
iorward in recent vears. In this way the field of languageteaching methodology will remain
-
AJat
i^ u,frpa
164
PAUL I(NIGHT
UNIT OFWORK
CASUATCONVERSATION
Goal
To enable learners to participate in a casualconversation in a workplace.
N
co
al
(l
'd
N!
t5',
Learner objectives
The learners w'ill:
- understand the purpose of casualconversation in Australian workplace culture
know which conversation topics are appropriate in Australian workplaces
- recognise and use the key features of a casual conversation, i.e. greetings and
closures, feedback, clarification, managing topic shifts
- recognise and use conversation chunks such as comments, descriptions or recounts
- take turns appropriately rvithin simple exchangesie question/answer, statement,
agreement, statement/ disagreement
- use languageappropriate to casualconversation including politeness strategies,
informal language,idiom
- build pronunciation and paralinguistic skills and strategies, specifically in the areas
of intonation and gesture
Teacher objectives
'
assessment
The unit will enable students to achievethe following curriculum outcome, eg CSWE
III Competencv 7.
References
Anthony,E.M. (1953)'Approach,method and technique'. EngltshLanguageTbaching:63-'1
.
'The
Asher, J. (1965)
strategy of the total physical response: an application to learning
Russian'. International
Review
ofAppliedLinguisilcs
3: 291-300.
(1955)'The learningstrategyof the total physicalresponse:a review' . ModernLanguaai
J o u r n a 5l 0 : 7 9 - 8 4 .
(1969) 'The total phvsical response approach to second language learning'. Moder:
Language
Journal53: 3-17 .
(1977\ LearningAnorherLanguageThrough
Actions:The
CompleteTeacher's
Guide Book.Lt.,
Gatos,Calif.: Sky Oaks ProductionsInc.
Beretta,A. and Davies,A. (1985)'Evaluationof the BangaloreProject'. ELTJournal39/2.
Bloomfield,L. (191+) An Introduction
rc the StudyoJLangucrge.
NewYork: Holt.
/ 1 9 l l r 'I"n" tn1 "n" 4t 1t n
p en \brk: Holt.
' ' nN
166
PAUL I(NIGHT
Ir
c(
1(t
Nu'
.(t
@ t a r t e r )l y6 : I : 2 7 - ; ;
NewYork: Gordon and Breach'
and Outlinesof Suggestopedy.
Lorun*:., G. (i978) Suggestology
Learning.London: Edward Arnold.
oJSecond-Language
Mclaughlin, B. ( i 987i Ih eories
Rowley, Mass': Newbury
C1ass.
Language
Foreign
in
the
Sharing
and
Caring
Moskoi-itz, G. (1978)
House.
'Psychologyand the Language
87 .
andSociety
Arts'. scfioo1
Mueiler,T. (1959)
SyllabusDesign.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Munby, l. ( 1978) Communicative
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press'
Currjculurn.
Nunan, D. (1988) TheLearner-Centred
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Classroom.
Communicative
the
DestgningTasksJor
(1989)
Press.
'lntensiveTraining for an Orai Approach in
O'Connor, j.C. and Twaddell, W.F. (1950)
LanguageTeaching'.TheModernLanguage
Journal VolXLIV 2:2.
Cambridge:Heffer.
Languages.
inTbaching
Palmer,H.E. (1921) TheOralfulethod
palmer, H.E. and Palmer, D. (1925) EngltshThrough
Toyko: IRET. Repubiishedby
Actions.
Longmans,Green, 1959.
Pedagogy.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Language
Prabhu, N.S. (1 9877Second
Cambridge:
in LanguageTbachtng.
andMethods
Richards,J.C. and Rogers,T.S.(1986) Approaches
CambridgcUniversit;'Press.
'Review
of "suggestologyand Outlines of Suggestopedy"'. TESOLQgarterly
Scovel,T. (1979)
13 . 2 5 5 - 2 6 6 .
Skehan, P. (1996) A framework for the implementation of task-basedinstruction. Applied
Lingdstics17 1 : 38-52.
Learning.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Approachto Language
( 1998) A Cognitive
Skinner,B.F. ( 1957) VerbalBehavior.N eu'York: Appleton- Century- Crofts.
Oxford: Oxford University
Teaching.
of Language
Concepts
Stern, H.H. (1983) Fundamental
Press.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
in LanguageTeaching.
andOptions
Stern,H.H. (1992) Issues
8: 95-109.
White, L. (1987)'AgainstComprehensibleInput' . AppltedLinguistics
Oxford: Oxford University
as Communication.
Language
Widdowson, H.G. (1978) Teaching
Press.
l6?
Chapter 9
Jack G. Richards
I N T E A C H I N G I S T H E A C T I V I T I E S , t a s k s ,a n d
ETHooo-a6cv
learnffexperiences-used by the teacherr,r'ithinthe teachingand learning process.
ions about (a)
is seen to have
r".--l-"d h"guage learning, (b) ,"u.h"t
lnstructlonal
materlals.
""d
l""t".t
tne DaSIS
tmakingthatunderliesthemoment-to-moment
processesof teaching.Methodologl is not thereforesomethinghxed, a set of rigid principles
nform to.
and procedures that tffi
ffiteac
"
158
JACK C. RICHARDS
be delayed
a basisfor establishingbasic languagePatterns. Others recommend that speaking
use of
make
Some
until the learner hasluitt up a receptive comPetence in the language.
with
memorized dialogues and texts; others require that learners attemPt to communicate
methods
all
to
Common
resources.
language
or,vn
their
each other u, ,oo.t aspossible using
is a set of prescriptio.t, o., u'hat teachers and learners should do in the langlag-eclassroom'
prescriptions for the teacher include rn"'hat
material should be presented and when it should
include what approach they should take
for
learners
be taugit and how.,and prescriptions
towarJlearning. Specificrol", io, teachers, learners, and instructional materials are hence
established(Ri;ha;ds and Rodgers 1985).The teacher'sjob is to match his or her teaching
style as *.li u, the learners' learning stvles to the method. Special training packagesand
progru*, are availablefor some methods to ensure that teachers do what they are supposed
(.
process
in- which the teacher's "method" results from the
-- a
- dynamic,
but
- - - is
| ' interactional
) '.
the learners, and the instrucfintal tasks and
teacher,
the
between
,.t"r".tton
;t""#;f
i*"-ffut et al' 1982)'AttemPts
\.
In a comprehensive
survevof the researchon effectiveschooling,Blum (198+: 3-6)
summarizes effective classroom practices as follows:
1
Instruction is guided by a preplanned curriculum.
2
There are high expectations for student learning.
3
Students are carefullv oriented to lessons.
4
Instruction is clear and focused.
5
Learning progress is monitored ciosel,v.
5
When students don't understand, thev are retaught.
7
Classtime is used for learning.
There are smooth and efficient ciassroom routines.
8
9
Instructional groups formed in the classroom fit instructional needs.
10
Standardsfor classroom behavior are high.
1 1 Personal interactions between teachers and students are positive.
12
Incentives and rewards for students are used to Dromote excellence.
Severaldimensions of teaching havebeen found to account for differencesbetween effective
and ineffective instruction (Dovle 1977; Good 1979).Theseinclude classroommanagement,
structuring, tasks,and grouping.
:*
Classroom manaBement
Structuring
A lesson reflects the concept of structurinq when the teacher's intentions are clear and
instructional activities are sequenced according to a logic that students can perceive.
Classroom observations and studies of lessonprotocols indicate that sometimes neither the
teacher nor the learners understood what the intentions of an activity were, why an activity
occurred when it did, what directions they w'ere supposed to follow, or what the relationship
between one activity and another was. Hence, it may not have been clear what students
needed to focus on to complete a task successful\. Fisher et a1.( 1980; conclude t]lat students
"pay attention more whenth teacher .p..rd, ti*.
$"
4)
etimes not done at all,
t
sometimes it is done only minimally, and sometimes it is overdone" (p. 63).
Iasfrs
Iasfu, or activity structures, refer to activities that teachers assignto attain particular learning
objectives. For any given subject at any given level, a teacher uses a limited repertoire of
tasks that essentially define that teacher's methodology of teaching.These might include
completing worksheets, reading aloud, dictation, quickwriting, and practicing dialogues.
According toTikunoff (1985), classtasks vary according to three types of demands thev
modedemands(the kind of skills they demand, such asknowledge,
make on learners: rcsponse
comprehension, application, analysis/synthesis,evaluation); interactionalmodedemands(the
rules governing how classroom tasks are accomplished, such as individually, in a grouP, or
with the help of the teacher); and rasl complexitydemands(how difficult the learner perceives
the task to be).
Teachershave to make decisionsnot only about the appropriate kinds of tasks to assign
to learners, but also about the order oJ rasis (the sequence in which tasks should be
(how much time learners should spend on tasks);products(whether the
introduced;' t; t pacing
.
u
product or .Eilt oh-iTalET expected to be the same for all students); Iearning strategies
(what
iwhat learning strategies wili be recommended for particular tasks); and materials
1985).
(Tikunoff
completing
a
task)
use
in
sources and materials to
The concept of tasks has been central to studies of effective teaching.The amount of
time students spend actively engagedon learning tasksis directly related to learning (Good
and Beckerman 1978). For example, Gacher A and Gacher B are both teaching the same
reading lesson. In TeacherA's class,learners are actively engagedin reading tasks for 759 i
of the lesson, the remaining time being occupied with noninstructional activities such a.
A related dimension of effective teaching is the groupingof learners to carrv out instructional
tasks,and the relation between grouping arrangement and achievement.An effective teacher
understandshow' different kinds of grouping (such as seat work, pair u'ork, discussion,
reading circle, or lecture) can impede or promote learning.Webb (1980) found that the
middle-ability child suffers a loss of achievement, while the low-ability child shows some
gains in achievement in mixed-abilitv groups, compared with what would be expected
if both were in uniform-abilitv groups. Tikunoff ( 1985) cites Good and Marshall's findings
on groupings.
Good and Marshall (1984) found that students in low-ability reading groups in the
early grades received very little challenge,thus perceiving of themselves as unable to
read. In addition, a long-range result of interacting most frequently with onh'other
students of low-ability in such groups was an inability to respond to the demands of
more complex instructional activities. Ironically, Good pointed out that the venstrategy,rr.d,o presumably help low'-abilitv youngstem onlth their reading p.obl"-,
- pull-out programs in which teachers worked with small groups of these students
outside the regular classroom- exacerbatedthe problem. Demands in the special
reading groups were verv different from those in the regular classroom and at a much
lower level of complexity, so low-abilit,v students were not learning to respond to
high level demands that would help them participate competently in their regular
c l a s s r o o m st.p . 5 6 r
The research findlngs suggest therefore that effective teaching depends on such factors
as time-on-task, feedback, grouping and task decisions, classroom management, and
structuring. Although the concept of effective teaching evolved from studies of content
's
teaching,Tikunoff ( 1983) major stud,vof effective teaching in bilingual education programs
has examined the extent to which it also applies to other contexts, such as bilingual and
ESL classrooms.
ffictive teachingin bilingualclassrooms
etence are needed for the student
abilitv "to res
appropriately to classdemands and the
Mabilitt
-
6}-accomplishing
them" (p. 4);
to classroomrules o[discourseand social
T/\AA
urately
G;>\
ftiiptive',u{,,f 'ku'$)
n-his Significant Bilingual InstFuE
education progTams
in
bilingual
teachers
how
effective
out
(1983) collected data to lind
organize instruction, structure teaching activities, and enhance student performance on
taJks.Teacherswere interviewed to determine their instructional philosophies, goals, and
the demandsthey rvould structure into classtasks.Teacherswere clearly able to specify class
task demands and intended outcomes and to indicate what LEP students had to do to be
functionallv proficient. Case studies of teachers were undertaken in w-hich teachers were
observed during instruction, rvith three observers collecting data for the teacher and for
four target LEP students.Teacherswere interview'ed again after instruction.
An analysisof data acrossthe casestudiesrevealeda clear linkage between ( I ) teachers'
ability to clearly specifv the intent of instruction, and a belief that students could
achieveaccuracyin instructional tasks,(2) the organization and delivery ofinstruction
such that tasks and institutional demands reflected this intent, requiring intended
student responses, and (3) the fidelity of student consequenceswith intended
ibe clearlv what instruction
outcomes. In other words, teachers q--ab19
ts
would entail, to operatlonalizE
i n t e r m s o f s t u d e n tp e r f o r m a n c e .( p . 9 ;
--------+
predicteJlevelsof achi"r:-@assessed
asperfor{ningat high
ifrom which
f oIETIEctiiEn6s s accordin g to other criteri a,
classescan
ki
aking,
and
other
ctive teachers rn llstenrng, readtng, wrlt
place in the classroom. However, what the teacher does is only half of the picture. The other ' ( c r r
haif concerns what learners do to achievesuccessfullearning, or \earnerstrategies.P,lcfiied
bvtheawarenessthatlearnersmaysucceeddespitetheteac}ffitechniques
.-rather than becauseof them, researchersasw-ellasteachershavebegun to look more closely
at learners themselvesin an attempt to discoverhor'vsuccessfullearners achievetheir results
r O ' M a l l e -ev t a l . 1 9 8 5 ab, ; W i l l i n g l 9 8 5 r .
Studies of learner strategies attempt to identify the specific techniques and strategies
learners use to facilitate their ou'n learning (Oxford 1985b). The locus is on the particular
cognitive operations, processes,procedures, and heuristics that learners apply to the task
of learning a second language. Given any language learning task, such as understanding a
lecture, reading a text, writing a composition, understanding the meaning of a new
grammatical or lexical item, or preparing a r,r'ritten summary of a text, a number of
strategiesare availableto a learner to help carry out the task. But what is the practical value
of knowing which particular strategies a learner employed?
Just as research on effective teaching has identified the kinds ofteaching behaviors that
appear to account for superior teaching, so research on effective learning seeksto identifv
the kinds oflearning behaviorsthat can best facilitate learning. Good languagelearners seem
TAJ'+.
tobesuccessfulbecausetheyhaveabetterunderstandingffi.n
f
rformance
ners on many classroom learnlng tas
be possrble
shouldtherefore
theretore be
to improve
improre-studenipeiT6?fri
student pertormantE5n
(ft63ntelcfT9-/9). ltt should
possibleto
learning
and by directing learners
learning tasks by identifying successfulapproaches to
toward these kinds ofstrategies. Researchon learner strategiesin secondlanguagelearning
hence seeks to identify the strategies emploved by successfullearners and then to teach
those strategies to other learners in order to improve their language learning capacities
(Hosenfeld 1977; Cohen and Aphek 1980; Chamot and O'Malley 1984). The premises
underlying Cohen and Aphek's work, for example, are:
touncl to account lor t
classes.
174
JACK C. RICITARDS
More recent s'ork on learner strategieshas attempted to yield more usableresults b'
making use of data obtarned hom a brouder.ung. of .o,rr."r, ..l.h asclassroom observarior:"think--aloud"procedures rin s'hich learners record their thoughts and observations as ther
perform different tasks). intervieu-s, self-reports emploviig note-taking and diaries.
questionnaires,as u'ell as conrrolled experimental studiesdesignedto investigatespecihcognitive processes(e.g., Heuring 1984).Thesekinds of approaches are yielding information
of greaterpractical value. For example, Cohen (cited in Oxford 1985a) Iists six strategi.:
used by successfullanguagelearners:
1
and ask:-;
ParaPhrasing,
Ioffi-=tn.
' l
---1--i-----:--'11
-g
r-.
g r o u p $ - i t h s i m i l a r $ o r d s , \ ' i s u a l i z i n gl l s o n t e x t u a l l z l n g
sensationto it
strategies,such as clarifying the communicative Puri -ie
Gaing-oltext-processing
of the text, distinguishing imPortqllfgrnls_frgrn lrr,/9, skipping around to E: arL
srt_
nd kno*Ie:.--'
ou"r3]lgglruig1se1;
text
Writing techniques such as focusing on simplY getting ideas doln'n on paper in=r.aC
of trying for perfectiol]ight away; purposefully using parallel structures and c'i=.
@and
Willing (1,987: 278 9) notes that strategiesare essentially"methods employed by the per.s:m
for processinginput languageinformation in such a way asto gain control of it, thus enab'--'E
the assimilatio.r-of thai information bv the self." Strategies are hence viewed as s'a'*': :f
managing the complex information that the learner is receiving about the target lanqua.-:
W.rd".t (1983) intervieu'ed adult language learners about how they organized d.=o'
languagelearning experiencesand found that they askedthemselveseight kinds of quesri'"--*.
@rcstion
Decision
5 How'shouldI change?
How am I doing?
O'Malley et al.have investigated the use of strategiesbv ESL learners both in and out of
classrooms(O'Mallel' et al. 1985a,b; O'Mallev and Chamot 1989). ESL studentsand their
teachers were interviewed about the strategieslearners used on specific languagelearning
tasks,and the learners were observed in ESL classrooms.Thev were also asked about their
use of English in communicative situations outside the classroom.A total of twenty-six
different kinds of learning strategieswere identified.
In a follow-up-str*ffd
particular strategiesin order to detrmine if it would improve their effectivenessaslanguage
learners and their performance on vocabularl',listening, and speakingtasks.Strategieslvere
compared across proficiencv levels and r'vith learners of different language backgrounds.
Students\r'ere given training in the use ofspecific strategiesfor particular languagelearninq
tasks.Resultssupported the notion that learners can be taught to use more effective iearninq
strategies(O'Mallev et a|. 7985a,b1:
Strategiestraining was successfullvdemonstrated in a natural teaching environment
with second languagelistening and speaking tasks.This indicates that classrooms
instruction o" l"ul"iie t,.","gi; *i
@tPhillips (1975) investigated how- learners approach reading tasks and identified strategies
employed by good and poor readers. She emploved a "think-aloud" procedure to investigate
unknon'n vocabulary. From her students' descriptions
readers' strategies in dealing
"vith
Phillips found that strategies used bv efficient readers included categorizing words
gram-;"4t!e!y, interpretini grammatiial operations, and recogniri.rftofi.t-6iE-6-ot
u.r@u
ilar..H.*rf.
f"*_-tg. language readers when encountering unfamiliar words. In one study (Hosenfeld
1977), some of the differences bet'r,'l'eenthose with high and lou,' scores on a reading
oroficiencvtest were these:Hish scorerstended to keep the meanins of the passasein minfr-\
..dl}ro
lpfr*:.r,
*-ords,.
skipu-nesssntial
I **
fromcontext;lowscorerstendedtoIosethemianingof@d.d|
ord by word or in short phrases,,u..ly".kipwords, and turn to the glossary
th"
I
readerstendedto identify theJ
when they encounteredneu'words. In addition successful
grammatical categories of words, could detect-word-order
:
ot
T
v
L76
JACK C. RICHARDS
1
2
Summary
Two approachesto language teaching have been discussedand contrasted. One conceptualizesteaching as application of a teaching method, in which both the teacher and the
attempt is then made to make the teacher's and learner's classroom beha,rioiiEE&
the s'a
specificationsof the method.This can b".ont.urt.d *ith ur
ch that starts with the
"pp
| )) /
ise.,rable processesof classroom
f
rces ln ranguage
ied.@o
PrrnclPres
The study of effective teaching provides information about how effective teachers
organize and delir.er instruction. This relates to classroom management skills, and to
the strategiesteachers r.",o p..t.^, i^r,.r",i
u.rd
activities, monitor learning, and provide feedback on it.
The
on about the learning strategies
effective learners applv to the process of using and learning G"dliJfoilg"
language.
However, a word of caution is in order, since the goal of this approach is not simply to arrive
at a set of general principles that can be taught to teachersand learners.Lhis of course would
be to come full circle. and
"method" lr-ith another.The aooroach
1aovoca
starts with the assumption that the investigation of effective teaching and
learning-strategiesis a central and ongoing component
of the process
of teaching.Thisis the
^,
I
.".\
r,
"dby@
:@
rirr""gh."g"1"..br.
teachers can obtain valuable feedback about the effectivenessof their own teaching.At thA--/
teaching and learning in their ou'n classrooms. In the domain of learning strategies, the
teacher alsohas an important role to plav.The teacher is initiallv an observer and investigator
of the learners' learning behaviors and subsequentlvprovides feedback on the kind of
strategiesthat are most successfulfor carrving out specificlearning tasks.Relevant concerns
for the teacher thus focus not on the search for the best method, but rather on the
circumstances and conditions under r,vhich more effective teaching and learning are
accomplished.
References
Berliner,D.C. (1984)'The half-full glass:a review of researchon teaching',in P.L. Hosford
(ed.) UsingWhatlVeKnow aboutTeaching,
pp. 51 77. Alexandria,Va.: Associationfor
Supervisionand Curriculum Development.
Blum, R.E. (1984) EffectiveSchoolingPractices:A
Research
Synthesis.
Portland, Ore.: Northwest
Regional EducationalLaboratorv.
Chall,J. (Xl;
Learningto Read:The
GreatDebate.
NervYork:McGraw-Hill.
Chamot,A.U., and O'Malley, J.M. (1986) A Cognitive
Academic
Language
Learning
Approach:
An
ESLContent-Based
Curriculum.Rosslln,Va.:National Clearinghousefor BilingualEducation.
178
JACI( C. RICHARDS
vocabularyover time:
Cohen, A.D., and Aphek, E. (1980)'Retention of second-language
8: 221 35.
investigatingthe role of mnemonicassociations'
. SSrstem
Doyle, W. (1977)'Paradigmsfor researchon teacher effectiveness',in L.S. Shulman(ed.)
Erd u c a t i o n , Y o5i,.p p . 1 5 3 - 9 8 . l t a s c aI,l l . : P e a c o c k .
o J R e s e a ri cnhT e a c h e
Review
New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Dunkin, M., and Biddle, B (197+) The StudyoJTeaching.
Winston.
'lmplications
of classroomresearchfor professional
development',in E. Hoyle
Elliot, J. ( 1980r
oJEducation,1980, pp. 308-2+. London: Kogan Page.
and J. .\le_garrrr edsI llbrld Yearbook
Evertson.C.]1...\nderson,L.M. and Brophy,J.E. (1978) TheTexas
junior highschool
study:report
relailonships.
University ofGxas, Researchand Development Center for
."..'--.-,,,-;r-'iu:t
T-a;ltr Education,.\ustin.
F : . i - . : . C \ \ . . B e r l i n e r ,D . C . , F i l b l ' ,N . N . , M a r l i a v e ,R . S . , C a h e n ,L . S . a n d D i s h a w ,M . M .
''.r'r , 'Teaching
behaviors,academiclearning time and academicachievement:an
'.
-.rc:r ies in C. Denham and A. Lieberman(eds) ftme to Learn,pp. 7-32. Washington,
D C. : U. S. Department of Education,NationalInstituteof Education.
'Self-directed
i::...r. H., and Skibicki, A. (1987)
learning strategiesfor adult Vietnamese
ESL'.
learnersof
Prospect
3, 1: 33 44.
Good, T.L. (1979)'Teacher effectivenessin the elementarv school'. JournalofTeacher
Education
30,2:52 64.
Good,T.L., and Beckerman,T.M. (1978)'Time on task: a naturalisticstudy in sixth grade
classrooms'. Elementarv
School
Journal 78: 193-201 .
'Do
Good, T.L., and Marshall, S. (198+)
students Iearn more in heterogeneousor
homogeneousgroups?', in P. Peterson, L.C. Wilkinson and M. Hallinan (eds) Iie
SocialContextoJInstruction:GroupOrganizationand GroupProcesses.
NewYork: Academic
Press.
Heuring, D.L. (1984)'The revision strategiesof skilled and unskilledESL rvriters: five case
studies.Master'sthesis.University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Hosenfeld, C. (1977)'A preliminarv investigationof the reading strategiesof successfuland
non-successfulsecondlanguagelearners'. System
5: 110-23.
-11979)'Alearning-teachingvie'n'ofsecondianguageinstruction'.ForeignLanguageAnnals
12,1:51-4.
'Case
(198+)
studiesof ninth gradereaders',in J.C. AldersonandA.H. Urquhart (eds),
Readingin a ForeignLanguage,
pp. 23149. London: Longman.
Kelly, L. (1969) Twenry-fveCenturies
oJLanguageTbachtng.
Rowley, Mass.:Newbury House.
Lapp, R. (1984)'The processapproachto writing: towards a curriculum for international
students'. Master's thesis.Working Paper availablefrom Department of English as a
SecondLanguage,University of Hawaii.
Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H.H. andTodesco,A (1978) The GoodLanguage
Learner.
Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studiesin Education.
O'Mallev, J., and Chamot,A.U. (1989) LearnerStrategies
in Second
Language,4cguisition.
New
York: Cambridge University Press.
O'Malley, J., Chamot, A.U., Stewner-Manzanares,
G., Russo,R.P. and Kupper, L. (1985a)
'Learning
strategy appiicationswith students of English as a second language'. TESOL
Quarter1
l y9 , 3 : 5 5 7 8 4 .
O'Mallev. J., Chamot,A.U., Stew'ner-Manzanares,
G., Kupper, L. and Russo,R.P. (1985b)
'Learning
strategiesused by beginning and intermediate ESL learners'. Language
Learning35, l .
Oxford, R. (1985a) ,4 Ner.vTaxonomv
oJ SecondLanguage
LearningStrategies.
Washington, D.C.:
Center for Appiied Linguistics.
(1985b)'Secondlanguagelearning strategies:rvhat the researchhas to say'. ERIC/CLL
\ews Bulletin9, | .
-
Sw-affar,
J.K., Arens, K. and Morgan, M. (1982)'Teacher classroompractices:redefining
method as task hierarchl.'. ModernLanguage
Journal66, 1: 24-33.
Tikunoff, WJ. (1983)'Utilitv of the SBIF featuresfor the instruction of limited English
. e p o r t N * o .S B I F - S 1 - R . 1 5l 6
p r o f i c i e n ts t u d e n t s 'R
/ f o r N I E C o n r r a c tX o . + 0 0 - 8 0 - 0 6 2 e
.
SanFrancisco:FarWest Laboratorv for EducationalResearchand Development.
(1985) ApplyingSigntjcant Bil.ingualInstructionalFeatures
in the Classroom.
Rosslyn,Va.National Clearinghousefor Bifingual Education.
Tikunoff, WJ., Ward, B.A., Fisher,C.A., Armendariz, J.C., Parker,L. Dominguez,VJ.A.,
Mercado, c., Romero, M. and Good, R.A. (1980)'Review of the literature for a
descriptive studv of significant bilinguai instructional features'. Report No. SBIF,81D. 1.1. SanFrancisco:FarWest Laboratory for EducationalResearchand Development
Webb, N.M. (1980)'A process-outcomeof learning in group and individual settings'.
EducationalPsychologist
I 5: 69-8 3 .
Wenden,A (19S3)'Aliteraturereview:theprocessofintervention'.LanguageLearning33,l:
103-21.
(1985)'Learner strategies'.TESOLNewslecrer
(October).
Willing, K. (1985) HelptngAdults DevelopTheir Learning Strategies.
Sydney: Adult Migrant
Education Service.
(1987) 'Learner strategiesas information management' . Prospect
2 , 3 : 2i 3_92.
Chapter 10
MichaelH. Long
FOCUS ON FORM: A DESIGN FEATURE IN
LANGUAGE TEACHING METHODOLOGY
ainst methodsANGUAGE
TEACHER
EDUCATIc|N
PRr|(rR{}iTS
PERSIST
iN
endins thal any one mettod is a panaceaor at lgast lbqt they know *hich one is, most
nevertheless continue to use
lt
credit for training in particular methods ta
cojpqs,-4ld-some elen giue college cred
methods
Books on methods sell very well' books surveying
d-",relope.,o. lr!""*d
"$tes.
a@veone-day..seminars''offeringtraininginparticuIarmet]rods
teachingmethods
to saythSt.lanquage
it is no exaggeration
arerarelyshort of customers.Yet
do not exist - at least, not where theJ.yegld rnggg! if they did, in the classroom.
as idealized
rrescribingand proscribing
manv of the same clasiroo
fls. For example,while oie method may haveteachers
error.
pt.*ltb="-::19
bglrl_prescrlDe
verbally,U.ttt
and one
one verbally,
hand-signals, and
using hand-signals,
;" error using
iidFT-eedback on
"r-;
correctlor,
J
1KEf,E-itt?'-S6@
r).
Second, u.hen third parties analyze l.pryPg
ffidonot"
ds te*quirethis, after all), whatever they are
The
absenceof a systematic observational
over
time.
supposed to be doing, especiallv
component in most of the comparative methods studies makes either interpretation
1e86).
,Dut lt.t:".*,
ls tot
-.thod -"),
a cor:eptuul
?.
1rr.
*"rr r3"_
g,
. Numerous studiesof the
t r a n s P l r e sI n t h e c l a s s r o o ml n t e r m s o f i n s t r u c t i o n a la c t i v i t i e s ,o r t a s k s( f o r r e v i e w . s e e
Shavelsonand Stern 198 1; Crookes 1985). The same appearsto be true of FL teachers.
Swaffer,Arens and Morgan (1982) conducted a six-month comparative methods studv
("comprehension" and "four skills" approaches)of German t"u.hi.rg at the Universitv
ofTexas. Classroom observations and debriefing interviews with teachlrs at the end of the
study showed that, desE
chers havins receiv
(r"pport4lDlEli"e .".h
r for a semester,there was no clear distinction
"r"d
between them in their mi
For these and other reasons, it is clear that "method" is an unverlfiiUte ana irrelevant
constructwhenattemPtingtoimpror.eclassroo
d.
aying that -ethods do
not exist and so do not matter at the classroom level does not mean, after;ll, that what goes
o n i n c l a s s r o o m sd o e s n o t m a t t e f . O n t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e r e i s g r o w i n g e v i d e n c eo f t h .
importance of classroom processes. of pedagogic t";k.ffi
i'
successand failure in FLs (foffi
RSTherthan focus on metlod i
v. however, we would do better to think in terms ol
p./il"lttg"trtt.l
prelerabh.learures
which caPtureimportant characteristics
of a wide range oT-syllabus
types, methods,
materials,tasks,and tests.It is to one of thesffZus-onlofrf,that we now turn.
-ujo.ity
",likeALM,
---:\\
t.#i";;;;;"l.o"'''@hfindings(seee.g.!ula1^and|'urt
1987;Wode1981)'Most
1973;Ellis"ll5+;f"il* tlSt;'f.ash..t u.tdT"rr.ll1983;Prabhu
in interlanguage-llL)'
sequ:nces
often cited in this context are the u'ell attestedde,'e1o?menral
clausesand German word order' I nese
such as those for Swedishnegation, English relative
"of
relative
oo'erlafping stages_,each characterizable by the
,.q,r"rr.., are fixed ,e.i".
mastery
to
way
the
on
traverse
have to
fr"qrr.rr.n of IL structures, rt hich le"rrr.t, apparently
study of this phenomenon, see
rnori
the
(For
of tire target languagesystem.
"o*p.ehensive
J o h n s t o n1 9 8 5 . )
has a four-stage sequence (for
Numerous studies show, for instance, that ESL negation
review, see Schumann 19797
f-ft"n,
..--
-'
uttercnces
Sample
I ' i,*"
\
No is happy/NoYouPaYit
job
have
don't
They not working/He
I
do that
musln't do
I can't
can't play/You
play/ You musgn't
I
there
there
li'oe
io""'t live
doesn't
her/She
her/She
see
didn't see
Irdidn'i
//
2 no/not/don't
\ i lllnffi,,',
I%'--
\
\
\
1977).
that the sarylgvelopmeggrl
Wn6 minor variations, the evidence to date suggests
instructed and
\, ,""".":;:-";.
obr.ru"a in the ILs of children u'd uJilt., of naturalistic,
on
\ffi;ers,
of learners from different L1 backgrounds, and of learners performing
sub-stagesand swifter or
different tasks. L1 differences occasionally r.rrrltl.t additional
by skipping stages
sequence
basic
the
slower passagethrough stages,but not in disruption of
Zobl1982).
in
(for review, see Ellis"lg85lLarsen-Freemanand Long, press;
and obligatorinesshas
unavoidable,
be
to
aPPears
Passagethrough.u.h rtug", in order,
and Pienemann
Clahsen
(Meisel,
the d"fi.tition of "siage" in SLA
been incorpor","iinto
it
is accurate, also seemsthat
1981 ; Johnston 1985). As would be predictedlf this definition
bl-Eilotttttu6d
cleveloomentalsequencesare impervious to instruction ' lt hasrepeatedly
ences do not reflect instructional
;;
a German sL word order structure
,"q,r..r.., (Lightborvn 1983;Ellis 1989), "nd t,,,ition in
shown not to result in learning
b.yond studJnts' current processing abilities has been
(Pienemann 1984).
related findings of common
The results for developmental sequences,together with
orf:t:l:lrt:,Pi
(althoughnot invariant) naturalistic ani it'str"cted morphem"eacculacl
t
forcqs
learningis obviouslyat leastPartlv qorerngd.b)'
iungrrqg".
text
ter s co
Frealization
i"G"
o r m s ( s o u n d c o n t r a s t s ,l e x i c a l i t e m s ,
with no overt tocus on
u,-,d
,r,rJt1Tffi
t*o-*u' turk,do'ffi
*lll dlruri@ffiil!ilodfryllabi,
designfeatures
potentially."l"uuntI
tasksandtestsfromothers,fe*hryq\
the valency of focus on form. It apfears to be a parameter one value or another of which
characterizesalmost all languageteaching options.
Five caveatsare in order. First, it is not being suggestedthat whether or not a program
type, syllabus,method, task or test focuseson form is the only relevant design characteristic
or that important differences will not eist among members of groups which sharethe feature,
and viceversa.Second,while most programs, svllabi, methods, tasksand tests either do or do
not overtly focus on form, some withi
y
isolate linguistic structures, not to mention as to how they do so; there are, in other words,
t._----<.ffi
relativeaswell
ule, w.tuurr-groupas welr asrnrer-group, orrrerences.
ifferences.Thi.d,i!,
r ruro, ]!]r-l]Sgly_
hkgly
", "Urot
that students will often focus on form when teachersor materials designersintendthem not
to, and i
form when thev are s
to concentrate on it. Fourth, some degree
awarenessof form and a focus oi-frEaning may not be mutually exclusive on some tasks (for
review, see Schmidt 1990). Fifth, the fact that the distinction can be made doesnot mean that
it should; whether it is important is a theoretical and/or an empirical matter.
Focus on form: a
choli
istic
Th"P.".@!,teachingandtestiy'gthem\neatatime,was
o.igi'ull
ol"qy 6r;astructLahst linguistics.
combined with the advent of a world *u. ull']ffi-#d
f.@
speakers,these events led to the growth of ALM and its many progeny. As distinct from a
focus onyform, to which we return below, structural syllabi, ALM, and variants thereof
involve a focus
is to saX the content of the syllabus and of lessonsbased on it
{Ior;}That
is the linguistic iTE--rru
themselves (structures, gotions. l"*r*Lrt.-j,
etc.); a lesson is
oesrgneoro reacn rne Dasrconrlnuous requesting"and so on. notlinq else.
-Arguments abound against making isolated linguistic structures the content of a FL
course, that is, against a focus onJorms. Of the hundreds of studies of interlanguage (lL)
184
MICHAEL H. LONG
development now completed, not one shows either tutored or naturalistic learners
developingproficiency one linguistic item at a time. On the contrary,3!]:sygll camPlex.
,@
grudrui
l"a
pathsfor grammaticalsubsystehs,suchasauxiliarl
developmental
cst-
"rrilnt..-t"lated
d*rcR.";;aEenemann
/*,,;
/1
1981). Moreover'de
of suppliance.
-----does
accuracy
-as
J
L L
lggrnel-g.do not mov+o-1n
the
opposite,
assume
methods
and
most syllabi
, learners
Jqyyu+..r'v."
-Altho"gh
rrrvrr/
ffil;
'vrr^ru
r-*-^E-'<,
'":l'i:fJ:H:
Tqyt
/'
Fl[i--*itt
"ug"'
when that is achieved. and ubilitv to use that knowledge to communicative effect.
dvocatethat
t
teachers abandonnot just t'focus onJorms,but a focus onJorm,i.e. any attention to language
asobject,asweIl.Flawsinthi.."uso.'i,,gareobviou,.F,,.th",,reuieffics
61'lnsd;AionSn IL development (Harley 1988; Long 1988) find clear evidence of some
beneficial effects of a focus onJorm, and suggestiveevidence of otiers. Briefly, while it is true
t, it does aPPear
that instruction does not seem cap4l" .f .tt".i"g ttqrrl.t
with no
instruction
c SLA or classroom
to off..
focus on form. (1) It speedsup the rateof learning (for review, see Long 1983). (2) It affect:
in ways possiblvbeneficial to long-term accuracy (Lightbown 198 3; Pica
acquisition processes
1983). And most crucially, on the basisof preliminary data, (3) it appearsto raise the ultimare
Ievelof attainmenr.Further, asWhite (1987, 1989) has argued, incomprehensible input and
dr"oui.rglearners' attention to inadmissableconstructions in the L2 (two kinds of negative
evidence) may be necessar)'when learning from positive evidence alone will be inadequate.
To illustrate, an L1 may allow'piacement of adverbsof manner more flexibly than an L2. "He
drinks every day coffee" and "He drinks coffee every day" are both acceptablein French, for
example, but not in English. Both w'ill be communicatively effective in English, however.
with the result that the French learner of English (but not the English learner of French) r'rill
need negative input (e.g. error correction) on this point.
Whe.eas the content of lessonswith a focus onlformsis therlormsthemselves, a syllabu-'
lse - biology, mathematics, workshop practice.
with a fo.r. oqfo., t.u.h.r ..'-"th
repair, the geography of a country where the foreign language is spoken, tht
ulTtoilG lelelelelelelelelelelelelele"
cultures of its speakers, and so on - and overtly draws students' attention to linguistic
elements as they arise incidentally in lessonswhose overriding focus is on meaning, oi
communication.Vien's about hor,l'to achievethis vary. Une proposal ls lor lessonsto Dc
_-ffi;fltGEffipted"
bv tgachers rvhen they notice students_makingerrors_which are (1
svstematic,(2) pervasiveand (3) remediable.TEE]inguisticfeature is brought to learner'
attentioninany@students.age,proficienc1'|ereI,etc.betorethecla:.
returns to whatever pedagogic task thev were rvorking on when the interruption occurrec
(For detailsand a rationale, see Crookes and Long 1987; Long, in press).
least marked
1. subject (The man that stole the car . . .)
2. direct object (The man that the police arrested . . .)
3. indirect object (The car that he paid nothing for . . .)
4. object of a preposition (The man that he spoke to . . .)
5. possessive/genitive(The man w'hose. . .)
6. object of a comparative (The man that Joe is older than . . . )
most marked
185
-+
I
I
MICHAEL H. LONG
/
lrt
L;fh;"#m".
Further research
oi
True experiments are needed which compare rate of learning and ultimate level
attainme^ntalter one of three programs:f ,r, inJor^r.Jocusonform,andllocuson communication
preliminary research in this u..u hur produced mixed results, two studies finding positive
relationships between the amount of class time given to a focus on Jorms and various
Parkinson anri
proficiencv measures (McDonald, Stone andYates 1977, for ESL; Mitchell,
and a third study of ESL (Spada 1986, 1987) finding no
iohnstone 198 1 , for French FL),
such effects. (For detailed revien, see Chaudron 1988.) All three studies were comparisons
ha-'
of intact groups which differed in degreeof focus onJorms,it should be noted. Research
yet to be conducted comparing the unique program tvpes'
Studies of this kind should be true exPeriments, employing a pretest/post-test control
oi
group design, and should also include a process comPonent to monitor implementation
Ih. thre" distinct treatments.They should utilize multiple outcome measures,some focusing
on accuracy,some on communicative ability or fluency, thereby avoiding (supposed)-biasin
favour of o.r. program or another. The post-tests should include immediate and delavec
measures,ri... ulleast one study (Harley 1989) has found a short-term advantage,for
students receiving form-focused instruction disappeared(three months) later. Some of the
measures should lurther reflect knorvn developmental sequencesand patterns of variation
in ILs, appropriate for the developmental stagesof the subjects as revealed on the Pretest-r
A distinciion should be maintained between constructions which are in principle learnabl.
from positive instantiation in the input and constructions which in principle require negatir t
evidence. (For further details and desirable characteristicsofsuch studies, see Long 198+.
forthcoming; Larsen-Freemanand Long 1989.)
S"o'e.u[dditional issuesneed to be addressed,either as separatestudies of the;focuscas sub-parts of the basic study outlined above. Many interestin.
,[orm design feature or
requir
questioniemain unanswered,after all. It will be useful to ascertainw'hich structures
References
Allwright, R.L. (1977) "Language learning through communication practice." ELT Docs
1 6 / 3 . 21 + .
Breen, M.P. (1987) "Contemporarvparadigmsin syllabusdesign."Language
Tbachtng
20/ 2.81-92,and20/ 3.151-17+.
LanguageClassrooms.
Chaudron, C. (1988) Second
Aesearch
onTeaching
and Learning.Cambridge:
Cambridge Universitv Press.
Chomsky,N. ( 198l) Lectures
on Goverfi,ment
andBinding.Dordrecht: Foris.
B.
Keenan,
(1979)
"Noun phrase accessibilityrevisited". Language
and
E.L.
Comrie,
55.6+9-66+.
Corder, S.P. (1967) "The significance of learners' errors." InternationalReviewoJ Applied
Linguistics
5 . | 61-11 0.
Crookes, G. (1985) Taskclassfication:
a uoss-disciplinary
rcview(Technical
Report4.) Honolulu:
for
Center
Second LanguageClassroom Research,Social ScienceResearchInstitute
University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Crookes, G. and Long, M.H. (1981) "Task-basedlanguageteaching.A brief report". Modern
E n g l t s h T b a c h(tP
na
gr t 1 ) 8 . 2 6 - 2 8 * 6 1 , a n d ( P a r t 2 ) 9 . 2 0 - 2 3 .
Dinsmore, D. ( 1985) "Waiting for Godot in the EFL classroom."ELTJournal 39.225-23+.
'Should
Dulay, M. and Bert, H. (1913)
we teach children syntax?' LanguageLearning
2 +/ 2 . 2 + 5 - 2 5 8 .
Eckman, F.R., Bell, L. and Nelson, D. (1988) "On the generalizationof relative clause
instruction in the acquisition of English as a second ianguage."Applied Linguistics
9/1.1 20.
Ellis, R. (1984) "The role of instruction in secondlanguageacquisition."Language
Learningin
Formaland InJormalContextsed. bv D.M. Singleton and D.G. Little, 19-31 . Dublin.
IRAAL.
(1985) I.Jnderstanding
Second
LanguageAcquisition.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(1989) "Are classroomand naturalistic acquisition the same?A study of the classroom
acquisition of German word order rules." Studiesin SecondLanguageAcquisition
11l3.305-328.
Felix, S.\M (1981) "The effect of formal instruction on secondlanguageacquisition."Language
Learning31/1.87-112.
Gass,S.M. ( 1982)"From theory to practice."OnTESOL'81ed. by M. HinesandW Rutherford,
129-1 39.Washington,D C : TESOL.
Gass,S.M. and Ard, J (1980) "L2 data: their relevancefor languageuniversals."TESOL
@rarterly14/ +.4+3452.
188
M]CHAEL H. LONG
2/ 1. 3 3 - s 2 .
Hoetker, J. and Ahlbrand, W P. (1969) "The persistenceof the recitation." AmericanEducationa'
Research
Journal6 / 1/ 1+5-167 .
oJtheWestCoasr
Hyams, N. (1983) "The pro-drop parameterin child grammars."Proceedings
ed. by M. Barlow',D. Flickinger and M.Westcoat. Stanford.
on FormalLinguistics
ConJerence
CA: Stanford Universitl', Department of Linguistics.
Hyltenstam, K. (1917) "lmplicational patterns in interlanguagesyntax variation." Language
L e a r n i n2
g 7/ 2 . 3 8 3 4 1 1 .
(1984) "The use oftvpological markednessconditions as predictors in secondlanguage
Languages.A
Crossacquisition:the caseof pronominal copies in relative clauses."Second
Perspective
ed. bv R.W Andersen,39-58. Rowley,MA: Newbury House.
Linguistic
in learner Engllsh. Canberra.
Johnston, M. (1985) Syntacticand morphologicalprogressions
Ethnic Affairs.
of
Immigration
and
Department
Australia: Commonwealth
anduniversalgrammar."linguisttt
Keenan,E. and Comrie,B. (1977)"Noun phraseaccessibility
l n q u i r y8 . 6 l - 9 9
Kellerman,E.(19S5)"lfatfirst,voudosucceed..."InputinSecondLanguageAcquisirioned.b
S. Gassand C. Madden, 345-353. Rowlel',MA: Nelr'burv House.
Krashen,S.D. and Seliger,H.W (1975) "The essentialcontributionsof formal instructionir
adult secondlanguagelearning."TESOL@tarterly9 / 12.173-183 .
NewYork: PergamonPress.
Krashen,S.D. andGrrell,T. (1983) TheNaturalApproach.
Learnjn;
Prioritiesin ForeignLanguage
Larsen-Freeman,D. and Long, M.H. (1989) Research
Washington, DC: Johns Hopkins University, National Foreign Language
and Teaching.
-
Center.
Acquisitic:
Larsen-Freeman,D. and Long, M.H. (1991) An lntroductionto SecondLanguage
Research.
London: Longman.
Lightbow.n, P.M. (1983) "Exploring relationshipsbetween developmental and instructionaResearch
on Second
Language
Acquisitioned. by H.W Seliger
sequences."Classroom-Oriented
and M.H. Long,217 2+3. Rou'ley,MA: Newbury House.
Long, M.H. (1983) "Does instruction make a difference?A review of research."TESOL
1l / 3.359-382.
@Larterly
(1984) "Process and product in ESL program evaluation." TESOL @Lateri.'
18/3.+09425.
-
190
MICHAEL H. LONG
Spada,N. (1986) "The interactionbetween types of content and types of instruction: som.
Acquisirtc:.
effects on the L2 proficienc,vof adult learners." Studiesin SecondLanguage
.
8/ 2 . 1 8 1 - 1 9 9
(1987) "Relationships between instructional differences and learning outcomes: a
process-product studv of communicative language teaching." Apphed Linguistit.
8.131-16L
languag;
second
andJapanese-English
studyoJa Spanish-English
Stauble,A. -M. ( 1981) A comparative
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,UCLA.
: verbphrasemorphology.
continuum
Swaffer,J.K., Arens, K. and Morgan, M. (1982) "Teacherclassroompractices:redefining
method as task hierarchy."ModernLanguage
Journal66.24-33.
in ForeignLanguagi
MethodsExperiments
Von Elek, T. and Oskarsson, M. (1975) Comparative
Department of EducationalResearch.Gothenburg, Sweden:Molnda Schooloi
Teaching.
Education.
White, L (1987) "Against comprehensibleinput: the Input Hypothesisand the developmentoi
second-languagecompetence."AppliedLingui stics8 / 2 .9 5- I | 0 .
\\'hite, L. (1989)'The principle of adjacencyin second languageacquisition:do learners
obserte the subsetprinciple?' Paperpresentedat the Child LanguageConferenceBoston
\1.A..N{arch.
universals:a unified view of languageacquisition."
\\bde, H. (1981) "Language-acquisitionai
of Sciences
Academy
(AnnalsoJthe NewYork
and ForeignLanguageAcquisition.
\-ativeLanguage
of
Sciences'
379) ed. by H.Winitz,218-23+. NewYork: New'YorkAcademy
ZobI,H. (1982) "A direction for contrastiveanalysis:the comparativestudy of developmental
-
r4[
Chapter 11
DavidNunan
TEACHING GRAMMAR IN CONTEXT
Introduction
PERSPECTIVE, MANY foreign language
RoM
A GRAMMATICAL
E
teaching
materials
are
basedon a linear model of languageacquisition.
|'
and
programmes
This model operateson the premise that learners acquire one target languageitem at a time,
in a sequential,step-bv-stepfashion. However, such a model is inconsistentwith what is
observed as Iearners go about the process of acquiring another language.In this chapter I ,.
termg-gggic
argue for an alternativl to the linearmodei w'hich I call,"for want of aietlr
lts
approach to second languagepedagog,v.In the first part of the chapter I shall contrast both
approaches,and look at evidence from second languageacquisition and discourse analysis
which supports the organic view. In the second part I shall outline some of the pedagogical
implications of the organic approach,illustrating them with practical ideasfor the classroom.
. t
T92
{A'l\A,
DAVID NUNAN
senSe.Thisinterrelationshipaccountsforthefactthata-le*1Inerj_@
appearing to increase and decreaseat different times during the
T..rgru$ l."qI
"ggble,
(temporaril) at
ffi*u-p1.,
)t2,n.o"iit*-i"ri""r".rr@resentcontffi
'/
asukinJof lgga
,fts process
\a;irU*
'o-ganid
perspective can greatl'
The adoption of an
Without
this perspective, our understanding of other
and
use.
language acquisition
'grammaticality'
will be piecemeal and
di-enSo.rs of language such as the notion of
incomplete, as will any attempt at understanding and interpreting utterances in isolation
from the contexts in which thev occur. The organic metaphor sees second language
numerous things
hot learn one thing Pe
learnffillo
at the same trme
do
not
all
apPear
rs
inguisttc
rimpei
rrrPLr ruLLll
simultaneously \(and
/t
4rru
r
r
^
r
r
v
t
Y
Y
r
r
l
t
r
v
r
u
L
v
e . S o m e e v e n a P P e a r t o w i l t , f o r a t i m e , b e f o r e^r' ^e. * n e" r^,- t- b- i n g
4L LlrL
J@rrrL
LltE/t
r t gr u v v
ItLrt
uu
)j 4all
5r
their growth.The rate of grow.th is determined by a complex interplay of factors related to
speech processing constraints (Pienemann and Johnston 1987), pedagogical interventions
(Pica 1985), acquisitionalprocesses(Johnston 1987), and the influence of the discoursal
v'
SIIlltllLdllcuu)r)
Language in context
In textbooks, grammar is very often presented out of context. Learners are given isolated
sefi-tences,which therjare expEcTdfrtb1-nterilahzethrough exercises involving rePetition,
ve maste
rners \Ll
n
se le
e to use the I
exist
that effective communication involves achieving
As teache
and
formal appropriacy (Halliday 1985) by giving
interpretation
functional
between
harmony
m tasks
4matize the relationship between grammatical items and the discoursal
room, qrammar
occur. In genuine comm
6itr i.r which
matical choices.un [i]u b"riate
related that a
context are otten so c
rpose of t}e communication.This,6yTFe way, is
ex t
th reference-To-TE6i6nt
orientation
wishes
to
report.
towards
wants to
that the
If l-u.n.rr *e .r6Qi"..r opportunities to explore grammar in context, it will be difficult
for them to see how' and w.h,valternative forms exist to express different communicative
meanings. For example, $etting learners to read a set of sentencesin the active voice, and
then transform these into passivesfollorving a model, is a standard way of introducing the
passive voice. However, it needs to be supplemented b1' tasks which give learners
opportunities to explore when it is communicativelrvappropriate to use the passiverather
than the active voice. (One of my favourite textbook instructions is an injunction to students,
in a book which shall remain nameless,that'the passiveshould be avoided if at all
for
ch that
We need to supplement form-focused exercisesu'ith an a
throughwhich
orreiilfiTn-d-al-so
how to usethem to
teachinllanguageis-rset
of cho
providing opportunities for iearners to explore grammatical and discoursal
relationships in autlentic data;
teaching
languagein rvaysthat make form,/function relati
rent;
oooencouragingIEainerst-o6-ecomeacti\e explorers of language:
encouraging learners to explore relationships between grammar and discourse.
I94
DAVID NUNAN
enable them to make different kinds of meanings, and that ultimately it is up to them to
begin my language courses with'icetask, learners come to fashion their
1.
In
completing
this
as
Example
such
tasks
breaker'
own understanding of the functional distinctions between contrasting forms.They also come
to appreciate the fact that in manv instancesit is only the speakeror writer who can decide
which of the contrasting forms is the appropriate one.
Example I
In groups of 3 or 4, study the following conversational extracts. Focus in particular on the
parts of the conversation in italics. What is the difference between what Person A saysand
what Person B t"y.?,Wh"" *o"ld yo" r
9I?
A: I've seenRomeoandJuliet twice.
and again on the weekend.
B: Me too. I sawit lastTuesday,
A: Want to go to the movies?
B: No. 1'mgolng to studytonight We have an exam tomorrow, you know.
A: Oh, in that case,I'11studyas well.
A: Looks wet outside. I'm supposedto go to Central, but I don't have an
J
I wentout without one,I'd get wet.
B: Yes, I went out a rvhile ago.IJ I'd Boneout without an umbrella,I'd haveBot wet.
A: Ifnnhed m)/essq/just before the deadline for submission.
B: Yes,minewasjnishedjustin time as well.
A: My brother,wholivesin liewYork,is visitingme herein Hong Kong.
B: What a coincidence! My brother,whois visitingme in Hong Kong,livesin NewYork,too.
A: I need you to look after the kids.You'll be home early tonight, won'tyou?
B: Oh, you'll be late tonight, wtllyou?
A: I won a prize in the English-speakingcompetition.
B: Yeah?I won the prize in the poetry competition.
A: Thebabywassleepingwhen I got home.
B: So, he'11be sleepingu'hen I get home, then?
A: Are you hungry?
B: No, I'r,ealreadyeaten.
A: Well, 1'11havealreadyeatenby the time you get home.
Compare explanations with another group. What similarities and differences are there in
your expianations?
and discoursal
Non-authentic texts are meant to make language easier to comprehend but an unvarying
diet of such texts can make languagelearning more, not less,difficult for learners. Authentic
languageshows how grammatical forms operate in the'real world', rather than in the mind
of a textbook writer; it allows learners to encounter target languageitems - such as the
comparative adjectivesand adverbsin Example 2 - in interaction with other closely related
grammatical and discoursal elements. Wlq
4t"xt-
Example 2
Study the following extracts. One is a piece of genuine conversation,the other is taken from
a languageteaching textbook. Which is which? What differences can you see between the
two extracts?What languagedo vou think the non-authentic conversation is trying to teach?
What grammar would you need in order to take part in the authentic conversation?
Text Al
A: Excuseme, please.Do vou know
where the nearest bank is?
B: Well, the Cit,v Bank isn't far from
here. Do you know where the main
post office is?
A: No, not really.I'm just passingthrough.
B: Well, first go down this street to the
r-^ CC^ l: -L.
rr dr rrL uBrrr ,
Text B'
A: How do I get to Kensington Road?
B: Well you go down Fullarton Road . . .
A:
. what, down Old Belair, and around
,.,?
B : Yeah.And then you go straight . . .
A : . . . past the hospital?
B : Yeah,keep going straight, past the
racecourse to the roundabout.You
know the big roundabout?
A: OK.
A:
B: Then turn left and go west on Sunset
B:
Boulevard for about two blocks. The
bank is on your right, just past the post A:
Yeah.
And KensingtonRoad'soff to the right.
What, off the roundabout?
B: Yeah
A: Right.
office.
A: All right. Thanks!
B: You're welcome.
Teaching la
s that make
unction relationshi
transDarent
a n d c r e c u c t r \ -tea s K s .C x a m p l e J . t a k e n f r o m n a c a t a m e n t la n c lH e n n e r - j t a n c n l n a
| r. (r
"^71'--:-;-7-;is usetul lor exploring a range of structures,including'there * be', articles, )es/no
f05),
questions, and conjunctions.The teacher can determine which form/function relationships
are focused on by giving the learners certain types of prompts, for example: Whose
apartment is this? How much can you tell about the person who lives here? Is the person
poor?Why is the person fit?
196
DAVID NUNAN
Example 3
Look at the picture. Whose apartment is this? Make guessesabout the person who lives
here. Circle your guessesand then explain them b-vcircling the clues in the picture.
1 . T h ep e r s o ni s
2. The person
3. Theperson
4. Thepersonis
5. Thepersonis
6. Thepersonis
7. The personis
8. The personis
9. The personis
'10.The personis
aman/awoman
has a babyi doesn'thavea baby
hasa pet/ doesn'thavea pet
athletic/ notathletic
a coffeedrinker/ not a coffeedrinker
well-educated
/ notwell-educated
a smoker/ nota smoker
middleclass/ ooor
a musiclover/ nota musiclover
on a diet/ noton a diet
Classrooms nhere the principle of active exploration has been activated w'iil b=
characterized by an inductive approach to learning in which learners are given accessI:
data and provided with structured opportunities to work out rules, principles, ar,:
applicationsfor themselves.The idea here is that information will be more deeply processe:
and stored if learners are given an opportunity to work things out for themselves, rathe:
than simply being given the principle or rule.
Example 4
Consider the follow'ing pieces of information about nursing.
The
The
The
The
These can be
kinds:
'packaged'
The nursing process is a systematic and rational method of planning and providing
nursing care.
Using the above sentence as the topic sentencein a paragraph, produce a coherent
paragraph incorporating the follow'ing information. (You can rearrange the order in r,r,'hich
t h e i n f o r m a t i o ni s p r e s e n t e d . ;
TdskI
198
DAVID NUNAN
Conclusion
In this chapter, I have argued that we need to go beyond linear approachesand traditional
form-focused methodological practices in the grammar class,and that while such practices
might be necessar), thev do not go far enough in preparing learners to press their
grammaticai resources into communicative use. I have suggestedthat grammar instruction
will be more effective in classroomswhere:
.
K
---contexts 1
it is not assumedthat once learnershavebeend4]lgdjl
ticular form
acquiredit, and drilling is iEEEtEIylS-I-fr-rststep towards eventualmastsfy:
have
.a--:-.:_
ihere are opportunities for recvcling of languageforms, and learners are enqaqedin
tasks designed to make traniparent the links between form. meaniq53ldJgq:
learners are 8l'en oppo.
,unorng, oI tne
grammaticalprincipiesof English!
lan
inductive learnin
iences which encour
the functionin
over time, learners encounter target language items in an increasingly
complex range of linguistic an
environments.
_-.---.1
In making a casefor a more organic approach to grammar teaching, I hope that I have not
given the impression that speciallv written texts and dialogues, drills, and deductive
presentationsby the teacher, have no place in the grammar class.What we need is an
appropriate balance between exercisesthat help learie.s come to grSTGthliu-muilcal
forfrs,
or explorrn
ms to communrcate e
ln seeking to explore alternative ways of achieving our pedagogical goals, itTfiilpbrtant
not to overstate t}re casefor one viewpoint rather than another, or to discount factors such
as cognitive style, learning strategyp..f".".r..r, prior learning experiences,and the cultural
contexts in which the languageis being taught and learnt. However, while there are some
grammatical structures that may be acquired in a linear way, it seems clear from a rapidly
growing body of research that the majority of structures are acquired in complex, non
linear wavs.
Notes
I havenot acknow'ledgedthe sourceof this extract, becauseI do not wish to appearto be
criticizing the text from which it was taken. It is cited here for contrastivepurposesonly.
S o u r c eD
: . N u n a n( 1 9 9 3 ) .
Acknowledgement
The author and the publisher rvould like to thank Heinle and Heinle for their kind
permission to reproduce copyright material from Badalamenti and Henner-stanchina
( 1e e 3 ) .
T E A C H I N GG R A M M A RI N C O N T E X T 1 9 9
References
C. ( 1993) Grammar
Dimensions
One.Boston:Heinle and
V and Henner-Stanchina,
Badalamenti,
Heinle.
Acquisicion.
Language
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (199+) TheStudyof Second
London:Arnold.
Grammar.
to Functional
Halliday,M.A.K. (1985) An Introduction
for ESL/EFL learners'in
Heath, S.B. (1992)'Literary skills or literate skills?Considerations
Nunan (1992\.
Johnston,M. ( 1987)'Understandinglearnerlanguage'in Nunan ( 1987).
Kellerman,E. (1983)'lf at first you do succeed.
, i. S. Gassand C. Madden (eds)lnpur in
New-bury
House.
Ror,r.'ley,
Mass.:
Language
Acquisition.
Second
to Second
LanguageAcquisition
Research.
D. and Long, M. (1991) An Introduction
Larsen-Freeman,
London: Longman.
Acquisition
Research.
Adelaide:NCRC.
Language
Nunan, D. (ed.) (1987) ApplytngSecond
LanguageLearningandTeaching.Cambridge: Cambridge University
(1992) Collaborative
Press.
Analnis.London: Penguin.
Discourse
Nunan, D. (1993) Introducing
Students.
Hong Kong:The English Centre. University
(1996) AcademicWritingJor'l',lursing
of Hong Kong.
'The
selectiveimpact of classroominstruction on secondlanguageacquisition'.
Pica,T. ( 198 5)
6/ 3: 2I+-22.
AppliedLinguistics
and
Pienemann,M.
Johnston,M..(1987)'Factors influencingthe developmentof language
proficiency' in Nunan ( 1987).
Language
Grammar:Teaching
and Learning.London: Longman.
Rutherford,W (1987) Second
Dictation.Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
Wajnryb,R. (1990) Grammar
London: Penguin.
Grammar.
Woods, E. (1995) Introducing
Chapter 12
AnneBurns
GENRE-BASED APPROACH ES TO WRITING
AND BEGINNING ADULT ESL LEARNERS
Introduction
OMMUNICATIVE
L A N G U A G E T E A C H I N G ( C L T ) H A S p l a y e di t s p a r t
in revo luti oni sin g larra$llvronceiyed-theoi
Iearning and most language
v t}lev no lotiser equatethe learnins of a second
e with the learning
@tthesametime'CLThasgivenrisetoasometimesconfusingarrar
of methodologies,some of which claim to be'the method'by which secondlanguagesuili
be acquired and all of which call themselves'communicative'.This has often led to a state
of"
intuition.
,--.f,
|
IVI-oreand more, researchers and educators have begun to question some of t}r
assumptionsimplicit in communicative approachesto second-languageteaceffilTffi:ffi8-.e
failed to take into acTount a well-lormulated theory of language. Cope (1989) has argued
'authoritative'
tJlat what is needed is an
pedagogy for the 1990s which will replace what he
terms the'progressive'curriculum whichhas existed since the mid-1970s. Becauseof is
(-\u-3discoverylearning,ego-centredb"'",P.
to learners the knon'ledqethev need to gain accessto sociall)'powerfu] forms o[ ]anguage
\
/
\_-/
ffi
f{V- | . . It has emphasisedinquirv learning, processand naturalism but hasneglected to offer learners
/(AHA.>:,:i^#
systematic explanations of how languagefunctions in various social contexts.
/-\ual-'
\
In
ln recent
recent vears
vea- mucn attentron nas Deen glven to soclally based theorles
es ot
of language
language
4do
and in Australia work drawing on svstemic linguistics and notions of genre and register
L
developedby Michael Halliday (e.g.Halliday 1985; Halliday and Hasan 1985) hasprovided
a model for explaining language in relation to the contextin which it is used, while at
thesametimetakingi',to...ou@.Iffi.E}.Iwouldalsoargut
tlldt5)5LctlllL-tulIL.,..,,,cnlngIl[well1\-lIn
holv
I w.ould argue that these beliefs prevent learners from gaining accessto opportunikie, Sa
to develop their literacv skills in second languageand from understanding and responding t;-r. eT?
t:
texts $.hich rvill be of value to them in furthering their learning and in
to the *iitt.n
extending their ability to cope w'ith a range of taskscommon in the w.ider community, manv
of which depend on the ability to read and u-rite.
In the schoolscontext the range of genresdeait u'ith in the classroomis fairl-vrestricted,
asthey *'ttt U" *o.. *tt"tt .." O
of the s-6Foolcurriculum. In the adult context the choice is more open-ended, as texts lvi
,
.------'-------1-
-'----T-
grq;. At present,
(
o
was thi recordii!-of?lassi6bm interaction and the documenting of any written texts usey',
she agreed that I would work collaborativeh'with her, collecting and recording the cl
data as she taught the class.The 19 learners were all within their first year of settlement as
permanent immigrants to Australia and had all been rated as less than 1 .0 on a seven-ficrint
fih"oral rating ,.u1. 1LMES, Sp"uki.rgProfi.i".,.v
school and, of these, six had some post-high school education. Of the
others, two had primarv school education only, while six had received varving levels of high
school education.The-v came from a rvide varietv of first-language backgrounds, some of
wftich usednon-Romanscript.
//
|
\(--------\\One_o{the genresidentifiedasimportant bythe learners,in consultationwith the
teacher, waq;[
tJSe',;'
P[LaJtct
furJ
ou.g!'
ir9.Z
202
ANNE BURNS
teacher to structure a unit of w'ork. During the theoretical input sessionsat the beginning
of the project, Jennifer Hammond had proposed a teaching-learning cycle (Callaghan and
Rothery 1988), an adaptation of which (Hammond 1990) is presented in Figure 12. I below,
JOINT
NEGOTIATION
OF TEXT
teacherandlearners
readexamplesof genre;
construct
text;ongoing
discussandanalysetext
of howto do this
structureandlanguage discussion
DEVELOPING
OF
CONTROL
redraftino
andeditino
THE GENRE
to "pr'btith"bt""
'.
standard
learnerwrites
ownlext
,'conferencinq betweent.
l e a c h e ra n d l e a r n e r
INDEPENDENT
CONSTRUCTION
OF TEXT
1
2
3
Modelling
Joint Negotiation ofText
IndependentConstruction.
p"*:f
New2113
D e a r) t r o r M a d a m
Ke: ReceVtioniet'sJob
I am wrilinq for Lhejob of receplionief,adverr,ieedin The )ydney Mornin1Aerald
today.
I haveworkedae a receptionlelfor Lhreeyearo in a denlieL'econeullancyand I am
wrlLinqletters and Vreparinqaccounf'a.
the Lelephone,
very experiencedin answer'tnq
I epeakand writ'efluenl
I am 20 yeare old and I havemy I'iqher )chool CerLificaLe.
a
m
o
o
f
,
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
c
a
n
d t d a t ef o r L h ej o b .
m
y
e
e
l
f
c
o
n
e
l
d
e
r
a
n
d
E n q l i e ha n d G r e e k
job.
me af' homeon 37O
laeL
Tlease
conLacf,
I haveencloseda referencelrom my
2915anyttme in the eveninq.
Y o u r eo i n c e r e l y
(Siqnature)
describe rhe)K
the learners
teacher's aim was to h
ructron
ich woEltl assistthem during the joint
S tCXt
schematic stffiTfiie
howthis
illustrates
extract
from
the
classroom
lollowing
Sctivitv which w'aSto
was done:
Classroom transcript I
AII right, have a look at the letter we wrote together yesterday.In fact I'm going to
read it to you so that we can recall what rve did. At the top right hand corner we put
the . . .?
LL: Address . . . address. . . date.
Address . . . OK and date.Then on the left underneath we put . . .?
T:
Who...andaddress.
L:
T:
204
ANNE BURNS
'Dear
OK . . . to whom and the address.Then
Sir or Madam'. Why did we put'Sir or
Madam'?
BecauseI don't knolv man or woman.
T: Y o u d o n ' t k n o w i f i t i s a m a n o r a w o m a n . ' R e : R e c e p t i o n i s t ' sj o b ' . W h a t d o e s ' r e '
mean?
About...about...
T: 'l am w'riting to applv for the job of the receptionist advertisedinThe Sydney Morning
Herald today.' So the first t\llgaou should sayin the letter iq what the letter is about.
'l'm
w-riting to applv for the job. I have worked as a receptionist for three 1'earsii-a
dentist's consultancyand I am very experienced in answeringthe phone, writing letters
and preparing accounts. So, the seconjljel!!what is that . . . ?
L : Experience. . .
T: RThJTo"s
the experience (w-riting on board next to number 2). What was one?
What would you put for one?
LL: (Untntelltgible')
T:
What is the first thing in the letter?'l am writing. . .'?
L:
Address?
LL: No...no.
'l
T:
am writing to appiv . . .'What could we put there?
L:
The problem . . .
T:
Not a problem .
L:
No...information
LL: No...aboutme...
T:
The main information in the letter . . . OK? (writes on board next to number 1)
T:
I
L .
thelearners.The
resultr.r,'as
thefollowinfde@ion
oTttrdschernai
Address
Date
Who to and address
Dear
Re (about)
Main Information
Experience
About me (relevant to job)
Ending
Reference
Contact
Yours sincerelv
Signature.
The teacher follor,vedthis bv discussingrvith the learners some of the distinctive features
205
o!
""j!AS""l
'being'and'having'clauses.,At
the end of thissegmeniof
participantandthe useof primarii)'
the-1eS6n] the learners were asked to construct their ow'n letters in response to
Commonwealth Emplovment Service (CES) advertisements,which had also been read and
discussedin a previous lesson.EachgrouP wasgiven a samPleadvertisement(seeTbxtI below)
and askedto choosea scribe lvhotwould record the text asit was produced.The accountwhich
follows described how one group of three learners rvent about constructing their text.
The group was composed of three female learners; Katia, who was Chilean;Zorka, who
wasYugoslav;and Susanna,aCzech.All three w'ere in their 20s and had post-high school
education, two haling been nurses and one a teacher in her owrr countrl'.They had all indicated
that job-seeking \!.asa priority for them and were highly motivated to improve their ianguage
skills so that they could eventuallv find emplovment. Susannawas nominated to scribe t}re
iointlv negotiated
^ text and *'hut .h.
ty \4Tote \{'as ln resPons9 to me lollo)vlng aov'
q.u [o*(
Text 3: CESjob advertisement
Mechanic
Woolloomooloo
General RepairWork on Jaguars
8a.m.-5p.-.
''
gAward - Negotiabl.
Age:25*
TradesmanMechanic
&>
5 0 5 2 a / 5 3 1k c s
Motor repairs
Exp. On Jaguars
Despite their limited proficiencv in English, the group employed a wide range of
strategiesduring the joint construction activitv. The following extract illustrates how they
collaborated to produce their text:
Classroom transcript 2
Su:
Ka:
Zo:
Su:
Zo:
Su:
Ka:
Zo:
Su:
Zo:
Ka:
:r
206
ANNE BURNS
In the CES
C...(writes)
P.A T
TH HAOECE?
te\ytc .fTBT/dl./
ADotzss
Deap,,rB/ ua)a// ,
R: aoroQ ,E1*411
JOt
'1'
t o. -")fi?
o, -fuf
-.chant4r1.,6
/"
?ryo?
lhe
ter /he7ob
C..f.
tc4r.
a.r elo?
{o,
.t!- ha-ve vork4
taeclauL
',o
4
getn.rmczl
tcrrtZ?
tja/rba.
fQrt
f fflffE"arinuis q*'aio,h
(teqo,pe.j) a.,a
ovzt'/ttt'e
cune&
od
]inz
cott -o.L-('/l
ttSrzlf amotf
q,d
o,glQf 1-rrrA . f, ce'tlr'd'cr
.torhb/o'-vfnbaal
.r lhe2ob ,
ht/
tt;
{.o-,
/ hor< c-nc/otc4 a.oferencc
7.b,
o{
. ' ,
ij ilf
,, ,'
?lc.,pcoatt.:c,l ne
cn sef,c rz ,#.
on rr ( f,43 .f'arr
or )n iAo
"n"ri;--i*
V nn,
thev ha
, *,i* fi"-$<ltrlg
and-lllesgrel!-sl+eneral-.
c c o u n I s g,f
O I plet*i-o-gs
xPerlence,
accounts
experience,
D)- a
I O I I O \ \ - e Oby
n t r o ( l u c t l o n , follorved
p u r p O S e C O m t n g a S a n lintroduction,
Pre\ lous e
rl
--i-:-l-|
""ffiheyhavealsowrittenaiuitabIeconclusionwFctr-reI-ers
and lncludesa contact numDer'
to the reterence
Although these learners are at the beginning stage in their second-language
developmenl, they havebeen able to produce a fairly effective text approximating the genre,
'letter
of job application'. I believe that this u'as made possiblebecausethe approach taken
Note
I am grateful to the other participants in the NCELTR Literacy Project and in particular-to
their advice and contributions to the writing of this
J".rniHam-ond and Eileen Lustig for
PaPer.
References
Sydney:
the Oral Interviev'.
ProfciencyTfuough
oJSpeaking
Brindley,G. (1919) TheAssessment
AMES.
Approacfi.Report of
A GenreBased
j. ( 1988) Teaching
FactualWriting:
Callaghan,
-the M. and Rother,v,
NSW
School Education
Region.
Sydney:
East
Metropolitan
DSP Literacv Project,
Deoartment.
Cope, W (1989) A historicalbackgroundto current curriculumchangesand the shift to gente.
Presentationat the First LERN Conference,SydneJ'.
oa
n rd.o n :E d w a r d A r n o l d .
H a l l i d a y , M . A . K .( 1 9 8 5 )A n l n t r o d u c t i o n t o F u n c t i o n a l G r a mLm
in a social
oJlanguage
and
text:Aspects
context
Language,
(1985)
R.
Hasan,
and
M.A.K.
Halliday,
Press'
University
Deakin
Victoria:
Geelong,
semjoticpercpective.
5, 1: 23-30.
Hammond, J. (1989)'The NCELTR LiteracyProiect.'Prospect
Paper
presented at 26th Annual
(1990) Collaboratingin LiteraqrTeachingand Research.
TESOL Convention, SanFrancisco.
SodalReality.Geelong,Victoria:
Exploringand Challenging
Martin, J.R. (1985) FactualwtitinB:
Deakin Universitv Press.
in LinguisticsNo.
Martin, J.R. and Rothery, J. (19S0) Writing Project,ReportNo. l,WorkingPapers
Linguistics.
of
1. Universityof Sydnel':Department
-(1981)
WritingProject,ReportNo.2,WorkingPapersinLinguisticsNo.2.UniversityofSydney:
Department of Linguistics.
Chapter 13
A. SureshCanagarajah
CRITICAL ETHNOGRAPHY OF A SRI
LANKAN CLASSROOM: AMBIGUITIES
IN
STUDENT OPPOSITION TO
REPRODUCTION THROUGH ESOL
Introduction
HIS CHAPTER ARGUES THAT THE wayinwhichdominationisexperienced
T1
I
and oppositional tendencies are formed in classroom life has to be observed closeh'
rather than conceived abstractlv.This ethnographic study of 2 2 tertiary-level Tamil students
following a mandatory English for general purposes (EGP) course reveals that whereas the
lived culture displaysopposition to the alienating discoursesinscribed in a U.S. textbook.
the students affirm in their more conscious statements before and after the course t}eir
strong motivation to study ESOL. Interpreting this contradiction as reflecting the conflict
students face between cultural integrity, on the one hand, and socioeconomic mobility, on
the other, the studv explains how students' desire for learning only grammar in a productoriented manner enables them to be somer,r'hatdetached from cultural alienation while
being sufficiently examination oriented to pass the course and fulfill a socioeconomic
necessity.However, this two-pronged strategy is an ideologically limiting oppositional
behavior that contains elements of accommodation as well as resistance and unwittinglr
leads students to participate in their oq'n domination.
The recent introduction of poststructuralist perspectives on language and radical
theories of schooling that view language teaching as a political act is a long-awaited
developmentinTESOL. Suchtheoriesenjoy much currency in L1 circles,almost becoming
the orthodoxy in areaslike composition teaching, with w'ords like discourseand,^po*rr^rn,
becoming clich6d and posing the danger that they might have lost their critical edge.TESOL.
on the other hand, tvhile being a far more controversial activity, has managed io see itself
as safelv"apolitical" due to its positivistic preoccupation with methods and techniques.
In recent issuesof the IESOI Qgarterly,scholars such as Pennycook (1989) and Peirce
(1989) have deconstructed dominant methods and the idea of met}od itself in order tc
exPose the ideologies that inform TESOL. Though their papers perform a pioneering
function, the force rvith w'hich they are compelled to present their thesesalso involves some
simplification.Whereas Pennycook'sdelineation of ideological domination throughTESOL
aPPearsoverdetermined and pessimistic,Peirce's characterizationof the possibilities c:
Contextualizing
the study
Ever since the British colonial polr'er brought the whole island of (then) Ceylon under its
control in 1796 and instituted English education to create a supportive lower administrative
work force, English has functioned as a valued linguistic capital over the local Sinhalaand
Tamil languagesto provide socioeconomic advantagesfor native Lankans.Although since
1956 (8 years after independence), "leftist" governments have professed to raise the status
of Sinhala (and, to a limited extent, Tamil), it is the English-speakingbilinguals who have
dominated the professionsand social hierarchy. On the other hand, the democratization or
popularization of English promised bv "rightist" governments has only amounted to
providing limited mobility into low'er-middle-class rungs for aspirants whose newly acquired
English is marked as a nonprestige "sub-standard Sri Lankan English" (see Kandiah, 1979).
These developments have historicallv disgruntled the monolingual majority to make them
perceive English as a double-edged weapon that frustrates both those who desire it as well
asthose who neglect it (Kandiah, 1984). Similarly,in theTamil society,whereasthe emergent
militant nationalism has unleashed a Tamil-only and even "pure Tamil" movement, such
parallel developments as t}re exodus to the West or the cosmopolitan capital as economic
and political refuges have bolstered English to assurethe dominance of English bilinguals
and to attract monolinguals.
As for English language teaching, the teachers, administrators, and general public in
Sri Lanka agree that English languageteaching is a "colossal failure" (de Souza, 1969, p. 1.81
considering the vast resourcesexpended on tlris enterprise by the state andWestern cultural
agencies.Though all identify the problem as one of student motivation, they differ as to
why students are unmotivated. Hanson-Smith (1984), a U.S. TESOL consultant, and
Goonetilleke (1983), a local professor of English, fault the educational system. In the
university, for instance, thev perceive that the requirements for English are not stringent
enough to motivate studentsto take the subject as seriously as other subjects.Both, however,
are in agreement that English does a u'orld of good for Sri Lankan students:"English is
learned not primarilv to communicate with other Lankans . . but to converse with the
world at large - and not just the world of technologv and machines, but also of dreams.
aspirationsand ideals"(Hanson-Smith,1984, p. 30).BecauseKandiah (1984), on the other
hand, is of the view that the dreams encouragedbv English are illusory (as English learning
does not challengebut in fact perpetuatesinequality) and its ideals are suspectedby students
'
of resulting in cultural deracination, he seesthe problem of motivation differently: "1The
Method
The methodological orientation and fieldwork techniquesdeveloped bv ethnography enable
us to systematically study the students' own point of view. of English language teaching in
its natural context. Though ethnographv is noted for its intensive, detailed focus on the
1ocal,contextualized, and concrete, the challengein this studv is to analyzehow the attitudes
iormed by students in dailv classroom life are impinged upon by the more abstract
sociopolitical forces outside the walls of the classroom. Holvever, current ethnographv is
taking up the challengeof"how to represent the embedding ofrichly described local cultural
.r'orlds in larger impersonal svstemsof political economy" (Marcus and Fischer, 1985, p.
S'l).This new orientation in the {reldn'ork and writing of ethnography is inspired by a more
complex, politicized view of culture in both anthropology and political economy. Such
developments account for a small but grow-ing body of ethnographic literature that looks
at the culture of classroomsand student communities in relation to social conflict and
political domination (see Bourdieu and Passeron,1977; Ogbu, 1986;weis, 1985;Willis,
.,
1977).
In order to conduct such politically motivated ethnography, we have to go bevond the
dominant descriptive
ethnography
that is practiced today inTESOL circies (see, e.g., Benson,
1989) and theorized in delinitive terms foTTESOL practitionersbyWatson-Gegeo(1988).
- an ideologically sensitive orientation to
What we need in its place is a critical ethnography
the study of culture that can penetrate the noncommittal objectivity and scientism
encouraged by the positivistic empirical attitude behind descriptive ethnography and can
demystify the interests served bv particular cultures to unravel their relation to issues of
Power (see Marcus and Fisher, 1985).Willis (1978), whose 1977 study of working-class
black students in an urban British school is a pioneering and sophisticated example of this
orientation, defines the project of critical etlinography thus:
We must interrogate cultures, ask what are the missing questions they answer,probe
the invisible grid of context, inquire what unsaid propositions are assumed to the
invisible and surprising external forms of cultural life. If we can supply the premises,
dynamics, logical relations of responsesrvhich look quite untheoretical and lived out
"merely" as cultures, we lvill uncover a cultural politics. (p 18)
Practicing such a committed, value-laden ethnography does not mean that we can ignore
Watson-Gegeo's (1988) warning that "true ethnographic work is systematic, detailed and
rigorous, rather than anecdotal or impressionistic" (p. 588). Hence, an intensive participant
observation of the ESOL classI taught 5 hrlweek was carried out for an academic vear
(November 1990 to J ulv 199 1 1.Though it is possible that my dual roles as teacher and
researcher could create certain tensions (as could be expected in any observation by a
participant), mv teaching also created certain advantagesw-hich I would have lacked as a
detached observer. My daily interaction r,r-iththe students in negotiating meanings through
English and participating in the students' successesand failures,'with the attendalnt,r".dio
revise my own teaching strategv,provided a vantagepoint to their perspectives.Moreover,
2I2
A. SURESH CANAGARAJAH
I enjoyed natural accessto the dailv exercisesand notes ofthe students and the record ol
their attendance u,ithout having to foreground my role as researcher. As the teachinE
progressed,I stumbled into other naturalistic data that provided insights into students' o$Tr
point of .i,i"*' of the course, such as the comments students had scribbled during classtime
in the margins of the textbook (which, due to frequent losses,was distributed before each
classand collected at the end).
To add a chronological dimension to the study, I situated the other methods of data
collection at significanf points in the progression of the course. During the first week of
classes,I conducted a free recall procedure, askingthe studentsto jot down their impressions
ofEnglish. I also gavea detailed questionnairecovering their social and linguistic background
to be completed at home. At the end of the course, but before their final examination,
I conducted an oral interview with the students in my office to analyze their responsesto
the course, textbook, and learning English in general. Though I invited the students for a
15-min interview, eventually each interview ranged from 70 to 90 min. Becausesome
students preferred to converse with me in the company of anotJrerclassmate,I permitted
them to meet me in pairs. Even then, 7 students, all females, failed to turn uP probablr'
reflecting the taboo on close interpersonal relations between the sexesinThmil society.The
interview, Iike the questionnaire, was inThmil so that students could express themselves
freely. (Such data is presented below, in translation, unless otherwise stated. The original
Thmil is cited only w'hen discursively significant.)
The ouestionnaire and the interl.iew modules were constructed in such manner as to
enable cross-checking of sttrdents' opinions. In the questionnaire, the 6rst part surveyed
students' educational backgrounds and exposure to English.The second part surveyed the
educational and socioeconomic background ofthe parents.The third part provided a set o[
true/false statements to test more obliquely students' attitudes toward the use of English.
The final part contained open-ended questionsthat further sampledtheir attitudes, allowing
comparison of these with their previous statements. Though the final interview u'as
prestructured, I shifted topic freel,v according to the flow of conversation. Questions 1-l
queried the attitude of the students towards English in relation to their other courses:
of the
Questions 4-7 checked their response to the organization and cultural content
identitr:
textbook; 8 and 9 sampled t}re effects of English learning on their thinking and
10-1,2 invited a critique of the pedagogv and curriculum; 13-15 explored their use of
English outside the class;and 16-18 solicited their recommendations for the improvement
of the course. Some of the similar questions in the interview then enabled me to comPar
the motivation and attitudes of the students with their opinions stated in the questionnaire
in the beginning of the course.The other modes of data collection, too, enabled me tc
authenticate the data more effectively through triangulation (see Denzin, 1970). For
instance, the lived culture of the students (as recorded in my field notes and student-.'
comments in the textbook) was at odds with their stated opinions in the interview anc
questionnaire, compelling me to reconstruct more complex hypotheses to explain thei:
attitudes.
The course
The classthat I observed consisted of 22 flrst-vear students in the arts and humanities at th.
University of Jaffna.The ESoL course is mandatorv for all students of the faculty of arr'
A pass is required in ESOL to qualifv for admission to the second year. For eligibili:
to specializein a specific subject from the second vear onwards, students are required :
score at least a B on the ESOL exam in the first sitting. It is from the second year that Engl:'
2I4
A. SURESH CANAGARAJAH
The class
The classconsisted of 13 female and 9 male nativeTamil students, of whom 3 were Rom":Catholics and the rest Hindus.These students had failed the initial placement test in EngL=and fared among the worst among the new entrants for that academic year. Thev u'er=
enrolled in a range of subjects related to the humanities and social sciencesbesides*-.
mandatory ESOL. A majorit,v of these students were from rural communities and from tr:,=
poorest economic groups. Except for 4 students whose parents were in clerical or teachir-:
professions(thus earning the relatively decent sum of 1000 rupees, or US$25 a month
the other parents did not have steadyjobs or salaries.In the latter group, some were tenar---farmers, and others were seasonalcasuallaborers.The families of the students had also ha:
limited education. Only one student's parents had proceeded beyond Grade 10.The Parenof 5 others had not completed an elementary school education.
Furthermore, the students came from backgrounds in which English held limittj
currency. Only 8 students said their parents had managedto studv some elementary Engli=:
in school. Of these, 3 reported that their parents might listen to English programs on the
multilingual television or radio. Five reported that their parents could be expected to uttc.
some English words if they encountered foreigners or if need arosein their workplace. None
of them could read or write English. Considering the students themselves,although 18 hal
satfor the Grade 10 Englishlanguagetest, only 10 had managedto scorea simple pass(i.t..
a grade op 4go/oS.Threestudents reported that they had read English newspapers/books '--.r
seen English films - although thev could not remember the titles of any. Fourteen rePorte'l
that they might occasionall-vswitch on some English programs on radio or television.The
same number said they might code-mix English with friends or when thev needed a linr
language.
Midcourse resistance
The inhibitions towards English which lay partly suppressedduring the initial period of the
course in the conscious responses of the students, came into relief in their largelr'
unconscious lived culture as the course proceeded. It is evident from the record of dailr
attendance that students faced problems in the course. Although students recorded an
impressive 94oh dail1,turn out for most of the first 2 months, at the end of the second month.
attendancefell to 500%.Studentsbegan to miss classesfor the slightest reason: to write
tutorials for another subject, to prepare for a test, to attend funerals offriends'relatives.
At times intense fighting in the district or the imposition of curfew also affected attendance.
But none of this deterred 90% of the students from attending from the eighth month as the
final examination was approaching, demanding that past test papers be done and revision
undertaken.
The comments, drawings, and paintings students had penned in the textbook are more
subtle evidence of the flagging interest of students. Becausestudents had written these
during class time, this activity suggested that topics other than English grammar had
preoccupied them u'hile teaching was going on. Although students had appeared to be
passivelyobserving or listening to the teacher, as required bv the instrumental pedagogv in
the class,the glossesin the text suggesta very active underlife. Unknown to the teacher.
students were communicating with each other or sometimes with tlemselves through these
glosses.The glossessuggestthe discoursesand themes that seem to have interested thr
students more than those in the textbook. In one sense, these are the discourses which
mediate for the students the situations) grammar, and languagetaught by the textbook. Ir:
another sense,these are students' counterdiscourses that challenge the textual languag..
values, and ideology. Hence, they deserve close examination.
Many of the glossesare inspired by the ongoing nationalist struggle for a separateTam;
state. For this reason, in Unit 1c, the picture of Fletcher (the protagonist in the detectir.
story) ashe is seatedin a prison cell is modified in a couple of textbooks. He hasbeen paintt
U . S)
The students'image of prison life as overcrow.ded,dirtv, and more rePressive(based
on Sri Lankan conditions) interferes u-ith their interpretation.The other situations visuallr
represented, such as an orchestra plaving, air tral-el, department store shopping, and
apa.tme.rt living, also confused the students. Such cultural estrangement created an
uiditio.rul luv.. of problems to the linguistic ones students were alreadv confronted with
Other tensionsin the course resulted from the styles of iearning desiredby the students
The students seemed uncomfortable r,r..itha collaborative approach to learning whenever tr
was encouraged. Becausethe textbook specifiedpairrvork occasionally,and I myself wantec
to create mo-relinguistic interaction among students, I insisted that the desksbe arranged in
a circle. But before each cliss, the students rearranged the desksinto a traditional lectureroom format, w-ith the teacher'sdesk in front of the room and their own in horizontal rou'..
Thus, students minimized interaction among themselvesand failed to take initiative in thc
florn'of classroom discourse.As the conversation cited above suggests,tlpical interaction.
follow- the features of traditional teacher-centered classroom discourse (see Mehan, 1985.
Stubbs, 19'76),in rvhich the teacher regulates and dominates talk.Turn taking follows th.
tripartite Structure of Question (see Turn a above), Ansr,ver (Turn b), and Evaluatior(Turn c); such sequencesfollow in c d--e, e-f-g.Turns for studentsare assignedby the teacher
(seeTurnsa and e); for eachsingleturn bv the student, the teacher takestrvo, thus dominatin;
the quantity of talk. The questi,onsaskedare displav questionsfor which the teacher alread.
knows the ans*,er. I.r u qrit. atvpical -oo'" h.o, Sh""tttl and Indran attemPt to contradic
the teacher'sexplanation;sigruGcantlltheseu-erenot framed asquestionsbut simply ascasur
asides.It was onlv Supendranrvho askedfor clarificationsor challengedmy explanationsmor.
explicitlv. For most of the time, the rest preferred to sit, pen in hand, and rwite down whateve:
*,u, on ih" bourd or simph'listen to the teacher'slecture (asinTirrn j).lronically, one of tht
glossesabor,ean interactive pair-rvork exercise said,"This is a job for the jobless."
Accompanr.ing this desire for teacher-centered learning, students made learning .
product rather than process. Students expected to be provided rvith the abstract forms an:
iules of languagedeductivelv or prescriptivelv for them to store in memory rather than t inductivelv formulate the rules for themselves through active use of the language i:.
communicative interactions. Disregarding activities, students demanded notes. Whenevc:
charts or grammaticai paradigms were presented, the students eagerly wrote them dolrThe_vdemanded more r,vritten r'vork rather than speech or listening exercisesbecausetht'
felt that thev could retain it for personal studv and revision before tests. Mv diarv recorc,
much time iaken in discussingthe importance of "use rather than rules." But the sloganfail. to create changesin their attitude. Graduailv students noted mv practice of reservinq t:2-hr classesfor activities and t hr slots for the more overtlv grammar-oriented secti(-:
of the textbook and attended the latter u'hile cutting the former.
Postcourse contradiction
impressions of the content
Although the final intervierv rvith the students soliciting their ou'n
on their lived culture'
urrd oriu.irution of the course confrrmed some of the observations
subjects they had
which
it also contradicted many findings at least at face value. Asked
mentioned their different
enjo-vedmost and rvhictrthev ha"dlvorked hardest in, students
English for the latter' When
,nf;".,, of specializationfor ih" fornr.. but unanimousll' cited
their claim, I rva'
t pol.,t"d orrt th" flagging attendance in English and contradicted
the students in the classhad
confronted r.vitha ,rr.p?iri.,"gpiece of evid"n.".1h. majoritv of
As Indran put it-conclubeen going for private lnstriction in English outside the universitv.
spending additionai
thus
tutoring,
for
sio.ehi,Foino oth". subject in the univeisitv do'"ve go
our motivation tc
timeand monev on it.The fact that rve do this onlv for English.proves
had done at the beginnin;
master the language."The students continued to affirm, as thev
had
given to it'
of the cours", th. .r".d for English and the prioritv thev
was potentiallv ar'
The admission that .trrdJ.tt, had sought heip outside the class
what it_was that tht
indictment of the universitv ESOL course-.I then began exploring
in the universit'
not
were
getting
thev
students were getting in theii private instruction that
if
they used anv a:
It appeared thit the iutoru ou"r" using Sri I ankan or Indian textbooks
value in these courses I'
ull.'ti,rt it lvas not the cultural ,.I"tu.t." that students seemed to
\\"ere overtly grammx
much as the grammar instruction. In fact, the texts and pedagogv
lexical borrow'ing'
(using
oriented and u'ere rarely contextualized.Tharma praisedhis tutor
'cleared' the 'grammar'"'
from English):"He
for gramma:
Othlr questions in the interr,ielv confirm the desire of the students
and rn'hicenjoved
had
thev
oriented instruction.When askedrvhich section of the textbook
thev found the gramma-thev had found useful ( 13 out of the 15 intervierved) replied that
variously enjoyed t:'
had
thev
although
useful
tubi", u.d exercises (Sections b and e)
these distinction:
serialized storv, conversation,and listening sections.Some conflated
the grammlr section "because it is useful for the tes:
enjoved
she
ihat
said
Jeyanthi
to learn the rules ':
Statements such as luuu.rJh;. r.u."l""d that the desire of the students
''-motivation. In fact.
grammar prescriptivelv was related to an examination-oriented
aspects.Lat-:
final 3-hr,,vritten test featured mostlv discrete-item questionson formal
course r:
asked specificallv u'hat the students had initiallv hoped to achier''ethrough.this
"l
expected::-'"
said,
the extlnt to nfuich the course had fulfilled their expectations, Siva
n e c e s s a r yg r a m : - t h e c o u r s e u ' o u l d p r e P a r em e l o r t h e t e s t ' . . t h a t i s . c o r e r t h e
agreed that the co-comprehensivelv."It rtas.rot surprising, then, lvhen all eventuallv
had failed to satisfvtheir expectations'
222
A. SURESH CANAGARAJAH
224
A. SURESH CANAGARAJAH
the interests thev serve becauseminoritr,' cultures are steeped in traditions of domination
as *'ell as resistance.Without delving too much into horv this favored pedagogv of Tamiis
traditionallv bolstered their caste structure and religious hierarchv, \'ve can proceed to its
contemporarv implications for the students discussedin this study.We must remember that
such a pedagogvencouragesa teacher-controlled,nondialogic,"banking" style oflearning
that is knolr.n to reproduce the dominant values and social relations of an oppressivelv
stratilied societv (seeFreire, 1970; Giroux, 1983).
Furthermore, though a formaiistic approach to the abstract rules of "standard English"
might appear to preserve students from the more obvious cuitural content associatedw'ith
the communicative orientation of the course, it in no lvav savesthem from other forms ot
domination: It disconlirms the Englishesstudentsbring u'ith them; it pre\,entsstudents from
interrogating their or'vnculture and societv through literacl''; it fails to alter the unfavorable
subject positions belonging to monolingual and English-incompetentLankans.Nor does
the formalistic approach enable students to effectivelv internalize the rules of the language
or progress rupia-tyin fluent languageuse. In the in-course assessmentscarried out to
monitor their progress, the majoritv of the students continued to score below the passing
grade.Thev remained u-ith the smattering of "marked" English thev brought with them.
What all this implies is that these students u'ill continue to occupv the marginalized position
accordedto the monoiingual, poorlv educated,rural poor in a socialsystemdominated br
the English-speaking,bilingual, urban middie class(seeKandiah, 1984). Ironically, the desire
for grammar-oriented learning onlv influencesstudents to accept these limitations more
uncritically and give in to sotial reproduction.
Hence, although on one level the grammatical approach w'hich is a culturallr'
mandated, indigeno"usform of learning - eiables studentsto somewhat resist the ideological
thrusts of the foreign languageand textbook, it is doubtful w.hether we can glorify this as a
form of radical "resistance"as Kandiah (1984) implies.This is not to denv that the studr
sympathizes u'ith Kandiah's explanation of lack of motivation in ESOL students as being
a result of the sociopolitical impiications of English in Sri Lanka; the study also refutes
the alternativeexplanationsof Goonetilleke (1983) and Hanson-Smith(1984) that this is
simplv a consequenceof the educationalpolicv rvhich makes studentsgive more time to
rival subjectseven though students are convinced ofthe benefits ofEnglish.Yet Kandiah
fails to grapple u'ith the complexitv of students' opposition '"vhichhasto be qualified by their
belief in the benefits of English, resulting in examination-oriented motivation. This tension
results eventually in their giving in to social and ideological reproduction through English
It becomes important therefbre to unravel the ambiguous strands of students' behavior
with the help of Giroux ( 19 8 3) u'ho rvarns that the concept of resistancemust not be allou'ed
to become a categorv indiscriminatelv hung o\:er everv expressionof "oppositional behavior(p. 109). Thus, Giroux distinguishes betrveen resistance,
which he sees as displaying
ideological ciaritv and commitment to collective action for social transformation from mert
opposition,which is unclear, ambivalent, and passive.Har.ing analvzedthe effects of classroon"l
behavior in the larger historical and social contexts, we can say that the responsesanc
attitudes of the students do not fall under Giroux's definition of radical resistance.Student.
or collective critical action.Theirs is largely a vague.
fail to sustainconsciousness-raising
instinctive oppositional behavior r,vhich,due to its lack of ideological clarity, ironicall'.
accommodates to their reproductive forces. It is perhaps in Supendran we see any signs c:
consciousresistancethat displav potential for the development ofa radical pedagogy for th.
Lankan context.The behar,iorof most other studentsin the classis an ambivalent stater.l-hic:.
contains elements of accommodation as lvell as opposition in response to the conflictir. pulls of socioeconomic mobilitr', on the one harrd, and cultural integritv on the other.
References
'ldeologv
and ideologicalstate apparatuses'
Althusser,L. (1911)
and
, rn Leninand philosophy
(pp. 12 1-1731.London: Nerv Left Books.
otheressays
Aronowitz, S., and Giroux, H. (1985) Education
undersiege:The
conservative,
liberaland radical
debateoverschooling.South Ha8ler',N{A: Bergin and Garvev.
'The
academiclistening task: A casestudr''. TESOL@rarterly,
Benson,M. J (1989)
23(31,
+214+s.
in educafion,
Bourdieu, P., and Passeron,l-P. (1917) Reproduction
socienand culture.London:
Sage.
Bovr..les,
Nell'York: BasicBooks.
S., and Gintis, H. (1916) Schoolngin capitalist,Lmerica.
'The
teachingof Engiish'. TheCe1'lon
de Souza,D. (1969,April)
Observer,
pp. 18 29.
acr.Chicago:Aldine.
Denzin,\M (1970) Theresearch
'lndia
and linguistics'.JournaloJ the AmericanOrientalSociery,
75,
Emeneau,M. B. (1955)
1 A f
r . l
l+)-1)).
226
A. SURESH CANAGARAJAH
O'Neili, R., Kingburl., R., Yeadon,T., and Cornelius, E.T. (i978) Americankernellessons:
Ne*-York: Longman.
Intermediate.
Peirce,B.N. (1989)'Tou.arda pedagogvof possibilitvin the teachingof Englishinternationally:
+01 420.
People'sEnghshin SouthAfrica'. TESOL@Larterly,23(3),
Pennycook,A. (1989)'The concept of method, interestedknowledge, and the politics of
languageteaching'. TESOLQuarterll',23(.+), 589 618.
description
in language
teaching:A
andmethods
Richards,J. C., and Rodgers,T.S.(1986)Approaches
. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni'r'ersitr,Press.
and anal'lsis
Sirisena,U.D.l. (1959) Editorial introduction in Educationin Ceylon(Pt. 1, pp. xxv-xvii).
Colombo, Sri Lanka: Ministrv of Educationand Cultural Affairs.
1n Ceylon
S.W (1969)'The Hindu tradition', in U.D.l. Sirisena(ed.) Educatton
Somasegaram,
Affairs.
Lanka:
Ministr-v
of
Education
and
Cultural
(Pt. 3, pp. 113 1-1 144). Colombo,Sri
London: Methuen.
andclassrooms.
Stubbs,M. (1976) Language,schools
Watson-Gegeo,K. A. (1988)'Ethnographvin ESL: Defining the essentials'.IESOI Qgarteily,
22(+\,515-592.
Weis, L. (1985) Betweentwo worlds,B\ack studentsin an urban communitycollege.Boston:
Routiedge.
Wickramasuriva,S.(1981)'James de Alu.is and second languageteaching in Sri Lanka'.
4, 11-29.
Navasilu,
Willis, P. (1917) Learningto labour:How working classkidsget worktngclassjobs. Manchester,
England:SaxonHouse.
(1978) ProJane
London: Routledge,
cuhures.
,cter I4
J. KeithGhicl<
SAFE-TALI(: C0LLUSI0N IN
APARTHEID EDUCATION
Introduction
Background to the study
- T r H E R E I S w I D E S P R E A D A G R E E M E N T A M O N G S T o b s e r v e ras b o u t r , v h a t
u-ere the essentiaicharacteristicsof interactionsin schoolsfor black people in South
I
:,irica under the former apartheid system: highlv centralised, rvith teachers adopting
.-rthoritarian roles and doing most of the talking, w.ith ferv pupil initiations, and u'ith most
: the pupil responsestaking the form of group chorusing.Schlemmer and Bot (1986: 801
::.port a senior African school inspector as stating that black pupils rvere discouraged from
..king questionsor participating activeh'in learning and explain that it rvas regarded as
.:rpolite and even insubordinateto ask questionsor make suggestionsin class.Thembela
'r986:41) refers to classroom
practice being characterisedbt'rote learning and teacher--cr-rtred instruction.
of suchinteraction
Most observers,moreover,agreethat the educationalconsequences
.rvles w.ereunfortunate. Schlemmer and Bot (1985) andThembela (1985), for example,
:rque that the use of such stvles oppressedcreativit\.,initiative and assertiveness.MacDonald
1988) claims that there are aspectsof metacognition and disembedded thinking crucial to
rdr-ancedlearning and to effectir,efunctioning in a technological societv w-hich these stvles
rf interacting and learning did not promote.
I became verv a\\,are of the possible negative educational consequencesof the
'..erw.helmingpreference for such stvles of interaction in schools for black peopie in South
I r:ica. through mv involvement u,'ith in-service teacher education projects w.hich had, as
. . ,r their primarv objectives, the fostering of communicati"'e approachesto the teaching
-nqlish in Kn'aZulu schools. (Kr,vaZulu rvas a patchu.ork of geographical areas on the
,.:ern seaboardof South Africa r.r'hich,in terms of apartheid policl-, r,vasdesignateda
, rneland'for Zulu people.At the time of the studv reported here, the total population of
,-,r.e speakersof Zulu rvasalmost sevenmillion; thev thus constituted the largest language
- irp in South Africa . Zulu speakerslive in manv parts of South Africa, but at that time
. :rroximateiv6ve million of them lived in Ku-aZulu.)
.\ number of the implementors of the in-serr.ice teacher education projects complained
'-rtthe reluctanceof manv of the teachers,and even some of the students,to adopt the
SAFE-TALI( 229
Organisation of the study
-\lost researchreports implv that the researchwhich thev are reporting on proceeded in
lerv orderlv and logical lvavs, and that the researchers,from the outset, lvere more
know-ledgeableand insightful than ther- actuallv rvere. The false starts, the partial
understandings and the dead ends do not feature. In this chapter I r,r'ill be departing from
this tradition, and sharing rvith mv readers the often tortuous paths I follorved in exploring
the significanceof interactional stvles n'idelv emploved in schoolsfor black people in South
\frica.
To begin r,vith, I report on mv micro-ethnographic analvsisof an episode in a lesson in
a KwaZulu classroom.The general goal of micro-ethnographic analvsisis to provide a
description of horv interlocutors set up or constitute contexts that allorv t}em to make sense
,rf one another's messages.Mv specificpurpose llas to trv to establishw'hy teachers and
.tudents in such classrooms found it difficult to transfer to stvles compatible r,vith comn.runicativelanguage teaching.The analvsisreveals interactional behaviour consistent
"vith
the putatir.e Zulu-English interactional stl'les identified in the interethnic encounters
referred to above. More significantlv,it reveals that such stvles served valuable social
tunctions for students and teachers alike.This could account for r,.,'hvteachers and students
nere reluctant to abandonsuch stvles,despitethe fact that the academicconsequencesof
.uch oreference \\'ere probabh' unfortunate.
I then explain hoiv mv gior.-ing a\\'arenessof the limitations of micro-ethnographic
of pervasiveschoolfailure amongstdominated groups
researchin general,and explanatio.ps
.n terms of culturallr'-specificinteractionalstvlesin particular,prompted me to rr-cranrine
:lv classroominteractional data. Critics havepointed out that micro-ethnographicsturliei
,iten take insufficient account of holv p..o'uiir'. r'alues,ideologies and structures in tht
rlider societ) (macro context) constrain rvhat takes place at a micro lelel..{ccordinqh. I
.ive an account of the historical, structural circumstancesrvhich contributed to making
'--.rimarvschool education for most teachersand studentsin so-calledblack education in
,partheid SouthAfrica such a traumatic experience.Finaliv I offer a reinterpretation of the
,nalvsed data. I suggestthat what is most significantlv displayed in this episode is not
-ulturally-specificZulu interactional stvles,but stvlesconsistentlvith interactional norms
,.tri.t'rt"".tr"rs and studentsinteractionulh'.o.r.titl,ted asa means of avoiding the oppressive
-.nddemeaning effects of apartheid ideologv and structures. Follou.ing McDermott and
Tr lbor (1987) I see the teacher and her studentsas colludingin preserving their dignitv bv
:.rdingthe fact that little or no learning is taking place.While serving the short-term interests
iteachers and students,such strategies,I suggest,contributed to the lvidelv documented
'.rghfailure rate in black education in apartheid SouthAfrica, and made teachersand students
:rsistant to educationalinnovation.The strategiesthus served to reinforce and reproduce
:he inequalities betu'een the r.arious population groups r.vhichcharacterised apartheid
. rciet)..
J. I(EITH CHICI(
230
bv Marianne Claude becauseit contains features that I had observed in many lessonstaught
bv t.u.h.., rvho rvere highlv regarded either bv students or-b1'school authorities in the
(*-uZrl1, educational,yri"-. In other u'ords, I chosepart of a'good'lesson. I did this to
's
ensurethat I u.ould be analvsingconventional'targeted'behaviourin Lakoff sense'I chose
a content subject rather than an Engiish lesson so as to lessenthe chance that the teacher's
style might have been influenced bv Marianne claude's intervention.
I baied the analvsison methods developed bv interactional socio-linguists(see, for
example, Gumperz 1982a1u'ho,rather than impose their ow'n categories,attemPt to access
the inierpretative or inferential processesofthe participants bv repeatedly playing t1revideo
or .orr.rd recordings to the participants and/or informants who share their cultural
backgrounds, and bu eliciting interpretations from them about proressively finer detaiis
of thJ dis.ourse. I make use of transcription conventions rvhich highlight the nature of turn
exchange and which provide information about the supra-segmentalphonology of the
episodel Latch marks 1 l-1 u." used to shou- smooth exchange of turns r'vithout overlap,
while square brackets are used to signifv simultaneous speech ( [ ). Underlining is used to
signify phonological prominence such as stressor marked pitch movement.The'shape' of
ttt. plt.t, movement is indicated above the part of the utterance rvhere this occurs' and so
.t
( ) s l g n l h e sr l s l n g t o n e .
Relevant contextual information is that the classconsisted of 3 B students of both sexes
rvho lvere native speakersof Zulu, lvhose averageage at the time was fourteen years, and
w.ho u,ere in their seventh vear of schooling (the fourth vear of the Senior Primary phase).
The teacher, w-hom I shall rdfer to as Mrs Gumbi, also a native Zulu speaker,was 32 years
of age and had completed ten vears of schooling and trvo vears of teacher training. Mrs
CnJt i conducted the entire lesson from the front of the ciassroom, making considerabie
use of the board. The students lvere cror,r,dedinto multiple-seat w'ooden desks arranged in
rorvs facing the board. The lesson took place through the medium of English. (ln KwaT,ulu
schools Engtistr served as the medium of instruction across the curriculum after the first
four vears of schooling through the medium of Zulu. )
'elements
which form the
n, th. uideo-recJrdi.rg ,'honus,the focus of the lesson u'as
of
elements of a
the
notion
introduced
Mrs
Gumbi
lesson
the
of
union set'. At the start
union set u.ith the aid of the board. Elements r,vereu.ritten on the board, and common
elements pointed to. She individuallv nominated one student to answer a question but,
significantlv, onlv after the information to be provided had been written on the board. The
few other student responsestook the form of teacher-initiated group chorusing.
The lessoncontinued:
1
2
3
+
5
o
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Mrs Gumbi:
allthemthevrvil'..T,#f"
Mrs Gumbi:
I :::
lcan .'ou trv to to list
SAFE-TALK 23I
the elements of the union set
StudentA: ltn-o Ithree
Nlrs Gumbi:
I that is tri'o
StudentA: three
Mrs Gumbi: lthr6e
StudentA: lfour
Mrs Gumbi: lfoui
StudentA: l{ile
N { r sG u m b i : h r .
sir
Stud.nt t,
- \ l r sG u m b i :
'si-r
StudentA: lseven
Mrs Gumbi:
lser:en
StudentA: leight
Mrs Gumbi: leight and eight . . .
r,vhattvpe of set is this nor,r'. . . it is d I union set
Students: I union set
Mrs Gumbi: llt is a
union set becausewe have been listing no$r at the elements
of set B togelher rvith the elements of set
IC
Students: I C
''
Mrs Gumbi: lto form one
setr,vhichcalled rvhat . . . a uriion I set
Students:
I set
Mrs Gumbi: lbut remember
u-hen you list the union set the elements for for the union set
do not repeat those elements w.hich are lvritten tlvice do vou get that
Students: lves
Mrs Gumbi: ido not repeat them list them once OK
Students: lves
M.s il*bi,
ldo vou understandthis
Students: lyel
N{rs Gumbi: ]do vou understandthis
Students:
lves
'. irar is immediatelv striking about this episode (as also the lesson as a rvhole) is the
:ncidenceofteacher volubilitv and student (particuiarlv individual student) taciturnity,
:'.:racteristicsof interactions in the formerlv segregatedschools for black people in South
-.::lca, which, as I noted above,havebeen commented upon bv manv observers.Mrs Gumbi
-. :his extract, as elsew.herein the lesson,does most of the talking. Indeed, of the total 19
.nutes duration of the lesson as a u'hole, five secondsshort of 16 minutes consistsof
::;her talk. Also the students'opportunities to talk (r,vithone or two exceptions) are
: u c e dt o g r o u p c h o r u s i n g .
\blubilitv on the part of the teacher, u'hich Scoilon and Scollon (1983) regard as a
..daritv strategv, and taciturnitv on the part of the students, which they regard as a
:r.rerlc strateg;-,is consistent w'ith the culturallr'-specific interactional styles I had found
.lence for in ml'analvsis of interethnic encountersbetrveenZulu-English speakersand
- -LthAfrican(u'hite) Englishspeakers(Chick 1985).Thisfinding might, therefore, be seen
. .ending credence to the notion that the interactional stvles emploved in KrvaZulu
232
J. I(EITH CHICI(
classroomsrvere similar to those used in a u'ide range of domains w'ithin the Zulu-speaking
communltv.
A problem for this interpretation is that teacher volubilitr'' and student taciturnity have
been shown to be characteristic of classroom discoursein manv parts of the lr-orld including
r,vhite,middle classEuropean (see, for example, Sinclair and Coulthard 1975) and USA
classrooms(see,for example, Mehan 1979).lndeed Ellis ( 1987: 87) suggeststhat teachercentred instruction, rvhich has been so pervasive in black education in South Africa, is
derived from classroompracticescommon in pre-lvar Europeanschools.An equally,if not
more plausible interpretation, is that teacher volubilitv and student taciturnitv are features
of instltutio.r-.p".ifi. rather than culturalll -specific discourse. According to this
interpretation, the source of teacher volubilitv and student taciturnity is the asvmmetrical
distribution of social po\\:er and knorvledge betu-een teachers ani students evident in
educational institutions throughout the n'orld.
lVhat is not found, horvever, in classroom discourse throughout the world is the
chorusing behaviour evident in this episode, r'vhichis u-hy I chose to focus on it in ml'
analvsis.Closer examination revealed that trvo kinds of cues to chorusing are provided bv
'do
you
M r s G u m b i . T h e o n e k i n d o f c u e i n v o l v e st h e u s e o f a s e t o f y e s / n o q u e s t i o n s :
u n d e r s t a n dt h i s ? '( l i n e s4 ' l a n d 4 6 ) ; ' d o y o u g e t t h a t ? ' ( l i n e s 2 - 3 a n d 4 0 ) ; ' O K ' ( l i n e 4 2 ) ;
'isn't
i n t h e l e s s o n ) . T h es e c o n dk i n d o f
i t ? ' a n d ' d o v o u s e et h a t ? ' ; ' c a nI g o o n ? ' ( e l s e l v h e r e
c u e i n r . o l v e st h e u s e o f r i s i n g t o n e o n a c c e n t e ds v i l a b l e s( e . g .l i n e s 7 , 1 7 , ) 9 , 3 3 , 3 6 ) . T h i s
cue is also used as a prompt to individual student responsesin a sequence(lines 16, 18 , 20,
is the operation of a relativelv simple prosodic system
22,2+,26 etc.).What this sr:iggests
in which a restricted set of prosodic cues is used for a wide range of prosodic functions.
Interestingly, this observation is consistent w-ith mv finding in a studv of interethnic
encounters (see Chick 1985) that Zulu-English speakersrelv iess than do white South
African English speakerson prosodic cues to signal (together with kinesic, paralinguistic,
lexical and syntactic cues) the relationship betw-eendifferent parts ofthe text, the relative
importance of information units, speakertransition points and so on.This ma1'be related
to the fact that the prosodv ofZulu, a tone language,is very different from that of English
The closer examination of the chorusing behaviour in this episode points to a possible
exolanation for the difficultr, rvhich teachers and students in KwaZulu schools have in
transferring from the putatire culturallr'-specificZulu-English stvles (of w'hich the system
of prosodic cuesis apparentlv a distinctive feature) to styles compatible with communicative
Ianguageteaching. I examined, first, the possibilitv that the chorusing elicited by the one
kind of cue (rising tone), in certain cases,servesthe academicfunction of reinforcing certain
key information items and, perhaps,helping the students to become more familiar rvith (to
memorise?)technicalterms (e.g.lines 29-30). Horvever,further analysisrevealedthat it is
often not newinformation that studentsare askedto chorus, but information already available
to the students before the lesson (e.g. in lines 12 and 3l the students are required to supplv
the word SET rather than the name of the set that thev have learnt about in the lesson).
Elsewhere in the lesson the rising tone prompts them merelv to complete words (e.g.
intersecTlON; w.e are looking for the unKNOWN).The fact that the information value of
items chorused is often low- prompted me to investigate the possibiiitv that the primarv
function of the chorusing eiicited bv this kind of cue is social rather than academic.
I also examined the possibilitv that the chorusing elicited by the other kind of cue (the
set of questions) servesthe academic function of enabiing Mrs Gumbi to accessthe level of
her students' understanding so that she can knorv r,vhetheror not to recvcle her explanation
at a lou'er level of abstraction.Holvever, I discoveredthat the chorused responsesare without
exception'ves'.This suggeststhat the questionsare not realir-openquestions,and that their
SAFE-TALI( 233
function is to signalparticipation rather than ler-elof understanding,i.e. it is again social
rather than academic in purpose.
The social function of chorusing became even more clearlv evident when I
examined the lesson as a vi.hole. I discorered that the students u.. ."qui."d, in response to
both kinds of cue, to provide mainlv confirmative one- or tu'o-w-ord responses,or responses
rvhich repeat information on the board or information u'hich has been rec-vcledagain and
again bv Mrs Gumbi. This suggeststhat chorusing gives the students opportunities to
participate in rvavsthat reduce the possibilitv of the loss of face associatedwith providing
incorrect responsesto teacher elicitations,or not being able to provide responsesat all. It
is interesting to note that the chorusing is more evident at the beginning of the lesson than
later on. Once responseshave been u'ell rehearsed, so that the chance of being wrong
publiclv is reduced, more individual responsesare elicited, and at the end studentsare even
invited to leave their desks and carrv out the verv public act of '"vriting their responses
on the board.
There is, of course, nothing unusual about teachersneeding to resort to face-saving
strategies,since the asvmmetrical roie relations betlveen teachers and students to be found
in most parts of the lr'orld ensure that the risk of face threat is great. As Cazden (1979 : 147)
expiains,'teachers,bv the verv nature oftheir professionalrole, are continuously threatening
both aspectsoftheir students'face constrainingtheir freedom ofaction; evaluating,often
negativelv,a high proportion ofstudent acts and utterances; and often interrupting student
w.ork and student talk'.To reduce this risk, teachersempiov face-savingstrategiessuch as
'Can
vou open your books,
expressingdirectivesindirectlv bri'meansof interrogatives,e.g.
please?'This strategv reduces the sense of imposition associatedu'ith the directive
bv suggestingthat the students are free to decide rvhether or not to compll'. Horvever, the
need to resort to face-savingstrategiesis particularlv great in Kw'aZulu classroomsbecause
the asymmetrv in the relative status of teachers and students is marked. This reflects the
marked asvmmetrv in the relative status of adults and children in the w-ider communitv.
According to Marianne Claude'sinformants (seeChick and Claude 1985), an adult in that
communitv has the right to ask anv child, r,vhomav rvell be a stranger, to do errands for
them (i.e. take a messageto someone;buv somethingat the shop) and mav even chastisea
child not tireir ou.n.
Another striking feature of this episode is the remarkablv rhvthmic manner in which
teacher and students svnchronise their verbal and prosodic behaviours, particularly in
a c c o m p l i s h i ntgh e c h o r u s i n gs e q u e n c e sC. o n t e x l a n a l r l s ttse . g .S c h e f l i nI 9 7 l ; C o n d on 1 9 7 7 :
Kendon 1973,1979; McDermott, Gospodinoff and Aaron 1978) have demonstratedthat
participants in conversations organise their behaviours in co-operative, reciprocal,
rhvthmicalll' co-ordinated u'ays in signalling to one another and negotiating the context of
their talk. This enablesthem to make senseof rvhat it is that thev are doing together. In the
episode such interactional svnchronv is possible, presumabiv, becausethe teacher and her
students are abie to dralv on their shared,implicit knowledge of the discourse conventions
associated',vithconventional interactional stvles. I suggestthat this synchronv contributes
to the perception that purposeful activitv and learning are taking place.
To sum up, the micro-ethnographic analvsis of this episode reveals interactional
behaviour consistentrvith Zulu-English interactional stvlesidentified in a studv of interethnic
encounters (see Chick 1985). Particularlv noteu'orthv features ofthe discourse are the
chorusing behaviour and the remarkablv rhvthmic manner in w'hich the participants
synchronise their interactional behaviours in accomplishing the chorusing sequences.
Analvsis revealed that these putative stvles serve social rather than academic functions. For
example, thel help the students to avoid the loss of face associatedlvith being wrong in a
234
J. I(EITH CHICI(
public situation, and provide them u-ith a senseof purpose and accomplishment. Something
not examined here, but equallv important, is that these stvles also help teachers avoid the
loss of face associatedwith displavs of incompetence. This is becausethev ensure that the
Iessondevelops along predetermined lines, and that the opportunities for students to raise
issuesand problems that teachers mav not be competent to handle are few'. It is for such
reasonsthat I refer to discourseassociatedr,viththese stl'lesas'safe-talk'.
What this analysissuggestsis that the task of making a transition - from the culturallypreferred interactional styles empioved conventionallv in KlvaZulu classroomsto the styles
associatedlr.ith the more egalitarian relationships required by the communicative language
teaching approach rvaslikelv to be fraught rvith risk for both teachers and students.Thev
'safe-talk'.
all resistedinnovation becausethev had vestedinterestsin the maintenanceof
SAFE-TALI( 235
-^'-r r1981), too, lr-hile not denving that micro-ethnographic studieshave a role in
. :..:r: hon-interaction acts as an immediate causeof a particular child's failure, arques
. - - : -.sential also to studv how'theseclassroomeventsare built up bv forces emanatrng
- : - r d et h e s e- i c . o s e t t i n g s .
.:.nced bv such thinking, I concluded that mv micro-ethnographic analvsisoithe
. : - f r o m t h e m a t h e m a t i c sl e s s o nn e e d e d t o b e i n f o r m e d b r . a m a c r o e t h n o o r a o h i .
-:.: ,,ithe schoolingprovided for black studentsin K.,','aZulu.Thisaccoun,. ul,-i. 1',n..
. - - . : : , 1 b l O g b u ( 1 9 8 1 ) , u ' o u l d b e o n e t h a t s h o r v e d h o u - t h e s c h so\oslt e n r ' ' u . . . l . r . , - l
... organisation,economr',political organisation,belie{'svstemand . alu... chan;. rn.1
,
.:. the section r.vhich follor,r's,I provide information about the macro context of
..r,gtor blacksin SouthAfricaduring the apartheidera, l'hich I identified aspotentiallr
'
::: io the reinterpretation of this episode.Sincethe lessonoccurred in a Senior Primary
. ,iourth to eighth vearsofschooling) I focus on this phaseofthe schoolingsystem.I
.. :lso on the role of Englishas medium of instruction, sinceresearchsuggests(see,for
.-:.:le. \lacDonald 1990) that difficulties associatedu.ith the transfer from mother tongue
-:..lish in the first vear of this phaseconstrainclassroombehaviour in powerful ways.
of schooling
for black
people
in apartheid
236
J. I(EITH CHICI(
are responsibie for large numbers of students and rvho usually have to cope w-ith
overcrolvded classrooms,to facilitate more egalitarian, decentralised r,vaysof interacting.
The more long-term discriminatorv effects of segregatededucation were evident, also,
in the differential levels of professional qualification of teachers in schools for the various
populationgroups.According to Du Plessis,Du Pisaniand Plekker ( 1989) whereas,in 1989.
t OO%o
of teachers in schools for rvhites u'ere professionalh' qualified in the senseof having
at least matriculation or higher academic qualifications, as rvell as a teachers'certificate or
of teachersin black primarv schoolsand 10% in black secondaryschools
diploma, only 2Oo/o
were professionaiiy qualified.
Of particular relevanceto the constraintsof macro factors upon classroomdiscourse
is another factor, namelv, horv apartheid ideoiogv rvas translated into languagemediun:
policv in black education. Hartshorne (1987) reports that, untii the Nationalistscame tc
power, the position of English as sole medium of instruction after the first few' years o:
schoolingwas unchallenged.He rePorts, further, that the Nationalists:
made of Afrikaans a st'mbol of exclusivenessand separateness,and the struggle fo:
Afrikaansbecamepart of the'mission'to control and rule SouthAfrica. In educatiorthis expressed itself in a commitment to separate schools and rigid mother-tongut
educationpolicy. (Hartshorne 1987: BB)
This commitment eventuallv translated into mother-tongue instruction in primar'.
education with English and Aftikaans as compulsorv subjectsfrom the first year of schooling.
and u'ith both Afrikaans and English as media of instruction in secondary education (ha-:
the subjectsthrough English and half through Afrikaans). It was the inflexible and doctrinair.
implementation of this policl; and the deafnessto the protests of the black communitv, tha:
sparked the Soweto uprising of 1976 .This spreadto the rest of the country, almost assumin_;
the proportions of a full-scale civil lvar. As a consequenceof the conflict, the governmer.:
rvasforced to concede to the black communitv the right to chooseeitherEnglish or Afrikaar.
as medium in the high schools. In response to further pressure from the communitr', th.
right to choose was extended to the higher primarv phase.English became overwhelming,.
the chosenmedium in black educationafter the first three yearsof schooling.In 1988. i::
example, onlv 20 primar-v schools (including some verv smail farm schools) and no hu_.:
s c h o o l su s e d A f r i k a a n sa s m e d i u m ( S A I R R 1 9 8 8 / 8 9 ) .
Though the choice of English as medium represented the will of the people. :.
M a c D o n a l d ( 1 9 9 0 ) e x p l a i n s ,i n p r i m a r v e d u c a t i o na t l e a s t , i t a d d e d t o t h e b u r d e n s ' - :
teachers and students. She points out (1990:39) that the apartheid system ensured th::
most of t}e teachers in so-called black education did not speak English u'ith confidence :
fluency, used outmoded materials, and had almost no contact rvith English speakers.-{,ls
following the major shift to English as medium in primarv education from 1979 on\\'drC:
no changeswere made to the sl'llabus for English to prepare the ground linguisticallr. r. conceptually for its use acrossthe curriculum. As a consequence,black primary schc',.
students were not adequatelv prepared for the sudden transition to English in the four-year ofschooling concurrentlv rvith the curriculum broadening into ten subjects.Nor st:.
most of the teachers equipped to explain effectivelv in English the new'concepts in i:..
various content subjects such as mathematics.
MacDonald and her fellorv researchersfound that there rvasa considerablegap bets't.:
the English competence required for the reading of content subject textbooks in the fou:--year of schooling,and the English competencethat might havebeen expected if a stud.:'
had benefited optimallv from English as a second languageteaching materials then usec
SAFE.TALI( 237
- :r:imarv schools.Thevalso found that there rvasalso a verl-larqe gap betr.veenthis
. ...cd optimal .o-p",".r..
and the level of competence studen'Gi'.i,-,ull,ureached.
.:,r.nated,for example, that the vocabularv requirements in English increasedbl
rn the fourth vear of schooling.Thev calculated that a student rvho had learnt
'. trom the ESL materials in the junior primarr- phasemight have encountered not
.:. half the vocabularr',and might have been unfamiliar rvith svntactic elements in
,i sentencesin sciencetextbooks used in the fourth vear of schooling.Moreover
- : . r . e b e e nr o i g n o r a n to [ t h e c o n v e n t i o n so f e x p o s i t o n n ' r i t i n g a st o c x p e r i e n c e
.
. : : r d t o a s ' r e g i s t e rs h o c k ' u . h e nr e a d i n gt h o s et e x t s .
rse quence, the fourth vear of schooling ',r'asa time of trauma for both teachers
' - :::: a trauma reflectedin the high drop-out rate in black schoolsat the end of that
'r,r(-)
o r 8 . 9 % o f t h e t o t a l o u t f l o u ' i n 1 9 8 7 a c c o r d i n gt o t h e S A I R R R e p o r t
The researchersfound that the effect of those conditions r'vaslvhat thev termed
: nreaning'.'The children are likeiv to be alienatedbv rvhat ther have to learn,
:;rnlv perceive the implications and linkages betw'een the concepts the'g are
- : '.iith' (MacDonald 1990: 141). Facedu"ith theseodds, teacherstended to resort
,.:'.: notes that the studentsu'ere required to memorise.This gavethe impression
.:ninq taking place,but as MacDonald (1990: 1'13)points out, the studentsoften
: :: rhev did not understand, and n ere usuallv unable to use vrhat thev had learnt
r . . -n r o d eo f e d u c a t i o nd i d n o t a l l o r vt h e i n t e g r a t i o no f n e u i n f o r m a t i o nu ' i t h u h a t
.
- '.rrnt before.
:::.ntrprtation:
safe-talk
.- iers and students
as the outcome
of collusion
bet\\'een
238
J. I<EITH CHICK
These tlvo studies show hon' features of the macro context, namelv the institutional
ideoiogies and bureaucratic structures, constrain u'hat takesplace at a micro level. They also
,hoot t]r" participants u,orking together to reshape the structure of their discourse and to
socialiseone another into a set of sociolinguistic norms that enable them to meet their
i m m e d i a t en e e d s .A s C o l l i n s ( 1 9 8 7 : 3 1 3 ) e x p l a i n s :
Institutional ideoiogies and bureaucratic organisation forms do not entirely constrain
participants;peoplestill strive to make senseof their situation,to avoid or resist that
r t h i c h i s d e m e a n i n go r o p p r e s s i r e .
It was these insights that enabled me to recognise that the'safe-talk'w-hich I had
identified in my analrsis of the episode of the mathematics lesson does not represent the
inappropriate use of culturallv-specificZulu-English interactional styles.Rather,it represents
stvies *'hlch the participants interactionallv developed and constituted as a means of coping
*ith the o,r..*'h.l-i.rg odds thev facedin their segregatedschools.I suggestthat these styles
enabled them to collude in hiding unpleasantrealities.Thus, for example, the rhythmicallv
co-ordinated chorusing prompts and responsesenabled the teacher and students in the
episode to hide their poor command of English; to obscure their inadequate understanding
oi academic content; and to maintain a fagadeof effective learning taking place. In this rval
they r.vereable to preserve their dignitv to some extent. In terms of this interpretation.
.o-*onulities betw'een'safe-talk'ur,-dth. putative Zulu-English stylesidentified in an earlier
studt' (Chick 1985) are featuies of conventional Zulu interactional styles that survived the
process of constituting a ne\,r'set of norms of interaction. In doing the interactional w'ork
i.rlrolued in constituting these norms, the participants inevitably started by making use oi
interactional stvles most familiar to them.
'solutions
achievedto local problems ma.
Unfortunately, as Collins (1987 :31 3) notes,
damaging'.'Safe-talk'has
proved to be a
have unforeseen consequencesr.vhichare quite
barrier both to learning and to educational innovation in South Africa. As such it served tc'
reinforce the inequalities that gave rise to it in the {irst place.
Conclusion
To sum up, in this chapter I have explored the significanceofinteractional styles that lver.
widel-v employed in schools for black people in South Africa. The fine-grained analysisof ar.
episode from a lesson'"vhichexemplifies such stvles revealedthat thev served importani
social functions for teachers,but probably did not promote efficient learning.They ais'provided support for the hvpothesisthat teachers and students in KwaZulu classroomsu-ert
often reluctant to adopt more egalitarian, decentralised rvavs of interacting advocated l:,
in-service educationbecausethev had vestedinterestsin'safe-taik'.
A richer contextualisation of the classroom data in terms of the ideology and structurt.
of the wider apartheid societv facilitated a reinterpretation of m,vfindings. According to tli:.
'safe-talk'
represents styles consistent lvith norms of interaction r,r'hic:.
reinterpretation.
teachers and students constituted as a means of avoiding the oppressiveand demeanin;
constraints of apartheid educational sYstems.
One implication of this studv is that teaching innovation at the micro level which is n :
accompanied bv appropriate structural changeat the macro level is unlikelv to succeed.F'-:
those like m-vselfu.ho havebeen engagedin the difficult task of educationalinnovation rvitL.
the constraints imposed bv the apartheid societt',it has been exciting to experience t:,'
SAFE-TALI( 239
.:rartheidstructuresand the assemblingof alternativestructures.Hopefullv,
,.:ke it lessnecessarvfor teachersand studentsto engagein'safe-talk'.
L- ..' .rdgement
Mr li"
iiilllllL; -
ilulTr:-::-.
c-S
'
. I 9 r Language in education: r'ariation in the teacher-talk register' , in J. E . Alatis
, I Tucker (edsl Languagein Publjc 4fe, 1++-62. \Vashington D.C.: Georgeto$'n
:--:r Press.
'The
interactional accomplishment of discrimination in South Africa.
.qSi)
, , , - : ) n S o c t e t1r4 ( 3 ) : 2 2 9 - 3 2 6 .
: . . : r d C l a u d e , M . ( 1 9 8 5 ) ' T h e V a l l e v T r u s t E n g l i s h L a n g u a g eP r o j e c t : r e s e a r c h i n
ProceedingsoJ the Fourth \ational ConJerenceoJ the Southern AJrican Applied
: :::
- - .,. .:,-i.{ssocicrion.
Johannesburg: Universitv of theWitr'r'atersrand.
jSTr'Conversation and*knou.ledgein bureaucratic settings' . DiscourseProcesses
70:
.
. .,).
',i,
240
J. I(EITH CHICI(
2 + 57 5 .
'On
llcDermott, R. and T\'lbor, H. (1987)
the necessitvof collusion in conversation',in
L. Kedar (ed.) Pou'er
throughDtscourse.
Norrvood, N.J.:Ablex.
\lehan. H. (1919) Learninglessons:SocialOryanization
in the Classroom.
Cambridge, Mass..
Harvard Universitr-Press.
t - l g b u .J i l 9 3 1 t ' S c h o o l e t h n o g r a p h va: m u l t i - l e v e la p p r o a c h ' A
. n t h r o p o l o gayn d E d u c a t i o n a l
Q;rrerlr pp. 3-29.
> ; h e t l i n . . \ . E . ( 1 9 1 3 ) C o m m u n i c a t i nSgt r u c t u r e s : . 4 n a l v soiJs a P s y c h o t h e r aTpila n s a c t i o n .
B l o o m i n q t o nI :n d i a n aU n i r e r s i t rP r e s s .
S c h l e m m e rL, . " a n dB o t , M . 1 1 9 8 6 ; ' E i u c a t i o na n dr a c er e l a t i o n si n S o u t h A f r i c a ' i,n G . K e n d a l
(ed.) Education
andtheDiversity
oJCultures.
Pietermaritzburg:Universityof Natal.
Scollon,R. and Scollon,S. (1983)'Facein interethniccommunication',in J.C. Richardsand
R.W Schmidt(eds)Language
and Communication,
T56-88. London: Longman.
Sinclair,j.McH. and Coulthard, N{. (1915) Towards
an AnalS,sis
oJDiscourse.
London: Oxford
Universitv Press.
Singh,R., Leie, J. and N{artohardjono,G. (1988)'Communicationin a multi-lingual societr:
some missedopportunities'. Language
in Society17:43 59.
SouthAJrican
lnstituteoJRaceRelations
(SAIRR)Reports87l88, 88/89
'Some
Thembela,A. (1985)
cultural factors u'hich affect school education for blacks in Souti-.
Africa', in G. Kendall (.d.) Educationand the Diversity of Cuhures,3T--+)
Pietermaritzburg:Universitv of Natal.
rART THREE
teachingandlearning
Analysing
er3
;3ter l5
NeilMercer
LANGUAGE FOR TEACHING A LANGUAGE
::troduction
HIS cHAPTER IS ABour
r H E u s e o fl a n g u a g e a s a m e d i u m f o r t e a c h i n g a n d
learning, rvith specialrelevanceto the teaching of English. Horvever,many of the issues
, dcal lr'ith, especiallvthose in the earlv parts of the chapter, are not specific to the use
:'i particular language in the classroom, or the teaching of any particular curriculum
rt. Of course, languagesof irstruction and curricula varv from countrv to countrv,
-l
- n to region and even from school to school.Teachersdiffer in their st1'leand approach,
:reir classesare made up of individualsof variouspersonalcharacteristicsand cultural
i GrfL
..-rounds, rvho differ in the u.avs thev respond to teachers and particular str-lesoi [- f6r
'fta,\t* r
.rng.But, asI rvill explain,observationalresearchsuggeststhat some wavsthar languaqe
'
tI
, - . .1in interactions betu,een teachers and students
featuresof .lurrrooirl liL
,
- .._lhoutthe w'orld. I will illustrate some of these"..L--on
features of classroom language .lr-ith
- .-fc examples,and discusstheir possibleeducationaifunctions.In the latter part of the
,. icr. I r'vill use the theoretical perspective of socio-cultural psvchologv to relate the
'r analysisof classroom language to a consideration of the nature and
quality of
,'':-)om education.In these rt'ays,I hope to demonstratethe practical educationalvalue
. . :reful anall'sisof the interactive process of teaching-and-learning.
- rnqlrage
and teaching
:.r'er thev are and u'hatever thev are teaching,teachersin schoolsand other educational
' . -ttions are likelv to face some simiiar
practical tasks.Thel, have to organize activities to I
r c l a s s eosI d i s p a r a t ej n d i r i d u a l s l.e a r n e r su h o m a r r a r r c o n s i d e . ] b l ui n t h e i r a i m s ,
I
-.-r-s
and motivations.Thevhaveto control unrulv behauio,r..Thevare exoectedto teach J
i l i c c u r r i c u l r r - , . b o i . ' o f k n o u l e d g . . n d , k i l l , u h i c h r h e i r s t u d e n t sn ' o u l d n o t
-:..alh-encounterin their out-of-school lives.And
thev have to monitor and assessthe
.tional progressthe studentsmake. All these aspectsof t"uchers'responsibilitiesare
. ted in their use of languageas the principal tool of their responsibilities.As examples
".., I'"vould like I'ou no\\-to consider two transcribed sequencesof classroom talk,
. -'nces1 and 2 overleaf.For each in turn, consider:
Can t''ouidentifv anr recurring patterns of interaction in the talk betrveen teacher and
.l
D U D I l Si
244
NEIL MERCER
in each of the
\\'hat \1,ouldvou sa\'\\'erethe main functions of the teacher'squestions
Do the sequencesdiffer at all in this respect?
sequences?
S:
T:
S:
T:
S:
T:
L A N G U A G EF O R T E A C H I N GA L A N G U A G E 2 4 5
ll
h
ll
\ r D S e r v a i l o n a l r e s e a r c n n a s s n o \ \ ' n t n a t I n c l a s s r o o m c o n v e r s a t l o n st e a c h e r s u s u a l l t ' a s k t h e
-Th-e
talk: a teacher's
Susstionis follorved by u tLylS"t;4Lg-follolved
--4-il
o,
feedback
"roluotiF.rts
t.----1---F1---7=-
l i n g u i s t - S i n c l a iar n d C o u l t h a r d( l 9 7 J l s e ea l s oM e h a n , 1 9 7 9 ; V a nL j e r , C h a p t e r5 o f t h i s
book) and usually knorvn as a
For example:
T:
,'I
D
E/
- _
, , t
Most classroom talk u'hich has been recorded displavsa clear boundarv between
knou ledgeand ignorance . . . Tb be askeda questionb.: ,o-.o." * ho u'unt, to kno*
I
is to be given the initiative in deciding the amount of information to be offered and p
I
t h e m a n n e r o [ t e l l i n g . B u t t o b e a s k e db v s o m e o n er r h o a l r e a d vk n o u ' s .a n d r , r ' a n ttso I
,
G---7-'----'--
t<11.12l11|;Su
knS\, is to hatelour ansn'eraccepted,
reiectedor otbenviseevaluatedt
accordingto the questioner'sbeliefsaboutrvhatis relevantald truq, (1994,p 48) j
Teachersneed to check students'understandingofprocedural, factual matters, and thatis
c o m m o n l v t h e t u n c t i o n o f I R F e x c h a n g e sS. e q u e n c eI i l l u s t r a t e sa l f f i T i F e e d b a c k ' f i o m
a teacher mav also be used to control students' behaviour.These are quite legitimate
functions of teacher-E
all teachers might expect to use languagein this rval' quite
frequentlv. But
relving heavilv and continuouslv on traditional, formal
I
t(
q"":trol-u"!_glrlg
fo. fr
constructtons.
ffifo.
guidinglea
- suchasexperiminling\\ith neu tl pesot languEe
246
NEIL MERCER
b,6A
s4".'"
3s,\F
Anffitandfuiitionofthequestion-and-ans1Verexchangesinthe
In
two sequences,\\,e can see that something rather different is going on in each of them.
teacher is asking her primar,y school.pupils to prodyge English sentenggs
S.q,r".r6ftre
which conform to the mod
2 is not doing that. I"gsd_fuIr*}lg
these,r
thev have'"vritten. ln
the students to elaboratl in En_g!r!4r!at
questiffi
e-age
:.:i:h'
this *'ar',the teachertr
I
el'
but ratfrer encourugin
worse
or
am not suggestingthat either teacheris usingtheir quesUonlngtechnlquesto better
wv
A
4
f.tffioGl
bec
s of teaching-and-learning'The
,\
/,\
/r\ |
LJI
t hrpl
"^o8rl
ly-
I
l
fur t
Q t.c6'
|
I
l^\
t
|
I
,.-\
. . . t o r e s p o n d t o u ' h a t l e a r n e r s s' uIt ' Z )
Y/
Conhrmation,
R.lections
Repetitrons
1,.1"'.tlations
Llaboratrons
l/\
f-'
. to describe significant
I
I
I
ampnncations
[
I
tq\-
recaps
/ 1)
\/
exolanations
';'statements
/.,
ing knowledgeJrom learners
t1?\rli.it
i
V
r:
thislggbllut ,n. 1'ntt"1ion
W" haveseenthat vuhena teacherinitiatesan IRF sequence,
request,we ca:.
eliciting information from a student. If thisGmplu " ,t..iglffiii
engagein u'h.often
also
But
teachers
t-h"teacher'sverbalact asa directelrcttatton.
d;tr"
ersthelnformati,
thich
rTrorr*
canbe r^Ira@
'right'
chtld: b-b b
Teacher:b-b-bls for?
)re
I\L
e;/6
wishesto make or
..-I r o m ) e q u e n c el :
S:
T:
S:
l:
Yes,I have.
I havegot many?
Tovsat home.
lov anlmals at nome
Thereareulto@,lrrhen
-
./
-l
a teacherpic,ks-g1
o n a c r l p t i c s t a t e m e n tm a d e b r -a p u p i l
4-
NEIL MERCER
248
o" u
::,
information w'hich
s. Other t"ffi^:utrocontain
v continue anv further. In ciassroomsit is common
.f
Fenseof
t s:
IesGiT5iililTltillen
dhey do'
task for a teachel is to help lea{ngrs see how the.vario-gq actiYities
.ti
in thee*peri..rg. oI l"u.*rs - bv sequencingactivitiesin certain rvft, bi:g-lhg
.econtinuityinr'h":
,@dsoon
reinterpreting"that .*i"ti"rr.",
Iear!$l--f
rtr
.tt
rt\
a7 >/
\' .rtrY.
,C
.f\
ffi;-,**rl(.r
'jiE:=J
'ffi"*
--<--:
ing u''
therei, th.
i;ffiguage
u"d
"f "rrttg
tt
",
k, activitv ar-:
tryry:::,tflllteach"rs,are
sed* hen.
acti\it\'.Thev short hou teachers help learners see that thev have significantp-:
l -^ l-^--^ -^i-^l
^t*^
bffi-'i.'-'..in-.o--o''andsohu'"g@andco/!Scti,\.eunderStand:::
to progressTurther. Teachers also often lecaplbharedclassro'-=
@n
-:,:
emphasising
experience from earlier in a lesson, and from previous lessons,
C/
ot --:rt
obvious function; but this is a simplification, for the sake of claritv of exposition,
r a n z u a g e l o t I l l r l u r l L L r u r r and context. An analvstof classroomdisco';"t
D e t l v e e n l*gfi;T.;.-'F;-tion
rrelationship
e l a 0 o n s n l p betrveen
I|
particufarutterance
hu. to r..Jgni-zcthat@.:
that, asi., ti'e 6rr, pu.Vs"qu
a
tt
''
'
U.ur"a-Uf
".tiiE1f;;6;..:'..
c:'
as intormatton
t 7 . fot furtler discussionof such matt-:
n,
Fo* e, e., desp-iTer-ffiie ats,I have found the identificationofthese techniquesa ust
practical aid to analvsis
Secondpupil:
Teacher:
Secondpupil:
Teacher:
(Artl'rur,1992,pp. 6 7S
Sequence5 is made up of a linked seriesof IRF exchanges.For example:
Horv many parts are left here? flnitiation]
Sevenparts [Response]
Answ.erfullv IFeedback/ Er.aluation]
The Botsu.ananstudents therefore needed to understand that their teacher lvas using these
exchangesnot onlr-to evaluatetheir mathematical understanding, but also to test their
fluencf in spoken English and their abilitv to conform to a'ground rule' that she enforced
'ansr,ver
in full sentences'. Arthur comments that for pupils in this kind
in her classroom ur. complicated b..urrr" their teacher
of situation, the demandsof classroom.o*^ui6-tion
is attempting to
250
NEIL MERCER
Arthur reports that such dual focus is common in Botsrvananclassrooms,as the follow'ing
sequencefrom another lessonsholvs:
Bilingual
t mav Pre\ t
encv that must
It seems,hou'el,er,that teachersoften use code-srvitchingin more complex lvaysthan sin.itranslating content directlv into another language.On observing classroomsin Hong Ko:..
emploveo Johnson and Lee (1987) observed that the sr,vitchingstrategv most commonly
teachers had a three-part structure as follort's:
1
Z
3
'Kev
Sequence 7:Wool
Extract 1
EnglandAustraliaNerv Zealandand
Argentinaare the bestproducersof lr'ool
dawk|-aktar Ii gfiandhomfarms 1;7
rabbun-nagflagghas-suJO.K. England
tghtduli minn licma post England
''
ghandhomScotlandnaghruf n tont
ghall-wool u 6ersijtcttaghhomO.K.
Extract 2
wool issait does not creasebut it has to be
washedwith care issadin rmporranri
ma ghidtilkomxtllt lekk tkollt nara xagttrajew
suJawahdaunder the microscope ghandha
qishahaJnascalesta1.ltuta tssa
lekk ma nah
sluxsewwadawk l-tscalesjitgfiaqqdugo xulxin
u indahh6ersidaqshekl
gol- u ashing'
machine u nohor7udaqshekk
gttaxjixxrinklali
u jitghaqqadkollu
Camilleri notes that the first extract shorvs the teacher using the switch from English to
Maltese to expand
a-;ifi
the poinf bRg made, rath"er than simplv repeat it in
"{
t r a n s l a t i o n .I n t h e s e c o n d e x t r a c t . s h ( e . r p l a i n i r t h eE n g l i s hs t a t e m e n t i n M a l t e s e ,a g a i n
avoiding IISSI translation. Camilleri comments that the lessontherefore is a particular kind
- of
'two
parallel discourses the u'ritten one in English,
Iiteracl' event,Tn r'vhich these are
the spoken one in Maltese' (p 12)
Studies of code-su.itching in classroomshave revealed a variety of patterns of bllingual
use (Martvn-Jones, 1995). For example, Zenteila (1981) observedand recorded eventsin
two bilingual classesin Ne*.York schools, one a first grade class(in rvhich the children were
about six vears old) and the other a sixth grade (in rvhich the averageage would be about
12).The pupils and teachersu'erd all native Spanishspeakers,of Puerto Rican origin, but
the official medium for classroom education rvas English. One of the focusesof her anaiysis
of teacher-pupii interactions u'as IRF sequences.Both Spanishand English were actuall)
252
NEIL MERCER
teacher initiation
student rePlv
teacher feedback
1. Teacher and
student:'follow
the leader'
English
Spanish
Spanish
Spanish
English
Spanish
2. Teacher:'follou'
the child'
English
Spanish
Spanish
English
Spanish
Engllsh
3. Teacher:'include
the child's choice
English
Spanish
Spanish
English
both languages
both languages
not vours'
(Adaptedfrom Zentella,1981)
of language use emerge lr'
From this example, we can see that distinctive Patte-rns
as adaptations of the common IRF
bilingual classrooms,but these can be interpreted
in monolingual settings'What is more'
structure and language strategiesused bv teac-hers
in teacher-talk can be explained in term'
the distinctive patterns of ,*iihlng *hl.h emerge
..ir" in a modern languageclassroom and tht
of the special communicative resoirrcesthat
special circumstances'The extent to whiciwavs that teachers a".i,l" to respond to these
setting *ii'
English and.another lu.g,tug" o^ccursin a particular
;;;;gi","*""
;;
d!gt." of fluencyin English that member'
therefore be influenced b,t fuZtot. such as (a) the
teachers (c) the specih:
oi u pural.,rtar classhu.'. l.hi.t.d; (b) the bilingual"competence,of
attirudes of both children and teacher:
teaching goals of.teachers; and cruciallv (dithe
languagesinvoived'
i. ,i. p?i",lce of code-sw-itchingand to the
language
What learners have to und,erstand about classroom
..{,)
This insight into Mashud'sdifficulties w-ith genresof writing was supported bv a more carefulR\\
analysisof Mashud's texts, which had a linear, additive, chronological structure associated R \.
rvith oral, rather than literate cultural traditions (Ong, 1982).'The outcome lr'1the;lggg\e-r
R+
( M o o r e1 9 9 5 : 3 6 8 ;
This approach proved successful,as during the remaining period of Moore's research
Mashud shou'ed clear progress in coming to understand and cope w-ith the demands of
writing in the genres of English required in the British schooi svstem. Describing research
w.ith children in a Spanish-Englishbilingual program in Caiifornian schools, Moll and
Dworin (1996) also highlight the important role of a teacher in helping learners make the
best educational use of their bi-cultural language experience in developing their literacl
skills in the secondlanguage.
Sj
+
254
NEIL MERCER
^, or6friliili(:*hose"acquisition
ascribethree important functionsto language:1u1
orqanize
andevaluate
knowledge;
enables
childrento qain,process.
{b)as afulturalI
is shared, stored and made available to successive
to:Jly w'hich k"g!
v u'hich@is
provided to
generations; (c) as a f
t#r
<-people.Theseroles are inextricablvintertu'ined.To this specification
chlldren bv
other
.TJ
of the roles of Ianguagerve might add the comment: learning how to use language
effectivelv as a cultural tooi is an important educational goal for native speakersas
teachinq-and-learninqand also that \\'hich is miant to be learnt and iiuEEr
and
Etucarion it o diolofftJ@rural proce\ The der elopment of studenii-E6tledge
understanding is shapedb\-'-ihiiGfationships rvith teachers and other students, and
b-vthe culture in rvhich those relationships are located. (Newman, Griffin and Cole.
1989; Gee, 1996).The educational.rr.."r, studentsachieveis onlv partly under their
the control of their teachers.This is where the
own control, and onlv purl$@
'hich I mentioned briefly earlier,is useful.Thr
concept
sociocultural
IA\,
| | .\
\ u.z
thataneffectiveteacherprol'idesth"@twhichenables
Iearners to make intellectual achievementsthev lvould nev
one \\ a\ the'r'do so is b)' usinq dialoque t.o guide and ;gppgll1hl qe''/.91o-pment
o:
understanding.
---".
'
socio-cultura.
fanguage carries th, hlIpry4.:.!!jlro:!_gy,tLr"ro
i,t fut"r.lhe
perspective suggeststhat if \\'e $'ant to understand the process of learning, we mu:l
studl not only r,r'hata learner does but also the activitiesof parents.teachers]Eder.
v r h o c r e a t e- i n d e e d .c o n s t i t u t e- t h e d ) ' n a m i cc o n t e x t o l t h e i r l e a r n i n ge x p e r i e n i -
in-bei..;
'guided
irf'olrecf-in a process of
participation' in the intellectual life of the.:
communities, lvhich implies the necessan'involvement of others. For similar reasoni
r-1
r . 3)
I
.. t f1U|-
-u'
Tff
Kno\\ leose
Slreiacking -,such as vrhen students' home backgrounds havenot prepared them well
r---___libr
makr-ngsenseof the language and culture of the classroom - misunderstanllings
mav easilyarise and persist unresolvedlHeath, 1983; LoCastro, 1997l. Makinq the
-----_
l =r o u n d ..r u l e- s ' o f": c l a--s s r o o ma c-t i v i t l ---e x p l i c i t c a n h e l p o v e r c o m em i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g s
r
t
i n d m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s ,a n d t h e r e i s g r o u ' i n g e v i d e n c et h a t s t u d e n t s ' p r o g r e s si s
es
Conclusion
from a socio-cultural perspective,
Recordings and transcriptions of classroomtalk, anal-vsed
cultural,
communicative
us
of
the
social,
offer
process of education being pursued
glimpses
and, with varving degrees of success,accomplished.Thev may capture illustrations of the
best practice, in lr.hich teachers enable students to achieve levels of understanding which
m i g h t n e v e r ,o r a t l e a s tn o t n e a r l r s o q u i c k l r ' ,h a v eb e e n a c h i e r " l . r : , t r y r , r ' * m . t { r r g '
. n d o D D o r t u n i t i e sl o r
q
s u i d a n c e :t h e v a s o if t e n r e v e a lm i s u n d e r s t a n d i n pbse i n p q e n e r a t e d a
teachers,as uell as researchers,\\'e can learn
guided develoTment bglg1glg4:..d..\s
at thev reveal. It is of course unrealistic to expect anv busv teacher to monitor
and evaluate everv interaction in their classroom; but recent research (in areas of the
curriculumotherthanlanguageteaching)hasshorr.nthatthrough@
ic tool, teachers can help students im rove their
of the use of lansuase as a
ano their
rnelr use or languageasa tool
rool tor
ror constructr
consrrucrlnqKno\4lecrge.
earningand
um.relaleo learnlng
and Palincsar,1989;Wegerif,Rojas-Drummond and Mercer, 1999; Mercer,Wegerif
6Fas onlv quite recentlv
a n d D a r v e s ,19 9 9 . l l . f s o c r o i?d learning in the modern languageclassroom(see Chapters 5, 15 and
19 ofthis book, br'\hn Lier, Gibbons and Breen), but I am convinced that its application
will have significant practical implications for this field of educational endeavour.
,r"
e6
eyl
Rererence
"
qry
"+/f
llznrrO
256
NEIL MERCER
'Guided,
Brown, A. and PalincsarA.S. (1989)
cooperativelearningand individualknou'led,.
acquisition',in L. Resnick(ed.) Knorring,Learningand Instruction.
NewYork: Lau.renc.
Erlbaum.
'Vvgotskr:
Bruner,J.S. (1985)
a historicaland conceptualperspective',in J.V.Wertsch (ed
Culture, Communicationand Cognition:\tygotskianperspectives.
Cambridge: Cambridgt
Universitv Press
Bruner,J.S.(1986) Actual.illinds,Posstbleltrbrlds.
London: Harvard UniversitvPress.
Camilleri, A. (199+)'Talking bilinguallv,r'vriting monolinguallv'. Paper presented at tht
SociolinguisticsS1'mposium,LancasterUniversitl', March 1994.
Christie, F. (1990) LiteraclJora Changingllbrld. tr{elbourne:AustralianCouncil for Educationa,
Research.
(Second
Edwards,A.D. andWestgate,D. (.199+)Investigating
ClassroomTalk
Edttion).London:The
Falmer Press.
E d w . a r d sD, . ( 1 9 8 8 ) ' T h eM e n o ' , i n B i l l i g ,N { . , C o n d o r ,S . , E d l , v a r d D
s ,. , G a n e ,M . , M i d d i e t o n .
D. and Radler',A. (eds) IdeologicalDilemmas:a socialpsychologyoJ everydaythtnking.
London: Sage.
Edr,r'ards,D. and Mercer, N. (1987) CommonKnowledge:
the development
oJ understanding
in th;
classroom.
London: Methuen/Routledge.
Elliot, J. 0991) 'lctionResearchJor
Educattonal
Change.
Milton Kevnes:Open Universitv Press.
'Vl'gotskv
Gee,J.P.(1996)
and current debatesin education:some dilemmasas afterthoughts
to Discourse,
Learningand Schooling',
in D. Hicks (ed.) Discourse,
Learningand Schooling.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversitv Press.
Heath, S.B. (1983) Wayswith Words:language,ltfe and work in communities
and classrooms.
Cambridge: Cambridge Universitt' Press.
'Contextual
Hicks, D. (1996)
enquiries:a discourse-oriented
study of classroomlearning', in
D. Hicks (ed.) Discourse,
Learningand Schooling.Cambridge: Cambridge Universitr
Press.
'Ailocating
two languagesas a kev feature of a bilingual methodology', in
Jacobson,R. ( 1990)
R. Jacobson and C. Faltis (eds) LanguageDistribution lssuesin Bihngual Schooling.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
'Modes
of instruction:teachingstrategiesand students
Johnson,R.K. and Lee, P.L.M. (1987)
responses',in R: Lord and H. Cheng (eds)LanguageEducation
in Hong Kong.Hong Kong:
The ChineseUniversitl'Press.
LoCastro, Y. (1997)'Politeness and pragmatic competence in foreign languageeducation'
LanguageTbaching
Research,YoI.l,
No. 3, 239-268.
Martyn-Jones,M. (1995)'Code-sr,r'itching
in the classroom',in L. Milroy and P.Muysken(eds.1
One Speaker,two languages:cro.t.tdisciplnar; perspectives
on code-switcfring.
Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversitvPress.
'Children's
Mavbin,J 099+)
voices:talk, knorvledgeand identity', in Graddol, D, Maybin,J.
and Stierer, B. (eds) Researching
Languageand Literacyin SocialContext.Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Mavbin, J., Mercer, N. and Stierer,B. (1992) "'scaffolding"learning in the classroom',in
Norman, K. (ed.) Thtnkinglbices.
London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Mehan,H. (1979) LearningLessons:
socialorganization
in theclassroom.
Cambridge,Mass:Harvard
Universitl' Press.
Mercer, N. (1995) The GutdedConstructionof Knowledge:talk amongstteachersand learners.
C l e v e d o nM
: u l t i l i n g u a lM a t t e r s .
(2000) Wordsand Minds:how'we uselanguageto think together.London: Routledge.
Mercer, N., Wegerif, R. and Da*-es, L. (1999)'Children's talk and the development of
reasoningin the classroom'.BririsfiEducational
Research
Journal,25, 7, 95-1 13.
'Biliterao'development
Moll, L. and Drvorin, I (996)
in classrooms:socialdvnamicsand
Chapter 16
PaulineGibbons
LEARNING A NEW REGISTER IN A
SECOND LANGUAGE
lntroduction
OR STUDENTS WHO
A R E L E A R N I N G E n g l i s ha s a s e c o n dl a n g u a g ien a n
thev arenot
-F englishmedium school,lglELllboth u ta.gei und.meliqg'ol education:
but th.e\are learntng'n ', ,ndff,iQl-li..,"tll,
onlr learningthe dominanrlanguage
flf
ust go hand in hand with t]re
,t"r.t""..r"?s, t
development of the secondlanguage.
r r
that learners
This chapter illustrates hontlt".h integration can be achieved' In it I argue
e
f
ttt
r s t a n d i n g s .t t t q u l d b . t " . " u ; , h . b ;
l' I sholv ho'"v teacher-student talk'
,rrot"'
Ieadsto the develoPmentof new w-aysof meaning'
U56ia on shared.o-rnon
""p*i"nces,
of classroom-based
I also suggestthe usefulness'of bringing together, for the PulPoses
language acquisition
,"r.u..h]Eodies of knorvledge u'hich have rarel,v overlapped; second
socio-cultural approaches to teaching and learning' and
(SLA) reseat.h, .4*V;S!.f,i*
srsrer{aflunctional
""_*r"ffi-t'
The context for the studv
+o]I,5
d\^o\trq1fl
Ji1
At the time
The classroom from r,vhichthe data derive is in an inner cit,v schooi in Svdner''
in the school. The class
of t]-Iestudy, t\\.entv three languageswere spoken b-,1$e children
in the classcoming
consisted of 30 chiidren aged betitee.t 8-10, u'ith all but tu'o children
had been born
children
Man-v
spoken.
from homes where a langu'ageother than English rvas
migrants,
in Australia but entered-school r'r'ith little English, others were first generation
Generally, such
including tu,o children rvho had arrived in Austraiia rvithin the last Year.
JiE?;
such
collier (1989) and McKav et al. (1997) have shorvn,children who appear'fluent'in
'
contexts ma,vstill huo'.
[i-'t"aMi"largelvfluentinEngilshinface-to-face,evervda\'communication.
againstrvhGh-teari@ffiTtffan-be
sequencedfrom most si
thus for ESL learners the most easilv understood), to least situationallv-depenGrThe
toll6wtng tOur texts lllustratetlxS mOdecontlnuum. anOSno\\'no\\' certaln llngulSUcleatures
change as languagebecomes increasinglv closer to u'ritten forms.
and accompanying
action)
Text1: (spokenb1 three1O-1ear-oldstudents
this...noitdoesn'tgo...itdoesn'tmo\ie ..trvthat....yesitdoes...abit...that
won't . . u,,on'tworkit's notmetal . . . theseare the best . . . goingrealiv fast.
Tbxt2: (spokenby onestudentaboutthe action,aJterthe event)
w e t r i e d a p i n . . . a p e n c i l s h a r p e . p e r . s o m e i r o n f i l i n g s a n d a p i e c e opf l a s t i c . . . t h e
magnet didn't attract the pin.
Text3: (iritten by the samestudent)
Our experiment w-asto find out u'hat a magnet attracted. We discovered that a magnet
attracts some kinds of metal. It attracted the iron filings, but not the pin.
Texr4: (takenfroma child'sencSclopediat
A magnet . . . is able to pick up, or attract, a piece of steel or iron becauseits magnetic field
flows into the magnet, turning it into a temporar\.magnet. Magnetic attraction occurs only
between ferrous materials.
Text 1 is tvpical of the kind of situationallv-dependent language produced in face-to-face
..f"r".rt.
contexts. Becauseth. ..irrrul .ffi"'th"
"*n.,ho.i.
is a relativelv lorv lexical densitv. or number of
rfiat), and
referenceis used (thts,these,
s perlause. In-Text 2 the context changeT,'becausethe student is telling
. Shemust
arned, and no lo"g". hu, th" t.i""".
6thers what
.
=------T-
.,
r
r
r
r.
,l
languagealone, and so ggbes-e{p]lct ife
q,rre",gtiorybich
rs
neeclecl
to provicle the context for what
th"
nore, ror exampre,
follow.s: Our experimentwasto . . . In Text 4 the major participant (t ft4gnet) is generic : its
h"
properties are those of all magnets. There is a further increase nE
is
of
a
term
as
u
noil@f.tffi'hich
coding
nominalisation]the
process
l.*i l.rclrrd.s a
tvoical of much vrritten text.
While spoken and r,,.ritten languageobr,ioush'have distinctile characteristics,this
continuum of texts illustrates that there is no absoluteboundarv betrveenthem.Technologt
Nlt"M
@y9'
260PAuLlyE-4;letrN-s-'f Wl
rke q. ----t
wt'ftu'^--{;l..e
fn the classroom described here, a major focus is on students using spoken languageirthe wav that text 2 illustrates, that is, language n'hich, r,r.hilespoken, is not embedded ir.
'w'ritten-like'
spoker.
the immediate situational context in rvhich it occurs. This more
Ianguagecan be seenas a bridge between the languageassociatedr,r''ithexperiential activitit.
and the more formal - and 6ften rvritten - registers of the curriculum.
of thisbook;Mavbin,MercerandStierer1992;Wells1992,1999),.A
rygo-g!".ul ot'*
TGn-GEo{learningattl-.:
@lacescfir*.teTffiT'endtheEi6ld-s?fi
"a- rp-lacTaFr.k!:g3"'tg.=
- - - - - - - - - - - -- - 3 - h.g@'.s
processithe classroomis vie*ed -as
'ru
iA f
'
F\L
l'n.},.(MartinT986-Delpitl988:Kalantzis'Copt'
NobleandPovnting1991t.
*\1.$",/
-\7
of interactionfor secondlangua;t
havealsoshorvnthe significance
SLA researchers
/\r
l e a r n i n g( s e ef o r e x a m p l e ,E l l i s 1 9 8 5 , 1 9 9 1 , 1 9 9 4 ; v a n L i e r 1 9 8 8 , 1 9 9 5 a n d C h a p t e r 5 , - :
\this book; Sw.ain1995;Swain 2000). Of particular importance are the kinds of on-goir;;
tt"u",o1-':
t:
orclarified(Long
*;T:l
":g:ti:t"q
. \ .rilp, )modificatio"'1 9 8 6"::"'
i'^T,'.""':g
:e8]i
( 1 9 8 5 ,1 9 9 5 )a l s oa r g u e fs" ; ; ;
. n,ain
;P i c a1 9 9 4 ) S
{t\qfi'lr"d;"ghtv
V
v"
'cornptehensible
ou!pul',w
"lJl.:
-:
,.1
i.. o,Nr
ive lea
) may, in
, or lor the
rvhich is supportive of se
F-o-om-program
opportunities for more dialogi
iscussionof these issues)
uctron oI comDre
anguagelearning must
tterns to occur see van Lier 1
The data
The classroomcontext
Basedon the science topic of magnetism,;E4hlqq and lgqnrng activities were planned to
tiol b'-.g
:h':,trlTTW
- - 6 e r e l o p m e n t i n t e r m s o T l a n g u a g e . - - l f i n g .T:"'"p
T h u s s t u d e n t si n i t i a l l r p a r t i c i p a t e di n s m a l l group iearning experiences rvherq,the languageused rvas clearlv situationaliy-embedded
This lvas follow'ed by a teacher-guided reporting session,'"r'here,in interaction lvith t
teacher, each group shared their learning rvith the rvhole class.Talking w'ith the teact
about w.hat had been learned. since this did not involve the use of the concrete materials
led to a mode shift tor,vardsmore wlitten-like language,and provided a bridge into t
,.
rr
r-----T--
\4'rltlng, u'ruch \\'as the nnal actlvltv ol lne cvcle and llngulstrcall\ tne most demanolng. L
-cl'cle u'as repeated several times during the course of the development of th\
EreF
unit of rn'ork.The three stagesare described belorl', together lvith representativetexts from
each stage.Taken as a sequence,thev illustrate horv languagedevelopment can evolve
through jointlv constructed discourse.
StageI
In many primarv schoolsit is usual for students to rotate through a number of activities over
the course of one or tu'o lessons.Holvever, such an organisationalstructure may negate an)'
authentic purpose for reporting back to others, since children are likelv to shareverv similar
experiences.Here, an attempt rvasmade to set up a genuine communicative situation by
having each group of children u'ork at dtferent (though related) science experiments; thus
thel'held different information from other classmembers. In its communicative structure
the classroom organisation rvas based on an important principle in second language task
desisn: the notion of an information'sap'and the need for information exchangelLono
t v 6 9) .
One experiment consistedof a small polvstvrene block into rvhich a number of paddle
pop (ice-lolly) sticks had been inserted to enclosea bar magnet.The studentswere asked
to test the effect of a second magnet. (When the second magnet is placed above the first in
a position in which thev are repelling, repulsion causesthe secondmagnet to be suspended
in mid-air.)The texts belorv ( 1 . 1 and 1.2) occurred as students\\'ere engagedin this activity.
Prior to beginning the activitr', thev rvere told that thev rvould later describe and attempt
t o e x p l a i n r v h a t h a p p e n e d t o t h e r e s t o f t h e c l a s s ( [ .m
. .a] r k s a n o b v i o u s p a u s e ) .
. --
dt
TW
262
PAULINE GIBBONS
Text 1.1
Hannah: tr)' . . . the other rvav
Patrick: like that
Hannah: north pole facing dou.n
Joanna: u'e tried that
oh!
Peter:
Hannah: it stavsupl
Patrick: magicl
Peter:
let's sho'"t-the others
mad!
Joanna:
Peter:
I'll put north pole facingnorth pole . . . seervhathappen
Patrick: that's rvhat lve just did
veah . . . like this . . . look
Peter:
try dffirent positionsforthe magnet
severalmjnuteslongerasthe students
ThedtaloguecontinuesJor
and then the,vbegintoJormulatean explanation.
Text 1.2
H a n n a h : c a n l t r v t h a t ? . . . I k n o l * - h ) ' . . . l k n o u ' r v h 1 ' . . . t h a t ' s l i k e .. . b e c a u s e t h e n o r t h
pole is on this sideand that north pole'sthere . . so thev don't stick together
u'hat like this?veah
Peter:
Hannah: veah seebecausethe north pole on this side . but turn it on the other . . . this sidr
like that . . turn it that u.'ar'. . . veah
Peter:
and it r,vill stick
Hannah: and it w-ill stick because.look . . . the north pole's on that side because.
the north pole'son that sideveah
Peter:
Stage2
The overall aim of the teacher-guidedreporting was to extend children's linguistic resources
and focus on aspectsof the specific discourse of science.As the
It r'vasanticipated that the reporting stagr
the children'. we'retr;ing to talk like scientists.
-reh.&G'
a
tor
students
to
Ianguage structures w-hich w-ere closer
would create context
to r,vritten discourse. Before the reporting began, there had been a short teacher-led
discussionfocusing on the specific Iexis the children rvould need to use, including the lexical
item repel.
In the text belorv (Text 2), Hannah is explaining rvhat she learned.
Text 2
TEACHER
tr)' to tell them what you learned .
O K . . . (to Hannah) ves?
( T h e t e a c h e ri n v i t e s o t h e r c o n t r i b u t i o n s ,a n d
t h e n a s k sH a n n a h r o e x p l a m i t a g a i n . l
r.
nor'r. listen .
more.
. alright Hannah .
. excuse me
ererrbodt' t regointngclasses
attentton)
listen again to her explanation
7 the tw-o north poles are leaning together
and the magnet on the bottom is repelling
the magnet on top so that the magnet on
t h e t o p i s s o r t o f . . . f l o a t i n gi n t h e a i r
Stage3
After the students had taken part in the reporting session,thev w'rote a response in their
'u,hat
journals to the question
have vou iearned?'These 'lr'erelater used as a source of
information in the w'riting of more formal reports about magn"tr.fbgjtl53-of
tb.
'u
journals here, holvever, is that thev provide some evidence of
in that thev reflect
jointlr=pr
nqs
$
i-red
in
the
of
r discourse.The
process
glss.s
o
s o\l'n entr\-, an
anotherstr
udent u'ho had listened
to Hannah's talk with her teacher.
264
PAULINE GIBBONS
another magnet u'ith the north and south pole on top, the magnet on the bottom u'ill r.':
the magnet on the top and the magnet on the top rvould look like it is floating in the air
Discussion
Stage 1 texts
'activity
bv itself is not
Driver makes the important point about science education that
e n o u g h .I t i s t h e s e n s e t h a t i s m a d e o f i t t h a t m a t t e r s ' ( D r i v e r , 1 9 8 3 : 4 9 ) . l n S t a g e 2 t e x t s
w.eseethe teacher u-orking rvith the children to'make sense'of the activities in r'r'hichthev
have been engaged,bv helping them reconstruct their experiences and develop shared
rs rnrougn
it is
vlsgsl-io and Mercer
lvrercer suggest
sugSesrthat
rnaf rr
Derng
through being
language. Weggltf
through ranguage.
undersrandlngs
understandings rnrougn
e
encouragedand enabled'to clearlvdescribee
wrat tnev
....'..t.........'..',.'-
---;
-\-\_--/:-
rr-r-T_
T 9Rf1
.T/t1*
t.
F r u r v e r . I n T e x t 2 . t h e i n t e r a c t i o n s a p p r o x i m a t e m o r e c l o s e f v r v h - a to c c u r s i n L l a d u t t - c h i
:.\
te
inteiac-tionsoutside of the formal te-cfiifr!'?oitext
rl,3',
l^o$.
k_--_
n o w e r '( B e r r r l 9 8 l 1 . A l t h o u g ho f c o u r s ei t i s t h e t e a c h e lrr - h oi s i n c o n t r o lo f t h e
r,r.iththe overall thematic der.eiopmentof the unit of worLjte
knowledgffiffied
individual exchangeslocate that controi in the student.The recipro^citvand mutualitv in the
speaker roles leads to Ha
llternative linguisticfor
:t#;i
PAULINE GIBBONS
266
'ZPD '
notion of the
.
P
to assistHannah to continue
As Text 2 illustrates, the reporting context also gives students opportunities to produc.
lonoer stretches of discourse u:hich are more uritten-like than those which occurred in th.
e', on occasions1o:
small group lr'ork. Often this required the teachert
."vhen
questions
of students
teachers ask
aslong as eight seconds.R.jg3ISb A - sts that
-l/l'll*"'---b----b-------ait one secondor lessfor the studentsto
\
typicalh'
they
)KflI
'
'
)
tt ll l
lll
lll
tin - l /lf
r
J-lLf
t/
^,
:'
it
"'
rya;l+*'*efJa'r+$-
1986).We car.
of both studentsand teacherGJRowe,
/f 11" th. arritudesand expectations
oareformulatin.
l
" responses
in a languagethe-vdo not fullv control. Ptlbgpt equallyimportant, studentsu'ert
' . ," V
t-/'it,,abIetocompIetelvhatthevrr'antedtosar'andai-r
r -
YI" FtlF
1 l--
^o
n.
;.r
lntEfaetants
aRc learners.
lnacrufirorr,-srnce
I-.
lt ls tne r
-a.10dI-'- r .^^-#
in secondlanguagdevelopment,seeEllis, 199+).
,hl''*,-. ,1--n"4
I
rtJrrurl:.
r r r u ) L reporting
r t r P u r u r r 5 sessions.
ofl most
L O w d I u s the
L I l c cend
llu u
U U C U I I e l J towards
m O L I C shift
S I I I L occurred
mode
Anotnef
Sfgnlncant
Another
significant
n(lV"-?
n6Np
*;Y
'\J'
where the teacf,er used children's personal knowledge to show how generalisationsmight
be generated. Her questions at this point included, for example: can)/ouseesomethinBtI)
what'sthe sameaboutall theseexperiments?
commonwith a]l theseexperiences?
,
Such questionsrequire ,h. .
quEitionlthe
teacher's
in
terms
of
recontextualise
this
must
no\\,
thev
did:
of what thev
ffih.";
is now characteri
themseives
children
^---\------\--
.L ^ ^^^^- )
LII( )CLULlU tilUHrtCL.
tf you put the southand north toBethetthentheywtll . . . attractbu {you put north and north
or southand south. .. together. . . theywon't stick. . . attract.
Thus the teacher againmediates betu.een children's individual experiences and the broader
knorvledge and discourse into u-hich they are being apprenticed, Iocating these experiences
within a larger framervork of meanings. Stage 2 texts, then, both in the way language is
u s e d , a n d i n t h e k j n d s o f k n o u l e d g e 1 1h ( c h i s c o n s t r u c t e d ,s e r r e t o c r e a t ea
i6-c
ihscourse of
al experiential lvavs ofknorvi
and,sociallvconstructed knou-ledge.
Stage3 texts
Many of the journals reflected rvhat had been said in the teacher-guided reporting sessions.
Students included',vording rvhich thev had used in interaction with the teacher, or which
-r------i---r
Conclusions
Usu/Us4'"'^:
'leaqnlng-br
doing' (especialll
While the researchI fiavedescribedillustratesthe valueo-f
/,
rvhere concrete exoerienceshelp to make language
learners rvhere
languag'e learners
for
for second
second languade
\r\
{-/
truTgjllg&I".."'
'relate
v4c
*---f-F
::.*"";ls:H5:Hlffill+
-_-
that learnersmust first'learn' Ianguagebefore thev can'use' it. Aside from questionsabout
the nature of languageand languagelearning vr-hichthis sets up, it is also clear that it is an
approachr,r.hichcannotbeeasiivappliedtotheschoo]ESLcontext'@fdarr..
)A
In t t .Turr.rtud""t, ur"d t
r/ / | \
occurred.at
laterstages.
a seque,nce.rr-hich
gllou'edfor sludentsTS
the focuson.nerrlanguage
rnd
a n q u a q ea. n d tto-link-old
*ith
heir e
existing
x i s t i n qu
understandingr
n d e r s t a n d i n qa
sn d llunguisF.;;a
o l i n k a . [ ! _ll"arn'ng
e a r n i n gu
ith n
ne.r;
e u ; \o"'
tt6build
- ob u i l d on
o n ttheir
l n e l l e c t t o m o | e s u c c e s s l u l lt\o \ t a r d st a r q e l t e x t s . r a t h e r t h a n b e g l n n l n gu ' l t h t h e m .
268
PAULINE GIBBONS
The research I have described also indicates the signilicance for language learning
p r o d u c e dl : '
t h e i n t e r t e x t u a ln a t u r eo f c l a s s r o o ml a n g u a g eh: o u o n e t e x t i s u n d e r s t o o do r
lPs ex
re
int"rta*
o l intertextual
r p l ration
t i n n to
t o :another.,
nnther
* ' i d e range
r a n q e of
A u'ide
another.
relation
are exPected to read; what
u'hat
students
and
savs
what a teicher
Et--GJ";;".*p1",
thev are expected to lr-rite; the discourse of the lesson and the
students listen to
".rd.,uhut
texts studentsare expected to r,r'orkrvith for homeu'ork; and the familiar languageor dialect
the home a.,d th" less familiar languageof the school. A consideration of how these links
m a d e i n t e r t e x t u a l l v a n d r e c o g n i s i n gr v h e r el i n g u . r _ s l i c ' b r i d g easl e' m i s s i n g m i g h t
and help to suggestthe
insishts
o [ e rri n
s i g h t s tbr
f o r tthe
h e ppianning;f-nTi..l-ptogttd6r
l a n n i n g @ a I I l e a r n e r s , a n d h eall
l p t learners,
o
w'ith
the language of the
familiar
iess
for
students
."l.uu.rt
d of liiguistic ,upport *ort
tlassroom.
A final point concerns the model of ianguagedrarvn on in mv research.A language
modellvhichaddressesthereIationshipbeIweencontextandmeaning,u@
c o n c e r n e d t h e r e f o r e u - i t h m o r e t h a n g r a m m a t i C a l c o m P e t e n c e , p r o \ ' l d e s a _s l g n l l l ng
Sctrvrtles.
--FurflrcTclassroom-based
view oflearningl
References
tvt'*<rq
t^tetdrsct+_)
Harmondsworth:Penguin'
to Curticulum.
Barnes.D. (1916) FromCommunication
Berry, M. (1981)'systemic linguisticsand discourseanalysis:a multi-layeredapproachto
exchangestructure', in M. Coulthard and M. Montgomery (eds) Studiesin Discourse
London: Routledge and Kegan.
Analysis.
Bruner,1.-1ilza;'The role of dialoguein languageacquisition"inA. Sinclair,R. Jarvella,and
New'York: Springer-Verlag.
oJLanguage.
W Levelt (eds) Ihe Chtld'sConception
'Hou.
long?A svnthesisof researchin academicachievementin a second
Collier,V. (1989)
language'. TESOLQgarterly,23,509-531 .
jn a DiverseSocieur.
Ontario
Empowerment
EducationJor
CumminJ, l.-(1996) NegotiatingIdentities:
Education.
Bilingual
for
Association
CA: California
Delpit, L. (1988)'The silenceddialogue:po\\'er and pedagogvin educatingother people's
280-298.
Review,58(3),
children'. HarvardEducational
London: Routledge.
of @testioning.
Dillon, J. (1990) ThePractice
Milton Kevnes:Open Universitv Press.
Driver, R. (1983) ThePuptlas Scientjst?
inth.
oJUnderstanding
Knowledge:TheDevelopment
(1987)
Common
N.
N{ercer,
D., and
Ed'"vards,
. London: Methuen.
Classroom
Oxford: Oxford Universitv Press.
LangudgeAcquisition.
Second
Ellis, R. (1985) IJnderstanding
(1991)'The interactionhvpothesis:a critical evaluation',in E. Sadtono(ed.), Languag;
Singapore:Anthology Series 2E.
LanguageClassroom.
Acquisitionand the Second/Foreign
SEAMEO Regional LanguageCentre.
Acquisition.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Language
(199+) The StudloJ Second
London,
of Language'
in theDevelopment
Explorations
Halliday,M. (1975) LearningHow to ,Mean:
Arnold.
London: Edu'ardArnold.
Grammar.
Functional
/1985) An Introductionto
270
PAULINE GIBBONS
Cambridge:
Development.
the Studl'of Language
Wells, G. (1981) LearningthroughInteraction:
Press.
Cambridge Universitv
'The
Work
centralitvof talk in education',in K. Norman (ed.) ThinkingVoices:The
(1992)
oJthe NationalOracyProject.London: Hodder and Stoughton.
(1999) Dialogiclnquiry.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversitYPress.
Wong-Fillmore,L. (1985)'When doesteachertalk n'ork asinput?', in S. Gassand C. Madden
Row.lel'MA: Newburl' House.
Acquisition.
Language
(eds)lnpurin Second
" cJh*'J
zt\
cayfrJ :
, s7.,^,(/ils tttolzLtQ
Lsc'^rsi"t
"?*3
n a p t e r 1 7 , uX"u^trrt,
, ir.,^t-Jar ^o'ft'
?r
sr6
AngelM. Y. Lin
DOING-ENGLISH-LESSONS IN THE
REPRODUCTIONOR TRANSFORMATION OF
SOCIAL WORLDS?
I Introduction
H I S A R T I C L E T E L L S A F S T O R Y o f f o u r c l a s s r o o m ss, i t u a t e di n d i f f e r e n t
socioeconomic backgrounds. Drau'ing on the theoretical notions of cultural capital,
habitus, symbolic violence, and creative, discursiveagencvasanalvtic tools, the storv unfolds
r,vitnessingthe classroom dilemmas in *'hich students and teachers found themselves, as
rvell as the creative, discursive strategiesw'hich they used to cope with these dilemmas.The
implicationsoftheirstrategiesarediscussedr'r.ithreferencetot!9qussti9g9I@
'
Engl
social worlds.
-'St"r,.-;s
about the global spread of English and its increasing socioeconomic
importance in the w-orld have almost become cliches. On colorful banners celebrating the
TESOL Annual Convention in Chicago streetsin 1995 r'vasrvritten the eve-catchingmission
slogan,"TeachingEnglishto theWorld". Indeed, Englishseemsto havebecome a precious
commoditv increasinglvdemandedbv the world, andTESOL practitionersand researchers
seem to be striving to meet the demand of the rvorld market *'ith all our professionalism.
InTESOL journals and annual conventions,practitioners and researcherssharetheir findings
about methods, approaches,material designsthat are effective.
However, apart from the technical concern of efficiencv in teaching and learning, it
seemsthat a fai more diverse range of questionsneeds to te addressed*hich includes
questionssuch asw.hether,and if ves, horr-,Englishis implicated in the reproduction of social
inequalities in different conlexts in the rvorld. As regards the global influence of Englishl
pen
l doirinant p*ltio.r of English u.rJ th"
socioeconomic, cultural and political embeddednessof Engiish in the world. Access(or lack
of it) to E"l!b
angua
ins Enslish as therr tirit or
a Ti d e n t i t i e sa n d u n e q u a lr e l a t i o n so f p o w e r
world is a
l
i
k
e
l v t h a t m a n v s t u d e n t si n
H
e
l
l
e
r
,
1
9
9
6
1
.
I
t
i
s
a
l
s
o
l M a r t v n - J o n e sa n d
e classroom becomes a site for
ambivalent, want-hate relationship rvith Engli
horvever, often lead students to
tronal Practrces\'\
student3 str
272
ANGEL M. Y. LIN
,/L (o't''t"*dL
--__,___
oFthe initlal handicaps, a reproductive struggle, since those who enter this chase,in
which they are beaten before the)'start, asthe constancvof the gapstestifies, rmphcitlr
i ls+, t es)
fu"-"f t"h"g pJrt.(Bourdt.l.r,
of ..presentations of the world
Svmbolic violence, according to Bourdieu,i, thj r-pgjio.
as legitimale.This
groups
in
such
a
u'av
that
theljlre
experienced
upon
meanings
and social
isachier'edthroughaprocess@)Forinstance,therecent..EnglishOnl,Y''
campaigns in the United Statespror-idEillustrations of the political struggles required to
create and maintain a unified linguistic market in r'vhich onlv one languageis recognized as
D OI N G - E N G L I S H - L E S S ON S 2 7 3
legitimate and appropriate fbr discourse in official settings, and this "English = American"
st.mbolic representationhas numerous consequencesfor schooling and jobs (Collins, 1993)For another instance,manv Hong Kong parentsinsist on flghting for a place for their children
in English medium schools (often despite the lact that their children speak and understand
- good schools" svmbolic
little English) because of the "English medium schools
representation that they have steadfastlvaccepted even in a largelv Chinese societv and a
post-1997 era (for some background to the svmbolic domination of English in Hong Kong,
seeLin, 1996,1998; and more on this in section 3 belorv).
.d\
>c
t)-
Bourdieu has often been accusedof bejn'e overlv deterministic and a theorist more of
,
/----;-----S\
,./,
:.
reproductionthaq{an1lory9tt
g.,Jenkins,1992;CanagarajahinChapter 13). Lemke,
holever, points ouitEaTBo[r-Fu is not limited to reproduction; w'hat he does limit is the
pets-o-nul
effectiveness of single agentin changing *-hole 6elds of taluatiofr-{uy...-.----L"mIE,
ched to English in Hong
com
Ko+g cannot be changed b)' single agents unless there are systematic changesin the social
a
."l"a
see section 3 belorv).While the above seems true, an area in which
oft6?JoE?1ilil;
Bourdieu offers ferv analvsesis the creative, discursiveagencv of social actors who find
. s C o l l i n sp o i n t so u t :
l h e m s e l v e sc a u g h ti n d i l e m m a s A
.t
rve need to allor,vfor dilemmas and intractable oppositions; for dlvided consciousness,
not just dominated minds; ... for creatr,f:-_discurlve agencv in conditio.. U?tr,,r
prest.uctured,tobesure,butul'dynamic*^".'.,iio}
(Collins, 1993 134)
ln section 4 below, rve shall see some examples, and discussthe consequences,olsg@-_
urFeT.
ffiir\e7,5efore looking at the classrooms,let us first
arger
iook at the larger social context of the classrooms.
274
ANGEL M. Y. LIN
D O I N G . EN G L I S H - L E S S O NS 2 7 5
and her feelingsnaturallv and comfortabh'in Enslish. She u'as interestedin both Chinese
'and
English literature, and she read for leisure English magazines.Sometimes,she w.ould
bring her old magazinesfrom home to the classlibran. and share them rvith her students.
the reading l"rro.r describedbelorv was run smoothlv and the teacher engagedstudents
in high-level r,e.g.,be)'ond factual) qugslions about the stor) thev had read ill"through rh.
,,
l F s s o nE n g l i s h u ' a s c o n i l s t e n t l r u s e d b r b o t h - T e a c F ear n d s t u d e n t sa n d t h e c l a s s r o o m
//
atmosphere w-asinterestinglv both relaxed and seriously on-task.
i f)
t*,
A readinglessonin classroomA
iegr^'s
D""
c.( ;"s
The teacher began the reading lesson n.ith the follou-ing extended introduction:
T:
The students swiftl-vformed groups and discussed.Theteacher w-alkedto a group and started
to engage students in thinking deeper about the storvTl:i
. r r t f l
r .
r .
Background
This is a form 2 (grade 8) classof fortv-tu'o students, twent\-bovs and tlr,'entv-tu'o girls,
agedbetween thirteen to fourteen.The schoolis locatedin a government-subsidized
public
housing estate.The students largelv came from families r,r'holived in the nearbv public
housing estates.Their parents u'ere manual or service r'vorkers and their education level
rangedfrom primarv to secondarvschool.Ther,spokeonlv Cantoneseat home. Most of the
bovs read comics, ne\\rspapers,TVneu's, and pop vouthmagazines.Most of the girls read
TV new's,love stories, ghost stories, netl:spapers,and pop vouth magazinesrlhe).did not
read any English extra-curricular materiais.
to the teacher in the .l^rr.oo*."Th"rl
276
F6'l
ANGEL M. Y. LIN
could understand their insider jokes. When I asked them questions such as w'hether ther'
liked English or their English l"r.o.,r, thev replied in the affirmative, but in an exaggerated
u.rd loki"g u,ay. I sensedthat thev r,veretrving to give me rvhat thev thought I was after, so
I said again that I w.ould like to hear u'hat thev reallv thought and that I rvould not tell
to the schooi authorities.
anythin; theJ said
_--___
_ Then thev seemed to be more w'illing to voice
-_____:_
-_
frli, f"Jli.rgr.fn"1'saidthel found their Englishlessonsboring andthey did not know a lot
of the thingsthe teuchiilllilar the iiacher would onl,vspeakin English.I TkdJh1he)'
stand.Ther
ll th" te
did
!-",:Iplq" qf th*gl th#'d.9llnder
""tt.
".h.Lg.@g'
saidt6etei&eiw.nd i-1)'""pt"* .gr"l"T"glirt\ u.rdlh.u u'ouidstill not understand.
Thel.said thev chatted and plaved in the classroom becausethe lesson rvas too boring but
they u-ere also afra!{ of being askedbv the teacher to ans$'er questions.They said thev felt
("r,vitbcq!,ia9s) standing-p-th-eTe in TEerclassan?TEin!-inable to answer the
""ry?f,r."
-ff
teacner s ouestlons.
Thev irad a verv cvnical r'ie*' about school life and about their future. They said thel'
did not like learning English but thev knerv thev could not 6nd a job without English in tfus
societv.Thev also stated that thet did not consider thel' would be able get into universitr
to be stressfulat times. For example.
TeacherBt relationship *ith so-e of t
,6i!tii6rhe
neighbours.The follou'ing reading lesson w-ill give the reader a senseof the atmosphere irher classroom.
B
A readinglessonin Classroorr'f
$O f
.,1'.=
t aJ
The teacher started b-v saying thev rvere going to read chapter 30 of the storybook.
Adventures of Tom Sarvyer,in groups of four or five and each grouP would send a
representative to retell the stor-vin 50 to 60 words to the whole class.Each grouP was to
lvrite down a summarv on a piece of paper first and the summary should cover the main
points in that chapter. As the teacher u'as savingthese instructions, the classwas noisy and
some students said loudly in Cantonese that thev did not know rvhat to do. The teacher
repeated her instructions and w-alkedaround to help students to form grouPs and to explain
againwhat thev u,ere expected to do. Most of the students were off-task, chatting and joking
in Cantonese.A girl at the back rvasw-riting the lvrics of a popuiar Cantonese love song on
a piece of paper. There seemed to be a lot of non-teacher-approved activities going on in
the classroom and a lot of noise. The teacher seemed exhaustedcirculating around the
classroom trying to get her students to do the task. All through the lesson English was
consistentlv spoken bv the teacher w'hile, in contrast, Cantonese was invariablv spoken by
the students except rvhen thev rvere called upon to do the storv-retelling. When they did
that, thev read mechanicallr.from a seriesof sentencesthey w'rote on a piece of paper while
most other students continued to chat noisilv on their own. After a student had finished
readingfromthepaper,theteacherrvould.")...\,.''
or'_Quite nice, thev have covered some of the points" and then immediatelv called another
d had to
gro,rp'r
get all the retellings done rvithin the lesson.This might explain the brev$rof her feedback
to the students.
D O I N G - E N G L I S H - L E S S O NS 2 7 7
ClassroomC: a scenarlo oJ inconpadble habitus
T
Background
This is a form 2 (grade 8) classof thirtv-nine students,nineteen male and twentv female,
aged from thirteen to fourteen. The school is located in a torvn close to an industrial area.
The socioeconomicbackgrounds of the studentsand their sociolinguisticand extracurricular
literacv habits are like those of their counterparts in Classroom B. Their English fluency, as
can be seen from horv and lvhat thev spoke in the classroom, seemed to be rather llmited
for their grade level. There n'ere manv r,vordsin the textbook that thel' did not understand
or did not knolv hou- to Dronounce.
When I informallv interr-ieu'eda group of bovs after class,thev expressedthat they
found English "boring" and "difficult" but thev also said thev knerv it w.asverv important to
learn English well. Thev found schooi u'ork generallv boring but said thev still preferred to
go to school becausethey said thev could at least meet and plav rvith friends at school.Thev
said it lvould be even more boring to stav ail dav at home. "Boring" lvas a word these boys
used frequently to describe their life and school.The reader can get a senseof the atmosphere
in their classroom bv looking at the foilorving readrng lesson.
A readinglessonin ClassroomC
The reading lessoncan be divided'lnto three stages.In the pre-reading stage,the teacher
- Heaven-QueenFestival,
us
using
rsing the Initiation-Response-Feedback
(lRF) discourseformat (Sinclair and Coulthard
Coulthard,
f lZi; lf
teacher wrote ten numbered reading
comprehension ques
d the classr,vasgiven fifteen minutes to read
silerit
the-text.T@The
final stageis a.r u.rs*.e.
ng stage.
t6ucfiEitlicited answers from the .1".. r.rri.rgthe IRF dircourse format. The teichei often
hadtore-asko'"|ub.toqetresPonsesfromstudents
u"atn
I"lF6tt"-t'-g
f.o.r-rth. un.*.r-.h".k;g
"-*tpt;ken
of the studentsbu;sting ;ut in u ,riche that
;.
rt"g"Jt" fi"d the creativitv
e;
ffi
urilnteresting IRF diTourse. The teacher had been asking lactual reading comprehension
:ii;
-questions
about the Heaven-Queenstory that thev havejust read. She came to question 9
(What happened r,vhenshe ansr.veredher mother?) and first asked the question in English.
No response was forthcoming and so she was no\{' elaborating the question in Cantonese
in pursuit of a responsefrom her students:
LessonExcerpt
(To facilitate reading, Cantoneseutterances have been translated into English; thev are
bolded and placed in pointed brackets.Seeappendix for other notes on transcription.)
870T:
872 Leih:
happened>?
<Her old-manfell off to the (ground;>. chucklingtowardsthe end of
{
t_
nls sentence I -
l.
a*1r
t3n*-
Hekhek!{laughing}
Right?(2) <l; that mannerdied> . . . SHHI (1) <okay>
. . . SHH! numberten .
<finallv>
se slot to do somethingplartul'jg!lfgtitt-{:l)#'
story,whict
forward a contributionthat r,r.illiurn the r,vholestorvinto a comic-stri!-tvoeof
-----=
usriall.
raEGrs
strips,
comlc
readlng oxtr'ide school. In their most favourite
they enjov
,:.
a.i"@Sementandenjovmentcome-fromthesuperimposing
boring -"lqT'
of l-porribl" and u.rp.edictable fantasvrvith the familiar, predictable, and
(turns
anslver
[872], t873.2]) is a skillful
*o.td. It seemsthat ihe bov $'ho proo'iies this funnv
ofhis fello$
storv-teller $'ith a..udu undi"rr.., urd this is reflected in the hilarious laughter
students.
tJ rr:lfuy
D: a scenario
Classroom
Background
This is a form 1 (grade 7) remedial English classof thirtv students' twent)'bovs'.ten girls'
in the nearbr'
aged betrveen t*iue to thirteen. The Jtudents came from families u'ho lived
and their
students
the
public housing estates. The socioeconomic backgrounds-of
in
iociolinguistic"and extra-curricular literacv habits are like those of their counterparts
ClassroomsB and C.
The classroom at
and focusedon thei
WAS \:CI\
tasksmost of t
D OI N G . E N G L I S H - L E S S ON S 2 7 9
lped them to remember the difference bv saving"little" has more letters than "few" and
' ir uncountable
rF\'To-fin-ilthis
mnemonic tip very helpful to them.Thev also@r
a
ffi.The"saidthaithev.[@,h.,'couldlearnEngIishr,ve1lbecause
r e vc o u l d s e e
oing betterand betterin theii
ctanons. exerclses and
teacherhad kept a persona
ress chart for the students so that thellEew Eoil'
irev w-ere-doingover time, and the teacher would gi
itidents.Thev felt that thev could succeed in their studies and rvould have a good chance
,i lirthering their studies (e.g., entering universitv) in the future.
Cantoneseto exolain roc
rections, make the English
Delle|ed that slnce tne students \\-ere strll l-orm I students and rt'ere
feGA:SU
f.f"sing Englishall the time, using Cantonesecould help them become
rtlorernteresteclrn tne lessonsanclundersta-nd
the lessonsbetter. Shealsofound that her
:tudents had made good progress over the academic vear, for instance, as reflected in their
#
r
.-_--a n d t h e i r i m p r o v e d s c o r e si n s c h o o l t e s t s a n d
TeacherD lvas the form teacher of this class.She spent most of her recess.lunch. and
rfter-school hours talkins to individual students
ms, ror example,
'f o
' -r bo e. to Drlng
s t o s c h o o l , n o i s v i n o t h e r t e a c h e r s ' i e s s o n ss, c o r i n g p o o r l y i n
dictations or tests. I got a senseth;it the good relationships she had u.ith her students (as
could be reflected in their eagerresponsesto her questions,and their co-operative responses
to her directives) might have something to do rvith the amount of individual attention sh,e
this 'vvar''.
she maintained both a c
However, that also seemed to make her school davs fullv packed and busv from earlv
morning till late into the afternoon. She seemed to be an energetic teacher w.ho did not
mind doing extra w'ork and spending extra time u'ith her students. The reader can get a
senseof the atmosphere in her classroom bv looking at the follorving lesson excerpt.
A readinglessonin ClassroomD
The lesson excerpt belou, is taken from the beginning ofthe reading lesson.The teacher
announces that she is going to ask them questions about the part of the English storybook
that thev have read in a previous lesson:
+69
+78
478.5T:
T: <Okay, let me ask vou about the storv, and see if you can still remember itl
Last time we told the ston' to page fortr; that is the last- the lesson before the
last lesson, and then in the last lesson rve told the storv from page forty to
fortv-tu'o ! Nou' Iet me seeif vou can still remember the story . . . Sinbad w-as
sailing in a boat, remember?Thosejervelries,then he had given awav half of
t h ej e r ' r r l r i e s t o . . . a n d h e h a d b o u g h t a b o a t , a n d h e h a d b o u g h t .. . r e c r u i t e d
manv sailors, after that, he also bought four boats, one sailing torvards the East,
one tou'ards the South, one tow'ards theWest, and one tolvards the North.
Sinbadhimself took a boat, sailing back to rvhere? . . . sailing back to rvhere)?
{A girl raisesher hand;T turns to her and savs}Yes,
Girl 1 {standsup and speaks}: <Brazil>l
< G o b a c k t o B r a z i l > ? lN o : : : ,
2 B O A N G E L I V I .Y . L I N
Some Ss {speakingin their seats}: Baa'Gaak-Daaht!
No, not <Brazil> i (manv students raise their handsnorv andT points to a bor
L'79 \
Bov 1 {standsup and speaks}: <Baghdad>!
(that is), in English '
4 ' 1 9 . 8 T . <Baghdad>, hor'vto spell . . . <Baghdad>?English
<nalhdad>. {Girl t raisesher hand again;T turns to her and gesturesher t
speak)Yes,
Girl 1 {stands up and speaks}: b - a - g - h . . . - d - a - d { T r v r i t e s i t o n t h .
481.5
b l a c k b o a r da s t h e g i r l s p e l l si t )
Yes! (Horv to read this rvord>?
4 8 3T :
Some Ss {speakingup in their seats}: <Baghdad>l <Baghdad>l
No, Baghdal, Baghdad,Baghdad(that is. okav, as thev rvere thinking of goin;
484T:
back home, alasl on the u-avback, thev ran into a GROUP OF> ' ' '
(monkeYs! monkeysl monkevs!)
Ss {speakingup in their seats}:
+87
(That grour
.f88T:
Mo.,ievslYesl {T writes the rvord "monkey" on the blackboard}
that group . . . monkev-men that is, monkey-men that is, the.
of *o.rl.v-*en,
took them to an island), w'hat is the na::me of this island?Can you spell th'
4 7 8B
.
479T:
+9)
- f9 2 . 5T :
+92.8
193T:
+9+.3
494.5T
+9s
4 9 5 . 5T :
+98
4 9 8 . 3T :
4 9 8. 5
4 9 8 . 8T :
+99
499.5T.
500 L
5 0 0 . 5T :
z-u'!, . .
Girl 2 {standing up}: (d)
(How
No, b, b for bori { T rvrites the word "Zugb" on the board }
A verv uglv plice.>
Some Ss {speakingin their seats} : Zugbl
to read it;
Z::ugb'.
ttr..,.".tr.t a:ry+l],h
In theexcerptabove,
i"t
lh'
D OI N G- E N G L I S H - L E S S ON S 2 8 1
to u,here?>). Instead of follou'ing the storvline and asking about r,vhathappens to Sinbad
next, the second question requires the students to give the spelling of the English version
of the name of the place, "Baa-Gaak-Daaht",rvhich has been offered bv a student as a
responseand acknorviedgedand repeatedbv the teacher (turns [479.51,[+79.81).lt seems
to be a question that requires the students to focus on the linguistic aspectsof the storv.
'fhev
have read the English text (pp. +0 +2 of their storvbook), and the Engiish text is no\,v
laid out on their desks before them. The question requires them to shift their focus from
,
t n c c o n t e n t o t t n e s t o r l J o r a u n r l et o c o n c e n t r a t eo n t n e t a n g u a g el n \ \ ' n r c nt t u s c o n t e n l t s
6iTE6T6icher as an acceptablfnal ansrr'er.Theteacher'sfollow'-up question on the eliclted
ans\,'er would have the effect of getting the students to reformulate the answer into an
(the- woiiliTh-et-GacEer uses in her fbllor.v-up
ormat - "in
i n i t i a t i o n ;s e el i n e 2 i n t u r n [ 4 7 9 . 8 ] ) .
We seein turns [481.5] and [483] that the teacherultimately gets the L2 formulation
of the answer -"Baqhdad", and she lvrites it on the blackboard. Only L2 ans\,versare w.ritten
on the blackboard. It seems that the teacher's act of lr.riting the student's resoonse on the
;fi;l-anslver status on the response of the student
blackboard has the .ff".tiFI.,f"r.l.rg
I
9
B
H
e
l
m
a
n
,
3
;
.
l
------.-tu
UnlikeTeJcher C, r,vhooften does her initiations in an L2 (Question) L1 (Annotation
of Ouestion ) sequence.Teacher D often starts r'r'ithL 1 to initiate a question
about the storv.
|,"'
IRF formats
Teacher
TeacherD seems
seemsto be
be usinq
using a couplet
couplet of IRF
formats to do
do consecutivelv
different
consecutivelvtr.l.o
tr.l.odifferent
k/-'
I I?F
storl'1e.g.,turns [469]-[479.8]).The{ocus5 on the.o.,i".rt of th.ffi
-from the storl'linelThesilond IRF format (e.g., J 0 r
askedin the initiationslotsfollow natura-llv
is
used
to
get
the
students
to reformulat" i" EfrE-iE'-eriefitonese
turns [479.8]-t483])
st IRF format. The secon
ormat mav
5'4,
-----.....j
'
B^4"
5if2:
,i.{ J"*=
Teacher-lnitiationIL2-L 1]
Student-ResponseIL1]
Teacher-Feedback
[ (L 1-)L2]
In contrast,Teacher D usest$'o different IRF formats in the follon'ing cvcle in the reading
lesson:
_-
tr
Teacher-lnitiation L 1
Student-Response L 1
Teacher-Feedback L 1
ttr@
= L1 or L2)
T"uc},.i't"itiationI Ll /L2 ) (Ll /L2
Student-Response L l / L 2 l
Teacher-Feedback L 2 l , o r u s e( 2 )a
is in L2
dl Student-Response
the L2 resPonseelicitt:
(3) Start (2) again to focus on another linguistic asPectof
in (2); or return to (1) to focus on the storr-again'
.to2fot"t
Thls kind of discourse practice allou,s the teacher to interlock "
focus in the reading l"iro.t. There can bt '
lutgtus'
uage-tocus
6*mF, interntinednlth a
W6GGnoted above-[6-at
fficars
what@xpressions)
:it\"
e alwavs starts i:
i C r.ho always star'always starting in L -
f.c,t:-
e more famili::
tural caPital
and lingui'::
the schooi lesson: ther har,e both the right kind of attitudes/interest
themes of the storv in EngL'':
skills/confidence to pu.ii.ipur" in high-ievel liscussions on the
rlemmas cau
D OI N G- E N G L I S H . L E S S ON S 2 8 3
In Classroom B, however, u'e r,vitnessa situation of incompatibilitv betr,veenstudents'
habitus and what is required of them in the English lesson.The 14-r'ear-oldschoolbov's
r oice quoted above expressesvividlv w.hat Bourdieu rvould call a rvorking classchild's
' ubj ective expectati ons oJobj ecti veplgbabi I t t i es:
socialclass,understood asa svstemof objective determinations,must be brought into
----i-|
rr I
!relation
not r'vith the individual or lvith the "class"as a populattonJ . but w'ith the
classhabitus, the svstem of dispositions(partiallr') common to all products of the same
<
structures.Though-t isimpossible-Ioro1lmembers of the sameclass(or e\en tno of
them) to have had the same experiences) in the same order, r!_:: r:lt"g tb!=ggb
is more likeh' than anv member of another classto
member of the sa
freouentTSrthe members of that class.The
en conlronteo \\'
objective structures rl,hich science apprehends in the form ofltalistrca
(e.g. emplovment rates, income curves, probabilities of accessto secondarveducation,
frequency of holidavs, etc.) inculcate, through the direct or indirect but always
c o n \ e roqr oer n
te x o e r i e n c e su h i c h p i l e a s o c i a le n v i r o n m e n li t s D h v s i o o n o mwri.t h i t s
.u
"closeddoors". "dead ends".and limited "prosFrects",. . . in short, the senseof reality
or realitieswhich is perhapsthe best-concealedprinciple of their efficacv.(Bourdieu,
1977, pp. 85-86; underlining added)
In Classroom B, rve lr.itnessstudents rvho seem to find themselves confronted w'ith a
languag-e
in which the)'have neither ihterest nor competence/confidenc9, and yelL l."g.r"
| h e' t . r e - c o g n i z e ] t h o u g h T r r g i l 1 i a s a' k e r t o S u c c e s s i n t h e i r s o c' i e t f f i
"1
,
1"
1"
i
theffielves seemsto U
from anv chancesof social success.Their behaviour in the classroom seems to stem from
r-
l:
:l
.r-l
t n e l r c o n l r a d r c t o r v l e e l r n q s a D o u t D o t n t n e r r s e l / - r e c o g n r l r oonI l n a D r l r t | t o c n a n q e . a n o a n g r v
284
ANGEL M. Y. LIN
'_---=--T-.r,
collaborate in this text-information extraction process. She seemqjlgbgjsnnggl:1lI
:ars to be amusecl D\ tll
a
p
p
e
a
n
d
h
e
s
m
i
l
e
s
l
"
t
'
.
r
t
t
o
"
,tud.ntr
to socializ' studentsinto the tex:
eagert9i9g9]t"
unr*J1,GoQh the also seemsto be eager
ti"
,t*EFil[iun
infbrmation extractionmin?ret. 1
stffiteacherr"q..iresoftheminthereadinglesson.Usjngth.
.o'.iiQ
r'sefforts,thestudentsmavbecomebetterverse
English findinq
in examination skills although_their basic habitus orientation towards
boring and irrelevant to their dailY life rem
ffi..go:todea}rvithherdiIemma:holvtogetherstudentst.
collaborate in a task perceived as unengaging bv her students'
:
disadvantage
Nol' Iet us turn to Classroom D.Th. students come from a similarlv
the::
Like
B and C'
socioeconomic background as their counterParts in Classrooms
and interesl
attitudes
kind
of
right
the
r.vith
them
counterparts, their h;Litrrs does not equip
.'"i1j,,hil,u.'dconfidenceinlearningEnglish..
itus being transformed
h the creativediscursive
w.orking
raskandpossibilitvforTESoL pru.-.titio.r"rs
T:T
on"'rro.,ul*'o.11porrl!
(1977).
outlinedbv Bourdieu
D OI N G - E N G L I S H - L E S S ON S 2 8 5
tl
tt,-.
lll#
olten taKen lor grantec anc Percer\eo as legrilmale D\. ail Parues: teacners, stucents.
xe6sffifl-rh-dfrT-(s
section 2 above).
interrogation, together r,vith their students, of the role of English in their societ,vand in
their life chances to develop a critical socialtheorv ofpractice (Luke, 1996).As Pennycook
points out,
References
Bourdieu, P. (i973)'Cultural reproduction and social reproduction', in Brotvn, R. (ed.)
. London : Tavistock.
educationand culurcl change
Knowledge,
Bourdieu, P. (.1917) Outline of a theor,voJ practice(translated bv Richard Nice). Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversitvPress.
286
A N G E L I V I .Y . L I N
Lb+
Chapter 18
AssiaSlimani
EVALUATION OF CLASSROOM
INTERACTION
,hoJS-oi I
ffiAhrrsrrg-ation
Wertheimer (196+\ and Smith (1970\. u-ho focus-edon outcomes and oaid
-.t
|
l r t t l e a t t e n t r o nt o p r o c e s s . \ X
fV D l O f
N t ee\
c h a p t e r p r o p o s e st o a n a l r s ea n d e v a l u 6 t ern' hr hf tA ti s J c l a i m e dt o b e l e a r n .e d f r o m
classroorninteraction. The method, u'hich rvill be described later, allor.r'sa detailed studl
and evaluatethe oualit
of the classroom interactive processesin attempting to un
interaction u'hi
defined as lrhat learners
claim to have learned from a particular lesson.
FNBhrw
'rro*t
r-.aO,v
I \'^'
288 ASSIA SLIIMANI
)t7+
f,\^ I \
\-/
\.
rerhadintended(seealsoAlIwright1984b,19E:
of iurPrise,sucha'
exclamations
'
I taught them that last rveek! , are onlr'' too common in staff rooms. They bear w.itne.'
to the faci that much more than the investigation of the teacher's plan is needed to proviri.
t u l l e r e x p l a n a t i o nosf t h e l e a r n e r sr e a c t i o n s .
ict which linguistr
Seen from this point of vieu-,it a
'uptaken'
. As arguedbhas
taken
lesson
the
even
before
bv learners
items u'ill be
as differer--earner
different Iessonfor each individual
[ 1 9 8 + a ;e, a c !
ngs are likell to bldralvn b)' different learners from the sqme gYent'
'But
.---*A;fr4;Gshtb-tb.*'n,1983;Ellis1984;EllisandRathbone1987)makepri,
assumptionsabout u'hat leJ.ners might see as optimal in the input. Hence, choosinq t-s morphemt.
examine the teaching effect on the learners' accuracv of use of the
(Lightbou'n 198 3), ofWH-questions (Ellis 1984), and German rvord order and verb endin-;.
(Ellis and Rathbone 1987) might provide the investigators rvith the advantageof having:
rich description of the developmental stagesof such features in frrst and second langua..
development. Horvever, brvpredicting the subjects' learning outcomes, such investigatc'r:
mlght te missing out on lvhat has actuall)'attractedthe learners'attention in discourse.
=
Therefore.Allrr'.i
nteractrve classroc,i:
ffist
claimed to be learnt:
Uptake
'as
learnir-t
curricula
-_---:
of
.-"" ' : ^ ' r ^ proponents
Learning a languqqeis defined bv 'some
" . - communicative
"rt-":'-""
:j
.
ho[ to ."r.rr r"icate as a member of a socio-culturalgroup' (Breen and Candlin 1980:9 F{il-*, it is amplv acknon-ledged-hat learning a linguage is not merely a matter of recal}r:-;
beadsof items but rather of coming to grips u'ith the ideational,interPersonaland texr-'
ttte target langua;.
knowledge rvhich is realised through effectiue con6ffi6i-ln
T6.
(9-
fr6-*-."r, since u'e are concerned rl.ith relating learning outcomes to their immec..-.
think of r.a.'
s traditior
E V A L U A T I O N O F C L A S S R O O MI N T E R A C T I O N 2 8 9
understood. The interactive process lends itseif to the creation of an infinite set of learning
opportunities w-hichare not pre-establishedbv the teacher'splan. In such circumstances,
it appearsto be practicalh'impossibleto undertake the complicatedtask of designinga test
to assessthe effects of interaction asit occurs, especiaiivsince the test hasto be administered
-'ountered when
when attempt!4gtc)
attempting to---1
at the end of the lesson. How'ever,the major problem encountered
.
.
r :
:
;
:: :
:
u b l e c t l-claims
s c l a l m s is
l s tthat
of the direct impaCt of rnteracr
ofl finding
hat o
hndrng
researchthe
I
'u
ce identihed,
i rvay to identifv and collect the learners' performance data or
Lichmight
might subsequentlv
subsequentll'explain
explain I
ilptake needsto be relatedto the classroomenr ironment u'hich
ffi"q--,1
its-emergerrce.
rts
emergence.lo do thrs, uptake has to be capture
ffid.
ffi.---1-|'._----T--}'tlook
happen 16
to th-e-ln6imantsthat w'ouldobscurethe
too m[ch
much could
cou[dFlbpen
olace.,trut before
betore too
t65k-Elf,ie.,but
,
dlrectrmpactot the ..lFnt on th. l..tn".i
--TEe
ffiest-based
;;;blemlia-ot
claims.
',.-e-
elicitation techniques rvould also fail to meet the objectives of getting unmediated learner
data. Elicitation procedures, similar to those used bv Lightbown (1983), provide the
informants with an obligatorv context of use; this enablesthe researcher to evaluate,under
experimental conditions, the informants' accuracy r,r-henusing the features which are being
investigated.Bv their nature, these procedures assumethat one is looking for particular
features w-hich are predicted from the teacher's plan. Horvever, .uvhatis needed is a rvay of
identifvinq r'vhatlearners havego,lrfrcm '+eir experience of being in a particular classsession.
*---9-;----'uptake'identilication
The solution eventuallv adopted to the problem of
must seem
somewhat naive at first sight: simpil' asking the informants to tell the researcher rvhat thev
believed thev had leu..r.d"in ttr" t"S5o
dl-ThFprocedure outweighed its obvious shortcomings.
The great advantageof this approach is that it offers an oa9.1g11onglu'arof getting at
u.hatlearnersperceivethevhavelearned.Itmakesitpo,,ibl"@
thleimmediate environment lrom lvhich thev emerged in order to see if it is possibleto
estabIisharelationship.Theideaofrequiringlearnerstotellus@
learned n'ould supplv the researcher u'ith manageableamounts of data, directly referable
t g t h e c l a s s r o o md a t a . F o r i n s t a n c
e
'least',
'list'
and
the investigator could trace th
difference between
anscrl
nd studv the opportunities rvhere'iist' and'least'arose and scrutinisealso the
\ ! r I I L r r r r r r t r r L lEave
r d ! c made
l r l d u c those
L c r l l s particularlv
outstanding
L l r u s c ritems
LrLurdr l\ u
u L S L d r l u r r r E to
u r c point o
clrcumst
I t r l s L a r l u c s ;hch-ffi-gflt
ofr / - - \
L U the
Pdr
PUurr
( r d i l r r , Lthem
( u claim
r r r r r r as
d ) flearned.
learners
l r d l l l r r 5 to
rdr rrqu.
u i l npting
rPrrut
( -- )
prompting
Pf
,--(
iqx
It should be acknowledged at this stage that I am dealing here w'ith the]earnf/\--/
the ]earnif \--lcfi.Ii
'facts'.,:Flon'ever.'n qf
nhat thev
the) believed
believed thev
the) har.e
have uptaken
uptaken rather
rather than
than rvith'facts'.,'Flon'ever,
lvith
in e r a r
eotions of what
perceptions
' / lr6al__
t h e a b s e n c eo l a s a t i s t a c t o r vm e a n so f g e t t i n g a t l e a r n i n gi n s u c h a \ \ ' a ) a s t o r e l a t ei t t o i t s
potentialll' determining environment, a qualitative approach based on the study of uptake
seems to be an interesting phenomenon to guide investigation into a possible relationship
between interaction and learning outcomes.
Prior to moving to the description of the method, it is relevant to provide brief
information about the participants in the studl'.Thev rvere thirteen Algerian male 6rst year
universitv students at l'lnstitut National d'Electricite et d'Eiectronique (INELEC).They
were aged betw'een eighteen and tu'entv. Thev all spokeArabic as theii mother tongue and
French as a second or foreign language.Thev u,'ereon a six-month intensive language
programme (24 hours per rveek) to prepare them to undertake their engineering studies
in English. To benefit from their languagetraining, the students rvere put in small groups
(in this casethirteen) according to the results of a placement test.Their exposure to Englisn
outside their classesr,vaslimited to their classroom rvork and occasionally to listening to
folk music. Their instructor was a trained Aigerian male teacher.
290
ASSIA SLIIVIANI
Method
Uptake
The procedure developedto collect the learners'claims about uptake rvasto distribute a
'Uptake
Recall Chart' at the end of
obr".u"d ldilotr-liiEii
questionnai.e or
"u".r'
ciation anc
in the evenGTh-atTac
jdst preceded {seeAppendix 1 in this chapter for the original lavout of the Uptake Recalj
three hours (before too much had happened to them, but after
heTt.Tfterepproximatelr
u'as
enough had happened to counter immediate recenctTfr-dTiimacv e@56h-le5iiE{
p r e F n t e d r v i t h h i s o u n u p t a k e r e c a l l c h a r t a c c o m p a n i e dt h i s t i m e w i t h a n ' U p t a k .
Identi{icationProbe'(seeAppendix 2 in this chapter for the Uptake Identification Prober.
This is another questionnaire asking the participants to annotate their uptake recall chart
by clearlv dissociating the items thev believed thev had actuall-vlegl.gdj.lbef_pg4Uglu.
-'previoui
\\ltn Otner
lessonIIOm
from tnOse
thosetne\:
ther hacl
naCalreadY
alreaclvseen
Seenlvltn
other teacners
teachersOr
or tne
the Same
sameteacher
teacner On
on prevlOU:
leSSOn
ocEisionslh tFis u'ar', I gave the data the strongest possible chance of b,q_ing
lelatable tc
||,p+memteractionsinthIlessonb'u,ki.'gffilvestothethingsthe.
llb
\l ,
',uu'
r'
*6
( -,
|O
-'o(A.Itu'asfeltthattheamountofinteractionocCur
D.nit-)s ,
the learners'abilitv level and the "uhj'ct studied_.To
produce the right conditions for the
Y\U \
f
J
/
: - - : r - - - - - - - - - -'"vas
---^r-r----r--r-:----,-,-,---- --t: L
-,1:r
,
1
assumedthat the- - -teaching
ofr -grammar
to lor,vintermediate
or, advanced
project, it
beginners u'ould offer the most suitable atmosphere.A rveak as opposed to a strong group
, 1;of students might tend to seek more learning opportunities and pav extra attention to u'hat
on in the classroom in order to improve their languagecommand. It is noted that the
// lgo.r
subjectsof this study rvere particularlr.motivated to master the second language.Theywere
expected to take their technical subjects in English at the end of an intensive language
programme rvhich served as the setting for this data collection.
Grammar lessonsu'ere chosenbecausediscretepoints are frequently dealt with in sucn
lessonsand it is relatileiv easvto find out u-hathasbecome of items in the learners' uptak.
list. Moreover, it r,r'as
assumedthat it u'assimpler for the learner to pick up discretepoint..
E V A L U A T I O N O F C L A S S R O O MI N T E R A C T I O N 2 9 1
such asone might expect to occur during grammar lessons,remember them, and afterr,vards
list them on the charts r.r'hichr'r'ouldbe distributed at the end of the recording.
To investigate the learnrn
ortunities fullv. I exhaustir
aids. I also took notes of w-hatwent on the
text
blackboardto help account later for the ciaims of uptaken items.
Interview
fr; s e6 pro.1( c/
%
The second question, about the reasons for claiming certain items instead of others,
was found to be most problematic to the respondentsas some remained evasivervhile others
rri
produced overgeneralisedstatements as to r,r'hatmade them claim those items.They w'ere
unable to tell the researcher the reasons which made anv oarticular item outstandinq in
;iat
disco-uragddthe researcher from intervielving a second time as this question was the focus
of the interview'.
The respondents produced responsesthat rvere insufficientlv precise to be interpreted
in relation to *'hat might account for their claims. BecauseI u'as observing the same group
for the period of six weeks I could have trained the informants by asking perhaps more
detailed and specific questions about lr'hat most attracted their attention in classroom
discourse. However, as I had never even conducted an intervielv b"fo.gJ.uargfu{to
lgl
words in the learners' mouths. Moreover, being miles arvayfiom anv professionalconsultant,
Idiffiprocedureandruntheriskofunderminingthedatagathering'
The intervier,vhad to be given r,r'ithinthe six observational',veeksas the learners'responses
had to relate to these oreciselvobservedevents.
-\r.r
)
/
ASSIA SLIIVIANI
292
Method effect
I am avr-areof the fact tlrat the methodological procedure used to collect the data can strod
of the learning process and might, by the same token,
f-!{h._j!bjects'consciousness
t
p O l l u t e t h e C l a t a . I t u s \ , \ O U I C In a v e D e e n t n e C a S el I t n e C I a S SO D S e r \ - a t l O n n a c l a s t e c l O V e r a l o n g
-!?ri"Tl-iffi.
of the informants' timetable, rvhich amounted to trventv-four (24) hours of intensive English
lessonsper rveek. It seemed rather unlikelv that the methodological procedure would have
anv maior effect on the subiects'behaviour.
How.ever,to confirm this supposition, the results of the MichiganTest were used.This
test w.asalready being used, at the beginning of the programme, as a placement test to
determine the learners' abilitv levels.This procedure produced four groups, one of which
for the purpose of the project, considered
rvasthe group under st"d,".T ,i jJbg_lhlgg-ge,
as control groups. All four groups r'vere folloui
6r,-vnpace.Without telling the learners in advance,the same test was again administered to
the experimentai group, as',vell as to the three control groups, after the six observational
periods. The pre- and post-test results u'ere inspected to see whether the study qroups
I
.f,fl
T h b t el 8 . l s u m m a r i s e st h e r e s u l t so f t h e p r e - a n d p o s t - M i c h i g a n T e s trse s u l t s( T l a n d
T2 on the table).The table shou'sthe averagescore obtained bv the participants in the studr
to be slightlv higher (7+.76) than the one achievedbv group 2 (72.66).In comparison,the
averagescore ofgroup 2 dois not overtake that ofgroup 1, and neither does group 4 over
group 3. It seemsrather unreasonablehorver.erto attribute this slight improvement whollv
to the procedure itselfas it rvasapplied on onlv trvo hours ofinstruction out of 24 hours a
dure objectiveiv deriving from this
week.The merit I can seethe
it did
m to have negativelv affecte
the
grouP.
The total percentage increase for each group FTrepFeFei'tation, within the whole
programme, of the students' languagetraining development in the {irst six weeks. It appears
to happen in an expected *'av: the low'er groups shorvmore progressthan group 1 (20 .65% t
and 2 (37.53%). This increase in languagedevelopment is quite comprehensible since
r o g r a m m e- s. r o u D sJ t 5 7 . 8 8 0 o l a n d4 ( 1 0 3 . 1 2 0 0 r
k n o u i nJg m u c h l e s sa t t h e o u t s e to f t h e p
.-huyg-lqq."-tegfn fodrnprovement. The total percentage
increasetherefore does not displar
IO
anv convincing sign in favour of an interfering methodological design.The learners in group
3 , in spite of my demandson them at the end of eachof the observed sessions,do not achiele
in any markedil' different manner than what rvould be expected from them if one thought
that the procedure could have influenced the quantitv of their learning.
In summarl., t$'o tvpes of data r.veregatheredfor the investigation of the issu@gli
specific claims collected through uptake charts and detailed accounts of thE learning
tunrtres obtalned through
systematlc
rvatlon ol audlo-recor
naturall\
m data.Thesew'ere supp
occurnng c
ted wrth held notes taken bv the author.
--ru'asintended to protide corroborativedatadidnot produce responser
The intervielr-'r,r'hich
that uere suthclentlv preclse to De lnterpreted ln relatlon to u'hat m
claims.-ln
the end,the bulk of nhat migtri
elr
+-1-,.
rs selecu\-e
E V A L U A T I O N O F C L A S S R O O MI N T E R A C T I O N 2 9 3
lncreasefor eachgroup
Table1E.I Averagescoresand Percentage
T2
T1
SS
Group 3*
Group 2
Group 1
18088
27583
37+84
67
+
56276
66178
60
7
85064
95875
10
58
51
11
83
75
75
78
1l
12
SS
T1
T2
53
2
3
a'7
)+
53
70
73
79
78
58
5
6
7
8
9
10
1l
50
50
ql
48
52
52
.1
)l
l1
fl
50
1+
-/
63
76
70
58
78
12
t2
13
SS
Group4
T1
T')
150
250
348
85
72
58
83
82
++7
545
6++
l+3
8+2
9+1
10 +1
11 +1
39
39
38
SS
T1
T2
/o
73
81
63
71
l8
37
53
36
35
3+
2',)
30
29
11
66
84
77
11
58
)+
72
12
70
T1
T2
T1
T2
T1
T2
T1
T2
6 + . 72
78.09
52.82
12.66
++ 5 3
7+.76
l2
55
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
20.650k
37.53%
61.88%
1 0 3l 2 0 A
between what the informants report as'uptake' and the interactive process in which the
rvith them, not rvanting t
Hou'ever, I did
classpart
"@ail
ue emphasisto linguistic items in order for learners to remem
Gache
ImEThFGuaf ttaching and learning situati
manv as possible.It rn'as
participan-ffi
ii5n-ioth-rresearcher'sfocusof interest.
inflilA&fb.r_aFfii;
-ln
'uptake
fill inEGTTFF-up
out the
tact, lvhen hlling
frTatT5'hen
lesson,
charts at the end ot the hm-t-ODSeTTaUORaI
it was noticed that some learners tried to peep at their peers' charts to enable them to
report more items than thev actualiv could. At this point it rvas emphasisedto the subjects
that they should look upon the author as an outsider, a researcher rather tltan as a teacher,
and that rvhatever reports and comments thev made u'ould be entirelv confidential.Their
th"ir,
reports olr..
grades.
----A;t
ttas planned to observe the same teacher rvith the same group for tu'o hours a
rveeks,the procedure became routine and mv presencer,vasacceptedrvith ease
for
six
u.eek
294
ASSIA SLIMANI
*.t"
topi.ulit"d
leastand |ist?
What'sthe dtferencebetween
r'vritten
on the board]'
items
both
[pointing at
insr;-:
home. Canvouuseanotherwordor expression
son
at
The mother looks after her
T:
oJlook aJter?
L1: Don't rt'orrv.
L2: Not rvorried but uh the sameuh.
L3: Uh, take care.
T:
OK. When I sat'uh this car is like that one, w'hatdoes'like'mean?
T:
L4:
L5:
T:
L6:
T:
4
T:
T:
Similar.
Almost the same.
OK. Norv,John'snerv car looks almostthe same.Whatis'looks'?
Tosee...
alm::
newcarsees
To see,uhuh. So,canvoureplace'tolook'hereby'tosee'andsay'John's
thesame?
Let's see the instructions given here and see if thev match. To match, that'sa n:"
with atrcmPts
toJi-:
word,I think [writesit on board].Tomatch.[,] long explanation
rynonvmsJollows.l
OK,in orderto.What doesthat mean?
E V A L U A T I O N O F C L A S S R O O I VI IN T E R A C T I O N 2 9 5
In the abovecasesthe upta
become the ostensible
,----a r-,:-.
,
G
toprc ot tne con\ersauonratner man DerngsrmPt\a Part ot ctassroomdrscourse.I ne eplsocles
d e a t l n g\ 4 - l t ht h e s ep a r t r c u l a rl e a l u r e sa r e a l s os e e nt o b e l e r m r n a t e db \ .s o m ef e e d b a c kl r o m
the teacher r,vhichmight be expected to be interpreted bv learners asindicating that an item
is worth paying attention to.
The differencebetween the fourteen (11 per cent) and 112 (89 per cent) items claimed
to have been learned during the sessionsunder studv is that the latter had, to a greater or
l e s s e re x t e n t , b e e n t h e s p e c i f i ct o p i c o [ i n s t r u c t i o n b r h a r i n g t h e i r m e a n i n g ,t h e i r s p e l l i n q ,
t h e i r p r o n u n . i u t i o nu n d ' - s'here learners
b) ffi
ofTEe?treersJhe teacher is seen to interl'ene bv approving the provision of information,
It must be emphasisedhorver,er that this does not
imed
items were intended to be taught prior {-o the iessons.Manv of them, as the following
elamples sho'w',arose incidentallv in the qourse of events and becamq topics in discourse
t=:6:
L:
T:
L:
T:
L:
LL:
T:
L:
T:
T:
L:
T:
L:
T:
It appears,then, that within the limits of the analysisso far of the uptaken items, instruction
has exercised a rather positive impact on the subjectssince 1 12 out of the 125 items claimed
to have been learned for the first time during those observed lessonshavebecome, however
momentaril), teaching points. How-ever,a close examination of the data suggeststhat the
above statement alone is far from establishinsthe instructor s suDremacvas a learning
facilitator. A further investigation *tua rt
it6ffiFTEai-are claimed as ne\\' acquisitions in relation to those rvhich have apparently been
the subject of similar intentions and treatment but rvhich failed to lead to anv claims on the
part of the subjects.
To evaluatethe proportion of u'hat has been claimed to be learned from rvhat has been
pedagogicallv focused upon in some \\rav during those six instructional sessions,the sum
total of the topicalised items rvas counted independentlv of rvhether thev had been claimed
as ne\\'or otherlvise on the iearners'uptake charts.The results are summarised inTable
18.2 where column 1 indicatesthe total number of items tooicalisedin eachlesson.Column
2 presents the total number of items which are both focused upon and also claimed by at
least one learner to have been learned. Column 3 introduces those which have not led to
any positive assertion on the part of the subjects despite the attention paid to them, and
column 4 dispiavs the total number of items u'hich have been claimed to be partlv or
completelv familiar alreadv and therefore'ineligible' for learning claims in the context of
296
ASSIA SLIMANI
Total No of
Topicaltsed
and
Topicalised
but
Topicalised
but
topicalisedttems
claimed
not claimed
known
1
2
3
+0
55
I6
60
31
)1
17
21
16
31
11
15
12
15
19
07
0l
12
03
1+
0l
09
)56
tt2
92
52
100%
+3.15%
35.930
o
20.310k
IESSONS
JI
5
6
TOTAL
l)
this stud\'.The data of the last coiumn lvere derived from the answ.ersto questions b, c, and
d on Upiake Identification Probes u-hich rvere distributed to help learners dissociate the
items thev believed thev had learned during the observed lessonsfrom those thev had already
encountered in different circrimstances.Theobserved lessonsin which these items occurred
ed in situationswhich
againcouid not fullv justifv their'uptakinf;@Lrave3
ffitopicalisedcasespror.idinglearningopportunities[or
the class, 92 failed to attract the learners' attention and 52 u.ere claimed to be somewhat
known as they had alread-vencountered them in earlier events unrelated to this study. In
'reached
the target', while 35.93 per
other rvords, +3.75 per cent focused episodeshave
cent went compietelv unnoticed and 20.31 per cent lr'ere alreadyto some extent familiar
to the subjects.
The abovefigurespror-ideus u-ith a picture of the'svllabusasreality'as opposed
.svllabusu.pIu,'iTh.r..themidsttlinteractive
j!-:Tk-dffiST-the
,'('f
s',,"#
\(o\
e,"
65idc-t1ves.I w'asgiven the title of the structure to be taught and the series of exercisesin
the textbook to practise the grammatical features to be introduced to the group.
Hence, the detailed stud-vof the classroomdiscoursehas revealed that about 44 per
Even
been pedasosicalh'
ough the teacher's objectives *.ere geared torvard the teaching of some particular
structural features,most of the 44 per cent $re lexical items claimed to be seenand learned
for the first time in those observed e\.ents.Nevertheless it would be misleading to conclude
that the lessonsw-erenot successfulbecauselearners did not claim many' of the structural
objectir,esthe teacher had on his plan. Although it might be suggestedthat the shortage of
grammatical claims is due to the possibilitv that it is much easierto report lexis because
E V A L U A T I O N O F C L A S S R O O MI N T E R A C T I O N 2 9 7
this does not require the use of metalanguage,in fact, a close perusal of the learners' uptake
charts demonstrates that the informants were perfectlv capableof reporting n'hat ,,venton
during the course of the iessonsin terms of grammar. Bv and large, learners succeededin
accounting for the teacher's structural intentions bv reporting the title if not w-riting the
main points of the sessions.Some er.eniliustrated the teacher's focus of instruction bv
providing examples of sentencesto shou. their comprehension or at least familiaritv witl
what naJtaugtrf.firi. suggeststhat the informants did not lack the means of expressing the
structural obj ectives.
It is believed that one of the reasons r.vhvlearners did not report as manv structural
features as lexical ones is that se\-eralof these features u'ere aireadv familiar to the class.Irr
fact, it is not surprising that most of the structural features emphasisedduring instruction
were not reported as nelvlv learned becausemost of them, if not all of them, 'i'r.'ere
part of
the svllabus in high school. For instance, onlv one informant claimed to have seen and
learned the passii and active voicesfor the fiist time during the observedevents.In fact,
these affirmations are confirmed bv the 20 per cent of topicalisedepisodesin the lesson
which rvere claimed to be part of the learners' prior knorvledge. One could add that after
a few hours of teaching, second languageinstruction becomes verv much remedial as
structural features are p"resentedu.rd iepi"rented for a review'.
It looks as if the learners' claims are somer'r-hatdifferent from n.hat the teacher has
planned for them. His intentions might havehelped learners to rehearsealreadyencountered
(if not mastered) structural features. How'ever,in the process of carrying out the plan, the
'tLe
creation of a r,vholerange of perhaps unexpected and
interactive work has lent itself to
beneficialevents(at least,to some learnersif not to all).The learners'claims (44 per cent
on Table 18.2) remain a combination of the teacher'sobjecti'l'esbut also their bv-product
as lvell asthe bv-product of the classroominteraction. For thesereasons,therefore, attempts
to evaluate the learning outcomes againstthe teacher's plan can be misleading if one does
not take into account the mediating interacti\.e processesrvhich characteriseclassroom
interaction.
In vielr' of the data expressed in the table. therefore. the teacher's influence over the
subjects'learningdid not revealitselfto be asstrong assuggestedearlier sinceapproximatelv
55 per cent of w-hathas been focused upon did not apparentlv bear anv immediate fruit: 20
per cent lvere claimed to be alreadvfamiliar and 35 per cent rvere not, in anv w'av,mentioned
bv the learners.
It should be pointed out that about 77.45 per cent of the topicalisationwas effectedbv
the teacher.This is not particularlv surprising in vierv of the fact that the discourse rvas
unidirectionallv controlied bv the teacher, u-ho did 45 per cent of the talking.What appears
to be strikinglv interesting though is that a further analvsisof the effect of the teacher's
versusthe learners' scarceopportunities (22.54 per cent) for topicalisationshowedthat the
latter offered much higher chancesfor items to be uptaken. Learners benefited much more
from their peers'rare instancesoftopicalisation than from the teacher's.
A close scrutinv of the theme of topicalisation reveals that topics initiated bv learners
attracted more claims from the learners than the ones initiated bv the teacher.The analvsis
shorvsthat out of 46 items initiated bv the iearners, 34 (73.9 per cent) $'ere claimed,
whereas onl,v78 (49 .4 per cent) out of 158 u-ere claimed *'hen topicalisedbl'the instructor.
Thus, the chances for claims are much higher ."vhenitems are triggered by classmates.A
further emphasis on the profitabilitv of the learners' initiation is that it attracts more
reporters than rvhen topics are brought up bv the teacher.
Bv limiting to himself the initiative of topicalisingmost items for instruction, the teacher
does not give the learners much opportunitv to distinguish betrveen items which are
298
ASSIA SLIMANI
important and those lvhich are not.To this particular teacher evervthing lvas relevant. It is
therefore possible that the reason r'r'hv the participants of this studl were not affected
by the teacher's efforts is that in his attempts to focus their attention on everything, no
specificaspectappearedasparticularlv prominent in his discourse.Having little opportunitv
to raise topics for instruction, learners might have made some features outstanding to their
peers if only for the reason that, coming from learners, topicalisation appeared as a
memorabie event rather than the routine procedure of the teacher (see Slimani 1989 for
further details).
Finallv, in this discussionit is u.orth mentioning that the majoritv of the unnoticed or
'lost'
items (36 per cent) are instancesof error treatment provided most often by the
teacher.Their analvsishas allon-ed the identi{rcation of a limited number of features which
differentiate their treatment from that allocated to the topicalised and claimed items ( 1 12,
or 44 per cent). As the illustrations belou' show-,it appearsthat absenceof metalanguagein
the teacher's talk and straight pror.ision, most often bv the teacher, of the correct form of
the item under focus, w-ithout further involvement from the teacher or the learners,
characterisethe strategiesused to deai'uviththese items (see examples 8, 9, 10 below).
Cueing br-the teacher is another common corrective strategy sometimes followed by the
immediate pror,ision of the expected forms bv the speakerhimself, if he sw'iftlv managesto
spot the error (example 1 1), bv his peers (example 12) but lessoften by the instructor.
8
L: . . . and uh sometimesuh onWednesdav.
Whv onWednesdays?
T: And sometimeson\Arednesdays.
9
L:
T:
10
11
L:
T:
12
Pencilshavebeen sharp
Sharo?
L:
SnarDened
T:
Sharpened,ves.
L:
. . . The simplest method is bv srvimming on one side.The rescuerpulls the victim
bv the /hair,/
L S : H a i r ,h a i r [ c o r r e c tp r o n u n c i a t i o n ]
T: Yes,hair,br the hair.All right , . .
Nearlv a third of the lost items consists of corrections of tenses and -s morphemes.
Informants can, holvever, be assumedto be alreadv familiar with these features as they have
been the explicit content of instruction in other l.r.orr. or in high school. Despite preloious
exposure to explicit explanation ofthe rules and recurrent repetitions ofthe correct forms
of these features, the subjectsof this studv persisted in misusing them when using the target
language.It is possible that the informants are not ready to learn these structures as part of
their interlanguage svstem and consequentlv their continued treatment remains pointless.
at least, at this stage of their training. It is rvidelv accepted that features such as the use of
articles bv Arab speakersand some of the -s morphemes, for many English as a second
languagespeakers,remain unmastered in oral production tili an extremely advancedstage
of their training even if these features are explicitlv known to the trainees. This situation
makes us question the necessitv or otheru'ise of attempting to keep on correcting features
E V A L U A T I O N O F C L A S S R O O MI N T E R A C T I O N 2 9 9
w.hich have been persistentlv dealt rvith but still remain largelv ignored by some learners
during verbal interaction (see Slimani 1987 for further quantitative and qualitative analysis
of error treatment in this setting).
C",kt
Learnerst idiosvncracies
:'t^/LI
\r]L^'A'
N of items (i 26)
%oof claims
37.30%
20
27
-t).d/
21.+2
N ofreporters
l5
2
3
Total 14.59ok
7
5
10
3
3
5.s5
3.96
1.93
2.38
2.38
4
5
6
7
8
Total22.20o/o
1
2
1
0.79
1.58
0.79
9
l0
11
T o t a l3 . 1 6 %
The results point to the fact that as manv as 74.59 per cent of the total number of claims
are reported bv no more than three learners at a time, and no felver than 37. 30 per cent of the
total are reported b1'onlv one person at anv one time. A negligible percentage(3. 15 per cent)
of claims is simultaneouslvmade bv nine, ten or elevensubjects.Thesefigures expressthe high
level of individualitv' and'autonomr,' u.-ithu.hich some subjectsmight face instruction.The
Conclusion
The problem of making sense of instruction seems to lie in the difficultt' of findin.
appropriate researchtechniquescapableof evaluatinglearning outcomes in relation to inpu:
f"iflr paper, input is seen as a co-production bl the participants in an instructional setnn;
\\.
und ther.fore renders the task of using traditional testing measuresrather difficult.
attempted to find a rvav of relating the learners'claims to their immediate interactir.
environment.
The technique used proved to be a useful means of shedding light on rvhat is ciaim.:
to be learned from the on-going interactive w.ork rvhich takes place in the classroom. B'
asking }earners to reflect on theii perceptions ofrvhat thev have uptaken, one could see. :'
examlning the interactive lvork, some of the factors lvhich characterise the emergenct these particular uptaken features.
M o r t o f t h e l e a r n e r s ' c l a i m s r v e r e t o p i c a l i s e d . I n t h i s s e n s e ,W h i t e ' s ( 1 9 : recommendations seem to broadlv match the present teacher'sbehaviour in this particu--context. She suggeststhat
E V A L U A T I O N O F C L A S S R O O MI N T E R A c T I O N 3 O }
We should not be afraid occasionallvto provide input udich is ex
. . . the form of grammatical teaching, of correction, or other
p ar ticu] ar str uctur es frnl
it mav tri
e 19871
: 08)
Bringing particular linguistic featurer to th. .lurt'r utt""t
s to be a rather valuable
Cnu.uCterrStt
tOn. \1F
lne lact tnat most ot the'lost'items lr'ere error correction doesnot necessarilvcontracli-ct
the effect of topicalisation.Learners mal not be readv to internalise particular structural
featuresdespite their persistent explanation and correction. Correction is often seen, in
this studv, to be provided in an erratic and confusing manner.The studv revealed that r,vhile
some uptaken features r,vereproducts of the teacher's plan, others rvere bv-products of the
plan or perhapsofthe classroominteraction.
These uptaken items, u'hich represent 44 per cent of the participants' interactive
efforts, are revealed to be highlv idiosvncratic. The detailed analvsisof the interactive
processeshas shou'n that different features of the same event haveh"". ,,pt'Lo' h..lifferent
Iearners.Veryft"'ltems *ere claime
Moreover,.w.hilemanv
ffif,t.r
of the claihs could be traced in the transcripts as having received some kind of emphasis
on the part of the participants, mostlv of the teacher, others merelv occurred as part of the
classroom interaction or did not feature at all in the text, suggestingthat learners reacted
with some autonomv to u.hat $'ent on during the interactive event.
Viewing input as co-produceihbv the p'articipantshas highlighted idiosyncrasy and
topicalisation as particularlv relevant to evaluation studies which generallv tend to assess
learning outcomes on the basisof the teacher'sobjectives:these objectives are subsequentlr
assumedto be learned bv most learnersin the class.A test basedon the teacher'sobjectives
would have taken into consideration the features rvhich the teacher planned to treat. Such
a test would, bl- its nature, ignore the verv manv other features u-hich incidentalll arose
during the actual classroom interaction, some of rvhich learners claimed to have benefited (
" \
--BEfuse
of the finding that r,vhat actualh' gets topicalised during the classroom
interactive r,vork is different from the teacher's plan, and because uptake is strongly
idiosyncratic,it is therelore not helpfu] to usethe teacher'splan asa measuringrod lor what
h a sb e e nu p t a k e f il r o m t h e l e s s o n I. n f a c t .a c o n s i d e r a t i o n
o f t h e a c t u a lc l a s s r o o mi n t e r a c t i v e
wo?F wEch charicterises second languageinstruction and a studv of learner idiosyncrasv
might help us gain a better understanding of the complexities of second languageteaching
and learning.This understanding might subsequentlt'inform the improvement of evaluations
of what actually gets learned from languageprogrammes.
References
'\lbrking
Allwright, R.L. (ed.) (1975a)
papers: Ianguageteaching classroom research'.
Department of Languageand Linguistics,Universit\. of Essex,England.
Allw-right,R.L. (1975b)'Problemsin the studv of the teacher'streatmentof learnererror', in
Burt and Dulav: 96-109.
(1983)'The nature and function ofthe svllabusin ianguageteachingand learning'.
Unpubhshed mimeograph. Department of Linguistics and Modern English Language,
LancasterUniversitv.
(1984a)'Wh)-don't learnerslearn r,r'hatteachersteach?Theinteractionhvpothesis',in
302
ASSIA
SLIMANI
3-18.Dublin:IRAAL.
'The
importance of interaction in classroom languagelearning'. Applied
(19S4b)
52: 156-1 1.
Linguistics,
'The
analvsisof discoursein interlanguagestudies:the pedagogicalevidence', in
984c)
1
1
Davies,Criper and Horvatt.
instruction',inA. Brookesand P
in rvhoie-class
(1988)'Autonomv and individualisation
Grundv (eds) lndilidualizatrcnand autonomfin languagelearning,pp. 35-44. ELT
Documents 131. London: N{odernEnglishPublications,British Council.
Breen, M.P. and Candlin, C.N. (1980)'The essentialsof a communicativecurriculum in
1(.2):89-112.
languageteaching', AppliedLinguistics
s s e c o nlda n g u a g el e, a r n i n g ,
B u r t , M . a n d D u l a v , H . C . ( 1 9 7 5 1O n T E S O L ' 7 5 . | t e wd i r e c t i o ni n
D.C.
:
TESOL.
andbilingualeducation.Washington,
teaching
in researchand
Corder,S.P.(1977)'Teachingand learningEnglishasa secondlanguage:Trends
and
practice',in H.D. Brown, C.A.Yorio, and R.H. Crvmes (eds)OnTESOL'77.Teaching
learning Englishas a secondlanguage:trendsin researchand practice.Washington, D.C.:
-
TESOL.
Edinburgh:Edinburgn
Davies,A., Criper, C. and Howatt, A.P.R. (eds) (198a) hterlanguage.
UniversitvPress.
Ellis, R. (1984)'Can svntax be taught?:a studv of the effectsof formal instruction on the
5(2): 138-55.
acquisitionofWH questionsbv children'. AppliedLinguistics
E l l i s , R . a n d R a t h b o n e ,M . . ( 1 9 8 7 ) ' T h e a c q u i s i t i o no f G e r m a n i n a c l a s s r o o mc o n t e x t ' .
Unpublishedreport. EalingCollegeof Higher Education.
Annals I0
Fanselow,l. (1971)'The treatment of learner error in oral work' . ForeignLanguage
s 8 39 3 .
Krashen, S.D. (1980)'The theoretical and practical relevanceof simple codes in second
language
in second
Ianguageacquisition', in R. Scarcellaand S.D. Krashen (eds) Researcfr
7-1 8. Rou'le1,Mass.: Nen'bury House.
acqusition,pp.
andsecond
language
learning.Oxford: PergamonPress.
acquisition
( 1981)Second
language
jn
language
acquisition.
NewYork: Pergamon.
andpractice second
( 1982) Principles
'Exploratorv
relationshipsbetu'eendevelopmentaland instructionai
Lightbown, P.M. (1983)
orienteri
sequencesin L2 acquisition',in H.W Seligerand M.H. Long (eds) Classroom
in second
languageacquisition,
research
pp. 21745. Rorvlel',Mass.:Newbury House.
'Some
tvpes of psvchologicaldiscussionthat help to establishthe
MacFarlane,J.M. (1975)
teacher'streatmentof error asa fruitful variablefor investigation',inAlhvright (1975ar
p p .4 - 6 3 .
ir
in an EST program', in BritishCouncilTbamteaching
Morray',M. (1916)'INELEC:Team'vvork
ESP'.ELT Document 106. ETIC Publications.
'What
9( 1): 41-5 1
the "good languagelearner"canteachus' . IESOI @rarterly
Rubin, J. (.1975)
(196+)
language
teaching
A psvcholinguistic
experiment
inJoreign
Scherer,A. andWertheimer, M.
NervYork: McGraw' Hill.
'The
relationships:Learningopportunitiesand learnin-g
teaching-learning
Slimani,A. (1987)
outcomes. An Algerian case studv'. Unpubhshed doctoral dissertation, Lancaster
Universitv, England.
( 1989) The role of topicalisationin classroomlanguagelearning. System77: 223 34.
toforeign langua;:
oJ the cognittveand audiolingualapproaches
Smith, P.D. (1970) A comparison
FordgnLanguageProlect.Philadelphia,Penn.: The Center fo:
instruction:ThePennyslvania
Curriculum Development.
betrveeninstructionaldifferencesand learningoutcomes:'
Spada,N.M. (1987)'Relationships
process-product studv of communicative Ianguageteaching'. Applied Linguistics8(2
131-61.
E V A L U A T I O N O F C L A S S R O O MI N T E R A C T I O N 3 0 3
'What
can rve learn from the good languagelearner?'CanadianModern
Stern, H.H. (1975)
a sa s e c o n d
L a n g u a g e R e v i3e1w: 3 0 4 1 8 ; a i s oi n K . C r o f t ( e d . ) ( 1 9 8 0 )R e a d i n gosn E n g l i s h
tainees(2nd edition). Cambridge,Mass.:Winthrop.
teachers
andteacher
language:for
input: the input hvpothesisand the der,eiopmentof
White, L. (1987)'Againstcomprehensible
8(2): 95-110.
secondlanguagecompetence'. AppltedLinguistics
I
2
F
l
cc
F
a
.9
I.IJ
6
q)
o-
tr
O
uj
t-ll
1[
tU
rji
oz
il
;=
LIJ
rI
z
J
uJ
I
F
z
a
Fl
Fl
l
f-
l
LL
t.)
C'
z
-
t4
@
C)
F
f
zEI
o
a
z
r)
a
uJ
U)
(E
UJ
tr
ril
a5
f
F.
a
t-
o' i
z:
o6
o
4
(/'b
llJ c)
JE
!r, I
>o
ooF
Fj
z- t=
o
irr
JO
1!-
=:
OF
(J(g
luJ --.1
>
>
- J
o-
Fq)
u)
dG
(E
uJ
a
z=
oKH
Iai
=o-
2
IF
6
uj
L O
o_
o
z
U)
cc
(\
(I
uJ
:
X
rt
rrl
z
:)
(L
o-
((l
o
cc
=
C\i
o
1
=
I.JJ
n
E
z
:)
z
(r
TL
R E A D C A R E F U L L YT H E F O L L O W I N G Q U E S T I O N S , M A R K Y O U R A N S W E R S
'UPTAKE
RECALL CHART'.
AS INDICATED ON THE
1. Of all the things vou n-rote on vour'Uptake Recall Chart', lr'hich do you think
r o u l e a r n e dt o d a ri
(u) Did vou learn anything that rvas reallv neu. to vou? If ves, circle it.
(b) Did ,vou learn anr,'thingthat was not reallv completely new, that vou knen'
partlv alreadv?Ifves, underline it.
(.)
Was there anvthing that -voudid not learn at all becausevou knew it already?
If ves, mark it u.ith a zigzag line.
2. Of all the things -vou\,vrote, w.hich do vou think the teacher most wanted you to
learn? Mark them rvith aT. .Thank vou for lour cooperation.
Chapter 19
MichaelP. Breen
iillll
qF
|frll
ill
Yl
Ir-rtroduction
CE\TRAL
t(tut()
CONCERN F
t r o m l a noqou a p e I
,l.dr-rce
d that. regardlessof i
-.
ilw61t**
the sam
'f
t AJi,,"bS*s
212.
unthreateninq:
the proce
tarset
lanpuaqe.
ooo
In exploring this relationship, SLA researchto date has primarilv focused upon the
interaction betw'eenlvhat learners contribute, particularlv their innate template for I
tz.<
,ot.rl.*tL
ofSLA resear
ihat the ,"."u.-.h u"pp"u.,to ta'.,,o,11.pa.frCilffiaradigms
of learning
and,
therebl', constructs
ano, tnereDl"
construcls the
tne learner
tearner in
rn oarticu
partlcurar wal's (Dreen, l>>6).
risinq- , verv
to
to be the catalvstsfor languagelearningJhe accommodation bv
@
the learner of language data is tvpified bv the learner's creativ
n of
interlanguagesu'hich
sent sradual approximations to the
ies and communicative strategies are
ed bv learnersin order to make
their interpretative and acco
co-nstructsof the learner lvhich we can deduce from the researcffiibute
significantly
to
an
of
language
is
LU 4
t r sexplanation
^pr4rr4ltvrr
v r lhovl'
ruv!
rdrr5u45E
1 ) liearned.
E4l llcu.
aA
However, this explanati.onrvill remain partial if much of plnl-."r"urch persists in
d e c o n t e x t u a l i s i n Ige a r n e rc o n t r i b u t i o n s t. h e l e a r n i n qD r o c e s sa. n l M r n i n s o u t c o m e sf r o n ,
the location in which these three
tnree fadtors
ractors are realised. Mainstream SLATEseirch,
SL,t rer"ur.n- in
rn locusing
locusrnq
xi l ^
:
'upon
the relationshipbetu een the learnErn-n-d1ii$rage
data.is conductedand reported on y::
".i""rir. "i"d".;.d
\ o u n g r e a r n e r s o r D e t \ \ ' e e n n a t l \ e s p e a k err
..r"r..h..,
and non-native speakinginformants, eiperimental situationsusing elicitation
techniques, quasi-experimentainegotiation tasks undertaken bv non-natir.espeakers,or
observedinteractionsduring lessonsare never sociallvneutrai activities.Toreduce the data
s t o d i s l o c a t et h e m
from their intersubjective nature. The evidence '"veobtain from anv learning event, even in
a quasi-experimentalsetting, is significantlvshapedbv the social situation and the social
relations within that event.
If lr'e used Ellis'srecent verv comprehensiverevieu-of SLA resear@ Ellis, t 99+\ an
.-l A.
I ^ - - ^I
___t?_u
,f'' _ g _0- -
,itq
TryM
7"**.
"fy'
"?h:"*::::$
complex
recentlv have a number of SLA researchersreturned t(fygotskf
-ffi:\rv
ial
activitr"
ideas r,vhichinsist on i"^.
pleoiVra^These ttit-'
is
1994)'Sucha perspective
(Lffipel
"ro.io.tltrrrul"
.',^,40,^6;lo'*;.."ni.dp".rp..tit"
u1l
iT:3-yth'jogtd
a"
a.
sar".lgerli?g
br: Leont'evrvho,likevvgotskr',
undertaking betrveen those in societv lvho havemastered knolvle
ffi'.--ffi;rins
ersocialactivitiesinthew.idirworldsuchaswork,or
various
evervdav situations and institutional settings. For
in
o.
lif",
participation
familv
the
L"o.ri'.t, ,r-h"r, or.. ,"ud text, Iisten to music, or paint a picture, even when not in
"
constructed:
is
sociallv
that
presenceof others, we are participating in a process
if rve removed human activitv from the svstem of social relationships and social life,
it w.ould not exist and lvould har.eno structure. With all its varied forms, the human
-4@"t"2-"TL-nd
lessons.
The datamade availableto iearnersare sociallvfiltered throughthe particular ,
'.-.
o l s c o u r s eo I t n e C l a S s r O Oam
n o . I n e r e D \ .r e n o e r e oO l S t l n c t l vter o m \ - h a t\ v e m l g h t d e s c r t b e
2-snarura
l
madeavarlabletolearnerstnaclassroomareaJ@ctr,r.ithlvhichteacherand3.
learners interact activelv as both creators and interpreters. becauseu'hat Iearners actuallo
l e a r n T r o m t h e c l a s s r o o mi s s o c i a l l rr a t h e r t h a n i n d i v i d u a l l vc o n s t r u c t e d .a n v e x p l a n a t i o n
o l n o w l a n g u a g el s l e a r n e c
n g u a g el e s s o n s .
This implies that language iearners need not onlv be interpretative, accommodating,
and strategic as SLA research suggests,but also active practitioners r,vithin the discourse of
the learning contexlrn wblqh tfr."y}"a *"i t w i l l p r o r i d e v e r ) ' p a r t i c u l a ro p p o r t u n i t i e sf o r a n d s p e c i f i cc o n s t r a i n t su p o n l a n g u a q e c { .
learning.These oppdlrrnities and constraints can be identified in the discourse of language
lessonsand a crucial variable which can contribute to our understanding of the relative
successor failure of learners is holv thev themselvesare obliged to navigate within it.
We can expressthis central irsue i.r terms of a questioi: Does a l3ur.r.r', successin
learning languagein a classr
d upon the learner's successfulnar is;ii6n-;TT6-e Qj'
Dimensions of discourse
Discourseis a diffrcult concept because,like SLA research,discourseanalysisis a relatively
v o u n gd i s c i p l i n ea n d t h e r e a r e s e v e r acl o n f l i c t i n ga n d o v e r l a p p i n gd e f i n i t i o n sd e r i v i n gf r o m
ranse of th.o..ti.ul
vanDijk
a range
theoretical and
undu."lt'
anah'ticalpositions (van
Diik 1
1985,
98 5 . Macdonneil 198CI:E;alt
). Larly work
,pattern and
rn drscourseanalvslssought
uncover pattern
and system
ught to uncover
syste
i a highe
ystem at
gher level of organisation
iesof dialo
than the sentenceand
acts,turn taking,
topicalisation, and so on. Descriptir.'ediscourse analvsisrvas also undertaken in relation=16
ffiediscoursessuchasmediadiscourse'medicaldiscourse,orlegal
3IO
MICHAEL P. BREEN
discourse. More recentiv, the ideas of social theorists such asrf-ouffirt11972 and 1984) and
.B'di?fEIh( 1991 t har-eled to an extension of such '"vork to refer to how human knowledge
\-{.r...
I
r
r
..
-t
r
=)-:)-:=-anoCaPaDrlIueSanoevervdar.socialpracticesed
throuqh discourse.
F=-g__-<-Tn-relating
social theorv directh- to earlier and more conventional approachesto
1989
discourse analysisrvith a vielr. to developing a critical approach to analysisiFa-ilretotEh{
'"vhich
levels
related
is
made
up
of
three
discourse
a
frameu'ork
of
and 1992) has provided
orcomPonents.Forhi-,@ecanbeSeenasbeingsimultaneousIya
piece of text, an instanceoldiscursive practice,and an instag ilresb]-Placl$e. Applying
this framew'ork to the lariguageclassroom, th<fe?>'f lessonsis all the availablelanguageor
communicative data, be thev spoken, lvritten, or in other visual media from pictures and
are hou'texts are oroduced and
diagrams to facial expressions.The
@iq
t'l
.,'J th;i,@"ri[i"gh
*iiof
th. .,oiIJ".
provide{ to us by classrroomrresearch.
E^a"A"v Tavdo'$L
I Dr
l|(t-reformulationorevaluatio,,iSi,'.l(1975)identi_6}a
E-r',r
\,-' ,4.
--,'@ernlvhichappearedtobespecifictolanguagelessonswhere
a teacher'sreformulation is often repcated verbatim bv a learner or the lvhole classbecause
1/\l(9
t*lxl,l;#"::*a;ffi':;
this book; points out that a good proportion ofth"e teachers' utterances in a languagelesson
4rua+
- -
0w"^
,!owl.
oP.clt. ) .
lVu^-
of learners.
There appear to be features of the text of language lessonsthat ma)' be distincti
compared with other tvpes of lessonl We might describe this as
r-textua ature of
languageinput in classroom talk
samDles or lnstances
[he tarpet
lanquaqe- a
ooo
--
tarqet lan
-e a r n e r s
have to navigate
2
J
MICHAEL P. BREEN
3I2
of the
Pr,rr.-trepli
tea@rt
,"AE;t.*ctions
to tlh"i. .o.t
t t- t
"
\,,,
*)"S-
ffiritisuttered.teachersconStructIearnersasprimari1r
iirlr passiveparticipantsin th" 4igg"1;t,_ln ollering an
nsive a
e x p i l n _ a t l o fr6 r t h e f a i l u r eo f F r e n c hj m m e r s i o n s t u d e n t st o f u l l r a t t a i nn a t i r e - s p e a k elri k t
lelrls in their olvn speechdespite vears of exposure to content-based and comprehensible
language input resulting in verv high levels ofreceptive understanding, Su'ain (1985
et
suggeststhat this failure mav be partiallv due to the telative lack of oPP.,t
uctron.
h their ow'n speech
urse
to partic
rrticipglgaveJ.lryj
r r -learning
rcdtturr:
L o variation
v d r r a L r u r t lin
P P e a r to
L ( Jr c d u to
appear
l s c u r s r v e practices
discursive
r e s P o n s l vive
e o
e v e n rer
iHon'ever,
l o \ \ ' e v e r , even
PracLrces a
In investigating u-hether greater learner participation had an effect upon learning, Stron;
ain learners correlatec
hig
(1983 and 1984) discoue.ed_thut-a
c,r
with their achievement in tests basedupon the grammar, proffit
....-ff
--
classroo,iip.
inpurSaneffi
st
performed better on an aural comprehension task than did le..
participating learners. In their ciassicstudv of the good languagelearner, Naiman er c.
their hands more and more often re
(1978) found t
teacher eliei
S t u d i e s b v L a r s e n - F r e e m a n( 1 9 7 6 a a n d 1 9 7 5 b ) , H a m a v a n a n d T u c k e r ( 1 9 8 t )
Lightbon'n (1 983), and Long (1980), all suggestthat the frequencvofoccurrence ofcertai:
linguistic forms in classroomtext is likelv to correiate w'ith the accurateproduction of thes=
forms bv learners. More signilicanth',studiesbv Lightbor,vn(1980 and 199 1), Snou-an:
Hoefnagel-Hohle (1982), andWhite et al. (1991) not onl-vconfirm this but also sho*'hi1:
retention rates of question forms. Given the regular occurrence of questions in the text ,-:
are directed to them individuallv.
alL
UIILULUU
ururlruqqrrl.
Lrrql,
rrv!
"kincl--f:frlTerances
directedspeiihcallrat indiriduallearnerscorrelatedrvith hi
-----+
p.o.idi.tslh;;il
ffihur
tr/'
10/t
.it6;t
tft
and 1995) confirm that feedback is most likelv to have an impact on the learner's
interlanguage if it occurs at times rvhen the learner is w.orking hard to convev a particular
uggle to neg
negotiateT6r meaning
discurJiveFoiF
..r...us.lT]n
m
e s s a g e I. n sum.
s u m , the strugtfe
g tthror:sh-ouert
hl@
i-nders relativelv compiex text comprehensible and, consistent rvith a major assumption
in SLA research, t}ereb-v facilitates learninq.
(brrcc.(to^
rvill navigate
na.-igJtethroughthe discourseof lessonsin differeni-l DiWouHowever,differe.rtieurners
different learnersuill
Dl'ft o*t
waysdependingupon their ou'n dEfinitionsof the situation,their previousexperiencesof
"{ f UL*
unclerstandlng of
dvnamicsocral
ot the
the dvnamrc
and their
therr particular
socialpracilces
or culture
culture ot
of
classrooms,
classrooms, and
practicesor
partrcular understanding
\ h
h J/ pp,
the classroom group (Breen op. cit.). Learners u'ill therefore place different values and-I
e upon.
significanceupon their role as a participant in the class.Oue.t discursi"e p.
particular learners or even spontaneousparticipation do not alone account for differences
inwhatlearnersl"u'.'f'offi)repIicationofS.Iig..''studyof..hig}r
.
-rrl
input generatord[Seliger op.?iL1 and Elv's (1986) inr.estigation of learner initiated
u t t e r a n c e sl o u n d n o r e l a t l o n s h l p b e t \ l ' e e n o v e r t l e a r n e r p a r t l c l p a t l o n a n d l a t e r t e s t
immediate "uptake" from lessons of previouslv unknown
,z.ftttainment.lnlfacingiearners'
('
///
r
Ltq-57,^o^
--J looi
r------,-ro,f-ri-r
r\
r
r ^rr
: r-,
and
1992; aChapter
18 of this book;
Allwright's
uo""b,rlury,61Iffi(1989
conflrmed
A
----\
-)_
hypothesis that different learners rvill learn different things even from the same lesson
erv that lo\\ -DartrcrDatr
(Alhvright op.cir.)*lirnani-made+hri
recalled as much from lessonsas di
rtrcrPatlng
recalled
more
iiems
from
lessons
if
they
were
'
r
o
.---:--r
,l
lcallsec|or rntroduced
rntroouceo rnto
lnto the--text
tne text ol
ot the
tne lesson
lesson D\'
lx' learners
learnersrather
ratner than
tnan those
tnose toprcalfcl
toDlcallseo
toDrcalrsed
trt
rom their hi
g
ticipating colleagriE. Allrvright interpreted these findings as suggesti*ng
(-t
4F
3T4
MICHAEL P. BREEN
which thev not onlv recalled but also retained over a longer period \r'ere never overtly
negotiated about in the text of the lesson. Onir' 270/oof retained vocabulary items had been
topicalisedin the lesson,rvhilst 56%oofretained vocabular)'couldbe traced to the
A olertlv
indi.idual learner'spersonal r,r'orkupon items occurring in the spokenor r,vrittentexts of
rf rf _ l r :
r/r
c l a s s r o o mc o n t e x t a s c o m p a r e d u l t h d v a d so r s m a l l g r o u p s o t l e a r n e r sn e g o t l a t ] n gt o r
m e a n i n g r r i t -h o u t t h e i n t e r r ] e n t i o n o f t h e t e a c h e r . T o r t
the arqument that context makes a difference.Overt participation in classroomdiscourse
oll
j"G--Ttr
but .n., f
or appropriao',
correctness
"..il.titF.noryl
lth,"..nTi"
l{
P"d
p6$l611iffi;Aailr
thedffintiontoitrt.hiIepossibivinvolr'ingteacherandlearners
in exactl,vthe kind of resolution w'ork that mav be directlv beneficial to ianguagelearning.
However. learners also navigate through classroom discourse in rvavsthat ll'ill enable
them to avoid individual trouble for themselves,in particular avoiding to
MICHAEL P. BREEN
3T6
i i:
:,
a n o rnelr
tnelr
aS
s learnels
l e a r n e r s ano
o \ 1 - n Constructlon
c o n s t r u c t t o n ot
o t tnemselves
tnemselves a
e x p r e s s e s tneir
t n e l r O\\'n
whtch
$ h t c h publlclY
D u b l l c l \ . exPresses
-----E-
*.
e
construction ot r
in the text ofJeGis--Filf-also be aiell-ection of their self assessmentand their assessment
of both the teacher's languageand the teacher's likelv reactions to their orvn production. It
seems that some learners' perceptions of the establishedsocial relationships in some
classroomsmav actuallv encourage them to underachieve.
uc
. t .
to that culture.
?articipate rvith the teacherand other learnersin the ongoing:glltruction of lessons
andthemaintenanceoffairIvpredictableclassroom'ffi
M a n a g e t h e p ? e s e n t a t i o no f s e ] T - t h r o u g ht h e d i s c o u r s ea c c o r d i n g t o o n e ' s o w n
definition ofboth self identitv and the demands of the situation.
..#---
tween
We misht deduce from the evidence that there is oniv a very tenuous relationshi
ress
ln
participation
actual
lessons
and
their
of
bv learners in t]re'discourse
successful
lm
, At ieastit seems
and
tion for
on actual learni
rs aspivotai for learning. But a crucial issueis that overt pditi-
frr.
ftt&
6)
\,\
i'*
t>r'-
ws lo'*
ifi-other realms of di
iisue
for languagepedagogvis horv it mav faciiitate the gradual
central
A paradoxicaibut
of languagelearning from rvhat appearsto be the prevailing discourseof lessons.
disembedding
In raising this issue I am not intending to implv that all the features of such discourse inhibit
the learner's capacitv to participate in other kinds of discourse. Hor,vever,I believe it does
rsive work of
imply that rve need to consider horv u'e might identifv and mobilise
d reducing thosemu
constraints rvitirin the current discursive and social practices oflanguage c
mav
) inhibit it.
II a learner
a largelr
,,n/12
318
MICHAEL P. BREEN
output and directlv fo.*",ro'"&"dbgck are significantiy curtaiied (Slimani; Dobinson; Sw'ain
nds of participation which
,
vary the
negotiation
for
meaning,
in
rvhat
wavs can
as
identifies
genuine
SLA research
"ve
text, discursivepracticesand socialpracticesof the classroomso that genuine negotiation
If there is a joint conspiracvU"-t*-il
,Gfl". *a
tb,
harder
having
to
work
free
discourse
is
to
and
trouble
that
preferable
learners
predictable
he
within it, in
ungedictable and to participate directl)'in resolving both learning and social confusionsl
TFe indir-idual effort to confront and reduce compiexitv in text through discursive
negotiation *'ith and about that text is the catalvst for understanding and, thereby, an
opportunitv for further learning (Long 1996).
All these considerations directh' implv that rve sh
discourse in a language classu'hich is more challeriging to its particjFgll!! :thanit often is.
SuchAlliscourse r,r'illpositively support the kind of risk-taking among learners that can
contribute to deeper and more resilient levels of learning.This means focusing upon the
potential inherent in those discursivepracticesrvhich learners arecurrentl)lobliged to adopt
Given that teachershavethe major responsibilitvin managingthe discourseof lessons,hor.
can \\'e manage it in r'r'avsthat mav maximise such opportunities? Recalling the discursive
practices of learners that I summarised earlier, alternative w.aysof managing the discourse
m a v i n c l u d et h e f o l l o u i n g :
c.
4 \,.n , r:-.
(--t-'
| \-
the text ol
an
all
active
dLrlrL
and
alru
creative
LlLaLl\L
role
lvrL
in
l l , constructing
rvlrJ(r
u\ rrrrv
Expecting
LAfrrLtrrtY
learners
l q d r l t q r ) to'adopt
tv
duuPL
"r----:er.
ofitit is gen
lessons
lessonsso that at least
leastt\l'o-thirds
two-thirds of
-niliaL'g
oflessons
th" inter-textualitv
i.,t"r]I[Jity Jl!*-o.,
the l.@ilit\:to
learners'alertnessand adaptabilitvto the
Building o.,
on th.
and familiaritl. u'ith inter-textualitv in the first language by encouraging the
understanding and creation of i.rr,..rtio'., and diverse combinations of written a.rd
1 --, --,.--
t,{,lot'(,r
can be adapted and constructed in an on-going lvav in order to facilitate their own
seek
Accepting,h.. i"..o
TgIggtler,
,o-diilrr.e, u..
wavsof
chosenand adaptedon the basisof overt teacher-iearnerand learne.-t""cher
neggtiationaboutsuchthings.
Appreciating the social risk of doing ail these things, facilitate cooperative and
suooortiveu'avsof uorkinq asa classroomqrouo that resDectsthe identitv.diflficulties.
,',_
and relative autonomv of the individual includinp tiiose of the teacher.
Each of these 'lvaysof rvorking is, of course, related to one another and, therefore,
complementarv. The effort to implement one makes it more possible to implement any ot
References
A l l e n , P . , S l r ' a i nM
, . , H a r l e r ' ,B . , a n d C u m m i n s ,J . ( 1 9 9 0 ) ' A s p e c t so f c l a s s r o o mt r e a t m e n t
oJ
torvard a more comprehensivevielr. of secondlanguageeducation',inThe development
B. Harleverai. (eds).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversitvPress.
language
second
projciencv,
Alirvright, R. (1980)'Turns,topicsandtasks:patternsof participationin languageteachingand
I a n g u o g ree J e d r ( hD, . L a r s e n - F r e e m a(ne d .)
l e a r n i n g ' . i n D i s c o u r saen a l ) s i st n s e c o n d
-
Rou4evMass:NervburvHouse.
(1984)'Why do.r't leu.nerslearn u'hat teachersteach?Theinteractionhvpothesis',in
D. Singletonand D. Little (eds). Dublin.
Language
ledrninginJormaland inJormalcontexts,
IRAL.
Paper
socialproblems
and pedagogic
(1989) lnteraction.inthe languageclassroom:
possibilities.
presentedat Les EtatsGenerauxdes Langues,Paris,April 1989.
an introductionto classroom
Allw-right, R. and Bailer',K. (1991) Focuson the languageclassroom:
Calnbridge: Cambridge Universitv Press.
researchfor langudgeteachers.
'Form
and function in L2 acquisition',in Secondlanguage
Bahns,J. and Wode, H. (1980)
andissues,
S. Feiix (ed.;.Tiibingen:Gunter Narr.
development:trends
'The
Learning27,
influenceof the listener on code-su.itching'
. Language
Beebe,L. (1911)
331 9.
'Accommodation
theorv: an explanationlor style shiftingin
Beebe,L. and Zuengler,J. ( 1983)
N.Wolfson and
andsecond
languageacquisition,
secondlanguagedialects', in Sociolinguistics
E. Judd (eds).RorvlevMass:Neu'burv House.
Berrvick, R. (1990) Taskvarjatjonand repdr tn Engltshas aJoreignlanguage.Kobe Universitv of
Commerce:Instituteof EconomicResearch.
andslmbolicpower.Cambridge:Politv Press.
Bourdieu,P. (1991) Language
in
Breen,M.P. (1985)'The socialcontext for languagelearning:a neglectedsituation?'Studies
7. 135-58.
language
acquisition
second
UniversityRound
(1996)'Constructions of the teacherin SLA research',in Georgetown
1996, J.E. Alatis, C.A. Straehle,M. Ronkin, and B.
and Linguistics
Tableon Languages
Geilenberger(eds;.WashingtonD. C. : GeorgetorvnUniversitv Press.
'The
of language,W
Bruner, l. (1981)
pragmaticsof acquisition',in The child'sconstruction
AcademicPress.
Deutsch(ed.). Ner,r-York:
research
on rcachingand learning.Cambridge:
Chaudron, C. (1988) Secondlanguageclassrooms:
CambridgeUniversitl Press.
'The
for secondlanguagelearners'
role of experiencein speechmodiGcations
Dahl, D. ( 1981)
oJLanguage
1 . 7 8-93 .
in Linguistics
and Philosoph,v
MinnesotaPapers
Da.y,R. (1984)'student participation in the ESL classroom,or some imperfections in
p r a c t i c e. L a n g u a gLee a r n t n 3g + . 6 9 - 1 0 2 .
secondlanguageclassrooms.
Dobinson, T. (1996) The recall and rercntionoJ new vocabularl'Jrom
Unpublished M .A. dissertation,Edith CorvanUniversity,Western Australia.
minds.London: Fontana.
Donaldson,M. (1978) Children's
Edmondson,W (1985)'Discourservorldsin the classroomand in foreign languagelearning',
. 159-68.
Language
AcquisitionJ
in Second
Studies
320
I V I I C H A E LP . B R E E N
1+.1-23.
-
acquisition.
Oxford: Oxford Universitv Press.
language
(199+) ThestudyoJsecond
'The
3:
organisationof interactionin elementarvclassrooms'
Enright,D. ( 1984)
, in OnTESOL'8
D.C.:TESOL.
oJcontrol
the question
, J. Handscombeet dl . (eds).Washington
Elv, C. (1985)'An analvsisof discomfort, risktaking, sociabilitvand motiration in the L2
^f ...-^^-'
Lld)sl uulll
II ca un Ir n
t t it nt rna
l6
l-);
London: Longman.
andpower.
Fairclough,N. (1989) Language
Politv Press.
Cambridge:
(1992) Discourse
andsocialchange.
oJloungchjldren.London: Longman'
competence
Foster,S. (1990) Thecommunicative
London:TavistockPublications.
oJknowledge.
Foucault,\[. (1912) Thearcheology
M. Shapiro(ed). Oxford: Basil
and politics,
( 1984)'The order of discourse', in Language
Blacku'ell.
'Anglica
e t A m e r i c a n a 2 2 ' . L e a r n e rd i s c o u r s e .
Glahn. E. and Holman, A. (eds) (1985)
: Universitvof Copenhagen
Copenhaqen
hking theinitiative:some
Grcmnro..\1.. Holec, H. , and Riler',P ( 1978)MelangesPedagogiques.
CRAPEL'
of
Nancv:
anal,vsis.
Universitv
oJ
discourse
applications
rrj;gogrcal
researchin an L2 context: a rationaleand review of selected
cntnths. R. r1991)'Pausological
1
s t u d i e s.', l p p h e dL i n g u i s t i c s2 . 2 7 6 9 + .
London: Edw'ardArnold.
assocjalsemiotic.
Hallidar,.\1..\.K. (.1978)Lang,uage
input in the bilingualclassroomand its relations
Hamalan,E. andTucker,R. (19801'Language
. TESOL@tarrerlvl+. +53-58.
to secondlanguageachievement'
'Discourse
analysisand secondlanguageacquisition', in Secondlanguage
Hatch, E. (1978)
E. Hatch (ed.). Rou lev Mass:Ne."vburvhouse.
acqutsition,
educatton.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversitv Press.
andlanguage
(1992) Discourse
Hatch, E., Shirai,Y.,and Fantuzzi,C. (1990)'The need for an integratedtheory: connecting
m o d u l e s.' T E S O L
Q t a r t e r l ;2 + . 6 9 7 - 1 1 6 .
'Foreigner
17.
Linguistics
Review
oJApplied
talk in the classroom'. International
Henzel,V (1979)
15 9 - 5 5 .
Hyltenstam,K. (1984)'The use of tvpologicalmarkednessconditionsas predictorsin second
language:
languageacquisition:the caseofpronominal copiesin relative clauses',rn Second
R. Anderson(ed.). Rorvlet'Mass:Nervburv House.
a crosslingutstic
perspective,
secondlanguage
Hyltenstam, K. and Pienemann,N't. (eds) (1985) Modellingand assessing
Clevedon:Multiiingual Matters.
acquisition.
Unpublished
language-content
classrcom.
in the academ)c
questions
Johnston,S. (i990) Teacher
paper.Tok-vo: Tempie Universitv Japan.
language
acquisition:
a classroom
perspective.New
Johnston,M. and Pienemann,M. (1985) Second
SouthWales Migrant Education Service.
in theJodgn languageclassroom.
and communjcatjon
Kasper,G. (ed.) (1985) Learning,teach)ng
Aarhus:AarhusUniversitvPress.
K l i e f g e n , J ( 1 9 8 5 ) ' s k i l l e d v a r i a t i o n i n a k i n d e r g a r t e n t e a c h e r ' s u s ef oorf e i g n e r t a l k ' . l n p u t t n
S. Gass and C. Madden (eds). Rou'lev Mass.: Neu'bury
secondlanguageacquisition,
House.
in Second
Language
Kramsch,C. (1985)'Classroominteractionand discourseoptions'. Srudres
,4cquisition
7 . 159-83.
'sociocultural
theorv and secondlanguagelearning: an introduction to the
Lantolf, J.099+)
specialissue'. ,llodernLanguage
Journal78. +18-4'20.
to secondlanguagercsearch.
Lantolf, J. and Appel, G. (199+) (eds) lTgorsiyanapproaches
Norwood, NJ: Ablex PublishingCorporation.
'The
Ph.D'
E S r8 . 2 5 1 - 8 6 .
acquisition',in
(1996)'The role of the linguisticenvironmentin secondlanguage
322
MICHAEL P. BREEN
2 2 33 + .
Chapter 20
JoanSwann
RECORDING AND TRANSCRIBING TALI(
IN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS
Introduction
r f . l H I S C H A P T E R P R o v I D E S G U I D A N C E F o R t h o s eu ' h o w i s h t o c a r r yo u t
I
an investigation into aspectsof spoken language. It is designed mainlv for use in
educational settings, and u'ill probablv be particularlv appropri.t" fo. teacheis and other
educationists engaged on small-sbaleresearch projects. Manv of the techniques and
principles it discusses,however, applv equallv well to investigations of spoken languagein
non-educationalcontexts.
I shall discussfactors to take into account r,vhenmaking audio and video recordings of
spoken language, then look at different r,l-aysof making a rvritten transcript fro- ttese
recordings.The article does not pror,'idedeiailed guidan"ceon analysis,but i shall refer to
other chapters in this volume that serve as examples of different ways of analvsingtalk.
324
JOAN SWANN
you r,vill also need to think about the representativenessof the tvpes of talk you wish
record
to examine. For instance,holv are vou seiecting the tvpes of activitv that vou wish to
are you
and analvse?Do these cor,er the full range of activities normalh' encountered? Or
r'vay?
contrasting contexts you think are distinctive in some
If you'are carrying out a small-scale investigation focusing on talk in one or tw'o
talk vou
conte*is, there are trvJ important points to bear in mind about the samples of
eventuallv come up rvith:
obr.ffi.t
r
. studentsmav derelop ioping strategiesthat
e.'rdo.
theitln-T
a
l".rg,rug"b&-,ri.;-(;f;
thaibJhavlour. Different effects are likeh'to be produced bv differenf observers (it m:'
an observer is female or male, or perceived as relativel)' senior or junior
rffi*tretter
Man' linguistic researchers(such as Labov himself) have attemPted, in various wavs'::
minimiselhe intrusion of their observationsin order to obtain more'authentic' data' Oth.:'
har.eargued that such detachment is not a reasonableresearch goal:
We inevitablv bring our biographies and our subjectivities to every stage -:
the research process, and this influences the questions lve ask and the lvays in lr-hi;:we try to fini ans\irrrs.
b" ,".r, as a regrettable disturbancebut as one element in the human interactio:-i
research subjects themselves are actli:
that comprise our obiect o
fJimiliifv,
beings-;ho hu,= insights into their situationsand experienc.'
Fffii"
They cannot be observed as if thel' rvere asteroids, inanimate lumps of matter:.th.
har,eto be interacted rvith. (Cameron, Frazer, Hart'ev, Rampton and Richardsc:1992,p.5)
For educationistsresearchingin their ow'n institutions, or institutions r,vithwhich ther-ha'a close association,it rvill probably be impossibleto act as a completely detachedobserr':
It will be impossible, for instance, to maintain a strict separation between your role a' -:
-' usual role as a teacher or a colleague.When interpreting the talk
observer u.i
"orr.
:, feSeafC
- -i:<
'
-
to record?
. :: of talk ts it reasonable
Onlv'public' talk or also casual,or'private'
:!.rtion?
to recordtoli? Researcherswouid usuallygain permission
- :-;,s_1
5 needpermission
_
:-\: , cLUru'rgo 1yrhdpsfrom parents in the caseof voung children), whereas talk
-: rr-corded by teachers as a part of 'normal'teaching activitv that does not
. ,,-:: permission. But rvhat if the teacher is aiso a researcher,or if s/he wishes to
' - . : , S i o f ' r o u t i n e ' r e c o r d i n g sf o r r e s e a r c hp u r p o s e s ?
ofl our recordings?
Bound up-ryrlh rthis,ilSsde!-.
::-,hould you be aboutthe purposes
'
: ' r i o n o f t h e o b---vrs e r v F i sp a r a d o x : i t i s l i k e l r t h a t t h e m o r e \ o u t e l l p e o p l ea b o u t
:r>tdrCh the more thEir bthaviour u-ill be aflected. Some researchers
yets
o feel that, if 1'ou are
r
:'. rnq as a colleagueor a teacher,it is important to retain an atmosphereof trusl
' . n \oursell ancltnose vou \4orK \\'ltn.
=:1
your recordingswith research
pafiicipants?This has to do
" i ; i f f i r,,v-,- ),)u discuss
,'- u-ith the researcherstancevou adopt. Discussingrecordings with others also
, ,u check 'r'our interpretations against theirs,
-uu giie vou a different
"Id
: - t a n d i n go f r o u r d a t a .
- .../.1.,^.. :)^-.;./1, '
In writrng reports, researchersoften give
,, L)tu
lou haverecorded?
) uu lwertL!);Aose
- :'rnvms to institutions in rvhich they har-ecarried out research, or people r.l'hose
ecollaboratiieli:ffi-paniciprntr,holr'erer,
.rvish
name.
If
:'.1'
to be identified bv
vou do rvish to maintain confidentialitv it
326
JOAN SWANI\
in-r'our ou'n institution the idenu:
mav be hard to do this'nvherevou are obserr-ing
one solution is to discu''
,o ma1.beapparentto other'coileagu,es.
;;;;;
.;;;,.r".
''
confidentialitrlthev feel is necessaryand h'r,vith colleaguesor students hoor'-rr.h
this mar be maintained'
and'furt:::
haverecordedaboutthedissemination
ln what wavsshouldvou consultthose,vou
for a certain purpose' b--'
Peoplema,vgi1 permissionto be recorded
oJyourworft?
use
1'oumavrvishtodisseminateyour*:1kt:a$'id':
rvhatifvourpr,.po*"hu"g-"iEg
fo, o-or*researchin a professionaldevelopm':':
audience,.r,";*
"-rid"o-obtuii"d
s e s s i o nu ' i d l l o c a l t c a c h e r s '
camer'-:
betlveen researchersand'the researched"
For those interested in the relationships
orgalisllions aiso provide researchguidelir'"
et al . (19921 tsa usefLl source. Professional
':
(199+) Recommendation:
_ see for instance the British Association for Rp"phedLinguistics
in AppltedLinguistics'
GoodPractice
on making audio and vidt
that follou' provide practical guidance.
sections
The
:
these recordings' a n d t r a n s c r i b i n gt a l k
recordings, making fieldnotes to supplement
detailed analvsis.
Making
recordings
again).
tup"a,,dTJpyo' lo*re extracts
."r.ffi,r,
;ffiusiveness
is moreor"@orders
or recordin-g
areused
R E C O R D I N GA N D T R A N S C R I B I N G T A L I ( 3 2 7
I n t r u s i v e n e scsa nb e l e s s e n e d
b v k e e p i n gt h e t e c h n o l o q l s i m o l ea n d u n o b t r u s i re for example bv using a small, batterv-operatedcassetterecorder w-ith a built,in
.
a l s o a r o i d s t h e d a n g e ro f ' t r a i l i n g u i r e s . a n d t h e p r o b l e m o f
T5jgph.*.-Ihis
finding appropriate sockets.
It is also better to use a fairlv simple cassetterecorder if pupils are recording
a l
themselves.In this case,go for a machine *-ith a small number of controls, and
check that voung pupils can operate the buttons easilr'.
There is a trade-off betu'een lack of intrusireness/ease of use and cualitv of
recording: more sophisticated machines, used lvith separate microphones,
will produce a better qualitv recording. This is a consideration if l.ou intend to
use the recordings r'r'ith others, for example in a professionai deveiopment
session.
A s i-:---_
n g l ec a s s e t t er e c o r d e r i s n o t s u i t a b l ef o r r e c o r d i n g u - h o l e - c l a sdsi s c u s s i o n ,
r..l".r t or fo.rr o. th
. The recorder rvill pick up loud voices, or
voices that are near to it, and probablv lose the rest behind background noise
(scraping chairs and so on). Even lr'hen recording a small group, background
noise is a problem. It is rvorth checking this br. piloting vour recording
arrangements: speakersmav need to be located in a quieter area outside the
classroom.
With audio-recordingsyou lose important nonverbal and contextuai information.
Unless vou are familiar uath the speakers \-ou mav also find it difficult to
distinguish betrveen different voices.Wherever
Wherer.'er possible, supplement audior . . . o . i i n g , * i t h f i e l d - n o t e so r a d i a r r p r
Video-recording s
'
'
'
'
R E C O R D I N GA N D T R A N S C R I B I N G T A L I ( 3 2 7
I n t r u s i v e n e scsa nb e l e s s e n e d
b r k e e p i n st h e t e c h n o l o q vs i m o l ea n d u n o b t r u s i v e .
f o r e x a m p l eb r u s i n ga s m a [ .l b a t t e r r o p e r a t e dc a s s e t t er e c o r d e r n i t h a b u i l t - i n
m i c r o p h o n e . T h i sa l s o a r o i d s t h e d a n g e r o f t r a i l i n g n ' i r e s , a n d t h e p r o b l e m o f
-finding appropriate sockets.
It is also better to use a fairlv simple cassetterecorder if pupils are recording
themselves.In this case,go for a machine u'ith a small number of controls, and
check that voung pupils can operate the buttons easilv.
There is a trade-off betu-een lack of intrusiveness/easeof use and cualitv of
recording: more sophisticated machines, used rvith separate microphones,
u.ill produce a better qualitr'' recording. This is a consideration if l-ou intend to
use the recordings r,r-ithothers, for example in a professionai development
session.
A siaglg_ge$etterecorder is not suitablefor recording u'hole-classdiscussion,
ru
r"_lesti.ot fo.r, ot th
.The recorder u-ill pick up loud voices,or
voices that are near to it, and probablv lose the rest behind background noise
(scraping chairs and so on). Even w-henrecording a small group, background
noise is a problem. It is rvorth checking this br. piloting vour recording
arrangements: speakersmav need to be located in a quieter area outside the
classroom.
With audio-recordingsvou lose important nonverbal and contextuai information.
Unless vou are familiar with the speakers \rou mav also find it difficult to
Wherever possible, supplement audiodistinguish betrveen dillerent
different voices.Wherer-'er
. " . o . J i n g , u i t h h e l d - n o t e so r a d i a r . p r
.,
Video-recording s
'
'
in a large room such asa classroom.If vou move it around the classroomvou will
get an impression of r,vhatis going on, but rvill not pick up much data you can
actuailv use for analysis.A video camera mav be used to focus on the teacher's
behaviour.Whenusedto record pupils, it is best to selecta small group, carrying
out an activitv in n'hich thel' don't need to move around too much.
As u.ith audio-recordings, it is best to have the group in a quiet area rvhere their
'
328
JOAN SWANN
Making field-notes
Field-notes allorv vou to jot dorvn, in a svstematicu'ar',vour observations on activitie.
anc
and events.Thev provide useful contextual support for audio and video recordings,
if vour
mav also be an important source of information in their ou'n right. For instance,
a
(related
on
notes
make
to
lvish
focus is on students in a particular iesson, vou mav
lessor'
discussionbetlveen teachers;on other lessonsvou are unable to record; or on the
make
vou are focusing on, to supplement \-our audio/r'ideo recordings.Youma1'alsolvish to
for'
context
(and
a
to
as
a
prelude
notes on the audlo/vidio recordings themseh'es,
transcriPtion.
If uou a.e taking notes of a discussionor lesson on the spot, you w'ill find that the taik
as talk
flo*,, ,.".t rapidlv. ihi, i, likelv to be the case particularlv in informal talk, such
Ir:
spot.
the
on
betq,een stnde"tr in a group. More formal talk is often easier to observe
talk
rvhole-classdiscussiont.a Ui u teacher, or in formal meetings, usually onh' one person
teacher_or.chair.The
bv
the
nominated
until
at a time, and participants may lvait to talk
teacher or- chuir mav rephrase or summarize u.hat others speakershave said. The slighth
more ordered nut.,r" of such talk gives an observer more breathing spaceto take notes.
'The format adoptec
It is usual to date notes and to Ptotid. b.i"f .o"tt
, ,r'
\-/
i s h i g h l v r a r i a b l e d e p e n d i n go n p a r t i c u l a rr e s e a r c hi n t e r e s t sa n d P e r s o n a lP r e t e r e n c e s
Figu-rei0.1 ,ho*-, extiacts from field-notes made b.-t-,-o Open Universitl' colleague Janer
Mlvbin rvhile watching an assemblvin a school in the south-eastof England. Janet Mavbin''
obJervationsforrn pa.iofu l"rg", studt of 10 12 vear old children's collaborative language
down rr:
practices in school. In this extract, she rvasinterested in identifving the values laid
later ir:
resurface
might
these
how,
and
u'hether,
to
see
s.hool assemblies. She u,anted
chiidren's talk in other contexts.
active part in the assembll" so she could jot dou-r:
Janet Mavbin \\-asnot taking an
observationsand brief comments at the time. Shealso audio-recorded the assemblyfor later
analysis(she occasionallvjots dou-n counter numbers in her field-notes). After school' sht
*.oi" up her field-notes, separating observations (u'hat actuallv happened) from a
r.
commenta.v (her questions,reflectiontGterp6T;-tions, ideasfor things to follow up later
obserl'er
the
,--Tii,utuirng'observation'
itencourages
in
that
from'commentarv' is useful
about rvhat thev have observed, and to try out different interpretations
to thinl.u."frllv
Bear in mind, however, that no observati
focus on and hou' vou d-escribeevents
framefork.
i enttrelY
tl
alreadv de
nd on an im licit inter
In order to anal-vsespoken languageat anv level of detail, vou will need to make a written
transcript.tanscription is, horvever,velv time-consuming.Edwards andWestgate(199+
hou.', recording mav require 15 hours for transcription. I find that I can
suggestihat
"u.rv
-u1I" . rough transcript more quicklv than this, but a detailed transcript may take far longer.
particularli if a lot of nonverbal or contextual information is included.
For instance, you coulc
In ,-ill-s.al. research,rr2nscripts mav b
could use field
interaction.You
a
longer
nutes from
transcribetti*_SoSlg
iftinn; or you could make a rough transcript o:
notes to
an ii-teraction to identifv general
extracts.
R E C O R D I N GA N D T R A N S C R I B I N G T A L I ( 3 2 9
6otot
Nd"t
{*
,-,
lo^-&
w
3 ol^i//..^i.l. ;, n
t3+
t Ct^h ,t 9r otu\ +
dl"r-trriltuTs,.!baf
,a. il6lt o0". d.;iXrta
ri fi" o-e.re.r^th.l^lAot,;
A-.tr L,. t
b"ri c*,*
A 6*ldd+
RAL +@tl,t
I clilA arL' {-fr{ b
4.. t.-t osd b pry.lt4l E
br^L 6nJ.rrb o^ilr ra.rsq.
bt P?&,6.d u. arilr
L
cl4 d&.f a&Mll.{ af CL 'fii,,t.Arr.R;
"ur arJ}Lg pqst/
h.
-rjrj{rq
.'
S
trai,,sqlr.,
I*,t
4te
g-tc/
c-aq
f
"rAt*, ott;y t ,j r.t
"t*t
fu oL+f*i.;.,rrr
}"tt
[saa& 4.'oL ar').
{h1p ku.{ + . nL rc,;apl'
sk ft4 t
tb ,"tr b ^'t.t?
4k e&d' &:J.J.'^
di\,ill.at"
tL 'izerler-
*J a, t\
ij
Io*l rur:.
^o{n
ttL-*iU.'+t
.lt' n ort *
o*t L&rola ii rte<.qg $rcau.{ ceepatg^lI hi
t-'. J^ry 'P+X""', t" lui rc l!
ar$t +'.b'rd; s**ttaneauoi
---*l
re.i"r f.-Lj;
".e
t7r 44zJt F. dt :"hrtt
{t^tt'
-iedr
tna1a,f4r4.
"
A^la{{a
s<c,q
tbftJuf
clo^oet l-l^ir.,d tl.tdutA
i-t,*"t
p,1:',.,.,rel4trr., d{ta
'rri*<Ai(l..
s.{L d6^h
5o.c 4.Jar.'
44. (U
\ sk,, o.l AU Ul qu.ictg
ht4q, cl**,.ItzUA*/*
dt ,a"t bhP ',^t r\' "ld*/
6{A qd p"ittttl';
&.4
0""* ,".i,,k; ,rglna g( td.
Ai-d S. L-.r{bfl. , Q"Unb*rt
4"4 ,tt^ 3 tif,L P.i,l S"e
dUp'aa
s:rt l.
"tU*.
a.^.it dl. "*.r
s*g .
t9o
t""+1
?^nJ.b:
qa1 5.iteble
3ffiT#
fua
utar.,ttl
n"t'+nu*
in a school in south-eastEngiand
F)gure20.1 Fieid-notes of an assembl-v
330
JOAN SWANN
language,they only
While transcripts allor,va relativelv detailed examination of spoken
oftalk'Transcribers
asPect
everv
reproduce
provide a partial.".o.d, theY cannot faithfullv
interests' w'hich means
r,vill tend io pav attention to different aspectsdepending upon.their
an interpretuiio., of the event it seeksto record' Elinor Ochs, in
that a transcriit i,
't,".-sttiPtifrilTIT"ttiu'
"l.e"dv'Transcription
as theorv' , suggeststh"t
a norv classicaccount of
Proc9
tv t6ilu-pl"
R E C O R D I N GA N D T R A N S C R I B I N G T A L I ( 3 3 7
Teacher
beginsby telling classthe lessonis to be about to,vanimals.Shearrangessomestulfed
'Have
toy animalson her desk,then asksthe cla.ss
,vouBot anv tov animalsat home?'Students
are selected
tndividually to respond.Teacherfrst
asksa girl, and makesher repeatcarefully'l
havegot manJtoJ animalsat home.'Then
turnsto a bov,Sl .
Transcription
1
Notes
T:
Y o u [ s t u d e n t ' sn a m e ] h a v ev o u g o t
manv tov animals at home
2
3
51:
Y e sI h a v e { ( . ) I h a v ea g o t
T;
51:
{mmh
manv tov animals at home
T:
9
l0
11
Ss:
12
T:
13
52:
1+
T:
15
16
What -ves
I h a v e { I h a v eg o t { ( . ) I
{ mmh
{mmh a 1, )
or mavbe tx'o or { mavbe three
52:
11
18
T:
19
52;
low voice
h a v er o u g o t a t h o m e r . r I m l i k e a t i g e r
<laughter>
{ I h a v eg o t a m a n v
tov animals
,y
mmh I have got { manv tov animals
{ manv tov animals
7h,s
K"y
I
I eacner
S t u d e n t( S 1 = S t u d e n t l , e t c )
student's name
( )
briefpause
( l sec)
timed pause
{ mavbe
{ I have got
<laughter)
JOAN SWANN
332
Transcription
1
G1:
81:
( ) anl ideas
Yes (.) I takethis ( ) I take
thi5 (general laughter) ves ves
2
3
4
addressesgroup
directly
refers to book which
he holds up
5
5
u s e( .)
I
9
l0
l1
12
13
G 1? :
We canuse
81:
W e c a nu s e
82:
l+
B]
question towards
girls?
questionnaire
{ (.) readit at home
{r
t.l
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
G2:
Gl:
for this
From ( mother)
G2:
Yes
B1?:
from rvhere
from mv mother ( ) from the
travel agencl
G2
K.y
As in Figure 20,2 *'ith, in addition:
-
G,B
Girl,Bov
(u.ould)
t.
)
1
excision
R E C O R D I N GA N D T R A N S C R I B I N G T A L I ( 3 3 3
GI
G2
BI
82
Notes
addressesgroup
to do at home (.)
directh
+
5
6
7
8
9
10
l1
I2
l3
t+
15
16
17
18
19
20
anv ideas
Yes(.) I take
refers to book
r.hich he holds
uP
We canuse(?)
We canuse
So t'hat (w.ould)
question
rve do ( ) read
i t a t h o m e ( .)
towards grrls?
the que:lionnaire
(
(.) readit at
home
t.l
21
22
23
2+
for this
From ( mother )
2S
26
2l
28
29
Yes
fiom nhere 1?1
from mv mother
(.) from the
travel agencv
K"y
As in Figure 20.3 u.ith, in addition:
(?) Guessat speaker
'
334
JOAN SWANI\
In a column transcript, it's important to bear in mind lvhich column you allocate to
each speaker.Becauseoffactors such asthe left-right orientation in European scripts'
and associatedconventions of page lavout, we mav give prioritY to information located
on the left hand side. Ochs (1979) points out that, in column transcripts of adult-child
talk, the adult is nearlv ahr-avsallocated the left-hand column, suggestingthey are the
initiator of the conversation.In Figure 20.4 I beganlr'ith Girl 1, probably becauseshe
spoke 6rst, but I also grouped the girls and then the bovs together.This may be useful
iivon1. interest is, sa1 in gender issues,but it's important to consider why vou are
'natural'.
adopting a particular order and not to regard this as, somehor,v,
Ir
Representin g dffirent
The transcripts of classroom talk I have iliustrated so far come from contexts in which
English is being used as a medium of instruction. In many contexts, however, even where
cl"r.roo* Ianguage,teachersand studentsmav also use another language,
f"llith is used
", "
R E C O R D I N GA N D T R A N S C R I B I N G T A L I < 3 3 5
Bel
Ju.
Lou
Rosa
Bel
J".
Lou
Rosa
Bel
r.^
r i g h r I r e m e m b e rr . ,
Lou
Rosa
Bel
r^-
{<laughs>JanAGAINi
I'r,egot thisimportant {memorvof schoois'as-/lgot
Lou
Rosa
Bel
T-^
Lou
Rosa
Bel
J".
Lou
Rosa
Bel
Ju.
Lou
veah/
Rosa
Bel
I:n
Lou
Rosa
K"y
As above with, in addition:
Yeah/
\eah? /
AGAIN
Staves are numbered and separated bv horizontal lines; all the talk rvithin a sta\.e is to be read together,
sequentiallv from left to right.
JOAN SWANN
336
TranscriPt
Notes
j
[Once upon a time] a long
I long, long r long I longtime
hunter a [r'en'
hunterl
u e l l . k n o r v na n d r e s p e c t e d
*everv dav he u-ould go out Into the
I bush he w'ould catch rvhatever
meat he needed for the village, he
w'ould carry it on his back he u'ould
A. claps>
bodv orientation.
K.y
fOnceupon a time]
long
*everv da)
<claps>
R E C O R D I N GA N D T R A N S C R I B I N G T A L I < 3 3 7
Matheu':
f 1 .r j u s r * a t c h l l
1
I gravin'
Teacher; wr'rltii.rn.ir'""i:l
Mather,:
G.;;;
Teacher:
J Y e s 1 . 1f
\/
Bol:
n o r v r v e m e n t i o n e dg r a v i t vw h e n w e s ' e r e
)l
reacher:
::,:1'1,_1
Bor:
'
Boy:
fi;;;;i;;;;;ff;;;;;.;;;;;h()oK:;lJ;g.";;;d*;;h;
it to goup
F;11;; d;;; il rvhatcauses
"g"i;;;["
r7----,--:'--:
] l-orce the Iorce
;ihJ.
"+z 1:1
1LThe
_ . string MissJi
) unclear
O.K. England
tghtduh minn ljcma poa England
gflandh on Scotiand * oghtuf
"
20.8 Transcriptillustratingalternationbetr,veen
F)gure
EngiishandMaltese
(.1996):134,
Camilleri(1994)citedin Mercer
andChapter15 of thisvolume
Source:
nonstandardgrammar ('it rvere great') but did not attempt to represent the girls'accent.
'eve
'ome1
dialect' (asin wewuz jus'goin'
Some transcribersresort to
to give an indication of
pronunciation but there is a danger here of representing certain speakers (rvorking class
speakers,children, non-native speakers)as somehow deviant or incompetent.
ryTIeisT'i
Dr Keval:
vE)W frvr,l
IGood companvproducesbad qualities]
There I mean, 1\'e cultivate qualities bY virtue of what (?) companv lf we
are in good companvr rve'll cultivate good things, good habits. If we are rr
bad companv u.e'll be cultivating bad habits. So this rvill be our attemPt t'
be in good companv. Alrvar:s have control over vourself. Trv vour best
al',vavsfor keeping good companv.
(Lesson
Mark Sebbaused a mixed svstem in his transcription of the speech of voung Blac.
speakersin London, rvho alternate betrveen Creole (derived from JamaicanCreolel arr
io.rdo. English. Creole utterances u'ere underlined, London English utterances ll'ere n.:,:
U n d e r l i n e J u t t e r a n c e sr v e r e ,t h e n , t o b e ' p r o n o u n c e d a s i f C r e o l e ' ( 1 9 9 3 , p . 1 6 3 ) . S e b t
'e-ve
dialect' features to indicate the pronunciation of specific words ,
also used some
'oh'
'one-off '
to rePresenta glottal stt':
conventions,such as the use of
sounds;and certain
(the sound used as a variant of /t/ in certain linguistic contexts, and in certain varieties ,
English-sometimesrepresentedasanapostropha
e s i n b u ' e r f o r b u t t e r ) .F i g u r e 2 0 ' 1
stop,
a feature of London English bL.
the
is
that
interest
giottal
of
One
this.
point
illu-strates
4t,
utterance (invt%oe,line
u-ithin
a
Creole
here
used
not (usually)of JamaicanCreole, is
Sets of svmbols such as the International Phonetic Alphabet (lPA) are used l'
phoneticiansto give a svstematicrepresentationof the soundsof English and other language'
-Such
alphabets are hard for the non-expert to read and are not usually suitable lr .
transcribing long conversational sequences.Hor,r-everif -vou are interested in learner.
pronunciations of English, and 1'ouare familiar u'ith the IPA or a similar alphabet, vou couL
use phonetic svmbols selectivelv for certain w-ords,or to rePresent certain sounds.
Figure 20.1 1 belou.illustrates the use of phonetic s,vmbolsto represent a young Russia:
studenl's pronunciation of the lr.ord 6ush,r,(this is taken from the same lesson as th;
t r a n s c r i b e di n F i g u r e2 0 . 2 a b o re l .
R E C O R D I N GA N D T R A N S C R I B I N G T A L I ( 3 3 9
rvho JackieLomax
J:
C:
5 J'
veah
I heardthat shehad a reallv nice paro4r'an'Chervl saidthere was a lo%oofbovs there (0.6)
vou know and thev (rvere)plavin' passthe parcelan, that
C:
is it?
veah
l:
10 C:
sheinvite vou?
J:
c:
no
,he.r.u.. i.rtit. -"."ith..
ur Leo^i.
'uu"
Transcription
Notes
3 S: Bushy
( tbuJil)
more conventionalpronunciation
2 T:
contexts
or
t students, or qroups of students. Some T6ffis o
I=+._---i--iF_
l o n c a n b e c a r r r e c f o u t ' o n t h e s p o t ' . F o r i n s t a n c e r. v h i
ving a lessonvou
could count the number of times each student responded to a teacher'squestion. More
complex Patterns can be identified from scrutinv of audio or video.eco.dings, or from a
transcript. G.D. Javalakshmi,for instance,r,vhoseresearchin Indian.lu..roo-s I referred
to above, noticed that students participated less in'traditional'teacher-directed lessons
(drawing on textbooks) than in lessonsbasedon videos n'hich she had introduced.To check
her impressions,she analvsedrecordings of a random sample of lessons,counting up the
number of times a student initiated talk; and rvhat tvpes of talk this involved
lwhether the
student was seekingclarification, asking about the meaning of a u'ord, making a single word
contribution, or making a longer contribution to discussion).She displavedher."irrlt, i.r ,
table (cited asTable 20. 1 belou'). Table 20. 1 shorvsthat, in the contexts analvsed.students
initiated more talk in video than traditional lessons,and they also made u 1".g. number of
longer contributions.
340
JOAN SWANN
Number of
Clarification
Meaning of
Single word
Longer
student-initiated
seeking
rvords
contributions
contributions
2
3
5
0
0
33
moves
Traditional
Video Led
11
38
(1993):287
Source,
Javalakshmi
Chapter 1B in this volume provides a more formal and detailed example of quantification
Assia Slimani r,vasinterested in the relationship between students' claims about what
linguistic features thev had learnt, and the direct teaching ofsuch features.Table 18.2
tp. 296) illustrates this, show'ing the number of linguistic features that had been explicitlv
dealt u'ith in iessons(identified from audio recordings), and the proportion of these that
...,'ere
recalled br-students, those that were not recalled, and those that w'ere said to hat'e
b c c n l r a r n e do n a p r e r i o u so c c a s i o n .
dfrifrg-t rneetingl
-Wdg-erif
For an oiervtelv
Qu4^,f
A quantitative aPproachallows )'ou to r
ent vour data in terms of numbers.You can
--',
m a k e a n u m e r i c a l c o m p a r i s o nb e t u ' e e n t a l k p r o d u c e d b l d i f F r e n i p e o F F o r d u r i n g
different events.
When representing data that hasbeen analysedusing quantitative methods it is usual
to displav this in 1taLb]..
Alternative forms of representation such ur hi.togrurfiIiEil
t -'---"----i---charts may be used to point up comparisonsbetr,veenpeople or events.
Data may be u.taivsed,rri.rg p."rpecified .u,"goii., of talk. Alternativel), as in
Jayalakshmi'sresearch,categoriesmav emerge from close scrutinr. of data, e.g. from
playing, and replafing, an audio or video recording, or rvorking slorvlv through a
transcript. Such categoriesare not'naturallv'present in the data,but lvill depend upon
your own researchinlerests.
has th@sadtantlEe-yhat it is necessarilva
4rg4qbers
reductireexercise:
talkis reducedto a setofcategories;
it is abstracted
from its original
--contextirt rs unambrg!9ql)'jtglg
masking
the
rather
fluid,
uncertainand
lgied.
-
"-
Q-"
!-
rn a more oPen-e
a qualitative a
of their data. What count as intoresting aspectsrvill depend upon the questions the
6eaTcE6;
concerned to investiga,.,"U.ri sometimes points emerge that are quite
unexpected.
Aspects of the data may onlv begin to make senser,r'henmulled over and com
with other information, or perhaps discussedwith speakers.Sometimes interpretations
may change, or You mav 'want to allolv for a number of different interpretations.
presenting and discussingdata that has been recorded and analysedusing a
.When
qualitative approach, researchers frequently quote selectivelv from field-notes or
t r a n s c r i p t st o s u p p o r t p
deTaTled
commentar\-,as in Chapters 18 and 19.
S-uiE *ays oTanilysing and presenting data allow- the researcher to preserve
important contextual information that affectst
P r e s e r \ . et n e a m D l g u r t va n o r l u l d r t vo t t h e s em e a n l n g s l.h e a p p r o a c hi s s e l e c t i v ei n t h a t
tn'o researchers mav (legitimatell') notice different thinE-trout a stret
provi
rent rnterpretatlons
arso a oanger oI unrnte
.
ln that researchers mav
v notice
notice teatures
features ol
of talk
tall that support a point thev wish to make
:,
Qurt c-
@*
/t\
[/*
342
JOAN SWANN
Focal Group
Elaine:
Graham:
Elaine:
John:
Elaine:
John:
Graham:
Elaine:
John:
Elaine:
1 pre-intervention
tbecause'
'cos
look that'sa square
It isn't
'cos
look .lvatchthere all dorvn there and ther are all at the side and they are
No
all up there
'cos
look it's them ts'o and them trvo ( ) and them
Wait u-ait rvait its that one
two
'Cos
look that goesout like that 'Cos
look that goesin
'Cos
look that goestoo far out
'cos
that's got 4
Look
it's got a little bit iike that it's that one
No . . . not that one not that one because
look it goesin and then it goes out
it's there
No it's isn'tbecause
Elaine:
Elaine:
(12)
('cos'or 6because'
Elaine:
'cos
'cos
look if vou
6 stopsin there
'cos
look if lou done that
It can't be there
'cos
those tw'o make
It is look if that goeslike that and then it has another one
'cos
he might be wrong
He doesn't savrvhat thev are
'cos
look
Yeh
'Cos vl'ould round
it
go
'cos
'cos
look that one goeslike that
it goesarvav
It is
'cos
look . . . rvith the squarewith the triangle you take awaythe
No it can't be
triangle so vou're left rvith the squareso if vou do just this and then againtake
that arvavit's going to end up, Iike that isn't it?
'cos
that's got a squareand a circie round it
Actuallv
'cos
it goeslike that and then it takesthat one awavand doesthat
Yeh
'cos
look
No
'cos
there are onlv trvo circles
Probablvone in the circle
'Cos
thev are going like that it is becausethey are
then
lines
and
are
if thev
w'onkv isn't it
'cos
then
No actuallvit ain't
those ones- those two came that those tlr'o make that
Yeh it's number 8 because
John:
N o b e c a u s7 e, 2 , 3 7 , 2 ' 3
John:
Graham:
(21.)
Graham:
Elaine:
Elaine:
Elaine:
Graham:
Elaine:
John:
Elaine:
Graham:
John:
Elaine:
Elaine:
Graham:
Graham:
Number 6
Figure20.12 Incidence of
'cos
in priman' school children's talk
and because
R E C O R D I N GA N D T R A N S C R I B I N G T A L I ( 3 4 3
agreement on the correct ans\r'er.Wegerif and Mercer point out, how'ever,that such
evidencemay not be seenasconvincingbecauseit consistsonlv of one or t$'o brief extracts
from transcripts.
As a way of complementing their initial qualitativeapproach,Wegerifand Mercer used
a computerised concordancing program. This identifies all instancesof a word or expression
used in a particular set of data, and displavsthesein their immediate linguistic context. In
'cos
and because
are displal'edin each speaking
Figure 20.12 above,for instance,the rvords
interaction
occurred
in
one
before
and after the intervention.
in
rvhich
thev
turn
group's
are used differentlv in the pre- and post
Wegerif and Mercer suggestthat'cos andbecause
intervention interaction: in the post-intervention interactions t}ey are more frequentlv used
to link reasonsto claims.Wegerif and Mercer carried out similar analysesof other terms
that might be seen as indicatir,e of reasoning (" g tJ and so used to link a reason to an
assertion).
This form of anah'sisprovides quantifiable data (i.e. it is possible to calculate the
are used in different contexts). It is also possibleto
frequencv lvith rvhich'cosand because
'cos
and because
in a limited linguistic context, r'vhichprovides further
see each instance of
information about their use in eachcase(asin Figure 20.12). And it is possible,for anv one
instance, to displav further linguistic context (anv number of preceding and follou.ing
speakingturns) to allow a qualitative exploration ofthe data.
If this form of analvsisinterestsvou, itis possibleto purchaseconcordancingsoftware
(or, rn some cases,to dolr.nload this from the Internet;.i You rvill need, however, to be
prepared to spend time exploringt the softu'are to see holv it can be made to w-ork most
effectively for vour own purposes. For further discussionand examples of corpus-based
analysissee,for instance,Stubbs(1996).
Conclusion
In this chapter I have discussedvarious techniques vou can use to record and transcribe
spoken language.Thereis no'ideal' rvav to do this, and I have tried to indicate the strengths
and weaknessesof different approachesso that you can select the most appropriate method,
or combination of methods, for l-our o\\.n purposes. It is bevond the scope of this chapter
to consider,at anv level ofdetail, u'avsofanalysing spoken language,though I have suggested
some initial considerationsto bear in mind. Other chapters in this volume include examples
of research on spoken language, and illustrations of different forms of analysis:these mav
provide ideas for vour o\lrn research.
Acknowledgement
I am grateful to RupertWegerif for suggestionson computer-based methods of analysing
spoken language.
JOAN SWANN
344
Note
1
References
on GoodPracticein
British Associationfor Applied Linguistics (BAAL) (199+) Recommendations
BAAL.
AppliedLinguistics.
Cameron,D., Fraser,E., Harvev,P., Rampton,M.B.H. and Richardson,K. (1992) Researching
and J'lethod.London: Routledge.
Issues
oJPower
Language:
Camilleri, A. (1994)'Talking bilinguallv,u'riting monolinguallv'. Paper presented at the
March.
Svmposium,Universitvof Lancaster,
Sociolinguistics
(1995)
lNbmenTalk.
Oxford: BlackwellPublishers.
Coates.l.
D a m . L . a n d L e n t z , J ( 1 9 9 8 )I t ' s u p t o , v o u r s{eyl uf w a n t t o l e a r n : a u t o n o m o u s l a n g u a g e l e a r n i n g a t
(\tideo and print). Copenhagen:DanmarksLaererhogskole.
1e'e1
rnrermedtare
Impactson the Discourse
Enquiryinto the.av Gender
oJGender:An
Davies,J.A. (2000) Expressions
with particular
English
lesson,
Talk
during
a
GCSE
in
Small
Group
Pupils
)nvolved
oJ
StS'les
University of
PhDThesis.
Sheffield:
oJboys.Unpublished
to theunder,achiBvement
reference
Steffield.
Clasvoomla1ft.London: Falmer Press
Edwards,A.D. andWestgate,D.P.G. (199+) lnvestigating
(2ndedn).
G.D. (1993)'Video in the Englishcurriculum of an Indian secondaryschool'.
Jayalakshmi,
UnpublishedPhD thesis.Milton Kevnes:TheOpen Universitv.
and one cup of tea', in N. Mercer and J. Swann (eds)
(1996)'One cup of ne\4'spaper
andDiversitl'.
London,The Open University/Routledge.
LearningEnglish:Development
'The
studvof languagein its socialcontext', inW. Labov(1972) Sociolinguistic
Labor',W(i970)
Patterns.
Oxford: Basil Blacku'eil.
'English
as a classroom
Mercer, N.M. (u.ith contributions from Douglas Barnes) (1996)
and Diversity.
language', in N. Mercer and J. Slvann (eds) learning English:Development
London: The Open Universitv/Routledge.
'Transcription
as theory', in E. Ochs and B.B. Schieffelin(edsSDevelopmental
Ochs, E. (1979)
London: Academic Press.
Pragmatics.
for the organizationof
Sacks,H., Schegloff,E. andJefferson,G. (1971)'A simplestsvstematics
(+),
Language
50
696-735.
conversation.
turn-takingfor
pp.
London: Longman.
Language
Svstems
in lnteraction.
Sebba,M (1993) LondonJamaican:
StudiesoJ Languageand Cuhure.
Stubbs, M. (1995) Textand CorpusAnalysis:Computer-assjsted
Oxford: Blacku-ell.
Swann,J. and Graddol, D. (1994)'Gender Inequalitiesin ClassroomTalk',in D. Graddol.,J.
Language
and Literacyin SocialContext.Clevedon:
Mavbin and B. Stierer (eds) Researching
Multilingual Matters/The Open Unir ersitr'.
'Using
computer-based
text analvsisto integratequalitative
Wegerif,R. and Mercer,N. ( 1997)
and Educatiort,
and quantitativemethods in researchon collaborativelearning' , Language
V o l .i 1 ,N o . 4 , p p . 2 7 1 - 8 6 .
Index
absolute innovation 61
a c a d e m i c c o m p e t e n c e 17 1 - 2
academic register 258 70
a c q u i s i t i o ns e es e c o n d l a n g u a g ea c q u i s r t i o n
action research 57 -60, 137
active exploration of language 195-5
adolescent learners 40-1
'l
adopters 61
-) '0"0 - 7
advocacv
325
affectivefactors24-5
AffectiveFilter Hvpothesis159
age23, 3642
273,278 82,284
agency:creative,discursive
A l l w r i g h t ,R 2 8 7 , 2 8 8 , 3 0 6 , 3 1I , 3 1 5
alternation,transcribing335, 3 37, 338
(AKL):Intermediate
KernelLessons
213-14
Amencan
:*..-r"'-.-..-'-""
mnlifiotinns
-) 4 RAnderson,A. 77-8
Anderson,J.R. 17
anti grammar stance148
anxiety 24-5
apartheid22740; macro context of schooling
for biackpeople235 7
A p h e k ,E . 1 7 3
application55, 65
apphedlinguistics64 8
appliedscience,educationas54 5
appraisal
55, 65
apprenticeship113; into a culture 250
a p t i t u d e2 + , 3 1 . 2
A r e n s ,K . 1 5 8
Training Program(ASTP) 149
Armv Specialized
A r t h u r ,J . 2 4 9 5 0
A s h e r J, . 1 5 4
A s t o n ,G . 8 2
asymmetrv13 1-2
Bahns,J. 52
balanceddivergentfactor 54
Bangalore
/ NladrasCommunicationalTeaching
Project(CTP) 63-4, 160
Beckerman,
T.I,l. 171
behaviouristpsvchologv149-5 1
beliefs,learner 35 6
belonging1i 8-19
Beretta,A. 25, 50, 53 -4
Berlitz,M. 149
bilingualclassrooms17l -2
bilingualcode-switching250 2
black SouthAlricans22740
Blev-Vroman,R. 75
Bloomfield,L. 149
B l u m ,R . E . 1 6 9
B o t ,M . 2 2 7
Bourdieu,P. 93, 272 3, 283
B r e e nM
, . P . 1 5 8 ,1 5 0
Brindlev,G. 65
Brumfit, C. 59-60, 58
B r u n e rJ, . 9 6 , 2 5 4
b u r e a u c r a tsi ct r u c t u r e 2
s35 I, )17 8
C a m e r o nD, . 3 2 + , 3 2 5
Camilleri,A. 251
C a n a l eM
, . 83,84
C a n d l i nC
, . N . 1 5 8 ,1 5 0
C a r r ,W . 5 4 , 5 5
346
INDEX
C a z d e nC, . 2 3 3
Chaudron,C. 31I
child learners40 1
choices,setof 193-4
C h o m s k vN
, . 1 4 , 1 5 , 1 6 , 1 1, + 5 , 1 5 2
chorusing231, 23)-3
Clark, E. 75-7
C l a r k ,H . H . 7 5 7
classroom:ascoral gardensseeclassroomas
culturemetaphor;asdiscourse125-8; as
experimentailaboratorv 123-5
classroomcontext 1; motivation 34; strategies
and goalsin 4 5
classroomasculture metaphor 128 34; learning
s i t h i n 1 3 7 - 8 :r e s e a r c h i $
n igt h i n l l ) 6 :
rer'leu.ing134-5; teachingu'ithin 136-7
classroominteractionseeinteraction
classroommanagementI 70
classroomresearch51-), 51, 125-8
Claude,M. 229-30
Clifford, R. 84-5
C o a t e sJ, . 3 3 4
COBUILD team 15
coconstruction9 5-7, 133-1
code-srvitching250-2
cognition 94-5
'c"n5o"n" i. t' i r r c - f r c t n r q
74
C o h e nA
, .D. 173,17+
collectiveculture 130
C o l l i n sl,. 2 3 7 , 2 3 8 ,2 7 3 , 2 8 4
6,22140
collusion
column transcriptlavouts332 -4
communicationstrategies82 -4; problemsu'ith
8+7
CommunicationalTeachingProject (CTP)
634,160
competence83, 84, 155
communicative
communicativelanguageteaching(CLT) 155-8,
200,2278
communitv languagelearning(CLL) 153
compatiblehabitus274-5, 282
83, 84, 155;
communicatiYe
competence:
participative,interactionaland academic
171-2; andperformance14-15 ; strategic
824
input 2 1, 75-6,'79, 159
comprehensible
comprehensibleoutput 21, 19, 260-1
3, 75 89; placeofin language
comprehension
learning75-5; strategies75-8
computer-basedanalvsis340 2
conceptualevaluation55, 66
3+2,3+3
concordancing
101 2
concurrentresources
confidentialitv325-5
confirmations247
confirmatorvresearchtradition 53-6
Conrad,J. 35
conservatismI 32 3
c o n s t r a i n t s9 2 1 , 1 0 3
consultants, researchers as 52-3
contextual knou-ledge 78
contextualisation 1 16-1 9
c o n l i n g e n c sq 8 1 0 2 . 1 0 2 : n e g o t i a t i o n .l a n g u a g e
learning and i00
continuit\' 248
control 98
c o n v e r s a t i o n a n a l v s i s( C A ) 1 1 6 1 7 , 1 1 9
conversational inference 1 17
conYersational interaction 99-1 00
co-operative learning activities 34
Cope, \\r. 200
D a v ,R . 1 1 3
decision-drivenmodel of researchuse 47
deference
politeness228
determination21+-15
18, I 82
developmental
sequences
dialogue
97,25+
differencesbetrveenlearners23 5, 299-300,
301
differentiation 129-30
direct elicitations246
direct method 149
of
discourse59; classroomas 125 8; dimensions
309 15; grammar and 196-7; language
acquisitionor languagesocialisation4,
108-21; managing318; navigating8,
305-22; positioningin andthrough 113-15:
what learnerslearn from the discourseof
lessons3 16-1 7; seealsointeraction
discourseskills 8 I
INDEX
discursive
practices3 i 0, 3 12-14
displav94-5
D o b i n s o nT, . 3 13 - 1 4
domination 208 25
Driver, R. 265
ecological
approachseeorganicapproach
educationalperspectives53 50
Edn.ards,A.D. 245
effectiveteaching159-i 6
elaborations247
elicitation2+6-1,289
ellipticalconversation86
EllisR
, . 18,307
E l y ,C . 3 1 3
E m e n e a uM, . B . 2 2 3
empiricalevaluation65, 66
empiricistapproachesI 58
empoweringresearch325
English:global influence271; asmedium for
instruction219, 235-7; numberof speakers
23
equalitv97 8
Eraut,M. 47
error correction 180, 298-9
ethicalresearch325
ethnicitY115-16
ethnographicmethods 1 I 9; Sri Lankan
classroom
studv6, 208-26
er.aluationof classroominteraction8,
281-305
experientiallearning113, 261-2, 26+ 5, 267
experimentallaboratorv,classroomas 123-5
explanations248
exploration,active195 6
extroversion32
'eve
dialect'337, 338
GardneR
r ,. C . 2 3 - 5 , 3 3
uarnnKel, t1. lJ)
G a s sS
, .53
G a t t e n g oC, . 1 5 2
generalmodel of secondlanguagelearning
13-1+
approaches
genre-based
5-,6, 162 3, 164,
200 7
Giroux, H. 209, 22+.-5
global influenceof English271
g l o s s e2s1 5 1 8
glottalstop 338
goals4-6
G o o d ,T . L . 1 7 1
'good
languagelearner', characteristics
of 28-9
G o o n e t i l l e k eD,. C . R . A . 2 1 0 ,2 2 +
g r a m m a ri . l 9 l 9 l l a n g u a gien c o n t e x r
192-3; metaphorsfor secondlanguage
a c q u i s i t i olna l l ; o r g a n i c a p p r o a c h
193-7; Tamil students'orientationto
220 1,2234
grammar translationmethod 4+, 1+8
mrmm
rtin'lit''
1Q
Greek 148
G r i c e ,H . P . 8 5
'groundrules'
252 3, 255
group learning:collectiveculture ofthe
classroom130; small group learningand neu.
academicregisters261-2, 26+ 5
grouping171
Guiora,A. 32 3
guidedconstructionof know.ledge254-5
G u m p e r zJ,. 1 1 6 - 1 8
habitus272; compatible274-5, 282;
incompatible272, 275-8, 2834;
reproductionor transformationof 282-4;
I ranstormino r7R
" " " f J
lace-savingstrategies233 -4
Ferch, C. 83
F a i r c l o u gN
h ,. 1 1 5 , 3 1 0
lalsificationof theories50
FeezS
, . 162
fieldindependence/dependence
35
field-notes328,329
F i r t h ,J . R . 1 4 , 1 5
lbcus on form 5, 180 90; in languageteaching
181-3; psvcholinguistic
rationaleI 83-6;
researchissues186-7
ForeignServiceInstitute (FSI)84 5
form, focus on seefocus on form
fbrm/function relationships195
Ibrms, focuson 5, 183 5
fossilization19-20
F r a z e rE
, . 324,325
Freidson,E. 46
Freire,P. 97
F r i e sC
, . l+9,151
347
- ' v
Rr
v 4 '
284
H a l l ,S . 1 1 5
H a l l i d a vM
, .A.K. 153
H a l s e r ,A- ., H . 2 3 4
Hammond,l. 200,20)
handover95
Hanson-Smith,
E. 210, 22+
Harler.,B. 76
H a r t s h o r n eK, . 2 3 5
H a r r , e vP, . 3 2 + , 3 2 5
H a t c h ,E . 4 8 - 9 , 3 0 8
Havelock,R. 52
Har.vkins,
R. 18
H e r v i t t ,R . 1 1 5
Higgs,T. 84-5
H i r s t ,P . 5 7
HoefnagelHohle,M. 39--ll
H o n g K o n g 7 , 2 1 38 5
H o p k i n sD
, . 59
Hosenleld, L.
l/)-6
HorvattA
, . P R . 1 + 8 ,1 5 7
348
INDEX
9 + 6 , 1 0 1 4 , 2 + S 6 , 2 5 1 - 3 ,2 8 1
innovation: conservatism of culture of the
classroom 1 32 ; culturallv-specilic
interactional stvles as barriers to 229-34
SLA and 50-'l
i n p u t 4 5 ; c o m p r e h e n s i b l e2 1 , 1 5 6 , 7 9 , 1 5 9 ;
generating better inPut 79-80
input-outPut model 102
insider/outsider problem 52 3
institutional constraints andresources 92 4
institutional ideologies 23J 7, 231-B
instrumental motivation 33
integrative motivation 33
intelligence 24, 31
interaction 4,7-8;
J o h n s o nR, . K . 2 5 0 - 1
j o h n s t o nM, . 5 1
ioint construction95-7, 133 4
joint negotiationof text 202, 205-1
j o u r n a l s2 6 3 4 , 2 6 6 - l
K a n d i a hT, . 2 1 0 - 1 1 , 2 2 +
Karabel,J. 234
K a s p e rG, . 8 3 , 1 0 9
Kellerman,E. 191-2
K e m m i s ,S . 5 4 , 5 5
Kennedr',G. 61
Kingburv,R. 213
knorvledge:guidedconstructionof 254-5;
personal56; sourcesof and comprehension
77-8; technicaland practical46-8
knou'ledge-drivenmodel ofresearchuse 47
K r a s h e nS, . 1 2 , 1 7 , 6 1 , 1 5 8 - 9 ;c o m p r e h e n s i b l e
i n p u t 2 1, 7 5 - 6 , 7 9 , 15 9 ; t h e o r Y4 9 - 5 0
Kuper, A. 234
KrvaZulu schools227 40
L a F o r g e ,P . G . 1 5 3
laboratorv:experimental123 5; language152
Labov,W. 324
L a m b e r tW
, .E. 33
language:carrvingthe historv of classroom
acti\,itvinto its future 254-5; and context 7;
cultural and cognitivetool 6-7; imPortant
tool 254; levelsof 14; mediumfor
pedagogic
teachingand learning2+3 57; and teaching
243-6; vieu'son the natureof 14-15
languageacquisitionseesecondlanguage
acquisition
languageanxietv 24 5
languageaptitude2+, 31-2
28 1-2
language-focus-lRF
languagelaboratorv 152
learning24,11 27; contingency,
language
negotiationand 100 2; factorsaffecting
use21-2; linkswith
28-43; andlanguage
socialpractice25; process16 22; theoryand
12 14; views of the languagelearner 22 5;
viervson the nature of language14-1 5
languagemedium policv 235; seealsomedium of
instruction
Ianguageprocessing23
languagesocialisationseesecondlanguage
socialisation
ianguagetransfer 20
languager,arieties334 9
Latin 148
lavouts,transcript331-4, 335
interaction91-2, 98-102,
iearner-learner
103-4
learners:activeexplorersoflanguage 195 6;
of
autonomv97, 299-300; characteristics
'good languagelearner' 28-9; collusionr'vith
INDEX 349
t e a c h e r s6 , 2 2 7 4 0 ; c o n s t r u c t s o f 3 0 7 ;
'ground
rules' for classroom
difficulties with
15 8 9 ; t a s k - b a s e dl e a r n i n g 1 5 9 * 6 2 ;
t e x t - b a s e dt e a c h i n g 1 6 2 3 , 1 6 4 ; s e ea l s o
focus on form
m e t h o d s+ ; , l b ; - 1 9 . 1 8 0
l: approaching
l e a r n i n g f r o m d i s c o u r s e o f l e s s o n s3 1 6 1 7 ;
2 0 8 - 2 6 , 2 8 3 ; a s s o c i a lb e i n g s 2 5 ; s o c i a l
p r a c t i c e s3 1 0 , 3 1 4 1 5 ; s t r a t e g i e s1 7 3 5 ;
t a c i t u r n i t r '2 l | ) : u p t a k es e e u p t a k er: ' i e u s
misrecognition 212-3, 21 3 4
or t!
mooe l5v
Mitchell, R. 59-50
mode continuum 259-60
classroom as culture 1 37 8;
b a r r i e r s t o 2 2 9 3 4 ; e x p e r i e n t i a l 113 ,
223
L e e ,P . L . M .2 5 0 - 1
L e o n t ' e vA
, .N. 308-9
''l
levelsof language14
I e v i n s o nS, . 1 1 6 , 11 7 - 1 8
Lewin, K. 57-8
Lightbown, P. 49
Lii,J.H. 93
linear model of languageacquisition19l 2
lito.'..,
nrrrtieec
1 I (
Iocalmultiracialvernaculars116
LongM
, . 5 0 , 5 1, 7 9 , 1 6 0 )
'long
conversation'255, 261
L o z a n o vG
, . 1 5 3- 4
Lvnch,T. 77-8
M a c D o n a l dC, . 2 2 7 , 2 3 6 7
Nlaclntvre,P.D. 23-5
macro factors234 7
magisterialdiscourse93
Malinowski,B. 128
masterl' 37-8
NlcDermott,R. 237
M c T e a r ,I v I . 3 1 0
m e a n i n g1 2 5 ;l o s so f 2 3 7 ; n e g o t i a t i oonf 2 1 - 2 ,
7 9 8 0 ,8 2
medicalpractitioners46
medium for instruction: Englishas 219, 236-7;
use oflanguageas 243-57
Mercer, N. 255, 340-2
Merrow, J. 93
metaphors4: lor secondlanguage
acquisition
191 2
methodologv4-5, 147-66; audio-lingualism
149 52; communicativelanguageteaching
155 8; historical/pre-World\,\'arII 148-9;
31 2
modularitv 15 I 7; and secondlanguageiearning
11
MoermanM
, . 101
M o o r e ,A . 2 5 3
M o r g a n ,M . 1 5 8
morphologv 39
motivation2+,30 1; and attitudes33 4; in the
classroom
setting34; Tamil students215
NaimanN
, . 312
National Centre for EnglishLanguageTeaching
and Research
TNCELTRr LireracvProject
200 7
naturalapproach51, 158-9
naturalmethod 149
NaturalOrder Hlpothesis159
nature and nurture 15
navigation
of discourse8, 306--22
needsanalvsis158
n e g a t i o n1 8 , 1 8 2
negativeevidence22
negotration
98, 100 2; joint negotiationoftext
2 0 2 , 2 0 5 7 ; o f m e a n i n g2 1 - 2 , 7 9 8 0 , 8 2
'new.ethniclties'115
Newport, E. 39
non-participantobservation324 5
n o n . e r b ailn f o r m a t i o n1 3 4 . 3 1 5 , l l 7
normatir.eculture 130-1
noun phraseaccessibilitvhierarchvI 85
Nunan,D. 59
nurture andnature 15
O b l e r ,L . 3 1
observabledata I 26
observation
324-5
observer'sparadox324
O g b u ,J . 2 3 5
O ' M a l l e i ' ,J . 1 7 5
O ' N e i l lR
, .213
350 INDEX
o p e r a t i o n6 5 , 6 6
;;;,;;;;",,t,'d"'t
6, 208-26 ; contextualizins
:;:;i:.;;'""ch
"'tl"or'.ii'".t
"'r;I
Derformance,Productlon
5 2-3
outsider/insiderProblem
particiPantobservation324-5
3 13-14
particiPation
'particiPatite
-2
comPetence17 1
iasseron,J.C 93
Patkorvski,M 37-8
P a v e s iM
, . 185-6
Test 40
P"ubodvPicture Vocabularv
teaching
see
pedagog\
'Peirce,
B.N 208-10
285
P e n n Y c o o kA,' 2 0 8 - 1 0 '
innovations61
p"rc"iu"d
to"rfor.unat
u:e
1 2 7 :c o m p e t e n caen d l 4 - 1 5 :
andlearning2l-2
personalknou.ledge56
o..ronul voice 8 1
32-3
i..ronulitv
PhilliPs,J 175
339
phon.ti. srrnbols338'
17
Piaget,J.
P i c aT
, . 5 2 , 1 0 0 ,1 0 1
Pierce,B 110
Batterv (PLAB)
PimsleurLanguageAptitude
31 7
plan, svllabusas 296
Polanvi,N{ 56
positioning11l-15
98
.os'er
' P . u b h34.
u,
-2
N S 6l' 6l' lb0' lbl
58
Practicalactionresearch
oractica]knorvledge45-8
iractice seesocialPractices
109-10
Prugmutits
'p.uii,
5l ' 66-1
i,tt"otu of action)
nrecision94-5
228; Iearnerpreferences35
!t"f.,""t"
168
PrescriPtions
220
instruction
private
101-2
resources
Proactive
oroblem-solvingmodel 62
l' 7"5 89: importanceo[output
froau.tion
t
8, o, problemtrtith communication
output 79-81
strategies84-7; roles for
context i
Professional
testing 30
Proficiencv
aPProach200
Progressiue
39'219
Pronunciation
232
cues
P.osodit
60
sPeciiications
Prot'isional
proximal development'
pure research5 1
qualitativeanalvsis339-42
-4)
quantitatit'eanalvsis339
ce 224-5
raclicalresistan
Raheem,R. 223
R a m P t o nB, 2 5
R a m P t o n\ .t B H J 2 + ' 1 1 5
Rathunde,K' 103
rationalistaPProach158
reactiveresources101-2
reading17 5-6
realitr: svllabusas 296
recall,learner313-14
recaps2'18
recitation94-5
326-7
recordingsPokenlanguage
Reforn-rMovement 148
reformulations247
register7, 258-70
R e i d ,J . 3 s
reiections247
relativeautonomr 209
relativeciauseformation 185-6
repair 100-2
rePetitions.24T
^- ^";.led 26r,262-1,265 6
rePorting,teacher-gulo
o [ ' o c i a l ' r o r l d s7 ' I t l - t 9 ^
,"'p.oduftion
, ,5 / ttu' I ) ':
."r"ur.h 1, \+ 14: actionresearch
uppliedlinguists P""P::l:t"::1
,t -o ,I r,,/ '
L)-o'
.iurroorn asculturemetaPhor
1
2
5- 8 1c u t t u t '
'
6
1
)
'
r e s e a r c\hl
cla"sroom
53-60;
perspectives
of 53-6; educational
-4; on learner
60
innovationistperspective
l0 I l SLA researchers ,
characreristics
a n dp r a c t t c a t
p e r s p e c t i \4e8 - 5 l l t e c h n i c a l
Lno.dedge 45-8
diffusionmodel 62
research,deielopment and
researcherstance324-6
of classroom
resistance:conservativeculture
iearners'6'
1
32;
and resistanceto change
224-5
and
208-26,283;oPPosition
103; culture
and924'
resources:constraints
36-7
1
resource
as
of classroom
retention 3 13-14
R i c h a r d sJ,. C . 1 5 5
K' 324' 375
Richardson,
Rogers,R. 61
R o g e r sT, . S . 15 5
role piav 219-20
routines 19
'ground rules' for classroomlanguage
rules:
contraints
u s e2 5 2 3 ' 2 5 5 ;institutional
924
safe-talk22140
INDEX 35I
sampling323--+
S a p i rE, . 1 2 5 ,1 3 E
95, 103, 25+, 265, 267, 308
scaffolding
schematicknorvledge77 8
schematicstructure 204 5
Schlemmer,L. 227
Schmidt,R. 34, 84, 109
Schon,D. 56
schoolfailure 234 5
Schumann,
J. 50
S e b b aM, . 3 3 8 ,3 3 9
secondlanguageacquisition(SLA) 12; applied
64 8; classroom
as
linguists'perspective
experimentallaboratorv12 3-5 ; in context
308-9; educationalperspectii'es53-50;
explaining306-8; innovationistperspective
60--4; and languagesocialisation4, 108 2l I
limits to a socialperspective109 10;
metaphorsfor 191 2; researchand language
pedagogv44-74; researchers'perspective
, l r o n o r '4 R i l s n c i o l i n o r r i s t i c
', ". ". 1 .r e
'**5"5_' " - -' "' """6-'""'
p e r s p e c t i v eo n I l 0
.econd language learning seelanguage learning
.ei:ond language socialisation (SLS) 4,
108 2 1 ; contextualisation and rvrder social
.r
p r o c e s s e s1 1 5 1 9 ; m e t h o d o l o g i c a l
implications 1 19; problems rvith the model
lr3 16
.egregatededucation235-5; seealsoapartheid
\ . l i g e r ,H . 3 1 2
--m:nfir
77
"
-entence
judgement40
.equencing
257
'haredexperience126-7, 2+8, 25+ 5
'iqnifrcanceI 34
:ignifrcantBilingualInstructionalFeatures(SBIF)
studv I /l
, i l e n t r . v a v1 5 2 - 3
iinclair, J. 15
-.ituational language teaching 149, 150
:kinner, B.F. 16, 151
\ l i m a n i ,A . 3 1 3 , 3 1 4
.rnall group learning 251-2,26+
Sno*., C. 39 -41
socio-culturalcontext 1-2
socio-cultural
perspective25+ 5, 250
sociolinguistic
perspective110
socio-pragmaticfailure 1I 2
solidaritvpoliteness228
SouthAfrica )2740; macro context of
schoolingfor black people 235-7
specifrcations
60
spokenlanguage
seedi.cour.e.interaction
S p o l s k vB, . 1 3 1 . 1
Sri Lankanclassroom
6,208 26
standardlavouttranscripts
331 3
stavelavouttranscripts334, 335
S t e n h o u sLe., 5 1 2 , 6 0
S t e r nH, . 5 7
Stoller,F. 54
strategiccompetence82 4
+-6, 2+, 75 89; classroom
strategies
as
experimentallaboratorv 124-5 ;
comprehensionstrategies75 8; learner
173 5; problems*'ith communication
strategies
84 7; teacher169 72
Strong,11. 312
structurallinguistics149
structures,bureaucratic235-7, 237 8
structuring 170
S t u b b sM
, . 14,15
studentsseelearners
subjectiveexperience126-7
Suggestopedia
153 -4
summariesof researchlindings66
Srvalfar,
J.K. i 58
S w a i n , M7
, 6 , 8 0 , 8 3 , 8 4 , 3 1 2 ;c o m p r e h e n s i b l e
o u t p u t2 1, 7 9 , 2 6 0
Su.eet,H. 14E
svllabus:asrealitvandasplan 295
svmbolicviolence272-3, 2134; interrogating
285
sYmmetrv97 8
svnchronr'233
svntacticprocessing80
svntacticstrategies75 7
svstematickno*-ledge78
svstematicitv
18 I9
svstemic-{'unctional
grammar 152 3
taciturnltv228; student231-2
talk seediscourse,interaction
Tamil students208 26; midcourse
resistance
216 20 postcourse
contradiction220 2; precourse
determination21+ 15
T a r o n e ,E . 4 8 9
task-based
languageteaching(TBLT) 152
taskbasedlearning(TBL) I 59-62
tasksI /u-l
teachereducatlon57
teacher-guided
reporting261, 262 3, )65-6
352 INDEX
t e a c h e r - l e a r n e ri n t e r a c t i o n s 9 1 , 9 3 - 8 , 1 0 3 - { ;
seealso interaction
teacher research (practical action research) 5E
teachers: collaboration rvith researchers 52-3;
collusion rvith students in apartheid South
Africa 6, 22740;
qualifications in apartheid
S o u t h A f r i c a 2 3 5 ; a s r e s e a r c h e r s5 7 - 5 0 ,
57-8; responding to what learners sat 247;
r o l e 1 0 3 - 4 , 1 7 7 ; s t r a t e g i e s1 6 9 7 2 ; t a l k a n d
text of language lessons 3 i 0-1 2; volubilitv
231-2
teaching5-8; classroomasculture metaphorand
of 55; cultureof 55 50;
135 7; conceptions
languageand 243-6; methodologrsee
methodologv;methodsseemethods;nature
and
of effectiveteaching169 7o: re5earch
pedagogr'3, 44-7 4; techniques2'16-8
cvcle 202
teaching-learning
technicalaction research58
technicalknowledge45-8, 50-l
technologvof teaching5 1
T e r r e l l ,T . 5 1 , 1 5 8 - 9
testing288 9
t e x t 3 1 0 ,3 1 0 - 1 2
teaching5-5, 162-3,
text-based(genre-based;
t6+,200-1
theatricalmonologue93
Thembela,A. 227
theorl':oflanguagelearning12 14; SLA
researchandpedagogv+9-51, 66-7
Tikunoff,W.J. 170, 171-2
topicalisation29+ 9, 300-1
total phvsicalresponse(TPR) 154
Tou'ell, R. 18
transcriptronsof spokenlanguage32344;
conventions330 1; lavout331 -t, 335;
nonverbaland contextual-information334;
rarieties
representinq
differenrlanguage
334 9
transfer,language20
transformation97; of socialrvorlds7, 271 86
transforminghabitus278 82, 284
Tvlbor, H. 237
u-shaped
behaviour184, 191-2
United States237
UniversalGrammar16, 17
oflearning
uptake287*305;and evaluation
294 9;
288-9; importanceof topicalisation
learners'idiosyncracies299 300; uptake
identificationprobe 290, 305; uptakerecall
chart290, 304
\ranDijk, T. 115
\ r a nL i e r , L . 2 5 , 5 5 - 5 , 3 1 0 - 11
variabilitv18-19
varieties,language3 34-9
videorecordings326 7
volubilitv228; teacher231-2
V v g o t s k vL,. 6 7 , 9 6 , 2 5 + , 2 6 5 - 6 ,3 0 8
rvait time 266
'we'
248
statements
Webbe, 148
Wegerif,R. 265, 340-2
W e i s sC
, .47
W e n d e n ,A . 1 7 + - 5 , 1 1 6
W e s c h eM
, .B. 32
Westgate,D. 245
W h a l e n ,S . 1 0 3
white, L. 300-1
Widdor'vson
H,. 5 4 , 6 5 6 , 6 7 - 8
W i l l i n g ,K . 1 7 3 ,1 1 + , 1 7 6
W i l l i s ,P . 2 1 1
Wright, T. 5l
rvriting 176; genre-basedapproaches5-6,
200-7; learninga new register251,263:
266 7
Wundt,W.NI. 125
Y e a d o nT, . 2 1 3
Y o r i o ,C . 3 5
Zahorik,J. 55
Z e n t e l l aA, . C . 2 5 1 - 2
zoneof proximaldevelopment96, 266
Zulu-Englishinteractionalstvles227-40