This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
New Directions in Contrastive Rhetoric 493 Ulla Connor Cultural Representations of Rhetorical Conventions: The Effects on Reading Recall 511 Hsi-Chin Janet Chu, Janet Swaffar, and Davida H. Charney A Study of the Impact of Recasts on Tense Consistency in L2 Output 543 ZhaoHong Han Patterns of Corrective Feedback and Uptake in an Adult ESL Classroom 573 Iliana Panova and Roy Lyster The Discursive Construction of Power in Teacher Partnerships: Language and Subject Specialists in Mainstream Schools 597 Angela Creese
Teaching MA-TESOL Courses Online Teaching MA-TESOL Courses Online: Challenges and Rewards David Nunan The Personal, Practical, and Professional Rewards of Teaching MA-TESOL Courses Online 621 Sandra G. Kouritzin 617
BRIEF REPORTS AND SUMMARIES
How Western-Trained Chinese TESOL Professionals Publish in Their Home Environment 625 Ling Shi
Volume 36, Number 4
Understanding the Courses We Teach 635 John Murphy and Patricia Byrd (Eds.) Reviewed by Thomas Scovel Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (2nd ed.) 636 Jack C. Richards and Theodore S. Rodgers Reviewed by Roger Barnard “Why Don’t They Learn English?”: Separating Fact From Fallacy in the U.S. Language Debate 638 Lucy Tse Reviewed by Martin R. Gitterman Discourse Analysis in the Language Classroom: Vol. 1. The Spoken Language Heidi Riggenbach Reviewed by Olga Griswold The Internet 641 Scott Windeatt, David Hardisty, and David Eastment Reviewed by Leslie E. Sheldon On Second Language Writing 642 Tony Silva and Paul Kei Matsuda (Eds.) Reviewed by Li Shen
645 Information for Contributors 647 Editorial Policy General Information for Authors Cumulative Index for TESOL Quarterly, Volumes 35 and 36, 2001–2002 TESOL Order Form TESOL Membership Application
Volume 36, Number 4
A Journal for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages and of Standard English as a Second Dialect
CAROL A. CHAPELLE, Iowa State University
Teaching Issues Editor
BONNY NORTON, University of British Columbia
Brief Reports and Summaries Editors
ROD ELLIS, University of Auckland KAREN E. JOHNSON, Pennsylvania State University
ROBERTA J. VANN, Iowa State University
ELLEN GARSHICK, TESOL Central Ofﬁce
Assistant to the Editor
LILY COMPTON, Iowa State University
Editorial Advisory Board
Dwight Atkinson, Temple University Japan J. D. Brown, University of Hawaii at Manoa Suresh Canagarajah, Baruch College, City University of New York Micheline Chalhoub-Deville, University of Iowa John Flowerdew, City University of Hong Kong Carol Fraser, Glendon College, York University Linda Harklau, University of Georgia Ryuko Kubota, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill John Levis, Iowa State University Lourdes Ortega, Northern Arizona University James E. Purpura, Teachers College, Columbia University Steven Ross, Kwansei Gakuin University Miyuki Sasaki, Nagoya Gakuin University Kelleen Toohey, Simon Fraser University Jessica Williams, University of Illinois at Chicago Devon Woods, Carleton University
Jane Arnold, Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig, Frances A. Butler, Patricia Carrell, Caroline Clapham, Graham Crookes, Sara Cushing-Weigle, Catherine Davies, Kathryn Davis, Richard Donato, Dana Ferris, Susan Gonzo, Greta Gorsuch, Barbara Graves, Gene Halleck, Jennifer Hammond, Liz Hamp-Lyons, Eli Hinkel, Tom Huckin, Sarah Hudelson, Shinichi Izumi, Joan Jamieson, Lía Kamhi-Stein, Irwin Kirsh, Ryuko Kubota, Ilona Leki, Jo Lewkowicz, Hsien-Chin Liou, Dilin Liu, Fred Lorenz, Brian Lynch, Patricia Mayes, Gayle Nelson, John Norris, Rhonda Oliver, Kate Parry, Barbara Plakans, Vai Ramanathan, Thomas Ricento, Timothy Riney, Norbert Schmitt, Ali Shehadeh, Mack Shelley, Craig Sower, Kamal K. Sridhar, Elaine Tarone, James Tollefson, Carolyn Turner, Johannes Wagner, Ann Wennerstrom, Robert Yates, Jane Zuengler
Advertising arranged by Suzanne Levine, TESOL Central Ofﬁce, Alexandria, Virginia U.S.A. Typesetting by Capitol Communication Systems, Inc., Crofton, Maryland U.S.A. Printing and binding by Pantagraph Printing, Bloomington, Illinois U.S.A.
Copies of articles that appear in the TESOL Quarterly are available through ISI Document Solution, 3501 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104 U.S.A. Copyright © 2002 Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. US ISSN 0039-8322
is an infringement involving liability for damages. and Winter. To this end. TESOL Home Page You can ﬁnd out more about TESOL services and publications by accessing the TESOL home page on the World Wide Web at http://www.tesol.tesol. Design Tucson. OFFICERS AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2002–2003 President MARY LOU McCLOSKEY Atlanta. Tel. AZ USA TESOL QUARTERLY . TESOL Central Ofﬁce. Publishers’ representative is Helen Kornblum. AZ USA Lucilla LoPriore Italian Ministry of Education Rome. UT USA Secretary CHARLES S. TESOL’s mission is to develop the expertise of its members and others involved in teaching English to speakers of other languages to help them foster effective communication in diverse settings while respecting individuals’ language rights. Contributions should be sent to the Editor or the appropriate Section Editors at the addresses listed in the Information for Contributors section. Copying without the permission of TESOL. 703-836-0774. TESOL articulates and advances standards for professional preparation and employment. Martin Syracuse University Syracuse. Information about membership and other TESOL services is available from TESOL Central Ofﬁce at the address below.is an international professional organization for those concerned with the teaching of English as a second or foreign language and of standard English as a second dialect. Director of Communications & Marketing.org/ tq. DC USA cdlxxxviii Mark Algren University of Kansas Lawrence. ON Canada Jun Liu University of Arizona Tucson. ANDERSON Brigham Young University Provo. and student programs. and promotes advocacy to further the profession. GA USA President-elect AMY SCHLESSMAN Evaluation. KS USA Nancy Cloud Rhode Island College Warwick. FL USA Aileen Gum City College San Diego. IA USA Betty Ansin Smallwood Center for Applied Linguistics Washington. but your opinions and ideas will be read regularly. Autumn. Instruction. AZ USA Past President NEIL J. Suite 200. Reader Response You can respond to the ideas expressed in TESOL Quarterly by writing directly to editors and staff at tq@tesol. VA USA Treasurer MARTHA EDMONDSON Washington. services. RI USA Aysegul Daloglu Middle East Technical University Ankara. AZ USA Northern Arizona University Flagstaff. Turkey Eric Dwyer Florida International University Miami. links groups worldwide to enhance communication among language specialists.org. produces high-quality programs. You may comment on the topics raised in The Forum on an interactive bulletin board at http://communities. This will be a read-only service.org/. CA USA Constantine Ioannou Ottawa-Carleton District School Board Ottawa. Alexandria. Alexandria.org. NY USA Barbara Schwarte Iowa State University Ames. E-mail tesol@tesol. All material in TESOL Quarterly is copyrighted. continuing education. Virginia 22314 USA. Italy Anne V. AMOROSINO. Summer. Advertising in all TESOL publications is arranged by Suzanne Levine. beyond the exemptions speciﬁed by law. and products. DC USA Beth Witt Chinle Elementary School Chinle. TESOL Quarterly is published in Spring. AZ USA Jean Zukowski/Faust Northern Arizona University Flagstaff. JR. 700 South Washington Street. Fax 703-836-7864.
the Middle East. • Ulla Connor brings readers up-to-date on work in contrastive rhetoric. In This Issue I The ﬁrst two articles are about contrastive rhetoric. and Davida H. I ofﬁcially welcome Lily Compton as the new assistant to the editor and thank Shannon Sauro for her diligent work over the past year. and important ﬁndings. Janet Swaffar. 4.QUARTERLY Founded 1966 Editor’s Note I I am grateful to the TESOL Quarterly Editorial Advisory Board members for their multifaceted efforts on behalf of the journal over the past year and to the additional readers who have contributed their time and expertise in reviewing manuscripts. research methods. With this issue. and Asia. Please note the announcement of the search underway for a new editor for TESOL Quarterly on page 492. while the other three focus on classroom practices including feedback to learners and the partnerships between content and English language teachers. arguing that its focus on differences in rhetorical choices across languages makes this area of applied linguistic the target for criticism. including studies of academic and professional writing in three geographical regions. 365. Europe. Charney report results of a study investigating the extent to which rhetorical conventions familiar to native speakers of Chinese affect their recall of English IN THIS ISSUE Vol. such as research and teaching in professional communication. Winter 2002 TESOL QUARTERLY 489 . No. Beginning with the work of Robert Kaplan 30 years ago. This review demonstrates that the central tenets of contrastive rhetoric have served well in investigations that are now informing research and practice in ESL/EFL as well as other areas. She then reviews research illustrating current directions. Connor brieﬂy summarizes the historical origins of contrastive rhetoric. • His-chin Janet Chu.
• Iliana Panova and Roy Lyster report on their study investigating the classroom behavior of teachers and learners with focus on the corrective feedback. but the authors concluded that rhetorical organization is an important factor in retention of passage content. developmental readiness. the four learners receiving recasts over a period of eight instructional sessions ended up with more consistent tense use than the four who received no recasts during instruction. offering insights about how the mode made her 490 TESOL QUARTERLY . They found that within a 10-hour classroom period. Also in this issue: • Teaching Issues: The topic is teaching MA-TESOL courses online. the students tended to remember better the content of those passages following Chinese rhetorical organization. Based on detailed analysis of the individual performance Han suggests four factors that may inﬂuence the effectiveness of recasts during instruction: individualized attention. of the two types of passages. In the research. The purpose of the research is to explore how such partnerships are constructed though discursive practices in the classroom. Angela Creese reports an investigation in content classrooms where English language teachers are to serve as partners as they support children learning English as an additional language (EAL). Learner repair followed only 16% of the feedback moves. Other factors such as interest also affected results. • ZhaoHong Han reports on a longitudinal study investigating the effects of recasts on the consistency of ESL learners’ use of present and past tense in oral and written narratives. • Examining how institutional and societal discourses play out in the classroom. and how such practices help create and reﬂect knowledge hierarchies within the classroom. consistent focus. Sandra G. David Nunan reﬂects on his experience developing a Web-based master’s program in TESOL. the authors discuss this ﬁnding in view of the hypothesis that learners beneﬁt from producing correct forms. Kouritzin reﬂects on her experience teaching in an online MA-TESOL program. Taiwanese university students did not perceive rhetorical differences between passages in English even though some were written following English and others following Chinese rhetorical organization. Although the number of subjects was too small to warrant statistical comparisons. Nevertheless.prose. The data suggest that participants view their work with the EAL teacher in the mainstream classroom as less important than participating in the activities of the rest of the class. teachers tended to use implicit reformulative feedback such as recasts and translation (over 75% of the time) and that learners tended not to repair their errors following such feedback moves. and therefore Creese argues that the policy intended to help EAL students instead marginalizes them. describing its challenges and rewards. and intensity.
Chapelle IN THIS ISSUE 491 . Language Debate. The Internet. • Brief Reports and Summaries: Ling Shi reports results of a study investigating patterns of publication for 14 Western-trained Chinese TESOL professionals in China.). 1. including the perceived inﬂuence of English on their writing in Chinese. “Why Don’t They Learn English?”: Separating Fact From Fallacy in the U. and On Second Language Writing. The Spoken Language. An additional ﬁve books are described in the Book Notices.teach in less traditional ways. • Six books are reviewed: Understanding the Courses We Teach. Carol A. Open-ended interviews revealed trends in publishing practices. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (2nd ed. Discourse Analysis in the Language Classroom: Vol. deal with more probing questions. and reconceptualize the roles of formal and informal text.S.
The new editor of the Quarterly will direct and implement journal policy within the mission and ﬁnancial parameters established by the TESOL Board of Directors. though earlier applications are strongly encouraged.000 subscribers throughout the world. and for professional leadership in obtaining and organizing peer reviews of appropriate material that represents a variety of research methods and orientations.S. A peer-reviewed journal. and the names.000 per year along with reimbursement of some expenses to attend the annual convention.org/ pubs/magz/tq.html. A volunteer. TESOL seeks individuals with a broad perspective on the profession. Its mission is to foster inquiry into the teaching and learning of English to speakers of other languages by providing a forum for TESOL professionals to share their research ﬁndings and explore ideas and relationships within the ﬁeld of second language teaching and learning. 2003. support will be negotiated depending on the situation. the board also welcomes applications from two editors to function as co-editors or from one editor who may subsequently appoint an associate editor. which also offers the opportunity to send questions by e-mail. The ﬁrst phase asks individuals to submit a letter of application. as well as a full job description for the editor. The Association also contributes to the support of an editorial ofﬁce at the editor’s institution. The application deadline is March 21. includes response to a questionnaire concerning their academic publishing experience. The editor is responsible for the academic content of the Quarterly. the Quarterly reaches more than 8. Applicants should be in a situation that allows them adequate time to handle the work of the Quarterly without compromising their responsibilities in their salaried positions. please consult http://www. In Phase 3. proven organizational abilities. and the 4-year editorship concludes with the Winter 2009 issue. The Search Team is particularly interested in receiving applications from TESOL members in good standing who • have a recognized research and publication record • have an established record of editorial work • are committed to the further development of the mission of the Association • can demonstrate potential for institutional support For more information. assists the editor. Jane Zuengler Chair. Further guidelines for submission of Phase 1 materials. Search Team .tesol. are available at http://www. If more than one person shares the editorship. but no more than one ofﬁce will be funded.org/pubs/magz/tq. Phase 2. 3. The editor serves a 5-year term: 1 year as associate to the current editor and the next 4 years as editor. who may be asked to complete a brief editorial task. for applicants whom the Search Team short lists. the editor receives an honorarium of U. All applications must be submitted electronically to the chair of the Search Team: editorsearch@tesol.$4.html. A professional staff of editors and production assistants. Dr. The new editor’s associate year begins in January 2004.tesol.TESOL Quarterly Editor Search The TESOL Board of Directors invites applications and nominations for the position of editor of TESOL Quarterly. a curriculum vitae. provided by TESOL’s central ofﬁce. 2. and a strong commitment to excellence in research. Although the editorship has traditionally been held by one person.org. The search process has three phases: 1. titles. members of the Search Team will interview ﬁnalists. and contact information (including e-mail) of three referees who are able to evaluate the applicant’s editorial abilities.
student essay writing. Winter 2002 C 493 . 1997. Hence. Such criticism stems in part from critics’ lack of understanding TESOL QUARTERLY Vol.New Directions in Contrastive Rhetoric ULLA CONNOR Indiana University in Indianapolis Indianapolis. the ﬁeld today contributes to knowledge about preferred patterns of writing in many English for speciﬁc purposes situations. Recent criticisms of contrastive rhetoric and their effects on changing directions are then surveyed. 36. 2001) has been critical of perceptions of a cultural dichotomy between East and West and the alleged resulting promotion of the superiority of Western writing. ontrastive rhetoric examines differences and similarities in ESL and EFL writing across languages and cultures as well as across such different contexts as education and commerce. 1997) criticized contrastive rhetoric for an alleged insensitivity to cultural differences. the article examines how contrastive rhetoric has been pursued with varying aims and methods in a variety of EFL situations involving academic and professional writing. Although largely restricted throughout much of its ﬁrst 30 years to a fairly rigid form. its focus on the study of contrast or difference has laid the area open to criticism. Undeniably. the area of study today contributes to knowledge about preferred patterns of writing in many English for speciﬁc purposes situations. three papers (Scollon. it has had an appreciable impact on the understanding of cultural differences in writing. No. Kubota (1999. This article discusses some of the new directions contrastive rhetoric has taken. 4. Indiana. it considers texts not merely as static products but as functional parts of dynamic cultural contexts. an effect on the teaching of ESL and EFL writing. In two 1997 issues of TESOL Quarterly. Following a brief review of the goals. and it has had. Although mainly concerned with student essay writing in its ﬁrst 30 years. In other issues. methods. Zamel. 1997. Spack. and will continue to have. and accomplishments of research in contrastive rhetoric during the past 30 years. United States Contrastive rhetoric examines differences and similarities in writing across cultures. Despite many developments in contrastive rhetoric in the past 30 years and its contribution to ESL and EFL teaching.
contrastive rhetoric is premised on the insight that. is irrelevant. In contrastive rhetoric. literacy. the interference manifests itself in the writer’s choice of rhetorical strategies and content. to the degree that language and writing are cultural phenomena. Kaplan’s early contrastive rhetoric was criticized for seeming to privilege the writing of native English speakers. and major accomplishments of research in contrastive rhetoric during the past 30 years. This article addresses that need by surveying some new directions of contrastive rhetoric. coming to the point in the end. It seemed as well to dismiss 494 TESOL QUARTERLY .about current perspectives in contrastive rhetoric and changes that have taken place in this area in the past decade. and those in Romance languages and in Russian include material that. Mauranen. 1966) to an interdisciplinary area of applied linguistics incorporating theoretical perspectives from both linguistics and rhetoric (Connor. different cultures have different rhetorical tendencies. The area of study has expanded from its early beginnings as the analysis of paragraph organization in ESL student essay writing (Kaplan. those in Oriental languages prefer an indirect approach. Kaplan claimed that Anglo-European expository essays are developed linearly whereas essays in Semitic languages use parallel coordinate clauses. It is important to distinguish this concern from potential interference at the level of syntax and phonology. Hence. 1999. Kaplan’s (1966) pioneering study analyzed the organization of paragraphs in ESL student essays and identiﬁed ﬁve types of paragraph development. I would like to see them as suggesting the need to articulate a current framework for contrastive rhetoric. the linguistic patterns and rhetorical conventions of the L1 often transfer to writing in ESL and thus cause interference. especially regarding changing deﬁnitions of culture (Atkinson. each reﬂecting distinctive rhetorical tendencies. particularly in view of some of its criticisms. and critical pedagogy and have a major impact on the research agenda of contrastive rhetoric. methods. As background. These new directions involve innovative views of culture. 1996). from a linear point of view. 2001). instead of viewing the criticisms from an adversarial perspective (Belcher. I then address criticisms of contrastive rhetoric and their relation to changing directions in the ﬁeld. Furthermore. I brieﬂy summarize the goals. A BRIEF HISTORY OF CONTRASTIVE RHETORIC Early History Initiated 30 years ago in applied linguistics by Robert Kaplan. 1997).
and. insight: Writing is culturally inﬂuenced in interesting and complex ways. psychology.e. Kaplan himself (Connor & Kaplan. Matsuda’s (2001) response to Ying (2000) includes a personal communication from Kaplan (March 11. resulting in a renewed interest in the study of cultural differences (Gumperz & Levinson.. signiﬁcantly. Kaplan’s (1966) earlier model. the framework is communication. I claimed that “the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of linguistic relativity is basic to contrastive rhetoric because it suggests that different languages affect perception and thought in different ways” (p. the model was not designed to describe writing for NEW DIRECTIONS IN CONTRASTIVE RHETORIC 495 . 2001) in which Kaplan admits not having been inﬂuenced by Hymes’s work at the time of the writing but having been very much inﬂuenced by the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. 265). and composition studies. It also introduced the U. which limited his own analysis of the sample student writing. often across cultures.linguistic and cultural differences in writing among closely related languages. he has further acknowledged the concept of linguistic relativity as a primary inﬂuence. According to Ying. This weak version of the hypothesis (i. not language. He has also noted the underdeveloped nature of written text analysis at the time of his 1966 paper. which was concerned with paragraph organization. rather than the once dominant strong version (i. Ying (2000) argues that “the claim that the origin of contrastive rhetoric lies in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is untenable because the latter is actually rooted in German ideas on linguistic determinism” (p. 1996). if basic. 1987) has referred to his early position as a notion. that language controls thought and perception). especially Christensen’s (1963) generative rhetoric of the paragraph. and is important in studying the patterned use of language. and these ideas. are incompatible with Kaplan’s (1966) view of rhetoric and culture. The latter inﬂuence encouraged Kaplan to approach contrastive analysis at the paragraph level. Matsuda concludes that the origin of contrastive rhetoric was a result of Kaplan’s effort to synthesize at least three different intellectual traditions: contrastive analysis. 10). is regaining respectability in linguistics. Ying claims that Kaplan did not view language and rhetoric as determinative of thought patterns but that he merely argued that language and rhetoric evolve out of a culture. in Hymes’s system. 1996). according to Ying. In discussing early contrastive rhetoric (Connor. linguistic world to a real. 260). Hymes’s (1962) ethnography of communication can be seen as “an important historical antecedent for contrastive rhetoric” (p.S. was useful in accounting for cultural differences in essays written by college students for academic purposes. No matter what its origin. In a recent article devoted to the exploration of the origins of contrastive rhetoric.e. the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. that language inﬂuences thought). and the emerging ﬁeld of composition and rhetoric. Nevertheless..
that is. in a cross-cultural study of writing that compared argumentative writing in students’ essays from three English-speaking countries. and 1990 (Connor & Johns) typically included several chapters with a text analytic emphasis. data. 496 TESOL QUARTERLY . Evensen. it is fair to say that more or less decontextualized text analytic models characterized the ﬁeld of study. Edited volumes in 1987 (Connor & Kaplan). 1985. 1988) developed a linguisticrhetorical system that helped quantify both linguistic features in essays (e. Lauer and I (Connor & Lauer. contrastive rhetoricians included linguistic text analysis as a tool to describe the conventions of writing in English and to provide analytical techniques with which to compare writing in students’ L1 and L2.. The Nordtext project (Enkvist. as opposed to texts that are writer responsible. some contrastive rhetoric researchers had early on questioned the adequacy of purely text-based analyses as a basis for conclusions that extend beyond the realm of textual features. ethos—and Toulmin’s 1958 argument model of claim. coherence. however. cohesion. Thus. For example. In the 1980s. For example. 1986) involved linguists in the Nordic countries whose interest was in EFL writing. Hinds referred to Japanese texts as reader responsible. focusing especially on methods of analyzing cohesion. pathos. and warrant). Research Methods In its early years.g. The IEA study compared high school students’ writing in their mother tongues at three different grade levels in 14 different countries (Purves. 1988).academic and professional purposes. coherence. A text analytic approach was also adopted in such large international projects of student writing as the International Education Achievement (IEA) study and the Nordtext project. And much of my own work on contrastive rhetoric in the 1980s involved building a comprehensive model of texts—one that integrated rhetorical analysis with linguistically oriented analysis. Nor was it intended to describe composing processes across cultures. In summing up the research paradigm of the 1980s. Each project was designed to create useful models for instructional practice. 1988 (Purves). Hinds (1987) proposed a new phenomenon for analysis: the distribution of responsibility between readers and writers. contrastive rhetoric was heavily based on applied linguistic and linguistic text analysis. and discourse organization) and rhetorical features (including the three classical persuasive appeals—logos. Despite the reliance on the textual analysis of cohesion and coherence patterns in much contrastive rhetorical research. and each was heavily text based. the amount of effort writers expend to make texts cohere through transitions and other uses of metatext. and the discourse superstructure of texts. 1985.
Braine. 1996. Another ﬁnding is that readers’ expectations determine what is perceived as coherent. and contrastive genre-speciﬁc studies (see Table 1 for sample studies). Connor & Mauranen. Connor. Gosden. Prior. 1999. Kaplan’s (1966) diagram of the linear argument preferred by native English speakers may well represent what such speakers view as coherent. 2001. and editorials. Connor et al. The genres involved include journal articles. NEW DIRECTIONS IN CONTRASTIVE RHETORIC 497 . 1995. Several published papers (e. with the processes and products of L2 academics and professional writing in English as a second or foreign language for publication and other professional purposes (Belcher & Connor. and. 1994. 1998).g. all groups engage in a variety of types of writing. 1995. with the initiation and socialization processes that graduate students go through to become literate professionals in their graduate and professional discourse communities (Belcher. Casanave. empirical research on L2 writing in the 1990s became increasingly concerned with social and cultural processes in cross-cultural undergraduate writing groups and classes (Atkinson & Ramanathan. the analysis of writing as a cultural and educational activity. and actual texts may or may not reﬂect that view. 1995... 1994. Flowerdew. 1999. 1990). What major ﬁndings in 30 years of contrastive rhetoric research speak to the current debates about cultural differences and L2 writing? First. though speakers of other languages may disagree. business reports. Swales. in press) describe studies in these domains. straightforward writing. in which the 1970s were said to be the decade of the composing process and the 1980s the decade of social construction. 1998.Contrastive studies of academic and professional genres and of the socialization into these genres of L2 writers were a natural development in L2 writing research. ﬁnally. 1995. 1994. Connor & Mayberry. 1995. Connor & Asenavage. letters of application. Nelson & Carson. grant proposals. whereas preferred patterns of writing are genre dependent. 1995. Major Findings of the Past 30 Years The past 30-plus years have seen signiﬁcant changes as contrastive rhetoric has beneﬁted from insights drawn from four domains: text linguistics. Carson & Nelson. classroom-based studies of writing. 1992). Thus. Following the lead of L1 writing research and pedagogy. Connor & Kramer.
forced as they are to look EFL writing in the eye to try to understand why it at least sometimes looks “different”—often subtly out of sync with that one might expect from a “native” perspective. In fact. compare. Swales (1990). 319) Enkvist. (p. literature. in his 1997 article “Why We Need Contrastive Rhetoric. Tirkkonen-Condit (1996). Connor & Kaplan (1987). 498 TESOL QUARTERLY . The contrastive rhetoric hypothesis has held perhaps its greatest allure for those in nonnative-English-speaking contexts abroad. linguistic and literary theory. 1990) Studies of writing as cultural and educational activity Carson (1992). Goldstein & Conrad (1990). Hinds (1983. Ventola & Mauranen (1991) RECENT RESEARCH IN ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL WRITING ACROSS CULTURES Particularly informative for current discussion of difference are results from research in academic and professional writing originating outside the Anglo-American context.TABLE 1 Sample Contrastive Studies in Four Domains of Investigation Domain Contrastive text linguistic studies Purpose Examine. collaborative revisions. Hull. Nelson & Murphy (1992) Bhatia (1993). Fraser. Davis. and student-teacher conferences Are applied to academic and professional writing Examples Clyne (1987). Connor. 1987. & Castellano (1991). & De Rycker (1995). and contrast how texts are formed and interpreted in different languages and cultures using methods of written discourse analysis Investigate literacy development on L1 language and culture and examine effects on the development of L2 literacy Examine cross-cultural patterns in process writing.” recommends that contrastive rhetoric be pursued according to varying aims and methods within different institutions at universities and in EFL situations. Mauranen (1993). Purves (1988) Classroom-based contrastive studies Genre-speciﬁc investigations Allaei & Connor (1990). Jenkins & Hinds (1987). Finnish universities have language departments that teach language. According to Atkinson (2000). this is what many Finnish university programs offering training in foreign language skills do. Rose. Eggington (1987).
and Asia. and Golebiowski’s (1998) study dealt with psychology journal writing.and English-speaking researchers in Finland. (1995) cited above. They investigated the revising practices native English speakers used with Finnish scientists’ articles written in English and compared the writing of Finnish scientists with the writing of native-English-speaking scientists. ﬁnding many textual and stylistic differences. and that they placed their main point later in the text than native English speakers did. and there were differences in thematic progression. which studies cultural differences between the writing of Finnish. Moreover. Other types of educational institutions interested in contrastive rhetoric include departments of business and intercultural communication. ﬁnding that Finnish writers used connectors less frequently and in a less varied fashion than native-English-speaking writers did. Thus. and the study by Moreno (1998) on cross-cultural differences in premise-conclusion sequences in Spanish and English research articles. The studies by Ventola and Mauranen (1991) and Connor et al. NEW DIRECTIONS IN CONTRASTIVE RHETORIC 499 . researchers and teachers in EFL situations other than professional ones are also ﬁnding the contrastive rhetoric framework useful for a variety of L2 contexts. a great many EnglishPolish contrastive studies have appeared in the past few years in journals such as Text and Journal of Pragmatics. its examples highlight some major directions contrastive rhetoric research relevant to academic and professional setting has been taking in Europe. originally developed for ESL settings in the United States. 1995) found that Finnish writers had the same difﬁculties when writing grant proposals. For example. Additionally. can be helpful in analyzing and teaching EFL writing in academic and professional contexts. show that the contrastive rhetoric framework.and applied linguistics.. Ventola and Mauranen (1991) have shown the value of text analysis in a contrastive framework. or metatext. and positive positions. These ﬁndings showed that the English texts used more direct. Mauranen (1993) found that Finnish writers wrote less text about text. in the past 25 years Finnish universities have operated language centers that teach languages for speciﬁc purposes as well as providing translation and editorial services. however. The review that follows is not intended to be exhaustive. My colleagues and I (Connor et al. assertive. The Finnish writers had difﬁculty using the article system appropriately. Europe In their research. Moreover. the Middle East. Duszak (1994) analyzed research article introductions in Polish and English academic journals.
not with Arabic per se.. orality has been suggested as explaining the differences between Arabic and Western rhetorical preferences by researchers such as Koch (1983). who analyzed Japanese-English contrasts. Western logic. however. unlike Western argumentation. substantiation. opposition.e. And. Hatim can 500 TESOL QUARTERLY .e. Hatim (1997) and Hottel-Burkhart (2000) have produced contributions to contrastive rhetoric theory. Hatim. throughargumentation remains a valid option that is generally bound up with a host of sociopolitical factors and circumstances. He explains observed differences from an empirical. which. that there are differences between Arabic and English argumentation styles and underscores the importance of explaining why these differences occur rather than just relying on anecdotal reporting about the differences. It may be true that this [Arabic] form of argumentation generally lacks credibility when translated into a context which calls for a variant form of argumentation in languages such as English. like Hinds (1987). Koch has claimed that Arabic speakers argue by presentation. whose disciplinary interest is translation studies. To quote Hatim. However. according to Hatim. that is. made a major study of Arabic-English discourse contrasts. According to Hatim (1997).” or as analyzing “Arabic writers as confused. thesis to be supported. is characterized by counterarguments (i. which he describes as being “characterized by a general vagueness of thought which stems from overemphasis on the symbol at the expense of the meaning. It is therefore speakers and not languages which must be held accountable. and so on” (p. thesis to be opposed. 53) Hatim’s (1997) contribution to textual analysis of Arabic and English contrasts is signiﬁcant. (p. coming to the same point two or three times from different angles. Arabic texts are no less logical than texts that use Aristotelian. Hatim ends up generalizing about preferred argument patterns. and conclusion). dealing with the typology of argumentation and its implication for contrastive rhetoric. Hatim acknowledges. In addition to the publication of numerous empirical studies of Arabic-English contrasts. text analytic point of view. paraphrasing them.. in well-meaning explanations meant to show the legitimacy of different styles of argument across cultures. for Arabic. Hatim admits that Arabic argumentation may be heavy on through-argumentation (i. and doubling them. and conclusion). substantiation of counterclaim. by repeating arguments. Yet the key is that for Arabic speakers.Middle East Research in contrastive rhetoric is not exclusively European and American. Yet. 161). The author is critical of previous contrastive rhetorical research of Arabic.
studies of Arabic-English contrasts. 2000). NEW DIRECTIONS IN CONTRASTIVE RHETORIC 501 . differed across languages. According to the authors. Johnstone found differences between the two styles of argumentation not only in content but also in arrangement and style. Fallaci used a logical argument supportable by veriﬁable facts. The researchers focused on structural features and point of view as well as the attribution of content to sources. In the interview. They found that the stories written in either language featured both the classical structure qi-chengzhuan-he and inductive and deductive organizational structures. who writes that “rhetoric is an intellectual tradition of practices and values associated with public. concluding that “there is nothing inherent in the linguistic or cognitive structures of either Chinese or English which determines the use of these structures” (p. however. Kassabgy. Interest in contrastive rhetoric in Arabic-speaking countries resulted in the biennial International Conference on Contrastive Rhetoric at the American University of Cairo. Egypt. analyzed by Johnstone (1986). newspaper writing and the writing of sales and request letters. 94). interpersonal. Four were English language papers. & Aydelott. 13 chapters discuss studies that deal with distinctive features of Arabic. and verbal communication—spoken or written—and it is peculiar to the broad linguistic culture in which one encounters it” (p. In a volume of selected conference papers (Ibrahim. 98). Asia Chinese-English and Japanese-English contrasts have been analyzed in several recent contrastive rhetoric studies. held in March 2001. Scollon and Scollon (1997) compared the reporting of the same news story in 11 Hong Kong and 3 People’s Republic of China newspapers. attracted presenters from neighboring countries as well as from Europe and Asia. namely. Another signiﬁcant non-European contribution to the study of contrastive rhetoric has been made by Hottel-Burkhart (2000). 107). Khomeni “offered instead answers based on the words of God and his Prophet” (p. The practice of quotation.become an easy target for those who object to cross-cultural analysis because of the danger of stereotyping. Hottel-Burkhart refers to the wellknown interview of the Ayatollah Khomeni by the Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci. in a tradition in which he was schooled. What is considered an argument in a culture is shaped by the rhetoric of that culture. The Chinese-English studies deal with writing for professional purposes. and the rest were written in Chinese. The second Cairo conference. and contrastive rhetorical studies of Arabic-speaking students’ writing in English.
in the Chinese samples. No standard practice has been observed across newspapers in this set and even within a newspaper. a move structure approach and Mann and Thompson’s (1988) rhetorical structure analysis. Differences are attributed to different face relationships involved in business transactions rather than to inherent rhetorical patterns of the languages. The rich theoretical explanation in the article draws on theories of politeness and face systems. The article contains a great deal of discussion on arguments over a linear versus a circular structure of Chinese discourse and ﬁnds that the 20 letters in the sample followed a linear development. Kong (1998) used two analytic frameworks. 1990). This is perhaps why the English letters are more direct. and a greater emphasis on the interpersonal elements of “justifying” the request throughout the whole text) is a result of their different social expectations and considerations. to examine Chinese business request letters written in companies in Hong Kong. 138) 1 A similar point about sensitivity to understanding reasons behind surface-level difference has been made by Bloch (2001) and Pennycook (1996). with rigid conventions for the attribution of authorship. that is. According to Kong. on a more or less similar social footing. English business letters written by native speakers. In contrast. 502 TESOL QUARTERLY . If the price is right for both sides. our clearest ﬁnding is that quotation is at best ambiguous in Chinese. the symmetrical deference system (marked by delayed pattern of the request. it is not obvious which portions of the text are attributed to whom. the English newspapers present a face of clear and unambiguous quotation. (p. an information seeker and information giver. The mutual assumption seems to be that both sides are very busy and do not want to spend time on speculation. The seemingly rigorous Western journalistic standard. they will make a deal. and English business letters written by nonnative speakers whose L1 was Chinese (Cantonese). Differences were found in the occurrence and sequencing of the moves as well as the rhetorical structure in the Chinese letters and the English letters. as they put greater emphasis on the ideational content of making the request and tend to make more face-threatening moves.1 Zhu (1997) analyzed sales letters written in the People’s Republic of China using a rhetorical moves analysis (Swales.Concerning the question of quotation. the expectations of the roles of the writer and reader are more simple. who have studied the way Chinese students cite from sources. (p. On the other hand. 107) Scollon and Scollon are careful to point out that the ﬁnding should be interpreted carefully. In English routine business request letters written by native writers. does not necessarily translate into more scrupulous journalistic practice. the absence of face-threatening moves.
and contexts from the L1 to the second.Each of these studies disagrees with Kaplan’s (1966) characterization of Chinese texts as circular. The received view conceives of culture as based largely on distinct geographical and national entities. who works with ESL students in the United States. With the extensive globalization of business and professional communication. criticized contrastive rhetoric research for being too focused on texts and for neglecting oral inﬂuences on literacy. which are presented as relatively unchanging and homogeneous (e. too. 343). two competing views are the received view and alternative. Hence.g. differing reader expectations cause misunderstandings. not in the structure of the texts per se but in other contextual factors. In 1997. styles. three TESOL Quarterly authors criticized contrastive rhetoric for an alleged insensitivity to cultural differences. It is also worth noting that the studies take the analysis of texts beyond student essays (Kaplan’s sample). and thus being unable to consider adequately EFL situations like the one in Hong Kong. Predictably. writing in such genres as letters. CRITICISMS OF AND ADVANCES IN CONTRASTIVE RHETORIC Concurrent with these new developments in contrastive rhetoric and their contributions to teaching in ESL and EFL settings. The authors ﬁnd explanations for differences in the texts studied. this area of study has become the target of criticism. Atkinson (1999) clariﬁes the issues and perspectives with a comprehensive review of competing deﬁnitions of culture as they relate to TESOL. third. discontinuous. L2 writers have been found to transfer patterns. Their questions are prompted within a broader interrogation of the concept of culture in the past few years. and Zamel (1997) disapproved of the tendency of contrastive rhetoric to view cultures as “discrete. the Japanese NEW DIRECTIONS IN CONTRASTIVE RHETORIC 503 . 53) has recently emphasized. résumés. for example. According to Atkinson. there is an increasing need for well-constructed studies of intercultural communication. In these contexts. and job applications for readers from disparate language and cultural backgrounds is becoming a reality for more and more people. and predictable” (p. For example. was concerned about the practice of labeling students by their L1 backgrounds. as Mauranen (2001. or fourth language. Spack (1997). requests in letters can be interpreted as being too direct when directness is differently valued in the L1 than in the L2. Scollon (1997). expectations. nonstandard views. in the same issue of TESOL Quarterly. p. Both Spack (1997) and Zamel (1997) invoke changing deﬁnitions of culture that juxtapose the forces of heterogeneity and homogeneity and seriously question the latter..
these researchers have explained such differences in written communication as often stemming from multiple sources. inequalities. However. For example. researchers in contrastive rhetoric have certainly not interpreted all differences in L2 writing as stemming from the L1 or interference from the national culture. 1996. and mismatched expectations between readers and writers. all-encompassing entities. L1 educational background. disciplinary culture. Tannen noted that “some people object to any research documenting cross-cultural differences. Instead. or in some cases anything important at all. reminiscent of Selinker’s (1972) concept of interlanguage. In connection with the latter. although contrastive rhetoric has often deﬁned national cultures in the received mode. Sarangi (1994) suggests the term intercultural to refer to migrants’ ﬂuid identities. as Tannen (1985) pointed out. which they see as buttressing stereotypes and hence exacerbating discrimination” (p. therefore is susceptible to the same critical judgments currently directed at any research on crosscultural communication. including L1. identiﬁable cultural groups and. genre characteristics.culture). however. 212). in order to banish once and for all the idea that cultures are monolithic entities. Thus. 504 TESOL QUARTERLY . that to ignore cultural differences leads to misinterpretation and “hence discrimination of another sort” (p. 101). which refers to shared features of a speaker’s native and target languages. one can argue that in the past contrastive rhetoric largely adopted the notion of received culture. these terms indicate the shared perspective that cultures are anything but homogenous. all of which appear in criticisms of the traditional view: So used. Traditional contrastive rhetoric has often viewed ESL students as members of separate. 627) From this point of view. native culture. disagreements. The alternative views stem from postmodernist-inﬂuenced perspectives and have evolved from critiques of the traditional. 212). p. I once deﬁned culture as “a set of patterns and rules shared by a particular community” (Connor.2 2 Sarangi (1994) suggested the notion of interculture to describe the migrants’ ﬂuid identities of native and target cultures in immigrant situations. She went on to argue. and represent important concepts in a larger project: the unveiling of the ﬁssures. He recommends the consideration of language proﬁciency. received view. essentialism. and power. hybridity. Atkinson discusses concepts such as identity. national culture. In this regard. Contrastive rhetoric is thus in a position similar to that of intercultural research on spoken language or intercultural pragmatics analysis. and interlocutors’ mutual accommodation or lack thereof in explaining miscommunication between native and nonnative speakers in immigrant language situations. (p. and cross-cutting inﬂuences that exist in and around all cultural scenes.
This issue has been raised in postmodern discussion about discourse and the teaching of writing (Kubota. were based on Anglo-American scientiﬁc and promotional discourse. In the EU project described above. and diplomacy. Crystal (1997) suggests that a new kind of English. If the Finnish scientists wished to get European Union (EU) research grants. On the other hand. they needed to follow EU norms and expectations. Ramanathan & Atkinson. Because the raters of grant proposals for the EU in Brussels are not solely native speakers of English but are scientists from all EU countries with many different L1s and many different rhetorical orientations. following the expectations of the Finnish agencies would be advantageous. industry. This style employed a set of rhetorical moves adopted from Swales (1990) and validated by independent empirical research. at the time. and these. such as consultants in grant proposal writing. World Standard Spoken English. it may be more complex in the case of college writers.. For example. recent critics of contrastive rhetoric have blamed contrastive rhetoricians for teaching students to write for native English speakers’ expectations instead of expressing their own native lingual and cultural identities. need to educate students or clients about readers’ expectations. 1995). as in the case of grant proposals in the project described above. This blurring of standards and norms in written language is consistent with recent developments in spoken language. 1999). may be arising in situations requiring communication in English with people from non-Anglophone countries for purposes of business.. it was suggested. The discussion has been in the forefront in contrastive rhetoric. 1999. because the teaching of norms invokes the danger of perpetuating established power hierarchies. Although such a decision about rhetorical choice seems straightforward. the standards for English language grant proposals have changed. 1995) became aware of yet another issue facing contrastive rhetoric: that there may not be an English language norm for the writers of EU grant proposals to follow. something like a “Eurorhetoric” may have emerged. Teachers of English and others. researchers and others working in the current contrastive rhetoric paradigm have adhered to the position that cultural differences need to be explicitly taught in order to acculturate EFL writers to the target discourse community. when Finnish scientists wished to write grant applications in Finnish. In fact. NEW DIRECTIONS IN CONTRASTIVE RHETORIC 505 . At any rate.A related question deals with an ideological problem regarding which norms and standards should be taught. workshops for Finnish scientists who were learning how to write proposals in English taught a socalled Western style of grant proposal writing (Connor et al. my colleagues and I (Connor et al.
A recent edited volume by Panetta (2001). Scollon. 2001). Of course. Halleck. in a corpus of letters of application covering a 10-year period (Upton & Connor. The increasingly context-sensitive research approach often involves studying the talk that surrounds text production and interpretation as well as writing processes and written products themselves (Connor. Yli-Jokipii. 506 TESOL QUARTERLY . contrastive rhetoric would be well advised to study texts diachronically to identify the evolution of patterns and norms. Ventola & Mauranen. contrastive rhetoric is becoming more responsive to new currents in literacy research. Furthermore. architecture. and while retaining its traditional pedagogical applications.. as the examples given in this article show. in regard to methods. and literature (high culture areas suggested by Mauranen and by Scollon) or social interactions of everyday life are played out in writing. 1996).S.. 2002). It is embracing research-situated reﬂexivity and is becoming more sensitive to the social context and the local situatedness and particularity of writing activity. 1991. In other words. In regard to methods of research.. similar textual patterns across genres such as essays.e. 1995. Finally. at the very least. Yet. Mauranen. The inﬂuence of contrastive rhetoric theories has expanded beyond the teaching of basic ESL and EFL writing. 1997). contrastive rhetoric has been inﬂuenced by new approaches. The growing inﬂuence of contrastive rhetoric in the teaching of such skills as business and technical writing is obvious not only in L2 situations overseas but also in the teaching of mainstream writing in the United States. For example. grant proposals. it may be difﬁcult to show how the patterns of a given culture’s preferences in areas such as music. there has also been a call to study how writing in given cultures is tied to the intellectual history and social structures of these cultures (e. the cultural resonance of rhetorical patterns and the inﬂuence of L1 on second language acquisition) and continuing to rely on text analysis. classrooms. are there identiﬁable. contrastive rhetoric research could look for patterns across text genres in a given culture. & Mbaye. While adhering to its now well-tested premises (i.g. 2001. recommends the use of contrastive rhetorical theory in the teaching of business and technical writing in non-ESL U. and letters of request in a given culture? For example.CONCLUSION The major changes taking place in the goals and research methods of contrastive rhetoric are affecting the scope of its impact on other areas of applied linguistics and beyond. Finnish writers have been found consistently across genres to delay the introduction of a topic and to use relatively little metatext (Connor et al. because cultures and genres are viewed as dynamic and ﬂuid. for example.
G. Norwood. G. 1–19. Carson. Mahwah. 23–34. (1995).). J. Clevedon. U. and U. In D. D. L. Reﬂections on multiliterate lives. D. Local interactions: Constructing contexts for composing in a graduate sociology program. D. Chinese students’ perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction. (Eds. D. V. A generative rhetoric of the paragraph. Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. Culture in TESOL. K.” Journal of Second Language Writing. Non-native educators in English language teaching. NJ: Erlbaum. (1994). U. The Writing Instructor. 10. Belcher. L. Plagiarism and the ESL student: From printed to electronic texts. 83–110). 625–654. Journal of Second Language Writing. Cultures of writing: An ethnographic comparison of L1 and L2 university writing/language programs. Bloch. G. NEW DIRECTIONS IN CONTRASTIVE RHETORIC 507 . V. Belcher. REFERENCES Allaei. Kaplan’s response to Terry Santos et al. D.S.). 6. Flemish... Analyzing genre: Language use in professional settings. Carson. Further research needs to be conducted for a deﬁnitive answer. G. 33. 16. Writing groups: Cross-cultural issues. and contrastive rhetoric provides a useful framework. C. 37–60. English for Speciﬁc Purposes. THE AUTHOR Ulla Connor is professor of English and director of the Indiana Center for Intercultural Communication at Indiana University in Indianapolis. 3. TESOL Quarterly. (Ed. with fewer differences. (2001). K. 1–21. 17–30. & Nelson. 317– 320. & Ramanathan. Journal of Second Language Writing. We have speculated that a universal form for a letter of application may be in progress in the global business environment. Atkinson.). An argument for nonadversarial argumentation: On the relevance of the feminist critique of academic discourse to L2 writing pedagogy. 209–245). (1993).). Braine. NJ: Ablex. Belcher. College Composition and Communication. New York: Longman. 9. 13. Braine (Eds. J. (1994). & Connor. Linking literacies (pp. Atkinson. 19–28. Belcher & G. England: Multilingual Matters. (1996). (1963). (1992). TESOL Quarterly. (1999). (2000). Hirvela (Eds.. Bhatia.) whereas letters in the later years evidenced a more homogenized style. Journal of Second Language Writing. Casanave. In D.’s “On the Future of Second Language Writing. Becoming biliterate: First language inﬂuences.. D. S. & Nelson. G. J. 539–568. (1997). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. F. Christensen. Belcher & A. & Connor. Exploring the dynamics of cross-cultural collaboration in writing classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing. Atkinson. D. D. J. 1. (1990). P. 144–156. D. D. The apprenticeship approach to advanced academic literacy: Graduate students and their mentors. (2001). (1995). On Robert B. D. 29. Carson. 5. G.Upton and I observed a stylistic change.. Letters in the earlier years showed greater differences between the cultural groups (Finnish. (1998).
Davis. Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. M.S. (Eds. (1995).). Connor. (Ed. Cultural differences in the organization of academic texts: English and German. Connor. J.. M. (in press). U. Norwood. Duszak. Understanding persuasive essay writing: Linguistic/ rhetorical approach. T. U. S. Ventola & A. (1995). U. (Ed. 138–159). Connor.. & DeRycker. Mauranen. J. (1995). In E.). W. M. Writing across languages and cultures (pp.. Helsinki.). Purves (Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1985). R. & Mbaye.). G. Trondheim. 21. Text linguistics and written composition [Special issue]... Reading. Connor. & Kaplan. Journal of Pragmatics.. A. Journal of Second Language Writing. Alternation.. Connor & R. (1997). Academic discourse and intellectual styles. Eggington. Text. & Asenavage. M.. Enkvist. 457–475. Cross-cultural issues of academic literacy in U. (1994). In B. 309–326. Evensen.. Halleck. M. U. Text. 123–146. Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives. Correctness and clarity in applying for overseas jobs: A cross-cultural analysis of U. (1987). 231–253). Linguistic analysis of grant proposals: European Union research grants. & Lauer. Tapir. & YliAntola.). Connor. MA: Addison-Wesley.. Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text. VA: TESOL. T. & Kramer. Connor.. (2002. Kroll (Ed. Connor. L. Goldstein. (1990). U. Connor. In U. 24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. English as a global language. S. In D. & Mauranen. Tekokkaita EU-projektiehdotuksia [Successful EU grant proposals]. E. Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision? Journal of Second Language Writing. UT. (1997).. 5(4). S. 508 TESOL QUARTERLY .. NJ: Ablex. Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues (pp. 188–206. B. G. A. and Flemish applications. Connor. Exploring the dynamics of second language writing. Connor. March). H. Alexandria. Written academic discourse in Korean: Implication for effective communication. Mauranen (Eds. (1988). (1990). (1995). TESOL Quarterly.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 155–182). Connor. 153–168).. Salt Lake City. Writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. U. Connor. Finland: Tekes.Clyne. Braine (Eds. (1996). & Lauer.. N. Newbury Park. U. Changing currents in contrastive rhetoric: Implications for teaching and research. K. S. K. A. Ringbom. Paper given at the American Association of Applied Linguistics conference. MA: Addison-Wesley. Enkvist. Crystal. L. (1999). U. Belcher & G. 8.. 291–313. J. CA: Sage. U. Text. (1986). U. Kaplan (Eds. Why we need contrastive rhetoric. 47–62. 18. Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp.). A. D. English for Speciﬁc Purposes. Reading. (1994). Learning discipline-speciﬁc academic writing: A case study of a Finnish graduate student in the United States. 15. 257–275. D. In A. (1999). U. Flowerdew. 443–460. Nordic research on text linguistics and discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1987). 11. & Johns.. 5. G. & Mayberry. Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. & Conrad.). Tirkkonen-Condit. E. N. 211–247. C. Norway: University of Trondheim. (1985). Helle. U. 4. A. U. Student input and negotiation of meaning in ESL writing conferences. Writing from sources: Case studies of graduate students in business management. Journal of Pragmatics.. 3.S. research labs: Fronting the socialization dimension.. (1987). M. Connor. Cross-cultural variation in persuasive student writing. B.
(1996). Research writing and NNS: From the editors. (2001). K. Contrastive rhetoric: Japanese and English. A. Z. Johns (Eds. 42. Kassabgy. K. B. B.. (1987). M. 67–102. (2000). TESOL Quarterly. Frankfurt am Main. (1987). TESOL Quarterly. R. (1992). S. and Japanese. Kong. (1983). 35. Anthropology and human behavior (pp. Diversity in language: Contrastive studies in English and Arabic theoretical and applied linguistics (pp. D. 1–20. Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Inductive. Rhetorical approaches to scientiﬁc writing: An English-Polish contrastive study. MA: Addison-Wesley. Mauranen. Gosden. quasi-inductive: Expository writing in Japanese. 93–110). 47–60. J. R.. 242–281. The canons of Aristotelian rhetoric: Their place in contrastive Arabic-English studies. Cultural differences in academic rhetoric. S. Aydelott (Eds. N. Connor & R. Connor & A. Hymes. 299–329. W. (1986). Hatim. England: University of Exeter Press. VA: TESOL. 13–53). 11. Gladwin & W.). Sturtevant. G. (2000). In T. 18. and Thai. 183–195. J. Text. G. Text. Hinds. 9–38.. Descriptions or explanations? Some methodological issues in NEW DIRECTIONS IN CONTRASTIVE RHETORIC 509 . 21.). & Levinson. Arguments with Khomeni: Rhetorical situation and persuasive style in cross-cultural perspective.). 103–141. 3. Text. Kaplan (Eds. In U. 171–187. Egypt: The American University in Cairo Press. & Castellano. Gumperz. (2001). DC: Anthropological Society of Washington. (1999). B. The ethnography of speaking. Translation theory and contrastive text linguistics. Alexandria. G. Koch. 33. Exeter. C. Reading. (1993). A. 9–35. College Composition and Communication. Z. J. Kubota. L. New York: Cambridge University Press. 6. deductive. Kassabgy. Business letter writing: English. J. S. TESOL Quarterly. M. Jenkins. Cairo. Chinese. Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. Journal of Second Language Writing.. 16. Presentation as proof: The language of Arabic rhetoric. 18. J. (1998). Egypt: The American University in Cairo Press. & S. (1991). Kaplan. Fraser. B. Text. N. (1988). M. Are simple business request letters really simple? A comparison of Chinese and English business request letters. Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Johnstone. Hottel-Burkhart.. Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives (pp. Ibrahim.. Hinds. (1998). 141–152). French. M. Kubota. Matsuda. B.. Mann. K. On the origin of contrastive rhetoric: A response to “The Origin of Contrastive Rhetoric Revisited” by H. & Aydelott. (1962). Japanese culture constructed by discourses: Implications for applied linguistics research and English language teaching. Rethinking linguistic relativity. In U. 25. Language Learning. (1983). Text. 327–354. International Journal of Applied Linguistics. Korean. & Hinds. Cairo. M. Germany: Peter Lang. 123–140. H. 8. In Z. (Eds. & Thompson. Rose. Remediation as a social construct: Perspectives from an analysis of classroom discourse. Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp.Golebiowski.). 87–110). A. S. Anthropological Linguistics. Discursive construction of the images of U. Washington. 1. (2001). Hull. Diversity in language: Contrastive studies in English and Arabic theoretical and applied linguistics. (1997). N. Ibrahim. Hinds. (1990). (1966). classrooms. 257–260 Mauranen. Communication across cultures.. P.S. R. Ying (2000).
In M. Ventola (Ed. (1996). (1958). (1998).contrastive rhetoric. and ESL writers. Ying. NJ: Erlbaum. & Atkinson. 171–194. (1988). Toward a model of transculturation. Journal of Second Language Writing. (Ed. Handbook of discourse analysis (pp. English for Speciﬁc Purposes: An International Journal. Point of view and citation: Fourteen Chinese and English versions of the “same” news story. P. Text. 203–216). S. D. Y. Explicitness vs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. A. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric. L. Redeﬁning the task: An ethnographic examination of writing and response in six graduate seminars.. R. 4. T. & Carson. Journal of Second Language Writing. Prior. D. Yli-Jokipii. M.). 20. Ventola. Sarangi. The explicit signaling of premise-conclusion sequences in research articles: A contrastive framework. (1997). Swales. 274–275. (2001). Spack. Upton. The uses of argument. 18. 47–82). (1997). Cross-cultural communication. 30. H. 15. (1972). memory. 201–229. Contrastive rhetoric revisited and redeﬁned. E. R. & Scollon. G. 259–268. G.). Tirkkonen-Condit. 15. British. 43–54). (1999). academic writing. Purves. Multilingua. International Review of Applied Linguistics. & Murphy. ownership. S. A. New York: Academic Press. Text. An analysis of structural moves in Chinese sales letters. S. England: University of Birmingham Press. G.). 510 TESOL QUARTERLY . 765–774. Functional and systematic linguistics (p. Birmingham. & Connor. A. Contrastive rhetoric. D. and plagiarism. An approach to contrasting languages and cultures in the corporate context: Finnish. Zamel. Selinker. (1997). Van Dijk (Ed. Individualism. Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. Pennycook. 341–343. Moreno. 545–585. Using computerized corpus analysis to investigate the textlinguistic discourse moves of a genre. A. (2001). Panetta. J. (1996). H. Tannen. & Mauranen. L. 1. M. Pragmatics. TESOL Quarterly. (1997). 31. (1998). 17.). An ESL writing group: Task and social dimensions. Borrowing others’ words: Text. 45–75. J. TESOL Quarterly. L. Text. Zhu. Mahwah. or perhaps something else? TESOL Quarterly. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. contrastive poetics. NJ: Ablex. CA: Sage. G. (1995). implicitness in argumentation: An intercultural comparison. 31. (1990). C. (1992). (1996). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 83–125. Intercultural or not? Beyond celebration of cultural differences in miscommunication analysis. Toulmin. I. (1994)... 409–427. Scollon. In E. Nelson. Nelson. (1991). Multilingua.. J. A. V.. Norwood. 31.). Academic writing in context (pp. 10. 305–327. Braine (Eds. 7. International Journal of Applied Linguistics. 543– 566. 313–329. (1997). 17. Scollon. 113–132. G. 201– 231. Belcher & G. 457– 492). S. V. The rhetorical construction of multilingual students. Journal of Second Language Writing. (2000). U. Newbury Park. TESOL Quarterly. 10. ESL students’ perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups. 352–363. The origin of contrastive rhetoric revisited. Ramanathan. and American business letters and telefax messages. Non-native writing and native revising of scientiﬁc articles.. (1985). R. C. In D. Hewings (Ed. In T. 8. Interlanguage.
36. No. different rhetorical convention had a signiﬁcant overall effect on Chinese students’ reading comprehension in both immediate and delayed recall. Texas. The study concludes with suggestions for future research and classroom implications. CHARNEY The University of Texas at Austin Austin. post hoc comparisons revealed that two topics among the four reﬂected in the eight passages showed more impact from rhetorical convention than did the others. Moreover. Winter 2002 T 511 . participants completed a delayed-recall test and a topic assessment questionnaire. Given the very different rhetorical strategies identiﬁed as characteristic of non-Western cultures. One week later. After each reading. some researchers have speculated that comprehending texts written in rhetorical conventions unfamiliar TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 4. Although students failed to perceive rhetorical differences. One hundred twenty Taiwanese freshmen and 120 seniors read two of the four passages. Four English passages veriﬁed as using Chinese rhetorical conventions were modiﬁed into four counterpart versions reﬂecting English rhetorical conventions. Republic of China JANET SWAFFAR and DAVIDA H. Analysis of questionnaire data suggested that factors such as topic interest and topic familiarity moderated the effect of rhetorical convention. United States This study explores whether culture-speciﬁc rhetorical conventions affect the reading recall of Chinese EFL college students at two grade levels.Cultural Representations of Rhetorical Conventions: The Effects on Reading Recall HSI-CHIN JANET CHU Providence University Taiwan. he question of whether discourse conventions affect reading comprehension has become increasingly important in an era of international telecommunication dominated by texts that use English or Western rhetorical conventions—typically foregrounding focal topics and supported by discourse markers specifying a linear ﬂow of ideas and a text intent. one in each rhetorical convention. students completed a passage perception questionnaire and an immediate-recall test.
1991). readers assemble textual units in two ways: as recall and as situations applicable to their lives. it takes up mental capacity.. elaborating on the actual text base. agree that comprehension is a multicomponential. the present study looked at whether rhetorical style. Although traces of the original propositions and structure of text have been lost (e. Kintsch’s (1998) insights suggest that the macrostructures or rhetori512 TESOL QUARTERLY . “I can’t remember where I heard/read that”). 63). 1989). Moreover. Hinds. 292). Kaplan 1966. 1984. resulting in learning. The result is a text base that structures mental representation of micro. Ricento. In the situation model. regardless of their level in the processing hierarchy” (p. 98–99). a reader might say. in part. To address this issue. on familiarity or unfamiliarity with a text’s communicative styles (Eggington. the information carried in the text has been modiﬁed and embedded into a reader’s existing knowledge structure. in and of itself. although integrating prior knowledge with textual propositions still in working memory is automatic. interactive process. or something in between. notably those of Rumelhart (1977) and Kintsch (1998). One result of such interactivity seems to be what Stanovich (1980) calls compensatory processing: “a deﬁcit in any knowledge source [that] results in a heavier reliance on other knowledge sources. In either case. because the integration process allows for all sorts of knowledge to come into play. spread activation. strengthens related items and suppresses unrelated ones (pp. the macrostructure or rhetorical logic the author has chosen inﬂuences the reader’s original processing (Weaver & Kintsch. RESEARCH ON EFFECTS OF RHETORICAL CONVENTIONS Models of Reading Comprehension Two of the most widely accepted models of reading comprehension. In this construction-integration model. For Kintsch (1998). Kintsch emphasizes that. one feature of that process. the product of the comprehension can be a text base model. a situation model. readers call on general knowledge and draw inferences.g. when they experience problems in putting textual information into a coherent pattern. depending on task demands (p.and macropropositions hierarchically. These propositions represent the reader’s recall of corresponding text. affected the recall of Chinese students reading otherwise identical English language texts. 1987.to the reader may hinge. and they enable reproduction tasks such as recall and summary.
research on the impact of rhetorical structure. & Winograd. Brandt. and their retention is short-circuited (Brennan. They also enable retrieval of propositions and their integration into long-term memory (van Dijk & Kintsch. With regard to L2 readers. facilitates that reader’s schematizing process. their processing efﬁciency is impaired. Schnotz’s (1984) subjects. although the text content may be the same” (p.cal conventions in the text are not only vital to textual comprehension but also essential for the readers’ intake of information and possible reconstruction of the text. 71). When readers process a text with unfamiliar macrostructures.. Goetz and Armbruster (1980) conclude that connected discourse is easier to comprehend than unrelated and disconnected content because the reader is able to “organize and interrelate elements in the text” (p. Whether the task facing readers demands recall or application. sometimes referred to as formal schema (e. this unfamiliarity might inﬂuence the construction of both text base and text situation. Macrostructures do more than inform construction of macropropositions. Barnitz. 206). seem to illustrate Kintsch’s assertion that readers introduce inferential changes to the text base when its content is reorganized. 1983). The processes resulting from that choice will result in “different knowledge structures for both organization types. 1984). They suggest that the text’s logical structure. & Bluth. 1982. readers tend to distort a text’s meaning. 1980). Studies Examining the Impact of Rhetorical Structure on L2 Reading L1 research has established that whenever a mismatch between textual organization and reader expectations occurs. who read two texts with the same content but contrasting thematic relationships. Meyer. Another way in which Kintsch (1998) speaks to the signiﬁcance of rhetorical conventions is by emphasizing that readers with a sense of coherence different from that suggested in the discourse features of the text might be connecting propositions in ways different from those intended by the author. when perceived by the reader. also CULTURAL REPRESENTATIONS OF RHETORICAL CONVENTIONS 513 . 1986. deﬁciencies in their knowledge of rhetorical conventions—the macrostructures that reveal textual organization—could overtax readers’ synthesizing capabilities. Carrell. Similarly. Schnotz describes these differences as two distinct types of organization from which a reader may choose. The reader is consequently able to anticipate text content and construct meaning in a relational framework. 1986. thereby retaining content in memory as an integrated story rather than as disconnected pieces. Kintsch & Yarbrough. Connie.g.
and Korean readers’ awareness of text structure and their recall. Though relevant for narrative and 514 TESOL QUARTERLY . 1984). this study included both college freshmen and seniors who were English majors. however. qi-cheng-zhuan-he (ki-sho\-ten-ketsu in Japanese and ki-sung-chon-kyual in Korean) is a prevalent. Spanish. typical in Western writing.supports the claim that familiarity with rhetorical conventions plays a role in recall. 1980.. Tian conjectured that the homogeneity of the language environment in schools in Singapore leveled and neutralized the home language effects. most studies on the effects of text structure have been conducted in an ESL context with a focus on the effects of logical organization rather than on the effects of rhetorical convention viewed as a cultural phenomenon. Cummins. 1987) points in this direction. However. 1998) and the interaction between content schemata and formal schemata (Carrell. did not seem to trigger a different recall pattern for different rhetorical structures. Japanese. Turkish. Cooper 1984). Arabic. introduced the additional variable of home language group (Chinese. to analyze poetry and was later applied to structuring essays. Tian (1990). inﬂuences text processing and recall (Carrell. most studies on text structure in L2 reading have focused on how the logical organization of textual information. Malaysian. replicating Carrell’s 1984 study in Singapore. For this reason. As in Carrell’s study. It was originally employed by Fan-heng. differences in rhetorical structure affected the readers’ recall. though not the only. Whether L2 readers’ experience with a culture-speciﬁc L1 rhetoric plays a role in L2 reading among readers at different proﬁciency levels has yet to be explored. model used in analysis of Chinese texts. many studies of L2 reading comprehension suggest a positive relationship between increased language proﬁciency and ability to recognize discourse cues (e. thus avoiding the shortcircuits that are more common among readers with deﬁcient language skills (Clarke. a scholar in the Yuen Dynasty. Additionally. the present study focuses on potential differences in recall of texts reﬂecting Western and non-Western rhetorical conventions. Work comparing students’ background knowledge and interest in a topic (Carrell & Wise. 1979). Their native language. However. RHETORICAL STRUCTURE IN CHINESE EXPOSITORY WRITING Qi-Cheng-Zhuan-He An approach to Asiatic writing. Carrell (1992) found a relationship between her ESL Chinese.g. Therefore. Malay. Considered as a whole. or Tamil).
Discourse cues for sentential and intersentential cohesion tend not to occur as often in Chinese as they do in English writing (Normant. Chen (1986). particularly in expository writing. the essence of the structure is there (Kojima. or develops the idea further. in comparing the expository discourse structure of English and Chinese passages. Zhuan means turning or changing. Qi-cheng-zhuan-he is not a rigidly formalized structure. 55). 281) as perceived by Chinese readers. it is most frequently applied in expository writing (Kojima. Cheng means following—elaborating the opening. As a result of these differences. These features differ markedly from those common in Western writing (for examples. turns to an example. Literally. is that subtlety. A tally of such differences frequently starts with the Western preference for deductive style and the Chinese tendency toward inductive approaches. The practice of putting the main thesis of a text before supporting ideas violates a Chinese reader’s expectation for what Kachru (1998) calls a “delayed introduction of purpose” or “delayed topic statement” (p.poetry as well as public speaking. He means wrapping up. Jensen (1998) stated. Wu posits that inductive reasoning is felt to be “natural” whereas deductive reasoning requires an information sequence that goes against “a natural sequence” (p. quoting Wu (1988). qi means beginning—the opening of a topic. A second difference researchers have noted between Western and Chinese rhetorical conventions is closely related to the way main and subordinate information is sequenced in each. 1972). He attributed this tendency toward indirect allusion to the Chinese cultural heritage in rhetoric. highly valued writing techniques in classical Chinese. when the writer provides the highest level of generalization. Further compounding this Chinese tendency toward indirect rather than direct presentation of authorial intent. analogy. the number of words and paragraphs as well as the amount of information devoted to each of the four parts can vary disproportionately. 1972). texts that use this model also exhibit other features commonly found in Chinese writing. As long as the order of presentation remains. 1986). Here the writer expresses another point of view. researchers have predicted that Chinese EFL readers. might experience problems CULTURAL REPRESENTATIONS OF RHETORICAL CONVENTIONS 515 . tend to hide the writer’s intents. see Appendix A). and metaphor. Kirkpatrick (1995). Because qi-cheng-zhuan-he is simply one model for rhetorical sequencing. because they have rhetorical expectations that differ from those of Western readers. found that Chinese paragraphs tended to introduce more subtopics than did their Western counterparts. suggests how inductive reasoning might condition Chinese rhetorical schemata. Hence qi-cheng-zhuan-he designates a conceptual/reasoning sequence in overall organization.
and sentence-level meanings rather than rhetorical organization. the classical Chinese rhetorical structure. frequently dealt with the schemata of Chinese rhetorical conventions. the traditional English textbooks commonly used in Taiwanese high schools offered little explicit training in the rhetorical organization of texts. In terms of expository writing in their native language. exerts a signiﬁcant inﬂuence as a macrostructure for text analysis. phrase 516 TESOL QUARTERLY . The reading aids that commonly accompanied the reading passages in the traditional textbooks were phonetic transcription and a glossary of vocabulary. The Role of Rhetorical Conventions in Taiwanese High Schools In the past. Coverage of the rhetorical aspect of the reading was limited. Taiwanese students’ exposure to English reading and writing before they entered college focused more on the lexical and syntactic features of a passage than on its rhetorical conventions. Main ideas. EFL readers who predict a Chinese discourse structure may ﬁnd a mismatch between their expectations and the macrostructures (the organization of content and the sequence of ideas) presented in the Western text. Conversely. on the other hand. Consequently. vocabulary matching. might not be recognized as such due to their early presentation and thus may fail to facilitate comprehension. For the students who participated in this study. translation. Reading and writing exercises typically consisted of cloze. when competitive marketing of textbooks was introduced. a text written in the rhetorical structure common in Chinese—that is. according to conventions such as those of qi-cheng-zhuanhe —might facilitate recall for Chinese readers by providing them with familiar organizational macrostructures. This gap between the Chinese reader’s anticipation of text development and the text’s actual macrostrutures might result in lower comprehension and retention of an English text written in an English rhetorical structure. Their reading in Chinese. Most of the readings were written originally by native speakers of English but were adapted or edited to control for length and to simplify vocabulary and syntax. Until 1999. Chinese EFL readers could be at a disadvantage when reading English texts written by native speakers of English. Although reading formed the core component of these textbooks. exercises for reading passages emphasized word.comprehending a passage written with Western rhetorical conventions. for example. work with English language texts did not emphasize the macrostructures of those passages. qi-cheng-zhuan-he. and interpretation of idioms and phrases.
students in their senior year may well be able to process CULTURAL REPRESENTATIONS OF RHETORICAL CONVENTIONS 517 . Importantly for this study. the proportion of language skill courses decreases. such as The Norton Anthology of American Literature (Abrams. the freshmen’s exposure to authentic texts was much more limited than that of the seniors. Whether reading English texts in British or U. A key practice is the paraphrasing of classical texts into modern Chinese. 1996). students in this study developed robust text-structure schemata based on rhetorical conventions often found in Chinese writing. students must inevitably attend to the global structure of the text. After 3 years of such exposure. then. The readings are considerably longer and more demanding in content and style.substitution. Because this study was conducted while the freshmen were in their ﬁrst semester and the seniors in their seventh semester. questions on factual content. translation. the texts in linguistics and literature that English majors read in college are very different from those they read in high school English classes. in the retention and retrieval processes. such as the above-mentioned qi-cheng-zhuan-he. Possibly. In reading in Chinese. English majors such as those who participated in this study enroll in content courses in linguistics and English literature. and senior years. most courses focus on language skills. consciously or subconsciously. Regardless of grade level. exercises only rarely focused on the development of ideas and the discourse markers signaling the textual organization of those ideas. The English Major’s Literacy Experience at College in Taiwan In Taiwan. that have been compiled for native-English-speaking students. a few are introductory courses in linguistics and literature. To increase their reading speed and their ability to cope with large quantities of EFL reading. anthologies or Chinese translations of those texts. and content courses in linguistics and literature increase. As students move on to the sophomore. and essay questions on content. English majors must either resort to translations or shift their reading style to a more macrotextual level. Because text reproduction tasks require the construction of a text base. in which they use collections. English majors in Taiwan are reading information presented in English rhetorical structure. rhetorical structures play a signiﬁcant role in secondary school instruction. In the freshman year.S. these textbooks did not explicitly call students’ attention to rhetorical structures common in English writing. High school students’ courses in Chinese involve intensive reading of classical Chinese and memorization of classical texts as part of the literary tradition. junior. on the other hand.
1987. 1987) and Japanese (Hinds. to our knowledge no study has looked at both simultaneously. Chinese rhetorical structures found in the commonly used styles of expository texts contrast sharply with the rhetorical premises of Western writing. notably Korean (Eggington. focused more on language features than on the rhetorical aspects of English and included relatively limited access to extensive reading of naturally occurring English prose written by Western authors for Western readers. the impact of culture-speciﬁc rhetorical structures on the reading comprehension of Chinese students may be particularly profound for this type of writing. The freshmen had had at least 6 years of formal EFL language education in Taiwan. and half (102 females and 18 males) were from four senior classes. No research has ever been conducted to test that assumption. A total of 240 English majors at the same university participated in the main study on a voluntary basis in December 1998. 1992) as variables. Ricento. In contrast.1 This study examined the recall of readers at two different learning levels— freshmen and seniors—who read texts having identical content but representing two distinct. the seniors had had 3 years of extensive exposure to English texts written for native speakers of English in linguistics and 1 Work on the effects of rhetorical convention on reading comprehension has been done in other Asian languages. 1989). Consequently. 1991) and text structure (Carrell. which. as noted above. The study poses the following questions: (a) Does reading an L2 text that follows L1 rhetorical conventions affect EFL students’ recall and perceptions of the text differently from reading the same text in L2 conventions? (b) Do effects of rhetorical convention depend on the reader’s grade level? METHOD Participants To establish text selection criteria and choose suitable measurements for the main study. culture-speciﬁc rhetorical conventions. a private university in Taiwan. Although researchers have looked at language proﬁciency (Carrell. particularly if the passage in question is expository or presents the author’s point of view typical for a classical essay written in the style of qicheng-zhuan-he.these texts as efﬁciently as they can a text in Chinese rhetorical structure. Half of the participants (98 females and 22 males) were recruited from four freshman sections. we conducted a pilot study in June 1998 with freshman English majors at Providence University. 518 TESOL QUARTERLY .
Hsiao. see Chu. 1999. the seniors had not only greater L2 language proﬁciency than did the freshmen but also considerably more exposure to English rhetorical style. 1993b). The passages were judged as representative of qi-cheng-zhuan-he by seven professors in the Department of Chinese Literature at a private university in Taiwan. 1993c. All the passages (Hsiao. and the legal problems facing parents who wanted to start alternative schools in Taiwan (“Schooling”. The second author revised the passages to cue the organization of information in line with Western rhetorical conventions.literature courses. Hsiao. 1994) were editorials originally written in Chinese by a Chinese author and translated into English for the magazine.S. 137–159). Hsiao. Both ESL groups had had a formal Mandarin Chinese education with a focus on classical Chinese while in high school and college and thus had been exposed to a rich L1 environment with texts featuring traditional rhetorical conventions. 1993a. Materials Reading Passages Four passages in English that followed Chinese rhetorical conventions (hereafter C versions) were selected from a Taiwanese bilingual magazine and modiﬁed to conform to English rhetorical conventions (hereafter E versions). the crisis one charity hospital in Taiwan faced because nonindigent patients abused its resources (“Charity”. university. The E versions were developed in consultation with native-Englishspeaking faculty at a U. The sequencing principles were 1. The four passages dealt with sociological issues of contemporary Taiwanese society: the unintended consequences of childcare for mothers with careers (“Childcare”. then. 1993b. putting the topic or comment/thesis and argument at the beginning of the essay 2. gender issues for male nurses in Taiwan (“Male Nurses”. Presumably. putting background information about the topic at the beginning of the essay 3. Hsiao. 1993a). pp. Editorials were chosen because this genre tends to use conventions that reﬂect features of qi-cheng-zhuan-he. 1994). Revisions involved both the sequencing of textual chunks and the cueing of the ideas with discourse markers (for detailed descriptions of this process and the resultant texts. 1993c). modifying general statements so that the argument changed from inductive to deductive and was explicitly marked as such CULTURAL REPRESENTATIONS OF RHETORICAL CONVENTIONS 519 .
520 TESOL QUARTERLY . The Topic Assessment Questionnaire was designed as a text-independent assessment of the Chinese student readers’ interest in and familiarity with the topics of the four passages. In “Male Nurses” and “Schooling.0 to 11. Not surprisingly. 1969) ranging from 10. Although the passages were presented in English. Pronouns and demonstratives were inserted to increase syntactic cohesion. organization. familiarity. memorability. clarity of argument. the participants rated their interest and familiarity on separate 5-point Likert scales. With the passage titles serving as prompts. again with 1 the lowest and 5 the highest ranking. Free-recall tests were administered immediately after the participants read a passage and at a 1-week delay. these naturally occurring passages required different amounts of modiﬁcation to conform to English rhetorical conventions.” discourse connectors were added between most paragraphs and several sentences. we included a Passage factor in the data analysis to check for consistency of effects across passages. and received scores on the Bormuth Grade Level (Bormuth. comprehensibility. Questionnaires and Recall Measures Two questionnaires (see Appendix B) and two recall measures were employed in this study. 3.” changes were restricted largely to topical rearrangement. so they can be considered equivalent in their readability (see Table 1). The scores of the C and E versions of the passages differed only slightly (.In addition to textual chunks being rearranged.5.30) on this measure. As is common in studies involving textual passages. and rhetorical identity characteristic of Chinese or English usage). 2. concreteness. each on a 5-point Likert scale with 1 the most negative and 5 the most positive ranking. the resultant eight passages ranged between 486 and 558 words in length. The Passage Perception Questionnaire assessed participants’ judgments of eight features of the passages (content interest. Key terms were elaborated or reiterated in context for semantic cohesion. discourse markers explicitly linking local structures were added as follows: 1. Participants wrote their recall protocols in Chinese. In “Childcare” and “Charity. Time markers were inserted to show contrast between macropropositions. This check also allowed us to examine informally whether E versions that required more modiﬁcations produced effects similar to the others. Altogether.
with Rhetorical Convention (Chinese vs. Overall.5 19.3 4.5 5.0 22 11.3 E 558 2.3 4.” and “Schooling”) as between-subject factors.0 “Charity” C 486 2.3 “Male Nurses” C 531 2.759 8 28 3. the questionnaires and recall prompts were presented in Chinese to minimize possible confounding effects of language deﬁciencies (Lee.6 5.945 13 31 2. Each student read and responded to only two passages.971 14 29 2. reﬂecting the two rhetorical styles. with a total of 240 participants.1 16 10.0 17.5 “Schooling” C 555 2.1 13 10.3 17. The Passage variable compared results for the four passages to see if their content or other features made them harder or easier to read.8 4.9 5.6 Note.” “Charity.5 E 516 2. thus producing 24 passage-version pairs. then.TABLE 1 Readability of the Four Passages in Two Versions Passage “Childcare” Measure Words Characters Paragraphs Sentences Mean sentences per paragraph Mean words per sentence Mean characters per word Passive sentences (%) Bormuth Grade Level C 530 2. CULTURAL REPRESENTATIONS OF RHETORICAL CONVENTIONS 521 .1 E 586 2.5 5.9 13 10.0 22 11.9 7 10. which were randomly assigned to students within intact classes. seniors) and Passage (the four passages “Childcare.8 11 10. 1986). 30 participants at each grade level read each passage in either its Chinese or its English version. The four passages yielded eight texts because each appeared in two versions. E = English rhetorical version. Passage pairings were counterbalanced with rhetorical convention versions and passages. one in each rhetorical convention.3 E 542 2. Chinese and English.6 20.984 10 29 2. Design This study employed a 2 2 4 mixed factorial design.733 8 18 2.0 20 4. C = Chinese rhetorical version.433 13 27 2. Each passage-version pair was read by 5 freshmen and 5 seniors.663 6 18 3 28. English versions) as a within-subject factor and Grade Level (freshmen vs.7 11 10.2 29.” “Male Nurses.9 18.616 10 26 2.
In this way. although individual participants read only two of the four passages. only responses for the two passages that the participants had not read were subjected to statistical analysis. Further. then. 1986). and immediately wrote a free-recall response for 25 minutes. They were reminded orally to write as much as they could remember and to adhere as closely as possible to information in the passage.6 for immediate recall and . intraclass correlations between the two passages were . We adjusted the Passage variable statistically to account for a within-subject interclass correlation between any two of the four passages using the SAS Mixed Procedure so that the Passage could be assessed as a betweensubject factor.and delayed-recall tests. we administered the Topic Assessment Questionnaire at the end of the experiment. This decision reﬂects the fact that. between-subjects factor. The within-subject. The participants were instructed to write their free-recall responses in Chinese because writing in a foreign language may obscure evidence of comprehension or inhibit recall (Lee. The signiﬁcance level for all statistical analyses was set at p . with the passage removed. ﬁlled out a Passage Perception Questionnaire for 3 minutes. The dependent variables were (a) scores on the immediate. Procedure The study was conducted in two sessions either during regular class periods or at times scheduled by the researcher in 2 consecutive weeks. the participants had a maximum of 40 minutes to complete a delayed-recall test for each of the passages and then took 5 minutes to ﬁll out the Topic Assessment Questionnaire for each. to avoid having the interest and familiarity scores themselves confounded by participation in the experiment. (b) responses to the Passage Perception Questionnaire.Passage was designated as a four-level. we excluded responses for the passages that the participants had read. 522 TESOL QUARTERLY . they did so in 24 groupings that had 24 different pairings of the four passages. as suggested by Spyridakis and Wenger (1991). In the ﬁrst session. and (c) responses to the Topic Assessment Questionnaire.7 for delayed recall. This procedure was repeated for the second passage. One week later. Rather than pretesting for interest and familiarity. all of which were counterbalanced with the order of passage topics and the order of rhetorical conventions.05. we eliminated the chance that the questionnaire would prime content knowledge or a textual schema and thus enhance comprehension or recall. each participant read the ﬁrst passage for 15 minutes.
CULTURAL REPRESENTATIONS OF RHETORICAL CONVENTIONS 523 . First. Hence. E version 119). and ANCOVA was performed on immediate recall and delayed recall. consequently. a second native speaker of Chinese scored 20 randomly selected recall protocols. “Schooling”: C version 117. and independence—were met based on the following observations. in other words. we assumed that the dependent variables.. The number of resulting pausal units for the eight passages ranged from 110 to 129 units (“Childcare”: C version 122. First. E version 120. Assumptions and Analyses Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) were employed in this study. treatment of possessives) made a larger unit more natural in Chinese. two native English speakers read the eight passages aloud to themselves and marked the boundaries of semantic units. “Male Nurses”: C version 121. no partial credit was given. Students at each grade level were from a homogeneous background. The ﬁrst author of this study.95 for the delayed-recall test.Scoring of Recall Protocols The recall protocols were scored using a pausal unit system developed by Johnson (1970) and validated by Bernhardt (1991). homogeneity of variance. ANOVA was performed on each of the eight passage perceptions. Recall scores were reported as the proportion of total pausal units recalled for each passage. homogeneity of variance. the dependent variables were analyzed separately. Second.96 for the immediaterecall test and . The mean Pearson product-moment coefﬁcient was . a native speaker of Mandarin Chinese. To establish reliability. They chose the narrower unit in all cases except when a larger unit corresponded naturally to a common fourcharacter Chinese idiom or when speciﬁc syntactic or morphological language differences (e. had a normal distribution within each group and. For the third assumption. “Charity”: C version 110. respectively. E version 129. and recall data were taken independently from each participant to ensure independent sampling. and the sample size was large. Care was taken to ensure consistency between the corresponding units in the C and E versions of each passage. We expected that the three assumptions of ANOVA and ANCOVA analyses—normality. Two native Chinese speakers ﬂuent in English followed Johnson’s procedures for resolving discrepancies in unit identiﬁcation. eight passage perceptions and two types of recall. scored student recall protocols for the presence or absence of each unit. the participants were randomly sampled and randomly assigned to groups and the questionnaire. independence. the following design features and analysis procedures were observed. E version 126.g.
Both Rhetorical Convention and Grade Level signiﬁcantly inﬂuenced the participants’ recall (see Table 2). we entered these ﬁve perception scores as covariates in subsequent analyses of the recall data.22 for the immediaterecall model and 58. respectively) on the immediate-recall test.0001 level. comprehensibility. p .0001 (see Appendix D). respectively) across rhetorical conventions. therefore. seniors again recalled a much higher average score than freshmen (adjusted mean percentage = 25. Overall.0001. To control for variance in recalls due to difference in passage perceptions. and organization— showed signiﬁcant effects of Passage (see Appendix C).57.221) = 31.11.13 to . and Grade Level on each of the eight perceptions. Therefore. familiarity.238) = 62.6.94. all ﬁve perception variables were judged relevant. students also recalled a signiﬁcantly higher percentage of pausal units in the C versions than in the E versions (adjusted mean percentage = 23.0001. Both are statistically signiﬁcant at the . RESULTS Recall Measures The likelihood ratio chi-square values are 41. We did not adjust the signiﬁcance level because these were all planned comparisons and subsequent correlational analyses served as a check on reliability.24. p .1 and 19.4 and 28.2 and 25. 221) = 39. A three-way ANCOVA mixed procedure was then performed on immediate. Five perceptions— interest.6. The correlation matrix for ﬁve perception variables was checked to avoid the inclusion of redundant variables in ANCOVAs.71. respectively) in the immediate-recall test.A three-way ANOVA mixed procedure was ﬁrst performed on the responses to each of the eight items on the Passage Perception Questionnaire to test the effect of Passage. F (1. F (1.1 and 17. respectively). 238) = 72.0001 (see Appendix D). F (1. F (1.2. The results show correlations among variables ranging from .and delayed-recall scores with the ﬁve perception scores entered as covariates (see Appendix D). at both test intervals. On the delayed-recall test. 524 TESOL QUARTERLY . Seniors recalled signiﬁcantly more than freshmen did (adjusted mean percentage = 35. students recalled signiﬁcantly more of the passages in the C versions than in the E versions (adjusted mean percentage = 32. students remembered more of an English passage when it followed Chinese rhetorical conventions. indicating weak correlations among covariate variables. grade level also inﬂuenced recall.4. Rhetorical Convention. memorability. As expected. p . On the delayed test. p .53 for the delayed-recall model. In other words.
respectively. 5. perceived memorability.9 37. For seniors.6 22. however. Apparently the seniors. as shown in Table 2.45 31.5. a signiﬁcant interaction between Rhetorical Convention and Grade Level emerged.78 .68 . Accordingly. perceived familiarity. Both freshmen and seniors scored substantially higher in recall of C versions than of E versions (adjusted mean percentage = 26. for freshmen.9 and 23.11 126.96.36.199 .55 Delayed recall 16. the recall test may have proved so difﬁcult for freshmen that any advantage of reading a text with familiar Chinese rhetorical conventions was lost.2 . the effect size is a mean percentage of 3. F (1.6 27.0049 .1 Immediate recall . who had initially recalled more detail (presumably on the CULTURAL REPRESENTATIONS OF RHETORICAL CONVENTIONS 525 . a N = 120.6 19.0 for freshmen and 5. remained largely the same as that for immediate recall.78 .0001 Note.84 36.96 32.55 8.0001 .9 . bN = 240.TABLE 2 Immediate-Recall and Delayed-Recall Scores by Rhetorical Convention and Grade Level Passage version Chinese Grade level Adjusted mean % SE English Adjusted mean % SE F(1.0. The senior effect size. for seniors.5 . 37. adjusted by within-subject correlation and by effects of ﬁve covariates: perceived interest. perceived comprehensibility. 221) = 7. For the delayed-recall measure. and perceived organization. Scores are mean percentages of total pausal units recalled for each passage.01 (see Appendix D). p .0186 . see Table 2 and Appendix D). Overall. Although the superiority of C-version scores held for both freshmen and seniors. respectively.68 28. these results suggest that English rhetorical conventions were relatively unfamiliar to both freshmen and seniors.96 23.6 .94 .0001 .8 32.4 18.3 for seniors in immediate recall.0 percentage points in immediate recall to 1.9. 221) p Freshmana Seniora Both levelsb Freshmana Seniora Both levelsb 26. the effect size for freshmen dropped from 3.6 23.8 and 32.62 38. As for the diminished effect size on freshmen after a delay.78 .96 .0001 . higher language proﬁciency in the L2 did not result in a proportionately higher level of long-term retention of texts in the L2 rhetorical convention.78 .07 25. No signiﬁcant interaction between Rhetorical Convention and Grade Level emerged for immediate recall.
1008 .01 2.0038 .” Predictably.5 1.9 1. “Childcare” and “Charity” might be expected to show greater effects for Rhetorical Convention. the passages “Childcare” and “Charity” needed more extensive insertion of cohesive devices (discourse markers) and reorganization than did “Male Nurses” and “Schooling. a For each passage.59 10.7840 .4 22.3 30.31 28. a passage may be so easy or so hard that the familiar rhetorical conventions can have no additional effect.02 1. Although Passage did not produce a main effect on recall at either test interval. 526 TESOL QUARTERLY .72 14.28 24. 221) p “Childcare” “Charity” “Male Nurses” “Schooling” “Childcare” “Charity” “Male Nurses” “Schooling” 31.0015 .01 1.03 1. these differences do not reach statistical signiﬁcance. p . In the effort to modify texts so that they would seem natural for native speakers of English.01 1.2 18. an interaction of Passage and Rhetorical Convention was signiﬁcant for immediate recall.31 1.0002 . comprehensibility. lost an equivalent amount of detail in the delayed recalls for both the C and the E versions.4 33.34 0.69 .30 1.04 1.29 30.basis of their greater language proﬁciency). further comparisons on Rhetorical Convention for the four passages on immediate and delayed recalls and the three text perceptions concreteness.3 20. 221) = 4. These results indicate that familiar rhetorical conventions offer no guarantee that comprehension will improve.9 1. and memorability.48 23. However.0001 .5 24. Further comparisons on Rhetorical Convention for the four passages show that only the passages “Charity” and “Male Nurses” produced signiﬁcantly greater differences between the C and E versions (see Table 3).29 1.30 1.02 1.56 1. as shown in the following section.6 1. See note to Table 2. although students appeared to recall more units for the C than for the E versions.4 21.41 8.4 1.7 20.08 2.1946 Note. F (3.29 28. N = 120.01 (see Appendix D).1165 . then. did not bear out these predictions.3 34. Modiﬁcation had an impact on “Charity” but not on TABLE 3 Immediate-Recall and Delayed-Recall Scores by Rhetorical Convention and Passage Version Chinese Passagea Adjusted mean % SE English Adjusted mean % SE F(1.3 Immediate recall 1.06. For the “Childcare” and “Schooling” passages.1 24.01 Delayed recall 19.
As noted in the Assumptions and Analyses section.g.01.1. p 01. Passage Perception Questionnaire The likelihood ratio chi-square values for the eight perception variables were signiﬁcant except for the value for Rhetorical Convention. the students. comparison-contrast or cause-effect) typically found more readable by both L1 (Meyer & Freedle. organization.3 and 3. As in the immediate-recall results. 226) = 3. 226) = 3. memorability. even for items that related directly to text organization—clarity of argument. 226) = 4. .4.6.5. . Students gave identical scores (average = 3. within-subject intraclass correlations accounted for in the eight ANOVAs were interest. F (3. and rhetorical identity . and memorability. 1984) from Western countries. p . comprehensibility.6. p . 1984) and L2 students (Carrell.5. then. . students recalled more about texts in which the thematic focus appeared midway or later in the text and in which logical relationships were linked implicitly rather than expressed explicitly in organizational patterns (e. . none of whom had an opportunity to compare two versions of a single passage. clarity of argument.79.“Childcare. ﬁve of the eight perceptions reﬂected an inﬂuence from Passage and were used as covariates in analyses of recall (see Appendix C). .6. respectively) whereas senior subjects did not perceive a signiﬁcant difference (M = 3. text organization. .5. familiarity. F (3. concreteness. Three passage perception items did show an interactive effect of Rhetorical Convention and Passage: concreteness. were the key readability factors. F(3. 226) = 5.2 Only one perception rating.01 (Appendix C).4 and 3.” These ﬁndings suggest that modiﬁcation for local cohesion did not have an effect on the recall and text perceptions of Chinese EFL readers. 2 For the Passage Perception Questionnaire.28. comprehensibility. Further comparisons on rhetorical convention for the two grade levels showed that freshmen found texts reﬂecting Chinese rhetorical conventions more memorable than passages modiﬁed to represent English rhetorical conventions (M = 3.96. p . In other words. and rhetorical identity—showed main effects of Rhetorical Convention or of Grade Level. memorability. The changed location of topics and subtopics—macrostructures—not the insertion of local cohesion features.4. None of the passage perception scores. Apparently. CULTURAL REPRESENTATIONS OF RHETORICAL CONVENTIONS 527 .1) for both versions when asked if the structure or organization of the passage they had read was more typical of Chinese writing or English writing style.5.19. F (1. . did not perceive rhetorical differences between the C and the E versions. respectively).05 (Appendix C).. reﬂected an interactive effect for Rhetorical Convention and Grade Level.
05).” they do not gain an advantage from familiar Chinese rhetorical conventions.further comparisons on Rhetorical Convention for the four passages indicate that the passages “Charity” and “Male Nurses” produced the most reliable effects due to Rhetorical Convention.” “Childcare” and “Schooling” scored signiﬁcantly higher than “Charity” and “Male Nurses” on interest—combined M = 3. respectively.86. “Charity” and “Male Nurses. p . see Chu. F = 6. In other words.24. students rated the C version signiﬁcantly higher for concreteness (M = 4.” The results of the Topic Assessment Questionnaire were used in a follow-up analysis of the differences among the passages. These results suggest that when students perceive topics as interesting and familiar.78.) Topic Assessment Questionnaire The results of the recall measures and the passage perception analyses are consistent. students seem to have more difﬁculty coping with English rhetorical conventions when the topic of the passage is less interesting and familiar to them. The Topic Assessment Questionnaire asked participants to assess the interest and familiarity of the topics of the passages based on the title of the passage alone. For this analysis. As such.4. For the “Charity” passage. p .4.50.7 and 3. p . comprehensibility (M = 3.5. F = 8.5. F (1. respectively.0001. the topic items are independent of the content of the passage and indicate the readers’ baseline reactions to the general topics.3 and 2. Students recalled more from the C versions than from the E versions of two passages. F = 6. respectively. p .9. 226) = 25.05. For the “Male Nurses” passages. F (1. 89–108. F = 3.05) and memorability (M = 3. respectively.3.” and they rated these passages more highly on concreteness and memorability than the other two passages.7 and 3.9 versus 3.05). p . (For a discussion of topic effects as measured by readers’ perceptions of a passage. and memorability (M = 3. respectively.05). the preferences for the C versions of these passages correspond to the signiﬁcant effects of rhetorical convention on immediate recall.4. p . The “Childcare” and “Schooling” topics were rated as signiﬁcantly more interesting and more familiar than the “Charity” and “Male Nurses” topics. pp. Overall. F = 6. p . students’ ratings were signiﬁcantly higher for the C version than for the E version on concreteness (M = 3.9 versus 2.05). 226) = 42.8 and 3.0001—and on familiarity—combined M = 2.0 and 3. we combined scores for the topics “Charity” and “Male Nurses” and for the topics “Childcare” and “Schooling. 1999.50. 528 TESOL QUARTERLY . as the students in this study perceived “Childcare” and “Schooling. “Childcare” and “Schooling.20.
the ﬁndings in this study are inconsistent with that assumption.and microfeatures of texts written in the style of alternative. In a similarly indirect way. (1980). If. especially if those texts are written according to the rhetorical norms of different cultures. both of which revealed that. texts written in Oriental rhetorical structure yielded signiﬁcantly greater reading recall than did texts written in Western rhetorical structure. Indirectly. That inﬂuence apparently obscures macro. the ﬁndings of this study disconﬁrm Mohan and Lo’s (1985) speculation that EFL students’ problems in organizing writing in both the L1 and the L2 are attributable to cognitive development rather than to interference from L1 practice or cultural expectations. for Oriental readers. inhibiting their comprehension by Chinese speakers. macrostructures may also affect the way these readers process and reconstruct texts. Although the comprehension of seniors was higher overall. and a pedagogical focus on the microfeatures of English texts for freshmen. these readers’ own familiar text structure exerts an inﬂuence when they read an English text written according to Western conventions. on the other.DISCUSSION Effects of Rhetorical Conventions The EFL students in this study recalled a signiﬁcantly larger percentage of text units from the four English texts written in Chinese rhetorical convention than they did from the four parallel texts written in English rhetorical convention in both immediate recall and delayed recall. This result suggests a robust inﬂuence from an unfamiliar rhetorical convention on foreign language reading comprehension. the results of this study also correspond to Young’s (1982) ﬁndings that Chinese oral discourse structure posed a problem for the listening comprehension of native English speakers. on the one hand. However. unfamiliar rhetorical conventions. as cognitively more mature students. Parallel ﬁndings for spoken as well as written conventions suggest that. as a result of years of exposure to the conventions of Chinese rhetoric. they would presumably have been more adept in using both L1 and L2 rhetorical conventions than would cognitively less mature freshmen participants—an L1 ﬁnding of Meyer et al. Further. the seniors in this study should have developed more skills than freshmen in recognizing differences in rhetorical practice. negative transfer of L1 rhetorical convention seemed to affect reading recall in the L2 to a CULTURAL REPRESENTATIONS OF RHETORICAL CONVENTIONS 529 . rhetorical convention as a characteristic cultural artifact is deeply rooted in many Chinese readers’ schemata of how a text is structured. If such conjecture were the case. The ﬁndings therefore correspond to those of Hinds (1984) and Eggington (1987). as argued in this study.
Given the facilitating effects of familiar rhetorical conventions in the recall and retention of texts about topics deemed unfamiliar by their readers. Cziko. 1980. Senior students may be able to create a more robust macrostructure during the reading process and retain a more powerful retrieval structure thereafter than freshmen readers can. although student recall reﬂected the impact of rhetorical convention. On the other hand. Meyer & Freedle. Carrell’s (1984) suggestion that most ESL students. 1984. 1984. readers could not distinguish between the rhetorical orientations of the texts. concreteness. 1980. This ﬁnding poses several intriguing questions: Do rhetorical structures inﬂuence comprehension at a level of automaticity? And would training in metalinguistic strategies improve that comprehension? If so. as results from recall data in this study demonstrate. 1978.similarly signiﬁcant degree regardless of the participants’ distinctly different developmental stages. 1988). a familiar rhetorical convention aids in comprehending texts. van Dijk & Kintsch. the results of this study support and extend the conclusions made in L1 reading studies (Meyer et al. 1984. that readers capable of using text-based logical structures comprehended texts better than those who did not. In this sense. If. A reasonable inference from these ﬁndings is that unfamiliar rhetorical conventions interfere with an L2 reader’s comprehension just as they do with an L1 reader’s comprehension. The fact that effects of rhetorical convention held over time for seniors whereas the effects for freshmen declined slightly in delayed recall suggests that the sustaining of effects of rhetorical convention over time may correspond positively to language proﬁciency (Carrell. memorability. The EFL participants in this study did not perceive an overall difference between texts using two distinctly different rhetorical conventions. 530 TESOL QUARTERLY . That ﬁnding suggests that perception and cognition may be working at two different levels. Further. 1987. as well as in L2 reading studies (Carrell. 1990).. 1991). Tian. and rhetorical identity) revealed that readers were not conscious of these strategies. and comprehensibility) and texts’ form (in terms of thematic clarity. familiarity. 1983). Hudson. the more they activate higher level processing (Cooper. the ﬁndings also substantiate the conclusion that preferred rhetorical patterns of native languages seem to interfere with ESL readers’ retention of English texts. then it follows that students might proﬁt from practice in identifying rhetorical structures unfamiliar to them. may not possess the appropriate formal schemata to identify rhetorical organization of an English text should be considered in a pedagogical light. Such a conclusion is supported by the work of L2 researchers who have found that the higher the language proﬁciency of readers. particularly non-Europeans. Devine. data on readers’ perceptions about the texts’ content (in terms of interest. organization.
The fact that topics rated lower in familiarity and interest show a rhetorical convention effect supports the proposals by Carrell (1987) and Roller (1990) that prior knowledge may interact with the effect of text structure. In these studies. they perceive the C and E versions as equally memorable. 1984). Conceivably. & Coté. the seniors rated texts in both conventions as equally memorable. IMPLICATIONS Future Research The caveats for this study suggest several avenues for replication and additional research. Stanovich’s (1980) interactive-compensatory model. On the other hand.Whereas the freshmen perceived texts written in Chinese rhetorical convention as more memorable than those written in English rhetorical convention. Such indices were corroborated by the recall data because they correspond to the dimensions of familiarity and interest. Saul. 1995. as a result. no matter what rhetorical convention they are written in. which proposes that deﬁcits in one skill may interfere with or lead to greater dependence on other processing skills. With regard to linguistic and cultural differences. text variables were found to inﬂuence comprehension only when readers read texts for which their familiarity and prior knowledge were low. Salager-Meyer. This null result for the more proﬁcient readers suggests that when readers understand much of the textual message. might explain why we found no signiﬁcant effects for students who read materials with more familiar content but less familiar rhetorical organization. Reader Factors Mediating the Effect of Rhetorical Convention In conjunction with the signiﬁcant impact for rhetorical conventions that reﬂect different cultural traditions. Further. text structure became more important when readers lacked appropriate content schemata and. the present study was a one-way street comparing the effect of Chinese CULTURAL REPRESENTATIONS OF RHETORICAL CONVENTIONS 531 . they became more dependent on rhetorical cues to construct meaning. as was the case for freshman readers. these results echo studies assessing the relative effect of familiarity/ knowledge and text features on comprehension (Goldman. Schnotz. this study’s ﬁndings also suggest that rhetorical convention may have a more signiﬁcant effect only when readers report signiﬁcantly lower interest in and familiarity with the topic. 1994. when comprehension is less successful. information conveyed in a familiar rhetorical convention apparently promotes the perception of memorability in readers.
rhetorical conventions on speakers of Chinese. ﬁctional prose. Our ﬁndings support philosophical and psycholinguistic claims that readability is anchored in cultural expectations rather than universally normed cognitive ones. Experts in discourse analysis might make other.g. Gulgoz. based on human cognitive capabilities that are regionally conditioned rather than ontologically given. Van Dusen. These theorists suggest that what many in literary criticism now refer to as a reader’s horizon of expectation (Jauss. Because the subjects in this study were all English majors and predominantly women. Britton. future work might explore effects on students in other subject areas or on male readers. A study of these same effects on speakers of English would show whether these ﬁndings hold across cultures. rhetorical changes in other Chinese texts made along the lines suggested here would yield different results. 1973). Further. 29). more reliable revisions or characterize differences in rhetorical conventions in different ways (e. Chinese speakers not from Taiwan might respond differently to contrasting rhetorical use. The responses of other language groups reading English as an L2 would conﬁrm or disconﬁrm the conclusion presented here that mental representations of textual rhetoric seem to be culturally conditioned. In that sense. several possibilities remain to be conﬁrmed or disconﬁrmed. If Western rhetorical conventions are viewed as cultural phenomena rather than as absolute norms for readability that are hardwired in 532 TESOL QUARTERLY . & Loxterman. points to the need to teach cultural expectations related to the rhetorical structures that seem to inﬂuence reading recall. Further. it would be useful to know whether similar effects hold for different genres. and drama. in conjunction with those cited earlier in this article. 1989). culturally conditioned ideas about the content and the presentational structures of a text inﬂuence their capacity to understand that text (Ingarden. As Kintsch (1998) elucidates. This study. “Cultural needs drive the unfolding of mental representations” (p. Rhetorical Structure and Cultural Thought Processes in the Classroom Phenomenological thinkers have long held that readers’ preexistent. Sinatra. 1982) is a cultural phenomenon. Possibly. Because the reading passages and their counterpart revisions are central to the ﬁndings in this study.. such as poetry. McKeown. 1991. the ﬁndings support recent initiatives in Taiwan and ESL/EFL education elsewhere that stress recognition of main ideas and discursive features of texts. Beck. & Glynn.
We thank Providence University colleagues for their support and assistance in facilitating this study. If recall is a measure. For comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of this article. we thank Chun-chi Chen.. These skills help students not only re-create but also articulate the messages of texts. and distinguish between direct and less direct modes of expression. will help ESL researchers and teachers develop more deﬁnitive models for characterizing differences in rhetorical conventions by culture and genre. 1991) might prove useful in facilitating retention of information. more than training in recognition of main ideas and discursive features may be necessary. CULTURAL REPRESENTATIONS OF RHETORICAL CONVENTIONS 533 . & Byrnes. Kern. this study adds to a growing body of evidence for teaching those conventions. however. Over time. and the third author primarily to its statistical design and analyses. Swaffar. Suyueh Huang. Chiou-lan Chern.the brain. Diane Schallert. Marilla Svinicki. the pedagogical implications of ongoing work in contrastive discourse analysis. represented in journals such as Discourse and Society. Especially in an age of global communication. whether they realized it or not. The latter contributed primarily to this paper’s theoretical design and its discourse. techniques for teaching them to apply those macrostructures in holistic text base reconstruction (e. Pei-chi Chen.g. which was supervised by the second author. such work would involve locating the main idea in both native and target language passages. Students might then compare the placement of chief arguments or examples in the two texts. Rather than identifying the main idea of only a single passage. 2000. David Wright. Once ESL/EFL readers recognize differences in rhetorical structure. It behooves us in the TESOL ﬁeld to keep abreast of these developments and to recognize the signiﬁcance of their implications for reading recall. and two anonymous readers. Our study suggests that an essential ﬁrst step may be to spend classroom time having students learn to distinguish between different rhetorical styles. Awareness of such differences would help readers develop metalinguistic strategies to adjust their expectations about textual messages. in texts chosen for their differences in this regard. Arens. To teach culturally unfamiliar rhetorical practices. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This article is drawn from the PhD dissertation of the ﬁrst author. the ability to use the rhetorical conventions of another language may be a signiﬁcant factor in successful exchange of ideas. readers’ expectations in this study were inﬂuenced by rhetorical convention.
THE AUTHORS Hsi-chin Janet Chu is an associate professor in the Department of English Language. 461–481.. 20. 226–239. The effects of structural variation on children’s recall of basal reader stories. S. (1987).. TESOL Quarterly. J.. The effects of rhetorical organization on ESL readers. G. Britton. 159–179.). J. M. Barnitz. T. Carrell. TESOL Quarterly. and Linguistics at Providence University.. Awareness of text structure: Effects on recall. College Composition and Communication. (1986). 18. Norwood. Instructional texts rewritten by ﬁve expert teams: Revisions and retention improvements. TEFL methodology. 251–276. Carrell. P. 21. (1996). B. On the love of lotus. Toward understanding the effects of cross-cultural schemata and discourse structure on second language reading comprehension. (1984). L. Reading development in a second language. G. B. S. Sinatra. In Chinese Textbook Compilation & Review 534 TESOL QUARTERLY . Reading Research Quarterly. (1991). Unpublished master’s thesis. Burnaby. Carrell. 12. (1991). (1998). Chen. K. L. Argumentative discourse structure in Chinese and English writing: A comparative analysis. H. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. British Columbia. 358–365. (1998). 81. P. Her research emphasis has been on reading as an integrated component of language learning. Brennan.. Beck.. A. Literature. 21. Connie. NJ: Ablex. Canada. P. 18. (1991). (1969). & Loxterman. L. L. Carrell. Carrell. & Glynn. B. Journal of Reading Behavior. N. 441–469. (Ed. & Wise. S. Bormuth. Chou.). Gulgoz. Bernhardt. Journal of Educational Psychology. Factor validity of cloze tests as measures of reading comprehension ability. 42. (1992). Simon Fraser University. L. and Research in the Teaching of English. P. The Norton anthology of English literature (6th ed. M. Janet Swaffar teaches German language and literature with special attention to 20thcentury German culture and the reading of texts in all media. 91–101. (1986). 1–20. McKeown. New York: W. L.. Content and formal schema in ESL reading. She writes about ways to anchor language acquisition by having students apply the discourse and intentionalities they ﬁnd expressed in a variety of texts to address cultural differences and similarities. Van Dusen.. 26. The relationship between prior knowledge and topic interest in second language reading. M. 4. 95–116. Reading Research Quarterly. E. Reading Research Quarterly. Davida Charney is a professor in the Division of Rhetoric and Composition at the University of Texas at Austin. Technical Comunication Quarterly. L. (1986). I. and teacher education. J. R.-Y. W. Revising social studies text from a text-processing perspective: Evidence of improved comprehensibility. Journal of Business and Technical Communication. Her teaching and research interests include EFL reading.. 285–309. Norton. G. Second language reading: Reading ability or language proﬁciency? Applied Linguistics. A. REFERENCES Abrams. Her research has appeared in Written Communication. D. T. P. M. A. Language Learning. (1989). E. P. & Winograd.
Hinds. Eskey (Eds. In U. CA: Addison-Wesley. Toward an aesthetic of reception. Newell. Jauss. Menlo Park. E. Retention of information using a Japanese style of presentation. The effects of culture-speciﬁc rhetorical conventions on the L2 reading recall of Chinese students. 473–489. J. 3. Hsiao. P. 273–305. Linguistic competence of practiced and unpracticed non-native readers of English. The effects of induce schemata on the “short circuit” in L2 reading: Non-decoding factors in L2 reading performance. (1998). Hsiao. and education (pp. Brewer (Eds). Modern Language Journal. (1978). The Rhetoric Society Quarterly. U. (Eds. 197–205. 8. Connor & R. (1999). C. R. March 1). Research in reading in English as a second language (pp. Washington. E. Essex. 75–87). 122–135). J. N. Compassion ﬁnd joy in giving (P.. Goldman. linguistics. Carrell. H. DC: TESOL. CULTURAL REPRESENTATIONS OF RHETORICAL CONVENTIONS 535 . University of Texas at Austin. Cziko. Trans. Crowley & K. In J. B. The short circuit hypothesis of ESL reading—or when language competence interferes with reading performance. Bring back the tourists (P.). S. (1979). In J. In U. (1987). 19. C. Connor & R.). (1980). Evanston. 136–149. A. Taiwan: National Institute for Compilation and Translation. S. Language Learning. & Coté. Urquhart (Eds. (1984). S. Language Learning. Cziko. 30. Hillsdale. & Armbruster. (1987). T..). Cooper. S. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Taipei. Language competence and reading strategies: A comparison of ﬁrst and second language oral reading errors. (1973). Cummins. II (pp. Written academic discourse in Korean: Implications for effective communication. Hsiao. Bertram. Standard high school Chinese textbook. (1982). 203–209. 141–152). Jensen. 2–3. G. Ingarden. (1993b. G. (1993a. Trans. Difference in ﬁrst and second language reading: The use of syntactic. Sinorama Magazine. J. artiﬁcial intelligence. (1994. Discourse Processes. Teaching East Asian rhetoric. J. Psychological correlates of text structure. 201–220). England: Longman. Difﬁculties and hard work (R. Trans. A. semantic and discourse constraints. Devine. Taylor. July 1). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. Menlo Park. Clarke. Kaplan (Eds. Cognitive/academic language proﬁciency. M.) Sinorama Magazine. Sinorama Magazine. & W. (1988). R. H. Olson. Trans. Kaplan. Theoretical issues in reading comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive psychology. linguistic interdependence.). Reading in a foreign language (pp. F. 52–53). (1993c. E. Goetz. Paragraphing. Hudson. A. V. 141–152). Formosa today (P. Eggington. (1980). October 1). the optimum age question and some other matters. S. L. 18.). Hsiao. Writing across language: Analysis of L2 text (pp. General language competence and adult second language reading. S. M. 1–31. Devine.). 2–3. (1980). W. NJ: Erlbaum. 32. Hinds. reader. 101–116.Committee (Eds.). B. 20. and task effects on discourse comprehension. The cognition of the literary work of art (R.). June 1).). Trans. 34. J. G. 45–69. Alderson & A.. & D. In J. Saul. (1995). Sinorama Magazine. J.. Writing across language: Analysis of L2 text (pp. R. Newell. (1987). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Studies in Language. 3. Working Papers on Bilingualism. Newell. CA: Addison-Wesley. H. R. T. (1984). IL: Northwestern University Press. 64. The Canadian Modern Language Review. B. Chu. Rand.
Culture and argumentative writing in world Englishes. 25. (2000). (1995). Use of top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. M. Forman (Eds). Reading Research Quarterly. Oxford: Oxford University Press. W. 121–143. D. Towards an interactive model of reading. In S. F. F. 17. Kintsch. Ricento. (1979). Recall of prose as a function of the structural importance of the linguistic units.. Rumelhart. TESOL Quarterly. The interaction between knowledge and structure variables in the processing of expository prose. Raymond. R. 54. 271–295. & Freedle. J. B. Taiwan: Shan-wu.. 16. 1–20. Taipei. American Educational Research Journal. Language Learning. 19. Englewood Cliffs. L. Mohan. Background knowledge and L2 reading. (1985). Dornic (Ed. R. 21. 120–146. J. E. 49–72. New York: Cambridge University Press. Roller. Journal of Research in Reading. Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. J. Spyridakis. Mead. M. & Bluth. (1998). (1970). 12–20. Learning and comprehension of text (pp. NJ: Erlbaum. The effects of structure strategy training on the recall of expository prose for university students reading French as a second language. In H. Sun. (1982). G. The Modern Language Journal. Kachru. 4. Sein. J. Attention and performance (Vol. Chinese rhetoric: Methods of argument. & Lo. Arens. (1980). Lee. Reading medical English abstracts: A genre study of the interaction between structural variables and the reader’s linguistico-conceptual competence (L2). Hillsdale. 149. 72–103.. K. H. Issues and Developments in English and Applied Linguistics. (1977). B. 350–354. 77. K. New York: Walker. 16. World English 2000 (pp. Reading for meaning: An integrated approach to language learning. Kaplan. Chung kuo wen shuei tung lun [General introduction to Chinese literature] (L.Johnson. & T. Academic writing and Chinese student: Transfer and developmental factors. M. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. H. Kirkpatrick. (1986). Margaret Mead: Some personal views (pp. W. 48–67). Salager-Meyer. 51–67. Hillsdale. (1991). Comparative instructional text organization. Trabasso (Eds.. Literacy and language teaching. Normant. Brandt. Trans. (1989). D. 353–360. B. 9. 74. J. 16. An analysis of the rhetorical structure of English and Japanese editorials. 53–75). Kern. W. (1986). Smith & R. & Wenger. F. Bateson & R. Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading ﬂuency. Organizational structure of Chinese subjects writing in Chinese and in ESL. Role of rhetorical structure in text comprehension. (1984). 21(3).). pp. N. Schnotz. In L.. Mandle. Journal of Verbal Learning and Behavior. F. M. A. Meyer. J. Metraux (Eds). K. Y. 445–458. Multilingua. (1991). Swaffar. Kintsch. Reading Research Quarterly. (1998). Kojima. (1972). NJ: Prentice Hall. NJ: Erlbaum. B. (1990). R. Effects of discourse type on recall.. An empirical method of assessing topic familiarity in reading comprehension research. & Byrnes. P. C. R. (1993). - 536 TESOL QUARTERLY . (1994). (1980). Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association. & Yarbrough.). 6. J.). O. Reading Research Quarterly. N. Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education.. T. W. 79–89. M. C. J. E.. (1966). E. 515–532. 17. 823–834. A. (1984). 167–170). The Modern Language Journal. Stanovich. Meyer. R. K. Journal of Educational Psychology. British Educational Research Journal. Are men more creative than women? In M. 32–71. 537–603).
In R. the writer states three options for thinking about gender and creativity. CULTURAL REPRESENTATIONS OF RHETORICAL CONVENTIONS 537 . in traditional Chinese writing. L. III. many are very lovely. Pearson (Eds. It is best to appreciate it from a distance but not to lay a hand on it. If this were the case. Kamil. Strategies of discourse comprehension. In Western writing. Chrysanthemum. (1983). Tao Yuanming in Chin Dynasty favors chrysanthemum. Inscrutability revisited. countless people. worldly people favor the peony. (Mead.) The third possible position is that certain forms of creativity are more congenial to one sex than to the other and that the great creative acts will therefore come from only one sex in a given ﬁeld. Mosenthal. C. W. pp. the hermit of the ﬂowers. (1991). The effects of rhetorical organization in expository prose on ESL readers in Singapore. 72–85). then if men were permitted the enjoyment women have always had in rearing young children. Wenzhang jiegouxue [The structure of text]. APPENDIX A Rhetorical Conventions in Western Expository Style and Qi-Cheng-Zhuan-He Texts A and B illustrate respectively the characteristics of Western expository style and of qicheng-zhuan-he with regard to (a) where the topic sentence is located. but is not stained by mud and it is washed by the water and does not appear sensual. Y. (1990). (Chou. White Plains. suggesting a thesis in an oblique reference is favored in order to leave the reader room for reﬂection (Chou’s “I favor the lotus”—a metaphoric reference to that which is unstained and pure). 52–53. 2. NY: Longman. & Kintsch. van Dijk. Gumperz (Ed.. pp. L. Language and social identity (pp. females would be as creative as males. The second is that if it were not for the greater appeal of creating and cherishing young human beings. Barr. In Text B. (c) whether or not discourse cues render explicit the hierarchy and relationships of ideas. translated by the ﬁrst author) Analysis Readers unfamiliar with the rhetorical conventions of qi-cheng-zhuan-he may not have concluded what for most Chinese readers will be self-evident—namely. that Text B is a meditation on the relative merits of aesthetic concerns and material wealth. The farther the fragrance spreads. the opulent of the ﬂowers. 21(2). T. In J. & P. Wu. Beijing. and (d) whether explicit conclusions are drawn based on the foregoing. It is straight. Young. pp. P. peony. I would say this. (b) how subsets of information are ordered. A. I favor the lotus because it grows out of mud. Ever since the Lee and Tang Dynasties. S.). who else but me? the love of peony. In Text A. the more refreshing it is. Text A There are three possible positions one can take about male and female creativity.Tian. people should reﬂect on the spirit of a hermit and a gentleman. 1979. W. The ﬁrst is that males are inherently more creative in all ﬁelds. 167–170) Text B Of all kinds of ﬂowers in the grass and on the trees in the world.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. & Kintsch. New York: Academic Press. (1982). the gentleman of the ﬂowers. male creativity might be reduced also. going without branches. an explicit argument in a thesis statement is valued as good writing style (Mead’s “three possible positions” in the initial sentence of Text A). (1988). Aye! the love of chrysanthemum is scarcely heard since Tao Yuan-ming. People’s Republic of China: Zhongguo Renmin Daxue Chubanshe. 1–13. the love of lotus. an option is implied in the last sentence: Instead of pursuing fortune. (There is some indication in the United States today that this is so. Expository text. lotus. RELC Journal. Handbook of reading research (Vol. Every single bud stands out straight. M. 1998. Weaver. 230–245). G. D.
6. Circle the number that best answers the question. 1993). 1. How concrete did you ﬁnd the content to be? That is. Circle only one number for each question. How difﬁcult was this article for you to read and understand? Very Somewhat Not too difﬁcult difﬁcult Neutral difﬁcult 1 2 3 4 5. How difﬁcult do you think this text will be for you to remember? Very Somewhat Not too difﬁcult difﬁcult Neutral difﬁcult 1 2 3 4 Very easy 5 Very easy 5 6.APPENDIX B Questionnaires Passage Perception Questionnaire (Translated From Chinese)* Directions: We are interested in knowing how you perceive the article you have just read. how easy or hard is it for you to form a mental image? Very Somewhat Somewhat Very abstract abstract Neutral concrete concrete 1 2 3 4 5 4. How interesting did you ﬁnd this text to read? Very Somewhat uninteresting uninteresting Neutral 1 2 3 Somewhat interesting 4 Very interesting 5 Very familiar 5 2. 5. 538 TESOL QUARTERLY . Please rate your perception of it based on your subjective feelings. How clear was the main line of thought or the main argument of the text? Very Somewhat Mostly unclear unclear Neutral clear Very clear 1 2 3 4 5 7. How familiar did you ﬁnd the topic and content to be? Very Somewhat Somewhat unfamiliar unfamiliar Neutral familiar 1 2 3 4 3. How organized do you think the text was that you read? Very Somewhat Somewhat unorganized unorganized Neutral organized 1 2 3 4 8. 4. and 8 adapted from Reader Assessment of Text (Raymond. Is the structure/organization of this text more similar writing? Very much like Somewhat like the structure of the structure of Chinese writing Chinese writing Not sure 1 2 3 Very organized 5 to that of Chinese writing or English Somewhat like the structure of English writing 4 Very much like the structure of English writing 5 * Items 1.
Abuse of Charitable Institutions Very Somewhat uninteresting uninteresting 1 2 c. Abuse of Charitable Institutions Very Somewhat unfamiliar unfamiliar 1 2 c. Forest School) Very Somewhat uninteresting uninteresting 1 2 Neutral 3 2. Alternative Schools (e. in which country? __________ When? ______________ For how long? __________________ We are interested in knowing how you think about the following four topics: Childcare problems for working mothers. Male Nurses Very uninteresting 1 Somewhat uninteresting 2 Somewhat interesting 4 Somewhat interesting 4 Somewhat interesting 4 Somewhat interesting 4 Very interesting 5 Very interesting 5 Very interesting 5 Very interesting 5 Neutral 3 Neutral 3 d. please rate your perception based on your subjective feelings. Circle only one number for each question. Forest School) Very Somewhat unfamiliar unfamiliar 1 2 Neutral 3 CULTURAL REPRESENTATIONS OF RHETORICAL CONVENTIONS 539 .. Childcare Problems for Working Mothers Very Somewhat unfamiliar unfamiliar Neutral 1 2 3 b. Circle the number that best answers the question. male nurses.g. and alternative schools.Topic Assessment Questionnaire (Translated From Chinese) Age:_____________ Gender:____________ Have you ever gone to schools abroad? _____________ If yes. Alternative Schools (e. 1. Childcare Problems for Working Mothers Very Somewhat uninteresting uninteresting Neutral 1 2 3 b. abuse of charitable institutions.g. For each of the four topics. Familiarity a. Male Nurses Very unfamiliar 1 Somewhat unfamiliar 2 Somewhat familiar 4 Somewhat familiar 4 Somewhat familiar 4 Somewhat familiar 4 Very familiar 5 Very familiar 5 Very familiar 5 Very familiar 5 Neutral 3 Neutral 3 d. Interest a.
226) Interest Familiarity Concreteness Comprehensibility Memorability Clarity Organization Rhetorical orientation 1.46 1.79 0.34**** 2.26 0. P = Passage.24 0.40 2.38 1. G = Grade Level.14 6. ***p .52*** 3.88** 4.35 1.74 0. 226) 0.93 1.01 0.11 1. 238) P (3.21 2. *p .03 0.00 0.25 0.28* 0.66 0.08 Perception R (1.14 1.79** 1.52*** 8.23*** 12.75 2.19 2. TESOL QUARTERLY . ****p .05.26**** 11.32 0.35* 0.36* 0.08 3. **p . 226) P R (3.96** 3.10 0.32* 4.56 3.04 5.66 2. 226) P G (3.58 2.001.14 0.04 0.19** 3.540 APPENDIX C Analysis of Variance for Eight Passage Perceptions Source and df P G (1.34 0. 226) G R (1.00 Note.15 0.81 0.30 G R (3.29 1. 226) 0.02*** 10.74*** 14.17 0.01 1.96**** 21.10 x2 (1) 23.02 3.91** 2. R = Rhetorical Convention. Results are F ratios.77 0.67 1.01.0001.68 0.50 4.22 0.81 0.13 1.
and perceived organization are ﬁve covariates.9398 .0142 .22**** for immediate recall and 58.94**** 62.2884 < . 221 1. 238 3. 221 1. perceived memorability.1284 . CULTURAL REPRESENTATIONS OF RHETORICAL CONVENTIONS 541 . 221 3.0001 < . perceived comprehensibility.04 4.01.24** 0.96** 0. 221 F p Perceived interest Perceived familiarity Perceived comprehensibility Perceived memorability Perceived organization R G P G R P G P R P G R Perceived interest Perceived familiarity Perceived comprehensibility Perceived memorability Perceived organization R G P G R P G P R P G R 4.61 .2041 .13 36. 221 1. **p .001.0018 . 221 1.0001.0710 < .24**** 1.54 1.20 0.3120 .APPENDIX D Analysis of Covariance for Immediate and Delayed Recall Effect df Immediate recall 1. x2(1) = 41.6860 . 221 3. P = Passage. ***p . 221 1.0001 . 221 1.6545 .0001 .05.71**** 1. 221 3.54 7. 221 Delayed recall 1.2557 . R = Rhetorical Convention.7520 . G = Grade Level.0149 .0077 .01 3.37 6. 221 1. 221 1.04* 0.3267 .16 1. 221 1. 221 3. 221 1. ****p . 221 3. 238 3.36 2.97 6.33 0. *p .11**** 72.29 31.18 9. 221 3. 221 1.06** 0.0456 . 221 1.6698 .02* 0.0001 < . Perceived interest.6079 Note.11* 0.0078 .53**** for delayed recall.7753 . 221 1. perceived familiarity. 221 1.
g. Importantly. and delayed posttest design. The subjects were eight adult L2 learners of English.g. consistent focus. recasts are reformulations of “all or part of a learner’s utterance so as to provide relevant morphosyntactic information that was obligatory but was either missing or wrongly supplied in the learner’s rendition. Further studies employing data from multiple sources are needed to validate these conditions and to identify more clearly aspects and stages of L2 acquisition that are susceptible to recasts. the study identiﬁed four conditions that may be necessary for recasts to facilitate learning: individualized attention. Long. Recasts are also used in the L2 naturalistic and instructional environment. No. developmental readiness. 1998). New York. 358).. with eight pedagogical recast sessions between the pretest and the posttest for the recast group paralleled by eight regular sessions for the nonrecast group. and research thus far has focused primarily on demonstrating whether or not they enhance L2 development. and intensity. A corrective technique. Winter 2002 543 .. TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 1988). United States This article reports on a small-scale empirical study of recasts—a form of corrective feedback. Recasts appeared to be successful in this study in that they heightened the L2 learners’ awareness and led to considerable improvement in their tense consistency during oral and written performance. who noticed that adults tended to rectify children’s faulty speech by recasting morphosyntactic or semantic errors therein. The study adopted a pretest. As deﬁned in the literature (e. Bohannon & Stanowicz.A Study of the Impact of Recasts on Tense Consistency in L2 Output ZHAOHONG HAN Teachers College. four of whom were randomly assigned to a recast group and four to a nonrecast group. posttest. Data collected consisted of written and oral narratives primed by cartoon strips and produced by the subjects in both groups. & Ortega. while retaining its central meaning” (p. 4. 36. R ecent SLA research has seen a noticeable increase of interest in recasts as a means to draw L2 learners’ attention to formal properties of their attempted output. recasts ﬁrst came to the attention of L1 acquisition researchers (e. Inagaki. Columbia University New York.
It then reports on the procedures and results of the study. at least for vocabulary. (Long. these resources are brought together most usefully. RESEARCH ON RECASTS Investigation of recasts in second language acquisition (SLA) has both a theoretical and a pedagogical signiﬁcance. . On the pedagogical front.This study examines the impact of recasts on one aspect of L2 use. Negative feedback obtained during the negotiation work or elsewhere may be facilitative of L2 development. and . much of the L2 research on recasts is motivated by the Interaction Hypothesis (Long. Lightbown. in addition to relating to the larger theoretical debate over the role of innate and environmental factors in language acquisition. and language-speciﬁc syntax. complete reliance on learners’ meaning-based interaction can expose L2 learners to low-quality input (Harley. a form of negative feedback of frequent occurrence in face-to-face interaction. morphology. tense consistency in oral and written production. which then serves as input for the students themselves. which proposes the following: Environmental contributions to acquisition are mediated by selective attention and the learner’s developing L2 processing capacity. 1996. Of note. 414) For researchers. thus creating a vicious circle. identifying issues that are yet to be resolved. 1983. recasts. Observational studies conducted in communicatively oriented classrooms have shown. L2 research has also suggested not only 544 TESOL QUARTERLY . 119). The errors and inaccuracies students hear are likely to reinforce their own misanalysis of the target language. teaching in these classrooms is often bereft of attention to form. and essential for learning certain speciﬁable L1-L2 contrasts. that as a result of an exclusive concern with meaning-based interaction. Moreover. 1996). L2 research on recasts represents a response to the need to integrate form-related activities into meaningbased instruction. provide a unique source of information on the validity of the Interaction Hypothesis. Lightbown and Spada (1999) have cautioned that “allowing learners too much ‘freedom’ without correction and explicit instruction will lead to early fossilization of errors” (p. . 1993. and discusses the ﬁndings with a view to identifying conditions under which recasts may function effectively. 1991). although not exclusively. Accordingly. On the theoretical front. 1980. This kind of input is usually not a good sample of the target language. among other things. p. during negotiation for meaning. the extensive student-student interaction generates a great deal of output. The article brieﬂy describes previous research on recasts.
1998. 1996). p. 1998. are considered nonintrusive and thus least likely to distract the students from their focus on communication. 1998. and recasts). explicit correction. clariﬁcation. the former refers to the incidental attention to form in teaching that is meaning based or communicatively oriented. e. Long. Doughty & Varela. Among the implicit strategies. due to their capability to model and correct.e. 1998. 1997. Mackey. clariﬁcation requests. 2000). Long. 1983. 1998). 1981. 1990. repetition. As Doughty and Varela (1998) put it.that L2 instruction can integrate a focus on form1 with a focus on meaning (see. and comprehension checks. Gass. they “add attention to form to a primarily communicative task rather than . recasts. recasts were the most frequently used but elicited the least repair from students. . 1977. Lyster (1998) observed that of the six different types of corrective feedback employed by the teachers (i. Doughty & Varela. “a recast that does not correct a target but models a target” (p. Lyster. For example. depart from an already communicative goal in order to discuss a linguistic feature” (p. elicitation. such as dyadic conversation or interaction involving multiple participants. and overall communicative skills are probably best developed through instruction that is primarily meaning based but in which guidance is provided through timely form-focus activities and correction in context” (Lightbown & Spada. These strategies. 1998).. Mackey & Philp. incidental focus on form is best enacted through corrective strategies such as recasts. 443).. Recasts as Focus on Form Many researchers have suggested that in the context of interaction. 114). Lyster & Ranta. ﬂuency. that is. & McDonough. THE IMPACT OF RECASTS ON TENSE CONSISTENCY 545 .” and a noncorrective recast. but also that “accuracy. repetition of error. . Farrar (1992) distinguishes between a corrective recast. that is. 1996. Long. “a recast that corrects a target error. Whereas the latter characterizes teaching that is predominantly structure oriented. Recasts also appear to be the most common strategy (Fanselow. 1996. Long & Robinson. 1994. all of which call students’ attention to a particular linguistic aspect of their output implicitly rather than explicitly (Doughty & Varela.g. in his analysis of teacher-student interaction in four primary immersion classrooms. have been considered to be most effective in drawing learners’ attention to gaps in linguistic knowledge evidenced in their output (Doughty. 92) and gives the following examples of a corrective recast: 1 Focus on form is a term coined by Long (1991) to contrast with focus on forms. metalinguistic cues. naturally interwoven with the students’ ongoing output.
for example. 124) By ﬁrst drawing the student’s attention and then correcting the error. contrastively. 2000). recasts mostly refer to corrective recasts.. as illustrated below: Jose: Teacher: Jose: Teacher: Jose: I think that the worm will go under the soil. p. 1992. a learner’s immediate response to a recast in the form of either repetition or modiﬁcation). (1998) found that. (Doughty & Varela. The main thrust of the ﬁndings from these studies is that recasts have a positive yet selective impact on learning: (a) Some learners appear to be more receptive to recasts than others. 92) Doughty and Varela (1998) further elaborate a corrective recast as a two-step procedure: (a) repetition (usually with rising intonation) to draw attention followed by (b) a recast to provide. I thought that the worm would go under the soil. Yea. (Farrar.. 1998.g. I think that the worm will go under the soil? (no response) I thought that the worm would go under the soil. p. 1998.. the necessary target exemplar. Lyster..g. 1998. this two-step procedure simultaneously provides implicit negative evidence and positive evidence. (Farrar. 92) and a noncorrective recast: Child: Mother: The blue ball.Child: Mother: The dog running. Recent L2 Research on Recasts Recent L2 studies concerning recasts (see Table 1 for a summary) have offered mixed evidence regarding their impact on learning. Mackey and Philp’s (1998) study. in L2 Spanish. Long et al. Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of recasts (e. p. 1998. Oliver. The dog is running. 1995) appear to show that they are capable of promoting SLA. recasts had a 546 TESOL QUARTERLY . ﬁnd that recasts are often followed by a low rate of learner uptake (i. Lyster & Ranta. on the other hand. In the SLA literature.e. Mackey & Philp. the blue ball is bouncing. 1992. which typically include Step 2 as deﬁned by Doughty and Varela (1998). offers the ﬁnding that learners at higher developmental levels beneﬁted more from recasts than did those at lower levels (see also Philp. 1998. Doughty & Varela. and (b) some structures seem more amenable to recasts than others. Long et al. Descriptive studies (e. 1997).
past time reference (simple past and conditional) in students’ oral presentation of science reports Pretest. 548) . The experimental group (focus on form) made substantial progress. posttest. negotiated and recast responses provided by the NSs and subsequent uptake by NNSs Research questions Database & linguistic focus Findings Child NSs responded differentially to different types of NNS errors according to different degrees of complexity and ambiguity in the NNS error turn: Most negotiation occurred as a response to turns containing more than one error. NNSs incorporated more than a third of the recasts when given the opportunity and when it was appropriate to do so. whereas recasts occurred more often as a response to single-error utterances. THE IMPACT OF RECASTS ON TENSE CONSISTENCY Oliver (1995) Do child NSs provide negative feedback to their NNS peers? If so. facing each other on either side of a barrier. and. there was no change for the control group. 3 focus-on-form experiments took place between pretest and posttest for the experimental group.and videorecorded data collected while informants were completing language tasks. Progress was maintained on the oral measure but less so on the written measure. do they incorporate recasts into their subsequent speech production? Doughty & Varela (1998) Can learners’ attention be drawn to formal features without distracting them from their original communicative intent? If so. 16 students in middle and upper primary school aged 8–13 years. For each task the students sat at desks. does it occur as negotiation strategies or recasts? If both. 547 (Continued on p.TABLE 1 Summary of Recent L2 Studies of Recasts Study Informants Procedures One-way task (the NNSs described a simple black-outline picture for their partners to draw) and a two-way task (the NNSs and NSs both completed a jigsaw task) were administered. in what proportion do the two occur? Do NNSs use this feedback.and gendermatched NS-NNS dyads Audio. in particular. and delayed posttest. how? Does focus on form contribute effectively to classroom language acquisition? 34 middle school students from 2 different intact classes studying science at an intermediate ESL level—21 in the experimental group and 13 in the control group Oral and written lab reports. forming 8 age.
direct object topicalization. and adverb placement Twin studies using pretest. 35 adult ESL learners (beginning–low intermediate level) from two private English language schools in Sydney. questions forms chosen as the measure of development Research questions Database & linguistic focus Findings For more advanced learners. adjective ordering. Study 2: 30 adult learners of Spanish. Each study provides some evidence of the ability of adults to learn from recasts and some evidence that recasts can be more effective than preemptive positive evidence. Oral production data elicited via conversational tasks. randomly assigned to treatment and control groups Study 1: oral production data. and 1 delayed posttest. & Ortega (1998) What is the relative contribution. and control group design. Inagaki. and 1 control group Study 1: 24 young adult learners of Japanese randomly assigned to treatment groups and control group. recasts may be beneﬁcial for short-term interlanguage development. Mackey & Philp (1998) Do learners who participate in task-based interaction with intensive recasts show an increase in developmentally more advanced structures? What is the role of the learner’s response to the recasts? Long. In Study 1 treatments for each structure were delivered via a communication game. and a location construction. 2 posttests. crossgroup and cross-test comparisons were carried out. interaction with intensive recasts may be more beneﬁcial than interaction alone in facilitating an increase in production of targeted highlevel morphosyntactic forms. 3 treatment sessions. posttest. of models and recasts in foreign language development? TESOL QUARTERLY . Study 2 employed two communication tasks. Study 2: oral production data.548 TABLE 1 (continued) Summary of Recent L2 Studies of Recasts Study Informants Procedures Pretest. 2 interactor groups. Australia. 2 recast groups. if any.
noncorrective repetition. and signs of approval. NNS = nonnative speaker. repetition as corrective feedback. NS = native speaker. instances within each and learner response were tallied and their percentage calculated. THE IMPACT OF RECASTS ON TENSE CONSISTENCY Lyster (1998) Which aspects of communicative classroom discourse affect the potential of recasts to be noticed as negative evidence by young L2 learners? Audiotaped classroom data were transcribed and coded into 4 categories: recasts. Note.TABLE 1 (continued) Summary of Recent L2 Studies of Recasts Study Informants Procedures Grade 4 and 5 students from 4 French immersion classes Transcripts of more than 18 hours of interaction recorded during 27 lessons in 4 immersion classrooms at the primary level containing 377 recasts Research questions Database & linguistic focus Findings The majority of recasts as used naturalistically by teachers in communicatively oriented contexts are unlikely to be either negotiated or noticed by young L2 learners as negative evidence. 549 .
(p. What leads to the differential effects of recasts? Factors pointed out by researchers include (a) lack of developmental readiness on the part of the learners (Long et al. namely. recasts require double processing. have nevertheless neglected the possibility that the differential effects on learning arise from the intrinsic nature of recasts. 1998. in addition to their function of implicitly providing a reformulation of all or part of an ill-formed utterance. semantic processing and syntactic processing. 1998). Lyster. 1991). recasts serve to respond to the semantic content of a learner’s utterance by a) providing or b) seeking conﬁrmation of the learner’s message. In an experimental study on double processing. Seen in the light of Sharwood Smith’s (1993) characterization of negative input enhancement. which concluded that in meaning-oriented classrooms. Moreover. (c) lack of opportunities for learners to incorporate the information provided by recasts into the interlanguage system (Oliver. The Nature of Recasts Recasts are among the least clear and direct forms of negative feedback. teacher. these speculations. 1998. 1998). suggesting that when the focal attention is on meaning. that is.positive effect on the development of adverb placement but not on that of object topicalization. This ﬁnding is corroborated by Lyster’s classroom-based studies (Lyster. Mackey & Philp. Lyster & Ranta. (b) overriding attention to functional properties in meaningbased interaction (Lyster. fall at the lower end of the elaboration continuum. As Lyster (1998) notes. they have a low degree of elaboration. Recasts would therefore be less likely to trigger learners’ awareness than would explicit forms of negative feedback. 59) Thus. a type of implicit negative feedback. VanPatten (1990) discerned that early-stage L2 learners in particular found it difﬁcult to attend to form while attending to meaning. and researcher. the cor550 TESOL QUARTERLY . 1998. possibly resulting in a mismatch between the learner’s interpretation and the feedback provider’s intention. made respectively from the perspectives of learner. and (d) diverse measurement of acquisition (Mackey & Philp. or by c) providing or d) seeking additional information related to the learner’s message. an issue to which I now turn. 1998). Netten. recasts may at times convey an ambiguous message to a learner (cf. 1995). 1997). due to their multiple functions. which may further reduce the likelihood that they raise learners’ awareness. Important and insightful as they are. interwoven with L2 output. recasts.. voluntary attention to form is highly limited.
however. In his many writings since the mid-1980s.g. however. Which linguistic forms are. namely. Mackey & Philp. 1993) view of L2 development. the learner has not yet formed any concrete mental representations. thereby facilitating their restructuring of the L2 knowledge base. what does acquisition entail? What Does Acquisition Entail? Although no uniform understanding exists. Of particular relevance to the present discussion is Sharwood Smith’s (1986. 1998) believe that if recasts promote SLA.. Long et al. Oliver. For most common-sense views as well as some theoretical accounts. Lyster..g. others (e. 2000. Mackey et al. such as seeking additional information. at the very least.e. In his view. (p. Some researchers (e. Research to date has not offered a uniform answer to this question. 1998. they should be able to lead to the acquisition of genuine new forms. suspect that the amount of learning exhibited following recasts is attributable to the fact that the learner already has some knowledge of the linguistic structures being targeted. it is only logical to speculate that not all linguistic forms are equally susceptible to recasts. a distinction between knowledge and the ability to activate that knowledge in real time. SLA researchers have offered signiﬁcant insights into the issue of what acquisition entails. The question that ensues is.rective function of recasts may be less salient than their various discourse functions. he has argued that acquisition should be characterized as consisting of two related yet not necessarily parallel dimensions: acquisition of knowledge and of control. of the linguistic forms in question) or a reattempt of an L2 structure of which the learner has at least partial knowledge. Given the intricate nature of recasts. even while recognizing that recasts must target linguistic forms for which L2 learners are developmentally ready. targetlike or otherwise. 68) The notion of processing control allows us to separate out those factors of language ability that we want to call knowledge and those factors that have to THE IMPACT OF RECASTS ON TENSE CONSISTENCY 551 .. that is. these diverse interpretations are in themselves suggestive of the complexity of the issue. 1998. This conception. millisecond by millisecond in response to various demands. and which are not? Recasts in most studies have been theoretically portrayed as being capable of drawing learners’ attention to gaps between input and output. 1995). leaves open the question of whether the interlanguage form targeted by recasts ought to be a learner’s initial attempt at an L2 structure of which the learner has zero knowledge (i.. [development] involves. Importantly. What has been alluded to more than anything else is a larger theoretical question..
” apparently on a random basis. However.2 In the section that follows. which has been little studied to date. presupposes the existence of some knowledge. Though intuitively appealing. more properly labeled fossilized variation. Put differently. Both processes are developmental in nature in that each involves a potential movement from low to high or from weak to strong.” and shortly thereafter produce “I saw him yesterday.do with deployment of knowledge in actual performance millisecond by millisecond. (p. This phenomenon. empirical studies must investigate recasts that are used as the only pedagogical tool. not the latter. 1996).g. such an implication is not my intention and would seem tenuous without a systematic investigation or in the absence of well-documented evidence.. Lack of tense consistency in L2 output is typically exhibited as random variation between different tenses (e. yet it marks the adult L2 speech as distinctly nonnative and is a phenomenon not found in the speech of native speakers (NSs). (p. I hypothesized that recasts. an implicit. 173) In essence. This type of random variation has been noted by Schachter (1996) as a prime candidate for fossilization: A perfectly ﬂuent adult nonnative speaker (NNS) of English will produce “I see him yesterday. is typically associated with morphemes that do not carry a heavy semantic load. would act more favorably on linguistic forms that are in the process of being proceduralized than on forms that are at the onset of developing knowledge. this position holds that L2 development is simultaneously a knowledge-building process and a process whereby L2 learners learn to develop control over use of knowledge under various real operating conditions (Johnson. past tense and present tense). to assess the contribution of recasts to L2 acquisition. 160) She speculates that “fossilized variation. I report on a small-scale empirical study that used recasts as the only pedagogical tool3 to address a grammatical problem that is evident when learners have partially acquired verb tenses: inconsistent verb tense use. targetlike or otherwise. virtually nonelaborate form of feedback. the real issue may thus have more to do with the nature of effective combinations. The former. 3 Lyster (1998) noted that research on the effects of recasts on classroom SLA has considered the effects of recasts in combination with more explicit clues rather than their effects alone. 552 TESOL QUARTERLY . Following this line of thinking. may well be a processing phenomenon not directly attributable to differences in grammatical competence between NS and NNSs of a 2 An anonymous reviewer questioned whether the implication here is that somewhat explicit and elaborate forms of input are necessary for initial acquisition but that more implicit input is sufﬁcient for proceduralization or ﬁne-tuning of the knowledge base. recasts would be more likely to promote acquisition when they prompted the learner to draw on what is already known rather than to create initial mental representations of an L2 form.
it may be due to lack of control over the use of knowledge. residence Subject L1 Learning history Recast group 8 years EFL in Japan 10 years EFL in Japan 6 years EFL in Korea 5 years EFL in Argentina Nonrecast group 6 years EFL in Czech Republic 7 years EFL in France 10 years EFL in Japan 1 year ESL in United States Aki Asuka Jee-Young Maria Pia Blanka Caroline Izumi Lenore Japanese Japanese Korean Spanish Czech French Japanese French 3 14 3 3 24 2 2 18 THE IMPACT OF RECASTS ON TENSE CONSISTENCY 553 .S.. as generally happens in research on awareness (see. All reported a high level of motivation for learning English. but in terms of whether or not they show any systematic change in behavior over time. Do learners who have received recasts on their L2 output show a higher awareness of tense consistency than learners who have not? In this study. being aware is synonymous with realizing. 2000). In this view. 160).g. lack of tense consistency does not necessarily arise from lack of grammatical knowledge per se. The research questions investigated in this study were therefore the following: 1. and awareness is examined not in terms of whether or not subjects can verbalize their knowledge. METHOD Subjects The subjects were eight adult females. tense consistency is an ideal candidate for treatment with recasts. According to the results of a placement TABLE 2 Subjects’ Background Months of U. Leow. Do learners who have received recasts on their L2 output have a greater ability to maintain tense consistency in their L2 narration than learners who have not? 2.language” (p. If so. all of whom were L2 learners of English enrolled in a one-semester intensive English course in the Community English Program at a university in the United States (see Table 2 for background information gathered from a questionnaire administered prior to the experiment). e.
A delayed posttest using the same task format was then conducted a month later on the same population to discern if the changes observed on the posttest had been sustained. to which the other four subjects were randomly assigned. during which only the recast group received recasts. Data Collection Data were elicited using cartoon strips authored by Jan Eliot. The recast group. the subjects participated in 11 sessions over a period of 2 months. All the strips depicted stories about the members of the same family. and the subjects’ familiarity with the family boosted their interest in the tasks. the aim being (a) to gauge the subjects’ ability to maintain tense consistency in producing L2 output and (b) to enable a comparison with the posttests. the subjects performed the same task. to which four subjects were randomly assigned. a pretest consisting of a written/oral narration task was administered to all the subjects. A posttest. In total. The database comprised written and oral narratives produced by the TABLE 3 Design of the Study Stage and number of sessions Pretest (1) Instruction (8) Posttest (1) Delayed posttest (1) Recast group (n = 4) Written/oral narratives Written narratives. and therefore served as a contrast for any effect observed in the recast group. was administered to both groups to see if any noticeable changes occurred in the performance of the recast group. received no recasts. Twice a week. The instruction period included 8 sessions conducted separately for the recast group and the nonrecast group. As shown in Table 3. and delayed posttest design. Design The study employed a pretest. posttest. the subjects had been assigned to an upper intermediate class. again in the form of a written/oral narration task. The nonrecast group. oral narratives with recasts Written/oral narratives Written/oral narratives Nonrecast group (n = 4) Written/oral narratives Written/oral narratives Written/oral narratives Written/oral narratives Date 11/2/1999 11/4/1999– 12/2/1999 12/7/1999 1/6/2000 554 TESOL QUARTERLY . with two groups of four subjects (see Table 3).test administered at the beginning of the semester. received recasts.
instances of verb tenses are underlined. the subjects showed that they could correctly retrieve the tenses.recast group and the nonrecast group during the 11 sessions. During the instruction sessions. Next. but I did not measure their readiness against any established developmental sequences. Their writings were then collected. Though I made no conscious effort to control that variable in the data collection.]5 4 An anonymous reviewer questioned whether the order in which the subjects in each group narrated the story may have affected the linguistic performance of the subjects. Each subject received the same cartoon strip and the following instructions: “Look at the cartoon strip and. Instead. Mackey & Philp.” The subjects then looked over the cartoon strip for a few minutes and wrote for 5 minutes. and italics represents the subject’s uptake of the recasts. Although the subjects were allowed time for pretask planning. Spada & Lightbown. the subjects were judged developmentally ready for this linguistic feature. my analysis showed little similarity across oral narratives.4 Instruction The pedagogical focus for the recast group during the instruction period was tense consistency. That is. and each narration was tape-recorded and later transcribed. Being at the upper intermediate level. as shown below: Subject: The bank assistant told Mary that she need to talk with the card holder. Typically. give your writing to the instructor. 5 In the excerpts. 1998. on a declarative level. in ﬁve minutes write a brief account of the story.. as little of the written version was reﬂected in their subsequent oral narrative.g. When you are ﬁnished.. in each session the subjects and a researcher sat in a circle. using knowledge under real operating conditions) they could not always do so. 1999) who employed the construct. as did other researchers (e. recasts appear in brackets. this did not seem to impede the spontaneity of the ensuing oral production. the subjects took turns relating their story. yet on the procedural level (i. Recast: [The bank assistant told Mary that she needed to talk with the card holder. the subjects consistently received recasts whenever the researcher noticed instances of tense inconsistency in their oral narratives. This brief writing phase was meant to facilitate the oral narration and pave the way for the provision of recasts. based on your understanding. I inferred the subjects’ readiness from the fact that they were able to successfully complete form-focused exercises concerning the present and past tenses in their English class. THE IMPACT OF RECASTS ON TENSE CONSISTENCY 555 . similar to the way a group activity is conducted in a classroom. and I thus discounted the possibility.e.
This subject had clearly elected to narrate the story within the past time frame. she found she lost her earrings and her penny jar. Excluded from the analysis were the few verb forms that were ambiguous. and the delayed posttest) using the formula below. her son Alix came to them and said he also lost his piggy bank. pi is the tokens of past or present tense marking per subject. and ki is the tokens of past and present tense marking per subject. because the stories depicted in the cartoon strips could be related primarily with a past or a present time reference. and founds. Val came back home. even if the subject was telling the story in the past. the recasts accordingly focused on consistent use of the past tense. so she asked it to Joan. For example. the researcher was careful not to recast any legitimate tense switch. the posttest. the pretest. if a subject chose to narrate the story using past tense. While she and Joan talking about that. N is the total number of subjects.. so those forms that conﬂicted with this inclination (e.g. steal ) were recast. Data Analysis The transcribed oral and written narratives were analyzed separately for each group. and delayed posttest data for both groups to ensure coding consistency. Furthermore. conversely. Σp /ki i=1 i M = ______.. such as cames.e. A second party and I scored pretest. if a subject chose present tense. That is. This formula was applied four times for each of the three tests to obtain a 556 TESOL QUARTERLY N . posttest. The ﬁrst utterance of a narration usually determined the subject’s temporal preference. the researcher respected the subject’s choice. I estimated the learners’ tense use by calculating the mean proportions of past versus present tense separately for the recast and nonrecast groups on three occasions (i. So they are talking about who steal their their small amount of money. random recasts were given for other interlanguage forms. the statements “Now Mary cannot use her credit card” and “Women are discriminated against” were considered appropriate. as the excerpt below shows: One day when Val. interrater agreement was 99%. N where M is mean proportion. trie. However.In addition. S is the sum. the recasts involved consistent use of present tense. Tokens of past tense and present tense were tallied. are talking.
g.87) and a concurrent decrease in present tense use (pretest. M = .. the recast group exhibited a remarkable growth in their use of past tense (pretest. which would reveal tendency. indicating use of one tense 100% of the time. The procedure described here not only yielded an index of each individual’s ability to maintain tense consistency but also allowed me to factor in that index when obtaining an averaged proportion of a particular tense marking for a given group.74. the variation among members of the recast group was considerably larger than among members of the contrast group.64) whereas the nonrecast group tended to use present tense (M = .mean proportion for (a) degree of consistency for past tense use by the recast group. M = . to 1. M = .26). M = . M = .64 + .50 = 0.36.64. Standard deviations were calculated to reveal within-group variations. Moreover. THE IMPACT OF RECASTS ON TENSE CONSISTENCY 557 . On the delayed posttest. (c) degree of consistency for past tense use by the nonrecast group.64.6 The resulting “tense consistency” score theoretically can range from 0. posttest.34 = 1. M = . and on both posttests the variation in this group decreased. the recast group maintained a high rate of past tense use (posttest. The nonrecast group exhibited a drop in their use of present tense (posttest. Tense consistency for the past is the complement of consistency for present by this deﬁnition.00 for each test (e. (b) degree of consistency for present tense use by the recast group. posttest. delayed posttest.64).36. posttest.87. The nonrecast group showed an increase in their use of present tense (pretest. 6 My interest was not in an absolute number of past or present tense markings by each group but in a relative number. and (b) degree of consistency for present tense use by the nonrecast group. M = . I then obtained a single index of tense consistency by subtracting the mean for the least used tense from the mean for the most used on each of the tests. M = .00 for the recast group pretest). the recast group and the nonrecast group each showed somewhat of a preference for one temporal frame over the other (see Table 4): The recast group preferred past tense (M = . see pretest scores for the recast group on the writing task).50 . The result was a meaningful picture of the subjects’ differential ability to maintain tense consistency and of the differences between the groups.83). On the posttest.00. . indicating no tense consistency (as would be the case if learners used present 50% of the time (. M = . posttest. M = .13). so the mean proportions of past and present add up to 1. RESULTS A Cross-Learner View on Changes in Tense Consistency Over Time On the oral pretest.74) and a drop in past tense (pretest. M = .
30 .03 . The recast group and the nonrecast group both started with the same degree of tense consistency (. M = .48) and diminished even further on the delayed posttest ( recast group. this commonality diminished on the posttest (recast group.26 . nonrecast group. posttest. The within-group variation decreased for the recast group and remained somewhat consistent for the contrast group. M = .50.26 SD . As for the written narratives.83 . M = . On the posttest.11.11).17 .23 M Past SD Posttest Present M . delayed posttest.22).11 . M = . M = .19 M . delayed posttest. Posttest.19 delayed posttest.64 . .09 . indicating relatively little tense consistency).45 Delayed posttest Past SD . Overall.39). delayed posttest.50 .43 . delayed posttest.30 .26.74.74 . Their use of present tense exhibited a remarkable decrease (pretest.17 Written . posttest. posttest.02 . M = .17 . on the pretest the recast group subjects showed a symmetric use of past and present tense. .50. on the other hand.64.13 .64 .61 .36 .11 .66. M = . the recast group exhibited a remarkable increase in use of past tense (pretest. M = .23 Oral . unlike their performance in the oral mode. posttest. M = .17 .09 .89) and maintained this rate on the delayed posttest. the results reveal a growth of past tense use and a decrease in within-group variation for the recast group and more stable tense use across tests for the contrast group.64 SD . showed a distinct preference for present tense.55 SD . inclusive (see Table 5).36 . 558 TESOL QUARTERLY .26.11 . which is consistent with their performance in the oral mode. and Delayed Posttest Pretest Past Group Recast Nonrecast Recast Nonrecast M . M = . M = . M = . nonrecast group.36 . To estimate the degree of tense consistency achieved over time by each group on the three tests.61) and a concurrent increase in past tense (posttest.43 . M = .02 . However. . I obtained the disparity between the use of past tense and the use of present tense on each test for each group by subtracting the mean proportion score for the least used tense from that of the most used to derive a score between 0 and 1.11 .89 .55).TABLE 4 Mean Proportions of Past and Present Tense and Standard Deviations on Pretest.36. by contrast.23 Present M .50 .17 .28.11 .11 .73. showed small increases in past tense use (pretest. The nonrecast group subjects.87 .03 . The nonrecast group. .23 Present M .45) and small decreases in present tense use (pretest.39 .74 SD . M = .89 .
with the recast group showing less consistency than the nonrecast group (recast group. and Delayed Posttest Group Pretest Oral Recast Nonrecast Recast Nonrecast .TABLE 5 Mean Proportion Disparity Scores on Pretest.22 Posttest Delayed posttest In their written narratives. Posttest.66 . In this section I explore these issues through an analysis of some of the data for Jee-Young. however. nonrecast group.73 .78 . Recast Group: Jee-Young Jee-Young is typical of the recast group subjects in her length of residence in the United States. .78 . but it offers little insight into how the recasts worked and how they contributed to the subjects’ development of tense consistency.28 and .78 and . recasts appear on the whole to have had a positive impact on the subjects in the recast group. she seemed to have the lowest starting point among the group members: Whereas other members of her group exhibited almost symmetric use of tenses on the pretest.10 . On the posttest and the delayed posttest. the recast group showed a far greater degree of consistency in their written narratives than the nonrecast group (recast group.10). . from the contrast group.28 Written .48 . nonrecast group. and Blanka. In terms of tense use. . the recast group and the nonrecast group displayed different degrees of tense consistency on the pretest. from the recast group. who seemed to have developed a much better control over tense consistency than their counterparts in the nonrecast group. . THE IMPACT OF RECASTS ON TENSE CONSISTENCY 559 .48 . A Within-Learner View on Changes in Tense Consistency Over Time The quantitative view presented so far gives an overall summary of the changes in tense consistency.48) (see Table 5). judging from comparisons of the mean proportion scores for both groups.00. Thus.28 .00 . she showed a strong preference for present tense over past tense.28 .78.
(oral) Two years ago.Although she missed one instruction session because of illness (the only member of her group to do so). Jee-Young showed some inappropriate variation in tense use in both versions of the ﬁrst narrative. One day her roommate Ellen pick up a surprising letter which is from credit card company. Leon and Mary got divorced. They send a new credit card with a $50. They conclude that there is a man’s world. So they thought women is discriminated against by man’s world. That’s all. em . . The following data come from the fourth instructional session: TABLE 6 Proportions of Past and Present Tense in Jee-Young’s Narratives Oral Past Session Pretest Instruction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Posttest Delayed posttest n 4 6 13 24 12 17 20 13 12 24 % 29 60 72 86 67 94 91 72 86 83 Present n 10 4 5 4 6 1 2 5 2 5 % 71 40 28 14 33 6 9 Total n 14 n 2 3 9 5 1 8 13 9 9 12 Past % 14 33 64 50 10 89 93 90 90 92 Written Present n 12 6 5 5 9 1 1 1 1 1 % 86 67 36 50 90 11 7 10 10 8 Total n 14 9 14 10 10 9 14 10 10 13 10 18 28 18 18 22 [absent] 28 18 14 14 17 29 560 TESOL QUARTERLY . even though the variations were not completely random: (written) Two years ago. . . But to be sad it is for her two years old son. When I read this story I think all women is discriminated against by man’s real world. On the pretest. So now Mary cannot use her credit card. Leon and Mary got married. so now Mary cannot use her credit card. from the pretest to the delayed posttest she showed a remarkable growth in her ability to use tenses appropriately and consistently (see Table 6). so they thought about it shows there is a man’s real world. Eh .000 dollars limit. to be sad. . it is for her two year old son. Eh . got divorced. surprisingly.000 limit. . But her exhusband had a bad credit history. . But one day her roommate Ellen pick up the a surprising letter which is from credit card company. for her ex-husband has a big credit history. But. That’s why Ellen’s son get a credit card. They get a credit card with 50.
He she couldn’t pay attention to Phil [she couldn’t pay any attention to Phil] any attention to Phil. tense consistency is much harder to achieve in oral production than in written production. she has some gray hairs. By extension. the fourth of seven. four of which targeted her incorrect use of tense. Phil understand. Val has two daughters and has to earn money for living because she was divorced two years ago. and her venturing into past tense use in the oral narrative (i. Val was going to her neighbor.g.. THE IMPACT OF RECASTS ON TENSE CONSISTENCY 561 . Jee-Young received six recasts.e. by avoiding past tense).e. 1995). Her uptake suggests that her attention was indeed drawn. . Ferguson for bring some food..”). her family and even her hair. But Val has many things to think such as her career. as demonstrated by her repeated self-corrective attempts (e. Phil was going to the policestation. Jee Young had started to make an effort to control tense consistency. But Phil expects that she concentrates on only him. to the discrepancies between her own output and the input provided by the recasts. In her written narrative. Even though she is a middle-aged lady. .. By this session. “Phil understand. VanPatten & Sanz. But he complains about her attitude towards Val’s attitude [he complained about her attitude towards what he was saying] he complained about her attitude towards what he was saying. So Phil doesn’t didn’t care about her hair but she mentioned about her hair even though she is a middle-aged lady she has gray hair [even though she was a middle-aged woman. albeit to a varying extent. (oral) Phil and Val was strolling in the park for their dating. Phil understand. She had make money for their living [she had to make money] she had to take care of all the things around her. This intermodal difference suggests that the pressure imposed by the online communication makes oral production much harder than written production (cf. (written) One day. They met by chance in front of 7 An anonymous reviewer suggested an alternative explanation: Jee-Young may have been able to maintain tense consistency in the written narrative by using only the present tense (i. Phil understand.7 Jee-Young’s data from the ﬁfth instructional session show her developing control.(written) Phil and Val is in the park and Phil is complaining about Val’s attitude toward their dating. em? Phil understood her circumstances but he expected she concentrating concentrated to him during the date [he expected her to be a little more concentrated on him during the date] during the date. . she had gray hair]. Investigating this insight would require eliciting introspective data from the subject. In producing the oral narrative above. Jee-Young was more able to maintain tense consistency than in the oral narrative. em? Phil understood her circumstances . taking risks) resulted in greater tense inconsistency. So Val made an excuse because she has two daughters [she had two daughters] she had two daughters.
As soon as Phil and Ferguson met each other. Once the feedback was provided. At that moment Val and Phil met by chance in front of the Ferguson’s house. she hesitated between the past tense and the present tense and. so Val was so nervous but a few minutes later Phil and Ferguson hugged [they hugged each other] they hugged each other and because eh Val realized that they know they had known? [Val realized they had known each other] had known each other as relatives. “because eh Val realized that they know they had known? [Val realized they had known each other] had known each other as relatives. even though Jee-Young did not receive any recasts on her written narratives. She showed almost no random switching between past tense and present tense. she was able to uptake it (e. 94%. But they’ve already know each other as a relatives. Val was so nervous. By the ﬁfth session. past tense. Ferguson. Mrs. [You mean Val was going to her neighbor’s house] Yeah. Val was Val would like to introduce him to neighborhood Ferguson [to the neighbor] to the neighbor. [or Val was going to visit her neighbor] Val was going to visit her neighborhood neighborhouse [neighbor’s house] neighbor’s house. they yelled at each other.”). but none concerned her use of tense. Both of Jee-Young’s written narratives from Sessions 4 and 5 manifested tense consistency. On one occasion. So he would like to say about their dating. with a rising intonation. but as soon as they met each other. On the posttest. no. 6%.Ferguson’s house. written narrative: 11% and 89%. Ferguson was watching their dating before the past. This difference would seem to suggest that. respectively). A close scrutiny of Jee-Young’s use of past and present tenses in her written narratives conﬁrms this impression. the instruction she received on her oral narratives triggered a general awareness on her part that past tense was more appropriate for narrating a story. and Val was going to the close neighborhood’s house. When producing the oral narrative. Jee-Young was achieving a high degree of tense consistency (oral narrative: present tense.. Jee-Young’s oral and written narratives were dominated by past tense: (written) Joan and Val decided to take a trip even though they didn’t choose 562 TESOL QUARTERLY . signaled a need for help. she received seven recasts. but in one she used the present as the main temporal frame whereas in the other she used the past. but he Ferguson was observing their dating already. Her performance from the ﬁfth session on showed a consistent tendency to use past tense as the main temporal reference (see Figure 1).g. the recasts also seem to have promoted her control over tense consistency in her written production. Phil was coming back the police station [from the police station] from the police station. Furthermore. Ferguson yelled at him and he yelled at her. (oral) One day Val was was coming back from police station.
”). where to go. . Em . . they had better take a trip somewhere. which seems to be yet THE IMPACT OF RECASTS ON TENSE CONSISTENCY 563 . IS = instruction session.FIGURE 1 Proportions of Past and Present Tense Marking in Jee-Young’s Written Narratives Note. in comparison with the oral narratives from instruction sessions 4 and 5. They regreted that they’d better take a trip sooner. in spite of occasional slips. as Figure 1 shows. They were thinking about the place they would go in their house’s garage. At the at the same time Holy and Alex were watching watching them. They were talking about the place where to go in their garage. They’ve got full of Gas and a road map. . At the same time.g.. At last they departed the trip with the delightful delightfulness. they regretted that em . At last they departed their trip with a delight. However. (This trend was upheld on the delayed posttest. on the posttest Je-Young made fewer self-corrective attempts. The narratives show a high degree of consistency. Val’s daughters were watching them. “At last they depart departed the trip. decided to take a trip. They didn’t know they didn’t choose where to go.) The oral version shows evidence of self-monitoring through self-correction (e. At that time Joanne found something wrong. . (oral) Joan and Val eh . Joan found something wrong. At last they depart departed the trip. . . Val pretend that she didn’t she didn’t hear that.
eh . that he wasn’t with her love a couple of weeks. 564 TESOL QUARTERLY . and she surprised. . she was very angry. and on Monday one day Mary called Ellen. her friend Ellen . . . Mary starting read this letter. They sent credit card to her son Max. Phil wants to explain. only one person who is getting it’s her mother. Now maybe he’s thinking. . . Eh . Phil invited Val for a nice walk in park almost two weeks. . together. . One day Mary visited Ellen. because her Ellen is more optimistic.another indication that her control over tense consistency improved over time. her son Max got a credit card with a limit $50. . She saw a letter and so she thought they sent her one. They have a partner. . eh . we have been divorced for a long time. . She said that it’s man’s world. The best way would be for him to have a single person too. so she say maybe this is this credit. . She is smiling. But the difference is Val has two kids and Phil is still alone. . but her friend . Ellen she see some letter in her hands. . . But she didn’t have a time. the random variations persisted.000 dollars. . . . That’s impossible. . because she thought her me and my husband . . Phil is sad. When one of them had a problem they discussed it. eh . Contrast Group: Blanka Blanka. Phil is now wondering. Eh . . She was angry. She has been divorced with her husband Leon for two years. as Jee-Young did. Eh . Of all the nonrecast group members. Eh . missed one instruction session. . . . Her pretest data follow: (written) Mary and Ellen were friends for a long time. eh . . . she had been in the United States the longest (24 months). Ellen is surprise and Mary can’t believe too. Just Mary’s mother Ann is more skeptic. . . He is small kid—two years old. one of the four subjects in the nonrecast group. She tells him true. they discussing it . . They continued with reading. . eh . When some . Yesterday she promised to come. someone of them had a problem. In the absence of corrective feedback. but credit doesn’t still work. She can’t take care of everything. . how does that possible? Eh . She said she’s a single working parent. Blanka’s oral and written narratives both show a tendency toward random use of the past and present tenses. (oral) Mary and Ellen were for a long time friends. . eh . eh continues . . . she worries about her daughters. as shown by the data from the fourth instructional session: (written) Phil and Val—both have been divorced for a long time. she surprised not to what happened? Her. He ask Val if she listens to him. . Now they have each other. but her credit doesn’t still works. He said her a nice words b out his love to her but she all the time watches her watch.
Although the subjects in both the recast and the contrast groups selfcorrected. the recasts would also heighten learners’ awareness.”)... relative to the recast group. the data provide convincing evidence that the recasts had a notable impact on the recast group’s oral and written output. In contrast to Jee-Young’s performance.g. Ideally.” So yesterday Val promised to Phil to come to the meeting they will make a nice walk in the park. so like Val. So now they are not walking.g. All the time she is looking at her watch. fewer involved tenses and more involved other forms (e. “One day Val come to house come to home and ﬁnd er . Em .g. At the end she says him that she is not careful about she has to be careful about her career about her family and she found some gray hair in her head and he is surprise he has a lot of gray hair. . “Now both of them found a partner somebody who likes. He seems that Val looks very nice and young and he says he has gray hair too. I considered the intermodal changes observed in Jee-Young’s output to be an indication of enhanced awareness. Phil says Val some nice words about love about something like that. “He said her a nice words b out his love to her but she all the time watches her watch”) and her oral narrative (e. though Phil doesn’t understand and she ask her what is going on and Val explained him her situation she is a working parent. The recast group’s much higher frequency of selfcorrections involving tenses (e. . Now both of them found a partner somebody who likes.. The nonrecast group made more self-corrective attempts. her money was missing”).. which was initially characterized by ﬂuctuation but stabilized after she had received recasts. . the focus of their correction differed (see Table 7). “They THE IMPACT OF RECASTS ON TENSE CONSISTENCY 565 . She has a daughter eh . Blanka’s use of past and present tenses continued to ﬂuctuate considerably during the study (see Figures 2 and 3). Random use of past and present tenses persisted in Blanka’s written narrative (e. “And Phil feel felt upset”.g. Val she doesn’t listen to him she doesn’t pay attention. but. however. but an examination of self-correction among the subjects provides stronger evidence for awareness because this behavior suggests that the learner has recognized the gap between the initial production and the target form.(oral) Phil was has been divorced for a lot of years. but Phil was a single man without children and Val was a mother she had two daughter so she doesn’t has any free time and Phil invited Val a lot of time for a meeting but all the time Val she said “I don’t have time I don’t have time. . . . she has to keep attention to her to her house she spent a lot of time in the work and so Phil is surprised when she promised him to spend with her one day she has the time for him. Self-Correction as an Indicator of Awareness Overall.
Over the period. realized they know knew each other”) constitutes compelling evidence that the recasts had indeed triggered some awareness on the part of the subjects in this group and. during instruction. tense consistency improved systematically in the written 566 TESOL QUARTERLY . further. subjects in the recast group displayed a greater ability to maintain tense consistency when producing narratives than their counterparts in the nonrecast group did. DISCUSSION This study revealed evidence indicating that recasts helped learners maintain tense consistency in their L2 narration and heightened their awareness of tense consistency. led to better control over tense consistency in their output. Moreover. IS = instruction session. The recast group outperformed the contrast group following a number of instruction sessions with intensive provision of recasts.FIGURE 2 Proportions of Past and Present Tense Marking in Blanka’s Written Narratives Note.
This result indicates that the recasts. which were consistently provided on the oral output.FIGURE 3 Proportions of Past and Present Tense Marking in Blanka’s Oral Narratives Note. Enhanced awareness on the part of the subjects in the recast group was also evident from the fact that the recast group’s self-corrective attempts focused mainly on tenses.e. led to a cross-modal transfer of awareness (i. IS = instruction session. narratives of the subjects in the recast group but not of those in the nonrecast group.. from oral to written modality). TABLE 7 Self-Corrections by the Recast Group and the Nonrecast Group Tenses Group Recast Nonrecast n 29 11 % 88 28 n 4 29 Other forms % 12 72 Total n 33 40 THE IMPACT OF RECASTS ON TENSE CONSISTENCY 567 .
and intensity—constitute a set of interdependent conditions under which the recasts proved to be successful. (b) consistent focus. This focus may have facilitated the learners’ awareness of the intent of the pedagogical instruction and may have in turn propelled them to align their output with the target as signaled by the researcher (cf. I note in passing that although some non-tense-related forms were recast. their reliability may have been reduced. Had the recasts been only frequent and not focused. Oliver. at least by children (Oliver. In this study. First. As a result. was not to teach a new form but to heighten the subjects’ awareness of what counted as appropriate use on that particular task (i. 1998.. developmental readiness. Doughty & Varela. which in turn leads to saliency. narration). the learners were developmentally ready to beneﬁt from the negative and positive evidence provided by the recasts (cf. These four factors—individualized attention. 1998. The study contained eight instruction sessions conducted over a period of 4 weeks. 2000). Doughty & Varela. (c) developmental readiness. consistent focus. A discussion of each may be useful in applying the positive ﬁndings from this study in other settings. Frequency and saliency have also been identiﬁed as important for recasts to be effective (e. that the reliability rather than the frequency of recasts is crucial. the instruction had a consistent focus on one aspect of L2 use—namely. The linguistic feature targeted by the instruction was one of which the subjects had knowledge and one that they were in the process of developing an ability to use properly in real operating conditions. 568 TESOL QUARTERLY . the study. these recasts were random (as opposed to systematic). each subject received individualized attention from the researcher. 1995). Intensity is related to frequency. The intensive. tense consistency. in which recasts were the only vehicle of instruction. then. extended instruction may have forced the change in behavior and subsequent retention of that change. 1995).g.e. Multiple corrections entailing several types of grammatical changes have been found to be difﬁcult to process. however. was akin to a clinic to which students went for symptomatic treatment. The role of the recasts. carried out in a laboratory setting with a small number of subjects. and the recasts probably would not have led to the degree of uptake seen in the recast group’s output. Oliver. Second. In other words. I concur with Bohannon and Stanowicz (1988). and (d) intensity. 1995).Conditions for Effective Functioning of Recasts Four conditions appear to have affected the outcomes of this smallscale study: (a) individualized attention.. The last condition is the intensity of the instruction. reliability in this context being seen as synonymous with consistent focus. Muranoi.
at the core of an understanding of the role of recasts are two questions: Under which conditions and on which aspects of L2 development would recasts have a positive effect? As for the question of which aspects of L2 development would beneﬁt from recasts. the study focused on only one feature of L2 use on one type of task for a small number of learners. In real classrooms.e. and intensity are indeed what it takes for recasts to trigger awareness and to ensure change in behavior. CONCLUSION Despite the positive results obtained and the speculation about factors affecting success. and corrective feedback. This study has offered some suggestions about the factors affecting the success of recasts. language-speciﬁc syntax. 1998. 1998. and certain speciﬁable L1-L2 contrasts. If individualized attention. Han.. Muranoi. students rarely get much. 1990. they jointly created salience (i. 2000). Given that corrective feedback is mediated by a wide range of explicit and implicit corrective strategies. in press.e.e. is usually given ad hoc.. reinforcing change in awareness and behavior). Han & Selinker. 1999). nor can one assume that recasts would have an equally positive impact on other linguistic features. making the target linguistic feature meaningful for immediate incorporation in the L2 output). at what stage of development they would be most beneﬁcial. Indeed. Lyster. if provided. if they are. None of these conditions would seem easily replicable in real classrooms. further systematic studies are warranted to examine whether recasts alone are capable of facilitating growth in these various aspects and. morphology. 1999. developmental readiness. covering a wide range of interlanguage constructions (Han. 1997). with recasts being one such strategy. and how intensive recasts THE IMPACT OF RECASTS ON TENSE CONSISTENCY 569 . individualized attention. however. in press. and reinforcement (i. how consistent the focus should be. consistent focus. Long (1996) summarizes aspects of L2 development that are theoretically amenable to corrective feedback as the following: vocabulary.they seem to have compensated well for the intrinsic lack of elaboration in recasts. still to be explored are such issues as how much attention should be paid to individual students. if any. 1992). This may explain in part why studies of corrective feedback in real classrooms seldom generate positive ﬁndings (cf. essentially. Spada & Lightbown. The positive outcome observed cannot be assumed to transfer to other tasks. Lyster & Ranta. L1 research has generated some evidence showing that grammatical morpheme acquisition is susceptible to the inﬂuence of recasts (Farrar. Moreover. students rarely receive consistent and persistent feedback on their errors (cf. making the target linguistic feature noticeable). relevance (i. Lyster..
Instructional strategies and SLA in early French immersion.. A study of the role of awareness in foreign language behavior: Aware versus unaware learners. (1982). Farrar. Farrar. 582– 599. 245–259. (1996). (1998). N. (1991). 24. Developmental Psychology. (1994). Foreign Language Annals. Acquisition of cognitive skill. Bohannon. C. In J. In C. Error resistance: Towards an empirical pedagogy. I am also indebted to the editor. Lisa Shum. the anonymous reviewers. (1988). & Varela. Harley. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. J. Doughty. 684–689. Alatis (Ed. J. DC: Georgetown University Press. Z-H. and the interface of SLA and L2 teaching. 90–98. 15. THE AUTHOR ZhaoHong Han. Fanselow. 583–593. and Paul Wiita for their assistance on the research reported here. (1990). L. Oxford: Blackwell. 114– 138). Foreign Language Annals. (1992).should be. 34. Psychological Review. 89. L. The RELC Journal. 3. Han. J. M. J. 10. & Selinker. 331–341. and Ronald Leow for their invaluable comments and suggestions. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1993: Strategic interaction and language acquisition (pp. fossilization. 2. Williams (Eds. Joowon Suh. Washington. Rethinking the role of corrective feedback in communicativelyoriented classroom. (1993). Han. Foreign Language Annals. E. 22. Z-H. REFERENCES Anderson. Han. Developmental Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Language Teaching Research.. R. who received a PhD from the University of London. M. Her research interests include L2 learnability. Discourse and the acquisition of grammatical morphemes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. J. Her research has appeared in journals including Applied Linguistics. Columbia University. and Language Teaching Research. Communicative focus on form. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Jennifer D’Alvia. Getting quality input in the second/foreign language class570 TESOL QUARTERLY . 248–275. Fine-tuning corrective feedback. (2001).). III. Language teaching and skill learning. 369– 406. Brian Drier. (1977). K. Negative evidence and grammatical morpheme acquisition. Doughty & J. Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. Leow. 28. B. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. Z-H. 96–108). C. Further empirical studies deploying online and off-line data from multiple sources will be useful to improve use of recasts as a corrective teaching strategy. The issue of negative evidence: Adult responses to children’s language errors. & Stanowicz. The treatment of error in oral work.. P. (in press). R. Lightbown. is assistant professor of linguistics and education at Teachers College. (1999). Johnson. (2000). Fine-tuning of feedback by competent speakers to language learners. Doughty. 557–584.).
471–497. and second language acquisition. Long. (1983). 259–278.. In W. 37–66. 22. & Spada. New York: Academic Press. (1998). Kellerman & M.. J. research and practice. Clevedon. Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. H. (1998). (1991). L. Long. interaction. McConnell-Ginet (Eds. (1998). de Bot. repetition. R. K. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 4. 82. 20. Gass. Lightbown.). R. P. Williams (Eds. Crosslinguistic inﬂuence in second language acquisition (pp. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Maturation and the issue of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition. Muranoi. In C. S. R. & McDonough. & Philp. Sharwood Smith (Eds. (2000). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. & Ranta. Applied Linguistics. L. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Long. 379. Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Duquette (Eds. M. Inagaki. P. (2000). N. and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal. Language. Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. (1999). responses. S. How languages are learned? Oxford: Oxford University Press. M. (1986). Negative feedback in child NS-NNS conversation. Long. In L. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 17.). Oxford: Pergamon Press. N. 338–356. 126–141. (1998).). (1996).. Mackey. Lyster. M. In K. (1997). 51–81. Ritchie & T. 50. 82. 413–468). In E. Australia. In W. M. R. A. Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 19.). Recasts. H.). 187–197). Text and context: Crossdisciplinary perspectives on language study (pp.. Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. H.. H. Schachter. Heath. Language Learning. 15–41). 413–468). Bhatia (Eds. 12.. J.room. H. H. Lexington. Ginsberg. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Mackey. In C. noticing and second language acquisition: An examination of learners’ noticing of recasts in task-based interaction. Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. M. 357–371. Lyster. The Modern Language Journal. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Input. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Malavé & G.). A. Long. 284–304). J. Bhatia (Eds. MA: D. 459–481. and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. (1995). cross-linguistic inﬂuence and the creation of new grammars. (1991). Kramsch (Eds. England: Multilingual Matters.). Kramsch & S. 429–448. The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recast in Japanese and Spanish. Long. culture and cognition (pp. 617–673. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Interaction. Doughty & J. (1990). Towards a more language oriented second language classroom. 10–20). University of Tasmania. Focus on form: Theory. & Spada. 39–52). Netten. The competence/control model. THE IMPACT OF RECASTS ON TENSE CONSISTENCY 571 . New York: Academic Press. Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology.C. & Ortega. (2000). (1981). J. L. Lightbown. M.. M. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. (1996). Ritchie & T. Philp. H. Sharwood Smith.. & Robinson.. Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts. & C. Oliver.
& Sanz. 165–179. (1990). P. Spada. From input to output: Processing instruction and communicative tasks. Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Hillsdale. 12.. 287–301. (1999). In F. (1995). C. Eckman. J. 1–22. B. Input enhancement in instructed SLA. The Modern Language Journal.Sharwood Smith. B. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. NJ: Erlbaum. & Lightbown. N.. VanPatten. (1993). D. SLA theory and pedagogy (pp. Instruction. & R. M. 572 TESOL QUARTERLY . 83. Weber (Eds. ﬁrst language inﬂuence. Mileham. 169–185). 15. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Highland. VanPatten. and developmental readiness in second language acquisition. Lee.). P.
These results are discussed in relation to the hypothesis that L2 learners may beneﬁt more from retrieval and production processes than from only hearing target forms in the input. 2000). 1999. The study examines the range and types of feedback used by the teacher and their relationship to learner uptake and immediate repair of error. The database consists of 10 hours of transcribed interaction. 1997... 4. Lyster & Ranta. orrective feedback has recently gained prominence in studies of ESL and other L2 education contexts. learners may require negative evidence (i.e. No..g.716 student turns and 1. Consequently. as a number of researchers have looked speciﬁcally into its nature and role in L2 teaching and learning (e. namely. 2000. 1987). coded in accordance with the categories identiﬁed in Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) model of corrective discourse. Much of this research has been motivated by the theoretical claim that. White.g. when they are not able to discover through exposure alone how their interlanguage differs from the L2 (e. 1985. the resulting cognitive comparison may trigger a destabilization and restructuring of TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. The results reveal a clear preference for implicit types of reformulative feedback. recasts and translation. although a great deal of L2 learning takes place through exposure to comprehensible input. Havranek. 1988.Patterns of Corrective Feedback and Uptake in an Adult ESL Classroom ILIANA PANOVA AND ROY LYSTER McGill University Montreal. comprising 1. information about ungrammaticality). Quebec. Bley-Vroman. Doughty & Varela.641 teacher turns. Canada This article begins by synthesizing ﬁndings from observational classroom research on corrective feedback and then presents an observational study of patterns of error treatment in an adult ESL classroom. Ohta. 36. rates of learner uptake and immediate repair of error are low in this classroom. Winter 2002 C 573 . leaving little opportunity for other feedback types that encourage learner-generated repair. Rutherford & Sharwood Smith. If corrective feedback is sufﬁciently salient to enable learners to notice the gap between their interlanguage forms and target language forms (Schmidt & Frota. in the form of either feedback on error or explicit instruction. 1986). 1998. 1986. Oliver.
immediate vs. Fanselow (1977). Similarly. ignoring vs. disapprovingly refers to. For the purposes of this overview. The present study builds on previous studies by drawing on one of these models to describe and analyze the error treatment process in an ESL classroom where the students are adults and the L2 instruction is within the communicative orientation of language teaching. 1995).. 31). 1977. Following the tradition of early descriptive studies of classroom interaction. 1994.e. In reviewing classroom observational studies. Uptake refers to different types of student responses immediately following the feedback. Among the 16 types of verbal and nonverbal teacher reactions to learner errors. delayed correction). inconsistent. knowledge about how language learning takes place. His observations revealed that error treatment in the classroom is imprecise. 1997). including responses with repair of the nontarget items as well as utterances still in need of repair (Lyster & Ranta. corrective feedback refers to “any reaction of the teacher which clearly transforms. OBSERVATIONAL CLASSROOM STUDIES OF FEEDBACK AND UPTAKE The overview of studies presented in this section examines relevant observational research on corrective feedback and learner uptake during oral classroom work. the most common was the teacher’s provision of 574 TESOL QUARTERLY . Gass. correcting an error. An additional effect of corrective feedback may be the enhancement of learners’ metalinguistic awareness (Swain. His analysis included error types as well as teachers’ options in responding to student errors (i. observational studies have been undertaken to describe patterns of error treatment by using increasingly ﬁne-tuned models of corrective discourse. Allwright (1975) speculated that research on teacher feedback has the potential to provide information about the effectiveness of the instructional process and.the target language grammar (Ellis. Based on an early study of classroom interaction in an adult ESL classroom. we look for common patterns of error treatment in different classroom contexts that involve preferred corrective techniques as well as how speciﬁc types of feedback and error types correlate with learner uptake and repair. in an analysis of the corrective techniques of 11 teachers in adult ESL classrooms. 1997). or demands improvement of the learner utterance” (Chaudron. ultimately. found that feedback was confusing to learners in that the latter often received contradictory signals simultaneously with respect to the content and the form of their utterances. p. and ambiguous.
Yes.. Its level of detail gave due credit to the complexity of the phenomenon of error treatment in a classroom setting..e. 208) PATTERNS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND UPTAKE 575 . as a result. . In examining the relationship between feedback and immediate learner repair. reduction. recasts). and negation. Among these were items that had arisen incidentally during classroom interaction. Chaudron’s model was a signiﬁcant step forward in attempting to identify various corrective techniques as well as a ﬁrst serious attempt to look into the relationship between type of error. Did you like it? Yes. targeted by more elicitative types of feedback. I . Chaudron found a positive effect for repetitions with change (i.e. I liked it. . as illustrated in the following example: L: T: . Slimani gave several examples of items that students claimed as being noticed. Slimani found that the instances of error correction that passed unnoticed had occurred when teachers reformulated learner utterances implicitly. 1992. as in the following example: T: L: T: L: T: OK. You are looking for your pen. Classroom observations and audio recordings of the lessons allowed Slimani to conclude that students failed to claim 36% of the language items focused on during the lessons and that the majority of these unnoticed or “lost” items had been focused on as error correction.. p. but its ﬁndings are relevant to the issue of feedback because of its innovative procedure of asking young adult students to complete recall charts on which they were to claim language items that they had noticed during ESL lessons. recasts) plus reduction and emphasis. p. . recasts). I looking for my pen. .e. opportunities for selfrepair were minimal. recasts) plus expansion resulted in a low rate of learner repair. However.the target language form (i.e. 1992. I liked it. without any metalanguage or further involvement from students (i. Yes. He found that the most common type of feedback used by teachers was reformulation of learner utterances. Chaudron (1977) developed a comprehensive model of corrective discourse. accompanied by various features such as emphasis. and learner repair. feedback. I like it. 212) In contrast to this. based on the data from his study of immersion classrooms.. Slimani’s (1992) observational study of classroom interaction was not designed speciﬁcally to investigate error treatment. (Slimani.? Yes. whereas repetitions with change (i. yes. (Slimani. as well as expansion or unaltered repetition.
In a similar vein.e. each type of uptake included additional possibilities regarding various levels of student responses.Thus. they identiﬁed six types of corrective feedback in the database: explicit correction. Two types of uptake (immediate learner responses) were identiﬁed. One learner was able to identify 46% of the feedback moves in the 50-minute segment. The following patterns emerged from the analysis. learners claimed to notice forms that they were pushed to selfrepair more than forms that were implicitly provided by teachers. those including learner-generated repair) are likely to beneﬁt the development of target language accuracy. Speciﬁcally. In 6 hours of recorded classroom interaction.3 hours of teacher-student interaction in four Grade 4/5 French immersion classrooms during subject-matter and French language arts lessons. Uptake was not considered to be an instance of learning. clariﬁcation requests. another identiﬁed 37%. and repetition of error. First. and recasts accounted for about 70% of these corrective feedback moves.. Research on negative evidence in L1 acquisition motivated Doughty’s (1994) study of corrective feedback with adult learners of French as a foreign language. constituting 60% of all feedback. namely. Lyster and Ranta (1997) analyzed 18. Recasting was the predominant type of response to learner errors. and the learners were more likely to identify these as feedback moves although they were still unable to identify any more than 43% of these partial recasts. Learners in this study responded with wellformed repetitions after only 21% of these recasts. elicitation. Roberts coded many of the recast moves as partial recasts because they shortened the learner’s utterance to isolate the error. Drawing on categories from previous models as well as adding new categories derived from the analysis of teacher-student interaction in these classrooms. a ﬁnding that appears to be at odds with Doughty’s conclusion that the learners in this study tended to notice the teacher’s feedback. teachers 576 TESOL QUARTERLY . recasts. Furthermore. uptake with repair and uptake with needs-repair. although the authors speculated that certain types of uptake (i. metalinguistic feedback. He investigated their ability to identify instances of teacher feedback in a post hoc viewing of a video recording of a 50-minute lesson in which they and an unidentiﬁed number of other classmates had participated. the teacher provided corrective feedback after roughly half the students’ illformed utterances. and another only 24%. The notion of uptake enabled the researchers to identify different degrees of student participation in the error treatment sequence and thereby to describe various patterns of error treatment in teacher-student interaction. Roberts (1995) conducted a small-scale study with three adult learners of Japanese. the researchers developed an analytic model to code error treatment sequences in terms of corrective feedback types and learner uptake.
Next. 2. feedback types that provide clues for selfrepair rather than correct reformulations) were more likely than recasts and explicit corrections to lead to immediate repair of lexical and grammatical errors. Lyster (1998a) found that corrective sequences involving negotiation of form (i. clariﬁcation requests. most learnergenerated repair occurred after elicitation and metalinguistic feedback. PATTERNS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND UPTAKE 577 .provided feedback on 62% of the erroneous utterances. RATIONALE AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS With respect to general patterns of error treatment. In a subsequent study.. In addition. recasts were the least successful type. Lyster and Ranta (1997) argued that feedback types such as metalinguistic feedback. recasting of learner utterances was the most widely used type of feedback. with respect to the relationship between type of feedback and learner uptake. Teachers have at their disposal a wide variety of corrective strategies to focus on learner errors. recasts and explicit correction). Lyster suggested that the corrective purpose of recasts may not be the primary one. because the function and distribution of recasts following ill-formed utterances paralleled the function and distribution of noncorrective repetitions following well-formed learner utterances. similar to noncorrective repetitions. and repetition of error create opportunities for negotiation of form by promoting more active learner involvement in the error treatment process than do feedback types that reformulate learner errors (i. Using the same database. 71). 1996). and elicitation resulted in the highest rate of uptake. The analyses revealed the potential for ambiguity of recasts from the learners’ perspective.e. recasts. can be perceived by learners as positive evidence (information about what is acceptable in the target language) rather than negative evidence (see also Long. elicitation.. Lyster (1998b) analyzed the function and the distribution of different types of recasts and compared them with the distribution of teachers’ noncorrective repetitions of well-formed utterances. Second. and argued that “recasts have more in common with non-corrective repetition and topic-continuation moves than with other forms of corrective feedback” (p. especially when they are accompanied by approval directed at the content of the ill-formed utterance. Choice of feedback type can be dependent on type of error. Consequently. the results of classroom-based observational research on feedback and uptake reviewed in the previous section reveal that 1. whereas recasts were found to be effective in leading to repair of phonological errors.e.
and repetition of error correlate more positively with learner uptake and immediate repair. The study aims primarily to answer the following research question: Given adult learners in a context of communicative language teaching. In comparison with other feedback types. Lyster and Ranta’s study was conducted with young learners in French immersion classrooms with content-based L2 instruction. The discourse functions of recasts may lead classroom learners to confuse recasts with positive feedback moves. is to examine the error treatment patterns. Of particular relevance is Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) study of corrective feedback and learner uptake and. Lyster and Ranta’s model was selected for the present analysis because (a) it provides a tool for identifying. In contrast. in an adult ESL classroom. in these cases. The primary aim of this study. which the present study applies to a different instructional setting. individual teacher styles in the treatment of error during oral classroom interaction and (b) it facilitates an examination of how learners react to feedback in a variety of ways. 5. involving the relationship between feedback types and how learners respond to them. involves repetition. The corrective techniques of clariﬁcation request. The ﬁndings of observational research on feedback have motivated the present study. therefore. speciﬁcally. 8. in detail. elicitation. Learner repair immediately following feedback can be either repetition or learner-generated repair. metalinguistic feedback. 9. 6. and. which. Recasts that reduce the learner’s utterance and add stress to emphasize the corrective modiﬁcation are more effective at eliciting repetition of the recast and are more likely to be identiﬁed by learners as corrective feedback. in the case of recasts. Learners claim to notice forms that they are pushed to self-repair more than forms that are implicitly provided by teachers. the repair is learner generated. their analytical model of error treatment. 4. which feedback types lead to the greatest amount of uptake? 578 TESOL QUARTERLY . Its secondary aim is to ascertain whether Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) model of corrective discourse is applicable in a different instructional context. the present study involves adult learners of English in an L2 classroom where the instruction targets the L2 within the realm of communicative language teaching. Recasts are the most widely used type of feedback in the observed classrooms.3. 7. recasts do not promote immediate learner repair. depending on the type of feedback used.
however. 1993. one was from Guinea Conakry. and was instead more similar to EFL contexts.To answer this question. because so many of the students shared a common language other than English (i. The observations took place in a class of 25 students. Haitian Creole was their L1. but they also spoke French. All participants had completed at least presecondary schooling but varied in the extent to which they had completed their secondary PATTERNS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND UPTAKE 579 . as suggested by Nobuyoshi and Ellis (1993). regarding the role of production in moving learners from semantic processing to syntactic processing). We acknowledge. Two students were from Quebec. one from Portugal. who found that the learners who responded with self-completed repair following clariﬁcation requests improved more than the learner who did not modify his output following the feedback. and one from the Dominican Republic. Therefore. Canada. recasts may be more salient for adult learners than for children. 1995. whose ages ranged from 17 to 55 years. we ﬁrst identify the various feedback types used in this classroom.. METHOD Participants The study was conducted over a period of 4 weeks in an adult educational centre ESL classroom in a Montreal school board in Quebec. a comparison of our ﬁndings with those of Lyster and Ranta (1997) will be of theoretical interest in light of our prediction—namely. Yet uptake involving learner-generated repair may indeed contribute to language development. that whether or not learners repeat a recast may be inconsequential with respect to L2 learning. 1985. this classroom was unlike many ESL classrooms in other North American contexts and elsewhere.e. as suggested by Mackey and Philp’s (1998) study (but see Swain. because adults are more intentional in their learning than children are. which is the language of instruction in Haiti. Kowal & Swain. Uptake consisting of a repetition may not have much to contribute to L2 development because of its redundancy in an error treatment sequence in which the teacher both initiates and completes the repair within a single move. Further. and thus a higher rate of uptake following recasts is predicted in the adult classroom. 1997. Twenty of the students were of Haitian background. We return in the conclusion to the issue of retrieval processes and of which process is more likely to trigger a destabilization of interlanguage forms: (a) retrieval from external input and use of receptive skills to reanalyze linguistic representations or (b) retrieval via internal processes resulting in reanalysis and the production of modiﬁed output. French).
Oral activities were conducted in such a way as to create a lively classroom atmosphere where. Thus. speaking and listening comprehension. Instructional Context The aim of adult educational centres is to enable students to complete their high school studies and possibly pursue studies in higher educational institutions. which includes speaking. The use of French was widespread in this classroom when comprehension problems arose and when students were assigned pair and group work. The ESL program for adults consists of seven levels. She was chosen on the basis of her professional interest and willingness to participate in the study. does not focus on accuracy of learner language. and English. Focus on language form is brief and is discretely presented in the program materials as additional information for the students to consult at home or discuss with the teacher. The goal of the ESL program is for students to achieve a fair degree of communicative competence in English. The Level 2 course in the present study consisted of 90 hours distributed over a 9-week period. listening. and writing measures. Although Level 2 is an early intermediate level. such as vocational colleges or universities. the 10 hours per week usually involved one 2-hour class per day. according to results obtained by using Part A of 580 TESOL QUARTERLY .schooling. reading. This means that teachers have to rely on personal choices as to whether and when to focus on formal features of the language. The teacher was a female French/English bilingual with 13 years’ experience in teaching ESL to adults. writing and reading. The instructional approach of the program is within the communicative orientation of language teaching. and the evaluation of the students. French. She was informed that the study would examine aspects of classroom interaction but not that the speciﬁc focus was on corrective feedback. the teacher considered the proﬁciency of the students in this group to be at a beginning level because of their problems in comprehension and their limited oral and written production abilities with respect to vocabulary and sentence structure. The students had been placed in this Level 2 ESL course based on results obtained on tests in math. to a lesser degree. activities that focus on linguistic form are minimal. The observed classroom was particularly dynamic in that the teacher focused to a considerable extent on oral interactive activities and listening comprehension and to a lesser extent on written activities. including provision of corrective feedback. with a strong emphasis on vocabulary development. and the successful completion of Levels 1–4 represents the minimum requirement for obtaining a high school diploma. and.
” “Going Shopping. which constitute the present study’s database. She also produced audio recordings for subsequent analysis by using two microphones that were placed on the walls of the classroom in such a way as to capture both the teacher’s and the students’ utterances: One was positioned close to the front of the classroom. teacher-initiated or PATTERNS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND UPTAKE 581 .g. These 10 hours consist of one 2-hour lesson from Week 6. the teacher’s focus on formal properties of the language was incorporated in the thematic structure of the lessons (some of the lesson topics were “Eating Out. Procedure During observations of 18 hours of classroom interaction during Weeks 6–9 of the 9-week course. The database does not contain any lessons devoted only to grammar. The most frequent oral activities were (a) role plays presented by pairs of students (e. in addition to using COLT Part A. three 2-hour lessons from Week 7. the students and teacher were involved in oral exchanges 90% of the time. with either repair of the error or needs-repair This order reﬂects what usually happens when a teacher responds to an utterance containing an error and when the student attempts to respond to the teacher’s feedback move. the ﬁrst author. eating at a restaurant. which contains teacher and student turns in the following order: • learner error • teacher feedback • learner uptake. were transcribed by the ﬁrst author. The main unit of analysis was the error treatment sequence. Of the 18 hours of recorded interaction.” and “Travel”). and (c) occasional dictations.Spada and Fröhlich’s (1995) Communicative Orientation to Language Teaching (COLT) coding scheme. making travel arrangements) and (b) reading and listening comprehension activities (usually in the form of question-and-answer exchanges after reading a text or listening to a recorded conversation). rather. Students often completed these written tasks in pairs or in small groups. wrote ﬁeld notes to capture speciﬁc contextual and paralinguistic features.. and the other was placed at the back. and one 2-hour lesson from Week 8. (b) short grammar exercises. such as gestures and the teacher’s writing on the board. In other cases. as anticipated. 10 hours. The categories used to code the data in the present study were adapted from the error treatment sequence delineated in Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) model. Writing activities were usually brief and involved (a) ﬁlling in blanks in dialogues while listening to audio recordings.
similar to the type of recasts provided by primary caregivers in child L1 acquisition (Long. and repetition. T = teacher.86 level of agreement. explicit correction. Student utterances in the L1 were also included in the analysis in order to compare the teacher’s responses to L1 use with her usual response to errors in the L2. . grammatical. Individual student turns that contained both French and English lexical items were considered nontargetlike and were included in the analysis as well. 582 TESOL QUARTERLY . you . S = student. All student utterances with errors were counted. (recast) You remember? Safe and dangerous. and a test of interrater reliability yielded a . The ﬁrst author coded the data in accordance with the categories in Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) model of error treatment. they were not the main subject of interest in this study. or uptake with needs-repair. SmS = the same student. or lexical. S: T: Dangerous? (phonological error: /dange’rus/) Yeah. All student utterances were included in the analysis. A recast (see Example 1) is an implicit corrective feedback move that reformulates or expands an ill-formed or incomplete utterance in an unobtrusive way.student-initiated topic continuation may follow learner error.1 1. Lyster and Ranta (1997) found very few of these moves in their database and so coded translations as recasts—due 1 In the extracts. Translation can be seen as a feedback move when it follows a student’s unsolicited uses of the L1. clariﬁcation request. We did not exclude incomplete or brief utterances because we felt that they were important in analyzing learner language at this beginning stage of the students’ L2 development. 1996). translation. good. . metalinguistic feedback. The second author coded a randomly selected subsample of 16% of the feedback sequences. making minor modiﬁcations (discussed in the next section). and DifS = a different student from the previous student turn. teacher feedback. Errors were coded as phonological. If you walk in the streets. Dangerous. uptake with repair. elicitation. Analysis Feedback Types The teacher used seven types of corrective feedback: recast. they were coded in order to trace general tendencies in the teacher’s corrective patterns. Even though the types of errors were isolated in the coding stage of the analysis.
3. clariﬁcation requests were used when there were problems in the form that. now. okay. In the database. . (repair) According to Lyster and Ranta (1997). without explicitly providing the correct answer” (p. metalinguistic feedback (see Example 5) refers to “either comments. illustrated in Example 4. This is the name of your city in Haiti where you grew up. (grammatical error) I’m sorry? (clariﬁcation request) Although phrases such as I’m sorry and I don’t understand are typical of clariﬁcation requests. as a result of the students’ low proﬁciency level. also affected the comprehensibility of the utterance. The teacher seems to be aware of what the student wants to say and focuses him on the error without giving him the correct response but. Yeah. where I live. PATTERNS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND UPTAKE 583 . my city . 46). Bernard. information. j’ai pas ﬁni. Interestingly. uses a clue that directs the student to the nature of the error. . T: S: T: SmS: T: SmS: Okay. another type occurred in the data. S: T: I want practice today. Often this type of feedback seeks clariﬁcation of the meaning as well.to their similar function of reformulating nontarget learner utterances. have you ﬁnished? (translation) The purpose of a clariﬁcation request is to elicit reformulation or repetition from the student with respect to the form of the student’s illformed utterance. where I was living. today. in this case temporal reference. (grammatical error) Now? (clariﬁcation request) Yeah . Because of the high number of such translations occurring in the present database. . Here. . Such is the case in Example 3. an example of which follows: 2. (L1) You haven’t ﬁnished? Okay. or questions related to the well-formedness of the student utterance. which place is near the water? Non. T: S: T: All right. Yes? Yeah. There is nevertheless a relevant difference between a recast (a response to an ill-formed utterance in the L2) and a translation (a response to a well-formed utterance in the L1). 4. we coded these as a separate feedback category. . via a clariﬁcation request. in which the student utterance is illformed to an extent that the teacher is not sure what the student means. . . this type of clariﬁcation request clearly seeks to elicit self-repair from the student as the teacher responds literally to what the student has said. there is no comprehension problem.
yeah. . . Okay. (b) when the teacher asks an open question. Lyster and Ranta (1997) identiﬁed three ways of eliciting the correct form from the students: (a) when the teacher pauses and lets the student complete the utterance. elicitation is a corrective technique that prompts the learner to self-correct. . (lexical error) Yes. let’s see. as shown in Example 9. (lexical error) S: 584 TESOL QUARTERLY . the teacher repeats the ill-formed part of the student’s utterance. which results in peer repair. expecting the student to provide the right lexical item. 9. . how much do you tip? No money. you write . (explicit correction) In a repetition. write. write (pretends to be writing on the board). I’m sure they’d love that. Example 6 shows an instance of (a).5. . . S: T: SmS: New Ecosse. (lexical error) What’s the word? (elicitation) Five . (L1) New Ecosse. (repair) Example 7 represents the elicitation technique described in (b). you start here. What is this called? Comma. well. . . the day before yesterday. anyway. write. when you do a paragraph. . Here. I like that. remember this is . S: T: The day . Unlike recasts and translation. . what tip should you leave for the following . S: T: Nouvelle Ecosse . but that’s in French. and (c) when the teacher requests a reformulation of the illformed utterance. . in a fast food restaurant? (elicitation) Nothing (repair) Nothing. 7. (needs repair) What’s the word . T: . . (metalinguistic feedback) Similar to the purpose of clariﬁcation requests and metalinguistic feedback. . as shown in Example 8. . . four . 6. (L1) Oh. tomorrow. . No. . . .? (elicitation) Nova Scotia. 8. . T: S: T: SmS: T: DifS: T: In a fast food restaurant. usually with a change in intonation. . Nova . explicit correction involves a clear indication to the student that an utterance was ill-formed and also provides the correct form. in which the teacher elicits self-repair by pausing. . (topic continuation) Explicit correction provides explicit signals to the student that there is an error in the previous utterance.
Repair can occur in the following forms: self-repair or peer repair of error. 49).? (elicitation) Hot. or translation. When feedback results in student uptake. S: T: Sms: S: T: SmS: DifS: T: C’est ça. . as shown respectively in Examples 12 and 13. and elicitation. thus denying the students an opportunity to respond to feedback. because these feedback types include the target form. . Self. . (L1) It’s very . whereas peer repair (shown in Example 10) is provided by a student different from the one who initially made the error. explicit correction. that is. the latter includes two possibilities that are represented by the categories of repair and needsrepair. Très chaud. Uptake does not occur when either (a) feedback is followed by teacher-initiated topic continuation. . metalinguistic feedback. feedback fails to be verbally acknowledged and perhaps noticed. (self-repair) I don’t understand wine [win]. nor does it refer to self-initiated repair” (p. if noticing is measured by the presence of student response. According to Lyster and Ranta (1997). and repetition or incorporation of feedback. or (b) feedback is followed by student-initiated topic continuation. prompts the student who committed the error to self-correct. white wine . . .and peer repair follow elicitative types of corrective feedback such as repetition.T: DifS: Comma? (repetition) Period. (topic continuation) 11. 49). PATTERNS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND UPTAKE 585 . (repair) Learner Responses to Feedback: Uptake and Repair In Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) model. Self-repair (shown in Example 9) occurs when teacher feedback. which does not include the correct form. Repetition and incorporation usually follow recasts. repair refers to “the correct reformulation of an error as uttered in a single turn and not to the sequence of turns resulting in the correct reformulation. clariﬁcation requests. 10. (phonological error) I’m sorry . which can be repeated or incorporated in a longer utterance.? (clariﬁcation request) Wine [win] (needs-repair/same error) Wine [wain] (peer repair) Wine? Red wine. uptake in the error-feedback sequence refers to “a student utterance that immediately follows the teacher’s feedback and that constitutes a reaction in some way to the teacher’s intention to draw attention to some aspect of the student’s initial utterance” (p.
T: S: T: SmS: The category of needs-repair refers to a situation in which the student has responded to the teacher’s feedback move in some way but the uptake has not resulted in repair. elicitation. . 1%). elicitation. . (repair/repetition) Okay. . Metalinguistic feedback was the next prominent indicator of learner uptake. and repetition. respectively. This means that almost half (48%) of the student turns with error or use of L1 received corrective feedback. . Both . 5%. Of the student turns. some people . 4%. different error. Lyster and Ranta (1997) identiﬁed six subcategories as needs-repair: acknowledgment. at 40% and 33% of the total number of these feedback types. and partial repair. RESULTS The database is composed of a total of 1. The highest rates of learner uptake (100%) occurred with clariﬁcation requests. . The relationship between type of corrective feedback and learner uptake and repair is presented in Table 2. yes. . . 11%. . 412 (25%) included corrective feedback. thus leaving little opportunity for use of other corrective techniques (clariﬁcation request. . You wanna tell us one? Eh . eh . I have to . Of the seven types of feedback. . :Kaii convention. Of the teacher turns. or contained unsolicited use of the L1 (including turns coded as needs-repair). and recasts occurred in more than half of the feedback turns (see Table 1). The 586 TESOL QUARTERLY . explicit correction. 71% of the feedback moves with metalinguistic feedback resulted in learner uptake. on the book also? (grammatical error) In the book.716 student turns and 1. (phonological error—stress) What kind of convention? (recast) Kaii convention . Recasts and translation together accounted for 77% of the feedback moves in the database.12. uptake was lower. 857 (50%) were ill-formed. it’s good. same error. repetition. S: T: SmS: Yes. meaning that learner repair followed 16% of the feedback moves and that only 8% of the students’ 857 errors were repaired after teacher feedback. When the teacher recast or explicitly corrected an error by providing the target form. . hesitation. Only 65 of these uptake moves included learner repair. 2%. metalinguistic feedback. to ﬁnd the answer on . were incomplete. . off-target. (repair/ incorporation) 13.641 teacher turns. Learner uptake followed 192 (47%) of 412 feedback moves. recasting and translation of learner errors were used the most frequently. . (recast) In the book. . in the book.
respectively. followed by feedback moves with metalinguistic feedback (29%) and clariﬁcation requests (23%).TABLE 1 Distribution of Corrective Feedback Moves (N = 412) Feedback type Recast Translation Clariﬁcation request Metalinguistic feedback Elicitation Explicit correction Repetition n 226 91 44 21 15 9 6 % 55 22 11 5 4 2 1 lowest rate of uptake occurred when the teacher translated learner L1 utterances (21%). To summarize. However. which make the comparison of percentage distributions of uptake disproportionate to actual occurrences. As for the less frequently used types of feedback. respectively). and explicit correction were the lowest. recasts being the most widely used type of feedback. 4%. teacher turns with repetition and elicitation resulted in the highest rate of learner repair (83% and 73%. and 0%. and only TABLE 2 Uptake and Repair Moves Following Different Types of Feedback Uptake moves Feedback type Recast (n = 226) Translation (n = 91) Clariﬁcation requests (n = 44) Metalinguistic feedback (n = 21) Elicitation (n = 15) Explicit correction (n = 9) Repetition (n = 6) n 90 19 44 15 15 3 6 % of feedback type 40 21 100 71 100 33 100 n 29 4 10 6 11 0 5 Repair moves % of feedback type 13 4 23 29 73 — 83 PATTERNS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND UPTAKE 587 . they accounted for 77% of the total number of teacher feedback turns. Slightly less than half of the total number of teacher feedback moves (47%) resulted in student uptake. the teacher provided corrective feedback following 48% of the student turns with error or use of L1. recast and translation were the predominant corrective techniques in relation to the other types of feedback. at 13%. one needs to view these results with caution because of the low number of these feedback types and the consequent low number of uptake moves. With respect to learner repair. translation. Of all the feedback types. rates of repair following recasts.
possibly due to his higher proﬁciency level. In effect. An analysis of the student’s responses to feedback revealed that his responses accounted for 19% of the total 588 TESOL QUARTERLY . the teacher may have viewed recasts as a suitable strategy for providing exemplars of the target language. on the relationship between feedback types and learner responses to feedback. Fanselow. Lyster & Ranta. accounting for 22% of all feedback moves. The second most frequent feedback type was translation. This class was also reported as having the highest rates of uptake and repair. That is. 1995). In particular. this student was more vocal than most of the students in the class. With respect to recasts. may have predisposed the teacher to focus on means of providing linguistic input via reformulations. The teacher responded that she had to attend to the errors of the other students. They reported that the teacher of the most advanced class tended to recast learner errors to a lesser degree than the other three teachers did. rather than feedback types that prompt students to self-repair. 1997. on the frequency distribution of the different feedback types used by the teacher and. This ﬁnding parallels ﬁndings obtained in other observational studies with child and adult language learners (Doughty. repair of learner error followed only 16% of the total number of feedback turns. the students’ low proﬁciency level may not have allowed the teacher to use other feedback types that invite greater student participation in negotiating form. Thus. At the end of the class in the ﬁrst observation session. 1977. As it turned out. which accounted for the remaining 23% of all feedback moves. as evidenced by the great number of incomplete or brief utterances. second. accounting for 55% of all feedback moves. too. This means that the teacher strongly preferred to use reformulative techniques. Further analysis of the data led to some insight into the relationship between individual readiness and the ability to notice recasts. Somewhat surprising was the limited use of the other feedback types. DISCUSSION The present study aimed to examine the patterns of error treatment in an adult ESL classroom. Identiﬁcation of seven different feedback types and a subsequent analysis of their frequency distribution showed that recasts were the most frequently used type of feedback. Roberts. 1994. the students’ limited linguistic resources. the analysis centered. a student asked the teacher why she did not correct his errors.about one third of the uptake moves included repair. such as recasts and translation. Evidence that proﬁciency level may affect teachers’ choice of feedback and opportunities for uptake can be found in Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) study. ﬁrst.
As in Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) study. Lyster (1998a) reported that teachers in his study showed “high tolerance for uses of L1 and low expectation that they should be repaired” (p.student uptake and for 31% of the total number of turns with repair. as signaled by the higher rates of uptake and repair following these moves. this ﬁnding simply parallels the ﬁnding that recasts and translation were used extensively and that these two feedback types tend to yield low rates of uptake and repair. In the case of explicit correction. we found higher rates of uptake for repetition of error. explicit correction was more successful at leading to repair than in the present database. elicitation. with respect to uptake following recasts. With respect to immediate repair of error. in Lyster and Ranta’s database. which in turn suggests that recasts may be noticeable as negative evidence by more proﬁcient learners (less proﬁcient learners may nonetheless beneﬁt from the positive evidence that recasts are able to provide). however. respectively). However. In the present study. and repair followed only 16% of them. The students may not have viewed translation as a corrective move in the same way they perceived other feedback types. which may in turn explain why translation resulted in the lowest rate of uptake and repair (21% and 4%. slightly less than half of the feedback turns resulted in learner uptake. In light of the fact that the teacher devoted one quarter of her turns to providing corrective feedback. the fact that the teacher responded to a well-formed utterance in the learners’ L1 with translation gives it a status that is different from that of other feedback types. although it was rarely used (n = 9). 1991). Interestingly. Similarly. and metalinguistic feedback. 1998. clariﬁcation requests. none of which involved repair. 205) and attributed this ﬁnding to three of the four classes being in only their ﬁrst year of an immersion program. this student also provided as much as 53% of the total number of turns with repair following recasts. the low level of student uptake is somewhat surprising. it is noteworthy that this type of feedback resulted in uptake on only three occasions. Further. 1996. the results point decisively PATTERNS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND UPTAKE 589 . given their low proﬁciency level. With respect to translation as a corrective technique. Netten. This means that the overall class response to recasts was even lower. At least three other studies have suggested that recasts may allow more advanced learners to infer negative evidence but may pass unnoticed by less advanced learners (Lin & Hedgcock. One may wonder about the role of feedback that never leads to learner repair. the provision of target language exemplars via translation equivalents may have again been necessitated by the low proﬁciency level of the students. Mackey & Philp. The teacher’s use of translation seems to have aimed not so much at provoking a response from the students but rather at providing additional language input to the students.
recasts and translation. Overall rates of uptake and repair in the ESL classroom proved to be lower than in the immersion classrooms. they invited the highest rate of student repair. the present study included a speciﬁc category for translation. accounting for slightly more than half of the feedback turns in both studies. unintended meaning of learner utterances. (Lyster & Ranta. Consequently. English in the immersion context and French in the ESL context).e. which were used even more frequently in the ESL classroom than in the immersion classrooms. The preferred type of feedback was recasting of student errors. CONCLUSION The instructional settings observed in Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) study and in the present study are similar in one important respect: Students in both settings were characterized by a certain degree of linguistic homogeneity in that. for the most part. coded translations as recasts. In spite of these differences. recasts and translation accounted for more than three quarters of all feedback moves in the present study.. 1997.in favour of elicitation and repetition of error (with emphasis). At the same time. feedback techniques other than recasts and translation were used only minimally in the adult ESL classroom. Results obtained by applying the model and its coding categories in these two different instructional contexts revealed both similarities and differences in patterns of error treatment. communicative ESL instruction). and (c) the level of proﬁciency (intermediate-level proﬁciency in the immersion classrooms vs. Although these types of feedback occurred infrequently in the database. namely. they shared a common language other than the target language (i. Because the function of both recasts and translations is to reformulate learner utterances by providing the 590 TESOL QUARTERLY . Lyster and Ranta’s model and its coding categories proved to be applicable in the present study. These lower rates may be a result of the most frequently used types of feedback. comparable to the rate of repair in the learner responses following metalinguistic feedback. with only minor revisions: namely. beginning-level proﬁciency in the ESL classroom). However. the addition of translation as a separate feedback category and the inclusion of a type of clariﬁcation request that focused on the literal.) Together. even though uptake was high at 100%. As for feedback turns with clariﬁcation requests. learner repair occurred in less than one quarter of the students’ responses to clariﬁcation requests. (b) the instructional context and language of instruction (content-based instruction in a French immersion context vs. the settings differ in three important ways: (a) the age of the students (children vs. adults).
clariﬁcation requests. Recasts may nonetheless be more effective when provided consistently after preselected errors. repetition. Thus. such as repetitions. In contrast. 2002).correct model. Moreover. 1998) or a reduction of the learner’s utterance to locate the error. clariﬁcation requests. (a) implicit. The fact that. 2000. recasts help keep students’ attention focused on content and move the lesson ahead when the forms in question are well beyond the students’ current interlanguage (Lyster. Gass. This does not mean. 1998b). they provide teachers with efﬁcient and natural ways of responding to students and. that teachers should abandon recasts. particularly when used in tandem with other more explicit signals. such as repetition of error with added intonational stress (Doughty & Varela. elicitation. reformulative types of feedback such as recasts and translation. In both studies. enables learners to notice problems in their output and pushes them to conduct an analysis leading to modiﬁed output. Swain and Lapkin (1995) propose that feedback. is part of the process of L2 learning. at the same time. are generally more successful at leading to immediate repair of learner errors and are able to prompt peer and self-repair. & McDonough. in the case of external PATTERNS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND UPTAKE 591 . What occurs between the ﬁrst and second output. elicitation. however. in both studies. provide students with supportive. but they should not be advocated as the most effective way of providing negative evidence. In this way. corrective techniques that promote negotiation of form by allowing students the opportunity to self-correct or to correct their peers resulted in the highest rates of uptake. and metalinguistic feedback. Recasts serve important communicative functions in classroom discourse. insofar as “uptake may be related to learners’ perceptions about feedback at the time of feedback” (Mackey. The results of the present study parallel results from other studies concerning teachers’ tendency to use extensive recasting at the expense of these other types of feedback. 492). For example. With respect to the relationship between feedback type and learner uptake. if recasts and translations are essentially corrective in purpose. again with added stress for emphasis. there is little evidence that L2 learners in the present study processed them as such. the similarity of ﬁndings is noteworthy. and (b) explicit correction—tend not to push students to modify their nontarget output in their responses immediately following feedback. other feedback types. both studies demonstrate that feedback types that provide learners with target forms— namely. and metalinguistic feedback reached comparably high levels of uptake indicates that these feedback moves tend to be noticed by students. whether internally or externally generated. In contrast. they do not necessarily require student responses. p. However. scaffolded help in using their L2 (Lyster. they suggest. recasts provide considerable positive evidence.
A balance. the modiﬁcation may only be a mechanical repetition of the alternative form provided by the teacher. 1978). On the other hand. the extent to which cognitive processes are activated between the learner’s ﬁrst and second output depends on the type of feedback. This argument ﬁnds some support in the results of experimental studies of the generation effect (e. therefore. learners must attend to the retrieval of alternative forms. Slamecka & Graf. The study was funded in part by the Professional Improvement Committee of the English Montreal School Board and in part by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of 592 TESOL QUARTERLY . continued prompting of learners to draw on what they have not yet acquired will be equally ineffective. 1994. According to de Bot (1996). and cognitive factors is likely to prove more successful than overusing any one type of feedback. To do so in the case of self-completed repair. learners are pushed to draw on their own resources to modify or reprocess (Swain. in the case of opportunities for uptake following negotiationof-form moves.g. 1989. Payne. by serving as exemplars of positive evidence.. Similarly. linguistic. 1995) their nontarget output. On the one hand.feedback. Ellis (1997) distinguishes between two types of acquisition: (a) acquisition as the internalization of new forms and (b) acquisition as an increase in control over forms that have already been internalized (see also Bialystok & Sharwood Smith. in which case the learner’s attention is neither invested in the retrieval of alternative forms nor even drawn to the mismatch. language learners are likely to beneﬁt more from being pushed to retrieve target language forms than from merely hearing the forms in the input. & Campbell. of different feedback types selected in the light of various contextual. whereby participants remember items that they have generated in response to cues better than they remember items merely provided to them. Clark. recasts facilitate the internalization of new forms while negotiation of form techniques enhance control over already-internalized forms. Grosofsky. continued recasting of what students already know is unlikely to be the most effective strategy to ensure continued development of target language accuracy and may even have a leveling-off effect on their L2 development. because the retrieval and subsequent production stimulate the development of connections in memory. Possibly. 1985). on the small number of occasions when learners modify their nontarget output after a recast. In this view. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was undertaken by the ﬁrst author in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements for her master’s degree in TESL at McGill University. Buyer & Dominowski. 1995.
D. G. (1975). 353–376. & Sharwood Smith. We also thank André Mather for his assistance in verifying the French transcriptions. Washington. Doughty. Bley-Vroman. (1994). Havranek. (1977). Language Learning. L. DC: TESOL. New directions in second language learning. 529–555. S. Williams (Eds. 114– 138). Problems in the study of the language teacher’s treatment of learner error. Burt & H. C. C. The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. (1998). de Bot. In M. (1997). (1995). (1989). THE AUTHORS Iliana Panova is a PhD candidate in the Department of Integrated Studies in Education at McGill University and a participant in McGill University’s interdisciplinary PhD program in language acquisition. L.. Doughty. Nina Spada. (1986). teaching and bilingual education: On TESOL ’75 (pp. SLA research and language teaching. Ellis. He is convener of the Scientiﬁc Commission on Immersion Education for the International Association of Applied Linguistics. as well as comments from Patsy Lightbown. and Leila Ranta on earlier versions of this article. DC: Georgetown University Press. American Journal of Psychology. The treatment of error in oral work.). Buyer. 10.. R. (1999). 46. E. Communicative focus on form. Foreign Language Annals.. Payne. S. Roy Lyster is an associate professor of second language education and codirector of graduate programs in the Department of Integrated Studies at McGill University. Input. Gass.. Ellis.. 6. REFERENCES Allwright. 101–117. 107. The effectiveness of corrective feedback: Preliminary results of PATTERNS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND UPTAKE 593 . interaction. Implicit and explicit language learning (pp. R. (1996). R. Hypothesis testing in second-language acquisition theory. A. Language Learning.). (1985). (1994). London: Academic Press. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 23. 442–455. The generation effect and the modeling of associations in memory. K. In N. 102. (1997). and the second language learner. 353–363. & Dominowski. A theory of instructed second language acquisition. Memory & Cognition. R. K.Canada (410-94-0783 and 410-98-0175). & Campbell. Grosofsky. In C. her students. Dulay (Eds. Applied Linguistics. She is a literacy teacher in the adult sector of the English Montreal School Board. E. 96–108). Ellis (Ed. R. 53–68. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1993: Strategic interaction and language acquisition (pp. & Varela. 96–109).). New York: Cambridge University Press. Doughty & J. Does the generation effect depend upon selective displaces rehearsal? American Journal of Psychology. NJ: Erlbaum. Fanselow. Clark. Retention of solutions: It is better to give than to receive. 79–114). 36. Washington. We gratefully acknowledge the participation of the teacher. W.). and the school board. Interlanguage is not a state of mind. Alatis (Ed. Bialystok. Fine-tuning of feedback by competent speakers to language learners. 583–593. J. Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. In J. Mahwah. (1994).
(1998a). Burmeister. Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (Tech. Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. In P. Report No. Applied Linguistics. MA: Newbury House.). Malavé & G. 46. (2000). S. 51–81. Language Learning. Language Learning. Netten. 237–326). (1998). Negative feedback incorporation among highproﬁciency and low-proﬁciency Chinese-speaking learners of Spanish. Rutherford.. R.. Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition. 567–611. Kowal. 50. Rethinking recasts: A learner-centered examination of corrective feedback in the Japanese classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schmidt. K. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. J. ELT Journal. Rutherford. Y. (1997). R. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. culture and cognition (pp.. & McDonough. R. R. In J. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Academic Press.an empirical study. H. 189–206. Mackey.). A. 274–282. Hall & L. (1996). Ohta. Talking to learn (pp. Ritchie & T. S. T. Piske. 119–151. 162–182). repetition. How do learners perceive implicit negative feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition. In R. Acquisition et interaction en langue étrangère: Proceedings of the Eighth EUROSLA Conference. 471–497. Swain (Eds. Roberts. Lyster. J. 20.). Awareness and the efﬁcacy of error correction. K. Lin. (1985). England: Multilingual Matters. 6. and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal. 203–210. 284–304). Recasts. and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. 284–309).. Consciousness-raising and Universal Grammar. 9. M. (1996). & Ellis. 22. (1986). 413–468). Language. Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork. Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. Oliver.. L. K. 338–356. (2000). The construction of second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. W. (2002). & Swain. Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. 183–218. The importance of differentiating negotiation of form and meaning in classroom interaction. Trier. A. & Frota. recasts. In W. & Ranta. Language Learning. M.. J. (1993). 2. pp. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i. M. Grammar and second language teaching. Immersion education: International perspectives (pp. Rowley. Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Mahwah. R. A. Lyster. & Sharwood Smith. 381– 397). Clevedon. Long. 48. M. Day (Ed. New York: Newbury House. & A. 47. 82. Duquette (Eds. Schmidt (Ed..). Bhatia (Eds. W. (1988). (1995). (1991). Lyster. 47–71).-H. & Sharwood Smith.. (1997). M. Towards a more language oriented second language classroom. Negotiation of form.). From semantic to syntactic processing: How can we promote metalinguistic awareness in the French immersion classroom? In R. 37–66. 19. (1998b). M. responses. R. An integrated view of language development: Papers in honor of Henning Wode (pp.). Gass. 594 TESOL QUARTERLY . & Philp. Rohde (Eds. Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts. & Hedgcock. NJ: Erlbaum. J.. In R. Germany: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier. Lyster. Verplaetse (Eds. Mackey.. (2000).). Nobuyoshi. Johnson & M. R. In L.
(1993). 235–253). & Fröhlich.. P. N. 50. S. In S. 8. Swain. 592–604. Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development.. Swain. New York: Oxford University Press. (1995). N. Swain. 16. Rowley. (1995). Slimani. Gass & C. M. Input in second language acquisition (pp. G. Cook & B. M. 370– 391. Sydney. 125–144). Anderson & A. 158–164. Australia: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research. Widdowson (pp. (1987). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 197–221). 95–110. The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon. (1992). Beretta (Eds. M. L. The Canadian Modern Language Review. (1985).). PATTERNS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND UPTAKE 595 .). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory. Madden (Eds. M. 4. & Lapkin. In G. In C. Spada. A. Communicative Orientation of Language Teaching observation scheme: Coding conventions and applications. (1995). Seidlhofer (Eds. Principles and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. COLT. Evaluation of classroom interaction. Evaluating second language education (pp. White. (1978). M.). MA: Newbury House. Applied Linguistics. Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and the development of L2 competence. Three functions of output in second language learning. & Graf.Slamecka. Applied Linguistics. Swain..
The Discursive Construction of Power in Teacher Partnerships: Language and Subject Specialists in Mainstream Schools
University of Birmingham Birmingham, United Kingdom
This article shows how language and subject teachers in London secondary schools are positioned differently through their discursive performance of pedagogies and knowledge and how members of classroom communities view language and subject teachers as unequal. The data analysis drew on ethnography of communication (Hymes, 1972) and semiotic functional approaches ( Jakobson, 1971, 1981) to explain the observations, interviews, class transcripts, and government/ school policy documents collected during the 1-year research period. Findings raise questions about the success of a policy that seeks to make teaching relationships between language specialists and subject specialists the main support for meeting the needs of bilingual children in London secondary schools.
eaching partnerships are a common response to meeting the needs of children in diverse classrooms in many countries (Bourne, 1989; Bourne & McPake, 1991; Carrasquillo & Rodriguez, 1996; Coelho, 1998; Lee, 1997; Mohan, Leung, & Davison, 2001). Such partnerships carry the main responsibility for delivering an educational policy that has the explicit aim of including and serving the needs of children who speak English as an additional language (EAL) in mainstream classrooms and society. Yet little is known about the success of this policy in meeting these children’s needs because little is known about the nature of the teaching partnership itself. Research on L2 teaching has been slow to investigate teaching beyond the normative, one-teacher, one-class model. But other models of program design are increasingly being proposed and implemented, particularly in urban multilingual schools in England, and classroom research is therefore needed to investigate their implementation.
TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 36, No. 4, Winter 2002
This article takes a step toward a better understanding of teaching partnerships through an examination of the discursive practices of EAL and subject teachers and the ways these teachers’ discourses underpin and are unpinned by different sets of knowledge hierarchies within the classroom. I consider how EAL teachers’ knowledge and skills become positioned as having a lower status than the subject teachers’ and show how students come to view working with the EAL teacher in the mainstream classroom as less important than other class activities. The result is that a policy designed to include and celebrate diversity unwittingly mediates against the very students it sets out to support—not because the EAL teachers offer students inferior instruction but because that instruction is seen as detached from the classroom’s mainstream-curriculumdriven agenda. I therefore theorise that the feelings of marginalization that many L2 teachers experience in the mainstream classroom may result from the way institutional and societal discourses undermine not only the work such teachers do but also the students they are trying to support.
MAINSTREAMING IN ENGLAND
Mainstreaming in England developed as a progressive educational policy and is intended to be inclusive. Before mainstreaming, the tendency was to exclude bilingual children from mainstream classes until they were proﬁcient enough in English to join their peers in learning subject curricula (Reid, 1988). This exclusion was viewed as having the effect of exacerbating prejudices rather than recognizing and valuing diversity. Mainstreaming was intended to challenge the monolingual status quo while ensuring that the policy and approach remained solidly antiassimilationist (Bourne, 1989). Various government policy statements of the rationale behind the current mainstreaming, integrationist approach for bilingual students assert that the mainstream provides the best opportunities for L2 learning (Department of Education and Science [DES],1985, p. 426), cognitive development (DES, 1989, p. 10.10), meeting students’ affective needs (DES, 1985, p. 420), and developing societal equality (DES, 1985, p. 319). In England, the mainstreaming policy is enacted mainly through collaborative teaching relationships in which language specialists work alongside subject specialists in mainstream classrooms. Work on teaching partnerships in EAL contexts has highlighted a variety of modes of teacher collaboration ranging from withdrawal, to support teaching, to fully developed teaching partnerships (Bourne & McPake, 1991; Creese, 2001; Levine, 1990). The primary distinction is between support teaching, in which a language specialist works with an individual child or groups of
598 TESOL QUARTERLY
children in class while the subject teacher plans and delivers the curriculum, and partnership teaching, in which an EAL specialist works with a colleague within a subject area to develop the curriculum and improve overall provision. Partnerships have been promoted as the preferred model, but changes in the provision of funding for EAL may threaten the continuation of this approach (Creese, 2001; Department for Education & Employment [DfEE], 1998). Indeed, in the study reported on below, the bulk of collaboration took place in support rather than in partnership mode. In England and Wales, language specialists are known as Ethnic Minority and Achievement Grant (EMAG) teachers (DfEE, 1998), language support teachers, EAL teachers, and bilingual EAL teachers. Prospective teachers cannot specialise in EAL in their initial teacher education. Instead, teachers wishing to be language specialists qualify as teachers in the same way as subject teachers do—through education in a secondary school curriculum area—and move into the EAL specialization once in the mainstream setting. Their specialisation in EAL comes through practice, professional development courses run through local government services, and university courses. EAL teachers are often awarded discretionary points on the teacher pay scale because of their advisory and support role. They may travel among several schools or be attached to one school. They are often managed by a language and learning unit within the local education authority. However, many of these local government centres are being closed down, leading to decentralisation. During this time of change, research investigating the success of an educational policy that seeks to value linguistic and cultural diversity in schools might ideally play a role in future decision making.
KNOWLEDGE AND PEDAGOGIC HIERARCHIES
The concept of hierarchies of knowledge and pedagogy is useful for studying the power relationships at work in teaching partnerships. Such hierarchies are evident in discussion of facilitative and transmission pedagogies, the teaching of language and literacy practices, and the choice of foreign languages to include in the curriculum (Billig, 1988; Gee, 1999). The division between subject expertise and pedagogic expertise is often expressed in terms of transmission versus facilitation (Billig, 1988; Luke & Luke, 1999; Woods, 1993). Billig has shown that these ideological positions are not clear cut, with teachers rarely aligning themselves with either a purely transmission or a facilitative approach. Billig argues that even teachers working within the traditional transmission model rarely insist in all contexts that learning is a one-way process. Similarly, advocates of more facilitative approaches are unlikely to argue
DISCURSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF POWER IN TEACHER PARTNERSHIPS 599
Instead. the discourses they take up. and their associated affordances within mainstream settings (Arkoudis.e. 1989. . 1996. which deﬁne what “the job” actually is. how to assess its outcomes. how to talk and interact with pupils. Martin-Jones and Saxena (1996) looked at the discourse of bilingual teaching assistants (who do not have qualiﬁed teacher status) and classroom teachers in primary schools. which can be understood only through analysis of the language of the classrooms and schools. whether it was on task or not). Lee. how many can be taught or talked to at once. But these practical considerations inevitably have ideological bases. and they are therefore associated with different discourses. Subject teachers therefore generally orchestrated the enactment of the learning event both verbally and nonverbally. teachers’ main task is to get the job done: [Teachers] have to accomplish the practical task of teaching which requires getting the job done through whatever conceptions and methods work best. The result was containment of languages other than English—and the speakers of those languages—and maintenance of a monolingual order of discourse. how to react to is successes and failures. The subject teacher was able to interrupt conversation. allocate speaking turns. 2000. the subject teacher and the students. . . as Billig goes on to argue. A survey of all the bilingual classroom assistants who had been appointed was followed up by in-depth interviews with a sample of those surveyed as well as observation and audio and video recording of bilingual teaching/ learning events in classrooms. 1996).that at least some acquisition of a ready-made culture of knowledge is not an important goal of education. and interpret whether an event was signiﬁcant (i. they documented in detail the implementation of a local bilingual assistant scheme at the school and classroom level in ﬁve local education districts. TEACHER TALK AND POWER IN TEACHING PARTNERSHIPS Some research in applied linguistics has begun to study the roles language specialists play. that is. Arkoudis (2000) similarly has looked at the discursive construction of 600 TESOL QUARTERLY . Martin-Jones & Heller. Martin-Jones & Saxena. 46) These practical considerations are not without ideological bases. how to do it. Transcripts showed discursive differences between the bilingual assistants and the teachers within schools: The assistants were restricted from taking on certain voices by those associated with the way they were positioned. (p.. Over 3 years. 1997.
Using methodologies similar to those of Martin-Jones and Saxena (1989). She shows how the language specialist had to recontextualise her own subject knowledge in terms of curriculum knowledge. thus creating a discourse of learning support that maintained established knowledge hierarchies. it extends research on partnerships beyond the ethnicity and linguistic background of the EAL teacher to consider how societal discourses affect the way teachers are positioned within the mainstream. Based on audio recordings of two teachers working through a series of planning meetings. 1995. criteria. the researcher uses ﬁeld notes and interviews to make connections between the micropolitics of classrooms and the wider sociopolitical forces of language and education policy and their ideologies. Speciﬁcally. 1996. 1993. 10) for the speech community under study. Arkoudis argues that different knowledges have different status in schools and receive different levels of organisational support. and patterning” (Hornberger. Research results include a description of “the units. DISCURSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF POWER IN TEACHER PARTNERSHIPS 601 . because the EAL teachers in the study were not all from minority linguistic and ethnic backgrounds. 1989). I show the power in these discourses by looking at how they are 1 Most EAL teachers in England are from the White majority (Bourne. 1989.1 METHOD Methodology and Analytic Frameworks The overarching methodological and analytical perspective used for this article was the ethnography of communication (Hornberger. 1968. p. in this study I examine how an ideology of inclusion is played out through the teachers’ classroom discourses and pedagogic actions. Moreover. From this perspective. 1996). The work is therefore predominantly a discourse analysis and does not include ethnographic contextualisation of teachers’ classroom practices and the ways students and teachers conceptualize these practices. her study highlights the linguistic resources teachers in secondary schools use to evaluate one another’s work. Hymes. 1974. 1993. the work reported on here extends their research by studying secondary school partnerships between two teachers of equal status rather than between bilingual assistants and classroom teachers. Saville-Troike.power in teaching relationships. Arkoudis is concerned with the positioning of EAL teaching as a methodology and the implications of this for an EAL curriculum within subject-discipline-centred schools.
through our words and deeds. in doing so. so that students are able to infer which are “real teachers” and which are there to “help. in particular. England. to show how the interaction in microcontexts is embedded in the wider social context (Fairclough. In doing so. (p. 1995). languages. it attempted to answer the following questions: 1.” The 1-year ethnography sought to look at the interface of local and societal discourses by looking at how a policy was put into practice at the classroom level.interpreted the participants in the classrooms and whether. a functional analysis shows how the teachers’ discursive foregrounding of different functions within the classroom positions the teachers differently within the class. developed by Jakobson (1971. I also relied on methods of critical discourse analysis to show the reﬂexivity of language and context in coconstructing each other and. and difference. and for which we are “carriers. in turn. How do the subject and EAL teachers’ discourses position them in the classroom as central or peripheral to the school’s agendas? 2. As Gee suggests (1999).” The Discourses we enact existed long before each of us came on the scene and most of them will exist long after we have left the scene. for the discourse analysis of teacher talk in the classroom. the Discourses we represent and enact. In analyzing power relationships. Language use indexes the teachers’ status in the school context. 1981) and utilised by Hymes (1968). More than 90% of the 602 TESOL QUARTERLY . 18) Central to the ethnography of communication is a set of tools. How are teachers’ positions reﬂected in their discursive moves and formulas? Participants and Context The three schools in this study are in economically poor and richly diverse parts of London. the discourses are endorsed by societal debates on education. Speciﬁcally. this meant looking at how the discursive practices of the two sets of teachers in the classroom context endorsed and challenged wider educational discourses and debates. This functional approach to discourse analysis identiﬁes the components of a speech context and the hierarchy of functions within it. cultures. but rather. It is sometimes helpful to think about social and political issues as if it is not just us humans who are talking and interacting with each other. The schools are a lively mixture of colours. form human history. Discourses. carry on conversations with each other through history. In the study reported on here. and.
students are listed as having English as an additional language. School A is a single-sex school, and Schools B and C are mixed. According to statistics collected nationally, all three schools rank at the bottom in academic achievement but reﬂect average attainment for their local areas. The students’ ages ranged from 11 to 16 years, and an EAL teacher at one of these schools might teach across the full age and subject range.
I spent, on average, one 10-week term in each school—approximately 460 hours observation in total (School A, 168 hours; School B 105, hours; School C, 187 hours). During this time, I observed and interviewed 26 teachers using semistructured and ethnographic approaches. Twelve of these teachers were language specialists, and 14 were subject specialists (teaching across the whole curriculum range). In each school, 2 EAL language specialists were bilingual in a classroom community language (Turkish), and 2 were not. This article focuses on the 6 nonbilingual teachers in the three schools and the teachers they worked with. After obtaining the permission of the head of EAL support, I shadowed the EAL teachers and the teachers with whom they worked for just over 2 weeks. Collecting ﬁeld notes involved a mixture of participant and semiparticipant observations. At times I was fully engaged in working in the classroom and played the role of EAL teacher. In such cases, I made notes in spare moments during the school day and afterward. At other times, I simply observed. Observations continued in the staff room and any other public domain in which the EAL teachers were engaged. I collected audio recordings of classroom interaction by asking the subject and EAL teachers to wear portable audiotape recorders with microphones once or twice in consecutive lessons. All six nonbilingual EAL teachers and their collaborating subject teachers agreed to be recorded in this way, but the six bilingual EAL teachers requested not to be audio recorded while teaching.2 Classroom data from audio recordings therefore came from 20 teachers, none of whom were bilingual EAL teachers. Toward the end of the data collection period, I interviewed all 26 teachers in their schools during their study periods for approximately
2 The reason for the bilingual teachers’ refusal was not clear, but as I have shown elsewhere (Creese, 1997, 2000), there was a certain amount of ambiguity and even hostility within the schools toward the use of L1s for teaching the curriculum. The bilingual teachers may have wished not to have such teaching captured on tape.
DISCURSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF POWER IN TEACHER PARTNERSHIPS
1 hour (for interview questions, see the Appendix). The EAL teachers were interviewed ﬁrst, followed by the subject teachers whom I had observed working with the EAL teachers. I used semistructured interviewing in the belief that “ambiguities are resolved through the discourse itself and not by efforts to give a more precise statement to questions in the interview schedule” (Mishler, 1986, p. 47). In other words, the relationship I had developed with the teachers inﬂuenced the interviews.
Field notes were written up into analytic vignettes with the purpose of making the observations analytic and evidentiary (Erickson, 1990). Analytic vignettes, which are rich, descriptive narrative accounts drawn from ﬁeld notes, are used in the interpretive process of identifying actions that the actors themselves see as signiﬁcant. Vignettes capture the substantive focus and intent of the observations by portraying sights and sounds in sequence and noting the typicality or atypicality of particular instances (Erickson, 1990). The data in the following sections represent typical occurrences of teacher discourse and pedagogic events. All 26 of the 1-hour interview tapes were fully transcribed. In multiple readings of the interview data, I looked for themes that both overlapped and were distinct from the observation data. The consecutive audio-recorded lessons were transcribed and analysed after the observation periods had ended. The analysis of these data was shaped by the themes emerging from the observations, ﬁeld notes, and interview data. That is, data on issues of power and status from the other sources were triangulated through these data. I also used new angles emerging from the discourse analysis to cross-check the observation and interview data. My analysis incorporated participants’ commentary on the research ﬁndings of this study in several ways. First, I held several 1-day seminars for EAL teachers in London to report the ﬁndings of the study and receive commentary on the validity of the ﬁndings. Second, I have maintained research and teaching links with some of the EAL teachers who participated in the study. Third, each of the three schools received a copy of the ﬁnal report. Through this approach, I hoped to make a contribution to the site from which I had obtained my data and to expand the research process by continuing discussions between teachers and researchers. In addition, I was able to check that my interpretations were in line with the local perspectives of the participants.
Transcripts of classroom conversations along with teachers’ responses to interview questions show how language specialists are constructed when they facilitate curriculum learning without having a clear propositional base within the curriculum framework.
Discursive Positioning of EAL Teachers
The teacher’s status is forcibly portrayed in the following extract, in which a subject teacher is talking to a group of nonbilingual students about the focus of this research project.
S1: T: Miss, what have you got that for [referring to the tape recorder]? Because she [the researcher] wants to record what I am saying and what Miss Smith [the language specialist] is saying and then she can play it back and she can see if there is a difference between the two of us. There is. Yeah I think there should be a difference. Why? Miss, you’re the better teacher aren’t you? Like if I don’t understand and Miss Smith explains to me and I still don’t understand and I call you over and you tell me a different thing. So we see it from two different ways you mean? But you’re the proper teacher aren’t you? Well no. We are both proper teachers. She’s like a help. No that’s not true. (C7 [speaking about C2], geography, Year 10, classroom transcript, April 1995)3
S1: S2: T: S1: S2: T: S1: T: S1: T:
The three participants position the EAL teacher differently in this extract. Student 2 describes both teachers as transmitting information and facilitating learning—although the student positions the subject teacher as the one who clears up any confusion about curriculum content. The subject teacher takes a similar line, choosing to build on the narrative developed by Student 2. At two points in the discussion she asks follow-up questions to Student 2’s argument, whereas neither of the other participants develops Student 1’s ideas until the end of the exchange. Yet Student 1’s account dominates. The distinction she makes
3 Excerpts are identiﬁed by school (A, B, or C), teacher number (1–4 for EAL teachers; 5 and up for subject teachers), and subject, where applicable (e.g., B4 = an EAL teacher at School B). S = student; T = teacher. All names are pseudonyms.
DISCURSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF POWER IN TEACHER PARTNERSHIPS
For the subject teacher. In his view. (C5. And it is not the same. March 1995) This subject teacher sees the “arduous” work as delivering the curriculum to the many and the easier work as sorting through problems with the few. 2000. A subject teacher made this point in the following extract: I mean standing up in front of 20–30 children. I think you just have to see support teaching as a different job. different scales and things like that. interview. through” the special needs and problems of a few children less difﬁcult than teaching content to the whole class. perhaps they should be seen as a separate entity. by implication. technology. and being pedagogically aware of the needs of individuals and their place within the community of the class is easier. (C5. In this extract. the whole-class teaching of the subject is more important and difﬁcult than providing for the individual needs of children who need the curriculum to be differentiated. he begins to construct what he sees as two kinds of knowledge and the different languages associated with them. simplifying the curriculum.between the two teachers is a familiar one to EAL specialists. Year 10. Leung. . He seems to regard the support teacher’s “sort[ing] . 2001. Year 10. I think it comes down to me. Lee (1997) argues that language teachers working in a school or university disciplinary setting are often seen as possessing a generic knowledge not 606 TESOL QUARTERLY . March 1995) In describing two learning languages in this way. arduous means teaching the subject. this subject teacher shows how teachers’ talk in the classroom manifests wider educational discourses. with different wage structures. like ergonomics and things. delivering and teaching is a very arduous job. 2001). The facilitative work the EAL teachers do in the mainstream classroom is constructed by some participants within the school as being of less importance than the transmission of the curriculum. He lays claim to a certain expertise and assigns the opposite position to the language specialist. I mean that has got its demands. interview. it is a different job altogether. like designing briefs. They get the same wage structure and things like that which perhaps they shouldn’t. This teacher’s concern with the subject matter is further exempliﬁed below. like technical words. who often ﬁnd themselves positioned within their schools in ways that do not reﬂect their seniority or expertise (Arkoudis. whom he presents as simplifying language and. but often the basic language and the simpliﬁcation of language is done by the support teacher. which is not the same as teaching 30 children en masse hour after hour after hour. They can work with a few kids who have special needs and problems and they can sort those through. . I think their role is totally different. Creese. If it is technical language.
used the emotive function centred in the ﬁrst-person pronoun I to identify with and constitute the importance of a topic. 1991. The technology teacher sees his own expertise as specialized whereas the subject area of the language specialist is reduced to that of simpliﬁcation. Tomasello & Herron. which I refer to as IYS (I want you to do something). Pica. Asking the student to act upon the context in some way foregrounds the referential function. 1981). providing opportunities for negotiation and for making form-function links. Of particular interest. DISCURSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF POWER IN TEACHER PARTNERSHIPS 607 . In the four extracts below. 1971. Discursive Moves and Formulas The classroom transcripts showed evidence of a classroom discursive formula used by subject teachers when they addressed the whole class: a recurring. in the mainstream classrooms in this study. 1990. namely the teacher. The importance of easing access. disciplinary knowledge. freeing the subject specialist to teach students who were seemingly competent enough not to need such simpliﬁcation. Mackey. subject teachers use IYS to make a claim on the students’ actions by asking for the completion of a teacher-directed task. 1988). However. and other such activities is well documented in the English language teaching literature as facilitating second language acquisition (Harley. 2000. teachers could use the conative (directive) function centred in the imperative and the pronoun you to tell the addressee. 1995. Long. the modiﬁcation of input so that both curriculum and language learning could take place was seen as the language specialist’s responsibility. & McDonough. noticing gaps in the input. which is presented as contextualised and specialized. I found that the subject and language specialists used this move differently. 2000. Moreover. which is associated with the general and generalizable. to act. three-part functional move. scaffolding. By placing themselves at the centre of the speech situation. This knowledge. Gass. 1983. which is used to refer to or predict something in the context (Jakobson. in other language teaching situations it is highly regarded. Schmidt. Whereas in the mainstream curriculum-focused classroom “simpliﬁcation of language” may be seen as a skill that is not worthy of the same pay scale. the addresser. activities that called on these pedagogic skills were seen as remedial.bounded by a subject curriculum. 1993. is subordinated to the second kind of knowledge. These hierarchical distinctions are troubling: Associating certain teachers with certain groups of pupils and not others does little to promote the inclusion and valuing of different languages and ethnicities in multicultural and linguistically diverse classrooms. Put in more formal pragmatic terms. namely the student.
technology. use I. I want you to look for the tools used and I want you to look for the result. . Moreover. There is no mention of you (i. October 1994) This combination of language functions linked to a syntactic pattern places the subject teacher as the agent and self-nominated controller of classroom themes and action. I want you to look for the groups of people involved. technology. classroom transcript. Nihan. alright? (C6. . classroom transcript. (C10. In contrast. . The 608 TESOL QUARTERLY . leaving the language specialist in charge. in the extract below the teacher uses I not to set students immediate tasks and control current themes and events but to deﬁne his usefulness for the students in the indeﬁnite future: how he might help them within the conﬁnes of his role as a support teacher rather than as full partner to the subject teacher.I want you to look for three things. March. The subject teacher has left the classroom unexpectedly. humanities (history). the student) engaging in any action. (A8. The role of I in this extract shows the language specialist’s difﬁculties in being left at the front of the class without a curriculum point at hand. For example. What I am going to do when Miss Rubins comes back. . . [The subject and support teachers work together weekly. 1995) Interestingly. you know a piece of thin card. (B8. right. language specialists in support modes rarely used IYS to bring about student action. Subject teachers used this formula to direct students to core curriculum concerns. hole punched so that you can keep it in your. otherwise we won’t understand and I will list all the homeworks week by week for this project so that way if you miss one because you were absent or for whatever reason you will have a total record of what the homeworks are.e. (C4. April 1995) And I want you during the day.. classroom transcript. I won’t waste everybody’s time doing that now. today. humanities (geography). Language specialists in support modes did.] Right. What I am going to do is type up for each of you a card. but in ways that articulated peripheral curriculum concerns. And I want to see one in your ﬁle and one in your ID folder. please don’t talk while I am doing this. of course. November 1994) Now I want to see copies of those things. I am going to give you until the last day of term to get your work completed. April 1995) What I want you to do is make sure you have your contents pages organized. She is bringing down a project on advertising which was done last year in order to show you. not the group. classroom transcript. . classroom transcript. to think up a design for use yourself. they rarely occupied the front of the class as a teaching position. the conative function is missing in this extract.
given that the cultural transmission of knowledge is one of the schools’ primary functions (Scribner & Cole. The excerpt below illustrates what happened when a language specialist in a subject classroom attempted to switch the children’s attention from the subject to a language matter and from the referential to the metalinguistic function. That is. The lesson aim is to make a container. where EAL teachers did the bulk of their work in support mode. Now the non-bilingual language specialist starts to move towards the bilingual children. the children appear to see this event as a lost opportunity for doing the same learning activities as their peers. The children begin. “I want you to look for the groups of people involved. 426) This quotation suggests that exposure to and practice in a range of language functions are important for language learners. The teacher now moves the children on to getting started with the practical work. the mainstream classroom’s potential for providing a variety of language learning opportunities has garnered support from academics and practitioners alike. 1985. The children are listening quietly and attentively. p. They set about it eagerly.”). it is very difﬁcult for language teachers to focus on functions other than the referential when that function is exactly where the rest of the class is focused.g. The EAL teacher and subject teacher featured in the vignette work weekly together. The incident represents a typical event between these two teachers in School C. (DES.. when an EAL teacher chooses to challenge the educational ideology by concentrating on a function usually given peripheral status in the mainstream classroom. thereby meeting two sets of aims concurrently: The needs of English as a second language learners should be met by provisions within the mainstream school as part of a comprehensive programme of language education for all children. the technology teacher is at the front showing previous good work done by students. While one of the boys is sawing a piece of wood. She is explaining that she wants similar work to be produced by the children. she asks DISCURSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF POWER IN TEACHER PARTNERSHIPS 609 . mainstreaming as a policy was always intended to make the subject classroom a place where students acquired language through curriculum learning. the teacher uses it to deﬁne a place for himself in the mainstream class rather than connect directly to students’ learning through the referential function (e. Perhaps this is not surprising. 1973). They have agreed that the EAL teacher’s role is to check that the early-stage bilingual students have understood and completed their homework.emotive I is not linked to the students’ action plan. However. Indeed. However. The mainstream classrooms I studied privileged the referential function over all other functions. When we [the language specialist and the author] come into the class.
one teacher is teaching the technology curriculum. and pay attention to the link between meaning and form. this focus on language sets the children apart in the mainstream classroom.” The boys are now dying to get away. If language learning aims are to be central in mainstream classrooms 610 TESOL QUARTERLY . They are looking around and are keen to get back to their practical work. 1981). She reviews with the boys what was expected from them in the homework. The language specialist tells them that what she is saying is also learning: “If you can’t write it. They are then asked to switch from one learning aim to another. and strategic competence (Canale & Swain. physically and in terms of learning agendas. My purse is a container. “I gave you these questions and I wanted you to write in Turkish. So a container can be anything. The EAL teacher summarizes “to put things away when they are not being used. You are making a storage space. Read to me what it says.” Neither of the children is paying much attention. shadowing nonbilingual EAL teacher. 1980). My wallet is a container. She goes back to the individual boy and asks him whether he has done his homework. Year 10. Finally the EAL teacher ﬁnishes telling them about their homework and they rush off to do their practical work. He does not know and is not interested. that is what it means. They make faces. A bag is a container. However. and don’t listen. So if you store something. you won’t do well. emphasis is placed on developing sociolinguistic competence along with grammatical. She collects several of the children around her. who are grouped around one table. are removed from the activity the rest of the class is following. Teachers encourage learners to practice a variety of speech acts and to reﬂect on how language use is tied to different contexts. You haven’t done it. 1971. language teachers foreground different functions. phatic. February 1995) In the vignette. observational ﬁeld notes. To help the bilingual students complete their homework. None of them wants to get involved.him what the name of the tool is in English. and one is teaching language associated with that curriculum. She turns to the other bilingual children around her and asks the same question. He has not. and metalinguistic functions (Cook. (C1.” He reads about storage spaces. The bilingual children. nor does he remember what it was. the EAL teacher attempts to make the input accessible by foregrounding the metalinguistic function. Hymes. They look at their watches and tap their ﬁngers. including the emotive. construction technology teacher. Storage space. These functions provide students with opportunities to talk about feelings and attitudes. 1972. Jakobson. In other language learning contexts where teachers are broadly using communicative approaches. discoursal. and they are anxious to continue with their work. In doing so. The children seem to see the focus on language as interrupting the curriculum and social agendas that the rest of the class were following. manage conversations. 1989.
How input is delivered is just as important as what is delivered. The teachers also varied in the emphasis they placed on various functions. the way input is made accessible for bilingual students must be considered in the context of those classrooms. who had expertise in and responsibility for more DISCURSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF POWER IN TEACHER PARTNERSHIPS 611 . The subject teachers and the language specialists in support mode used different discursive strategies to pursue their teaching aims at the front of the class. EAL teachers’ work and the children they worked with appeared to be positioned. Teachers’ discourses were most likely a reﬂection of wider educational discourses. 1997). As educators. knowledge about language was positioned as less important in the subject classroom. Pedagogy. Moreover. Thesen. Their expertise in facilitation and their awareness of the role of language in learning and social life were positioned as peripheral within the classroom and were supported at the institutional level. Perhaps because of a lack of support for such teachers’ work in wider debates on education. not all of which are viewed equally within multilingual and multicultural classroom contexts. we need to be aware of the centrality of these hierarchies in positioning children and their emerging identities in speciﬁc ways (Norton. 1998). EAL teachers’ pedagogic practices did not receive the same affordances from children and staff as subject teachers’ practices did. The children read the knowledge and pedagogical hierarchies they saw in the classroom as different but not equal.(DES. 1997. the children they were targeting saw these attempts as obstacles to more important learning agendas. unjustly. when the language specialists attempted to transmit metalinguistic knowledge. The fact that EAL teachers were associated predominantly with facilitative approaches that had no explicit knowledge base to transmit helped place these teachers as helpers to the subject teachers. which is itself discursively constructed. produces different kinds of learning opportunities. Knowledge and pedagogies associated with language learning and languages for learning were pushed to the periphery of the schools’ agendas. DISCUSSION The classroom and interview data suggest that the EAL teachers investigated in this study had a different institutional status from the subject teachers and that part of the difference was constructed through speciﬁc discursive moves and formulas. as less important than the majority curriculum. EAL teachers did not project a similar ownership of curriculum-based learning. Whereas subject teachers discursively owned their subject area and the tasks they set the students. Despite language specialists’ attempts to highlight the importance of language in learning.
1990. a focus on language functions is a potentially useful classroom strategy in raising awareness of the centrality of language(s) in the teaching and learning process. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This article examined how microcontexts of classroom life interact with larger discussions. The transmission of knowledge through the referential function is only one of the many language functions available to teachers and students as they make their way through the school day. and language functions in many different ways in schools. Kress. 1999). Owning a curriculum subject or a clearly deﬁned propositional knowledge base was of great importance. One such factor. teachers without expertise were seen as lacking. 1999). 612 TESOL QUARTERLY . 1995. The results suggest that currently the policy is not working as envisaged. 1996. 1973). and conversations on the education policy of mainstreaming. because it is central in learning (Barnes. Rather. Gee.1977) that these different teachers possessed within the school helped position their work differentially (Erickson. is language. were the more successful than support-teaching partnerships in keeping language issues central to the school’s concerns. of course. discourses. Mercer. 1993. 1999. an awareness of the importance of these other functions in the learning process is important.important learning aims. It seems likely that this is not the fault of the teachers. Unless we as educators place power alongside an awareness of skills and knowledge. the investigation of policy implications in practice requires a methodology that includes the analysis of power relationships among participants in the school. 1997). in good schools factors other than curriculum knowledge are valued as well. 1998. debates. 1976. which in my data. The pedagogic and knowledge capitals (Bourdieu. we will continue to fail to understand why some groups of children underattain in school. therefore. Giddens. Such a reexamination of speech in multilingual classrooms is necessary for understanding how power inﬂuences learning possibilities for all children. Finally. the problem is that the discourses underpinned by ideologies at institutional and societal level come to endorse certain pedagogies and relegate to the background others that need attention. who are sometimes easy targets on the front lines of policy difﬁculties and failure (Ball. although rare. Although formal schooling has always foregrounded the referential function (Scribner & Cole. Perhaps this awareness can be best achieved through institutional support for full teaching partnerships. For teachers.
Ball. 1. A.. L. In R. (1990). M. Making EMAG work (pp. 61–71. Creese. Coelho. (2000). Discourse. The role of language specialists in disciplinary teaching: in search of a subject? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 283–306). (1995). D. J. Ideological dilemmas. London: Longman. Ethnographic microanalysis. 2. Qualitative methods. Teachers talking: Communication in professional partnerships. A. Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. (2001). Harmondsworth. Canale. Domination and power. From communication to curriculum. Teaching and learning in multicultural schools.gov. G. & McPake. M. England: NFER-Nelson. In P. Cassell (Ed. England: Penguin Education. (1989).. Ethnic minority achievement grant. Billig. Clevedon. S. S.). (1996). In S. Research in teaching and Learning (Vol. In C. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Ofﬁce. A. Hornberger (Eds. L. “I have linguistic aims and linguistic content”: ESL and science teachers planning together. L. P. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and learning. Carrasquillo.dfee. (1989). Applied Linguistics. (2000). New York: Macmillan. 1–47.. Wallace (Eds. V. N. Department for Education and Employment. & Rodriguez. An introduction to discourse analysis. (Ed. (1997).uk/ethnic/letter. A. DISCURSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF POWER IN TEACHER PARTNERSHIPS 613 . Unpublished doctoral dissertation. J. Linn & F. 2002.H. Jones & C. 23. Department of Education and Science.). Social Science Information. Barnes. McKay & N . British Educational Research Journal. London: Sage. J. Gee. M. Giddens. F. pp. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Ofﬁce. University of Pennsylvania.THE AUTHOR Angela Creese is a lecturer in TEFL/bilingualism in education at the School of Education. J. (1991). Erickson. Retrieved September 17.htm. English for ages 5–16. Department of Education and Science. Philadelphia. New York: Cambridge University Press. 212–283). Stoke-on-Trent. P. Education for all. 451–470. 645–668. England: Macmillan. & Swain. (1998).). Bourne. Moving into the mainstream. London: Routledge. Fairclough. (1985). Bourne. Prospect. England: Trentham Books. F. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Ofﬁce.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. (1977) The economics of linguistic exchanges. Clevedon. Mainstreaming as language policy and classroom practice: Partner Teachers’ roles. Policy sociology and critical social research: A personal review of recent education policy and research. University of Birmingham. (1998). Windsor. Creese. relationships and talk in multilingual British secondary schools. England: Multicultural Matters. 15(1). 21. (1997). (1980). 257– 274. E. J. Creese. Erickson. Bourdieu. 16. (1976). REFERENCES Arkoudis. Language minority students in the mainstream classroom. (1999). (1996). (1989). Cook. England: Multilingual Matters. (1988). Partnership teaching: Co-operative teaching strategies for English language support in multilingual classrooms. (1993). from http://www. 73–86). Basingstoke. The Giddens reader (pp. Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. A. 77–195). Erickson.
Harley, B. (1993). Instructional strategies and SLA in early French immersion. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 245–259. Hornberger, N. H. (1989). Trámites and transportes: The acquisition of second language communicative competence for one speech event in Puno, Peru. Applied Linguistics, 10, 214–230. Hornberger, N. (1993, November). Ethnography in linguistic perspective: Understanding school processes. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC. Hornberger, N. (1995). Ethnography in linguistic perspective: Understanding school processes. Language and Education, 9, 233–248. Hornberger, N. (1996). Language and education. In S. L. McKay & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 449–473). New York: Cambridge University Press. Hymes, D. (1968). The ethnography of speaking. In J. Fishman (Ed.), Readings in the sociology of language (pp. 99–138). The Hague: Mouton. Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books. Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Jakobson, R. (1971). Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb. In Selected writings II: Word and language (pp. 130–147). The Hague: Mouton. Jakobson, R. (1981). Linguistics and poetics. In Selected writings III: Poetry of grammar and grammar of poetry (pp. 18–51). The Hague: Mouton. Kress, G. (1995, March). Making signs and making subjects: The English curriculum and social futures. Inaugural lecture delivered at the Institute of Education, University of London. Kress, G. (1999). English at the crossroads: Rethinking curricula of communication in the context of the turn to the visual. In G. E. Hawisher & C. L. Selfe (Eds.), Passions, pedagogies, and 21st century technologies (pp. 66–88). Logan: Utah State University Press. Lee, A. (1997). Working together? Academic literacies, co-production and professional partnerships. Literacy and Numeracy Studies, 7, 65–82. Leung, C. (2001). English as an additional language: Distinct language focus or diffused curriculum concerns? Language and Education, 15, 33–55. Levine, J. (Ed.). (1990). Bilingual learners and the mainstream curriculum. London: Falmer Press. Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141. Luke, A., & Luke, C. (1999). Pedagogy. In B. Spolsky (Ed.), Concise encyclopaedia of educational linguistics (pp. 332–336). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497. Martin-Jones, M., & Heller, M. (1996). Introduction to the special issues on education in multilingual settings: Discourse, identities, and power. Linguistics and Education, 8, 3–16. Martin-Jones, M., & Saxena, M. (1989). Developing a partnership with bilingual classroom assistants (Working Paper No. 16). Bailrigg, England: Lancaster University, Centre for Language in Social Life. Martin-Jones, M., & Saxena, M. (1996). Turntaking, power asymmetries and the positioning of bilingual participants in classroom discourse. Linguistics and Education, 8, 105–123. Mercer, N. (1998). Development through dialogue: A sociocultural perspective on
the process of being educated. In A. C. Quelhas & F. Pereira (Eds.), Cognition and context (pp. 67–95). Lisbon, Portugal: Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada. Mercer, N. (1999). Classroom language. In B. Spolsky (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of educational linguistics (pp. 315–319). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Mishler, E. G. (1986). Research interviewing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Mohan, B., Leung, C., & Davison, D. (2001). English as a second language in the mainstream: Teaching, learning and identity. Harlow, England: Longman. Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 409–429. Pica, T. (1991). Classroom interaction, participation and comprehension: Redeﬁning relationships. System, 19, 437–445. Pica, T. (1995). Teaching language and teaching language learners: The expanding roles and expectations of language teachers in communicative, content-based classrooms. In J. E. Alatis, C. A. Straehle, B. Gallenberger, & M. Ronkin (Eds.), Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics 1995: Linguistics and the education of language teachers: Ethnolinguistic, psycholinguistic, and sociolinguistic aspects (pp. 379–397). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Pica, T. (2000). Tradition and transition in English language teaching methodology. System, 28, 1–18. Reid, E. (1988). Linguistic minorities and language education: The English experience. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 9, 181–192. Saville-Troike, M. (1996). The ethnography of communication. In S. L McKay & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 351–382). New York: Cambridge University Press. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 11, 17–46. Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1973). Cognitive consequences of formal and informal education. Science, 182, 553–559. Thesen, L. (1997). Voices, discourse, and transition: In search of new categories in EAP. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 487–511. Tomasello, M., & Herron, C. (1988). Down the garden path: Inducing and correcting overgeneralization errors in the foreign language classroom. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9, 237–246. Woods, P. (1993). Critical events in teaching and learning. London: Falmer Press.
APPENDIX Semistructured Interview Schedule: Questions for Teachers (Subject and EAL)
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. What do you see as the most important aspects of your job? What aspects of your job would you change? What aspects of your job do you like and dislike? What do you think makes a good teacher? What do you think the students should get from schooling at [name of school]? How do you think second language learners learn a second language? In partnership teaching who do you think has responsibility for the following: discipline materials bilingual children
DISCURSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF POWER IN TEACHER PARTNERSHIPS
8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.
tests language instruction content instruction homework setting marking entering students for exams other; please list. Describe what the perfect teaching partnership is. Describe the worst teaching partnership. What is the role of the mother tongue in the mainstream classroom? Say what the word collaboration means to you regarding partnership teaching. What do you consider good language support to be? What do you consider bad language support to be? What aspects of your lesson do you feel are particularly relevant for the bilingual children?
or a similar country to do their degree. California. the only alternative being a traditional distance program. a relatively new virtual university based at Newport Beach. we asked two educators to discuss the following question: What are the challenges and rewards of teaching MA-TESOL courses online? Edited by BONNY NORTON University of British Columbia Teaching MA-TESOL Courses Online Teaching MA-TESOL Courses Online: Challenges and Rewards DAVID NUNAN The University of Hong Kong I This commentary draws on the experience I have had over a number of years developing a Web-based master’s program in TESOL for Newport Asia Paciﬁc University (NAPU). Winter 2002 617 . Hitherto. students in Asia. No. intercultural communication. 4. Australia. In the piece. and two in two intensive residential workshops. that offers graduate programs in TESOL. In order to complete the course. 36. students take 10 courses and write a thesis. Eight of the courses are taken online. Britain. For this issue. To date. and a master of business administration. teaching Japanese as an L2.TEACHING ISSUES TESOL Quarterly publishes brief commentaries on aspects of English language teaching. teachers wanting to undertake graduate study would have to give up work for a year or two and travel to the United States. I look at the challenges and rewards of developing and implementing such a program. TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. in the United States. BACKGROUND This program is aimed at TESOL teachers working in parts of the world where opportunities for graduate study are limited.
In a recent course. from which students are able to do the following things: • download course guides. 57) Another pointed out the effects she saw on her own learning: “My conceptions of learning have changed. some students were not able to log in at all. In many of these places. Some students reported trying for over an hour to log in for a class. and assignments through a bulletin board • communicate with other students in their cohort through the Student Conference Center • submit assignments and receive feedback on assignments • access the library and bookstore to purchase or borrow texts. There is the added advantage that they can apply ideas from the course immediately to their current teaching context. The course is centered on the university’s Web site. teachers are able to keep their jobs while they study. and supplementary materials • take part in synchronous tutorials through a text chat facility • exchange ideas.North America. 1999. bandwidth is a major problem. and South America have completed the program. p. I now understand how ideas and practice relate to one another. In addition to 618 TESOL QUARTERLY . Northern Thailand. 1999. I would be deeper in debt than I already am. term dates and scholarships CHALLENGES This learning environment offers beneﬁts for students. for example. 1999. In this section. papers. see Nunan. but it is not without its challenges as well. assignments. I describe some of these challenges and suggest solutions. 57).) Through online courses. (Nunan. If I were in a graduate program in America it would be difﬁcult to study and work at the same time. As one student reported through the university’s e-mail discussion lists (called the Student Conference Center). We have the advantage of being in the teaching world and yet we have a foot in the world of ideas. I had students as far aﬁeld as Patagonia. p. (For greater detail. Not infrequently. Challenge 1: Getting an Appropriate Fit Between Technology and Student TESOL teachers work in many different places. and the Philippines. and access information on. Europe. I think that this is very difﬁcult to accomplish if you are in a university environment” (Nunan.
teachers could cover only minimal content during the 90-minute tutorial.the immediate frustrations this engendered. TEACHING ISSUES 619 . this was extremely frustrating. at an agreed time.e. and then. NAPU kept the technology as low-end as possible.. 1990. particularly in the early stages. students new to the world of electronic learning are reluctant to participate actively. Another way of breaking down the teacher-fronted nature of the classes was to set up a range of classrooms and give students pair work or small-group tasks to complete. requiring all students have to lead the class at least once during the course. protocols and Netiquette (i. On the other hand. one beneﬁt of text chat technology is that it is relatively easy to capture tutorials and archive them on the Web site. (NAPU’s open-entry system means that a new student may join others who have completed several courses. For me. Challenge 2: Finding Ways of Engendering a Learner-Centered Climate Because of the need to avoid the discoursal chaos that characterizes Internet chat. brainstorming sessions enabled students to make contributions as and when they wanted. This has proved particularly beneﬁcial to students who are L2 speakers of English. and the discourse of these tutorials is uncannily like that in traditional teacher-fronted lessons (Chapelle. Gradually. 1992). report back to the main classroom. Coulthard. Technology had forced me to retreat to patterns of interaction that I had abandoned many years ago. and especially if they are joining a cohort of more experienced students. I found ways of making the classroom more student centered. Without high-speed connections.) The solution has been to develop a student host system. complete the task. These rules allow the teacher to control who gets to speak when. Challenge 3: Encouraging the Reticent Student to Participate Very often. These credit-earning opportunities have been highly effective in encouraging new students to become active members of the learning community. Each pair or group would go off to their designated small-group room. For example. the students missed a signiﬁcant number of classes. Students who miss a class can subsequently read the transcript. network etiquette) were developed. This caused frustration to faculty members because it meant they were unable to use voice chat and videoconferencing. To minimize potential lack of ﬁt between the technology and the students. however. for designated periods of the class.
The isolation felt by most learners in traditional distance programs is greatly reduced. I have outlined here some of the challenges and rewards of teaching a graduate program online. During the annual residential courses. Interestingly. if the Internet fails completely. there are still great frustrations in online teaching when the information superhighway slows to a crawl or even stops completely. and L2 teacher education. In recent months. was second best to learning face-to-face. Another rewarding aspect of the program has been the opportunity to help create a global community of scholars. I can switch to another.m. In addition to their studies. maintaining that any form of distance education. those who have graduated from the program have formed a virtual alumni group. whether supported by the Web or not. when asked a couple of years ago whether. however. His research interests include taskbased language teaching. and network in ways that transcend purely academic pursuits. Developing and teaching this program has been frustrating and exciting in equal measure. THE AUTHOR David Nunan holds concurrent positions as chair of applied linguistics and director of the English Centre at the University of Hong Kong. 620 TESOL QUARTERLY .Challenge 4: Coping With the Frustrations of Technology Although the technology is improving rapidly. REWARDS The most rewarding aspect of the NAPU program has been the opportunity to provide a graduate-level learning experience that is appreciated by teachers in many parts of the world. the experience has been positive. at least I can get word to my students that they have not been abandoned. if they had the chance. on a Sunday to conduct a class with students half a world away. they would opt for a face-to-face program. curriculum design. I run accounts with two different service providers so that if one system goes down. Notwithstanding the challenges. exchange information on job opportunities. This is particularly annoying when one has gotten up at 4:00 a. it is uncanny how quickly students who have known each other only through the virtual world of the Internet bond together. I always have the home telephone number of at least one of the students in a class so that. students use the NAPU site to socialize. all answered in the afﬁrmative. and dean of the Faculty of Education at Newport Asia Paciﬁc University.
). The Personal. I like the more equal relationships we’ve developed here. mothers. (1999). which proved wise for the busy wives. I should also admit to having young children and loving any technology that enables me to teach my classes at home. As the course progressed. it is neither what I am trained for nor what I am used to. attach documents. The University of Manitoba is licensed to use WebCT (2002). From January to April 2001. The students read two to four journal articles or book chapters per week. I’ll miss you guys. (1992). All of that said. Coulthard. D. and the development of community (e. Nunan.. 199–225. Teaching courses online changes the forms of language used. 1998). Each week. the nature of learning. I felt whiney and miserable about classrooms. a platform enabling students to engage in synchronous and asynchronous discussion. the learners. highly disciplined. The discourse of computer-assisted language learning: Toward a context for descriptive research. and download items. (Ed. submit assignments. A foot in the world of ideas: Graduate study through the Internet. assuming the same conditions adhered. I want to keep the course posted for a while so that we can still communicate. one student was responsible for commenting on the readings and posing questions for us to consider. Manitoba. (1990). 22:05) I I should state at the outset that I type quickly. I piloted a course for four students. in my nightgown. TESOL Quarterly. teachers. Canada In the beginning I felt whiney and miserable about the on-line environment. and Professional Rewards of Teaching MA-TESOL Courses Online SANDRA G. 3. successful women from overseas. 52–74. three were nonnative speakers of English. 2001. I would love to teach online again.REFERENCES Chapelle. organized. Each commentary TEACHING ISSUES 621 . all motivated. Practical. 24. while drinking coffee.g. I decided to run the course in asynchronous time. C. KOURITZIN University of Manitoba Winnipeg. Sandie (April 10. Advances in spoken discourse analysis. I am not as experienced as Nunan at online teaching. Language Learning and Technology. use an internal e-mail system. scholars. Warschauer. M. and novice e-learners we all were. London: Routledge. monitor progress.
(February 20) This relentlessness could also be seen as a beneﬁt of teaching online. leading me to say. of necessity. demonstrating longer-term reﬂection than in the classroom-based courses I teach. I believe that graduate school should be all-consuming. and absorbs the ideas of others. the spectator student who skims the readings. I acknowledge all of the challenges identiﬁed by Nunan. As in all classrooms. Keep in mind that 4 students each agreeing to spend the equivalent of 3 classroom hours online will. They have the opportunity to construct different classroom and conversational identities for themselves. adding one. and edit ofﬂine. then additional students’ perspectives enrich that classroom culture. I referred to the course at one point as “an enormous sinkhole in terms of time” (February 19). In an online classroom. If “classroom culture is shaped by both the teacher’s and the students’ contributions and interpretations” (Tsai & Garcia. This points to the need to keep class sizes small in online teaching. relating to the students how I spent at least 2 hours every morning reading and posting messages. write. The relentlessness of the course was something we all commented on. with input and interaction among the participants as they engaged in the co-construction of knowledge and developed a “virtual intimacy” (Brian Morgan. Within this structure. The ability to write and edit ofﬂine provides students with additional 622 TESOL QUARTERLY . 233). losing important nonnative speaker perspectives in the noise. and that students should never ever take time away from reﬂecting on ideas. students have the opportunity to reﬂect. ones not necessarily constructed for them by the other students in the class. I think that this kind of work is reﬂective of graduate school. there is nowhere to hide. Working on line just formalizes that process a bit. the voices of the native speakers often become dominant. how “the luxury of 24 hour access becomes the necessity of midnight access” (February 22) when small children want their mommy—or their turn at the computer. then post text when they are satisﬁed with it. Gripes about technology constituted one discussion string. and later. in classes of native and nonnative speakers combined. p. produce more text per person than 20 students agreeing to spend the same 3 hours online. 2000. personal communication. allowing the instructor to monitor all postings and ensure all students are participating. even eliminate. Moreover. the trade-off for diversity of opinion is more limited opportunity to share one’s own ideas. the course evolved in much the same way seminars in regular classrooms evolve. Instructors in asynchronous courses must read and respond to everything.began a new discussion string that lasted up to 6 weeks. which lasted the entire course. May 2002). turns up to class. Teaching online can expose.
2001) I do not recall writing these words—which causes me to reﬂect on the number of times I have said or heard things in the classroom and made a note to myself to remember that idea or that explanation. I found it easier to disagree with students’ opinions while acknowledging their right to differ from me. You are like me in one sense that I appreciated. Ditto for academic papers.” Finally. the silly anecdote dies a natural death. one’s background knowledge does not create a critical mind. and somewhat facetiously. Mehan. 1979) was just not part of the online classroom culture. blurring the distinctions between them. Students did not address their remarks primarily to me. in asynchronous online instruction. the more I understand the cross-referencing and the subtexts. I realized that TESL is a language. The IRE functions became shared responsibilities. The downside is that not everything one writes or reads is worth remembering. indeed. only to forget later. working online forced me to become less traditional. The online instructor is relieved of such worries.g. Your own evaluation of your knowledge and mine are completely different.time for thought. leading to my comment. And. I remain humble in the face of having shared such things as “forgive [my typing]. Then.. but [my son] Tyrone is climbing on my neck” (February 22). I found myself asking and answering more probing questions.” addressing their remarks directly to another student while still realizing that there was an audience. Typing out a story is troublesome and time-consuming. I realized that we were all reconceptualizing the roles of formal and informal text. I began a PhD program in TESL after having completed a Masters in Literature. I kept thinking that there was something that everyone else knew that I missed out on. Someone once said that you could never read great literature. (April 11. leading another student to relate a silly anecdote. I wrote. cited above: “I like the more equal relationships we’ve developed here. They can pinpoint where we went right and where they went astray. all conversations are saved. Unlike Nunan’s experience. Teachers and students can study what they have taught and what they have learned. I found that the initiation (by the teacher)response (from student[s])-evaluation (by the teacher) (IRE) interactions of traditional classrooms (e. it only helps one to name the critique one is trying to make. only re-read it. while the instructor (who believes in student-centered pedagogy) tries to ﬁnd a good moment to intervene. they would often begin with “Dear X. TEACHING ISSUES 623 . and sometimes they surprise themselves. Teachers are familiar with the situation in which a student relates an experience illustrating a theoretical principle. and to frame it within the reasoning of others. and the more I read.
TESOL Quarterly. and critical approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MA: WebCT. & Garcia. M. (1998). THE AUTHOR Sandra G. (1979). (2002). instrumental. 31. WebCT [Computer software]. Lynnﬁeld. M. 624 TESOL QUARTERLY .ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank Betty Johns and Bonny Norton for their helpful suggestions on an earlier draft of this commentary. H. Research technology in TESOL: Determinist. Anthropology and Education Quarterly..com. 32.webct. Who’s the boss: How communicative competence is deﬁned in a multilingual preschool classroom. Warschauer. 230–252. Kouritzin is an assistant professor of TESL at the University of Manitoba who is interested in heritage language issues and TESL teacher preparation. G. Available from http://www. Learning lessons. REFERENCES Mehan. Tsai. E. (2000). 757–761.
March 2001. 1987). John. 1996). Previous research has documented the challenges and barriers for nonnative-English-speaking scholars seeking scholarly publication in international journals in Hong Kong (Flowerdew. These summaries may address any areas of interest to Quarterly readers. word-process. 1996). 2000). Many are also frustrated by lack of funds to copy.BRIEF REPORTS AND SUMMARIES TESOL Quarterly invites readers to submit short reports and updates on their work. TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. apart from having to write in English as an L2 (Flowerdew. Edited by ROD ELLIS The University of Auckland KAREN E. and mail their manuscripts to editors and reviewers (Canagarajah.g. 1987). 1999c. 4. are also geographically removed from the mainstream and have limited access to the current research (e. 2000. No. Sri Lanka (Canagarajah. 36. 1999a. British Columbia. St. These nonnative-English-speaking scholars. JOHNSON Pennsylvania State University How Western-Trained Chinese TESOL Professionals Publish in Their Home Environment* LING SHI The University of British Columbia Vancouver. To what extent are Western-trained nonnative TESOL scholars. Colorado. confronted by the problems of * An earlier version of this report was presented at the Conference on College Composition and Communication in Denver. Japan (Gosden. John. and the Scandinavian countries (Jerudd & Baldauf. Authors’ addresses are printed with these reports to enable interested readers to contact the authors for more details. 1999b). Spain (St. Winter 2002 625 . These problems create a harsh reality for nonmainstream scholars who wish to publish and maintain visibility in the international forum. 1996). 1999c. like other Western-trained colleagues. 1999a. Flowerdew. Canada I The increasing recognition of English as the scholarly language for international publications has put nonnative-English-speaking scholars who live and research in their L1 environment at a disadvantage. 1987)..
As shown in Table 2. I solicited the participants from among my former colleagues and others they recommended.publishing in English in or from their home environment? In countries like China. Except for P9. see Table 1) from seven universities in mainland China participated in the study by completing a questionnaire. All but three held a graduate degree. most universities have recently started to follow the Western practice of gauging one’s scholarship by the number of one’s publications. METHOD Fourteen professors of English (called P1–P14 for this study. all started teaching in or before the 1980s. In order to document the publication experiences of Chinese TESOL professors. Instead. each had been trained in an Anglo-American university as either a graduate student or a visiting scholar. the present study reports ﬁndings from interview data collected for a larger study focusing on the cross-cultural writing experiences of mainland Chinese TESOL scholars after they have returned from an educational experience at an Anglo-American university. The participants were all proliﬁc authors (see Table 2). who started teaching in the early 1990s. Chinese scholars now face pressure to publish. where TESOL professionals have been trained in the West. 1996). as a group the TABLE 1 Participants Year of ﬁrst English teaching experience Late 1970s Early 1960s Early 1970s Early 1980s Early 1980s Late 1970s Late 1970s Early 1970s Early 1990s Late 1980s Early 1970s Early 1960s Early 1980s Early 1960s Participant P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 Age Early 40s Late 50s Early 40s Early 50s Early 40s Late 40s Late 40s Early 50s Early 30s Late 40s Early 40s Late 50s Early 40s Early 50s Gender F M M M F M M M M M M F M M Degree PhD MA PhD PhD MA PhD MA PhD MPhil PhD MA BA BA BA Rank Associate professor Professor Associate professor Associate professor Professor Professor Professor Associate professor Associate professor Professor Professor Professor Associate professor Professor 626 TESOL QUARTERLY . gone are the days when the Western “publish or perish” culture was irrelevant (Canagarajah. To ensure mutual trust and openness. In these settings. like their Western peers.
TABLE 2 Publications of the Participants Academic Academic papers in papers in English Chinese 0 12 1 6 4 3 0 3 0 0 7 0 0 2 38 5 40 10 0 7 20 5 6 2 32 20 3 100 12 262 Participant P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 Total Scholarly books 0 4 1 3 4 3 1 0 1 2 5 0 4 0 28 Translations 5 4 1 0 16 0 4 11 8 6 35 34 30 0 154 Text. and other nonacademic works. dictionaries. textbooks. We used descriptive and open-ended interview questions (see the Appendix) to provide a framework for participants to reﬂect on their personal experiences. do you experience conﬂicts between English and Chinese writing conventions? • Can you comment on the inﬂuence of English as an international language on academic publications in China? 1 The informants’ understanding of what counts as an academic paper may differ from that of Western scholars. Two interview questions (Questions 1 and 6) solicited responses related to the above themes. BRIEF REPORTS AND SUMMARIES 627 . Most had published not only academic papers1 but also scholarly books. who tend to use refereed and nonrefereed journals as one measure.Dictionbooks aries Other 1 24 0 4 0 0 5 4 0 1 10 6 2 0 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 34 0 0 3 39 11 22 2 1 3 6 0 0 0 0 48 12 0 0 105 Total 22 106 15 14 34 32 15 24 11 43 159 55 136 17 683 participants had produced 683 publications. with an average of 48 each. Because most journals in China are not refereed. Based on individual responses. The interviews were conducted between June 1999 and May 2000 by two research assistants and myself. the informants considered any of their papers addressing academic issues to be academic papers. translations. we used follow-up questions to prompt participants to clarify or support their comments with speciﬁc examples: • Have you ever published in international journals? • What are the opportunities for you to publish English papers in local journals? • In preparing your Chinese manuscripts for local publication.
only 3 said they had published in international journals. They might give me some suggestions on language or style. and a third (P2) had been invited to publish two papers based on his presentations at international conferences held in China. few people are doing similar work. One (P8) had published two papers during his graduate studies in North America. a second (P6) had published her PhD research with her native-English-speaking supervisor. Of the 14 participants. (b) their preference for English writing conventions when preparing manuscripts for scholarly publication. transcribed.We also asked a number of other questions relating to the subjects’ perceptions of the difference between Chinese and English academic writing and of their ability to write academic articles in the two languages. but on the issue itself. 1984) and constant comparison (Miles & Huberman. each lasting about an hour. (P1) It is hard to know whether other participants had similar problems in publishing in international journals because they did not talk about their unsuccessful experiences. RESULTS A number of interesting ﬁndings emerged from this process. 628 TESOL QUARTERLY . and (c) their view of the inﬂuence of English as an international language on academic writing and publication in China. All interviews. and analyzed by means of analytic induction (Goetz & LeCompte. Only 2 other participants expressed their wish to publish in international journals in the future. she felt disadvantaged by being far away from the center where she was trained: Compared with my situation in the States. The Placement of Articles in Chinese Journals Most of the participants said they published their academic papers in local Chinese journals. perhaps because they preferred not to. However. but this report focuses on three themes concerning the Chinese TESOL professionals’ publication: (a) their concentration on local Chinese journals. as they don’t have much background. the conversations continued by e-mail as I asked them to clarify their comments and verify my interpretations. P1 was planning to publish her PhD study. were audiotaped. With some participants. 1994). I don’t think they have much to say. For example. I feel a little bit isolated here.
. had no blind review process. I am 100% sure it will be published. Foreign Languages usually publishes one article in English in each issue. He said. decisions to publish are made by the editors. That is Applied Linguistics published by Guangzhou Foreign Language Institute. . established authors seemed conﬁdent about getting their papers published. . Foreign Language Teaching and Research. Among the 14 participating professors. many said they found it difﬁcult at ﬁrst to publish their MA or PhD studies.” Use of English Writing Conventions in Scholarly Publications Most participants said they had started to publish after they came back from the West. Though highly respected by Chinese TESOL professionals. Only one journal. only 1 had had several English papers published in Foreign Languages. they accept it. only authors who are well known in the ﬁeld or whose papers the editors like can get their work published in it.When asked whether they had published papers in English in local journals. found it challenging to translate his original English text into Chinese: BRIEF REPORTS AND SUMMARIES 629 . They will send the paper to two people for blind review and send me feedback for further revision. most participants said they had had little chance to do so because most local journals published only papers in Chinese. One participant explained the review process this way: Actually at the moment there is only one journal in China that is refereed. for example. Even as successful authors. so whenever I submit anything in English. In fact. Anyway. . although P6 ranked only in the lower middle of the participants in numbers of publications (see Table 2). I think I’ve got enough experience. Foreign Languages. One. she was conﬁdent: “Once I write. For example. . however. so it is very competitive. there is only one refereed TESOL journal in China. Foreign Language Teaching and Research. I know how I should write and what kind of things will be published. is published by Beijing University of Foreign Language Studies. Applied Linguistics. this journal is not refereed. they regard my articles highly. As this journal is not refereed. (P6) Perhaps because all the other journals. For other journals I don’t think they really follow the blind review. publishes English papers occasionally. The most prestigious TESOL journal there. (P2) Nonrefereed journals are typical in China. . including the most prestigious.
but then I had to translate it back to Chinese to publish in China. As one commented. very often you don’t need to do that. In English writing.My master’s thesis was about the linguistic features of journalistic writings in English. To discuss in their home language theories and practices they had learned in the West. consciously or unconsciously. Then you gradually talk your readers into your conclusion which is the topic sentence. (P10) Another commented on the differences between English and Chinese writing referencing conventions: Chinese and English people may have different conventions in terms of using references. most participants said they chose to follow the English writing conventions in writing academic papers in Chinese. . (P11) Aware of the differences. For example. . . (P10) Others had to compromise to meet the expectations of editors who had no Western training. (P8) Some participants believed that the difﬁculties they experienced resulted from the different writing conventions of Chinese and English. . you have to say who said this. You have to write in brackets the name of the author and the date. Even if I am writing in Chinese today. One commented on the structural differences between paragraph development in English and in Chinese writing: An English paragraph usually develops from a topic sentence which has the main idea or the main argument that you want to elaborate in this paragraph. . the details. they had to ﬁnd a way of reconciling these differences. They have a very different standard from the other journals. To tell you the truth. . the English way of developing the paper. . It’s like a pyramid. in Chinese writing you start at the foundation. . But in Chinese writing. many of our articles were rejected by other journals because they did not think our articles were beautiful enough. which is quite distinctly different from the people who do not know the language. many participants said. (P10) To stick to the English conventions in his Chinese papers. Then you have supporting facts or arguments. he deliberately sent his articles to journals whose editors were also Western trained: I usually submit my papers to the journals whose editors are trained in the Western style. . I consider myself educated in the English way. one writer explained how he had to 630 TESOL QUARTERLY . . I would still prefer. However. he said. I found it was so challenging and difﬁcult. I was quite ﬂuent in writing in English. using the English way of thinking. . .
For instance. Very often editors will ask me to change how I use references because they have limited space.” A third regarded this as a positive and rapid shift: I think the inﬂuence of English is tremendous and is in fact gathering momentum.” The participants displayed a pioneering spirit as they described how they tried to introduce and maintain English discourse conventions. so there was an introduction in which I formed the question and had a rationale. . Or they BRIEF REPORTS AND SUMMARIES 631 . but mine is very English. When I was proofreading. the inﬂuence will be increasingly telling. I have found that many academic journals [in China]. because I think later on if people come to see it as plagiarism. . I don’t want to take that chance. Two (P1 and P6) said that. I wanted to publish my article. especially in journals. (P5) Inﬂuence of English as an International Language Many participants commented on the inﬂuence English as an international language had on publications in China in order to explain why they or their colleagues consciously maintained the conventions of English discourse. So they made lots of changes. as a result of the inﬂuence of English. I followed the basic academic format of Western writing. With more Western-trained Chinese scholars returning to China and more academic exchanges. are changing rapidly to adopt the international style and format of publication. Chinese academic papers “are pretty much based on Western models” or have “gradually gotten the English style. She believed that some Chinese journals might “not give in to the discourse power embodied in their papers” but that their refusal would most likely be interpreted as “a narrow-minded gesture. Their styles are very Chinese. . They said my style didn’t agree with the style of that journal. especially those that are more related to Western academic communities. . . so I had to change it according to their style. I regard it as a very positive shift. (P8) Another (P1) commented on the shift as a result of the “discourse power” that English has over Chinese. They thought it was not necessary and dropped my introduction. I was very frustrated. One said she followed English conventions such as the citing of references because she believed that it would later become a norm in Chinese academic writing: I try to follow English conventions. I felt uncomfortable but I did not raise any objection because otherwise the article would be withdrawn from the journal. .modify his English style in order to get one paper published in a traditional Chinese journal: I had a problem with one article published in a very prestigious Chinese journal.
If people are forced to write in a second language. which they had learned in the West. . it could be seen as plagiarism. They can’t get the ﬂow of your thought. On the other hand. Kachru (1995) urges TESOL professionals to appreciate and legitimize L1 rhetorical styles that represent the multiple voices of international writers of English. I have to compromise. but I don’t want to remove all of the [references]. Although they published predominantly in Chinese. most of them preferred to follow the conventions of English language academic publications. One claimed. .” It’s because the power is always on the side of the leading researchers. In these cases. One such force is the impact of Western training. In a sense. Researchers in China don’t have much power to go against the trend. The present ﬁndings contribute to the ﬁeld’s understanding of the various forces acting on bilingual TESOL professionals as they prepare manuscripts for scholarly publication. 632 TESOL QUARTERLY .will say. and use fewer references. “It’s not acceptable in Chinese because people don’t want to read with so many brackets or references. she expressed a wish that one day Chinese scholars would write like their native-English-speaking peers and be able to publish in international journals: On those “imported” subjects.” I try to persuade them by saying. we’ll end up overpowered by the “imported style. English has become the scholarly language of these Chinese professors even though most of their publications are in Chinese. You’d better take these out. maybe now I will put only two more prominent scholars’ references there. “If I take them out. Some saw this shift as a result of the inﬂuence and power of English as an international language. the 14 nonnative-Englishspeaking TESOL scholars in this study tended to write their L1 academic papers in the conventionally accepted. they saw themselves as pioneers who were contributing to a change in academic publications in China. if originally I put ﬁve. Anglo-American manner. using the English style in Chinese journals is not a bad thing. their proﬁciency will become more like that of native-speaking writers. “Those who are well prepared for the shift will become winners. After several generations of effort. while others will be losers. (P1) DISCUSSION All the Western-trained Chinese professors of TESOL that I interviewed were committed to publishing. however. For example. I might compromise in that way. (P6) Others were similarly conscious of contributing to this change. we’ll ﬁnally have our voices heard over the international forum.” Summarizing and predicting how she and her colleagues had been writing and would write with an English or “imported” style. even if they dislike it. By following English writing conventions. .” .
Finally. Problems in writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. 13. Written Communication. material resources of periphery scholars. 435–472. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was partially funded by a Humanities and Social Studies grant at the University of British Columbia. Luxin Yang. This is in contrast to academics in Hong Kong. it seems vital that the TESOL profession help maintain the international presence of nonnative-English-speaking scholars and that dissemination of the works of other nonnative-English-speaking scholars be investigated. J. and Joe Belanger. of their studies in Chinese journals. Some of the participants explicitly described how editors of traditional Chinese journals resisted the use of Western patterns and styles. and Language Testing. who publish only their less signiﬁcant work in Chinese journals (Flowerdew. Helen Snively. The present ﬁndings also conﬁrm previous evidence that dominant Western academic traditions moderate local expository values in several other countries (Purves. English for Speciﬁc Purposes. THE AUTHOR Ling Shi is an assistant professor in the Department of Language and Literacy Education at the University of British Columbia. Flowerdew. (1996). She holds a PhD in curriculum studies from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. BRIEF REPORTS AND SUMMARIES 633 .A related issue concerns the choice of conventions for academic writing. As the majority of Chinese scholars’ works are not accessible outside China. She has published studies in the Journal of Second Language Writing. the study suggests that mainland Chinese TESOL scholars publish most. and Rod Ellis for their valuable feedback on earlier drafts of the report. REFERENCES Canagarajah. Future research should investigate how English writing conventions nativize in L1 writing. Ying Lin. (1999a). 234–264. 8. “Nondiscursive” requirements in academic publishing. so do Anglo-American culture and writing conventions. if not all. 1999a). and Li Cheng for their assistance in collecting and transcribing the data. 1992). I thank the Chinese professors for their time and willingness to share their personal views and experiences. the present data suggest that Chinese editors of local journals tried to retain the traditional native norms for the larger local audience. and the politics of knowledge production. As the English language spreads. Previous researchers have reported that gatekeeping editors excluded nonnative-English-speaking scholars from international journals because they used non-English conventions. Journal of Second Language Writing. A. S.
3. 123–145. Writing processes of Spanish scientists publishing in English. Discourse community. (1996). Y. J. and how did you start to write and publish? Do you think you are better in English writing or Chinese writing? Do you think Chinese and English writing are different in terms of their organization patterns or styles? Do you think there are different cultural values attached to the writing in two languages? Do you think your writing expertise in one language helps you write in another language? Do you use different strategies when writing in Chinese and English for scholarly publications? Author’s address: Ling Shi. Miles. English for Speciﬁc Purposes. (1999c). Goetz. 2. Orlando. Vancouver. H. Flowerdew. 8. FL: Academic Press. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching. Planning science communication for human resource development. Communicative language teaching (pp.). Kachru. 127–150. Das (Ed. 34. University of British Columbia. Contrastive rhetoric in world English. (1999b). 6. 5.). J. A. BC Canada V6T 1Z2. Jerudd. Can you brieﬂy describe your writing experiences in both Chinese and English? When. 6. (1987). 5. H. John.: Sage. Flowerdew. & Baldauf. 4. B. CA. Writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong.. 21–31. Purves. (2000). 2034 Lower Mall Road. In B. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Journal of Second Language Writing. M.. APPENDIX Interview Questions 1. (1984). St. where. & Huberman. A. Verbal reports of Japanese novices’ research writing practices in English. (1987). Singapore: Regional English Language Center. & LeCompte. II: Education and performance in fourteen countries. 9. J. M. (1994). 41. Gosden. K. 113–120. 634 TESOL QUARTERLY . 144–189). C. C. (1995). B. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed. legitimate peripheral participation. and the nonnative-English-speaking scholar. Thousand Oaks. Journal of Second Language Writing.Flowerdew. 109–128. M. 99–103.. TESOL Quarterly. TESOL Quarterly and non-native speaker-writers: An interview with Sandra McKay. The IEA study of written composition. Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. (1992). English Today. J.
What are the objectives for the course? What roles do the students play?). 2001. John Murphy and Patricia Byrd (Eds. is a highly contextualized and particularized activity. even when it adheres to speciﬁc but abstract principles. The book is a ﬁne choice as text for a graduate seminar for prospective ESL teachers or as a useful reader for teachers who wish to update their knowledge. Although the chapters vary enormously among the language skills. I Much has been written and said about the need to relate theoretical principles of language teaching to the practical realities of actual ESL classrooms. Understanding the Courses We Teach begins with ﬁve introductory chapters in which the editors take turns defending the need for local classroom perspectives. By focusing each chapter on these common points. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.REVIEWS TESOL Quarterly welcomes evaluative reviews of publications relevant to TESOL professionals. This introduction is followed by 19 chapters written by a combination of 28 TESOL professionals.. 36. and this introductory anthology. arguing for a postmethodological perspective on teaching. No. but they also help the reader keep in mind that teaching ESL. and curricular goals they deal with.). student populations. Pp. and outlining the format and framework of their anthology. TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. ix + 493. the editors ensure a degree of continuity among the disparate topics addressed. listing some popular principles of language learning and teaching. accomplishes this difﬁcult task remarkably well. Edited by ROBERTA J. 4. Winter 2002 635 . VANN Iowa State University Understanding the Courses We Teach. each author (or pair of authors) addresses nine pedagogical questions about their class (e. balanced between full-time classroom practitioners and well-known experts in the ﬁeld who also have active teaching experience. carefully compiled by Murphy and Byrd.g.
ix + 270. published in 1986. 636 TESOL QUARTERLY . all in all. Tim Murphey describes a complicated but creative way of helping his Japanese university conversation students videotape and evaluate their oral English. Jack C. And as a ﬁnal illustration of the range of activities covered. Richards and Theodore S. William Acton explains an unusual system for teaching his Japanese students English prosody by literally choreographing their body movements in his speaking class. on his students’ knowledge of their native language and culture. I have felt for some time that a new edition was needed to bring readers up-to-date with recent developments. THOMAS SCOVEL San Francisco State University San Francisco. Here I highlight a few in order to show the range of classroom activities covered. and a chapter or two applying the promising new insights from corpus linguistics and the teaching of vocabulary would have been helpful. different readers will ﬁnd certain chapters especially relevant. Pp. California.Because the book covers such a diversity of topics and settings. Brian Morgan discusses ways in which he has helped his Canadian immigrant class learn both English and citizenship by relying. Rodgers. Carol Numrich reviews several theme-based projects her academic ESL class has pursued. The most useful aspect of the book is its systematic presentation of a wide range of language teaching methods and approaches. I The ﬁrst edition of this book. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.). But. May Shih discusses approaches and activities teachers of ESL composition classes can use to help their students edit their writing more vigilantly and accurately. soon became a standard and best-selling work explaining various approaches to and methods of language teaching. a discussion that sets the scene for the rest of the book. After a brief introductory chapter on the history of language teaching. The limitations of this fresh and wide-ranging anthology are few: The EFL contexts are restricted to East Asia (Japan and Hong Kong). Murphy and Byrd’s text lives up to its title and will help all teachers better understand the courses they teach. in part. 2001. in chapter 2 the authors discuss the nature of approaches and methods in language teaching. United States Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (2nd ed. including one that takes them to an Indian gambling casino for an integrated skills study of the gaming industry in the United States.
the authors have abbreviated the chapters in the 1986 edition that dealt with the designer methods of the 1970s and 1980s—total physical response. and competency-based language learning. Like all the others in the book. I heartily recommend the new edition to all who seek clear and dispassionate information about the wide range of current approaches and methods to language teaching. communicative teaching is seen from a much wider perspective than was possible 15 or so years ago. they have written entirely new chapters on more recent approaches. and the roles of teacher. and task-based language learning. vii). Whereas the original edition concluded with a chapter on comparing and evaluating methods. the silent way. each method or approach is dealt with in a separate chapter. content-based instruction. This overall structure is retained in the new edition. and well referenced. However. these chapters are well written. learner. multiple intelligences. In these chapters. As Richards and Rodgers say. neurolinguistic programming. A whole section of the book is devoted to current communicative approaches. They argue that teachers “should be encouraged to transform and adapt the methods they use to make them their own” (p. each beginning with the theories of language and of language learning that underpin the approach and followed by the relevant objectives. Each chapter ends with a useful set of current references to published works dealing with the method. In contrast. and materials.Thereafter. Students of English language teaching. and REVIEWS 637 . informative. Over the years. the authors discuss the need for language teachers to relate insights gained from so-called brand-name approaches and methods to their own values and beliefs and principles and the speciﬁc contexts in which they work. the new edition brings the reader up-to-date with the latest methodological trends. The new edition retains the original chapters on communicative language teaching and the natural approach (but adds updated references). Here. I have made constant reference to the 1986 edition— so much so that my copy is now very dog-eared. the new book ends with a discussion of a postmethods era. Thus. a shorter treatment seemed appropriate” (p. and community language learning. therefore. suggestopedia. “Because these methods are no longer widely used. syllabus. practicing L2 teachers. a notable and perhaps surprising omission from the book is any discussion of the current debate over issues such as focus on form and consciousness-raising. typical activities. Chapters 3 and 4 on the oral approach and the audiolingual method are retained unchanged in this edition. which is about 100 pages longer than the original. such as whole language. the lexical approach. However. such as cooperative language learning. 250). and includes new chapters on various aspects of communicative teaching.
nonnative speakers of English in the United States have generally been quite successful in developing proﬁciency in English. Language Debate. a point missed by those who see English and English only as the sole path” (p. 33). Tse correctly asserts.those involved in professional development programs should read this book. should appeal to a broad range of language professionals as well as those in related disciplines.S. The argument made in support of heritage languages as a means of meeting the heightened demand for bilinguals in the workforce is 638 TESOL QUARTERLY I .S. ROGER BARNARD University of Waikato Hamilton. is clearly achieved. Later chapters make the case for preserving heritage languages and suggest ways of bringing this about. Of note is the argument that support for the L1 can play an instrumental role in facilitating L2 learning. 2001. to replace their L1. TESOL professionals. This well-organized book. New York: Teachers College Press. “Even among immigrant groups thought to live in isolated ‘language ghettos.” as stated in the subtitle. Pp. “Why Don’t They Learn English?” is a concise yet substantive treatment of the phenomenon of heritage language (L1) loss in the United States. but monolingualism is not the only path to achieving ﬂuency in the language. unfortunately. Reasons for the tendency of heritage languages to erode subsequent to the development of proﬁciency in English are outlined. in effect. Tse outlines numerous beneﬁts to be derived from heritage language preservation. a pattern of heritage language loss has tended to follow. 15). in particular. Tse notes. ix + 109. “Knowing English and knowing it well is of course important.’ English-language learning is taking place at high levels” (p. “separating fact from fallacy in the U. Among these reasons is the pressure a number of immigrants feel to learn English—not in order to become bilingual but. The early chapters are devoted to demonstrating that the all-too-common view that immigrants are not learning English and are not motivated to do so is not consistent with the evidence. delineating advantages for both the individual and society. but. The aim of the book. should ﬁnd it an excellent reference and teaching resource. Lucy Tse. On the contrary. language debate. replete with helpful tables and ﬁgures. New Zealand “Why Don’t They Learn English?”: Separating Fact From Fallacy in the U.
require too much turning back and forth. Pp. although intended (as Tse states in the introduction) to provide additional material for the reader with greater experience. In chapter 2. The concluding chapter provides a helpful summary and expands on means of fostering proﬁciency in both English and heritage languages. In short.particularly relevant. In Part I. One minor criticism is that the extensive endnotes.S. 1. the practical implications are of even greater signiﬁcance. system pours resources into foreign-language programs in hopes of producing bilinguals without mending the holes in the system that allow heritage language speakers to lose their bilingual potential” (p. she asserts. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. including deﬁnitions of discourse terminology. The Spoken Language. I Discourse Analysis in the Language Classroom is an excellent resource for those ESL teachers who wish to shift their focus of instruction from discrete linguistic components to teaching language in use. United States Discourse Analysis in the Language Classroom: Vol. This ﬁne work deserves a wide readership. The ﬁrst half of the book lays out the theoretical foundations of a discourse-analytic approach to L2 instruction. ix + 222. “Why Don’t They Learn English?” contains a straightforward and insightful message. and the methodological suggestions offered for fostering heritage language proﬁciency are useful. Riggenbach provides an overview and general orientation to discourse analysis. a discussion of how discourse-analytic activities can assist students in developing communicative competence. the 639 REVIEWS . MARTIN R. Much of the material contained in the endnotes could have been worked into the body of the text. and recent support for the use of discourse-analytic techniques in the classroom. Each of the two parts of the book is subdivided into two chapters. New York. This constructive criticism in no way diminishes the praise this book deserves. “The current U. chapter 1. GITTERMAN The City University of New York New York. Heidi Riggenbach. Although the book is of interest on a purely academic level. Although Tse encourages support for foreign language instruction. and the second half provides teachers with a variety of activities aimed at developing students’ communicative competence in speaking and listening. 58). 1999.
it will be an invaluable addition to the libraries of ESL/EFL teachers and teacher educators. Chapter 4 focuses on the microskills of speaking and contains exercises in which learners examine the grammatical structures. Students learn to discern ﬁne contextual distinctions between tenses. Suggested further readings at the end of each chapter provide resources for teachers wishing to expand their knowledge of applications of discourse analysis in language education. It begins with students using their existing knowledge to make predictions about the target structure. then collecting and analyzing the data to test their hypotheses. Part II of the book is devoted to a detailed description of classroom activities. and to address those grammatical points that present speciﬁc difﬁculties for them. working out discourse-based rules for the target language. Every activity follows this pattern.author presents a model of students as discourse researchers. While this text is not aimed at those interested in in-depth research on discourse analysis. California. and vocabulary activities aid students in developing and enriching their individualized lexicons. and vocabulary in their spoken language. allowing teachers to become thoroughly familiar with the discourse-analytic approach and start developing their own activities based on it. and various styles and genres of communication. and practicing the structure in appropriate contexts before they summarize their ﬁndings and draw conclusions. Riggenbach suggests a six-step paradigm to help teachers teach and design their own discourse-based activities. All exercises in the book have been tested in language classrooms in diverse educational situations and can be tailored to meet speciﬁc instructional needs. outlines the research skills they need. and proposes guidelines for designing discourse research activities for the classroom. to explore complex sentential structures. offering activities that encourage students to observe language produced by others and look for patterns in such discourse phenomena as turn taking. conversational repair. OLGA GRISWOLD University of California Los Angeles. Chapter 3 focuses on macrolevel speaking. pronunciation. Pronunciation activities emphasize both segmental elements and suprasegmentals. United States 640 TESOL QUARTERLY .
and technical requirements. Another very commendable feature is the tasks that encourage students to be discerning Web users. the book also quite sensibly provides a number of caveats about the use of the Web in English language teaching. though teachers are encouraged throughout to develop their own. publishers.g. attaching text. some more challenging exercises make use of audio and video clips as well as automatic page translation features and chat rooms to give students exposure to the multimedia possibilities of the Internet. and Focus on Language Skills. Oxford: Oxford University Press. on using search engines and HTML editors. The Internet also lists Web sites for associations. Another useful addition is the glossary of Internet terms. however. Focus on Language. exploiting Internet Relay Chat. aims. the book itself evinces the interactivity and user proactivity central to Web-based learning: Oxford University Press provides a Web site (updated REVIEWS 641 . and David Eastment. helpful to teachers wanting to keep professionally aware. journals. evaluating critically what they ﬁnd in terms of effective Web page design. Associated photocopiable worksheets are included for most of the activities. or video ﬁles to e-mail messages. Scott Windeatt. each described in terms of such factors as language level. made more accessible by the convention of having a potentially unknown term printed in boldface the ﬁrst time it appears in the text. nontheoretical introduction to the beneﬁts of Web-assisted learning. The book is intended for teachers with a modest level of computer skills on either Macintosh or PC platforms and provides a range of Web activities for which basic browser and e-mail use is sufﬁcient. Resource Books for Teachers. low bandwidth). There is also advice about how to vary the exercises to suit the requirements of one’s own students and the problems one might encounter (e. high telephone bills. warning against an uncritical embracing of new technology at the expense of common sense. and I hope trendsetting. which is of variable quality (both from a content and format viewpoint) across the medium. and joining discussion lists. Pp. Substantial appendixes provide advice. Perhaps most important. vii +136.The Internet. 2000. and software companies. David Hardisty. sound. time. which can be used for each of the teaching activities. the authors present 49 authentic activities. providing resources that are meant to be sampled as needed instead of being exploited in a linear fashion. The activities are grouped under three central headings: Core Internet Skills. It also provides often multiple URLs. I The Internet is a new and welcome volume in the practical Oxford series.. Intended as a guide for real teachers in real classrooms. After a very brief. for example.
theory and research. I On Second Language Writing is a collection of 15 papers resulting from a small symposium held in the late 1990s at which well-known and respected scholars of L2 writing considered the state of their discipline at the end of the 20th century. Mahwah. The next two chapters address L2 writing theory. Scotland On Second Language Writing. and open use of the medium. assessment. politics. Chapters 6 and 7 address research issues. multiple-choice testing. Liz Hamp-Lyons surveys three generations of writing assessment—direct testing. xxi + 241. method. Barbara Kroll speaks from the perspective of her own experiences to suggest that life experiences largely account for choice of ideology and pedagogy. SHELDON University of Strathclyde Glasgow. creative. NJ: Erlbaum. and Eastment are to be thoroughly congratulated for making themselves available to their readers. LESLIE E. In chapter 1. address L2 writing teachers and students. and articulation of issues between L2 writing and other ﬁelds of study and standards.every 3 months) that complements The Internet. remarkably diverse in viewpoint. In chapter 5. instruction. Pp. Hardisty. 2001. with 642 TESOL QUARTERLY . In chapter 8. In chapter 4 Bill Grabe explains why such a theory is necessary but how for the present the ﬁeld may need to be satisﬁed with a descriptive model that paints a picture of the conditions of learning to write. and style. allowing users to e-mail the authors directly about their experiences in using the various exercises and to check whether particular URLs have changed or new ones have been added. The next two chapters focus on student issues.). This genuine feedback loop is an excellent. Chapters 9 and 10 focus on L2 writing instruction. particularly interesting is Ilona Leki’s unveiling of disjunctures between the objectives of teachers and students. Tony Silva and Paul Kei Matsuda (Eds. The chapters. Diane Belcher examines the role of gender in writing theory and the extent to which L2 researchers are more postmodern and feminized than their earlier counterparts. Windeatt. and portfolio assessment—and suggests that fourth-generation testing will draw on computer technology. enabling teachers to be true partners in the exploitation—and development—of a resource book instead of remaining in the traditionally passive role of readers central to the hardcopy format. with Lynn Goldstein discussing research on teacherwritten commentary and Charlene Polio providing tools for studying L2 texts.
however. Chapters 11 and 12 take up the issue of politics in writing theory and practice in a head-on debate that I found to be the most interesting segment of the book. Joan Carson presents an inquiry of L2 writing in relation to overall language acquisition. In chapter 12. study. 162) in L2 composition. and Carol Severino describes the problems she faces as a liaison between ESL students and U. suggesting that even if we as TESOL practitioners believe our “social and political views are the right ones[. and justiﬁcation. in which TESOL practitioners balance the pragmatic goal of preparing students for academic courses with the critical stance of “encouraging them to question the status quo” (p. 186). teachers. Though some chapters will naturally appeal to some readers more than others. The ﬁnal chapters of the book investigate L2 composition in relation to other ﬁelds of study. Finally. might have ﬁt more easily with the earlier chapters on teachers and students. Benesch advocates ﬁghting for “what might be” rather than “what is” (p. People’s Republic of China REVIEWS 643 . the collection is important in synthesizing the state of the art of L2 writing as it now stands. and Joy Reid describing an English for academic purposes writing curriculum that grows out of assessment of student needs. 167). Severino’s chapter. Terry Santos refutes the move to politicize L2 writing. however. Sarah Benesch argues for moving beyond the debate between pragmatism and critical thinking to a kind of critical pragmatism.Trudy Smoke sharing strategies for strengthening L2 writing support in both academic and community environments. Alister Cumming looks at the notion of standards and envisions the need for their careful articulation. LI SHEN Fudan University Shanghai.S.] that does not give us the right to make our students act on them just because we are in a position to do so” (p.
Pp. what kind of training and credentials are needed. writing. the 13 units are graded from beginning units focusing on basic classroom instructions to later units covering speciﬁc activity types such as reading. and storytelling. Working in English Language Today. 4. The author instructs readers on what kind of person makes the ideal English language teacher and tells how to get started. Pp. 2002. Although designed for readers in the United Kingdom. Francesca Target. English for Primary Teachers: A Handbook of Activities and Classroom Language. viii + 148 + compact disc. Drawing on English lessons recorded by teachers from around the world. I Designed to help primary school teachers who are nonnative speakers of English build their conﬁdence in using English effectively and broaden their range of appropriate language English teaching activities. 184. and where to ﬁnd a job. A compact disc included with the text provides examples of lessons and practice opportunities. the book nevertheless includes information on teaching and related opportunities around the world. London: Kogan Page.BOOK NOTICES TESOL Quarterly prints brief book notices of 100 words or less announcing books of interest to readers. Mary Slattery and Jane Willis. They are solicited by the Review Editor. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Winter 2002 645 . 36. No. 2001. I This book is designed for the reader who is thinking of becoming an English language teacher but who may have doubts about whether this career is really the right choice. Book Notices are intended to inform readers about selected books that publishers have sent to TESOL and are descriptive rather than evaluative. this book focuses on the needs of those teaching children aged 4–12. TESOL QUARTERLY Vol.
2002. The third and ﬁnal section focuses on promising educational practices. New York: Peter Lang. I This slim volume in the Oxford Basics Series is aimed at teachers of ESL or EFL. non–European American immigrants and to rural and limited English proﬁcient students in contrast to their European American middle-class and upperclass peers. The author provides powerful personal accounts of events and experiences to support his arguments. It argues that such children are subjected to class oppression and cultural invasion in the schools. Ending Discrimination in Special Education (2nd ed. xxvii + 239. Pp. of any age. Lourdes Diaz Soto (Ed. 2002. Springﬁeld. Herbert Grossman. and the second part provides examples of the daily. Thomas. The ﬁrst section of the book explores related theory and critical issues. Activities require little or no preparation or resources beyond a board. language proﬁciency. psychologists. often unseen realities bilingual/bicultural children face. I The 16-chapter edited volume aims to alert readers to issues affecting the lives of bilingual/bicultural children and to critically examine how best to make a difference in their lives. xvii + 124. Grossman focuses on the enormous disparities between the U. It contains 30 activities from the elementary to the intermediate level designed to get learners to think and learn about their own and other cultures while practicing the four language skills. a soulnumbing rather than intellectually and spiritually liberating experience. he calls into question many of the professional practices of teachers. and of both genders. Finally. Pp. education provided to poor. IL: Charles C. and professors utilize. Simon Gill and Michaela Cankova. administrators. paper. Oxford: Oxford University Press. and pens and are designed to be accessible to learners from all cultures. 646 TESOL QUARTERLY . Pp. 2002. vi + 65. The authors provide explicit step-by-step directions and photocopiable pictures.S.Making a Difference in the Lives of Bilingual/Bicultural Children. The author argues that many of the students in the ﬁrst group are inappropriately placed in special education and that special education strategies are not equally effective across socioeconomic status. I Intercultural Activities. especially those working in situations where resources are limited.).). and ethnicity.
The Quarterly prefers that all submissions be written so that their content is accessible to a broad readership. testing and evaluation 4. ﬁrst and second language acquisition. As a publication that represents a variety of cross-disciplinary interests. 4. and techniques 3. encourages submission of previously unpublished articles on topics of signiﬁcance to individuals concerned with the teaching of English as a second or foreign language and of standard English as a second dialect.g. sociolinguistics. psychology and sociology of language learning and teaching. Submit manuscripts to the Editor of TESOL Quarterly: INFORMATION FOR CONTRIBUTORS TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. To facilitate the blind review process. psychology. especially in the following areas: 1. both theoretical and practical. instructional methods. in anthropology. notes. If possible. professional standards Because the Quarterly is committed to publishing manuscripts that contribute to bridging theory and practice in our profession. indicate the number of words at the end of the article. communication. No.. psycholinguistics. TESOL Quarterly is an international journal.INFORMATION FOR CONTRIBUTORS EDITORIAL POLICY TESOL Quarterly. it particularly welcomes submissions drawing on relevant research (e. professional preparation 5. education. It welcomes submissions from English language contexts around the world. a professional. refereed journal. including those individuals who may not have familiarity with the subject matter addressed. 36.500 words (including references. do not use running heads. issues in research and research methodology 2. Submit three copies plus three copies of an informative abstract of not more than 200 words. GENERAL INFORMATION FOR AUTHORS Submission Categories TESOL Quarterly invites submissions in ﬁve categories: Full-length articles. English education [including reading and writing theory]. applied and theoretical linguistics. materials. authors’ names should appear only on a cover sheet. and sociology) and addressing implications and applications of this research to issues in our profession. and tables). not on the title page. the Quarterly invites manuscripts on a wide range of topics. Winter 2002 647 . curriculum design and development. language planning 6. Contributors are strongly encouraged to submit manuscripts of no more than 20–25 double-spaced pages or 8.
• The manuscript offers a new. Submissions should generally be no longer than 1. Reviews. Chapelle Department of English 203 Ross Hall Iowa State University Ames. • The manuscript makes a signiﬁcant (practical. Submit two copies of the review article to the Review Editor at the address given above. • The manuscript strengthens the relationship between theory and practice: Practical articles must be anchored in theory. literacy training. useful. teaching methodology). TESOL Quarterly invites succinct.g. Reviews should provide a descriptive and evaluative summary and a brief discussion of the signiﬁcance of the work in the context of current theory and practice. • The manuscript is likely to arouse readers’ interest. correctly interpreted references to other authors and works. and theoretical articles and reports of research must contain a discussion of implications or applications for practice.).. pronunciation. original insight or interpretation and not just a restatement of others’ ideas and views. Submissions should generally be no longer than 500 words. IA 50011-1201 USA The following factors are considered when evaluating the suitability of a manuscript for publication in TESOL Quarterly: • The manuscript appeals to the general interests of TESOL Quarterly’s readership. Review articles should provide a description and evaluative comparison of the materials and discuss the relative signiﬁcance of the works in the context of current theory and practice. • The manuscript reﬂects sound scholarship and research design with appropriate.500 words. TESOL Quarterly also welcomes occasional review articles. 648 TESOL QUARTERLY .Carol A.edu Review Articles. • The manuscript is well written and organized and conforms to the speciﬁcations of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (4th ed. comparative discussions of several publications that fall into a topical category (e. evaluative reviews of professional books. that is. not only to specialists in the area addressed. plausible) contribution to the ﬁeld. • The content of the manuscript is accessible to the broad readership of the Quarterly. Send one copy by e-mail to the Review Editor: Roberta Vann rvann@iastate.
BC V6T 1Z4 Vancouver. Although these contributions are typically solicited. Topics are approved by the Editorial Advisory Board of the Quarterly. PA 16802 USA The Forum. unfortunately. or 3. Contributions to The Forum should generally be no longer than 7–10 double-spaced pages or 3. Longer articles do not appear in this section and should be submitted to the Editor of TESOL Quarterly for review. If possible. Those wishing to suggest topics or make known their availability as guest editors should contact the Editor of TESOL Quarterly. BC V6T 1Z4 Canada Canada Special-Topic Issues. one issue per volume will be devoted to a special topic.Brief Reports and Summaries. Typically. Responses to published articles and reviews are also welcome.400 words.400 words (including references. Duff Bonny Norton Department of Language Department of Language and Literacy Education and Literacy Education University of British Columbia University of British Columbia 2125 Main Mall 2125 Main Mall Vancouver. Submissions to this section should be 7–10 double-spaced pages. New Zealand Paula Golombek 305 Sparks Building Pennsylvania State University University Park. notes. Send one copy of the manuscript each to: Cathie Elder Department of Applied Language Studies and Linguistics University of Auckland Private Bag 92019 Auckland. indicate the number of words at the end of the report. TESOL Quarterly also invites short reports on any aspect of theory and practice in our profession. Issues will generally contain both invited articles designed to survey and illuminate central themes as well as articles solicited through a call for papers. TESOL Quarterly welcomes comments and reactions from readers regarding speciﬁc aspects or practices of our profession. INFORMATION FOR CONTRIBUTORS 649 . We encourage manuscripts that either present preliminary ﬁndings or focus on some aspect of a larger study. Submit three copies to the Editor of TESOL Quarterly at the address given above. the discussion of issues should be supported by empirical evidence. In all cases. Brief discussions of qualitative and quantitative Research Issues and of Teaching Issues are also published in The Forum. collected through qualitative or quantitative investigations. Research Issues: Teaching Issues: Patricia A. readers may send topic suggestions or make known their availability as contributors by writing directly to the Editors of these subsections. and tables). indicate the number of words at the end of the contribution. Reports or summaries should present key concepts and results in a manner that will make the research accessible to our diverse readership. we are not able to publish responses to previous exchanges. If possible.
WC2E 8LU.html. authors should include an electronic mail address and fax number.org/books/ordering. England. The views expressed by contributors to TESOL Quarterly do not necessarily reﬂect those of the Editor. 2. Brief Reports and Summaries.General Submission Guidelines 1. or TESOL. Book Order Department. Dept. For more information. Europe. DC 20090-2984 USA.org or consult http:// www. Authors should be sure to keep a copy for themselves. Authors of full-length articles.O. 4. Box 92984. Although we are aware that such standards vary among institutions and countries. Informed Consent Guidelines TESOL Quarterly expects authors to adhere to ethical and legal standards for work with human subjects. KK. It is understood that manuscripts submitted to TESOL Quarterly have not been previously published and are not under consideration for publication elsewhere. P. Where available. plus any special notations or acknowledgments that they would like to have included. 6. It is the responsibility of the author(s) of a manuscript submitted to TESOL Quarterly to indicate to the Editor the existence of any work already published (or under consideration for publication elsewhere) by the author(s) that is similar in content to that of the manuscript. 8. 3. Manuscripts submitted to TESOL Quarterly cannot be returned to authors. Washington. maximum 50 words). Brief Reports and Summaries. All submissions to TESOL Quarterly should be accompanied by a cover letter that includes a full mailing address and both a daytime and an evening telephone number. 9. Orders from the United Kingdom. Dept. The Editor of TESOL Quarterly reserves the right to make editorial changes in any manuscript accepted for publication to enhance clarity or style. 7. and Forum contributions should include two copies of a very brief biographical statement (in sentence form. Africa. e-mail email@example.com. and The Forum sections. Covent Garden. Double spacing should be used throughout. KK. 5.). The author will be consulted only if the editing has been substantial. Material published in the Quarterly should not be construed to have the endorsement of TESOL. TESOL Quarterly provides 25 free reprints of published full-length articles and 10 reprints of material published in the Reviews. or the Middle East should be sent to American Psychological Association. which can be obtained from the American Psychological Association. All submissions to the Quarterly should conform to the requirements of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (4th ed. London. the Editorial Advisory Board. we require authors and contributors to 650 TESOL QUARTERLY . 3 Henrietta Street.
and that the participants may withdraw at any time without penalty. TESOL recognizes that some institutions may require research proposals to satisfy additional requirements.. INFORMATION FOR CONTRIBUTORS 651 . the conditions detailed below before submitting a manuscript for review. You have explained that participation is voluntary. You have informed participants in your study. you have made that clear to the participants in writing. As an author. or program that you will be conducting research in which they will be the participants or that you would like to write about them for publication. You have explained to participants if and how their conﬁdentiality will be protected. 9. you have complied with the following conditions. You have explained to participants any possible direct beneﬁts of participating (e. you may e-mail the managing editor of TESOL publications at tq@tesol. group. receiving a copy of the article or chapter). Participation in the Research 1. seeing work with errors in print). 7.org or call 703-535-7852. sample. If you wish to discuss whether or how your study met these guidelines. as a minimum. 8. A. You have obtained from each participant (or from the participant’s parent or guardian) a signed consent form that sets out the terms of your agreement with the participants and have kept these forms on ﬁle (TESOL will not ask to see them). you will be asked to sign a statement indicating that you have complied with Option A or Option B before TESOL will publish your work.meet. or if it does not meet the requirements outlined below. If you will be collecting samples of student work with the intention of publishing them. class.. You have given each participant a clear statement of the purpose of your research or the basic outline of what you would like to explore in writing. making it clear that research and writing are dynamic activities that may shift in focus as they occur. You have explained to participants any foreseeable risks and discomforts involved in agreeing to cooperate (e. B. 5. Consent to Publish Student Work 10. If you are not bound by an institutional review process.g. either anonymously or with attribution. that there is no penalty for refusing to participate. 3. You have explained the procedure you will follow in the research project or the types of information you will be collecting for your writing. 2. 4. You have given participants sufﬁcient contact information that they can reach you for answers to questions regarding the research. 6.g. You have followed the human subjects review procedure established by your institution.
understand. assumptions such as random selection and assignment of subjects and sufﬁciently large sample sizes so that the results are stable. the following guidelines are provided. graphs and charts that help explain the results.. appropriate types of reliability and validity of any tests. and 652 TESOL QUARTERLY . and control variables.tesol. moderator. tests of the assumptions of any statistical tests. 3. 1. a clear statement of the research questions and the hypotheses that are being examined. complete source tables for statistical tests. if he or she is old enough to read. If the sample of student work (e. you have supplied and obtained signed separate informed consent forms from the parent or guardian and from the minor. 13. questionnaires. Studies submitted to the Quarterly should be explained clearly and in enough detail that it would be possible to replicate the design of the study on the basis of the information provided in the article. the study should include sufﬁcient information to allow readers to evaluate the claims made by the author. standard deviations. descriptive statistics. and sample sizes.11. you have obtained a signed consent form and will include that form when you submit your manuscript for review and editing (see http://www. 6. 5. 2. independent. In order to support this goal. a signed drawing or signed piece of writing) will be published with the student’s real name visible.g. Statistical Guidelines Because of the educational role the Quarterly plays modeling research in the ﬁeld. If your research or writing involves minors (persons under age 18). ratings. Reporting the study. authors of statistical studies should present the following. you have written the consent forms in a language that the participant or the participant’s guardian can understand. 12. 8. when appropriate. and sign the form. Likewise. it is of particular concern that published research articles meet high statistical standards. 7. intervening. If you are working with participants who do not speak English well or are intellectually disabled. discussions of how the assumptions underlying the research design were met. clear and careful descriptions of the instruments used and the types of intervention employed in the study. 9. In order to accommodate both of these requirements. including the means.html for samples).org /pubs/author/consent. necessary for the reader to correctly interpret and evaluate any inferential statistics. explicit identiﬁcations of dependent. 4. and so on.
. in the very few instances in which multiple tests might be employed. 2. and triangulation. Conducting the study. studies should avoid multiple t tests. INFORMATION FOR CONTRIBUTORS 653 . especially for correlation. and check for misinformation introduced by both the researcher and the researched. Data collection strategies include prolonged engagement. classroom. and so on. In reporting the statistical analyses. the author should explain the effects of such use on the probability values in the results. Care should be taken in making causal inferences from statistical results. models. alternative explanations of the results should be discussed. studies should report effect size through such strength of association measures as omega-squared or eta-squared along with beta (the possibility of Type II error) whenever this may be important to interpreting the signiﬁcance of the results. Likewise. and viewpoints.10. Quantitative studies submitted to TESOL Quarterly should reﬂect a concern for controlling Type I and Type II error. The results should be explained clearly and the implications discussed such that readers without extensive training in the use of statistics can understand them. informal and formal interviewing. Utilizing these perspectives and methods in the course of conducting research helps to ensure that studies are credible. In other words. realistic interpretations of the statistical signiﬁcance of the results keeping in mind that the meaningfulness of the results is a separate and important issue. persistent observation. 1. valid. school. Data collection (as well as analyses and reporting) is aimed at uncovering an emic perspective. the following guidelines are provided. multiple ANOVAs. Qualitative Research Guidelines To ensure that Quarterly articles model rigorous qualitative research. Interpreting the results. Reports of qualitative research should meet the following criteria. However. Finally. learn the culture (e. Thus. and collection of relevant or available documents. Researchers should conduct ongoing observations over a sufﬁcient period of time so as to build trust with respondents. the study focuses on research participants’ perspectives and interpretations of behavior. authors should choose one signiﬁcance level (usually . events. or community). Results of the study should not be overinterpreted or overgeneralized. Conducting the analyses.05) and report all results in terms of that level. Triangulation involves the use of multiple methods and sources such as participant-observation. Studies submitted to the Quarterly should exhibit an in-depth understanding of the philosophical perspectives and research methodologies inherent in conducting qualitative research. and situations rather than etic (outsider-imposed) categories. and these should be avoided with correlational studies.g. and dependable rather than impressionistic and superﬁcial.
many qualitative studies demand an analytic inductive approach involving a cyclical process of data collection. participants. creation of hypotheses. a clear statement of the research questions. the article should focus on the issues or behaviors that are salient to participants and that not only reveal an in-depth understanding of the situation studied but also suggest how it connects to current related theories. interpretations and conclusions that provide evidence of grounded theory and discussion of how this theory relates to current research/ theory in the ﬁeld. 6. 5. 654 TESOL QUARTERLY . a description of the research site. 2. and a description of the roles of the researcher(s). The researcher should generally provide “thick description” with sufﬁcient detail to allow the reader to determine whether transfer to other situations can be considered. 1. and testing of hypotheses in further data collection. 3.and macrocontexts in which they are embedded. Reporting the data. a description of a clear and salient organization of patterns found through data analysis—reports of patterns should include representative examples. including relevant citations—in other words. not anecdotal information. Reports also should include the following. In addition. interpretations that exhibit a holistic perspective in which the author traces the meaning of patterns across all the theoretically salient or descriptively relevant micro. The researcher should engage in comprehensive data treatment in which data from all relevant sources are analyzed. Data analysis is also guided by the philosophy and methods underlying qualitative research studies. a description of the theoretical or conceptual framework that guides research questions and interpretations.Analyzing the data. 4. procedures for ensuring participant anonymity. and data collection strategies. analysis (taking an emic perspective and utilizing the descriptive language the respondents themselves use).
Jill Sinclair. Volumes 35–36 (2001–2002) Author Index Abrahamsson. Vol. Khalid. Helen. No. Research Issues: Narrative Research in TESOL: Narrative Inquiry: More Than Just Telling Stories. 204–205. Copley. 4. No. Vol. 595–597. No. Sisamone. Vol. pp. Vol. and Pennycook. and Hyltenstam. 35. Kenneth.). 609–616. Snow’s “Three Misconceptions About Age and L2 Learning”: Age and L2 Learning: The Hazards of Matching Practical “Implications” With Theoretical “Facts. 71–79. Nat. Classrooms”: A Reader Reacts . pp. 35. 36. Marinova-Todd. Roslyn. 3. pp. Review of Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching ( Jack C. Mustafa Zülküf. Atkinson. Review of Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century (Howard Gardner). 1. No. 35. Bailey. No. The Effects of Nonnative Accents on Listening Comprehension: Implications for ESL Assessment. 350–351. (Eds. Sithirajvongsa. 36. No. Appleby. Language in Development Constrained: Three Contexts.” Vol. and Catherine E. 4. 36. Rod. No. 35.). Susan.. 36. 655 . Rodgers). No. 35. 36. 2. pp. 2. 4. Altan. Vol. Bartels.. pp. pp. pp. Professional Preparation and Action Research: Only for Language Teachers?. 1. Comments on Stefka H. Shawn. 1. 35. Bailey. Roger. No. pp. Patricia A. pp. Kathleen M. Comments on Ryuko Kubota’s “Discursive Construction of the Images of U. Vol. Bell. and Bunta. Research Issues: Identifying Research Priorities: Themes and Directions for the TESOL International Research Foundation. Research Issues: Identifying Research Priorities: Themes and Directions for the TESOL International Research Foundation: Teacher Preparation and Development. 2. Dwight.. Ferenc. Kath. pp. and Conrad. Research Issues: Corpus-Based Research in TESOL: Quantitative CUMULATIVE INDEX No. pp. Bradford Marshall. No. Preemptive Focus on Form in the ESL Classroom. 323– 346. 173–190.CUMULATIVE INDEX TESOL Quarterly. pp. Kathleen M. Biber. Roy C. Ellis. and Duff. . Al-Seghayer. Chandrika. Niclas. Richards and Theodore S. Winter 2002 TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 636– 638. No. 3. 4. Major. No. Fitzmaurice.S. Vol.. Vol. Alastair. 36. Barnard. 79–84. Balasubramanian. Eds. 1. . 407–432. and Loewen.. Basturkmen. D. Vol. Susan F. Douglas. Review of Voices From the Language Classroom: Qualitative Research in Second Language Education (Kathleen Bailey and David Nunan. Vol. 151–170. 207–213. 36. Vol.
Vol. Susan. Vol. 36. Pathways and Labyrinths: Language 656 TESOL QUARTERLY . Bigelow. 2. No. Conrad. Connor. 36. and Charney. 36. 275–296. 9– 48. Davida H. pp. No. 4. Vol. pp. Bette. 241–243. Randi. Cooke. Conrad. Reppen. Review of Teaching Collocation—Further Developments in the Lexical Approach (Michael Lewis. No. and Balasubramanian. pp. Marissa. and HaeYoung Kim). Chu. No. Boyer. 4. 173–190. 2. Christian. Hsi-chi Janet. 1. Ulla. No. and Williams. 2. Carmen-Pilar Serrano. Chu. 9– 48. pp. 35. and Helt. Douglas. 9– 48. Martha. Roy C. Vol. Vol. pp. No. Douglas. No. Carter. and Helt. Biber. 2. Paul. Vol. Research Issues: CorpusBased Research in TESOL: Size Isn’t Everything: Spoken English. 511–541. Byrd. and Economic Development. Pat. Biber. 36. Speaking and Writing in the University: A Multidimensional Comparison.. 36.. and McCarthy. Marie. Vol. 36. 4. 36. No. Janet.. Ferenc. 1. 511–541.). Randi. The Role of English in Individual and Societal Development: A View From African Classrooms. and Rollnick. Brickman. Kathleen M. Swaffar. 35. 35. Vol. Shunji Inagaki. Hsi-chi Janet. No. 238–239. No. Randi. Language Choice. pp. Review of Teaching Large Multi-Level Classes (Natalie Hess). 347–372. Douglas. Vol. Eileen K. Reppen. 3. Donna. Douglas. Research Issues: Corpus-Based Research in TESOL: Quantitative Corpus-Based Research: Much More Than Bean Counting. pp. Vol. 1. Susan. and Helt. Susan F. pp. 4. pp. No. Marie. pp. pp. Janet. Susan. Broussard. Bunta. pp. No. Eddie. 331–336. Review of Linguistics for L2 Teachers (Larry Andrews). Speaking and Writing in the University: A Multidimensional Comparison. No. No. 35. Ailie. Vol. Conrad. 36. Michael. Conrad. Pat. Vol.. and Biber. No. Vol. Review of Second Language Development in Writing: Measures of Fluency. Cultural Representations of Rhetorical Conventions: The Effects on Reading Recall. Reppen. Marie. Susan. 331–336. 601– 602. Speaking and Writing in the University: A Multidimensional Comparison. Pat. Comments on Shinichi Izumi and Martha Bigelow’s “Does Output Promote Noticing in Second Language Acquisition?”: Methodological and Theoretical Issues in Testing the Effects of Focus on Form. 1. 2. and the Classroom. New Directions in Contrastive Rhetoric. 342–343. pp. pp. Bruthiaux. Byrd. 2. 3.. Research Issues: Identifying Research Priorities: Themes and Directions for the TESOL International Research Foundation: Dual-Language Education for English Language Learners. Vol. Corpus. and Izumi. Biber. James. The Effects of Nonnative Accents on Listening Comprehension: Implications for ESL Assessment. pp. 181–189. Major. Charney. Hold Your Courses: Language Education. 35. Blau. 2. 337–340. Chandrika. Davida H. pp.. Shinichi. Ed. Vol. 35. 243–244. Cultural Representations of Rhetorical Conventions: The Effects on Reading Recall. No. No. 2. pp.Corpus-Based Research: Much More Than Bean Counting. and Swaffar. 36. Byrd. 493–510. 36. Vol. 36. No. pp. Ronald. Cleghorn. Vol. Accuracy and Complexity (Kate WolfeQuintero. Vol. Fitzmaurice. 36.
Davies. Language Debate (Lucy Tse). 35. No. Vol.. Frazier. 595–597. 2. Vol. Stefan. Vol. pp. 3. 4. 597–616. pp. Graves. Review of Why Don’t They Learn English?: Separating Fact From Fallacy in the U. 200–201. 240–241.). Judy B. John M. Eds. Patricia A. Carl Zhonggang. Crall. Sithirajvongsa. No. Douglas. 35. pp. Philip A. Freeman. 35. 323– 346.) (H.. Vol. 35. 3. Mary H. 608–609. Cummins. 36. Vol. 1. Duff. Research Issues: Identifying Research Priorities: Themes and Directions for the TESOL International Research Foundation: Learning English for Academic and Occupational Purposes. Vol. Duff. Review of At War With Diversity: U. Hedgcock). 35. pp. No. 606– 607.. pp. Gilbert. 36. 2. 35. 341–342. Bunta. Kees. Review of The Light in Their Eyes: Creating Multicultural Learning Communities (Sonia Nieto). Ferenc. A Naturalistic Inquiry Into the Cultures of Two Divergent MATESOL Programs: Implications for TESOL. 36.). 199– 200. Review of Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy (2nd ed. Ellis. No. 35. 638–639. Language Policy in an Age of Anxiety ( James Crawford). pp. 602–603. 4. 121–150.. Review of Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose. Review of The Phonology of English as an International Language ( Jennifer Jenkins). Angela. pp. 35. 116–117. No. 1. 36. 35. Douglas Brown). Martin R. Vol. Process. No. No. No. Vol. Vol. Ramanathan. No. and Tompkins. No. and Practice (Dana Ferris and John S. 36. pp. 35. Vol. The Discursive Construction of Power in Teacher Partnerships: Language and Subject Specialists in Mainstream Schools. Attitudes of Journal Editors to Nonnative Speaker Contributions. Roslyn. Basturkmen. pp. Mary J. Alastair. and Maguire. Donald. Vol. pp. 279– 305. No. No. (Eds. Vol. 1. Gao. Research Issues: Identifying Research Priorities: Themes and Directions for the TESOL International Research Foundation: Teacher Learning and Student Learning in TESOL. 505– 506. and Bailey. 35. pp. deBot. Flowerdew. pp.. No. Vai. and Levis. Vol. John. 4. No. Vol. Appleby. No.. 1. Vol.and Education in Development. Research Issues: Identifying Research Priorities: Themes and Directions for the TESOL International Research Foundation. Patricia A. No. Vol.S. and Pennycook. Copley. Chandrika. 407–432. and Balasubramanian. Fitzmaurice. 3. and Schleppegrell. Roy C.. Susan F. and Loewen. Carole. 4.. Rod. Major. Joanne. Helen. Shawn. Research Issues: Identifying Research Priorities: Themes and Directions for the TESOL International Research Foundation: Interaction in the Classroom. Catherine Evans. Kath..S. Speaking Personalities in Primary School Children’s L2 CUMULATIVE INDEX 657 . The Effects of Nonnative Accents on Listening Comprehension: Implications for ESL Assessment. 36. pp. Vol. 4. 3.. pp. Creese. Language in Development Constrained: Three Contexts. 173–190. Vol. Jim. No. Sisamone. pp. 36. Barbara. Preemptive Focus on Form in the ESL Classroom. Review of New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classrooms (Eli Hinkel and Sandra Fotos. Kathleen M. Gitterman. 297–322. pp. pp. No. pp. 4. 2. 2.
Olga. 1. and Byrd. Hitomi. Shinichi. No.S. No. Kwon. pp. Biber. Martha. 537–560. Bradford Marshall. Kathleen Kitao and Kenji Kitao). Review of Interlanguage Refusals: A Cross-Cultural Study of Japanese-English (Susan M. 36. 4. pp.S. 35. . Teaching Issues: Teaching MA TESOL Courses Online: The Personal. No. Dale. Marinova-Todd. Comments on Ryuko Kubota’s “Discursive Construction of the Images of U. Constant. Han. Vol. Education and the Social Implications of Ofﬁcial Language (Roseann Duenas González with Ildikó Melis. 325–329. Pat. pp. 151–170. Juliet. Kubota. 1. pp. pp. No. and Abrahamsson. 36. Sandra G. Classrooms”: The Author Responds: (Un)Raveling Racism in a Nice Field Like TESOL. 9–38. Helt. and Bigelow. 4. Speaking and Writing in the University: A Multidimensional Comparison. 35. Sandra G. and Professional Rewards of Teaching MA TESOL Courses Online. Vol. Izumi. 36. Kenneth. pp. No. 1. 35. Review of Language Ideologies: Critical Perspectives on the Ofﬁcial English Language Movement: Vol. 36. 1. 3. No. 4. Johnson. pp. Eds. 36. Vol. No. 502–503. 35. 2.. No. Review of Discourse Analysis in the Language Classroom: Vol. Kouritzin. 35. 181–189. No. 1. pp. Susan.Writing. Comments on Stefka H. TESOL QUARTERLY . No. No. Kubota. 84–92. No. Kouritzin’s “A Mother’s Tongue”: The Author Responds . Vol. 9– 48. pp. Review of Linguistic Genocide in Education—or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights? (Tove Skutnabb-Kangas). 36. 1. No. Gunderson. Practical. Vol. Vol. 1. 3. 1. Teaching Issues: Reception Classes for Immigrant Students: Reception Classes for Immigrant Students in England. Leung. and Catherine E. Toward a Postmethod Pedagogy. Vol. “A Narrow Thinking System”: Nonnative-EnglishSpeaking Students in Group Projects Across the Curriculum. 543–572. . No. ZhaoHong. Canada.. Leki. pp. 2. Lee. pp. Vol. Kouritzin. 345–346. Vol. pp. Review of Managing Evaluation and Innovation in Language Teaching: Building Bridges (Pauline Rea-Dickins and Kevin Germaine. Vol. 36. 39–66. Vol. 1. Ryuko. 639–640. Jihyun. Eds.). Vol. 1. Vol. 35. Reppen. 202–203. No. No. David. D. pp.. 36. 507–508. Vol. 1. Kumaravadivelu. Classrooms. Snow’s “Three Misconceptions About Age and L2 Learning”: Age and L2 Learning: The Hazards of Matching Practical “Implications” With Theoretical “Facts. Review of Fundamentals of English Language Teaching (S. Hart. 621–624. Ilona. 561– 593. 98–102. pp. pp. Griswold. 35. 4. B. Vol. Vol. Hyltenstam. pp. 93–98. The Spoken Language (Heidi Riggenbach). Douglas.” Vol. 1. Comments on Shinichi Izumi and Martha Bigelow’s “Does Output Promote Noticing in Second Language Acquisition?”: Method658 ological and Theoretical Issues in Testing the Effects of Focus on Form. Gass and Noel Houck). Randi. Vol. 35.. pp. No. Griffee. Kanayama. Discursive Construction of the Images of U. Niclas. Teaching Issues: Reception Classes for Immigrant Students: Reception Classes for Immigrant Students in Vancouver. 35. 4. Marie.). No. 118–119. 35. A Study of the Impact of Recasts on Tense Consistency in L2 Output. pp. Conrad. 35. Vol. pp. No. Ryuko. Comments on Sandra G.
Review of Foreign Language and Mother Tongue (Istvan Kecskes and Tunde Papp). pp. No. 173–190. Jeannette..). 459–491. 573– 595. No. Marshall. Lvovich. Review of English Language Teaching in Its Social Context (Christopher N. Roy. Barbara. Basturkmen...Levis. pp. 36. pp. No. 35. Chandrika. Candlin and Neil Mercer. pp. Littlemore. LoCastro. Sonia. 35. and Martin. 35. Bunta.. Ferenc. No. Lvovich.. Catherine E. pp. 35. D.. CUMULATIVE INDEX 659 . 1. and Catherine E. Anne E. pp. 35. and Ellis.). Stefka H. No. 3. 2. Virginia. 598– 599. Review of Motivation and Second Language Acquisition (Zoltán Dörnyei and Richard Schmidt. Vol. Loewen. LoCastro. No. 35. Natasha. Shawn. No. Comments on Stefka H. Natasha. John M. Lyster.. Vol. 35. 399–429. pp. Patsy M. Virginia. Marinova-Todd. 561– 593. and Panova. Roy C. 35... Vol. pp. 36. and Balasubramanian. Vol. Lomperis. 3. Vol.. 4. Snow. Stefka H.). Metaphoric Competence: A Language Learning Strength of Students With a Holistic Cognitive Style?. Vol. and Marinova-Todd. 3. 35. Vol. Snow’s “Three Misconceptions About Age and L2 Learning”: Missing the Point: A Response to Hyltenstam and Abrahamsson. pp. 2. Patterns of Corrective Feedback and Uptake in an Adult ESL Classroom. Vol. No. MacPherson. pp. Vol. 35. Lewis. Bradford Marshall. Mary H. 407–432. 4. pp. 620–622. Helen. Marshall. Vol. 4. Review of Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning (Eli Hinkel. pp. 3. Marinova-Todd. the Return on Investment. 508–509. Judy B. Teaching Issues: Teaching English to Large Classes: Large Classes and Student Learning. Fitzmaurice. Rod. 4. 618–619. Eds. Brian K. 4. No.. Major. 505– 506. No. Ed. 36. Vol. and the Intangible Impacts of Language Programs for Development. Speaking Personalities in Primary School Children’s L2 Writing. No. 35. No. Vol. D. 603–605. 348–349.. Preemptive Focus on Form in the ESL Classroom. Review of Language Crossings: Negotiating the Self in a Multicultural World (Karen Ogulnick. pp. and Snow. No. Vol. Robert. the Beneﬁts. Lynch. Susan F. Research Issues: Identifying Research Priorities: Themes and Directions for the TESOL International Research Foundation: L2 Instruction: Time to Teach. 3. pp. No. 3. and Gilbert. No. Review of Vanishing Voices: The Extinction of the World’s Languages (Daniel Nettle and Suzanne Romaine). 236– 238. Bradford. Vol. The Effects of Nonnative Accents on Listening Comprehension: Implications for ESL Assessment. Iliana. Lufang. Lightbown. Eds. No. Marilyn. Vol. Mahon. Ed. Lin. pp. 171–176. 3. William M. Review of The Phonology of English as an International Language ( Jennifer Jenkins). pp. No. Review of Face[t]s of First Language Loss (Sandra Kouritzin). Determining the Costs. 35. and Graves. 35. Maguire.. pp. Comments on Stefka H. Vol. Bradford. 2. 501–502. Vol. 493–496. Research Issues: Identifying Research Priorities: Themes and Directions for the TESOL International Research Foundation: Language Assessment and Program Evaluation.). Catherine E. Vol. pp. D. No. 35. 4. 4. 617–608. 36.
Anne E. 605–606. 660 TESOL QUARTERLY . 35. No. 617– 621. pp. 119– 120. 35. Martin. 1. Vol. Research Issues: Narrative Research in TESOL: Narrative Study: Whose Story Is It. Davies. 35. Negotiation of Meaning in Conversational and Information Gap Activities: A Comparative Discourse Analysis. No. Vol. Alastair. O’Sullivan. 36. 2. pp. 1. Yuko. Catherine Evans. No. Leo. Vol. 2. Review of Mark My Words: Assessing Second and Foreign Language Skills (Language Testing Research Centre). Numa. and Sithirajvongsa. Vai.Marinova-Todd. the Beneﬁts. 2. No. 35. Mary J. 9– 48. and Schleppegrell. No. Meyer. 307–322. pp. Randi. Vol. pp. Corpus. Nakahama. Review of Vocabulary in Language Teaching (Norbert Schmitt). Vol. No. Vol. pp. 35. Copley. No. and Lyster. Lucy. 219–233. 573– 595. 36. Changing Perspectives on Good Language Learners. Pennycook. Vol. D. Snow’s “Three Misconceptions About Age and L2 Learning”: Missing the Point: A Response to Hyltenstam and Abrahamsson. 36. Vol. 4. Susan.. 279– 305. Papajohn. pp. Bonny. pp. Iliana. 36. the Return on Investment. Appleby. 2. pp. Vol. pp. No. Pavlenko. Anyway?. 1. Biber. 4. pp. Douglas. 235– 236. 36. Vol. Review of Critical English for Academic Purposes: Theory. Barry. No. Markee. No. Norton. Pickering. Aneta. Laura L. and the Classroom. No. Determining the Costs. 36. No. Andrea. Vol. Vol. David.. 213– 218. 35. Ramanathan. Nunan. Nunan. No. Vol. Research Issues: Identifying Research Priorities: Themes and Directions for the TESOL International Research Foundation: English as a Global Language. Dean. 36. The Role of Tone Choice in Improving ITA Communication in the Classroom. Conrad. 265–274. pp. No. pp. 2. Vol. 3. Teaching Issues: Teaching MA TESOL Courses Online: Teaching MA TESOL Courses Online: Challenges and Rewards. 171–176. 1. pp. 3. Kath. Vai. Oh.. 35. Roslyn. Vol. Research Issues: CorpusBased Research in TESOL: Size Isn’t Everything: Spoken English. Michael and Carter. Reppen. 399–429. No. 337–340. Politics. Questions of Practice. 2. 36. 69–96. pp. Marie. McCarthy. No. Language in Development Constrained: Three Contexts. Language in Development: Questions of Theory. pp. David. Sisamone. 35. 323–346. pp. 36. 1. A Naturalistic Inquiry Into the Cultures of Two Divergent MATESOL Programs: Implications for TESOL. William M. Vol. Patterns of Corrective Feedback and Uptake in an Adult ESL Classroom. 3. pp. and Catherine E. pp. and Helt. and Practice (Sarah Benesch). Panova. Tyler. 206–207.. Ramanathan. 2. No. Vol. 377–405. 36. and the Intangible Impacts of Language Programs for Development. Two Types of Input Modiﬁcation and EFL Reading Comprehension: Simpliﬁcation Versus Elaboration. Byrd. Sun-Young. Kelleen. and Toohey. 233–255. Bradford Marshall. Vol. Roy. Pat. and Lomperis. and van Lier. Concept Mapping for Rater Training. No. Ronald. Speaking and Writing in the University: A Multidimensional Comparison. 3.
Shi. Review of Teaching and Researching Motivation (Zoltán Dörnyei). 431–452. Norbert. A Naturalistic Inquiry Into the Cultures of Two Divergent MATESOL Programs: Implications for TESOL. and Catherine E. 35. 35. Kouritzin’s “A Mother’s Tongue”: A Reader Reacts . 2. No. Rossiter. 4. Comments on Sandra G. Mary J.. No. 323– 346. Vai. Vol. Shin. 3. Vol. Schmitt. Review of On Second Language Writing (Tony J. pp. and Pennycook. Sarah J. Suarez. Vol. Silva and Paul Kei Matsuda. 619– 620. No. pp. pp. Stefka H. No. 3. No. Scovel. 36. 279– 305. Vol. pp. 433–457. Sheldon. D. Ailie. pp. Alastair. Ali. Review of The Internet (Scott Windeatt. Vol. Appleby. Vol. 36. D. Vol.). Rymes. Kath. and Cleghorn. Thomas. pp. No. Marian J. 323–325. 642–643. Vol. 35. 347–372. Vol. 36. Snow. and David Eastment).. pp. Vol. pp. pp.). pp. 171–176. Review of Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing (Ken Hyland). Vol. Birth Order and the Language Experience of Bilingual Children. Herrell). 4. pp. 2. 344–345. Vol. Comments on Stefka H. 35. 35. 2. pp. Sarwar. Roslyn.. Sisamone. Kate Mastruserio. 35. Schleppegrell. 3. Self. No. Cheryl Boyd.. 3. Multimodality in the TESOL Classroom: Exploring Visual-Verbal Synergy. 35. Jiandong. pp. No. Sun. Marinova-Todd. 622– 623. 4. Samimy. Ling. Review of Understanding the Courses We Teach ( John Murphy and Patricia Byrd. pp. Leslie E. No. Eds. Snow’s “Three Misconceptions About Age and L2 Learning”: Missing the Point: A Response to Hyltenstam and Abrahamsson. Vol.. 203– 204. 625–634. David Hardisty. 36. Review of Language Policy in Schools: A Resource for Teachers and Administrators (David Corson). Marinova-Todd. Vol. Royce. No. Teaching Issues: Teaching English to Large Classes: Innovations in Large Classes in Pakistan. pp. pp. 35. Terry. 145–171. Vol. pp. pp. Vol. and Ramanathan. 641–642. 35. Bradford Marshall. 599–601. Li. 4. . Eds.Reynolds. Sithirajvongsa. 103– 113. Review of Fifty Strategies for Teaching English Language Learners (Adrienne L. CUMULATIVE INDEX 661 . 36. 36. 36. 1. 36. Derivative Word Forms: What Do Learners Know?. Catherine Evans. 2. No. 3. Bradford. Vol. Copley. 4. 1. 635–636. 36. Betsy. No. Debra A. Catherine. . 2. Snow. 191–205. 4. Keiko Komiya. Vol. Marissa. 36. Davies. 35. The Role of English in Individual and Societal Development: A View From African Classrooms. No.. Language in Development in the United States: Supervising Adult ESOL Preservice Teachers in an Immigrant Community.. Vol. How Western-Trained Chinese TESOL Professionals Publish in Their Home Environment. 4. No. Language in Development Constrained: Three Contexts. pp. pp. Research Issues: Identifying Research Priorities: Themes and Directions for the TESOL International Research Foundation: Learning to Read in an L2. Shen. No. No. No. No.. Catherine E. Zakia. 1. No. and Marshall. No. and Zimmerman. Shehadeh. Vol. Rollnick. 497– 500.and OtherInitiated Modiﬁed Output During Task-Based Interaction.
No. Cultural Representations of Rhetorical Conventions: The Effects on Reading Recall. No. Tompkins.. Teaching Issues: TESOL in China: Current Challenges: English Language Teaching in China: Trends and Challenges. 3. Bonny. No. 115–116.Swaffar. 1. Andrea. Negotiation of Meaning in Conversational and Information Gap Activities: A Comparative Discourse Analysis. Leo. 1. No. 49–70. Yi’an. Warschauer. 3.. pp. No. No. Vol. Nakahama. and Cummins. 1. Review of Identity and Language Learning: Gender. 35. 36. No. James. No. 257– 278. Rating Scales Derived From Student Samples: Effects of the Scale Maker and the Student Sample on Scale Content and Student Scores. Eddie. 36. Carolyn E. No. Williams. Disputes in Child L2 Learning. 3. 504–505. No. 3. 200–201. Turner. pp. Whitlow. Upshur. 662 TESOL QUARTERLY . Vol. pp. Cheryl Stanosheck. 2. No. No. and Charney. Wise. Andrea. 1. 307–322. 97–120. Ethnicity and Educational Change (Bonny Norton). 1. 597– 598. Terray. 377–405. 36. Toohey. Kelleen. pp. Taguchi. 35. Rating Scales Derived From Student Samples: Effects of the Scale Maker and the Student Sample on Scale Content and Student Scores. and Cooke. Postcoloniality and English: Exploring Language Policy and the Politics of Development in Tanzania. 297–322. No. 36. 35. John A. Vol. 36. Review of The Politics of Language: Conﬂict. Toohey. Vol. 191–194. Davida H. Vol. Hsi-chi Janet. 35. Leo.. No. Teresa. No. 35. pp. Yim. 511–541. 36. Vol. Vol. pp. No. pp. Pathways and Labyrinths: Language and Education in Development. 373– 398. Research Issues: Identifying Research Priorities: Themes and Directions for the TESOL International Research Foundation: Age of Beginning Instruction. 49–70. and Tyler. Vol. pp. pp. 2. Youngs.. Mark. 4. No. pp. Identity. pp. Review of Stimulated Recall Methodology in Second Language Research (Susan Gass and Alison Mackey). John A. and Norton. 36. 120– 121. Jim. 3. Yuko. No. Janet. 2. pp. Julie. Comments on Shinichi Izumi and Martha Bigelow’s “Does Output Promote Noticing in Second Language Acquisition?”: Some Methodological and Theoretical Considerations. 35. Review of Teaching Adult Second Language Learners (Heather McKay and Abigail Tom). and van Lier. Tyler. van Lier. Michele. Negotiation of Meaning in Conversational and Information Gap Activities: A Comparative Discourse Analysis. Vavrus. Vol. Vol. 35. Vol. Kelleen. Joanne. Naoko. and Turner. Jr. Yoonkyung Kecia. and Upshur.. pp. Wu. 1. 377–405. Richard. and Cultural Pluralism in Comparative Perspective (Carol Schmid). Vol. Changing Perspectives on Good Language Learners. Vol. pp. 35. pp. Vol. Vol. 3. 35. 4. Vol. pp. 1. Carolyn E. 171–181. A Developmental Perspective on Technology in Language Education. Nakahama. and Youngs. G. Yuko. 346–347. pp. 453–475. Tucker.. Vol. 36. Frances. 35. Predictors of Mainstream Teachers’ Attitudes Toward ESL Students. George A. 1. 35. Vol.. Chu. Review of The Light in Their Eyes: Creating Multicultural Learning Communities (Sonia Nieto). No. pp. pp. Vol.
Youngs, George A., Jr., and Youngs, Cheryl Stanosheck, Predictors of Mainstream Teachers’ Attitudes Toward ESL Students, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 97–120. Yu, Liming, Teaching Issues: TESOL in China: Current Challenges: Communicative Language Teaching
in China: Progress and Resistance, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 194–198. Zimmerman, Cheryl Boyd, and Schmitt, Norbert, Derivative Word Forms: What Do Learners Know?, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 145–171.
BILINGUALISM/BILINGUAL EDUCATION Christian, Donna, Research Issues: Identifying Research Priorities: Themes and Directions for the TESOL International Research Foundation: Dual-Language Education for English Language Learners, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 601– 602. Creese, Angela, The Discursive Construction of Power in Teacher Partnerships: Language and Subject Specialists in Mainstream Schools, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 597–616. Kouritzin, Sandra G., Comments on Sandra G. Kouritzin’s “A Mother’s Tongue”: The Author Responds . . ., Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 325–329. Maguire, Mary H., and Graves, Barbara, Speaking Personalities in Primary School Children’s L2 Writing, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 561– 593. Samimy, Keiko Komiya, Comments on Sandra G. Kouritzin’s “A Mother’s Tongue”: A Reader Reacts . . ., Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 323–325. Shin, Sarah J., Birth Order and the Language Experience of Bilingual Children, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 103– 113. Snow, Catherine, Research Issues: Identifying Research Priorities: Themes and Directions for the TESOL International Research Foundation: Learning to Read in an L2, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 599–601. COMPUTER-ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING Warschauer, Mark, A Developmental Perspective on Technology in Language Education, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 453–475. CONTRASTIVE STUDIES Connor, Ulla, New Directions in Contrastive Rhetoric, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 493–510. Shi, Ling, How Western-Trained Chinese TESOL Professionals Publish in Their Home Environment, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 625–634. CRITICAL PEDAGOGY Appleby, Roslyn, Copley, Kath, Sithirajvongsa, Sisamone, and Pennycook, Alastair, Language in Development Constrained: Three Contexts, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 323– 346. Atkinson, Dwight, Comments on Ryuko Kubota’s “Discursive Construction of the Images of U.S. Classrooms”: A Reader Reacts . . ., Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 79–84. Bruthiaux, Paul, Hold Your Courses: Language Education, Language Choice, and Economic Development, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 275–296. Kubota, Ryuko, Comments on Ryuko Kubota’s “Discursive Construction of the Images of U.S. Classrooms”: The Author Responds: (Un)Raveling Racism in a Nice Field Like TESOL, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 84–92.
Kubota, Ryuko, Discursive Construction of the Images of U.S. Classrooms, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 9–38. Markee, Numa, Language in Development: Questions of Theory, Questions of Practice, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 265–274. Rymes, Betsy, Language in Development in the United States: Supervising Adult ESOL Preservice Teachers in an Immigrant Community, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 431–452. CURRICULUM/SYLLABUS DESIGN Hyltenstam, Kenneth, and Abrahamsson, Niclas, Comments on Stefka H. Marinova-Todd, D. Bradford Marshall, and Catherine E. Snow’s “Three Misconceptions About Age and L2 Learning”: Age and L2 Learning: The Hazards of Matching Practical “Implications” With Theoretical “Facts,” Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 151–170. Leung, Constant, Teaching Issues: Reception Classes for Immigrant Students: Reception Classes for Immigrant Students in England, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 93–98. CLASSROOM-CENTERED RESEARCH (CLASSROOM PROCESSES) Bell, Jill Sinclair, Research Issues: Narrative Research in TESOL: Narrative Inquiry: More Than Just Telling Stories, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 207–213. deBot, Kees, Research Issues: Identifying Research Priorities: Themes and Directions for the TESOL International Research Foundation: Interaction in the Classroom, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 602–603. Ellis, Rod, Basturkmen, Helen, and Loewen, Shawn, Preemptive Focus on Form in the ESL Classroom, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 407–432. Panova, Iliana, and Lyster, Roy, Patterns of Corrective Feedback and Uptake in an Adult ESL
Classroom, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 573– 595. Youngs, Cheryl Stanosheck, and Youngs, George A., Jr., Predictors of Mainstream Teachers’ Attitudes Toward ESL Students, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 97–120. Yu, Liming, Teaching Issues: TESOL in China: Current Challenges: Communicative Language Teaching in China: Progress and Resistance, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 194–198. DISCOURSE/PRAGMATICS Biber, Douglas, Conrad, Susan, Reppen, Randi, Byrd, Pat, and Helt, Marie, Speaking and Writing in the University: A Multidimensional Comparison, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 9– 48. Creese, Angela, The Discursive Construction of Power in Teacher Partnerships: Language and Subject Specialists in Mainstream Schools, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 597–616. Duff, Patricia A., Research Issues: Identifying Research Priorities: Themes and Directions for the TESOL International Research Foundation: Learning English for Academic and Occupational Purposes, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 606– 607. Nakahama, Yuko, Tyler, Andrea, and van Lier, Leo, Negotiation of Meaning in Conversational and Information Gap Activities: A Comparative Discourse Analysis, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 377–405. Royce, Terry, Multimodality in the TESOL Classroom: Exploring Visual-Verbal Synergy, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 191–205. Toohey, Kelleen, Disputes in Child L2 Learning, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 257– 278.
ENGLISH FOR SPECIAL PURPOSES/ EST/TECHNICAL WRITING Biber, Douglas, and Conrad, Susan, Research Issues: Corpus-Based Research in TESOL: Quantitative Corpus-Based Research: Much More Than Bean Counting, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 331–336. Biber, Douglas, Conrad, Susan, Reppen, Randi, Byrd, Pat, and Helt, Marie, Speaking and Writing in the University: A Multidimensional Comparison, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 9– 48. Duff, Patricia A., Research Issues: Identifying Research Priorities: Themes and Directions for the TESOL International Research Foundation: Learning English for Academic and Occupational Purposes, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 606– 607. Flowerdew, John, Attitudes of Journal Editors to Nonnative Speaker Contributions, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 121–150. Martin, William M., and Lomperis, Anne E., Determining the Costs, the Beneﬁts, the Return on Investment, and the Intangible Impacts of Language Programs for Development, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 399–429. LANGUAGE POLICY/ LANGUAGE PLANNING Appleby, Roslyn, Copley, Kath, Sithirajvongsa, Sisamone, and Pennycook, Alastair, Language in Development Constrained: Three Contexts, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 323– 346. Bruthiaux, Paul, Hold Your Courses: Language Education, Language Choice, and Economic Development, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 275–296. Cleghorn, Ailie, and Rollnick, Marissa, The Role of English in Individual and Societal Development: A View From African Classrooms, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 347–372.
Flowerdew, John, Attitudes of Journal Editors to Nonnative Speaker Contributions, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 121–150. Leung, Constant, Teaching Issues: Reception Classes for Immigrant Students: Reception Classes for Immigrant Students in England, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 93–98. Markee, Numa, Language in Development: Questions of Theory, Questions of Practice, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 265–274. Nunan, David, Research Issues: Identifying Research Priorities: Themes and Directions for the TESOL International Research Foundation: English as a Global Language, 605–606. Vavrus, Frances, Postcoloniality and English: Exploring Language Policy and the Politics of Development in Tanzania, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 373– 398. Williams, Eddie, and Cooke, James, Pathways and Labyrinths: Language and Education in Development, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 297–322. LEXICON/VOCABULARY USAGE AND TEACHING Schmitt, Norbert, and Zimmerman, Cheryl Boyd, Derivative Word Forms: What Do Learners Know?, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 145–171. LISTENING Major, Roy C., Fitzmaurice, Susan F., Bunta, Ferenc, and Balasubramanian, Chandrika, The Effects of Nonnative Accents on Listening Comprehension: Implications for ESL Assessment, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 173–190. LITERACY Maguire, Mary H., and Graves, Barbara, Speaking Personalities in Primary School Children’s L2 Writing, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 561– 593.
1. No. 621–624. Sun-Young. The Role of Tone Choice in Improving ITA Communication in the Classroom. pp. pp. 609–616. pp. pp. Lightbown. Duff.Williams. Wu. 1. No. Toward a Postmethod Pedagogy. Teaching Issues: Teaching MA TESOL Courses Online: Teaching MA TESOL Courses Online: Challenges and Rewards. No. 617– 621. 35. Research Issues: Identifying Research Priorities: Themes and Directions for the TESOL International Research Foundation: Teacher Learning and Student Learning in TESOL.. Research Issues: Identifying Research Priorities: Themes and Directions for the TESOL International Research Foundation: Learning English for Academic and Occupational Purposes. No. 1. Patsy M. 36. Pathways and Labyrinths: Language and Education in Development. No. 35. Donald. pp. No. No. 2. Teaching Issues: Teaching English to Large Classes: Innovations in Large Classes in Pakistan. No. Teaching Issues: Reception Classes for Immigrant Students: Reception Classes for Immigrant Students in Vancouver. 297–322. pp. Vai. pp. 608–609. 4. Vol. 35. Research Issues: Identifying Research Priorities: Themes and Directions for the TESOL International Research Foundation. 1. Kathleen M. Sandra G. Bailey. 279– 305. No. Patricia A. PHONOLOGY/PRONUNCIATION TEACHING Pickering. METHODS/MATERIALS Gunderson. No. Freeman. Zakia. pp. Lee. Nunan. (Eds. 35. pp. Ramanathan. A Naturalistic Inquiry Into the Cultures of Two Divergent MATESOL Programs: Implications for TESOL. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND EVALUATION Leki.. Vol. No. No. 4. Davies. PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS AND CONCERNS Bailey. Teaching Issues: Teaching MA TESOL Courses Online: The Personal. 36. 36. 35. Vol. Vol.. Practical. Vol. 4. Teaching Issues: TESOL in China: Current Challenges: English Language Teaching in China: Trends and Challenges. Vol. 233–255. James. Vol. Kouritzin. Mary J. pp. 36. pp. pp. 598– 599. 497– 500. 69–96.. pp. 3. “A Narrow Thinking System”: Nonnative-EnglishSpeaking Students in Group Projects Across the Curriculum. Eddie. 2. Vol. Vol. Kumaravadivelu. 3. 35. 35. 4. B. 191–194. Vol. Two Types of Input Modiﬁcation and EFL Reading Comprehension: Simpliﬁcation Versus Elaboration. 35. Yi’an. Vol. Vol. Vol. 595–597. No. pp. 39–66.. David. and Schleppegrell. 606– 607. Vol. Kathleen M. 35. Sarwar. 4. pp. 4. Research Issues: Identifying Research Priorities: Themes and Directions for the TESOL International Research Foundation: L2 Instruction: Time to Teach. Ilona.. 35. Lucy. pp. 35. No. 537–560. 98–102. No. and Cooke. Vol.). and Professional Rewards of Teaching MA TESOL Courses Online. Catherine Evans. Oh. 4. 4. Research Issues: Identifying Research Priorities: Themes and Directions for the TESOL International Research Foundation: Teacher Preparation and Development. 666 TESOL QUARTERLY . 35. Patricia A.. Canada. Vol. No. and Duff.
4. Bradford Marshall. pp. Bradford Marshall. Vol. Comments on Shinichi Izumi and Martha Bigelow’s “Does Output Promote Noticing in Second Language Acquisition?”: Methodological and Theoretical Issues in Testing the Effects of Focus on Form. Vol. 3. No. 35. No. 36. 1. Two Types of Input Modiﬁcation and EFL Reading Comprehension: Simpliﬁcation Versus Elaboration. and Catherine E. 603–605. 511–541. pp. No. pp. Research Issues: Identifying Research Priorities: Themes and Directions for the TESOL International Research Foundation: Language Assessment and Program Evaluation. Kelleen. D. CUMULATIVE INDEX 667 .. and Lomperis. No. 181–189. 307–322. 4. Research Issues: Identifying Research Priorities: Themes and Directions for the TESOL International Research Foundation: Dual-Language Education for English Language Learners. pp. 35. pp. pp. Catherine. Andrea. Marinova-Todd. 399–429. Stefka H. 35. 601– 602. 4. No. and Catherine E. 1. Yuko. Basturkmen. 151–170. 407–432. No.. pp. Catherine E. 377–405. 35. D. pp. 35. Marinova-Todd. Vol. and Loewen. 4. 543–572. pp. 36. Snow’s “Three Misconceptions About Age and L2 Learning”: Age and L2 Learning: The Hazards of Matching Practical “Implications” With Theoretical “Facts. 3. Negotiation of Meaning in Conversational and Information Gap Activities: A Comparative Discourse Analysis. Martha. Hyltenstam. SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION Christian. and Abrahamsson. No.Lynch. 511–541. and Toohey. Helen. Chu. Martin. No. Donna. Kenneth. Marinova-Todd. Bradford. Vol. Vol. 69–96. Vol. and van Lier. Determining the Costs. and the Intangible Impacts of Language Programs for Development. Preemptive Focus on Form in the ESL Classroom. Littlemore. Hsi-chi Janet. Norton. 4. the Beneﬁts. Brian K. Changing Perspectives on Good Language Learners. Izumi. No. and Snow. Swaffar. ZhaoHong. Jeannette. Niclas. 36. Swaffar.” Vol.. and Bigelow. Cultural Representations of Rhetorical Conventions: The Effects on Reading Recall. the Return on Investment. William M. 171–176. Han.. Research Issues: Identifying Research Priorities: Themes and Directions for the TESOL International Research Foundation: Learning to Read in an L2. READING Chu. No. Vol. No. 1. 35. and Charney. Vol. Anne E. Tyler. Metaphoric Competence: A Language Learning Strength of Students With a Holistic Cognitive Style?. 2. Comments on Stefka H. 3. pp. Snow. No. Davida H. Oh. Leo. Marshall. 36. Nakahama. and Charney. Cultural Representations of Rhetorical Conventions: The Effects on Reading Recall.. 459–491. No. Vol. A Study of the Impact of Recasts on Tense Consistency in L2 Output. Janet. 35. Ellis. 4. D. Rod. Comments on Stefka H. Vol. 35. 35. Shinichi. No. 3. pp. pp. Davida H. pp. Sun-Young. Hsi-chi Janet. 35.. Vol. Vol. pp. Janet. Snow’s “Three Misconceptions About Age and L2 Learning”: Missing the Point: A Response to Hyltenstam and Abrahamsson. 1. Vol. Vol. Shawn. 35. Bonny. 599–601.. pp. No.
Jill Sinclair. Birth Order and the Language Experience of Bilingual Children. No.. Shehadeh. pp.S. Vol. SYNTAX/GRAMMAR TEACHING Biber. 3. and Rollnick.S.. 2. Samimy. pp. Vol. SOCIOLINGUISTICS/CULTURE Atkinson. Frances. Classrooms. 4. No. pp. No. 2. Ryuko. Kubota. 194–198. No. Comments on Sandra G. Keiko Komiya. TESOL QUARTERLY . Anyway?. and Conrad. Vol. 35. 1. pp. 36. pp. pp. Pavlenko. 433–457. No. 2. Toohey. No. “A Narrow Thinking System”: Nonnative-EnglishSpeaking Students in Group Projects Across the Curriculum. No. 325–329. Ailie. Aneta. Vol. 35. pp. No. 35. 35. Ilona. 4. Vol. No. Teaching Issues: Teaching English to Large Classes: Large Classes and Student Learning. 36. pp. 1. pp. No. 2. Cleghorn. pp. No. Iliana. 84–92. Disputes in Child L2 Learning. Teaching Issues: TESOL in China: Current Challenges: Communicative Language Teaching in China: Progress and Resistance. 79–84. 1. 597– 598. Marissa. Comments on Sandra G. 207–213. Richard. Sandra G. Classrooms”: A Reader Reacts . Kouritzin’s “A Mother’s Tongue”: The Author Responds . 2. Self. 3. G. Ryuko. 373– 398. Vavrus. . . 35. 145–171. Julie. 1. Yu. Dwight. pp. 35. Vol.S. Cheryl Boyd. 35. 35. No. No. Liming. 1. Kelleen. 9–38. Derivative Word Forms: What Do Learners Know?. 36. No. and Lyster. Vol.and OtherInitiated Modiﬁed Output During Task-Based Interaction. and Zimmerman. 323–325. 668 Bell.. 2. Classrooms”: The Author Responds: (Un)Raveling Racism in a Nice Field Like TESOL. Schmitt. 3. No. 1. 36. 36. Vol. pp. Sarah J. pp. . Leki. 36. 1. Comments on Ryuko Kubota’s “Discursive Construction of the Images of U. 257– 278.Panova. Vol. pp. Comments on Shinichi Izumi and Martha Bigelow’s “Does Output Promote Noticing in Second Language Acquisition?”: Some Methodological and Theoretical Considerations. pp. 3. No. Roy. Postcoloniality and English: Exploring Language Policy and the Politics of Development in Tanzania. 493–496. 36. Comments on Ryuko Kubota’s “Discursive Construction of the Images of U. The Role of English in Individual and Societal Development: A View From African Classrooms. Virginia. 347–372. 36. Vol. No. Vol. No. pp. 171–181. Susan. Kubota. No. Research Issues: Narrative Research in TESOL: Narrative Study: Whose Story Is It. 213– 218. LoCastro. Vol. pp. Discursive Construction of the Images of U. 331–336. Whitlow.. 39–66.. Norbert. 36. Vol. Shin. Vol. 103– 113. 2. pp. Douglas. 573– 595. pp. 35. Research Issues: Narrative Research in TESOL: Narrative Inquiry: More Than Just Telling Stories. . Vol. . Vol. 35. No. Research Issues: Identifying Research Priorities: Themes and Directions for the TESOL International Research Foundation: Age of Beginning Instruction. Vol. Ali. Tucker. . pp. 35. Kouritzin. Vol. Vol. Patterns of Corrective Feedback and Uptake in an Adult ESL Classroom. Vol. Research Issues: Corpus-Based Research in TESOL: Quantitative Corpus-Based Research: Much More Than Bean Counting. Kouritzin’s “A Mother’s Tongue”: A Reader Reacts .
David. No. Lucy. 1. pp. Vol. Predictors of Mainstream Teachers’ Attitudes Toward ESL Students. Kumaravadivelu. pp.. Language in Development in the United States: Supervising Adult ESOL Preservice Teach- ers in an Immigrant Community. No. and Balasubramanian. Research Issues: Identifying Research Priorities: Themes and Directions for the TESOL International Research Foundation: Teacher Learning and Student Learning in TESOL. 35. Toward a Postmethod Pedagogy. pp. 4. No. Research Issues: Identifying Research Priorities: Themes and Directions for the TESOL International Research Foundation: Language Assessment and Program Evaluation.. Vol. No. Papajohn. pp. pp. 35. A Study of the Impact of Recasts on Tense Consistency in L2 Output. 2. pp. Vol. Practical. pp. John A. Cheryl Stanosheck. 493–496. 1. 36. Vol. pp. Betsy. Sandra G. 36. 36. 36. 537–560. No. 4. Freeman. No. Ferenc. 4. 2. The Role of Tone Choice in Improving ITA Communication in the Classroom. 2. pp. 4. Ronald. CUMULATIVE INDEX 669 . TEACHER PREPARATION Bailey. and Professional Rewards of Teaching MA TESOL Courses Online. Bunta. Jr. 35. No. No. Nunan. 621–624. Fitzmaurice. pp. 617– 621. 543–572. No. Warschauer. and Youngs. Vol. 4. 35. Bartels. Vol. Vol. 453–475. pp. A Developmental Perspective on Technology in Language Education. 4. Research Issues: CorpusBased Research in TESOL: Size Isn’t Everything: Spoken English. 597– 598. Teaching Issues: Teaching English to Large Classes: Large Classes and Student Learning. 608–609. No. Donald. Major. 97–120. 3. 173–190. 219–233. 3. Brian K. 4. Dean. Teaching Issues: Teaching MA TESOL Courses Online: The Personal. Mark. Susan F. TESTING Lynch.. Roy C. Professional Preparation and Action Research: Only for Language Teachers?. Vol. 36. pp. 233–255. Carolyn E. Rating Scales Derived From Student Samples: Effects of the Scale Maker and the Student Sample on Scale Content and Student Scores.. No. 1.. TEXT ANALYSIS McCarthy. 36. Kouritzin. 36. Turner. 35. 36. pp. 603–605. The Effects of Nonnative Accents on Listening Comprehension: Implications for ESL Assessment. G. Vol. Vol. No. pp. 4. Vol. Tucker. 35.Han. Teaching Issues: Teaching MA TESOL Courses Online: Teaching MA TESOL Courses Online: Challenges and Rewards. 49–70. Concept Mapping for Rater Training. No.. 35. Vol. 71–79. Pickering. Vol. Virginia. and Upshur.. LoCastro. Vol. Rymes. No. Michael. Research Issues: Identifying Research Priorities: Themes and Directions for the TESOL International Research Foundation: Age of Beginning Instruction. No. 609–616. Vol. Research Issues: Identifying Research Priorities: Themes and Directions for the TESOL International Research Foundation: Teacher Preparation and Development. Vol.. 3. and Carter. 35. No. George A. Kathleen M. Vol. pp. 36. No. Richard. Chandrika.. pp. ZhaoHong. B. pp. Nat. Youngs.. 431–452.
pp. 622–623. 617–608. Gardner. Dörnyei. 35. Teaching and Researching Motivation (Marian J. 1. At War With Diversity: U. Politics. 35. Critical English for Academic Purposes: Theory. 4. pp. No. Zoltán. No. No. Royce. and Practice (Philip A. pp. Crawford. 119–120. No. English Language Teaching in Its Social Context (Marilyn Lewis). New Directions in Contrastive Rhetoric. No. Kathleen. 4. 1. How Western-Trained Chinese TESOL Professionals Publish in Their Home Environment. Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century (Mustafa Zülküf Altan).). No. Richard (Eds. Whitlow. 49–70. pp. 1. Benesch. No. pp. 561– 593. Voices From the Language Classroom: Qualitative Research in Second Language Education (Khalid Al-Seghayer). Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose. Vol. 36. James. and Hedgcock. Ulla. Ildikó (Eds. 2. pp. No. Vol. Vol. 35. 243–244. John A. Sarah. pp. Language Policy in Schools: A Resource for Teachers and Administrators (Debra A. Larry. 2. Douglas. Vol. Vol. Comments on Shinichi Izumi and Martha Bigelow’s “Does Output Promote Noticing in Second Language Acquisition?”: Some Methodological and Theoretical Considerations. 35.Corpus. No. Zoltán. Vol. Rating Scales Derived From Student Samples: Effects of the Scale Maker and the Student Sample on Scale Content and Student Scores. Language Policy in an Age of Anxiety (Carole Crall). 341– 342. 4. Barbara. Julie.. 191–205. 35. Education and the Social Implications of Ofﬁcial Language (Juliet Hart). No. pp. Carolyn E. Dana. Suarez). No. Neil (Eds. Howard. 670 TESOL QUARTERLY . 1. David (Eds. 1. Brown. Vol. Vol. 4. 204–205. Corson. 4. 36. 116–117. Vol. pp. H. 493–510. Ferris. Ling. 35. pp. Index of Books Reviewed Andrews. and Schmidt. with Melis. No. Terry. 36. Maguire. 36. Mary H. Process. No. 199– 200. John S. Language Ideologies: Critical Perspectives on the Ofﬁcial English Language Movement: Vol. No. Vol. pp.) (Stefan Frazier).). 350–351. Multimodality in the TESOL Classroom: Exploring Visual-Verbal Synergy. Vol. Speaking Personalities in Primary School Children’s L2 Writing. 118–119. pp. pp. 625–634. Vol. Vol. Vol. 171–181. 4. Dörnyei. and Mercer. Roseann. David.. pp. No. Candlin. No. Motivation and Second Language Acquisition (Robert Mahon). and Nunan. 36. Vol.). Rossiter). Duenas González. and the Classroom. pp. 36. No. Douglas). 35. Turner. pp. 619–620. pp. Vol. 1. and Practice (Vai Ramanathan). 337–340.. Bailey. WRITING Connor. 36. 35. and Graves. Vol.. 35. No. pp. Vol.). Linguistics for L2 Teachers (Bette Brickman). 2. and Upshur. 35. 2. pp. Christopher N. 35. 36. 1. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy (2nd ed. Vol.S. 620– 622. 4. 2. 1. No.. Shi.
Vol. 36. Fundamentals of English Language Teaching (Hitomi Kanayama). 202–203. Language Crossings: Negotiating the Self in a Multicultural World (Natasha Lvovich). pp. Vol. pp. pp. Murphy. 35. Rea-Dickins. The Politics of Language: Conﬂict. Pauline. and Papp. Vanishing Voices: The Extinction of the World’s Languages (Sonia MacPherson). pp. 2. Vol. No. Bonny. 35. 120– 121. Jenkins. pp. Gass. 507–508. Sandra (Eds. Kevin (Eds. 504– 505. 238–239. No. Identity. Fifty Strategies for Teaching English Language Learners (Kate Mastruserio Reynolds). Kecskes. Jennifer. The Spoken Language (Olga Griswold). No. 35. 35. 1. pp. No. 1. No. Norton. pp.. Stimulated Recall Methodology in Second Language Research (Naoko Taguchi). Sandra. S. 2. Discourse Analysis in the Language Classroom: Vol. 636– 638. Vol. Vol. Patricia (Eds. Suzanne. and Tom. Ethnicity and Educational Change (Yoonkyung Kecia Yim). 505– 506. and Rodgers. Vol. 35. and Kitao. 4. 206–207. Mark My Words: Assessing Second and Foreign Language Skills (Barry O’Sullivan). Susan M. 36. No. pp. 35. 36. No. 2. Teaching Large Multi-Level Classes (Carmen-Pilar Serrano Boyer). Sonia. 1. Abigail. No. 2. No. Jack C. 4.). 1. pp. Face[t]s of First Language Loss (Natasha Lvovich). 618–619. Foreign Language and Mother Tongue (Virginia LoCastro). Kouritzin. 35. Kenji. No. Carol. The Light in Their Eyes: Creating Multicultural Learning Communities (Joanne Tompkins and Jim Cummins). Levis and Judy B. 240–241. Adrienne L. 200–201. pp. Ken. Riggenbach. 2. Managing Evaluation and Innovation in Language Teaching: Building Bridges (Dale Griffee). and Fotos. 36. 36. 2. Eli. 203–204..). Language Testing Research Centre. and Germaine. Vol. Vol. Hinkel.Gass. Natalie. John. 635–636. and Byrd. Vol. Hinkel. Istvan. 236– 238. Susan. No.). Lewis. Vol. Herrell. 3. 36. No. Vol. Kathleen. 36. pp. 35. Vol. and Houck. Vol. Vol. Heidi. Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing ( Jiangdong Sun). Daniel. The Phonology of English as an International Language ( John M. No. 241–243. Vol. Nieto. No. Vol. Eli (Ed. 4. 35. 344–345. 1.. and Cultural CUMULATIVE INDEX 671 .). and Mackey. 35. New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classrooms (Carl Zhonggang Gao). Hyland. Hess. 35. Identity and Language Learning: Gender. 346–347. pp. Vol. 3. 348–349. Michael (Ed. 35. Vol. Tunde. 36. Blau). 35. pp. 508–509. 3. No. Nettle. Heather. 639–640. 35. 4. McKay. and Romaine. 3. pp. 1. Schmid. Kitao. Teaching Adult Second Language Learners (Michele Terray). No. 3. 3. Vol. pp. No. Vol. Alison. Vol. pp. Interlanguage Refusals: A CrossCultural Study of Japanese-English ( Jihyun Kwon). 502–503. No.. pp. 2.). Gilbert). Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning (Lufang Lin). No. pp. pp.). Theodore S. Richards. pp. Noel. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (Roger Barnard). 501–502. Understanding the Courses We Teach (Thomas Scovel). Teaching Collocation—Further Developments in the Lexical Approach (Eileen K. No. Karen (Ed. No. No. Ogulnick. Vol. pp. pp.
pp. 1. David. Paul Kei (Eds. 36. Hae-Young. No. Silva. Linguistic Genocide in Education—or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights? (David Johnson). Tony J. 345– 346. No. pp. and Matsuda. 2.. Tse. 36.S. 672 TESOL QUARTERLY . Tove. 342–343. 641–642. No. Vocabulary in Language Teaching (Laura L. 4. Meyer). Vol. Schmitt. David. Accuracy and Complexity (Kathleen M. Review of Why Don’t They Learn English?: Separating Fact From Fallacy in the U. pp. Norbert. Vol. pp. 4. The Internet (Leslie E. pp. Gitterman). 235–236.). and Kim. 4. 638–639. pp. Vol. Language Debate (Martin R. 35. Vol. Vol. No. Vol. 36. 642– 643. Broussard). 36. 35. Hardisty. pp.Pluralism in Comparative Perspective (Teresa Wise). Second Language Development in Writing: Measures of Fluency. Kate. No. Windeatt. No. and Eastment. Vol. Skutnabb-Kangas. Lucy. Scott. 2. On Second Language Writing (Li Shen). 115–116. Sheldon). 36. Inagaki. 2. Wolfe-Quintero. No. Shunji.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.