Definition of speaking

1. Knowledge on Speaking Skills

According to Bygate (1987:5-6) Speaking is the production of auditory signals designed to

produce differential verbal responses in a listener. Therefore, it is the combination of sounds in
a systematic way according to language specific principles to form meaningful utterances.
In addition, Burns & Joice, (1997:99) and Luoma, (2004:2) define Speaking in a similar way
as being a spontaneous, open-ended and interactive process of constructing meaning that
involves producing speech, receiving and processing information.

Speaking as it is defined by the authors above is a production of meaningful utterances or a

construction of meaning in speech production. So, understanding this definition of speaking,
it helps in deciphering psychological aspects which involve oral production since this is the key
issue that this research will be working on as influencing Writing skills.

Task: Why is speaking defined a spontaneous act? ( do it for your self)

Speaking is defined a spontaneous act because when speaking we do not pause to think as we do
when writing, we just do it without any pervious planning.

Characteristics of speaking

1.1 Speaking characteristics and Teaching approaches

Speaking is characterized as being both sided process which involves two teaching perspectives
namely bottom-up and top-down.

In bottom-up teaching perspective, speaking should be taught by starting with the smallest
unit-sounds moving to the mastery of words, utterances to discourse.

While in top-down teaching perspective, speaking should be based on interactional skills

which involve making decisions about communication. That is, top-down view considers the
spoken texts as products of cooperation between two or more interactants in shared time and
shared physical context. So, speaking is not always unpredictable because it involves language
functions (or patterns) which tend to recur in certain discourse situations which can be identified
before end. (Bygate, 1987:23; Eckard & Kearny, 1981, Howarth, 2001, Cornbleet & Carter,
2001:18).

I understand from the above characteristics that speaking is a language skill which needs to be
taught by involving students in those activities which promote interaction like dialogues,
discussions, role-plays and simulations. I agree with these ideas since they help students to
produce some language orally. When I look at “bottom-up” approach, I infer that English
teachers should provide speaking activities with appropriate language for the level and good
instructions so that students can understand them. In relation to “top-down” approach,
language teachers should work on speaking activities which have contexts, vocabulary,
structures related to students’ background.

These ideas are so beneficial in the sense that through the research I will pay attention on English
teachers’ oral and written activities if they take into consideration these two approaches.

Task: After reading on characteristics of speaking explain in your own words what you
understand by bottom-up and top-down approaches of speaking. (do it for yourself)

If you really dedicated yourself on this task receive my congratulations. Any doubt we will share
in the forum 1

Task: continue reading for more understanding....

Forum 1 on speaking and its characteristics

Instructions: In this week you will dedicate your time on this forum by answering some
questions about speaking and its characteristics.

Knowledge on speech acts and context of speech acts production

Instruction: In this week you will dedicate yourself on “knowledge of speech acts and the context
of their production".

1.2 Transactional vs Interactional Speaking (Functions of Speaking)

According to Jones, (1996:14) in Richard, (2007:23), Brown and Yule, (1983:1); Harmer,
(2008:343) quoting Thornbury (2005). Transactional Speaking focuses on what is said and
done. Here, the message is the central focus where the main aim is to make oneself
understood clearly and accurately. A transactional speaker has to master some skills like:
explaining a need or intension; describing something; asking questions; asking for clarification;
confirming information; justifying opinion; making suggestions; clarifying understanding;
making comparisons; Agreeing and disagreeing.

While performing, the speaker has to use appropriate format, present the information in an
appropriate sequence, use correct pronunciation and grammar, use appropriate vocabulary and
appropriate opening and closing.

This type of speaking often has identifiable generic structures and the language use is more
predictable. It has less contextual support and the speaker must include all necessary information
in the text.

Whereas Interactional Speaking is used to establish and maintain social relationship. In other
words, language is used to negotiate role relationship, peer solidarity, the exchange of turns in
conversation and the saving of face of both the speaker and the hearer (Brown and Yule 1983:1
and Harmer 2008:343).

Ur (1999:53) holds the same view when he advocates that the purpose of interactional use of
language is for communication as a social issue. These authors argue that the speaker should
be equipped with a range of linguistic features such as voice quality effects, as well as use
facial expressions, postural and gestural systems in order to clear up the meaning of the words
he speaks and communicate successfully.

This view is supported also by Fairclough (2001:22) when she argues that spoken discourse
involves visuals. Apart from what is stated by Brown and Yule, She goes further when she
asserts that visuals can accompany the talk and help to determine the meaning. Or visuals can
substitute for talk as a perfectly acceptable alternative. For example, head-nodding, head-
shaking and shrugging one’s shoulders can be used by both speaker and hearer for “yes” or “no”
and “I don’t know” answers.

The functional view which is being emphasized above should be copulated with the interactional
view. Brown and Yule (1983:1) advocate that language is a vehicle for the realization of
interpersonal wishes and for the performance of social transactions between individuals.
Language is seen as a tool for the creation, maintenance of social relationship, negotiation
role relationship, peer solidarity, the exchange of turns in conversations and the saving of
face of both the speaker and the hearer.

I found these ideas very useful for the research which I am going to carry out because oral
language functions and speech acts influence directly on what someone writes. For example,
someone can ask for permission, excuses, apologies and so on via writing. Being so, this person
(writer) should be equipped with appropriate words, phrases, structures and context in order
to express these specific functions via writing. Likewise gestures used in speaking also
influence on writing since one can describe what he/ she sees.

1.3 Some knowledge on Speech acts

A speech act is defined as an action performed by a speaker with an utterance to show an

intention or idea (George Yule 2010:133 and Fasold 2003:44). It is used to describe acts such
as request, command, question, order, promise, inform, apology, refusal, assertion, regret,
permission, denial, and so forth.

According to Yule (2010:134) a speech act can be direct or indirect. Direct speech act is that
which most of the time asks for direct information like interrogatives while the in indirect
speech act, the structures have no direct relationship with their functions. They depend on the
speaker’s intension and context. For example, if somebody says “I will be there at six” he seems
to be performing the speech act of “promising”.

A speech act is different from a sentence and it is not to be identified with any unit at any level
of grammar. It gets its status from the social context as well as grammatical form and intonation.
It is a part of speech event which in its turn is a part of a speech situation which occurs within a
speech community.

A speech event is viewed as a part of a conversation which takes place at a speech situation
(for example a party).

Yule (Ibid: 145) states that speech events are for example debates, interviews, different types of
discussions and knowing about taking part in conversations.

In speech events people should specify the roles of the speaker(s) and hearer(s) and their
relationship(s). Whether they are friends, strangers, men, women, young, old of equal or unequal
status and many other factors. All these factors will influence on what is said and how is said.
People have to describe what the topic of the conversation was and in what setting it took place.
A speech act also carries a speech style which can be formal (more careful use of language) or
informal (less careful use of language). A change from one to another by an individual is called
style-shifting.

The style-shifting is directly connected with speech accommodation which is the ability to
modify anyone’s speech-style towards or away from the perceived style of the person(s) he is
talking to. Anyone can adopt a speech-style that attempts to reduce social distance described as
convergence and use forms that are similar to those used by the person he is talking to.

In contrast, when a speech style is used to emphasize social distance between the speakers, the
process is called divergence (p.258).

Another influence of speech-style is known as register. It is a conventional way of using

language that is appropriate in specific context which may be identified as situational- in the
church for example, occupational-among lawyers for example or topical-talking about language
for example. One of the defining features of register is jargon which is special technical
vocabulary associated with specific area of work or interest. In social terms, jargon helps to
create or maintain connections among those who see themselves as outsiders in some way and to
exclude outsiders (p.259).

It is also possible for a speech act (for example a joke) to be in itself the entire speech event
which might be the only event in a speech situation (Fasold, 2003:44).

A speech act enters in oral discourse as a controlling factor for linguistic forms as a whole. That
is, it governs the rules of syntax, phonology and Semantics (Brumfit and Johnson, 1998:16).

In addition, speaking is a productive skill which consists of producing systematic verbal

utterances to convey meaning. It is used to express or exchange thoughts and feelings through
using the language (Nunan, 1989:35).

According to Austin quoted by Locastro (2003:166) there are three acts enacted
simultaneously with each speech act as sentence locutionary act, utterance illocutionary act and
perlocutionary act . Sentence locutionary act deals with the basic meaning of the proposition,
the lexico-grammatical meaning that has true value and sense. That is, the proposition or
sentence describes a state of affairs and has determinate meaning. While the utterance
illocutionary act deals with the speech force showing the intension of the speaker in how the act
is to be understood by the addressee. And the perlocutionary act is the effect on the addressee,
unpredictable and possibly nonlinguistic.

The enacting of these speech acts differ in terms of the variation of the level of directness, gender
differences, degrees of the pragmatic transfer from language one, difference between perception
and production of the pragmatic meaning. It is also recognized that the declaratives,
interrogatives and imperatives sentence forms when accompanied with intonation contours
commonly correlate with a particular speech act (Clark, 1996:136 quoted in Locastro 2003:167).
For example, You are going (rise-fall) –assertion; You’re going (rise) – request for confirmation;
and Are you going? (rise) – asking for information.
Pragmatics is defined as the study of invisible meaning or how people recognize what is meant
even when it is not actually said or written. In order for that to happen, speakers or writers
must be able to depend on a lot of shared assumptions and expectations when they try to
communicate (Yule, 2010:128).

Pragmatics is also defined as the study of the use of context to make inferences about meaning
(Fasold, 2003:119). There are different kinds of contexts namely linguistic context and
physical context. In their turn, they are related to aspects like deixis, reference, inference,
presupposition and implicature which will be dealt with later in this chapter.

The linguistic context or co-text of a word is a set of other words used in the same phrase,
sentence or utterance. The surrounding co-text has a strong effect on what we think the word
probably means. For example, the word “bank” might mean the place where people deposit
money or the bank of a river and so on.

The physical context is the surrounding of what people read or hear. It is tied with aspects of
time and place in which linguistic expressions are encountered. It is related with deixis which
are very common words in people’s language that cannot be interpreted at all if people do not
know the context, specially the physical context of the speaker. Deixis are words like here, this,
there, that, now, and then, yesterday, today or tomorrow as well as the pronouns such as she,
you, me, him, it, them.

Deixis are used to point to things like (it, this, these boxes) and people like (him, them, those
idiots) sometimes called “personal deixis”. They are also used to point to a time like (now,
then, last week) called as “temporal deixis” and words or phrases used to point to a location
like (here, there, near that…) called as “special deixis”.

Deixis can also indicate whether moment is away from the speaker’s location like (go) or
towards the speaker’s location like (come). For example, if you were looking for someone and
she appears moving towards you, you can say “Here she comes”. If however she is moving away
from you in the distance, you are more likely to say “There she goes” (ibid: pp129/30).
The ideas on speech acts as utterances production in showing someone’s intention directly or
indirectly interest me in the study to be carried out because the way someone produces utterances
is directly related with the way he/she produces writing. If oral production requires events,
situations, styles and pragmatic aspects, writing also does the same. A writer needs also a writing
event, situation, style (register) and pragmatics (invisible meaning trough context) in order to
express his/her ideas correctly and meaningfully.

1.4 The context in the speech act production

Grundy (1995:90) quoted in Locastro (2003:169) and Brown and Yule (1983:231) advocate that
felicity conditions or conditions of appropriateness are unexpected and they are contextual
features that make the speech act be recognized and take place. Or they are contextual features
that affect how a speech act is interpreted. Any speech act production intended to be understood
involves a discursive context. Brown and Yule (ibid:25) define context as an environment or the
circumstances where the language is used or where a piece of discourse occurs. According to
Hymes (1964) quoted in Yule (1983:38) a context is related to a situation in which involves
some contextual features that help the realization of the speech event.

A speech event is the nature of communication event which can be for example a “church
service” involving a sermon or prayer as a part of it. And the contextual features are the
elements which make up a speech act production within a certain situation.

These features are addressor-addressee ( speaker –hearer), audience ( receiver of the

message), topic (what to talk about), setting ( where the event is situated- place and time),
physical relations of the interactants (with respect to posture, gesture, and facial expressions),
channel ( by speech, writing…), code ( what language, dialect, style of being used) message
form ( chat, debate, sermon, fair-tale lecture…), key (was it good…?) and purpose ( result of
the communication event). The speaker and the listeners should be aware of some aspects like
reference, presupposition, implicature, explicature, and inference in order to be successful in
their interaction.
Lyons (1968:402) quoted in Yule (1983:27) and Fasold (2003:121) argue that “reference” is
the relationship that exists between words and things. In addition, Yule (2010:131) defines
reference as an act by which the speaker or writer uses language to enable a listener or reader
to identify something. The former theory showed some limitations because it was simply
describing the relationship between language and the world. The same author came up with
some innovations in the later theory stating that “reference is the speaker who refers… he
invests the expressions with reference by the act of referring…” Strawson (1950) quoted in
Yule(ibid) claims that “referring” is not something that an expression does, it is something that
someone can use an expression to do. Thus in discourse analysis “reference” is treated as an
action on the part of the speaker. For example apart from using deixis to refer things, people,
time or location, people can refer things when they are not sure what to call them by saying
“… the blue thing…that…” or even event names like “There was a man who always drove his
motorcycle fast and loud through my neighborhood and was locally referred as Mr. Kawasaki”.
In this case, a brand name for motorcycle is being used to refer to a person. Another way of
reference is known as anaphora or anaphoric expressions which is the subsequent reference to an
already introduced entity. For example, if someone says ‘We saw a funny home video about a
boy washing a puppy in a small bath. The puppy started struggling and shaking and the boy got
really wet. When he let it go, it jumped out of the bath and ran away”. So, the bolded and italic
words (he and it) in the last sentences show a clear example of anaphora.

Presupposition- Givón (1979:50) quoted in Yule (1983) and Fasold (2003:121) define
presupposition as the assumptions that the speaker makes so that the hearer can accept
without challenge. People design their linguistic message on the basis of large-scale assumptions
about what the listeners already know (Yule, 2010:133).

For example: A: Uncle is coming from Canada.

B: How long has he been away for…?

From this dialogue extract above “A” assumes that she has an uncle without telling directly the
hearer who is the speaker. This information is presupposed by speaker “B”. In B’s question
indicates that she has accepted this presupposition. Or anyone saying “your brother is waiting
outside” there is an obvious presupposition that you have a brother. These two speakers share the
same “common ground”. The knowledge of common ground is shared by Locastro (2003:172)
when she argues that the speaker and the hearer should share a minimum context in their
adjacency-pairs so that they can understand each other.

Implicature is also one of the aspects which has to do with pragmatic meanings. Blakmore
(1992:58) quoted in Locastro (2003:185) considers implicature as an aspect of cognitive theory
of pragmatic meanings that has to do with mental processing. Grice (1975) cited by Brown and
Yule (1983:31) and Fasold (2003:128) state that implicature is a way of accounting for what a
speaker can imply, suggest or mean as distinct from what the speaker literal says. Brown and
Yule (ibid) argue that the conversational implicature derives from a conversation plus a number
of maxims or conventions which the speaker will normally obey. This combination is called
cooperative principle. These maxims can be of quality (do not say what you believe to be
false…), quantity (be as informative as required), relation (be relevant), and manner (avoid
obscurity of expressions, avoid ambiguity, be brief and orderly).

Inference is the additional information used by the listener to create a connection between what
is said and what must be meant (Yule, 2010:131). Brown and Yule (1983:33) state that in
inference the hearer has no direct access to the speaker’s intended meaning in producing an
utterance. He often has to rely on the process of inference to arrive at an interpretation of the
connected utterances. Yule (ibid:131) asserts that a successful act of inference depends more on
the listener’s ability to recognize what is meant by the speaker than on the listener’s dictionary
knowledge of the words which are used. For example: A: It’s sunny, It’s warm. In this example,
although there is an inference “it’s warm”, the everyday discourse practice is different. What
counts in inference is the fitting of subsequent information in the speech event. In this case, if X
is the name of the writer of a book, the X can be used to identify a copy of a book by that writer.
For example, the question where is my Chomsky – can be addressed to ask for a copy of a book
written by this writer.

Task: Get prepared for test one (next week)