.=-.8

English Language Teaching in i ts social Gontext

_- r l l i sh Language Teach ing in i t s soc ia l con tex to f fe rs soc io l ingu is t i c , e thnograph ic , and

, , , a l -psycho log ica l perspec t ives on TES0L teach ing and learn ing and in t roduces the

. . = .an t l i te ra tu re on second language acqu is i t ion . I t p resents Eng l ish language teach ing

. . a r ie ty o f spec i f i c ins t i tu t iona l , geograph ic and cu l tu ra l con tex ts '

- . : . : i c les - wh ich inc lude bo th c lass ic and spec ia l l y commiss ioned p ieces - have been

-_ . . . , y chosen ano ed i ted to p resent the main pr inc ip les o f Eng l ish language teach ing '

- : ,3cus on the ro les p layed by teachers and learners , recogn ise the ind iv idua l i t y o f

j . age learners , suppor t teachers in the prov is ion o f ac t i ve gu idance fo r s tudents '

= - .- r1g, and examine both posit ive and negat ive patterns of interact ion between learners

: - , r t e a c h e r S .

- - l s Reader o f fe rs peop le un fami l ia r w i th research in th is f ie ld an overa l l unders tand ing o f

.= .u i ssues in contemporary Eng l ish language teach ing wh i le a l low ing the more exper ienced

.=ader the oppor tun i ty to re la te h is o r her exper iences to the theor ies p resented '

Ar t i c les by : Michae l P . Breen; Anne Burns ; A . Suresh canagara jah ; J ' l (e i th ch ic l< ; Rod

i l l l s ; P a u l i n e G i b b o n s ; P a u l l ( n i g h t ; P a t s y M . L i g h t b o w n ; A n g e l M . Y ' L i n ; M i c h a e l H '

Long; Ne i l Mercer ; Rosamond Mi tche l l ; F lo rence My les ; Dav id Nunan; Jac l< c ' R ichards ;

ce l ia Rober ts ; Peter Skehan; Ass ia S l iman i ; N ina Spada; Joan swann; Leo van L ie r

Chr is topher N. Cand l in i s Cha i r Pro fessor o f App l ied L ingu is t i cs and D i rec tor o f the

cent re fo r Eng l ish Language Educat ion and communica t ion Research a t the c i ty

Un ivers i ty o f Hong l (ong. Ne i l Mercer i s Pro fessor o f Language and communica t ions and

Di rec tor o f the Cent re fo r Language and Communica t ions a t the 0pen Un ivers i ty ' U l ( '

Companion volumes

The compan ion vo lumes in th is ser ies a re :

Analysing Engl ish in a Gtobal Contextedited by Anne Burns and Carol ine Coff in

Innovat ion in Engl ish Language Teaching edited by David R. Hal l and Ann Hewings

These th ree readers a re par t o f a scheme o f s tudy jo in t l y deve loped by Macquar ie

Un ivers i ty , Sydney, Aus t ra l ia , and the 0pen Un ivers i ty , Un i ted l ( ingdom' A t the Qpen

Universi ty, the three readers are part of a single course, Teaching Engl ish to Speakers of

1ther Languages Worldi lde which forms part of the Open Universi ty MA in Educat ion

(App l ied L ingu is t i cs ) and Advanced D ip loma in Teach ing Eng l ish to speakers o f Other

Languages. A t Macquar ie Un ivers i ty , the th ree readers a re each a t tached to s ing le s tudy

un i ts , wh ich fo rm par t o f the Pos tgraduate D ip loma and Master o f App l ied L ingu is t i cs

pr0g rammes.

The 0pen Un ivers i ty MA in Educat ion is now es tab l i shed as the most popu lar pos tgraduate

degree fo r U l ( educat ion pro fess iona ls , w i th over 3 ,500 s tudents reg is te r ing each year '

F r o m 2 0 0 1 i t w i l l a l s o b e a v a i l a b l e w o r l d w i d e . T h e M A i n E d u c a t i o n i s d e s i g n e d

par t i cu la r ly fo r those w i th exper ience in teach ing , educat iona l admin is t ra t ion or a l l ied

f ie lds . The MA is a modu lar degree and s tudents a re f ree to se lec t , f rom a range o f op t ions ,

the programme tha t bes t f i t s in w i th the i r in te res ts and pro fess iona l goa ls . The MA in

Educat ion programme prov ides grea t f lex ib i l i t y . S tudents s tudy a t the i r own pace and in

the i r own t ime. They rece ive spec ia l l y p repared s tudy mater ia ls , and are suppor ted by

a persona l tu to r . (Success fu l comple t ion o f the MA in Educat ion (App l ied L ingu is t i cs )

en t i les s tudents to app ly fo r en t ry to the Open Un ivers i ty Doc tora te in Educat ion (EdD)

prog ramme. )

The pro fess iona l Deve lopment in Educat ion prospec tus conta ins fu r ther in fo rmat ion and

app l ica t ion fo rms. To f ind ou t more about the Qpen Un ivers i ty and request your c6py

o lease wr i te to the Course Reserva t ions and Sa les Cent re , The Open Un ivers i ty , PO Box

724, W alton H al l , M i l ton l (eynes Ml<7 6ZW , or e-mai l ces-gen@open.ac.ul<, or telephone

+44 (0)1g0 g 65323I or v is i t the website, www.open.ac.uk. For more information on the

MA in Educat ion (Appl ied Linguist ics) uis i t www.open.ac.uk/appl ied- l inguist ics.

Macquarie Universi ty introduced distance versions of i ts inf luent ial on-campus degrees in

]994 and now has students in over thir ty countr ies. Both the Postgraduate Diploma

and the Masters a re o f fe red in th ree vers ions : App l ied L ingu is t i cs , App l ied L ingu is t i cs

(TESOL) and App l ied L ingu is t i cs (L i te racy) . Cred i ts a re f ree ly t rans ferab le be tween the

Diploma and the Masters and between the three versions, and students may change

between d is tance and on-campus mo0es or mix modes i f des i red . S tudents s tudy a t the i r

own pace, w i th spec ia l l y deve loped mater ia ls and w i th suppor t and feedback prov ided

d i rec t ly f rom lec tu rers in the L ingu is t i cs Depar tment th rough e-mai l , web, fax , phone and

post . A spec ia l i sed l ib ra ry serv ice prov ided th rough the Resources Cent re o f the Nat iona l

Cent re fo r Eng l ish Language Teach ing and Research (N 'CELTR) . Ex terna l doc tora l

p rogrammes are a lso ava i lab le '

In fo rmat ion about the Macquar ie p rogrammes and app l ica t ion fo rms are ava i lab le on

www.l ing.mq.edu.au or by wri t ing to the Linguist ics Postgraduate Off ice, Macquarie

U n i v e r s i t y , N S W 2 1 0 9 , A u s t r a l i a ( t e l : + 6 1 2 9 8 5 0 9 2 4 3 ; f a x : + 6 1 2 9 8 5 0 9 3 5 2 ; e - m a i l :

l i n g d l @ l i n g . m q . e d u . a u ) .

II

r l

Engl ish Language Teaching in i ts Social Context'Candlin's

and N{ercer's Reader provides kev insights into contemporarv knon.ledgeof second language learning, the exploitation of this knorvledge in classroom action,and subsequent assessment and analvsis. Bv emphasizing the social context of thesethree processes, and the relationship betu-een tirem, thJ book provides a rew.ardirrgintroduction to the interaction betu,een theorv, research and professional practiceu'hich lies at the heart of applied linguistics.' Guv Cook, IJniversitli oJ Readtng, iK

'This volume links the teaching of English to the development of autonomous

individuals rvho prize debate, negotiation and interaction, and rvho will ultimatelv beable to build giobal communications of l ike-minded English speakers around thervorld. Readers u'i l l f ind in this collection of excellent papeis some of the classic mile-stonesinthef ie ldofELT. 'Cla i reKramsch,Univers i t l ,oJCal fornta,Berkeley,Cal{orn ia

Teaching Engl ish Language Worldwide

A selection of readers' comments on the series:

'This three-part series olfers a map to ELT research and practice . . . it represents the best

that ELT, as an Anglo-Saxon institution, has developed over the last thirtl. vears lbr theteaching of English around the rl-orld . . . Readers will find in this series the Who's Whoguide to this dvnamic and expanding communitv.' Clairc Kramsch, [Jniversity oJ CattJornia,Berkeley, CaltJornia

'Experienced English language instructors seeking to deepen their knor.r,.ledge and abilitres

lvill find this series forms a coherent basis to develop their understanding of iurrent trends,sociocultural diversitv, and topical interests in teaching English as a second or foreignlanguage around the u.orld. All three volumes pror.ide ample flexibilitv for discussion,interPretation, and adaptation in local settings.' Aljster Cumming, Ontario lrrtirut, for S:udies inEduc ati o n, U n i ver sitv oJ To r ont o

'This series provides a collection of essential readings r,r'hich r,r'ili not only provide the

TEFL/TESOL student and teacher rvith access to the most up,to-date thinking andapproaches to the subject but u'ill gir.e anv person interested in the subject an overvi,ew ofthe phenomenon of the use and usage of English in the modern '"vorid. Perhaps moreimportantly, this series r'r'ill be crucial to those students w.ho do not have available to thernarticles that provide both a w'ide spectrum of information and the necessary analytical toolsto investigate the language further.' Joseph A. Fole1, Southeast Asia lLinisten of EducationOrganisation, Regionol Language Centre, Singapore

'The strong representation of the seminal Angio-Australian development of the European

functional tradition in the'studv oflanguage and language education makes this a refreshinglvbracing series, r.vhich should be u'idelr. used in teacher education for English langua=g.teaching. ' Euan Rejd, lnsttrute oJ Educatton, IJn)versit t ' oJ London

'ln a principled and accessibie manner, these three volumes bring together major."vritings on

essential topics in the studv of English language teaching. Ther.provide broad coverage ofcurrent thinking and debate on major issues, providing an invaluable resource foi thecontemporarv postgraduate student.' Gu1 Cook, (Jniverst*, oJ Reading

F i r s t pub l i shed 2001by Rout ledge11 New Fe t te r Lane , London EC4P 4EE

S imu l taneous l y pub l i shed i n t he U SA and Canadaby Rout ledge29 Wes t 35 th S t ree t , New York , NY 10001

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group

@ 2001 Comp i l a t i on , o r i g i na l and ed i t o r i a l ma te r i a l Macqua r i e Un i ve rs i t y andThe 0pen Un lve rs i t y ; i nd i v i dua l a r t i c l es @ the i r au tho rs

Typeset in Perpetua and Bel l Goth lc by l (eystro l<e, Jacaranda Lodge, WolverhamptonPr inted and bound in Great Br i ta in by TJ Internat ional Ltd, Padstow, Cornwal l

Al l r ights reserved. No par t of th is book may be repr inted or reproduced oru t i l i zed l n any fo rm o r by any e lec t ron i c , mechan l ca l o r o the r means /now known or hereaf ter invented, inc luding photocopying and recording,or in any in format ion storage or ret r ieval system/ wi thout permiss ionin w r i t i ng f r om the pub l i she rs .

Brit ish Library Cataloguing in Publication DataA ca ta logue reco rd f o r t h i s book i s ava i l ab le f r om the B r i t i sh L ib ra ry

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication DataEng l i sh l anguage teach ing i n i t s soc ia l con tex t / ed i t ed by Ch r i s tophe r N . Cand l i nand Ne i l Merce r .

p . cm. - (Teach ing Eng l i sh l anguage wor ldw ide )Inc ludes b ib l i og raph i ca l r e fe rences and i ndex .1 . Eng l i sh l anguage -S tudy and teach ing -Fo re ign speake rs . 2 . Eng l i sh

language-Study and teaching-Socia l aspects. I . Candl in , Chr is topher.I I . M e r c e r , N e i i . I I I . S e r i e s

PE7I28.A2 E49 2000428 ' . 0071 -dc2 l 00 -059195

IS B N 0-415-24t2r-9 (hbk)

IS B N 0-415-24122-7 $bk)

/ ,

GOntentS tttttt 2 i 4

---:,Ar- ln

I I i - 2 2 . ,. t r t ,t v - '

\LUa/*.-_?--P' dz'?

€P'.g8d

@)

v'2d,i" 5/6C/t.=

r'h "=

-=

6./l "-4

o d o

t t :

Uzt-t ro: /;

List of illustrationsAcknowledgements

Ch r i s t ophe r N . Cand l i n and Ne i l Me rce rI N T R O D U C T I O N

PART ONEI ow i s language lea rn ing exp la ined?

X

x i i

Rosamond M i t che l l and F lo rence My lesS E C O N D L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G : I ( E Y C O N C E P T S

A N D I S S U E S

Pa tsy M . L i gh tbown and N ina SpadaF A C T O R S A F F E C T I N G S E C O N D L A N G U A G E T E A R N I N G

Rod E l l i sS E C O N D L A N G U A G E A C Q U I S I T I O N : R E S E A R C H A N D

L A N G U A G E P E D A G O G Y

Pe te r S l<ehanC O M P R E H E N S I O N A N D P R O D U C T I O N S T R A T E G I E S I N

L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G

Leo van L i e rC O N S T R A I N T S A N D R E S O U R C E S I N C L A S S R O O N 4 T A L I ( :

I S S U E S O F E Q U A L I T Y A N D S Y M I V I E T R T

1 1

2 8

44

7 q

9 0

V i i i C O N T E N T S

Ce l i a Robe r t sL A N G U A G E A C Q U I S I T I O N O R L A N G U A G E S O C ] A L I S A T i O N

I N A N D T H R O U G H D l S C O U R S E ? T O W A R D S A R E D E F I N I T I O N

O F T H E D O M A I N O F S L A l O B

PART TWOStra teg ies and goa ls in the c lassroom contex t

Michae l P . B reenT H E S O C I A L C O N T E X T F O R L A N G U A G E T E A R N I N G :

A N E G L E C T E D S I T U A T I O N ?

Pau l l ( n i gh tT H E D E V E L O P [ , i E N T O F E F L M E T H O D O L O G Y

Jack C . R i cha rdsB E Y O N D M E T H O D S

Michae l H . LongF O C U S O N F O R f \ 4 : A D E S I G N F E A T U R E I N L A N G U A G E

T E A C H I N G I \ 1 E T H O D O L O G Y

Dav id NunanT E A C H I N G G R A M M A R I N C O N T E X T

r 22

t47

1 6 7

1 8 0

1 9 1

2 0 0

208

2 2 7

2 4 3

1 0

1 1

. - : , : ' A . Su resh Canaga ra jah1 3 C R I T I C A L E T H N O G R A P H Y O F A S R I L A N I < A N C L A S S R O O M :

A I V I B I G U I T I E S I N S T U D E N T O P P O S I T I O N T O

R E P R O D U C T I O N T H R O U G H E S O L

J . l ( e i t h Ch i ckT 4 S A F E - T A L I ( : C O L L U S I O N I N A P A R T H E I D E D U C A T I O N

PART THREEAna lys ing teach ing and lea rn ing

Tq,Ne i l Mercer

, I 1 5 / L A N G U A G E F O R T E A C H I N G A L A N G U A G E"\/

Pau l i ne G ibbonsL E A R N I N G A N E W R E G I S T E R I N A S E C O N D L A N G U A G E

I

1 6 258

Ange t M .Y . L i nT 1 D O I N G . E N G L i S H - L E S S O N S I N T H E R E P R O D U C T I O N O R

T R A N S F O R I M A T I O N O F S O C I A L W O R L D S ?

Ass ia S l iman iE V A L U A T I O N O F C L A S S R O O M I N T E R A C T I O N

Michae l P . B reenT 9 N A V ] G A T I N G T H E D I S C O U R S E : O N W H A T I S L E A R N E

I N T H E L A N G U A G E C L A S S R O O I ! 1

Joan SwannR E C O R D I N G A N D T R A N S C R I B I N G T A L I < I N E D U C A T I O N A L

S E T T I N G S

. l /

2 0

-1

C O N T E N T S I X

2 7 t

2 8 7

306

t z J

3 4 5I U C

Il lustrations

F igures

1 . 1

2. r

3 . r3 .25 . 18 . 18 . 28 . 38 . 48 . 5

1 0 . 11 2 . I2 0 . r2 0 . 22 0 . 32 0 . 42 0 . 52 0 . 62 0 . 72 0 . 82 0 . 9

2 0 . 1 02 0 . 1 120.12

Spo ls l<y 's genera l mode l o f second language learn ingBar char ts showing the language leve ls o f p re- and pos t -puber ty

learners o f E ng I i sh'Moments ' o f ac t ion researchRela t ing d isc ip l inary theory and language pedagogy

I R F c o n t i n u u mSi tua t iona l language teach ing mater ia lA t y p i c a l a u d i o - l i n g u a l d r i l lCLT mater ia ls wh ich encourage groupwork and par t i c ipa t ionA typ ica l Prabhu taskAn example o f un i t ob jec t ives w i th in a tex t -based approachNoun phrase access ib i I i t y h ie rarchyThe teach ing- learn ing cyc leF ie ld -no tes o f an assembly in a schoo l in south-eas t Eng landTranscript ion of teacher-student tal kTranscr ip t ion o f smal l g roup ta lk : s tandard layoutTranscr ip t ion o f smal l g roup ta l l< : co lumn layoutTranscr ip t ion o f g roup ta lk : s tave layoutRepresentat ion of nonverbal features in an oral narrat iveRepresentat ion of teacher 's gaze towards female and male studentsTranscr ip t i l l us t ra t ing a l te rna t ion be tween Eng l ish and Mal teseTranscr ip t i l l us t ra t ing a l te rna t ion be tween Sans l<r i t and Eng l ishTranscr ip t ion o f a conversa t ion us ing Creo le and London Eng l ishRepresenta t ion o f p ronunc ia t ion us ing phonet ic symbolsInc idence o l ' cos and because in p r imarv schoo l ch i ld ren 's ta lk

I 3

3 B5 B6 594

1 5 01 5 1156t 6 2164l 8 52 0 23 2 933r3 3 23 3 3? ? q

3 3 6

3 3 73383 3 93 3 93 4 2

I L L U S T R A T I O N S X i

-ab les

I

I

I

I

2

3

I

Compar ison o f language learn ing a t d i f fe ren t agesAttr ibutes of innovat ionSome techn iques tha t teachers useAverage scores and percentage increase fo r each group

Effect of topical isat ionPercentage o f c la ims made by repor te rs on each l ingu is t i c fea tureNumber and type of student- ini t iated moves in two types of lesson

4 t6 2

2 9 32 9 62 9 93 4 0

Ackn owledgements

The editors and publishers r,r'ould like to thank the follou'ing for permission to use

copyright material:

Michael P. Breen and Cambridge Unir,ersitt' Press for 'The social context of language

learning: a neglected situation' in Studres in Second Language Acquisit ion,7 , 1985.

Michael P. Bte.n a.rd SEAMEO Regional Language Centre for'Navigating the discourse:

on what is learned in the language classroom' in Proceedings of the 1997 RELC

Seminar.

Anne Burns for'Genre-based approaches to r'r 'r it ing and beginning adult ESL learners',

reprinted from Prospecr Vol. 5, No. 3, Mav 1990 rvith permission from the National

Centre for English LanguageTeaching and Research (NCELTR), Australia. (Macquarie

Universitv). Includes material in Fig. 2 adapted from Learning Styles in Adult Migrant

EducationbyWill ing K., also rvith permission from the National Centre for Engiish

Language Teaching and Research (N CELTR), Australia (Macquarie Universitv).

Cumbridge University Press for Assia Slimani 'Evaiuation of classroom interaction' in J.C.

Alderson and A. Beretta (eds) Evaluating Second Language Education, 1992.

A. Suresh Cangaraja and TESOL for'Crit ical ethnographv of a Sri Lankan classroom:

ambiguities in student opposition to reproduction through ESOL' in TESOL @Lartetly,

Yo l . 21 . No . 4 , ( TESOL 1993 ) .

J. Keith Chick and Cambridge Universitv Press for 'Safe-talk: collusion in apartheid

educat ion ' in H. co leman (ed.) Soctety and the Language c lassroom,7996.

Rod Ellis for'second ianguage acquisition research and language pedagogy' in Sl,4 Research

and Language Teaching bv Rod Ell is ( Rod Ell is 1997). Reproduced by permission of

Oxford Universitv Press.

Patsv M. Lightborvn and Nina Spada for'Factors affecting second language learning' in How

1anguogi, are Learned (Second Edition) bv Patsv M. Lightbou'n and Nina Spada (Patsv M.

Lightbown and Nina Spada 1999.) Reproduced bv permission of Oxford University

Press.

Angel M.Y. Lin and TESOL for 'Doing-English-lessons in the reproduction or

transformation of social rvorlds?'in fESOI @Larterly,Yol. 33, No. 3, (TESOL 1999).

Michael Long and John Benjamin's Publishing Co. for'Focus on form: a design feature in

language teaching methodolog ,-' in Fotetgn Language Research in a Cross-cultural Perspective.

Ediiedbv K. de Bot, R.B. Ginsberg and C. Krausch. John Benjamin's Publishing Co.,

1 9 9 1 .

A C I ( N O W L E D G E M E N T S X i i i

Rosamond Mitchell and Florence Mvles for'Second language learning: kev concepts and

issues' in Second Language LearningTheories, 7999.

David Nunan and ELT Journal for'Teaching grammar in context' in ELT Journal, Vol. 5 2, N o.

2, 1998. Reproduced bv permission of ELT Journal and Oxford University Press.

jack Richards and Cambridge Universitv Press for 'Bevond methods' in The Language

T ) n , h i n n V n r r i v 1 9 9 Q .I . u L ' t t L r y

Celia Roberts for'Language through acquisit ion or language socialisation in and through

discourse' in Working Papers in Applted L)nguistics,Vol. 4, Thames Vallev Universitv, I 998.

Peter Skehan for'Comprehension and production strategies in language iearning'in.4

Cognitive Approach to Language Learntng bv Peter Skehan ( Oxford Universitv Press 1998.;

Reproduced bv permission of Oxford Unir-ersitv Press.

Leo r,an Lier foi iconrtruirrt, and resources in classroom talk: issues of equalitv and

svmmetrv' in Learning Foretgn and Second Languages. Reprinted bv permission of the

Modern Language Association of'America.

\\-hile the publishers and editors ha.,-e made everv effort to contact authors and copyright

i-rolders of works reprinted tn Engltsh LanguageTbaching in its Social Context, this has notlreen possible in everv case. Thev u-ould lr.elcome correspondence from individuals or

.ompanies thev have been unable to trace.

\\'e n'ould like to thank the authors u'ho contributed their chapters, as rvell as colleagues

s'ithin and outsideThe Open Universitv and Macquarie Universitv rvho gave advice on the

lontents. Special thanks are due to the follorving people for their assistance in the

production of this book.

Helen Boyce (course manager)

Pam Burns and Libbl'Bril l (course secretaries)

Lrz Freeman (Copublishing)

\anette Re-vnolds, Frances Wilson and the staff of the Resource Centre of the National

Centre for English LanguageTeaching and Research, Macquarie Universitv.

Critical readers

ProfessorVijav K. Bhatia (Department of English, Citv Universitr ', Hong Kong)

Geoff Thompson (Applied English Language Studies Unit, Liverpool Universitv, UK)

Professor Leo van Lier (Educational Linguistics, Universitv of Monterev, USA).

External assessor

Professor Ronald Carter (Department of English Studies, Nottingham Universitq UK).

Developmental testers

I lona Czirakl'( ltalv)

Eladyr Maria Norberto da Silva (Brazil)

Chitrita Mukerjee (Australia)

Dorien Gonzales (UK)

Patricia Williams (Denmark).

X i V A C I ( N O W L E D G E M E N T S

We have reproduced all original papers and chapters as faithfuilv as r,ve have been able,

given the iner.itable restrictilns of rp"." and the need to produce a coherent and readable

lollection for readers rvorldrvide. Where w-e have had to shorten original material

substantially, these chapters are marked as adapted. Ellipses rvithin square brackets mark

text that has been omitted from the original. Individual referencing styles have been

reta ined a: in the or ig inal texts.

Christopher N. Gandlinand Neil Mercer

INTRODUCTION

. :..n Macquarie Universitr '-, in Svdnev, Australia, and The Open University, in Milton' :: De s, England, decided to collaborate on the development of neu' curriculum materiais

: study at Master's level, the partnership brought together The Open University's.: '-rience in open learning in the l ield of education, and Macquarie's experience in applied: .uistics and language education, backed bv its or,vn existing distance learning programme.

'... collection of articles in this book and its trl-o companion volumes are one result of that

..aboration.While the edited coliections har.e been designed as one part of an overall study: {ramme, complemented b1'other learning and studv materials comprising study guides

, .i accompanving video and audio recordings, the-v stand alone as extensive vet focusedliections of articles rvhich address ket. contemporarv issues in English language teachingI appl ied l inguist ics.

.{ major concern in editing these three volumes has been t}re desire to present Englishrrguage teaching (ELT) in a varietv ofspecihc institutional, geographic and cultural contexts.:{ence, as far as possible across the three r,olumes, we have attempted to highllght debate,

.cussion and illustration ofcurrent issues from different parts ofthe English-speaking and:rqlish-using world, including those rvhere English is not learned as a first language. In doing.'ris rve recognize that English language teaching comprises a global communitv of teachers.rd learners in a range ofsocial contexts.

Itis Engltsh LanguageTeaching in jts Social Context rvhich is the title of this second volume:.r the series, and it lvill be useful to decide earlv on lvhat lve mean bv this term.We have. number of interpretations and perspectives in mind. One that is central is that of the.tssroom context in w'hich interactions betrveen teachers and learners have an effect on the

:,ature and qualitv of language iearning. No language teaching and learning takes place:rowever, in a classroom lvhich is isolated from the rvorld of experiences and personal..ngagements and investments of learners outside the classroom itself. In that sense the w.ider,acial context of life outside the classroom has an important effect on lvhat takes olace in thescinteractions betrveen learners and teachers, and among learners. For manv j""rn"rs, therontexts outside the classroom are not onlv r,vhere they make use of the English they havelearned in class, but tiev can aiso constitute a por,verful incentive (or disincentive) for furtherlearning. Moreover, it is not onlv the contexts of learning and using English that arermportant. We need also to understand the proJessional context of teachers' practicesthemselves rvitlin this interactive process of classroom teaching-and-learning. Finall1., w.eneed to take account of the socio-cultural context bv rt.hich communicating partners in this

2 I N T R O D U C T I O N

process evoke and create shared knou'ledge and use it for making sense together, in a sense

constructing the overarching context for successful language iearning.

No col[ction of papers about E.rglish LanguageTeaching can hope to be comprehensive.

The rvorld ofELT in its diversitv, oflearners, teachers, ofschools and institutions, cultures,

countries, contents, and pedagogies cannot be captured even in a series of three books'What

a structured coilection oi r.t.".tJa papers like this can do is to map out the territory, and fill

in enough of the topographical f""i..i", so that the beginning reader can obtain an overall

i-pr.rri"io., of it, .urt{tiphr,, r,vhile the experienced reader can bring her or his own rich

"*p..i..r." of ttauelii.r! und-rn"p-.nuking to fill in the details of those territories of which

thev have special .*'u...r"., and knorvledge. We need to be cautious, how'ever' No map is

.r".,trul. Th. first maps lvere products of the cartographers of Europe, so their world was a

Euro-centric o.r", "rd,

in their ou.n Sino-centric lval', those devised bv the Chinese were just

as biased. Readers have been alerted, therefore, to a natural tendencv tow-ards a particular

projection. Our ELT map in this book of{'ers a social and socio-cultural perspective on

iu.rgrrug" learning. At the same time, maps have to be true to their territories, and it would

U" JU.,i.a to igno"re a psvchological perspective on language learning, one which highlighted

the cognitiv{ro."rr., of the individual learner, engaging with the intricacies of a new

comminicatile code. Maps are not onlv to be follolved, horvever.Thev have ahvays served

as incentives for further ".td

-o.. relined map-making. In the same way, teachers do not just

follow a set ofpresented instructions, thev activelv create and chart their own Progress

through the teriitories of learning in their orvn ciassrooms' Accordinglv, it isimportant that

,,rch Jfo.rrr"d collection as this gii-es a major place to classroom-based research, in particular,

research w-hich examines the processes of teaching-and-learning, using that evidence which

is most to hand in classrooms, namelv the productive talk of teachers and learners.

What a collection of papers needs to have, is an argument, one'i""'hich carries the reader

towards engagement u,ith particular issues and questions, offering through its structure ju-st

that amount Jf guidunce r-r"."..rtt'. Ultimatelv, though, r,vhether we have gauged the right

degree of that giidu.r.. required, or simplv led readers bv the nose, only vou can say'What

orrJh"u. dorr. ",

a guiding itructure is to take three main perspectives on English language

teaching: an explanatio.t of ,orr-r. hvpotheses about language learning and its Processes; an

interprJtatio.r ofl"...r"rr' and teachers' strategies and goals in the classroom context, their

prr.ptr.. and their beliefs; and, finallr', a description and analvsis.of teachers' and learners'

t"huuiotr., and practices, rvho thev are, rvhat thev do, what thev think about language

learning and rvhat their attitudes are'

How is language learning explained?

The argument begins rvith a focus on the explanation oJ language learning with a paper by

Rosamind Mitch;ll and Florence Mvles. The authors outline a model of second language

learning and identifv its kev factors.Three kev questions underpin all these factors:What is

the natirre of language? What is the nature of the language learning process? What are

the characterlstics of the second ianguage learner? In addressing these questions the paper

identifies the complementaritv of nature and nurture in language iearning, and relates what

research has to say about language learning rvith u.hat r,ve knolv about learning more

generallv. At the same time, the paper highlights one of the abidlng questions about teaching

Ind leaining, the tension betrveen svstematjcitf and creativity in learners' performance.

Language learning is clearl,v not just about processes. It involves learners. So, asking questions

"boit riho theselearners are and rvhat learner characteristics and factors affect language

: N T R O D U C T I O N 3

..-arning, and in which rvays, is a centrai question for teachers of language. Patsv Lightbor,vn

lnd Nina Spada take up this necessarv dualism in their account of the cognitive and'rehavioural

characteristics of rvhat some researchers have referred to as the 'good language

re arner'. As we u.i l l see later in the argument of this book, there has to be a third aspect to

:nv such account, namelv the influence of the social conditions of language learning on the

:l-fectiveness of language learning. Manl learners don't learn languages in classrooms.Ther'

iearn them more or less r,vell or badlr', on the street, in the communitv, and in the u'orkplace

Certainly, Lightborvn's and Spada's territorv abuts that of Mitchell and Mvles. Factors such

r, -otiuution-, aptitude, p.rro.rulitu, intelligence, learner preferences and learner beliefs, rvill

:e high on any teacher's l ist, but so rvil i factors of age, social background, gender and

ducat ional at ta inment .

Researching second language learning, and exploring the relationship between research-

rnq and teaching is a kev element in lvhat some have referred to as the teacher as'reflective'

practitioner. Rod Ellis' paper on research and pedagogv in the context of second language

:cquisit ion squarelv addresses this relationship. Questions of decision-driven research

..manating from practical classroom problems, or knowledge-driven research starting from

theoretical hypotleses, are but trvo sides of the same coin. At the heart are the practices of

rhe classroom, or encounters rvith the target language in other contexts. That these worlds

:,iteaching and research have often been at odds is an issue for this paper, and for this book

as a r,vhole to explore.What Ell is identif ies, how-ever, is the importance of mapping the

rultures ofteaching and researching and achieving at Ieast mutual understanding, ifnot active

collaboration.What is clear after reading Ell is is that it isn't going to be enough for teachers

r:o u.rite 'Here be dragons' and steer the teaching ship alvav from the rockv coastline of

re search. One useful and productive ground for such collaboration is that of researching

.earners'styles and strategiesin language learning, looking at what learners do as aspects of their

personality, or in response to problems and tasks that teaching, or just life itself, confronts

them. Peter Skehan's paper has this dual focus and he locates his discussion in the kev area

of learners' comprehension of foreign language texts, u-ritten or spoken, examining the

relationship between input to the learner, lr'hat the learner confronts, and u,'hat the learner

produces hlrself, the ouiput oflearning. Important for Skehan, and for our general argument

in this book, are the \4-ays in which learners neBotjate meaning, guided bv teachers, in their

road towards understanding the foreign language.

If negotiation of meaning smacks of the marketplace, then perhaps that is no bad image

ior the exchange of language goods rvhich characterizes both classrooms and social

interactions more generallv. Estimating the values to be placed on these goods is, after all,

u'hat a good deal of teaching (and learning) is all about. Leo van Lier's, Celia Roberts'

and Michael Breen's papers are all sited in the marketplace of learning and teaching. It is time,

then, to begin to look at the contexts oJlearning. Nou-a nelv set of questions arise. How

learners interact rvith each other and other speakers, lvhat do thev do r,vhen they are learning

a language, what effect their attitudes, beliefs and feelings have on language learning, what

kinds of personal investment thev are prepared to make, holv far thev can draw on the support

ofothers, what effects teaching has on learning, and to rvhat extent the social conditions and

priorities of the social rvorld outside the classroom, and the learners' piaces in that world,

affect what learners do in classrooms and hou' effectivelv thev can learn'

Addressing these questions suggests a need for some redrauing of the dimensions of the

second language learning map. In fact, as u'e rvill see in the papers rvhich follor,v in the

collection, such questions make us redrau'our projection in a number of important ways:

to take account of the Iearning of strategic competence not merelv of language comPetence;

of the appraisal of learning sites, contexts and modes as kev variabies in language acquisition;

I N T R O D U C T I O N

of the variably positive and negative effects of learners' social and personal commitment toIanguage learning; of the need to take into account the multiple identities of learners, affectedas they are by issues ofgender, class, race and po!\€r; and, especially, ofthe need to engagein micro-exploration of the interactions of learners rvitl learners and learners with teachers,or other target language speakers.

In his paper, Leo van Lier drau.s on exactlv this shift of perspective towards the socialcontextualisation and construction ofsecond language learning. He also takes up in practicemany of the issues raised earlier in the Ellis paper, particuiarlv his account of interpretativeresearch.What he adds, however, in his account of the possible tt.pes of interaction and typesof discourse to be found in the second language classroom, is the importance of the effectofpower and control on rvhat kinds oftalk are encouraged, discouraged or even forbidden.Such issues are also central to Celia Roberts' paper w'ith its crit ical evaluation of moretraditional and cognitive approaches rvhich see second language learning as essentially amatter of personal endeavour and accomplishment. Her focus on learner identities and theeffects of learning contexts on language learning r'r'ithin an overall sociolinguistic and socialconstructionist model, links learning to living in an original way, and, in so doing, addressessome of the questions w.e identified earlier as important to the argument of this collectionof papers. It is important to note, though, that this shift of emphasis is not one u,hich abandonsthe necessary inclusion of the personal and cognitive development of the learner's languagelearning capacity.The point is to forge a connection betrveen both paradigms.This is in largemeasure achieved in Michael Breen's paper on the social context of language learning. In hisanthropological metaphor ofthe classroom as coral garden, teacher-researchers are directedat the importance of the multiple discourses of the classroom, where w.hat is said and howit is expressed among the participants of this cuitural rvorld takes on a key significance forthe explanation of the processes of language learning, and in particular for our understandingof the essential differences among language learners. His defining characteristics of theclassroom as a special socio-cultural r.vorld, together r,vith his emphasis on the analysis of thediscourses of teaching and learning, offer the teacher-researcher a means by which he or shecan stand outside the realitl', much like a cartographer, and chart more dispassionately thisnow newly-imagined and newlv-perspectivized setting.

Strategies and goals in the classroom context

As active participants in teaching and learnin$, teachers and learners do not simply

Possess and display inherent or sociallv acquired characteristics in some vacuum; like theinhabitants of Malinow'ki's coral garden (adopted and adapted bv Breen), they draw on themto Pursue their orn-n strategic goals.Thus, in order to advance the argument of this activeparticipation, all the papers in this second major section of the book target the realizationof t}ese strategic goals in classroom action, and the unique role played bv teachers in thefacilitation and structuring of that action. The way in rvhich teachers carry out this charac-teristic work has traditionalh' been captured bv the metaphors of method an'd methodology.Werefer to them as metaphors, in that thev stand for particular, ideologically invested systems ofbelief, about language, about learning, and about teaching. Like all metaphors they are to beapproached r,varily and treated rvith caution. Lakoff and Johnson's critical account of the'metaphors rve live by'gives a sense of their porverful inf'luence.We make no apology forbeing critical in this book of such language learning and language teaching metaphors. In ourexperience, and tlat of the authors of some of the papers in this section, methodoloqiesare frequentlv theorized rvithout a close grounding in teaching experience, and mau be

.,il1

ili1l

iltm

di'n,trnmrD

I N T R O D U C T I O N

.:rsensitive to particular local and cultural conditions. Methods, on the other hand, mav shift., ildlv from one theoretical position about language and learning to another. Whether they

.:e form-focused, function-focused, or learning-focused, methodologies and methods ofteni-rve to conceal the rich varietv of classroom language learning and teaching r'r.ork bv offering

.:n-rple labels for what are ahvavs complex and contingent Processes.It is important, therefore, to stand back and take a conceptual and historical perspective

:: n'e lvant to understand horv such methods and methodologies came to be popular and

.,,r u' idel)'adopted. Such a perspective is provided bv Paul Knight's paper, surveving

:cvelopments in ELT methodologv and il lustrating some of their characteristic features-

From this paper \rre come to see that despite their individualizing labels, manv methods and

nethodologies share features in common, that thev are rarelv except in some extreme cases

rursued in some'pure' form, and that, in the end, thev remain profoundlv unexplanatorv

,i some of the ket-factors affecting language learning, both cognitive and social, that we have

lentified earlier. It is from this starting point that Jack Richards' paper begins. Questioning:he dominance of methods and methodologies, Richards' perspective is that we should be

.rss concerned n-ith stipulating u-hat methods to follo*' and much more concerned with

,liscovering what effective teachers actuallv do. Resisting the deproJesstonalizlng effect of some

.lar.ish adherence to methods frees us and teachers more generallv to examine what the

cractices of reflective and effective language teaching might be.What these practices are is

a matter of teachers'strategic choices in relation to some particular content, and taken

together with teachers' beliefs and theories about teaching and learning, these constitute a

rationale for teaching.

The three papers that follow', bv Michael Long, David Nunan, andAnne Burns illustrate

rhese practices in different contexts and rvith different subject-matter, and involve distinctive

{enres and modes of communication. Implicit lr ' (or explicit lv in the case of Michael Long)

rhev all resist the concept of method, and focus instead on hor,v teachers' varied and

.:ontingent procedures are the means bv u.hich the processes and products of language learning

are made to interact. Long's paper has as its central tenet the important distinction to be

drawn betrveen a focus onJorm (i.e. the development of arvareness bv the learner of the

sr-stematic nature of language) and a focus onJorms (that is, the teaching of isolated and

unconnected sentence structures). What is important for the reader of Long's paper is his

reliance for his argument on experimentallv obtained evidence about learner behaviour. To

return, if onll' briefly, to our map-making metaphor, Long displavs the indispensable value

of grounding conclusions about the shape of the second language learning territory in

carefully observed and recorded data from learner performance.

The issue of form and forms naturallv evokes a central area of content in language

teaching and learning, the approach that teachers take to the teaching of grammar, itself the

topic of David Nunan's paper.With grammar as its focus, lvhat is notable in Nunan's argument

is how the lvav w-e define grammar is contingent on ho'iv lve go about teaching it to learners.

Many might not easilv associate the formal character of grammar u'ith an interactive and

participatory, task-based approach to pedagogv, so strong has been the focus in ELT on the

didactic instruction of grammatical forms.Yet this paper makes such a connection, and in so

doing redefines grammar less as some asocial and technicist form than as a functional resource

for making meaning, a means bv rvhich speakers and uriters can get things done. How writers

get things done is the topic of Anne Burns'paPel; focusing in particular, though, on how

teachers can assist learners to get things done in *'r it ing. Drawing on work in systemic

functional grammar and the concept of genre, she reports on a national project conducted

by the National Centre for English LanguageTeaching and Research (NCELfR) at Macquarie

University, Svdnev, involving teachers in studving hor,v a genre-based approach to w'riting

I N T R O D U C T I O N

could be used bv adult second language learners at the beginning stages oflearning a second

language. Of particular interest in the paper is her exposition of what she and her colleagues

refer to as the'teaching-learning cvcle'.

We have emphasized the importance to our understanding of second language learning

of exploring the socio-cultural contexts of learning inside and outside the ciassroom. This

has been and is a core theme of manv papers in this book. There has, however, been a tacit

assumption, though perhaps not so much in the paper bl Roberts earlier, that such contexts

called up differentiated, but essentiallt cooperatirz learners.That this mav not be so, and often

i.r not so, is the theme of the two final papers in this second section of the book, those by

Suresh Canagarajah and Keith Chick. Both papers focus on the degree to which external

socio-cultural factors, and learners' self-perceptions oftheir identit ies as learners ofEnglish,

affect what thev do in class, and rvhat they are prepared to do in class, and thus ultimately

impinge on their second ianguage learning performance. In particular, the papers identify'

processesof learners ' re is tance, inthecaseofCanagarajah,andinthecaseofChick, learners 'and teachers' collusionto frustrate the successful implementation of particular methodologies

considered as imported and as culturallv alien. Such issues have recently taken on consid-

erable importance in discussions of the cultural appropriateness of some English language

teaching. Both these papers have another significance, hor,vever, one r.r'hich relates to Ellis'

earlier accounts ofresearching ianguage learning.The papers are valuable not only for their

innovative re-examination of the goals and practices of language teaching, but also for their

clear and detailed accounting of a critical ethnographic research methodology intended to

be revelatorv not onlv of the goings-on of classrooms but more deeplv explanatory of the

wav in which t}e learning and teaching of English in particular is deeply embedded in the

poiiti.ul, social and educational fabric of post-colonial societies. Once again they reinforce

our vierv that the beliefs and ideologies of teachers about all aspects of their subject-matter

and their practice have a profound effect on the planning and the moment-by-moment

decisions thev take in class.To refer to these latter as intuitive, or personal, downplays both

their effect and our capacity to explore their underpinnings.That these are deepiy engendered

by the social contexualization of learning and teaching, and the educational, social and

polit ical contexts ofclassroom practice can, after reading these latter papers, hardly be in

doubt.

Analysing teaching and learning

The importance of the anallsis of the interactions among learners and betlveen learners

and teachers to an understanding of the processes of ianguage learning has been a central

part of the argument of this book. Exploring these relationships has been both the province

ofresearchers as w'ell as ofteachers, and several papers in this collection have argued for

a closer l ink between them, given the tendencv for both'cultures' to be separate. Part of

this distancing has been due to the dif{icultv of making the results of research necessarily and

directlv applicable to changes in classroom practice, or to the design and delivery of inno-

vative teaching and learning materials. Nonetheless, there are studies of classroom behaviour

w.hich can help teachers conceptualize those factors lvhich influence life in classrooms,

directed at exploring the dual nature ofclassroom lessons, as pedagogic and as social events.

The paper by Michael Breen, cited above, emphasizes this social and interactional nature of

lanquaqe Iearninq.D O O

Influential in this context is the u'ork of the Russian sociocultural psvchologist Lev

Vygotsk,v. Central toVvgotskv's theories about learning is the piace accorded to language as

I N T R O D U C T I O N

: onl\- a medium for exchanging and constructing information but also as a tool for' ..rking. Language is seen bvVvgotskv both as a cultural and a cognitive tool, heiping us to

:.:nize our thoughts but also used for reasoning, planning and revierving. Of greatest...: ihcance for the argument and the map of this book, then, isVygotskv's insistence that

,::ninq is interactive and social. Such a position resonates u.ell lr ' i th the earlier papers in-. .. eollection, notablv those br.r,an Lier and Breen, especiallv r'vith their highlighting of the

::.rortance of studving teacher and learner discourses. Neil Mercer's paper provides anr.rmple of an in-depth studv of these discourses of classroom life, as the data from u.dich

:'.::.rences mav be dralvn about the processes of language learning. Mercer's socio-cultural

.: nroach to the analvsis of classroom behaviour sits u'ell r'r-ith earlier papers in Part II of this

: ,,,k, and paves the u'av for a detailed discursive and linguistic analvsis of such classroom

:.:traction provided bv Pauline Gibbons' exhaustive example in her paper. She draws on

-:l l idavan systemic functional grammatical analvsis to provide her description, incidentally

, -:;qesting a link betr,veen the u'ork of Michael Hailidav and that of LevVygotskv, one which

...^t oth"". contemporarv researchers of classroom interaction have also mad". Gibbons'

- rper is also noter,vorthv for her careful anaivsis of the immediate contexts of that meaning

:.-.lotiation u'hich w-e have earlier identified as central to language learning.

It may be useful to recall here our comment at the outset of this Introduction that the

. rpers in this collection are all in different \\'avs intimateiv concerned w'ith the definition of

.::itext,in its various interpretations.The relationship between language and context is neither

rlrect nor unitarv. We can see in the papers bv Gibbons and Mercer two possible

.rterpretations of this relationship. On the one hand, context is a feature of texts, somethinq

.nduring that belongs to the text-as-entitv that l inguists seek to describe. In this sense,

:crhaps that found more in Pauline Gibbons' paper, context mav be the texts that learners

:incl teachers produce, or the ph-vsical settings rvithin r,vhich their texts are produced. On the

,,ther hand, perhaps more along the lines suggested bv Mercer, context is dvnamic, a product,f people's thinking, more the configuration of information that people use for making sense

,ilanguage in particular situations. In this sense, conrext is more of a mental rather than a

ohvsicai phenomenon, something dvnamic and momentarv, but dependent for its creationjn the classroom on the careful constructing bv the teacher of a continuity and a community

, l shared understanding u i th learners.

Such aVvgotskian vierv of context places a premium on the exploration of the emotional

and affective engagement of learners in the acts and processes of learning. Such an

engagement is not explicable, hor,vever, onlv from an analvsis in terms of the activities of the

classroom. As in earlier papers in this collection, rvider social factors play a role. In her paper,

.\ngel Lin's experience as a teacher-researcher into second language learning in Hong Kong

is linked to the work of the French sociologist Bourdieu in an attempt to explain the nature

of these factors. Are classrooms replicative of learners' social worlds or do thev have the

power to challenge and transform them? In reading horv Lin addresses this question there is

a clear resonance rvith the papers bv Canagarajah and Chick in the second part ofthis book.

One kev exampie of a site for such a transformation is that of the cultural perspectives and

ideologies present in tvpical textbooks and the degree to rvhich classroom practices maintain

a conformist, or can exercise a challenging stance in relation to them.

The papers bv Mercer, Gibbons and Lin all present analvses of the interactive processes

ofteaching and learning. Although rather different, the research described in each ofthem

encourages the vieu' that the qualitv of the interaction betlveen teachers and learners in

the language classroom, and betlveen learners if thev rvork together, is a strong determining

factor on rn'hat, and horv much, is learned and understood bv learners.The issue of hou'

classroom interaction can be related to assessment of the outcomes of student learning is the

B I N T R O D U C T I O N

key theme in the paper bv Assia Slimani r,r.hich follorvs. From a teacher-researcherperspective, w'hat is significant about her paper is the rvav in tvhich she matches learners'olvn statements about rvhat they believed thev had learned, rvith the evidence offered byanalyses of the recorded talk of the ]essons concerned. This provided Slimani rvith a meansof evaluating what themes, topics and learning items suggested b-v learners had actuallyfigured in their classroom interactions. Closelv connected rvith this comparative mode ofaialysis is Michael Breen's second paper in this ;ollection rr-here h. .o.r.".rtrutes on w-hat herefers to as the different discourses ofthe classroom that learners need to'navigate'. Again,our cartographic metaphor offers perhaps some explanatorr value. For Breen, the classroomis full of distinctive discourses, in part pedagogicallv oriented, in part socialiy, in partindividually.These discourses invoke a range of different meanings and contexts. Learnersare faced with the considerable challenge of finding their rvays through this obscured terrain,drawing on their natural language instincts and analytical capacit-v to make sense of asemantically and pragmaticallv complex environment.

Mapping the territory of second language learning and teaching has been the guidingmetaphor for this collection of papers. The cartographv of this territorv may be left as theprovince ofresearchers, or it mav be also colonized bv reflective teachers eager to exploreand understand more of second language learning in action in their o*.i clu.rroo.nr.Indispensable to such a project, horvever, is the capacitv to describe classroom interaction.This is the theme of the final paper in the collection, by Joan Swann, in which she setsout some procedures that English language teachers can usefullv follow if they wish todescribe, interpret and explain the interactive processes of their own classrooms or those ofcolleagues.We think that Swann's paper is an admirable wav of closing a theoretical and apractical collection of papers.

What are the general principles that n'e mav derive at the end of this particular journey? Fromthe arguments in the papers here, rve u'ould like to identifv the follon'ing:

o ,\ need to focus on the distinct roles, activit ies and purposes for teachers and learnersthat are constructed through classroom practice;

o ,\ need to recognize language learners as individuals, working together in theclassroom, but lvhose learning is shaped bv the context of their wider experience ofl iving and learning outside the classroom;

' The requirement on teachers to take an active, guiding role in'scaffolding' the learningof their students, remembering that this is not to dor,vngrade in any lvav the need forlearners to become actively and increasingiv engaged in the processes of classroomlanguage learning and their direction;

' An appreciation that the patterns ofinteraction between learners and teachers, and theuse ofcertain procedures bv teachers, can have both positive and negative effects onIanguage learners.

rART ONE

H ow is language learninge xp lained?

i c t e r 1

Rosamond Mitchell and Florence Myles

SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING:

I<EY CONCEPTS AND ISSUES

lntroduct ion

H I S C H A P T E R P R O V I D E S A N O V E R V I E W o f k e v c o n c e o t s a n d i s s u e sin our d iscussions of ind i r idual perspect i res on second lungrug. learn ing. We ol fer

:-.:roductorv definit ions of a range of kev terms, and trv to equip the reader u'ith the:r'--ans to compare the goals and claims of particular theories '"vith one another. \\re also-.mmarize key issues, and indicate w'here thev rvil l be explored in more detail later.

The main themes to be dealt lvith in follouing sections are:

1 What makes for a'good' explanation or theorv2 Views on the nature of language

3 Views of the language learning process,f Views of the ianguage learner

5 Links betrveen language learning theorv and social practice.

First, however, \\.'e must offer a preliminarv definition of our most basic concept, 'second

language learning'. We de6ne this broadlv to include the learning of any language to any1evel, provided onlv that the learning of the'second' language takes place sometime later thanthe acquisition of the first language. (Simultaneous infant bilingualism is a specialist topic,u'ith its ow-n l iterature. See for example relevant sections in Hamers and Blanc 1989;Romaine 1995.)

For us, therefore, 'second ianguages' are anv languages other than the learner's'native

language' or 'mother tongue'. Thev encompass both languages of r,vider communicationencountered within the local region or communit)' (..g. at the u.orkplace, or in the media),and truly foreign languages, rvhichhave no immediatelv local uses or speakers.Thev mayindeed be the second language the learner is rvorking rvith, in a literal sense, or they may betheir third, fourth, fifth language . . . We believe it is sensible to include'foreign' languagesunder our more general term of 'second' languages, because lve believe that the underlvinglearning processes are essentiallv the same for more local and for more remote targetlanguages, despite differing learning purposes and circumstances.

We are also interested in all kinds of learning, rvhether formal, planned and systematic(as in classroom-based learning), or informal and unstructured (as r'vhen a nelv language

1 2 R O S A M O N D M I T C H E L L A N D F L O R E N C E N I Y L E S

i s 'p icked up ' the communitv). Some second ianguage researchers have proposed a

brmal, conscious learning and informal, unconscio-us

broad .,r '-av proposed here, and unless speciallv indicated rve rvil l be using both terms

interchangeablv.

What makes for a good theory?

Second language learning is an immenselv complex phenomenon. Millions of human beings

have experience of second language learning, and mav have a good practical understanding

of the activities w-hich helped them to iearn (or perhaps blocked them from learning). But

tiis practical experience, and the common-sense knou-ledge r'r'hich it leads to, are clearlv not

enough to help us understand fullv hor,v the process happens.We know-, for a start, that people

cannot reliablv describe the language rules u-hich thev ha'l'e somehorv internalized, nor the

inner mechanisms lvhich process, store and retrieve many aspects of that new language.

We need to understand second lanquage learning better than we do, for two basic

reasons.

1 Improved knorvledge in this particular domain is interesting in itself, and can also

contribute to more general understanding about the nature of language, of human learning,

and of intercultural communication, and thus about the human mind itself, as well as how

all these are interrelated and affect each other.

2 The know.ledge will be useful. If w-e become better at explaining the learning process,

and are better able to account for both success and failure in L2 learning, there will be a pay-

off for millions of teachers, and tens of millions of students and other learners, r,vho are

struggling r,vith the task.

We can onlv pursue a better understanding of L2 learning in an organized and productive

wav if our efforts are guided bv some form of theorv. For our purpose s, a theory is a more or

less abstract set of claims about the units that are significant within the phenomenon under

stud1., the relationships that exist betr.veen them, and the processes that bring about change.

Thus a theorv aims not just at description, but at explanation. Jheories may be embryonic

and iestricted in scope,b?rnore elaborate, explicit and comprehensive. (A theory of L2

learning mav deal onlv r,vith a particular stage or phase o[ learning, or with the learning of

some particular sub-aspect of language; or it mav propose learning mechanisms u'hich are

much more general in scope.)Worthrvhile theories are collaborative affairs, which evolve

through a process of systematic enquiry, in lvhich the ciaims of the theorv are assessed against

some kind of evidence or data. This mav take place through a process of hypothesis testing

through formal experiment, or through more ecological procedures, r,vhere naturally

occurring data is analysed and interpreted. (See Brumfit and Mitchell 1990 for fuller

discussion and exemplif ication of methods.) Finallv, the process of theory building is a

reflexive one; nelv deveiopments in t}re theorv lead to the need to collect nerv information

and explore different phenomena and different patterns in tIe potentiallv infinite w'orld of'facts' and data. Puzzling'facts', and patterns rvhich fail to fit in, lead to new theoretical

insights.

S E C O N D L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G : C O N C E P T S A N D I S S U E S 1 3

To make these ideas more concrete, an example of a particuiar theorl ' or 'model

o f second language1ea rn ing i ssho rvn inF igu re t . 1 , t aken r . . sp@

represents a 'general model of second language learning', as the propose-Tffif iE3

it (Spolskv 1989, p. 14).The model encapsulates this researcher's theoretical views on the

overall relationship betr,veen contextual factors, individual learner differences, learning

opportunities, and learning outcomes. It is thus an ambitious model, in the breadth of

phenomena it is trving to explain. The rectangular boxes shou' the factors (or variables)

lvhich the researcher believes are most significant for learning, i . e. r""-here variation can lead

to differences in success or failure.The arrolvs connecting the various boxes shor,l'directions

ofinfluence.The contents ofthe r.arious boxes are defined at great length, as consisting of

c lusters of in teract ing 'Condi t ions ' (74 in a l l : 1989, pp. 16-25) , Ivh ich make language

Figure 1.1 Spolsky's general model of second language iearning

Source: Spolskv 1989: 28

which appear in thelearner as

which joins with other personalcharacteristics such as

all of which explain the use thelearner makes of the available

Attitudes(of various kinds)

Learning opportunities (formal or informal)

Linguistic and non-linguisticoutcomes for the learner

the interplay between learnerand situation determining

1 4 R O S A M O N D M I T C H E L L A N D F L O R E N C E M Y L E S

learning success more or less likelv.These summarize the results of a great varietv of empirical

language learning research, as Spolskv interprets them.

How would we begin to'evaluate'this or anv other model, or even more modestly, to

decide that this rvas a vier,v of the language learning process rvith which rve felt comfortable

and within which w'e wanted to r'r''ork? This u-ould depend partlv on broader philosophical

positions: e.g. are we satisfied rvith an account of human learning which sees individual

differences as both relativelv fixed, and also highlv influential for learning? It would also

depend on the particular focus of our o\r-n interests, w'ithin second language learning; this

particular model seems well adapted for the studv of the individual learner, but has relatively

little to sa1' about the social relationships in rvhich thel'engage, for example.

But whatever the particular focus of a given theory, w'e would expect to find the

follou'ing:

I clear and explicit statements of the ground the theorv is supposed to cover, and the

claims which it is making;

2 systematic procedures for confirming/disconfirming the theorl ', through data

gathering and interpretation I3 not onlv descriptions of L2 phenomena, but attempts to explain whv thev are so, and

to propose mechanisms for change;

+ last but not least, engagement rvith other theories in the field, and serious attempts to

account for at least some of the phenomena rvhich are 'common ground' in ongoing

public discussion (Long 1990a). The remaining sections of this chapter offer a

preliminarv overvierv of numbers of these.

Views on the nature of language

Levels of language

Linguists have traditionally vielved language as a complex communication svstem, which

must be analysed on a number of levels: phonology, ,/ntax, morphology, semantics and 1exis,

pragmatics, discourse.The,v have differed about the degree of separateness/integration of these

levels; e.g. while Chomskv argued at one time that'grammar is autonomous and independent

of meaning' (1951 ,p.17),another tradition init iated by the Brit ish l inguist Firth claims that'there is no boundary between lexis and grammar: lexis and grammar are interdependent'

(Stubbs 1996, p. 36). In examining different perspectives on second language learning, we

will first of all be looking at the levels of language u.hich thev attempt to take into account,

and the relative degree of prioritv they attribute to the different levels. (Does language

Iearning start n ith words, or w-ith discourse?)We will also examine the degree of integration/

separation that the-v assume, across the various levels.We will {ind that the control of syntax

is commonly seen as somehow'central ' to language learning, and that most general SLL

theories try to account for development in this area. Other levels of language receive much

more variable attention, and some areas are commonly treated in a semi-autonomous way,

as specialist fields; this is often true for Sll-oriented studies of pragmatics and of lexical

development (see e.g. Kasper 1995 on pragmatics;Meara 1996a, 1995b on vocabulary).

Competence and perJormance

Throughout the trventieth century, linguists have also disagreed in other lvays over their

main focus of interest and of studr'. Should this be the collection and anah'sis of actual attested

samples of language in use, for example bv recording and analvsing people's speech? Or

S E C O N D L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G : C O N C E P T S A N D I S S U E S 1 5

ild it be to theorize underlving principles and rules which govern language behaviour,

.:. potentiallv infinite varietv?The linguist Noam Chomskv has famouslv argued that it is

r lLrsiness of theoretical linguistics to studv and model underlving language competence,',:rer than the perJormance data of actual utterances rvhich people have produced (Chomskv

--o j i . By competence, Chomsky is referring to the abstract and hidden representation of

.:. juage rnorvieoge hero r6!rce ouinexis. y--th isv ie* 'hasbeenf f i

-- : . ruaqe learn lnq researcn.- HJru.u.., foilinguists committed to this dualist position, there are difficulties in studying

npetence. Language performance data are believed to be an imperfect reflection of

rnpetence, partly'because of the processing complications rvhich are involved in speaking

: 'rther forms of language production, and rvhich lead to errors and slips. More importanth',' , believed that, in principle, the infrnite creativitv of the underlying svstem can never

, , :quate lv be ref lected in a f in i te data sample (see e.g. Chomsky 1965, p. 18) . Str ic t lv. - =aking, many students of language competence believe it can be accessed only indirectlv,

,. i under controlled conditions, e.g. through Brammaticahty ludgement tests (roughly, when

:,rple are offered sample sentences, rvhich are in (dis)agreement with the rules proposed

: the underlving competence, and invited to sav rvhether thev think they are grammatical

. r.rot: Sorace 1996).

This split betr€en competence and performance has never been accepted by all linguists,'. \\.ever, with linguists in the British t of Flrth and Halliday arguing for radically

istincticin betn nce cloes not

.:,pear. In a recent review ofthis tradition, Stubbs quotes Firth as describing suc_ l : +

a quiTe unnecessari-nuisance'(Firth 1957, p. 2n, quoted in Stubbs 1996,p.44). In the

r-thian view the on ists is to studv e in use, and there is no oppo-

as svstem, and obserr-ed instances of lanluage our; the onli

iterence is one ol perspective.l r

Of course, the abstract language svstem cannot be 'read' directly off smail samples

: actual text, anY more than the underlving climate of some geographical region of the'. orld can be modelled from todav's r"''eather (a metaphor of Halliday's: Stubbs 1996, pp.

-:--5).The arrival of corpus hnguisrics, in u'hich verv large corpora comprising mill ions

i rvords of running text can be stored electronicalh' and analvsed r,vith a growing range of

,,rt irvare tools, has revitalized the u.rit ing of 'observation-based grammars' (Aarts 1991,'), ol

:he integrated kind favoured bv Firthian linguistics.'Work u'ith corpora provides new'wavs

,i considering the relation betlveen data and theorrv, bv show'ing hou' theorv can be grounded

.n publicly accessible corpus data' (Stubb s 1996, p +6) For example, the English corpus-

rased work of the COBUILD team directed bv John Sinclair has claimed to reveal 'quite

unsuspected patterns of language' (Sinclair 1991, p. xvii), offering new insights into the

:nterconnectedness of lexis and grammar.In making sense of contemporarv perspectives on SLL, then, we will also need to take

account of the extent to u'hich a competence/performance distinction is assumed.This wili

have significant consequences for the research methodologies associated with various

positions, e.g. the extent to u'hich these pav attention to naturalistic corpora of learner

language samples, or rely on more controlled and focused - but more indirect - testing of

learners'underlying knorvledge. For obvious reasons, theorists' view-s on the relationship

between competence and performance are also closeiv linked to their vierv of the language

1 e a r n i n g P r o c e s s i t s e I f , a n d i n p a r t i c u i a r , t o t e

ti.e. speaking of rv.rit jng a language) cancontribute to languare learnint (i.e. developing

qrammat ica l or lex ica l competence in the language)."

1 6 R O S A M O N D M I T C H E L L A N D F L O R E N C E M Y L E S

The language learning process

l{ature and nurture

Discussions about processes of second language learning have ah,vavs been coloured

by debates on fundamental issues in human learning more generallrr. One of these is th.

nature-nurture debate. Hor,r' much of human learning derives from innate predispositions.

i.e. some form of genetic pre-programming, and how' much of it derives from social and

cultural experiences rvhich influence us as we grorv up? In the tlventieth centurv. the best-

knolvn controversv on this issue as lar as first language learning \\'as concerned involved

the behaviourist psvchologist B. F. Skinner and the l inguist Noam Chomsky. Skinner

attempted to argue that language in all its essentials couid be and r,r'as taught to the young

chiid b_v the same mechanisms rvhich he believed accounted for other types of learning.

(ln Skinner's case, the mechanisms rvere those envisaged bv general behaviourist learning

theorv - essentially, copying and memorizing behaviours encountered in the surrounding

environment. From this point of vien', language could be learned primarily by imitating

caretakers 'speech.)

Chomsk-y, on the other hand, has argued consistentlv for the viern'that human language

is too complex to be learned, in its entiretl', from the performance data actually available to

the child; \ ,e must therefore have some innate predisposition to expect natural languages to

be organized in particular rvavs and not others. For example, all natural languages have word

classes such as Noun andVerb, and grammar rules w.hich applv to these word classes. It is

this type of information r,vhich Chomskv doubts children could discover from scratch, in the

speech they hear around them. Instead, he argues that there must be some innate core of

abstract knon'ledge about language form, rvhich pre-specifies a framework for all natural

human languages.This core of know'ledge is currentlv knor,vn as Universal Grammar.

For our purposes, it is enough to note that child language specialists now generally

accept the basic notion ofan innate predisposition to language, though this cannot account

for all aspects of language development, rvhich results from an interaction between innate

and environmental factors. That is, complementarv mechanisms, including active

involvement in language use, are equallv essential for the development of communicative

competence (see e.g. Foster 1990).

How. does the nature-nurture debate impact on theories of second language learning?

If humans are endorved w-ith an innate predisposition for language, then perhaps they

should be able to learn as manv languages as thev need or want to, provided (important

provisos!) that the time, circumstances, and motivation are available. On the other hand,

the environmental circumst'Eiceot

u'here infants are reared in multili I surroundingq. Should rve be aiming to

earnins as far as possffistances

r n t , but one which dow'nplayed some very real socia

and psychological obstacles. In the last trt'ent-v vears there has been a closer and more critical

examination of environmental factors rvhich seem to influence L2 learning; some of these

are detailed brieflv under'The relationship betlveen second language use and second language

learning', on page 2 1 .

Modularity

A further issue of controversy for students of the human brain has been the extent to which

the brain should be view'ed as modular or unitary.That is, should \\'e see the brain as a single,

flexible organism, lr'ith one general set of procedures for learning and storing different kinds

S E C O N D L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G : C O N C E P T S A N D I S S U E S } 7

of knowledge and skills? Or, is it more helpfuilv understood as a bundle of modules, w-ithdistinctive mechanisms relevant to different tvpes of knorvledge (e.g. Fodor 1983)?

The modular vierv has consistentlv found support from rvithin linguistics, most famouslyin the further debate betu'een Chomskv and the chlld deo-elopment psi.chologist, Jean Piagei.

This debate is reported in Piatell i-Palmarini ( 1980), and has been re-examined many times;a helpful recent summary is offered bv Johnson (1996, pp. 5-30). Briefl1., Piaget argued that

language was simpll'one manifestation of the more general skill of svmbolic representation,

acquired as a stage in general cognitive development; no speciai mechanism was therefore

required to account for hrst language acquisition. Chomskl"s general vierv is that not onh'

rs language too complex to be iearned from environmentai exposure (his crit icism of

Skinner) , it is also too distinctive in its structure to be learnable bv general cognitive means.

Universal Grammar is thus endorved rvith its olvn distinctive mechanisms for learning.

There are manv linguists today u-ho support the concept of a distinctive language module

in the mind.There are also those n-ho argue that language competence itself is modular, with

different aspects of language know'ledge being stored and accessed in distinctive wavs.

However, there is no general agreement on the number and nature of such modules, nor on

how thel'relate to other aspects of cognition.

.Vodularity and second language learning

The possible role of an innate, specialist language module in second Ianguage learning has

been much discussed in recent years. If such innate mechanisms indeed exist, there are four

logical possibilities :

1 that the-v continue to operate during second language learning, and make kev aspects

of second language learning possible, in the same rvav that thev make {irst language

learning possib le;2 that after the acquisition of the first language in earlv childhood, these mechanisms

cease to be operable, and second languages must be learned bv other means;

3 that the mechanisms themselves are no longer operable, but that the first language

provides a model of a natural language and how' it rvorks, rvhich can be 'copied' in

some way when learning a second ianguage;

4 that distinctive learning mechanisms for language remain available, but onlv in part,and must be supplemented bv other means.

The first position rvas popularized in the second language learning Iield bv Stephen Krashen

in the 1970s, in a basic form.While Krashen's theoretical viervs have been crit icized, this has

by no means led to the disappearance of modular proposals to account for SLL. Instead, this

particular perspective has been rer-italized bv the continuing development of Chomsky's

Universal Grammar proposals (Cook and Neu.son 1996).

On the other hand, thinking about those general learning mechanisms which may

be operating at least for adult learners ofsecond languages has also developed further, since

e.g. the original proposals of Mclaughlin (1987, pp. 133-53). Most obviously, the work of

the cognitive psychologist J. R. Anderson on human learning, from an information processing

perspective, has been applied to various aspects of second language learning b,v different

researchers (Johnson 1995; O'Mallev and Chamot 1990;Toweli and Hawkins 19945.

11*if.

1 B R O S A I V I O N D I V I I T C H E L L A N D F L O R E N C E M Y L E S

Systematicity and variability in L2 learning

When the utterances produced bv L2 learners are examined and compared with targetlanguage norms, thev are often condemned as full of errors or mistakes. Traditionally,language teachers have often vier,ved these errors as the result of carelessness or lack ofconcentration on the part of learners. If onlv learners w.ould trv harder, surelv their

productions could accuratelv reflect theTL rules u'hich thel-had been taught! In tlre mid-twentieth centur\, under the influence of behaviourist learning theorl',

".io., were often

vierved as the result of 'bad habits', rvhich could be eradicated if onl-v learners did enough

rote learning and pattern drilling using target language models.One of the big lessons u.hich has been learned from the research of recent decades is

that though learners' L2 utterances mav be deviant bv comparison w.ith target languagenorms , they are bv no means lacking in svstem . Errors and mis akes are patterned, and though

e. this is bv no means true ofsome

all of the l- of them. Instead, there is a good deaTiT-ev-idence thatlefrners r'vork their r'vav through a number of developmental stages, from very primitive anddeviant versions of the L2, to progressivelv more elaborate and target-l ike versions. Just l ikefullv prolicient users of a language, their ianguage productions can be described by a set ofunderlving rules; these interim rules have their orvn integrity and are notjust inadequatelvapplied versions of theTL rules.

A clear example, rvhich has been studied for a range of target languages, has to do withthe formation of negative sentences. It has commonit been found that learners start off brtacking a negative particle of some kind on to the end of an utterance (no you are playinghere); next, thev learn to insert a basic negative particle into the verb phrase (Mariananot coming today); and finalir ' , thet' learn to manipulate modifications to auxil iaries andother details of negation morphologr., in line with the full TL rules for negation (l can't plarthat one) (examples from Ellis 1994 , p. 1 00) . This kind of data has commonly been interpretedto show'that, at least as far as kev parts of the L2 grammar are concerned, learners'devel-opment follorvs a common route, even if the rate at which learners actually travel along thiscommon route mav be verv different.

TLis systematicitv in the ianguage produced bv L2 learners is of course paralleled in theearly stages through which first language iearners also pass in a highlv regular manner.Towelland Hawkins identifv it as one of the key features rvhich L2 learning theories are requiredto expla in (1994, p. 5) .

Hort 'ever , learner language (or in ter language, as i t is commonlv cal ledl is not onl r 'IchafEacterized bv sr stematicit\'. Learner Ianguage systems are presumabll'- indeed, hopefullr'

- un-Sfa5le and rn course-dfdrangd; certainl-v, thev are characterized also by'high degrees ofvariability (Torvell and Hau-kins 1994,p.5). Most obviousll', Iearners'utterances seem to var\from moment to moment, in the types of 'errors' rvhich are made, and learners ,."* l i"bl.to su,'itch betu'een a range of correct and incorrect forms over lengthy periods of time. .\well-knon'n example offered bv Ell is invoives a child learner of English as L2 who seemedto produce the utteranc es no look mv' card , don't look my card interchangeablv over an extendedperiod (1985). M-vles et al. (.1998) have produced similar data from a classroom learner'sFrench as L2 , who l-ariablv produced forms such as non animal, je n'ai pas de animal rvithinthe same 20 minutes or so (to sav that he did not have a pet; the correctTL form should be

1e n'ai pas d' animal) . Here, in contrast to the underlving svstematicity earlier claimed for thedevelopment of rules of negation, we see performance varying quite substantiall l frommoment to moment.

Like svste-miIii-it1', r,ariabilitv is also found in child language development. However, thevariabil ity found among L2 learners is undoubtedh' more 'extreme'

than that found lbr

S E C O N D L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G : c O N C E P T S A N D I S S U E s 1 9

children; again, variabil itv is described bvTolvell et al. (19961as a central feature of learnerinterlanguage r,vhich L2 theories u-ill har-e to explain.

Creativity and routines in L2 learning

In the last section, we referred to evidence r,vhich shor,vs that learners'interlanguageproductions can be described as svstematic, at least in part. This svstematicitv ls l inkedtoano the rkevconcep t ' t ha to fC f -eo t1 | ' 1 t ' | . . Lea rne rS , , , , *u . " f f i d to

I r'_--- 11-:underl1 ' ingrulesl 'ste@imit iveanddeviantcomparedlr . i ththetargetl a n g u a g e s y S t e m ' I t l o g i c a l l v f o l l o l r - s t h u t 1 n c e s , i . e . t t a ttheir rule slstem can generate u u giue.r context, *.hiE-tlElEl?ier: , :nas never nearo Delore.

@len tvo fCommon_sensee r - i dence tha t l ea rne rsCanPu t the i rL2klowledge to creative use, even at the verl' earliest stages of L2 learning. It becomes mostobvious that this is happening, r'r'hen learners produce utterances like the highly deviant nonanimal (no animal = 'l haven't got anv pet'), w.hich r've cited before. This is not an utterancen'hich anv native speaker of French rvould produce (other than, perhaps, a very young child) ;rr-r,rch the most likelv rvav that the learner has produced it i, rhio"gh:;ottt"*;;

";?;i,primitive interlanguage rule for negation, in combination r,r,ith ,"-? u.'ri. ,..i"u"r".,But how did this same learner manage to produce the near-tar get 1e n'ai pas de animai,

s ith its negative particles correctlv inserted w'ithin the verb phrase, and correspondingalmost-periect modification to tle morphologv of the .ro.r.r phrur", rvithin a fer,, minutes oithe other form? For us, the most likelv expianation is that at this point he w-as reproduciProouclngan utterance u,hich he has indeed heard before (and blv rehearsedl . uhich has been t l

#tFril.--\ D 4T-l<-,r n-s-+eee#ntat formulas an cl /

memorized as an unanalysed r,vhole. a formulaWork in corpus hnguistics has led us to theh

routlnes U!Sb'native speakers; when we talk,our everydav L1 utterances are a complex mix of ..""tiiiliild-frE6b.iiation lSinclair1991). In L1 acquisiti childrenhas been commonlv obserr.ed. For L1 learners, the contribution of chunk, ,..-rl i- it"d buprocessing constraints; for older L2 learners, however, memorization of lengthl', unanalysedlanguage routines is much more possible. (Think of those opera singers who successiullymemorize and deliver entire parts, in languages thev do not otheru.ise controll)

Analvsis of L2 data produced bv classroom learners in particuiar, seems to shou,extensive and svstematic use of chunks to fulfil communicative needs in the early staqes

r , ltMl' les et al. 19981. Studies of informal learners also provide some evidence of chunk uie.This phenomenon has attracted relativeh- little attention in recent times, compared withthat given to learner creativitr- and svstematicitv (\ ,/einert 1995). How.ever, rve believe it iscommon enough in L2 spontaneous production (and not onh'in the opera house), to needsome more susta ined at tent ion f rom L2 learn ing theorr . .

In comp lete success an d Jo s sili z ati on

Young children learning their first language embark on the enterprise in rvidelv varvingsituations around the lvorld, sometimes in conditions of extreme poverty and deprivation,n'hether physical or social.Yet vrith remarkable uniformit.,', at the end of fir,e v.ur. or ro,thev have achieved a very substantial measure of success. Teachers and students know totheir cost that this is bv no means the case lvith second languages, embarked on after thesecritical earlv vears. Feir'; if anr', aclult learners ever come toll".ra indistinguishably with the

2 0 R O S A M O N D M I T C H E L L A N D F L O R E N C E [ / I Y L E S

community of target language'native speakers';most remain noticeably deviant in therr

pronunciation, and manv continue to make grammar mistakes and to search for lvords, even

r.vhen rvell motivated to learn, after r.ears of studr', residence and,/or w'ork in contact r'vith

the target ianguage.

Second language learning, then, is tvpified bv tncomplete success; the claimed svstematic

evolution of our underlVing interlanguage rules tor,vards the target language system seems

doomed, most often, never to integrate completelv lvith its goal. Indeed, w-hile some learners

go on learning, others seem to cease to make anv visible progress, no matter how mant.

iu.rg.rug" .l"rrl thev attend, or how activelv thev continu. io ,ri" their second language for

communicative purposes.The termylossi]izationis commonlv used to describe this phenom-

enon, lvhen a learner's L2 s-vstem seems to 'freeze', or become stuck, at some more or less

deviant stage.

These phenomena of incomplete success and fossilization are also significant'facts' about

the process of L2 learning, r,r'hich an\. serious theorv must eventuall,v explain. As we will

see, explanations of two basic tvpes have in fact been offered.The 6rst group of explanations

are psycholtnguistic: the language-specific learning mechanisms available to the young child

simpl,v cease to rvork for older learners, at least partll', and no amount of study and effort

can recreate them.The second group of explanations are sociolinguisrr'c: older L2 learners do

not have the social opportunities, or the motivation, to identifv completely rvith the native

speaker communitv, but mav instead value their distinctive identity as learners or as

foreigners.

Cross-linguistic infuences in L2 learning

Evervdav observation tells us that learners' performance in a second language is influenced

by the Ianguage, or languages, that thev alreadv knou,.This is routinelv obvious from learners''foreign accent', i .e. pronunciation u'hich bears traces ofthe phonology oftheir f irst

Ianguage. It is also obr.ious u.hen learners make certain characteristic mistakes, e.g. when a

native speaker of Engiish savs something in French like 7e su;s douze, an utterance parallel tc

the English'l am trvelve'. (The correct French expression rvould ofcourse be j 'ai douze an'- I have trvelve vears.)

This kind of phenomenon in learner productions is often called b1' the term lanBuage

re*LButhorv important is the phenomenon, and what exacth'is be-inflr1n-rffil7Siond

language researchers have been through several 'srvings of the pendulum' on this question.

as Gass+ulsj t (.1996) . Behaviourist theorists vierved language transfer as an important source

of error and interference in L2 learning, because L1 'habits'were so tenacious and deeplr

Lt i., Ll-Gemln-g",aowever, because of their preoccupation rvith identifving creative processes at r.l'ork

in L2 development; thev pointed out that manv L2 errors could not be traced to L-linflucnle,

and *'ere primarilv .o

this creative front.

Theorists todar, as rve shall see, lvould generallv accept once more that cross-linguistic

influences play an important role in L2 learning. Horver.er, rve u'ill still find rvidely differing

views on the extent and nature of these influences. Some researchers have in fact claimed

that learners r,r.ith different L1s progress at somervhat different rates, and even follou'

different acquisitional routes, at least in some areas of the target grammar (e.g. Keller-Cohen

1979,Zobl 1 982, quoted in Gass 1996, pp. 322-3).s!''

I

I

I

I

S E C O N D L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G : C O N c E P T S A N D I S S U E S 2 I

The relationship between second language use and second language learning

In an earlier section rve considered the distinction betn-een language competence andperJormance, which manv linguists have found useful. Here, lve look more closely at theconcePt of performance, and in particular, look at the possible relationship betr,veen using{i.e. performing in) an L2, and learning (i.e. developing one's competence in) that samelanguage.

We should note first of all, of course, that 'performing' in a language not onlv involves

speaking it. Making sense of the language data that lve hear around us is an equallv essentialaspect of performance. Indeed, it is basic common ground among all theorists of languagelearning, of lvhater.er description, that it is necessar,\ ' to interpret and to process incomingianguage data in some form, for normal language der,elopment to take place. There is thus.i consensus that language inpur of some kind is essential for normal language learning. In fact,during the late 1970s and earlr' 1980s, the vier,r' r,vas argued bv Stephen Krashen and othersrhat input (at the right level of difficultr'; rvas all that u.as necessary for L2 acquisition to takeplace (Krashen 1982, 19S5).This posi t ion has been r - ieu 'ed br l -or" recent theor is ts asrnadequate, but a modified and refined version has been der.eloped.

Krashen u'as unusual in not seeing any central role for language production in his theorvi second language acquisit ion. Most other theoretical vieu'points support in some form, r )ELUrru rdrr tudtc dLqursrLrut t . lv lusL uuler Lr lcorcLlcal \ te\ \ 'Polnts support ln some lo lm

:he common-sense r-ierv that speaking a language is helpful for iearning it, though they offer, u-ide varietv of explanations as to x'hv this should be the case. For example, behaviouristrarning theorv sarv lar (oral) practice as helpful in forming correct language 'habits'.

ls vlew nas ar ln recen

ifl-bEhavi ouri s t thinki n r'.owever, various contemporarv theorists still lav stress on the 'practice'

function ofrnguage production, especiallv in building up fluencv and control of an emergent L2 system.lor example, information processing theorists commonlv argue that language competence'.,nsists of both a knowledge component ('knou'ing that') and a sfri11 component ('knowing

.. 'rr\ ' ').While they mav accept a r.arietv of possibie sources for the first component,:.-searchers in this perspective agree in seeing a vital role forL2 use/L2 performance in:, 'veloping the second skil l component.

An even more stronglv contrasting vieu'to Krashen's is the so-calle d comprehensible output.i pothesis, argued for bv Merri l l Srvain and colleagues (e.g. Su'ain 1985; Srvain and Lapkinc95). Sw-ain points out that much incoming L2 input is comprehensible, w.ithout anv need,r a full grammatical analvsis. If u'e don't need to pav attention to the grammar, in order to

.:rderstand the message, w'hv should u'e be compelled to learn it? On the other hand, r,vhen'. e try to sav something in our chosen second language, \\-e are forced to make grammatical:roices and hvpotheses, in order to put our utterances together. The act of speaking forces.) to try our ideas about horv the target grammar actuallv ."r.orks, and of course gives us therance of getting some feedback from interlocutors lr-ho mar-fail to understand our efforts.

So fai in this section, n-e have seen that theorists .u.r hold different vieu.s on the.'ntribution both of language input and language output to language learning. However,

.nother w'av of distinguishing among current theories of L2 learning from a'performance'!.rsPective has to do u'ith their view'of L2 tnteraction - u'hen the speaking and listeningi n'hich the learner is engaged are vieu'ed as an integral and mutuallv influential r.vhole, e.g.' everyday conversation. T*-o major perspectives on interaction are apparent, one. r'cholinguistig, jngjgcrolinguistic.

Fro oint of vieu.', L2 interaction is mainlv interesting because of_-+--=4t r. I

, - opporruni t ies i t o ITFFSTSindi r idual L2 learners to f ine- tune rhe Ianguage input ther are

2 2 R O S A M O N D M I T C H E L L A N D F L O R E N C E I V l Y L E S

receiving. This ensures that the input is rvell adapted to their orvn internal needs (i . e. to the

present state of development of their L2 knorvledge).What this means is that learners

need the chance to talk rvith native speakers in a fairlv open-ended way, to ask questions, and

to clarifv meanings rvhen thev do not immediatelv understand. Under these conditions, it

is believed that the utterances that result rvill be at the right level of difficult-v to promote

learning; in Krashen's terms, thev r'r ' i l l provide true'comprehensible input'. Conversational

"pi,od"-sfi '-ol@6,n,go,,o,ionoJmeaninghu""b"",, intensiveI1.studiedb,vmany,:,f the Krashen-influenced researchers.

Interaction is also interesting to iinguistic theorists, because ofrecent controversies over

rvhc-ther the provision of negative evtdence is necessarv or helpful for L2 development _4''neqati\-e evidence' is meant some kind of input rvhich iets the learner know that a particular

: . . rn l ls nor acceptaDle accorc l lng to target language norms. ln L l ln leract lon tn ls mlgnl taKe

a more informal rePhrasing of

: learner's L2 utterance, offered bv a native-speaking conversational partner.

Whv is there a controversv about negative evidence in L2 Iearning? The problem is that

:,,rrection often seems ineffective and not onlv because L2 learners are laz,v. I!:eglg!-lthgt^.arners often cannot benefit from correction, but continue to make the shme mistakes

:lrl\\'ever mucn lee is otlered. For some current rsts, any na

one' irrelevant.. : i - - - : - ^ - . / - - - - , - . - f \ - - - -

r l - inuetosee1.a luF- lncoIrecI1onsanone@it ]s}Ff ia ; i lyatcepted

::--lr these w'i l l be useful onlv u-hen thev relate to'hot spots' currentlv being restructured in+

: : rq learner 's emerging L2 svstem.iervs have one thing in common, holvever; they view

--n. learner as operatiQand der.eloping a relativelv autonomous L2 system, angjgs intelgction

r. a \vay of feeding that s,ystem lvith more or less fine-tuned input data. whether positive_ or

. Sociolinouistic view's teractton are verv dl

)rocess i]-r-iewed as essentiallv social: both the identitv of the learner

. are collaboiativelvt6nstmcted a- . :trucTed in thc course of interaction.

S6me theoriiiiiTGE7Foad vieu'of the second language learning process as anjpllgnti:gshp

I

into a range of new' d,t.."t." pt..,l."t ; others are more concerned with

analvsing the det1ililinteraction betvr.een more expert and less expgrt speakels, to determineI

how the learner is scffi lded into using {and presumabh learning) neu L2 forms.

Views of the language learner

Who is the second language learner, and horv are thev introduced to us, in current SLL

research?'second language'research generallv deals l l ' i th learners lvho embark on the

learning ofan additional language, at least some vears after they have started to acquire their

first language.This learning may take place formallv and svstematicallJ', in a classroom setting;

or it may take place through informal social contact, through work, through migration, or

other social forces r,vhich bring speakers of different languages into contact, and make

communicat ion a necessi t r ' .

So, second language learners mav be children, or thev mav be adults; thev may be

learning the target language formally in school or college, or'picking it up' in the play-

ground or the w'orkplace. Thev may be learning a highlv localized language, which will help

them to become insiders in a local speech communitv; or the target language may be a

language of wider communication relevant to their region, u'hich gives access to economic

development and public life.

S E C O N D L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G : C O N C E P T S A N D I S S U E S 2 3

Indeed, in the late trventieth centurv, the target language is highl-v likelv to be English;.r recent estimate suggests that r.vhile around 300 million people speak English as their firstianguage, another 700 million or so are using it as a second language, or learning to do soCrystal 1987 ,p.358). Certainlv it is true that much research on second language learning,

rvhether rvith children or adults, is concerned r'vith the learning of English, or w-ith a verv.mall number of other languages, mostlv European ones (French, German, Spanish).Thereare manv multilingual communities todav (e.g. tow'nships around manv fast-growing cities)n-here L2 learning involves a much wider range of ianguages. Holvever, these have beencomparativelv little studied.

The learner as language processor

It is possible to distinguish three main points of vierv, or sets of priorit ies, among SLLresearchers as far as the learner is concerned. Linguists a15ljsysbolinguists have typicallybeenconcernedprimariI l. lvithanalr'singandmo@,"uii lubl"

to the individual learner, for processing, le e. Astir as language lea.r-ring h"developmental route along rvhich learners travel. Researchers for w'hom this is the primeqoal are less concerned rvith the speed or rate of development, or indeed with the degreeof ult imate L2 success.Thus thev tend to minimize or disregard social and contextualdifferences among learners; their aim is to

to a l l normal human beings.As we shall see, hou'ever, there is some controversv among researchers in this

psvcholinguistic tradition on the question of age. Do child und udrfL2 learners learn inessentially similar rvavs? Or, is there a crirical are w-hich divides l'ounger and older learners.u *o-.nt *hen earlv lear.ring.rG.tilirr*iFop}rr.and are replaced oi at least suoolementedbv other compensatorv wavs of learning? The balance of evidence has been interpreted br

ch a cut-off point, and many other researchersagree with some version of a r-ieu' that 'vounger - better in the long run' (Singleton 1 995,

p. 3). However, explanations of whv this should be are sti l l provisional.

Dffirences between individual learners

Real-life observation quicklv tells us, how-ever, that er,en if L2 learners can be sho',vn to befollowing a common ievelopmental route, thev differ greatlv in the degree of ult imatesuccess which the-v achieve. Sociai psvchologists have argued consistentlv that thesedifferences in learning outcomes must be due to individual diferences between learners, andmany proposals have been made concerning the characteristics lvhich supposedlv cause thesedifferences.

In a recent two-part revie*' (199), 1993), Gardner and MaclntFe divide what they seeasthemostimportanilearnertraitsintotwogrou@cr;l,e(emotional).

-He rewe fo l l o r t . t he i raccoun t ,andsummu. . i , . ' " , .

most significant influence on L2 learning success. For fuller treatment of this socialpsychological perspective on learner difference, lve would refer the reader to sources suchas Gardner (1985), Skehan (1989), and El l is (199+,pp.+67- 560) .

2 4 R O S A M O N D M I T C H E L L A N D F L O R E N C E M Y L E S

CognitiveJactors

lntelligence: Not verv surprisinglv perhaps, there is clear evidence that L2 students lvho are

.bfi;;;G" o., fo.*ul *".r,i.., of i.ttelligence and/or general academic attainment tend

to do well in L2 learning, at least in formal classroom settings.

Language aButude: Is there realh' such a thing as a'gift' for language learning, distinct from' Y

' r , . L

general intelligence, as folk rvisdom often holds? The most famous formal test of language

iptitude was designed in the 1950s, bv Carroll and Sapon (1959, in Gardner and Maclnt,vre

l-992,p.214). This'Modern Language AptitudeTest' assesses a number of subskil ls believed

to be predictive of L2 learning success: (a) phonetic coding abilitv, (b) grammatical sensitivitr,

(c) memorv abil it ies, and (d) inductive language learning abil itv. In general, iearners' scores

on this and other similar tests do indeed 'correiate r,vith . . . achievement in a second

language'(Gardner and Maclntvre 1992, p. 215), and in a range of contexts measures of

aptitude have been show'n to be one of the strongest availabie predictors of success (Harler

and Hart 1997).

Language learning strcteflies: Do more successful language learners set about the task in

,orn" ditii.tna;fr-Dffiev har,c at their disposal t-"" .p".iul repertoire of wavs oflearning, or strat"gtei? [f this ulere true, could these even be taught to other, hitherto less

successful learners? Much research has been done to describe and categorize the strategies

used by learners at different levels, and to link strategv use to iearning outcomes; it is clear

that more proficient learners do indeed emplov strategies that are different from those used

bv the less proficient (Oxford and Crookall 1989, quoted in Gardner and Maclntvre 1992,

p.217).Whether the strategies cause the learning, or the learning itself enables different

strategies to be used, has not been fullv clarified, horvever.

Afectivefactors

Language aI!l!!&!;ocial psvchologists have iong been interested in the idea that the attitudes

of ti. i"G?I*rds tire target language, itJspeakers, and the learning context, may all

plav some part in explaining success or lack of it. Research on L2 language attitudes has

largely been conducted lvithin the framervork of broader research on motivation, of which

attitudes form one part.

Motivatjon: For Gardner and Maclnt,vre, the motivated individual 'is one who lvants to

achieve a particular goal, devotes considerable effort to achieve this goal, and experiences

satisfaction in the activit ies associated w'ith achieving this goal' (1993, p. 2). So, motivation

is a complex construct, defined b-v three main components: 'desire to achieve a goal,

ef for tex iendedinth i ' rd i rect io . ' ,u . 'dsat is fact ionlv i th thetask ' f f i l ,

Cafiffin.ill..g.,.r have carried out a long programme of rvork on motivation rvith Engllsh

Canadian school students learning French as a second language, and have developed a range

of formal instruments to measure motivation. Over the vears consistent relationships have

been demonstrated betw.een language attitudes, motivation, and L2 achievement; Gardner

accepts that these relationships are complex, holvever, as the factors interact, and influence

each other ( 198 5, cited in Gardner and Maclntvre 1993 , p. 2).

Lanquaee anxietv:The final learner characteristic lvhich Gardner and Maclntyre consider, <- ' , - - l_---1- r r . . r . . - r rhas clearlv been shoun to have a relationship rvith learning success is language anxiety (and

its obverse, .:]i.gq&rrg) . For these authors, language anxietv 'is seen as a stable Person-

alitv trait re6rring to the propensitv for an individual to react in a nervous manner lvhen

speaking . . . in the second language' (1993,p. 5).lt is tvpifiedbv self-belitt l ing, feelings of

apprehension, and even bodilv responses such as a faster heartbeatlThe anxious learner ts

S E C O N D L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G : C O N C E P T S A N D I S S U E S 2 5

also less w'illing to speak in class, or to engage target ianguage speakers in informal inter-

action. Gardner and Maclntvre cite manv studies rvhich suggest that language anxietv has a

negative relationship'ivith learning success, and some others lvhich suggest the opposite, for

learner self-confi dence.

The learner as social being

The tw.o perspectives on the learner rvhich rve have highlighted so far have concentrated

first, on universal characteristics, and second, on individual characteristics. But it is also

possible to vier'v the L2 learner as essentiallv a social being, and such an interest rvil l lead to

concern u'ith learners' relationship u-ith the social context, and the structuring of the

learning opportunities r,r,hich it makes available. The learning process itself mav be vieu'ed

as essentiallv social, and inextricablr- entangied in L2 use and L2 interaction. Trvo major

differences appear, u'hich distinguish this vie'nr- of the learner from the last (for the social

psychological vier,v of the learner rvhich rve have just dipped into is also clearly concerned

with the individual learners' relationship r,r.ith the 'socio-cultural milieu' in rvhich learning

is taking place).First, interest in the learner as a social being leads to concern r,vith a range of sociaily

constructed elements in the learner's identitv, and their relationship *'ith learning so c1asr,

ethnicitlt, and gender rnake their appearance as potentiallv significant for L2 learning research.

Second, the relationship betu'een the individual learner and the social context of learning is

view.ed as dynamlc, reflexive and constantlv changing.The'individual differences' tradition

sau'that relationship as being governed br a bundle oflearner traits or characteristics (such

as aptitude, anxiety, etc.), l l .hich rvere relativelv fixed and slou'to change. More sociallv

oriented researchers view motivation, learner anxietr, etc. as being constan-tlv reconstructed

through ongoing L2 experience and L2 interaction.

oes it have anl' immediate practical applications

the rea , rnost obr-iousll in the L2 classroom? In our field, theorists have been and

remain divided on this point. Beretta and his colieagues have argued for'pure' theorv-building

in SLL, unclut tered bv requi rements for pract ica l appl icat ion (1993).Van L ier (199+),

Rampton (1995b) and others have argued for a sociallv engaged perspective, where

theoretical development is rooted in, and responsive to, social practice, and language

education in particular.Yet others have argued that L2 teaching in particular should be guided

systematicallv bv SLL research findings (e.g. Krashen 1985).

This tension has partlv been addressed bv the emergence of instructed language

learning' as a distinct sub-area ofresearch (see recent reviervs bv Ell is 1994, pp. 561 563;

Spada 1997).We think that language teachers, rvho w-ill form an important segment of our

readership, wil l themselves n'ant to take stock of the relations between the theories w'e

survey, and their or,vn beliefs and experiences in the classroom. Thev r,vill, in other lvords,

want to make some judgement on the'usefulness' of theorising in making sense of their orvn

experience and their practice, w'hile not necessarilv changing it.

Links with social practice

2 6 R O S A M O N D M I T C H E L L A N D F L O R E N C E M Y L E S

References

Aarts, J. (991) ' lntuit ion-based and obserr-ation-based grammars', in Aijmer, K. ar.-

Altenberg, B. (eds), Engltsh corpus linguisrics. Harlo'rr': Longman' ++-62.

Beretta,A. (ed.) (1993) 'Theorv construction in SLA'. Special issue of ,4pp1ied Linguistics,14

2 2 1 4 .Brumfit, C.J. and Mitchell, R. (1990)'The language classroom as a focus for research,' ir-

Brumfit, C. J. and Mitchell, R. (eds), Research in the language classroom. ELT Document

1 33. Modern English Pubiications/The Brit ish Council, 3-15.

Chomskl', N. (1957) Syntactic structures.The Hague: Mouton.- ( 1 96 5 ) Aspects oJ the theory oJ syntax. Cambridge, MA : NIIT Press.

Cook, V and Nervson, M. (1995) Chomskl' 's [Jniversa] Grammar: an introduction. Oxforci

Blackrvell.Crystai, D. (1987) The Cambridge encyclopedia oJ language. Cambridge: Cambridge Universit.

Press.Ell is, R. (1985)'sources of variabil itv in interlanguage' Applied Linguistics 5, 118-3 1.- (1 994) The stud,v oJ second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford Universitv Press.

Fodor, J.A. (1983) The modularitv oJnind. Cambridge, MA: NIIT Press

Foster, S. (1990) The communicative competence oJloung children. Harlor,v: Longman.

Gardner, R.C. (1985) Social psvchology and second language learning: the role oJ attitudes an:

motivation. London: Edrvard Arnold.

Gardner, R.C. and Macintvre, P.D. (1992)'A student's contributions to second languag.

Iearning. Part I: cognitive variables', LanguageTeaching 25, 21 1 20.- (1993) 'A student's contributions to second language learning. Part II: affectirt

variables' , LanguageTeachtng 26, I-11.

Gass, S.M. (1996)'second language acquisit ion and linguistic theorv: the role of languagt

transfer', in Ritchie,WC. and Bhatia,T.K. (eds), Handbook oJsecond language acquisit ior.

San Diego: Academic Press, 311 -+5.

Hall, J.K. (1995) '(Re)creating our worlds rvith rvords: a sociohistorical perspective of face-to-

face interaction' , Applted Linguistics 15,205 32.

Hamers, J. and Blanc, N{. (1989) Bt}tngualttv and bil ingualism. Cambridge: Cambridg.

Universitv Press.

Harley, B. and Hart, D. (1991) 'Language aptitude and second language proficiency ir-

classroom learners of different starting ages', Srudies in Second Language Acquisii lon 19.

379400.

Johnson, K. (1996) Language teaching and sktl l learning. Oxford: Blackrvell.

Kasper, G. (ed.) (1996) 'The development of pragmatic competence'. Special issue of Studies r:

Second Language Acquisit ion, 18 , 2 .

Krashen, S. (1981) Second language acquisit ion and second language learning. Oxford,

Pergamon.- 11 9821 Principles and prcctice in second language acquisit ion. Oxford: Pergamon.- (1 985) The input hlpothesis: issues and implications. Harlo'w': Longman.

Long, M.H. (1990a)'The least a second language acquisit ion theorv needs to explain' . TESOL

@tarterly 24, 6+9-66.- (1990b) 'N{aturational constraints on language development', Srudies in Second Languagt

Acquisit ion 12, 25 1-85.- (1993) 'Assessment strategies for SLA theories' . Applied Linguistics 14,225 -+9.

- (1996)'The role of the l inguistic environment in second language acquisit ion', in

Ritchie, \A'.C. and Bhatia, T.K. (eds), Handbook oJ second language acquisit ion. San Diego:

Academic Press, 41 3 58.

Mclaughlin, B. ( 1987) Theories oJ second,language learning. London: Edrvard Arnold.

S E C O N D L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G ; C O N C E P T S A N D I S S U E S 2 7

Meara, P. (1996a.1 'The classical research in L2 acquisit ion', inAnderman, G.N{. and Rogers,

M.A. (eds), Words, words, words: the translator and the language learner. Clevedon:

Multilingual N1atters, 2l -40.

- (1996b)'The dimensions of lexical comPetence', in Brorvn, G., N{aimkjaer, K. and

Will iams, J. (eds), ?erJormance and competence in second language acquisit ion. Cambridge:

Cambridge Universitv Press, 35-5 3.

Mrvles, F., Hooper, J. and Mitchell, R. (1998)'Rote or rule? Exploring the role of formulaic

languageinc lassroomforeignlanguage learn ing ' ,LanguageLearning48, 110-135.

O'Malley, J. and Chamot, A . ( 1 990) Learning strategies in second language acquisit ion. Cambridge:

Cambridge Universitv Press.

Piatell i-Palmarini, M. (ed.) (1980) Language andlearning:the debatebetweenJeanPiagetandNoam

Chomsky. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Rampton, B. (1995a) Crossing:language and ethnicit l 'among adolescenrs. Harlow-: Longman.

- (1995b)'Polit ics and change in research in applied l inguistics', Applied Linguistics 16,

233-s6 .Rcrbinson, P. (1991)'lndividual differences and the lundamental similaritv of implicit and

explicit adult second language learning' , Language Learilng 47, +5-99.

Romaine, S. (1995) Bi l ingual ism.2nd edn, Oxford: Blackrvel l .

Sinclair, J. ( 199 1) Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford Universitv Press.

Singleton, D. (1995i'A crit ical look at the crit ical period hvpothesis in second language

acquisit ion research', in Singleton, D. and Lengvel, Z. (eds), The ageJactor in second

language acquisit ion . Clevedon: Nlult i l ingual Matters, 1-2 9.

Skehan, R ( 19S9) lndividual dfferences inJoreign language learning. London: Edw'ard Arnold.

Sorace, A. (.1996) 'The use of acceptabil itv judgements in second language acquisit ion research,

in Ritchie, W and Bhatia, T. (eds), Handbook oJ second language acquisit ion. San Diego:

Academic Press, 375-409.

Spada, N. (t997)'Form-focussed instruction and second language acquisit ion: a review of

classroom and laboratory research' , LanguageTeaching 30, 73 87.

Spolsky, B. (1989) CondittonsJor second language learning. Oxford: Oxford Universitv Press.

Stubbs, M. (1996) Tbxt and corpus anal1sis. Oxford: Blacku'ell.

Swain, M. (1985)'Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and

comprehensible output in its der.eiopment' , in Gass , S. M . and Madden, C. G. (eds) , lnput

in second language acquisit ion. Rorvlev, NIA: Newburt'House, 235-53.

Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1995)'Problems in output and the cognitive processes thev

generate: a step torvards second language learning' , , lpplied Linguistics 16,371-91.

Tor,ve1l, R. and Harvkins, R. (1994) Approaches to second language acqujsition. Clevedon: N'lulti-

lingual Matters.

Tou,ell, R., Hu*.ki.tr, R. and Bazergui, N. (1995)'The der.elopment of f luencv in advanced

learners of French' , Applted Linguistics I 7, 84 1 1 5.

Van Lier, L. (199+) 'Forks and hope, pursuing understanding in different rvdys', Applted

Lingutstics 15, 32846.

Weinert, R. (1995) 'The role of formulaic language in second language acquisit ion: a revier'r ' ' ,

Applied Linguistics 15, 180-205.

ZobI, H. (1995) 'Converging evidence for the 'acquisit ion-learning' distinction', Applied

Linguist ics 16, 35-56.

C h a p t e r 2

Patsy M. Lightbown and Nina Spada

FACTORS AFFECTING SECOND

LANGUAGE LEARNING

LL NORMAL CHILDREN, GMN a no rma l upb r i ng ing , a re success fu l i n t he

acquisition of their first language.ThirJg419l$1]!b-9!rl-9lpg{ience of second lalguage

learners, u'-hose s,uccess_varies greatlv.--

nf u",n of .rJU"ti.r." ilutlEu-:*-. have certain characteristics which lead to more or less

successlul language learning. Such beliefs are usua-llr'-b3se-d-oq'@@Elgrl&;A}ftett.g.tt

,^i\ owAexpc;leru;€-or that of indil.idual people lve have known. For example, manv teachers

$.' ur" .o.rvi.r..d that extror,e,rtcd]c-af.rgls wfio interact rt-i[hout inhibition in their second

langgagg aqd-_fiqd manv opportunities to praciiselinguage iki'lls-w;ill6e tlti -ort successful

_ l"ui".i.. In additioq 1o p..ro.t"lito'characteristics, other fictors generally considered to be

,,9 ..l"uu.rt,o tung.rug. i""."i"g are intelligence,-aptitude, motivation -and attitudes' Anotherv

important factor is the age at yhigh learning begins.

In this chapter, rve u.ill see r,r'[e,tllre-t ane{-d_otal evidence is su,pported bl research findings.

To what extent can lve predict differences in the success of second language acquisition in

trvo individuals if ne have information about theirperson{lqq, their general and specific

intellectual abilities, their motivation, or their age? -

Activity

Characterjstics oJ the 'good

language \earner'

It seems that some people har,e a much easier t ime of learning than others. Rate of

development varies r,videlv among first language learners. Some children can string together

five-, six-, and seven-rvord sentences at an age rvhen other children are just beginning to label

items in their immediate environment. Nevertheless, all normal children eventually master

their first language.

In second language learning, it has been observed countless times that, in the same

classroom setting, some students progress rapidlv through the initial stages of learning a

new language u-hile others struggle along making verv slou. progress. Some learners never

achieve native-like command of a second language. Are there personal ch?Iacteristics that

make one learner more successful than another, and if so, u-hat are they?

The follou.ing is a iist of some of the characteristics commoniy thought to contribute

to successful language learning. In your experience - as a second language learner and as a

F A C T O R S A F F E C T I N G S E C O N D L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G 2 9

teacher - which characteristics seem to vou most l ikelv to be associated w'ith success in

'econd language acquisit ion in the classroom? Which ones r,vould vou be less inclined tor \pect in a successfu l learner i

In each case rate the characteristic as follolvs:

1 = Verv important

I = Quite important

3 = Important

{ = Not verv important

5 = Not at all important

\ good language learner:

is a willing and accurate guesser

tries to get a message across even if

specihc language knor,vledge is lacking

is willing to make mistakes

constantly looks for patterns in the language

practises as often as possible

analvses his or her ou'n speech and the

speech of others

attends to whether his or her performancemeets the standards he or she has learned

r ' \I

1 2 i 3 + 5/a

b

C

d

e

f

ob

I 2

t 2-..

1 , ' , )

T2

l )

l 1

.:..

l 1

l 1

23

2

3

3

3

3

3

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

q

q

5

h enjoys grammar exercises

i begins learning in childhood

j has an above-average IQ

k has good academic skills

I has a good self-image and lots of confidence

All of the characteristics listed above can be classihed i",l@;[I 1;iqsigg!ll3ji9f ,€'apt i tude, personal i t r ' . intel l igence. and learne-r3.*f lSgr. Houerer, manr o[the charac( v

Gristts .ur-o,-U. ..siFA;;Gi.el. to ile categor\'. For example, the characteristic'i)-willing to make mistakes' can be consiiered u p.r.oiulitv and/or a motivational factor if theIearner is w'iliing to make mistakes in order to get the messaqe across.

\\

3 0 P A T S Y M . L I G H T B O W N A N D N I N A S P A D A

Research on learner character ist ics Pr, i t { ' t t " - " ' r ' ' i , : ' t

"r li

Perhaps the best rvav to begin our discussion is to describe \gwlqse-4qctt ql th" influence of

learner characteristics on second language learninghas been carried out.When researchers

are interested in findlng out u-hether an individual factor such as motlvation affects second

language learning, thev usuallv seiect a group of learners and give thgm a questionnaire to

,rr"".rri" qh"_typg-4!-d--dggrg.e of their motivatt-qn.The learners utJth".t given iieit to m-eaiure

._, ,,,,.thef second language pro{iciencr-.The test and the questionnaire are both scored and the-

tesearcher nerforms a correlation on the two measures, to see lr'hether learners w'ith high' ' " - - ' - . ' - ' r - ' ^scores on the f-fi.i.rr." teif are also more likelv to have high scores on the motivation

questionnaire. If this is the case, the researcher concludes that high levels of motivation are

correlated rvith success in language learning. A similar procedure can be used to assess the

relationship betr,veen intelligence and second language acquisition through the use of IQ tests.

Although this procedure seems straightforu.ard, there are several dilliculties with it.

-=*-.-The first pr6blem is that it is no-t possiblelo directlr, observe and-ineasure quaTities suChis

motir,,ation, extroversion, or even intelligence.Th"re u." lgtt I.b.]! for an en[ire range oT-b"luo.iorr^-lnd-iharaiGrlstici.

Further*o.", because ch.Ft..Gilis such as these are not

, independent, it r,vill come as no surprise that different researchers have often used the same

labels to,-describe different sets of behavioural traits.

For example, in motir?tion questionnaires, learners are often asked whether thev

willingly seek out opportunities to use their second language with native speakers and if so,

how often thev do this. The assumption behind such a question is that learners who report

that they often seek out opportunities to interact rvith speakers of the second language

are highiy motivated to learn. Although this assumption seems reasonable, it is problematic

because if a learner responds bv saving ' ves

' to this question, lve mav assume that the learner

has more opportunities for language practice in informal contexts. Because it is usuallv

impossible to separate these trvo factors (i.e. r,villingness to interact and opportunities to

lnteracr,), some researchers have been criticized for concluding that it is the motivation rather

than the opportunitv lvhich makes the greater contribution to success.

Another factor u.hich makes it difficult to reach conclusions about relationships between

individual learner characteristics and second language iearning is -ho-r1 langyage proficiencvt

ttdt[*-O andiug4!_q{ed.To illustrate this point ]e1 ,r, ."f.r once aguin to'motivation'-. ln the

fr".o"d language learning literature, some studies report that learners r,vith a higher level of

/imotivation are more successful language learners than those lvith lolver motivation, while

j,othe. studies report that highlv motivated learners do not perform anr,better on a proficiencvlitest than learners rvith much less motivation to learn the second language. One explanation

\ rvhich has been offered for these conflicting findings is that tLe iqq€Uegq proficiency't_ests used'".

. i. di&rent studies do not measure the same klnd of k"rou-ledge.That i., ;.t itriot-il lu.tgn"g"

flearning setfings, highly motivated learners mar'be-iiiofe successful vrhen the proficiency

1/, / t"rtr measure oral communication skills. In other studies, hou-et'er, highly motivated learnersd/ [ -." not be more successful because the tests. are primarilr. 5gg4!qrg! qf -r4etalinguistic

vknowledge. Results such as these implv that motivation to learn a second language may be

mor€T€Ete4to pAI !,rqUL4_{ .qsp e gt! o f I an guaq e p r o fi ci e n cv than to o ther s.

Finally, there is the problem of interpreting the correlation of tw'o factors as being\

due 1-o_a qaqfa_l_relationshipbetween them.That is, the fact that two thig. tqld to occur

" t"gSthg4o_es not necessarilv mean that one caused the other.While it ma,v be that that one

factor influenges t-he .1h% ii;;;ro b. tir" case that both ar6influenced by something else

entirelv. Research on motivation is perhaps the best context in w'hich to i l lustrate this.

Learners lvho are successful mav indeed be hiqhlv motivated. But can vl'e conclude that they

F A C T O R S A F F E C T I N G S E C O N D L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G 3 ' -

b;Sanfe r!99_"1{gl bJ!au1e_o{ their motivation? It is aiso plausible that _earl,v lqqlgssheightened their motivation or that both success and motivation are due to their special

aputude f&-langu"g-elA-."-g or the-Favouri6le context in whlchThev aaete-arrrrrg.--

_> - ---:.-\

IntelliB,ence. ''

The term'intell igence' has traditionallv been used to refer to performance on certain kinds

of tests.These tests are often associalqd-uitLsucqessi.n-school, and a link betueen intelligence

and second language learning has sometimes been reported. Over the vears, manv studies

using a varietv of intelljgglC_e (1q,-)_tes19-.gnd different methods of assessing language learning

have found that Ie scores \\'ere a good means of predicting holv successful a learner r,vould _- " . ) , -be. Some recent studies have shorvn that these measures of intelligence-:11-q)ifu1-rrr-qJ.e s-!-LA!glJ '"I ,lj

'

related to certain kinds of secoqd langy4g-e-abilities than to others. For example, in a study

r,vith French immersion stuJents in Canada, it rvas found that, w'hile intelligence w'as related

to the development of French second language reading, grammar, and vocabulary, it w'as

unrelated to oral productive skil ls (Genes ee 197 6). Similar f indings have been reported in

other studies.What this suggests is that, rvhile intelligence, especiallv as measured by verbal

re tests, may be a strong factor rvhen it comes tq le4rqing u'h!g,h iayglygS language analysis

and rule learning, intell igence mav plar, a less important role in classrooms r,vhere the

in<frftffihfo cus es- m-ore on c ommuni cati on 3-q{ -interaction .

It is important to keep in mind that'i4-1-el]g-gncs _rj_9.qqlp-l-e4_4nd that individuals have

many kinds of abilities and strengths, not all of r'vhich are m€asured bv traditiona! lq 1e1ts.In our experience, man students w'hose academic performance has been u'eak have

experienced considerable success in second language learning.

Aptitude

Tliete ' is

evidence in the research l iterature that,some indir.iduals har.'e an exceptional'aptitude' for language iearning. Lorraine Obler ( 1989) reports that a man, w-hom she calls

Cj, has suc-h a specialized abilitv. CJ is a native speaker of English rvho grerv up in an English

home. His first true experience u.ith a second language came at the age of 15 when he began

learning French in school. CJ also studied German, Spanish, and Latin w'hile in high school.

At age 20, he made a brief visit to Germanv. CJ reported that just hearing German spoken

for a short time rvas enough for him to'recover' the German he had learned in school. Later,

CJ worked in Morocco u.-here he reported learning Moroccan Arabic through both formal

instruction and informal immersion. He also spent some time in Spain and Itall', where he. r - , r - - i -

-

apparentlv'picked up'loth Spanish and Italian in a'matter of w'eeks'. A remarkable talent

indeej-l aol_ggrl4ggrickllis the distinguishing feature of aptitude.The'aptitude' factor has been

inveitigated most indnsive]i bv reseaich-eis'interested in developing tests rn'hich can be used

to predict whether individuals rvill be efficient learners of a foreign language in a classroom

setting.The most widelv used aptitude tests are the Modern Language AptitudeTest (ML4T)

and the Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery 1er-ae). Boih tesislrelasedonih" rriew that

aptitude is composed of different t-vpes of abilities:

(1) the abil ity to identifv and memorize new sougds;

ir.l the abilitv toi[J"lra;a-tnaE.,ctio., ofpqtic"iarlp;dr-Ln--s-,en!e-n-qqq;(3) the abilitv to figuls ollt-g,ummatTCii iules from lgnSrage samPles; and6l memorv for neu' rnords.

o u ' l

i

' . \ t :

3 2 P A T S Y M . L I G H T B O W N A N D N I N A S P A D A

While earlier research rer-ealed a substantial relationship betlveen performance on the uLRt

or pLAB and performance in foreign language learning, these studies'"v'ere conducted at a time

*h..r ,..o.ri language teaching was based on Brammar translatton-^or audiolingual methods- -With the

"A.Fd""-;T a more bommunicafive appi'oJ.ch tb teaching, manY teachers and

researchers i irye to see aptitude as irrelevant to-the Proce-s: of languagl acquisit ion.

Unfortunatelv, [hi, means that relativelr. little ,esearch has actui]lv explored u'hether having

a skil l such as the 'abil itv to identifv and memorize neu' sounds' is advantageous when

classroom instructiof,ir!r""1'1"*-;a*,"d:q,IJiil""6*lon'dil::Tql"hlg:l_tlqexplanations.'

Succesri-,rl lu.rgtrug. learners mav not be strong in all of the goqp-olents o[ aPtitu-de.

Some individuals mar, have strong memories bul onll' average abilities in the other

components of aptitude. Ideallv, one could determine learners' profi les of strengths and

weaknesses and use this information to place students in appropriate teaching programs. An

example of how this can be done is described blMaiorieWes.Ell2ql; ' In a Canadian

lurrgrrug" program for adult iearners of French_, it4lents-were-placed*in-a.n instructionai

p.rt.u-;ni.n was cdmpatible with tfieir aptitude profile and information about their

i.ut"i"g experiences. Students who u,.er-e [gh on an3-[9c abilitg but a'"'erage o1-T-Tot),

,' l*.." uitgn.d to teachiig ihut fogg..J t"g-.t"l.t.tl5{;quctures,_while i,eg!*:fllgll

iir, ..r.rrr,;ii.'biit average &r u"rtn'u. rkill. ;te p,!q.id- class *-here th. 19..h5;;-_,organized iro*.d theTunctional use of the second language in specific situations. Wesche

. reiorted a high level of student and teacher satisfaction when stutrents \\,'ere matched with

compatible teaching environments. In addition, some evidence indicated that matched

students were able tt attain significantlv higher levels of achievement than those who were

unmatched.While feu' second language teaching contexts are able to offer such choices to their

students, teachers ..rav {i.rdihut knorving the aptitude pro{rle of their students will help them

in selecting appropriate classroom actir,ities for particular grouPs of students. Or, if they do

not have snch information, the-v mav u'ish to ensure that their teaching activities are

suf{icientlv varied to accommodate learners rvith different aPtitude profiles.

', "bersonality

,i-.ro*b.. of personalitv characteristics have been proposed as likely to affect second language

learning, but it hus nof been e1s1: tg dem.o-qstJate lheir-e-ffects in empiricq! stqdies_. As with

other research investigating the effects of individual characteristics on second language

learning, different studies measuring a similar personalitv trait produce different results. For

"*u1np|., it is oftelr.argued-that-an -exlrgr.erted person is well suited to language learnilg

Howelrer, ....ur.h does not ahvavs support this conclusion. Although some studies have

found that success in language learning is correlated u'ith learners' scores on characteristics

often associated w.ith extroversion such as assertiveness and adventurousness, others have

found that man,v qqgge!!!{ lg"grragS learners do not get high scores on measures of extro-

l 'ersion.

Another aspect of personalitr'rvhich has been studied is inhibition. It has been suggested

that inhibition discourages risk-takinq u hiih is necessarv for progress in language learning.

This is often consid.rJ to be a particular problem for adolescents, w'ho are more self:

conscious than vounger learners. In a series oi studies, Alexander Guiora and his colleagues

found support for the elaim that-inhjbition is a negative_forc"_,..t l.uf! for sercond l1gulgg=

p.onr.r.iution performance. One studr. inr.olr-ed an analvsis of the effects of small doses of

alcohol on pronunciation (Guiora er al. 1971i.Thev found that subjects who received small

F A C T O R S A F F E C T I N G S E C O N D L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G 3 3

dorer.slqlqq\ll did_better p4-p1q4u4ql4qo! te$Lth3l those u'ho dr-d-aqld11nk4y3lcohol.

While results rrl.h-ir these are interesting, as u'ell as amusing, the',' are not completeTv

conl.incing, since the experiments are far removed from the realitv of the ciassroom situation.

Furthermore, thev mav have more to do r.vith performance than u'ith learning.We mav also

note, in passing, that lvhen larger doses of alcohol rvere administered, pronunciation rapidlv

deteriorated !

Several other personalitv characteristics such as self-esteem, empath,v, domi444q9,,

talkatir,-eness-, ".rd

.L.po.rsiveness har.e.also b.."1tt-,di.d.'Fioro-.u.r, in general, the available

T-esearch does not shorv a clearlv defined relationship betu'een personalitv and second

Ianguage acquisition. And, as indicated earlier, the major at{fi.q&1:".investigating Person-alitv characteristics is that of identification and measurement. Another explanation rvhich has

been offered for the mixed 6-d;gr .IF.rs*r.lito' ri"di"t ts that personalitv variables may

be a major factor onh. in the acquisition of conversational skills, not in the lcqgisitign-of\ i te" f f i f lc tureof theresear ihonpersona[ i f f fbctorsmavbedueinpart /^ :

io-fi" fi.t fhit comparison, ur" -ud" betrveen stu_drg; that 1neap1r19-cp4q4qqqlqA-ti,v€-?brli!y- ./

and studies that measure grammatical accuracv or metalinguistic knolvledge. Personality

variabl€3-ie?im [o t'e cohiiStent'h reld,ted io the former, but not to thei]atterr

Despite the contradictorv results and the problems involved in carrving out research in

the area of personalitv characteristics, manv researchers believe that personalitv wil l be

shown to have an important influence on success in language learning.This relationship is a

complex one, holvever, in that it is probablv not personalitv alone, but the lvav in lvhich it

combines with other factors, that contributes to second language learning.

Motivation ond ottitid", t.'

v{

fh"r. hu, been a great deal of research on the role, of attitudes and motivation in second

language learning.lhe overall findings r!'1:1he, pos,itire attjlude-s an{ mqtra-t-iqLarc,rela[ed-

to succeqs_in second language learning?Glrdner 1985.;'.. Unfortunatelv, the research cannot

indicate precisely hor motivation is relaied to learningiAs indicated above, we do not know-

whether it is the motivation ihat produces succ_essful_learning ol successful]gitlil-gj!., _ _r,enhances motivation o;itRahtsolli=ar"c",ffited br other factors. As not6dE)'P.i&31;8"""2

(i9q, tIe questffiEl-are iearners more highl)'motivated because they are successful, or'

are thev successful because thev are highlv motivated?-Motiaafiirnin second language lEaintng-isa-compiexp.henomenon rvhich can be defined

.f-

in terms of t.r",.o factors: learners' communicative needs and their attitudes towards the second

Ianquase communit\. lfm.d l.nguuq.;;;d. *ng-" of to.iul^- - :a : :b : - - ; - : - - . : - . ' - , - r , o , ^

: - ' , " * , - - i ' i -

situiuons o. io-frlEl profe5ional ambitions. fier .il-LpSfSSit. ,h"

e second la and oti roficiency in it. Likewise, if

/ n ,l / t

/ r {- \

r l/ ) ) . r

i l , r

E t r - '

Kir S;oi.n tfi'tf-ttdre tvpes of motivation are related to success in second language learning.

On the other hand, lve should keep in mind that an individual's identity is closely linked

with the wav he or she speaks. lt follou's that u'hen spsaking a n9Ll4g998r glgrydgPtiqg

s9rye-9llh-9jde$rlyrnarkers olnother cukg:1g.":p. Depending on the learner's attitudes,

liarning a second language."tr-b. i source of_eniiZFment or a sourceof resentment. If the

speaker-s onli-rearo-n-for-l.utning the second language it "lt.Irql3t_essure,

internal

m o ti vati on 4qay -b-e m-iuim-al-aq d. g e ;e r al at titu d e s t onla. di 1 "

u. ffi -.1'Tii ;-g"tfi . .

):

a"

3 4 P A T S Y M . L I G H T B O W N A N D N I N A S P A D A

One factor rvhich often affects motivatio,n is th-e social d):IlaEriq gr,pp,!:ef re-lationship

f pe_tryee-4 6e-lafrgUug"s. That is, members of a minoritv group learning the language of a

if majorit_v group ma-v have different attitudes and motivation from those o[ majority group

ii*e.nb.ts learning a minoritv language. Even though it is impossible to predict the exact'reffect

of such societal factors on second language learning, the fact that ianguages exist in

social contexts cannot be overlooked lvhen u'e seek to understand the variables w'hich affect

success in learning. Children as r'vell as adults are sensitive to social dvnamics and power

relationships.

i" ,toru*.tirirroo- . l4ot ivat ion tn t

+-' In a teacher's mind, motivated students are usuallv those- w_!9 participate actively in

, 'nl

class, express interest in ihe subject-matter, and study a great deal.Gachert .utt .util)'..iog-

7t'+? nize characteristics such as these.The,v also_have more_opportunity to influ:"gg_lhry _t t qlraractslistics than students'reasons for studvinglhe r".orrd language or tneiiattit,rd".

-

toward the linguage and its speakers. If r've can_make our classrooms places where students

enjov coming b".urlr. the content is interesting and relevant to their age and ievel of abiliq',

ovliere the learning goals are challen$ing yet manageable and clear, and where the atmoslher_eI : :'

is supportir.e and iri jn-thieatening, \ve can make a positive contribution to students'

motivation to learn.

;lo, Although little research has been done to investig,atg _h_ow- pedagogJ' interacts with

- frlotir arion in .".ond language classrooms, considerable .r ork has been donelLthi.qlhg ficl{

of educatio-nalps,l-chologv. In a revierv of some of this rvofk, Graham_Crgokes and Richard-

Gchmiatl 991)fioint to several areas rvhere educational research has reported increased

levels oTmotivation for students in relation to pedagogical practices. Included among these

are:

:, lLotjvating students into the.lesson At the opening stages qf lessons (and w'ithin transitions), it

has been observed that remarks teachers maFe a6out forthcoming actirities can lead to higher

levels ofinterest on the part ofthe students.

Varying the activit ies,tasks, and materials Students are reassured bv the existence ofclassroom

routines rvhich thev can depend on. Hou,ever, lessons rvhich alwavs consist of the same

routines, patterns, and formats have been shou'n to lead to a decrease.in attention and an

increase in boredom.Varying the activities, tasks, and materials can help to avoid this and

increase students' interest levels.

IJsing co-operative rat.her than competitive goals Co-operative learning activities are those in

which ituiletrts must rvork together in order to complete a task or solve a problem. These

techniques have been found to increase the self-confrdence of students, including weaker

oner, b" .urr re ever l par t ic ipant in a co-operat ive task has an i -pot tant ro ie to p lar . Knowing

that their team-mates are counting on them can increase students' motivation.' - 1

Clearlv, cultural u.d 1S diff.tglces u'ill deterrnine thf molt appropriate *'uy fot teachers

to moiivate rtudentr.G soileiLssrooms, students mav thrive on competitivelnteraction,

rvliilain o1hei5, do-irperative activities u-ill be more successful.

' , } l ! , .

heard people sav that thev cannot learn somethi_ng until thev have seen it. Such learners',ould lall into tlle group culledfi"*l-f*tn.rr)dth.r. p"opl". u'ho ma1'b" cull"dfii lJ-

il};)r, seem ro n.".d o.rl, to h"Fro*.t6ilg-o=ile or tu'ice before ther knou'it, Fo, oth.r,

,,.h-o ute..f.rred to "r$"q99a{j:.ld.there

is.a nqed to add aphy.sical aclion to the

lear!ing prggess. In conEasilo these perceptuallr,bqsed lf alniqg-qt1'lgs, considerable research

F A C T O R S A F F E C T I N G S E C O N D L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G 3 5

Learner preferences

tearnershard clbar preferences for hou- thev go about learning new material. The term

Iearning,sl/ei .!a1 begn used to describe an indjvidual's natural, habituai, andpreferred way

of absorbing, p{ocessing, and retaining nerv information and skills (Reid 1995). We have ail

hur io.,-,r"d on a cognitive learning str-ie distinction betrveen jeld. t4dgpgnlen_iagAJi,eld

Jependent learners.This refers to rvhether an individuai tends to separate details from the

qeneral background or to see things more holisticallv. .{.noth,er cateqorv of learning st1 les is

based on the irr-divjdqal's teppelament orf,er-s-on4litr. - t)'rF t c ; .'';'

While recent vears have seen the development of manv learning stvle assessmenl

instruments, r,erv little research has examined the interaction,lbetlyegq dlfle1gnt learning

stvles and su.c6-ss -i.t

secondlanguJge acquiJit'ibn. At present, the onlv learning stvle that has

been extensir elv inr-esli$ut-edftih.i"ld independence / dependence distinction. The results

from this research have shou-n that while field indeperrdence_is related to some degree to

performance on certain.kj4dlgf tasks, it is not a good predictor of performance on others,

Although theie l i 'a need-Ior'*considerablr, more research on learning stvles, when

learners "*pr"r,

a preference for seeing something w'ritten gr for memorizilg qaterfa.f

rvhich u'e feel should be learned in a less formal wa\i, \\-e should not assume. that their w-avs

of uorking are \\-rong. Instead, tt::\g49:lcourage them to q$-elhrqqXns available to-them

as thel'rvork to learn another language,At a minimum, research on lqhrning stvles should

make us sceptical of claims that a particular teaching method or textbook w'ill suit the needs

of all learners.

Learner beliefs

J;,

u ' "

l r lL.a.|-clr

' r - li ; a l : r '

\

' : J

{l r

I

I

) !

Second language learners are not alu-al's conscious of their individual learning str-les,

bujry_rually"l_L!e{L"l!rp"lll.ylllllol_d.rls.us].!r.1lg0:._q!ry_ag_b_qlieq."d opinio_ns abouthow tAeir instruction s,houlille delivered.These beliefs are usuallv bat:d_ql pfgfifsqs learning

, 4 a - - - - - _ - - . ; - _ . t _ 1 T -

df@iqFEsenffthe assuinid-o_n G€It or u.rong) that a particul_11,,rp. of instruction is the

bEst u'av for them to Iearn.This is inoiher area u-here little rvork has been done. How'ever,

the auuiiable researih inilicates that learner beliefs can be strong mediating factors in their

experience in the classroom. For example, in a survev of international students learning

e sl in a highlv communicative program at an English-speaking universit,v, Carlos Yorio- " : 1 - -

1t9Se ; found high ler-els of dissatisfaction among the students. The tvpe of communicative

instruction th-evTeieiveJfocused "*tlusileh'

on meaning and spontaneous communication

in group-lr.ork interaction. In their responses to a questlonnaire, the majoritv of students

expressed concerns about ser.eral aspects of their instruction, most notabiiJhe ableqcggfattention tg lan_g_uage lorm,-co1r_qS11f9{C9d!q._L, Ql_!94gtret cs11_t1ed inqtrq.ction. Althougn

fhis studv did not directlv examine learners' progress in relation to their opinions about the

instruction thev received, several of them u-ere convinced that their progress u.as negativel,v

affected bv an instructional approach rvhich r'r'as not consistent w'ith their beliefs about the

best w-ays for them to learn.

Learners' preferences for learning, u'hether due to their learning st1'le or to their beliefs

about how-languages are learned, rvill influence the kinds ofstrategies thev choose in order

3 6 P A T S Y M . L I G H T B O W N A N D N I N A S P A D A

to learn neu, material.Teachers can use this information to help Iearners expand the-:

repertoire of learning strategies and thus develop greater f lexibil i tv in their \\ 'av L:

approachi ng language lcarning'

z'-==---R--

,.-'A g e of a c qui s ition-",.

We nou'turn to a learner characteristic of a different type: age.This characteristic is easier

to define and measure than personalitr ' , aptitude, or motivation. Nevertheless, the rela-

tionship betw.een a learner's age and his or her potential for success in second language

acquisition is the subject of much liveh' debate.

It has been u'idelv observed that children from rry11gg1_1!11_llles eventuallv speak the

language of their .r"* .o--trnit) ;th nati'"-lik" flE...:,-ir.,i ilrii. p4...,t, .arely achieve

such high levels of masten' of the spoken language. To be sure, there are cases where adult

second language learners have distinguished themselves bv their exceptional performance.

For example, one often sees reference to Joseph Conrad, a native speaker of Polish who

became a major writer in the English language. Many' adult second language learners become

capable of communicating ver-v successfully in the language but, for most, differences of

accent, word choice, or grammatical features distinguish them from native speakers and

from second language speakers who began learning the language while they were very young.

r 1 One explanation for this difference is thalas in first langu4gg agqui-sltion , $ery,19 a_g11ical

' l pe.iod for second language acquisit ion.TheiCrit ical Period Hrpothesis gtLggests tlat there is' r,m*-fmui"*iaeGiopti-"ni *'h.n the braii-islre@oGdfo-sileeE<in lunguug" learning.

O.:{:tlggt changes in the brain, it is argued_, a{ee!Jh-e-qtqre of language*4-cq-r11s-i1ion.n."oiding 6-this ,01"fr lu.rg,rug.l-"*"-r.,g ilhi-.h o...r., after the end of the ..iti"ul p.ilod -uynot be based on the innate biological structures believed to contribute to first language

acquisition or second language acquisition in earlv childhood. Rather, older-learners depend

orr'-o." general learning"abiities - the ,u..r. o.r., thev might use to l"u.r, oth"r-kin-ds ofilllls

orhTo.-"tlon.It l i arguetl-that these general learning abil it ies are not as successful for

language learning u, th. iroa" spec1fic, in*teapa.iti"s-v'ii"har-" *uir.-Fl. tq th" y"r4;qhfa

Ir-ii most olten Jlalmed that the"crig!fuj.tqdejdbj9ls9ub9lg_e!, -LLt rgmg

researchers suggest it could be even earlier.=.-6liou.r;tisafn.uTt

lo .o-p... JhiTdt".r and adults as second language learners. In

addition to the possibie biological differences suggested bv the Critical Period Hypothesis,

the conditions for language learning are often verv different.Younger learners in informal

language learning environments usuallv have more time to devote to learning language.They

often have more opportunities to hear and use the language-in -enviioRments

where they do

not experiense strong=ple!r,rt"=lo_:p:"k fluentll' an{ -4-qqq,ratg\' frgm fhe very beginning.

FurthFimor.,1h"";l-mpgftc! effo.ti "r.

often praised or, ut l.url, u...1rt.d. On the

other hand, oldei learner-s -?-re,often-in s-itqqtig$-,ryhich demand-mu-Ch m6re complex

language and theGipression of much mo-r9 ggUr-p-!!,c=4-tgd ideas. Adults are often embarrassed

Uy ttr.lr lack of ,mast.Ll "f

the llguag_e and thet' may d;velo-p

" r"ir. oT l.tadEQuacy after

expericnces oTfrustration in trfin-g to sal' exactly rvhaffiey mean. ts

The Critical Period Hvpothesis has been challenged in recent rvears from several different

points of vierv. Some studies of the second language development of older and younger

learners w.ho are learning in similar circumstances have shown that, at least in the early stages

of second language development, older learners are more ef{icient than vounger learners.

In educational research, it has been ."poit.d ihat leaineis riEoT-.gu" Iearning a second

language at the primarv school level did not fare better in the long run than those who began

in early adolescence. Furthermore, there are countless anecdotes about older learners

F A C T O R S A F F E C T I N G S E C O N D L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G 3 7

(adolescents and adults) rvho have reached high leveis ofproficiencv in a second language.Does this mean that there is no crit ical period for second language acquisit ion?

Critical Period Hypothesis: ,llore than just accent?

Most studies of the relationship betu'een age of acquisition and second language development6tr fc.i; id on learners' phonologicai (pronunciation) achievement. Irrgeneral, thesestridies hate concl-udE-d that olileileJ"e.silmosfiner.itabh'have a noticeable'foreisn accent'.Butrvhatofother I inguist ic f " ;mo,=Jt , . , , . "n." , t i . , . t . , iguJ

dependent on age of acquisit ion as phonological development?What about morphology (forexample, grammatical morphemes n'hich mark such things as r.erb tense or the number and

ggDder=olqof4tlOne studv that attempted to ansu-er these questions'!vas done bv MarkPatkor,r-ski r 1980r.\

Masterv of the spoken language

Mark Patkorvski studied the effect of age on the acquisition of features of a second language

other than accent. He hvpothesized that, e1eq1i_4g_c.ggt 11qr.q ignored, oniv those w'ho had

begun learning their second language before the age of 15 could ever achieve full, native-

liki masten oithut l inguage. Pitloii stri examin"d t-f i. .pok"n Engli lh of"5? l-rig"hlt educatedimmigranTs io the UniGd Stut.r.Thev had started to learn fnglish at variouiages, but all

had lived in the United States for more than fir'e vears.The spoken English of 15 native-born

American English speakers from a similarlv high level of education served as a sort of baseline

of rvhat the second language learners might be tn'ing to attain as the target language. Inclusion

of the-native speakers also provided evidence concerning the validity of the research

Droceoures.A lengthv intervierv rvith each ofthe subjects in the studv rvas tape recorded. Because

Patkou'ski r.vanted to remove the possibilitv that the results w'ould be affected by accent,

he did not ask the ratJis to judge the tape-recorded intervie*'s themseh,es. I.rsteud, he

transcribed five-minute sampies from the interviervs. These samples (from rvhich anv

identifving or rer.ealing information about immigration historv had been removed) were

rated by trained native-speaker judges. The judges rvere asked to place each speaker on a

rating scale from 0, representing no knorvledge ofthe language, to 5, representing a level ofEnglish expected from an educated native speaker.

The main question in Patkon'skiA-reqearch rvas: 'Will there be a difference betweenl944ners u"ho began to iearn English h_Sl. tt

t!gi{ How-ever, in the light of some of the issues discussed above, he also compared learners

on the basis of other characteristics and experiences rvhich some people have suggestedmight be as good as age in predicting or explaining a learner's eventual success in mastering

a second language. For example, he looked at the relationship betr,veen eventual mastery

and the total amount of time ajppakqr had_bgq. UL!tr_.-_United States as rvell as the amount o

of formal ESL instruction each speaker had had. 6

The findings r,vere quite dramatic.Thirtr'-tuoggo{J3lubjects who had begun learning

English before the age of 15 scored at the 4* or the 5 level.The homogeneitv of t}e pre-

pubertv iearners seemed to suggest that, for this grorrp, trr-&.rr in learning a second language

was almost inevitable (see Figure 2. 1 ). On the other hand, there *'as much more variety in

the levels achieved bv the post-pubertv group. The m{o{11 o{ t!e- pOt-t pg_b-grty learners

centred around the 3 f level, but there rvas a rvide distribution oflevels achieved.This variety

made the performance of thir group look il"."-f,f." tfr" -rl Jp.rf..-u.,.. range one *otli

expect if one u.ere measuring success in learning almost anv kind of skill or knou'ledge.

Iu,/ Ar-^t

3 8 P A T S Y M . L I G H T B O W N A N D N I N A S P A D A

20

Q . ^6 ' t9)

2 + 3 3 +

Post-puberty learners

Figure 2.1 Bar charts shou:ing the language levels of pre- and post-pubertv learners of English

Source: Patkorvski 1980

Patkow'ski's {irst question,'Will there be a difference betrveen learners who began to

Iearn English before pubertv and those rvho began learning English later?', was ansu'ered w'ith

a very resounding 'ves'. When he examined the othg1'faqgptl rvhich might be thought to

affect success in second language acquisition, thelicturerl-as much less clear. There was,

naturally, some relationship betlveen these other factors and learning success. However, it

often turned out that age was so closeiv related to the other factors that it rvas not really

possible to separate them completelv. For example, length of residence in the United States

sometimes seemed to be a fairlv good predictor. Holvever, r,vhile it was true that a person

*'ho had lived in the countrv for 15 vears might speak better than one who had been there

for onlv 1 0 vears, it rvas often the case that the one lr-ith longer residence had also arrived

at an earlier age. Horvever, a person rvho had arrived in the United States at the age of 18

and had lived there for 20 vears did not score significantlv better than someone w'ho had

arrived at the age of 18 but had onlv iived there for 10 vears. Similarly, amoun! o{iry[9c-ti9$r

when,_se_paratgd ft_o,p-'1ge,--did-4qt prgdict success to the extent that age of immig-ratio_1 did

Thus, Patkorvski found that age of acquisition is a terv important factor in setting limits

on the development of native-like masterv of a second language and that this limitation does

-,-not apph'onh'to accent.These resultlqave added support to the Cliqcal Period Hypothesist t .

..-for second language acquisition.

Experience and research have shou'n that natir-e-l ike masterv of the spoken language is

diff icult to attain bv older learners. Surprisinglr, even the abil itv to distinguish between

,,uiliii

,ll|llfi

'l$ll

|I|lili

iilb

r[n

th*

\

Q . ^d ' tq)

t l '. / 1

F A C T O R S A F F E C T I N G S E C O N D L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G 3 9

qrammatical and ungrammatical sentences in a second language appears to be affected by theage factor, as rve rvil l see in the next studl'bv Johnson and Newport.

ln tu i t ions of grammat ica l i t l

Jacq\te-EtrqlOliagqryunrd 5!st" X"*aof .onducted a studv of 45 Chinese and Korean speakersw:ho had begun to learn English at different ages. All subjects r,r.ere students or facultv at an.\merican universitv and all had been in the United States for at least three vears.The studv

also included 23 native speakers of Engiish (Johnson and Ne."vport 1989).

The participants in the studv rvere given a judgement of grammaticalitv task u.hich

tested 12 rul_gq_qf E1g]ish morphol-gg"t and svntax.Thev heard sentences on a tape and

had to indicate rvhether or not each sentence \\ 'as correct. Half of the sentences rvere

grammatical, half N'ere not.

When thev scored the tests, Johnson and Neu-portlound that age of arrival in the United

States was a significant predictor ofluccess o" ih. test. When thei:group"d the Ieainers in

the same \\-ay as Patko..-ski, comparing those u'ho began their intensive exposure to English

between the ages of 3 and 15 rvith those n-ho arrived in the United States between the ages

of 17 and 39, once again thev found that there w'as_a.strong rylationship bqtwee-n an early

start to lang,uag-e lea-rning and better performance in the.second language.. Johnson and

Newport.rot"d ihut-for those u-ho began before ihe uge of 1'5, and especiallv before the agc

of 10, there were ferv individual differences in second language abilitv.Those rvho began later

did not have native-like language abilities and rvere more likeh' to differ greatlv from one

another in ultimate attainment.

This studr', then, further supports the hvpothesis that there is a crit ical period for

attaining full native-like maEterv of a second language. Nevertheless, there i,s s-o,!ne research

which ltgggstslb?t older learners mav have .. "Jvu.,1ug.,

at least in ttr" Jffifr"s olseconT

lu,rg,r"!Su.tti"i. --'--

= = _ - \ - ' ' 1 - ' 7 - " ' ' ^ - o '

,i L yourgu really better? \

j.\

ln 1978, QEtherile Sn-or.v and-MarianlloefnageLHohlegublished an article based on a

research project thev had carried out in Holland. Thev had studied the progress of a groupof English speakers who rvere learning Dutch as a second language . What madl their research

especialiv valuable r,vas that the learners thev rvere follou.ing included children as voung as

three vears old as rl,ell as older children, adolescents, and adults. Furtlermore, a large number

of tasks was used, to measure different tvpes of language use and language knowledge.

Pronunciation r'vas tested bv having learners pronounce 80 Dutchl,vords twice: the first

time immediately after hearing a native speaker sav the rvord; the second time, a fer,v minutes

later, thev w'ere asked to sav the u.ord represented in a picture, lvithout a model to imitate.

Tape recordings of the iearners lvere rated bv a native speaker of Dutch on a six-point scale.ln an ouditorS discrimination test, learners salv pictures of four objects. In each group

of four there $'ere two rvhose names formed a minimal pair, that is, alike except for one sound

(an example in English rvould b9'shp' and'sheep'). Learners heard one of the rvords and

were asked to indicate r.'-hich picture *as namedbv the word thev heard.

Morphologs, was tested using a procedure like the'rvug test', r'vhich required learners

to complete sentences bv adding the correct grammatical markers to w'ords which

were supplied by the researchers. Again, to take an example from English, Iearners rn'ere

asked to complete sentences such as'Here is one bor'. Nolv there are two of them.There are

two

4 0 P A T S Y M . L I G H T B O W N A N D N I N A S P A D A

Ihe sentence repetition task required learners to repeat 37 sentences ofincreasing length

and grammatical comPlexitv'

\o, ,"nrrn1- translation,i"u..t.., u'ere given 60 sentences to translate from English to

Dutch. A point lvas gir.en for each grammaticai structure rvhich lr-as rendered into the correct

Dutch equivalent.

In the sentenc e judgemenn csfr, learners \vere to judge lvhich of trvo sentences was better.

The same content \\'as exPressed in both sentences, but one sentence l\''as grammatically

correct r,r 'hile the other contained errors.

ln the peabody Picturelbcabulary 7Zsr, learners sarv four pictures and heard one isolated

r,vord. Their task rvas to indicate r'vhich picture matched the '"vord spoken bv the tester'

For the story comprehension task,learners heard a storv in Dutch and r'vere then asked to

retell the story in English or Dutch (according to their preference).

Finallv, rh'e storytJlltnr rasft required learners to tell a ston'in Dutch, using a set of pictures

thev were given. Rate oi d.liu"- of speech mattered more than the expression of content

or formal accurac\'.

The learners rvere divided into several age groups, but for our discussion we will divide

them into just three groups: children (aged 31o 1 O), adolescents ( 1 2 to 1 5 vears),_and adults

( 1 B to 60 vears) . The chilire.r and adoleicents ail attended Dutch schools . Some of the adults

,uo.k.d ln Dutch lvork environments, but most of their Dutch colleagues spoke English

well. Other adults were Parents u'ho did not u'ork outside their homes and thus had

somewhat less contact rvith Dutch than most of the other subjects.

The learners lvere tested three times, at four- to five-month intervals' They u'ere first

tested within six months of their arrival in Holland and rvithin six weeks of their starting

school or work in a Dutch-lanquaqe environment.

Activity

Comparing chjld, adolescent, and adult language leatners

Which group do vou think did best on the {irst test (that is, u'ho learned fastest)?Which group

do -uo,, ihi.rk rvas best bv the end of the vear? Do vou think some grouPs would do better on

."ri"i., tasks than others? For example, rvho do vou think would do best on the pronunciation

tasks, and lvho lvould do best on the tasks requiring more metalinguistic awareness? Compare

vour predictions u,ith the results for the different tasks u'hich are presented inTable 2. 1 . AniX' indi.u,". that the group was the best on the test at the beginning of the vear (an indication

of the rate of learning), ".,d

r 'Y'indicates the group that did best at the end of the year (an

indication of eventual attainment) '

In the Snorv and Hoefnagel-Hohle studr', the adolescents',vere bv far the most successful

learners.They \\'ere ahead oflvervone on all but one of the tests (pronunciation) on the {irst

test session. That is, rvithin the Iirst ferv months the adolescents had already made the most

progress in learning Dutch. As the table indicates, it rvas the adults who were better than the

"niid.".r and adoleicents on pronunciation in the first test session. Surprisingly, it was also

the adults, not the children , ll'hose scores n'ere second best on the other tests at the first test

session. In other rvords, adolescents and adults learned faster than children in the first fern'

months of exposure to Dutch.

Bv the "r,d

of the vear, the children u'ere catchinS rPl o. had surpassed,the adults on

,..ro".ul measures. Nerertheless, it rvas the adolescents w-ho retained the highest levels of

performance overall.

F A C T O R S A F F E C T I N G S E C O N D L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G 4 7

Table 2.1 Comparison of language learning at different ages

child Adolescent Adult

Pronunciation

Auditory discrimination

Morphologv

Sentence repetition

Sentence translation

Sentence judgement

Peabody picture vocabularv test

Storv comprehension

Storvtelling

YXY

XY

YT

XYXYXYXYXX

* These tests are too difficult for child learners

Snow'and Hoef l-Hohle concl heir results orovide evidence that there is

no critical Deriod for lan can De lnterDreted ln some

other rvavs as well:

1 Some of the tasks (for example, sentence judgement or translation) u'ere too hard for

young learners. Even in their native language, these tasks u-ould have been unfamiliar and

difficult. In fact, young Dutch native speakers to u.hom the second language learners rvere

compared also had trouble rvith these tasks.

2 Aclubr and-adolgsggr,ts ruaulearn-farterin the e:q\'stges qf second lang9ag9-der.etop-"nf(especiallv if thev are learning a language r'r'hich is similar to their first languageLlgllg Ichildren eveqtuallv catch- u,p 1n4_etqg surpass-lhsm,rf their exp-q-s-ufg to_theJa4girgg" 1*"t ipft

" 14r-.-nte$1^,][gf" th")'ir" ,t..o,r.,ded bv the-]grtguage "" "

a"lry'U"sii \

3 Adults and adolesc-ents can make considerable and rapid progress tow'ards mastery of a Ise"ond 1i-.r$ia!e 1n contexts rvhere thev can make use of the language on a dailv basis in

social, p".iggl-plgfessional, or academic interaction.

At what age should second language instruction begin?':

Even people r,vho knou'nothing about the critical period research are certain that, in school

programs for second or foreign language teaching, 'vounger is better'. Horvever, both

experience and research shorv that older learners can attain high, ifnot'native', levels of

proficiency in their second language. Furthermore, it is essential to think carefully'about the

goals of an instructional program and the context in r'vhich it occurs before we jump to

conclusions about the necessitv - or even the desirabilitv - ofthe earliest possible start.

The role of the crit ical period in second language acquisit ion is sti l l much debated.

For ever-v researcher vrho holds that there are maturational constraints on language

acquisition, there is another rvho considers that the 1ge factor cannot be sepal?ted from

factors such as motivation, social identitr', and the conditions for learning, T!*e:y argug -that oldei lear'riers mav r'r,'ell ipeak u'ith an accenl'be..r.tr" th"t' want to continue being

identified u'ith their first language cultural group, and adu!!qlel9!I€S!qgeTs 11tLe_sylmequantity and qualitt' of language input that children receir.-e in_plav settings.

i)

\ /

4 2 P A T S Y M . L I G H T B 0 W N A N D \ i ' , . 1 S D A D A - - : J - = >

/ ' "

Manv people conclude on the basis oisrudi-s such as those br'Pl4o*tki or Neu'port

and Johnson that it is better to begin second lan;uag.- in.truction a/earlv as possible.Yet it

is ven'important tc,L.ear lr ' nr:. 1 --:-: -- :-:.\: : ::^tst studies. Thet'deal u'ith the highest

possib le lere l o i s . . , - ,nc , . t :^_. - : .1 . .<, - - . . : : -= - . ' . . , ar . rh ich 4secon{ language speaker is

indis t inguishabl . l r . 'nr . " , , .

. . . =- . : b . . : . - : - . ' : r . r . r n l t i , e- l ike mai ten ' of the second

language is not a g,--,al t",r al, . . . "r, : ,r :- .3:.- ' : . :r : ; l . "- in- i l ' fcan' * "s "_*s ' " - '_ " - :-' 'fr'h"n the oF;ective of =e cond lanluagrT-.arnin; i. nati\e-like masterv of the target

language, it is usuall l desirable ior th. lcarncr Io L,c cumpletelv surrounded bv the language

as early as possible. Hos'ever. earh rnte nsi\ r c\posurc to the second language may entail the

Ioss or incomplete development oi the child's nrst lanquaqe.

When the goal is basic communicative abil itv tor all students in a school setting, and

w-hen it is assumed thatlhe child's nati\e languaqc u'l l l remain the primarv language, it

may be more efficient to begin second or,ioretgn language teaching later. When learners

receive only a few hours of instruction per l'eek, learners u'ho start later (for example, at

age 10, 1 1 , or 1 2) often catch up w'ith those u'ho began earlier. We have often seen second

or foreign language programs which begin u'ith ver\-\'oung iearners but offer onlv minimal

contact r,vith the language. Even rvhen students do make progress in these early-start

programs, thev sometimes lind themselves placed in secondarv school classes with students

rvho have had no previous instruction. After vears ofclasses, learners feel frustrated by the

lack of progress, and their motivation to continue mav be diminished. School programs

should be based on realistic estimates of how long it takes to learn a second language. One or

f; t*o hours a rveek will not produce verv advanced secoqd language qpeakers, no maiter howI I L _ .

\ young tlierir'lnere u:hen thev began.

Summary )

The learner's age is one of the characteristics which determine the w-ay in which an individual

approaches second language learning. But the opportunities for learninS (both inside and

outside the classroom), the motivation to learn, and individual differences in aptitude for

Ianguage learning are also important determining factors in both rate of learning and eventual

success in learning.

In this chapter, rve have looked at the rvavs in which intelligence, aptitude, personality

l, and motivational characteristics, learngr preferences, and age have been found to influence

t, , \, second ianguage _!93141,tg,% have leained that the stud)- .!l!!itt1"al learner variables is

I+. , not easv and the$herelri&cc{t:qlearc}rare not eniire\:i^iirf".tofrThis is partly because

, \r,\ of lhe*Jack of clear definitions and methods for the individuai characteristics. It is also due! 't '

,to the fact thafLhggg-learner-gharacteristics are,no,t-independent of one another: learner -i

,-- rariables interact in complex \\-at's-. So far, researchers knou'very little about the nature of

A . / th-ese compG* i.rt"r".Tio.rr.Th,rr, it remains difficult to make precise predictions about how

l :y" a particular individual's characteristics influence his or her success as a language learner.

i ' i Nonetheless, in a classroom, a sensitive teacher, u'ho takes learners'indiv_idual personalit ies ,1- \i

and learning stvles iirto account, can create a learning environment in *'hich virtually all

learners can be successftilin lbarning a s-econd language.l

t 2 _ ,/ \

F A C T O R S A F F E C T I N G S E C O N D L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G 4 3

References

Crookes, G. and Schmidt, R. (199 1) 'N'lotivation: "Reopening the research agenda"' , Language

Learning 41 / 4: 469-512.

Gardner, R. ( 1 98 5 ) Social Psvchology and Second Language Learning: The Role oJ Attttudes and

Motivation. London : Edrvard Arnold.

Gardner, R.C. and Lambert,\,\.E. (1972) ,4ttitudes and,Motivation in Second-LanBuaBe Learning.

Rou'ley, Mass.: Nervburv House.

Genesee, F. (1976) 'The role of intell igence in second language learning' , Language Learning

26/ 2: 267-80.

Guiora,A. , Bei t -Hal lahami, B. , Brannon, R. , Dul l , C. and Scovel ,T. (1912) 'The ef fects of

experimentallv induced changes in ego states on pronunciation abilitv in a second language:

An exploratory studv' , Comprehenive Psychiatr,t' 13 / 5: 421-8 .

Johnson, J. and Newport, E. (1989)'Crit ical period effects in second language learning:The

influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language.' Cognitive

Psychology 21 60 99 .

Obler , L . (1989) 'Except ional second language learners ' , in Gass, S. , Madden, C. , Preston, D.

and Selinker, L. (eds.) lariation in Second Language Acquisit ion,Vol. II: Psycholinguistic Issues.

Clevedon, UK/Philadeiphia, Pa.: N{ulti l ingual N{atters, pp. 141-9.

Patkow-ski, M. (1980)'The sensitive period for the acquisit ion of svntax in a second language',

Language Learning 30/2:449 12.

Skehan, P. (1989) lndividual D{ferences in Second Language Learning. London: EdwardArnold.

Reid, J. (ed.) (1995) Learning Stvies in the ESL/EFL Classroom. NervYork: Heinie & Heinle.

Snow, C. and Hoefnagel-Hohle, M. (1978)'The crit ical period for language acquisit ion: evidence

from second language learning', Child Development 49 / 4: 1 1 1+-28.

Wesche, M.B. (1981) 'Language apt i tude measures in s t reaming, matching students wi th

methods, and diagnosis of learning problems', in Dil ler, K. (ed.) lndividual D{fercnces and(Jniversals in Language Learning Aptitude. Roulev, N{ass. : NewburY House. pp. 1 19-39.

Yorio, C. (1986)'Consumerism in second language learning and teaching', Canadian Modern

Language Review 42 / 3: 668 81 .

C h a p t e r 3

Rod Ellis

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQU

RESEARCH AND LANGUAG

ISITION:

E PEDAGOGY

Introduction

l ists and expiicit srammar rules. The audiolinquist one

dreu' on behaviourist

Starting from the 1 960s, two approaches to addressing this lacuna have been evident.The {irst, a continuation of the approach adopted in earlier research, consists of attempts toinvest iqate the re lat ive ef fect iveness of d i f ferent uavs of teaching language in terms of the

products of lea.rniqg. Experimental studies bv Scherer andWertheimer (1964) and Smith(1970), for exarygle_,_lemp4rgdlhe_,1_.gf1q13s.o"tcomes of the grammar-translation andaudioLingual -"doar. ffl" r*ft., d'ay:"rr *t. i";"".f,*ii". The studierlfliTE*.,,oaud io l i ngua l me thods . The resu l t s . hov re re r . ) r e re i nconc lus i re . The s tud i cs / f a i l i t \ t o

'---.=-7 -]---:-- \.demonstrate the superioritv of one mettr6d over the other

WbIf1o

lh-e second appro_ach involved the empirical stud)' of hou' learner: acquired an_L2. Inf i rs t p laceo th is took the form of s tudies of learners 'J . r rsrs 1e.g. Duskova 1969; and case

t -u r r L a r r r t r J w J \ L . X . U U J \ v v @ \ / \ ) / , , 4 r t u L O J C

l---...'....t'r. Istudies oJ indiv idual learners learn ing a secondlanguage not in the c lassroom but thro-ush

gexpii'iii6lo-Tt-ft n-atural settings 1e.g. Karqm 1968).These studies i"uglfed&I-! ol!.rgggh

f f i r . . - r ito which teaqhers could easilv relate it onlv because the constructs on'which thevraie-rclased- errors and individual learners - \\,ere ones w.ith r,r,hich thev r,vere familiat. Also, these.sludies proved lq-gls fey@g than the global method comparisons, ploviding clearevidence that L2 learners, l ike children acquiring their l irst language (L1), accumulatedF"*l.G-Fin"-t""gil.gethev.@!g!iysyrtrryttcfashion.Thus,{lrereas global method studies soon fell out of fashion,istudies of L2 learningtook

off;,,6n\u. bJr.'.Much of this earlv rvork in SLA u'as pedagogicallv motivated.That is, researchers

conducted studies of L2 learn ing n i th the erpress in tent ion of addressing pedadof f i -ssues.. i . | _ _ . . - . . . . . ._ -_ - , - - - !__b__. . . . - :_ :>

S E C O N D L A N G U A G E A C Q U I S I T I O N 4 5

\ianv of these researchers *'ere, in fact, originallr ' teachers themselves.2The papers theyr r . t I

rvrote and published about their research tvpicall) ' concluded u'ith a secjion in w'hi"h th"

applic4iopaldimpligggqns for ianguage pedagogr-u'ere speiled out.The studies of learner

t rrors,?or "*u-p

herl ' attitudeio erro.i, r.[x- - r r r i l : i i . .

t - rFOfS Should be corrected and no\ l - learner progress coulo De evaluateo. I ne Case Studles of

i", l i t; chers should desist

from trying to ' intervene' directlv in the process of L2 acquisit ion and, instead, develop

approaches that rvould aliorv learners to learn'naturallr'' (Ne*'mark 1955 and Dulav and Burt

1973).

SLA has grown exponentiall'n' since its beginning in the 1 960s. One of the outcomes of

its growth u.,-d dirersiAcation ls ihat V-I tS growtn and dt\ersrncatron ls tnat mucn oI tne researcn ls no longer olrecf lv concerne(o . -

@. According to a theorv advanced bl' Chomsk

Iearn their mother tongue becauser task rs to est orv the abstract principles that

tonstitute ttusln6wlilige are minifest in the particular grammar thev are learning. One of

Hou'ever, irrespective of *'hether SLA addresses issues of likelv t"i".gttglolg4gbSlt,

there is the problem o-TT-dp-Eet$e€nSLA and langua# r

- - - = . - ; i - anot so much a ouest lon ol \ \ 'hat lssues )L. \ addresseE.

.;"a".mkethatofa11academl.di'.ip-Ii"ei,xto.1o.ntributetotechnica1,]knowl1dg9. th, is ref lec ied in the fact that SL. \ is . br and lu.ge. Ge p ieserve of uni rers i t l -

based researchers, rvhose primarv allegiance is to the conduct of n-ell-designed studies and

theorv development in their lield.This is as true of t}ose researchers rvho are concerned'r'vith

areas of potential relevance to language pedagogr'(e.g. igpgLlntglagllgn qn-d t\"_11g._-,'.hf

form-focusgd instructiolr) as it is of researchers lvho see SLA as a means of contributing to

other disciplines such as linguistics or cognitive psvchologv. In contrast, Ianguage pedag,ogy

is concerned with plggqg?i.lqqftlqlge. Textbook u.riters drarv on their experience of the

kinds of activities that rvork in classrooms and, of course, on their familiaritv t'ith other

published materials. Teachers drau' on their hands-on knou'ledge to perform the myriad of

tasks that comprise teaching.

Given that a gap exists betrveen SLA and language pedagogv and assuming that SLA is,

at least, of some potential relevance, the question arises as to horv the gap can be bridged.

the main goals of UG based SLA is to investigate rvhether and hou' these principles operate

i n f ) .

l6"oryJfuFTh* to "dd..r,

th. pru.ti..l p.obl r_.lhgr is t - ics.

Other sub-fields of SL-{ hlre continued the tradition of strong links with language

pedagogv.Tivo in particular stand out.The flrst is the studv ofthe role ofinput and interaction

iql-iucquisit io.t ie.g. Lone 198 r . ' ,d P

l . 'P@i 'Pot"nt ia lho[considerabIere]e iancetoteachers. indeed,o- ' ' " lr r tun i t ieQ-hian land usfE-e L2. The-theorieslnd findings ' ihi. to iciJssr-oo-m ieieirch, as, for example, in studies u'hich have investigated the kinds of input and \

interaction afforded b;'different l'pes_ollanguage ta_sks (see Crookes and Gass 1993) and

b-v different modes of . lurrro* pnEiclpit ion (eg Pica and Doughtv 1985).The second*2

sub held ot SLA u'ith clear l inks to lanquage pedaqoq! rs the studv ot tglrn:lesu:ed]nstlyj-

tion. SLA researchers have investigated l.hether teaching learners particular grammatical ]ffi.,,r.", actuallv results in theirieing learnt (e.g. Spad"a and Lighibou,n 199"3) and, also, Iwhat metlodological options for teaching grammatical structures are most effective (e.g. \VanPatten and Cadierno 1993). )

1I

II\ -

\

V

DI

(r'

4 6 R O D E L L I S

Mv perspective is that of the.outsider;iqid".i fo. "

._of

Technical and practical knowledge

it exists in a declarative form that has been ecrU these reasons i ilxamined

G-t of orocedures desi to ensure the validitv and reliabilitv of the

lv ledgeisgeneral ized; that is , i t takestheformofstate.. . . . . . " . . " . # r . i - - - - - ^ ^ - - : - - - l l E ? l f t - - . t - ^ ^ . ^ - t : ^ - rments that earl DcaDDlled to manv oart lcular cases. f or lnrs reason. l t cannot easr lv De aDDlg,o

rapid decision-makinq needed to deal u'ith pry!]"-r ur tg.L rg9y.ln cla\'-to-cla) tr\. ' tg.

- o'er the vears,SQlHers pro'ided a substantiai

P5[o.[t"1h'd99w^led_g:lbo,uthow

In contrast. oracticallnorrwhat u'e o.u.ti.r**horr-. For

'ledge is,.implicit and intuitive.IMe are generally ng! awale of

examole. I knou hou to t ie mv shoe laces but I have l i t t le

u*ffin.". aT-oillF$Gn6ce of actions I must perform to do this and could certainly not

describe them verv w'ell. In colllqst t-a teeh[ica] knou-ie-dge, pqgf*ical knon led]gbgcquired

al experiehg: in the context of performing actions EE;-n:;fare only Poor lv unders i?nilarl\apractical knolrledge is Fulh e ible only in

PI ad

Vt ,

Il '

'}1

iIII

t l l l . l l . # , .u@ r@sr'"gdeeply about the object of g"q"iry o. b)'i"u. nglt empiifcilli:The latter i"g]y:-$e

people learn a second language.This is reflected in the evFg?oTinfset of tec6nJcal terms

usedlo laliel this knowledge: overgeneralization and transfer errors, order and sequence of

acquisition, foreigner talk, input and intake, noticing, learning and communication strategies,

the teachability hypothesis (see thgglgssarv in Ellis I 994 t.This technical knowled€e and the

terms bel it constitute the's( irefullv suarded b,r' practitioners oI SLA.

q!-anagqof practical knowledge is that it is groceduralized and t}us can be drawn on rapidly....w

and e ihcren t lv to hand le par t l cu la r cases .-

Practisinq oroGsslonals r lalr vers. doctors. and teachers t are orimarilv concerned with

a c t i o n i n v o I v i n g p a r t i c u l a r c a s e s a n d f o r t h i s r e a s o n d q l

b "ou l9@rk .F re idson (1977 ,c i t ed inErau t1994 :53 )desc r i beshow medical practitioners operate :

1 One w-hose work requires practical application to concrete cases simply cannot

f maintain the same flrame of mind as the scholar or scientist: he cannot suspend action

i ln th" absence of incontrovertible evidence or be skeptical of himseif, his experience,

: his work and its fruit. In emergencies he cannot rvait for discoveries of the future.

\ Dealing rvith individoul ..r"r,-h" cannot relv solely on probabil it ies or on general

, concepts or principles: he must also relv on his ou'n senses. By the nature of his work

j the clinician must assume responsibilitr' for practical action, and in so doing he must

rely on his concrete, clinical experience.

Teachers, faced u'ith the need to make countless decisions to accomplish a lesson, must also

S E C O N D L A N G U A G E A C Q U I S I T I O N 4 7

necessarilv relv primarilv on the practical knou.ledge thev have acquired through teaching

or, perhaps, through their experiences of having been taught. Ho-uvever, it may b_e poss-i-bJe

for other practit ioners of languagepedlgog,v (e.g. svllabus designers, test constructors, and

mareilals n riters t to attempt some integration of tec.hnical and practical krlqgledge, as their

actir it jes are more amenable_ to ca.relul planning and de]ibelglsllecrqlsn:n0aking.

The crucial issue is the nature of the relationship betu'een technical and practical

knowledge.To rvhat extent and in r,vhat wavs can the technical knolvledge derived from deep

reflection and research influence actual practice? Holv can technical know-ledge be utilized

in the creation of the kind of practical knou.ledge u'ith u-hich teachers must necessarilv

u'ork? Weiss ( 1 977) provides a \\.av of addressing these questions. He describes three models

ofresearch use.

Decision-driven model According to this model, tesea.ch is aimed at i---decisionJhus, the. starting point fol research is not a theor,y* of L2 acqrtisition or a reviqgs- ---------;-oieiE]lresearch but rather some practical issue of direct concern to teachers. There is a

con C DOCI\ appears to ht rnto th-is model. Horveler, for this

research to be trulv decision-driven it needs to be formulated in a mannqr that leachcrr--wjlLC;aily understani. This is often not their articles^ - - ' r efor publl-ati6fr'Tn journals and books that rvili be read bv other researchers even if they

address issues ofdirect concern to teachers. In fact. then, much ofthe SLA research that

apparentlv belongs to the decision-driven model is more trulv representative ofWeiss' second

model the know'ledge-drivenmodel.

to contribute to a specific-. Knowledge driven model Knorv c h i

I is to advance the knou'led base of the discioline brt6i-struct

ogi . As *e ha 'e seen, one

wav of characterizing the development of SLA as a field of study is in terms of a gradual

movement torvards know'ledge-driven research. Much of the earlier researct-r rval descriptive

in nature (e.g. the studies of l"u..r.. errors and t6? cile;t,rd*, .f- *d"nd""l 1."rn1;t,

motivated quite explicitlv bv a desire to inform pedagogv and published in a form that was

relativelv accessible to teachers. Later research, although certainlv not all, has been designed

to test specific SLA theories, has been incr_eg1ngry_gr(lerimentalrn naru-e;nfrhafbe-en-

written ;bout \\.ith;il; rese;r.h.rr * tlr. i"t""a.a audience. Researchers mav feel theii

r t often see litt le need to consider its

applications directlr'.

lnteractjve model Here tec-hnr:gllne\\ ledge and practical knon'ledge are inte_r-L+tgd in the

perfor-unce of some proft . The ',vav in which this is achieved is highly

complex. Weiss (1977 : 87-8) comments:

the process is not of l inear order from research to decision but a disorderly

of i.rt"..orr.rections and back-and-forthness that defies neat diagrams. All kinds

people involved in an issue area pool their talents, beliefs, and understandings in

effort to make sense of a problem.

Not surprisinglv, then, the interactive model is problematic. As Eraut (1994) points out

there_4re.various factors that constrain the professional's ability_llq nlqke_u;e_of the knorvledge

qgetr$blo"gh. g. Ferv resources are available

for effectingin interaction. Funding for research, for example, is tvpicallv au'arded to

r"l---lofa n r

cnSdiDIInE. lts prlmar y' - .

t r . - - : - - - i

and testtnge4Phctt th

4 8 R O D E L L I S

universit_v-based researchers concerned u'ith knou'ledge-creation rather than to teams oi

researchers and teachers concerned rvith solving practical teaching problems through a

pooling of expertise.Teachers rarelv have the time to familiarize themselves rvith publishec

research. Also, the verv nature of technical and practical knorvledge makes it difficult tc

inter-relate. Considerable effort and probablv prolonged interaction are needed to combin.

the analvtical skills of the researcher u'ith the holistic and highlv contextualized skills of the

teacher.

Similar problems exist regarding the utilization of practical knowledge in the creation ot

technical knou'ledge. P.1gl$]-\Irow is Iarsel r tac i t and d i f f icu l t to codi fy . Conse

quently, its rel.-i l v assessed. G i ren the requ i rement tha t

t

technical knou.ledge is demog.strabll'reliabie and valid, researchers generall@,refer-

ence to practical knox-iedqeSHou.ever,-4s Eraut (1994) notes, researchers' own practicalence to practical knor,t ' ledgeSHou'eler,\ Eraut ( 1994) notes, researchers' o\\ 'n practica- - - 1

Fiperiences mar ot'Len lnlluence therr \\ 'ork rn subtle and unstatedil-vs.To a certain extent

ihen. the in teraction mod el mar woil-ili6lltilKow'ledge helps us to understand whr

SLA, as it has evolved since its inception, cannot automaticalh'be assumed to be of use

in Ianguage pedagogv and, particularlv, to classroom teachers. The gap between SLA and

language pedagogv is a product of both the tvpes of knon'ledge these trvo fields tvpicallv

emplov and the lack of opportunitr- to bridge the gap.

The SLA researchers' perspective

The nature of the relationship betw'een SLA and language pedagogv has attracted the

attention ofa number ofresearchers over the vears. A useful starting point in our exploration

ofhow SLA might inform pedagogv is to take a look at rvhat these SLA researchers have had

to sav.

The application of SLA can take place in tw-o rather different r,r.ays. As Corder (1977)

has pointed out, the starting point can be the research itself w.ith the applied linguist cast in

the role ofinnovator or init iator, advancing pedagogical proposals on the basis ofhis/her

knor,r.ledge of SLA. This corresponds to Weiss's knon'ledge driven model of research use.

Alternatively, the starting point can be unsolved practical problems in language pedagogy,in rvhich case the SLA researcher takes on the role of a consultant n'ho is approached b-v

practit ioners for possible solutions. This corresponds to Weiss's decision-driven model of

research use. We find both tvpes of application discussed in the literature but it is probabl,v

the first that is paramount, reflecting, perhaps, the dominance of the researcher's perspective

over that ofthe teacher's.

In general, SLA researchers "vith

a strong interest in pedagogy have been cautious about

applying SLA. Earlv articles bvThrone et a|. (1976) and Hatch (1978) emphasized the need

to be careful. Hatch lamented that researchers have often been over-ready to make

applications to pedagogv, pointing out'. . our field must be knorvn for the incredible leaps

of logic w.e make in applving our research findings to classroom teaching'.Tarone et al.

(1976) advanced a number of reasons u'hv SLA could not serve as an adequate basis for

advising teachers. Among other points, thei' argued that the research to date was too limited

in scope, that the methodologl'for collecting and anal-vsing data was unproven and that too

few studies had been replicated.Thev also noted that the practices ofresearch and teaching

were verv different in nature. Whereas researchers adoplg-d-aslow, bit-by-bit app1q4ch,

teachers had immediate needs to ,rt- -difference in terms of the distinction betu'een technical and practical kno'ivledge.

S E c O N D L A N G U A G E A C Q U I S I T I O N 4 9

The concerns voiced bvTarone et aL. (1976) and Hatch (1978) are verv real ones.They

reflect the understandable reticence of researchers to plunge in before thev are certain of

their results.This uncertaintl'about the quality of the research bein ced mav have been

one of the reasons r.vh"- some researchers s adding sections on the applications of their

..r""..fio-tf,Eil-published aiti.lof m.etrorp".t, horr;er;ei, I am not so sure that researchersr - ! . \ . - .

need to be so cauuous. As Corder ( 1980) noted, teachers cannot '"vait unti l researchers are

completely satisfied that their results are robust u"Tg.""-=lilBl.. Sh;ila t...h"iliotE": ; i i : ! : r | " -

per-itted to base their pedagogical de<rs-ff i iG ontnemft inlormation arailable even if this

is sti l l inadequate in the el'es of researchers? More importanth', the applv-w.ith-caution

approach makes certain assumptions about the relationship betlveen research,/theorv and

practice which are themselves challengeable. It appears to vieu-the practitioner as a consumer

of rqe_gg.h. FryT r"gb u .t3llTj.99rse, it is essential to make sure tbal the product being

marketed is a sound o,r". BG * i* itill ,.. ffi-elffi;;tEerpos,ltutt ]t;"*';Tti. relations1rifi- --

| + - - ' - - l - r - - -Derw.een researcn ano practices is not acceptable to manv educators and mav not serve as the

-_'-_*"-.lei-*-

rifiTTTp p ropr i atg modgjg itlgusling L,9I_!! 4 S"" ai d te ac hilLg--ni#;i.

"f,".".ril'., t. t-he instrumental view of SLA im!"hcit in the early articles bv

Throne et al. (1976) and Hatch (1978). One is that SLA should not so much be used to tell

practitioners u'hat to do, as to mform their under

so tnat will knorv better rvhat it is possible to achieve in a ciassroom.This is the position

adopteil b1- Lightbown i1t85;. She argues dut SlA htrsnorthingt{"l l teachers about w'hatl lto reacn Dur serves as fguide about hou' to teach. Lightbolvn recognizes that teachers lvill

Second-language acquisit ion research does not teli teachers

says about how to teach thev have alreadr' figured out.

If this is all SLA can do for teachers, one might rvell ask w'hether it is w-orth their rvhi

making the effort to become familiar rvith it.

Not all researchers/theorists have felt the need to plav dor.vn the contribution that SLA

ls w the ..s"u..hG"lT *tutshould be used to address pedagogical issuds but rather the tteorr-ilerirgqd-lrenlTEe resdtrch.-EvEnTpplied

p;;-.IILeS 4 tt-l tK3qJ! d

" I l,tl

"€ l3llgd t for-!a-.lh o d oJ o gy i n, ge ner a I'(Krashen 1983:261) and thus

w.hich do not but she sussests

te ache r im ate r.,p the ii..rinFFoili ghtb or,r'n, tIS. < 1lnnovattve tecnn or ne\\ ' teacrunq aDDroacnes Dut rat

Iending support to particular a ches, su-ch as

es to solve

amrharttr \ \ ' l th the results 11ea1ch rvill helpies not in identi f l inq

ins expectanc-iElend in

tanguage From

ffitedrelevancetolanguagepedagogy,forasLightbown

basis for evaluating nerv pedagogical ideas.@he131g"b that the theptlnquglbsglheo5of L l acs l l l s l t lqn as opposed to a l rngurs t rc theor ! o r a theorv o l genera l learn lng . lnoeeo,

he claims thatGacher\have grolvn suspicious qf 'theon'' becau

dTlle believes that SLA theory, becausehe failure of linsuistic 7

', "* lf:f9q51Fl"-ance Krashen

a l s o a r g u e s t h u t ( i . e . b a s e d o n a c t u a I L 2 r e s e a r c h , ;

what to teach, and lvhat it

le)

can make to language pedagogr'. Sorne have looked for navs of bridging the gap between

research and classroom practice. One u'ar'|s to construct a theon'of L2 acquisit ion that is

compatible n'ith the ar ailable researth-Efr-n hiiilIio-C tuned]oThej- neeAs oftr-actreiiTh-it-

and

( tb td . : 182 ) commen ts :

rather than on armchair speculation.

theorr. Also, he elplicitlv T:og"i15 taSE js{rlis -o ,heexp l i c i t l r . r ecoqn i zes tha t teache rs@sand in tu i t i ons

-+-*---trame\,vorvork. (rashe}l{g}lg!

theor \ ' . A Iso . ne exDl lc tuv recognrzes tna t teacners \ \ ' l l l ano snou lq Dr lng lc leas ano ln tu luons- - i : - - - €

based on their owi-practiFalTiperrglgllo dffi" -al""g. As Krashen r l98 l: 261 I says

5 0 R O D :

- \ luch r i l i : : . : - . : ' . . : - r - r .ned u.ork has been concerned u ' i th the appl icat ions of h is

o*-n forcetuli., pr,-,n-,,,rej iheort t i.e. the Monitor Model and, more recentl,v, the Input

Hr-pothesis r. as in Krashen andTerrell ( 198 3). It should be noted, horvever, that contrary to

some cntrcrsn'rs le.e l l.-d at him (seeWiddorvson 1990: 34) Kr{'hgLIg! ng"t5:ougbl t9

preclude te achers erploring pra_gmatic optionsterived from ideT 9]rtrid" httj leoretical

L C

There t ions of theon-based as opposed to research-base_d applica-

d on it cannot be

dismissedTipointing out the limitations of specific research studies. A theory is general in#;- . -nafuie and, thus, ullggpolgls derjl'g-d from it are potentially yalid iq a hing

gqntlxls. In contrasq iqdifl_dual researih sPd necessaril)'loSglgd qip::fc contexts,makinq it difficult to advance sals of g.n.4uFF1i.f,5i.]Iv. Also, p.gl"rul: based on a- i -_:_- --

tlggy-ar" Ii\g!_94orscss a -ca-heryrlgq bckqg rn 1le_geceTreal application of inqgd3alstudies. One of the attractions of Krashen's theorv is that it oiters teacherran overarching

Hou'ever, there are obvious dangers oftheorv-based applications. As Beretta ( 1 99 1 ) and

Lonp r l99 l rhare oointed out . SLA theor ies do not tend to eo a\ \ 'a \ ' . even nhen thev are inc I

9-bllp". opposition to each other In a thoughtful discussion of u'h)' this is so, Schumann(1993) points out that it is extremelv dif6cult to falsify a theorr'. One reason is that whefe.*ashvootheses are tvpicallv tested in isolation thev exist in'a netlvork of auxil iarv assumptions'

(ibid.:259) with the result that even if a particular hvpothesis is not supported i lclnnot be

iismissed b"."r.r..i-t-L-irnp m lies. Thus. theorists

u s u al ly eip-e ii e n i e lliil "

affi Affi ,r*.t*t * " *i.* c o un te ;;;aG; s :

- -they simplv adjust an underlving assumption or reconceive the construct on which the---==-- ------T---ff iothesis is based. Krash?n has pror-en adept a@ despite

tific thinkirrg (see Lantolf 1995). S".h ,h"orl.r hut. b. lpglutf"gand svstematicall-v testinq hvpotheses based on them. The result is 'technical knou'ledge'.

=Ho*"u.t, s not readily

studies. One of the attractions of Krashen's theorv t it off"r, tei?EEilTn6ueraiihinsr.ien'of u'hat and how-tqieach.

lU

Is

-ql

d

concerted criticism from prominent researchers and applied linguists. But if theories cannotbe falsified and, therefore, are able to survir.e more or iess indefinitelv hoq then, can teachers

evaluate the legitimacv of proposals based on them? In the case of Krashen, for example, howcan teachers evaluate his principal propo_s_al, namelv that teachers-should_!e primarilyconcerned u ' i th prov id ingl p lent i fu l comprehensib le inpub so that acquis i t ion ( i .e .

- | * . * _ - r r | - r - - i - - - - - - - T - l - - - - - - - - - = = ; - i

_suD_consclous language learnlng) can taKe+Bq3 j ln snort. aDDllcatlons Dased on an )LA tneorv

are riskt because ther have to be taken on taith.This might not mJtteisb-hucfiTThe-orv werc- -used to advance suggestions for teachers to test out in their own practice but, more oftenthan not. theorr'-derir-ed applications are vested u-ith an authoritv that r.r 'orks aqainst such

p{ugggi. experimentation. For example, Krashen's claim that learningliG. the conscious

study of linguistic forms) has a relativelv minor role to piav in L2 acquisition w'orks againstteachers'investigating, in the context of their olvn teachin$, how'form-focused instructioncan complement and perhaps enhance acquisit ion.

There isjr more serious o-b+ettp4-to Krashen's p]_qlgsal t ojrld guidelanquage pedagogr' - one that has alreadY h""' '-hinted at in the discussion of technical- + *

know4edge and practical knor'vledge S+-es9!gd, such as Krashen's, are tvpically theproduct of t]le contemplative approach to enquirv that characterizes much modern scierr-r

accessible t.@1o-duy*o.k, "l$oiF

t<ilGffi;a.". asgood a job-_.--'_.'-.

S E c O N D L A N G U A G E A C Q U I S I T I O N 5 1

as any to make it so. For a theory-Lo-bfe! rlgximum use to teachers it has to take t}e form 7offiiis y a theorv of action.Thi, i,

" poinithut ro'lllGiiE;upl"te. rn this chapter. t

, ' *J --r1-\ - - f f i - o the ruavo tb r i dg ing thegapbe tueenSL . \and languagepedagogv i s th roughuha t l r u ' ( i , h ,

loh" J;h;i.; &u*'Jui'"nulog' blt*-e"n ,', ',' ' '

.

9ngin."llrl;;d lgslring. He argues tnut r* n..EiiFifi""ring has successlullv deti"ned its ou'n 't* ',

.'o *

problem space as independent from that of supporting disciplines, such as phvsics,language t <<,Jr.e,'o- t,

to be manipulated 1o control tor unrvanted variables that mav intluence the ellect "I ;, pL*

a given treatment), there mav not, in fact, be anv difference betrve:1jg11g15!clgggot" "'1 ' ::

,.i"q..h. In this ..rp "d |t Jcb

[r"ur.h on classroog* i.?irunt-To derelop th" t..hiologr of t"u.hinftn-ili"n.rton ,"-,-, ;"*consltler3-hece-sa-arvfEaffiattet th;ns required. lbr as r\:right tina.TgZi

-u,FguEr 'un lJ ",*-*

- : - : l l : : , . r - - - . l a r i r - I : : : ' _ r h \ : - t - , - r - |ecessa rv r t l s t ne l a t t e t t na t lS requ l red . l o r as w r l gn t ( tD Id . ' . l v l ) a rques an_ _ , ' . . * l . a - 'ng oT-the L2 clasM-mg-trt-Eest proceed . . , lrom its inr estigation a$ a culture

teaching has not I'et done r". ge ),*u-1 ,-t .i-J..,

developed through experimentation in the classroom itself. Johnston distinguish{s pure L - ./research ( r .e. the research carr ied out bv SLA researchers sd:ch as h imsel f ; un-d. lur . .oo-

- : :

research. He recognizes that prr." ..r.ur.h can onlv provide guidelines and suggesti orrr, *Yuf

. ' ;r'vhich har,e to be put to the test. For Johnston, then, the gap betr.veen SLA and language F- LzU-<- -' -

pedagogv needs to be fi i led bv conducting experimental studies in actual classrooms. He is ; '1 e ,.optimistic that such research w'ill ensure that'the language teaching of 10 to 15 vears hence y,o--.*tc"r

rvill be rather different from the hit and miss methods of todav' (ibid. : 3 8). C; b t' ,J-4f,There is gio$cai objection 1p Johnston's position. If ${1n_d of classroom research + t& .

Johnston has iti-iid-iiiontrolled exp..i-."tution (rvhJe tfrereatiiieiafthe classroijin 6aue )^-r*^rlto be manipulated to cont lo l for un. tanted- tar i ib les that mar in f - luence the ef f iect d- ,0* p[*

reseaich on Classrooms. V ..-l | /- lt" J \/' -- ^ r'u r€

The case for basing pedagogical decisions on L2 classroor4-r"r#.iluS.SiFur-r..a 'i

by a number of other researchers and language educatorl: larris$983: 238), for example, ' : '- l i 'r:

" i g . , " . t h a t . o u r t " " l a m e n t s t h e | a c t t h a t i t L - - ,ha*s tvpically ods Cou.ses

in Masters prograffiei*TeSOl in the United States and Canada. Onlr' l8ozo included

reference to classroom-centred research (CCR). Long(ibid.: 284) suggests that this may

. : r--fi -........-.-.......-

ln l ts o\\ n r lqnt . no\\ 'ever, ed experimentation mav not be the best u'ar1 ) _ _ r l

reflect the practical orientation of methods courses but hee Dractlcal orlentatlon oI metnoos cours t he argues that claclassroom-centred

room research as the means bv rvhich researchers can most effectively influence language

pedagogv.-

There are serious reasons for disputing the optimism that both Johnston, Long, and

research is 'eminentlv practical' because it is 'concerned lvith u.hat actualh' qoes on in the

classrooms, ur opposed-to ovhatis supposed to go o"@olcou.qelfr + f f

the researcher acceDts the rea l r t les o l c lassroom behav lour and makes no a t tempt to manrpu-

lut. lt foi."r"-.;;hTr4llr.r d research

should be included in methods courses: it has alreadv produced some practical information;

teachers can use the research toois that har.e been emploved to investigate their own

classrooms; classroom-centred research u'i l l help teachers become sceptical about relying- ^ A r "

' - * i

on s ingle ieach- i rg methods. In a subiequent paper. - tong (1990) argues the need for a/ - " - - _ - . . . . t - - - 4 1 . .

I I r l r . | | , l - | . - | - lcommon Dooy or r<nolr,'ledfue wliich can be transmitted to teachers in rnuch the same way as

u c; t" A;.t"".J6t"gg.rtr itrui. T ' . = _ - - . . r . . _ _ - - / : : -

althougf L2 classroom research is Imited in arumber of respects i t const i tutes'a grou-irgbodyof tang ib le@"ch i . 'g ' ( ib ld . :1 i51 . ro 'Long, th iscons t i tu teshard evidence n'hich is bettFi tEan The preludices and suppositions u.hich he believescharacterize most pedagogical decision-making. Like Johnston, then, Lglg

"lo'Ugeq_slass-

others share regarding the effect such research r,vill have on language pedagogv. As Stenhouse

5 2 R O D E L L I S

(1979:71-7)hasso amusinglv demonstrated in his fictionai account of how a teacher grapples

with the attempt to applv the results of research concerning strategies for teaching about

race relationr, .l'4rr.oor,. research is un_likelv to produce.cle,ar answers to teachers' questions____becauseitonlvdemonStrateslvhatn.orksbrgl-dlargeorfoj@qh.l '

" "*"p"@.Sitttho"s"tmore formallv else',vhere :

f,h. crucial point is that the proposal (from research) is not to be regarded as an

,' ,rnqrr"li6ed recommendation but rather as a provisional specification claiming nornore

than to be u,orth putting to the test ofpractice. Such proposals claim to be intelligent

rather than correct.

In other r,vords, classroom rese"t"h although p_otentiallv closer to the realities teachers_have

to grapple w-ith than non-classroof-resealgb, rs.Jlill .9*orq!i@ gapI rapple ! \ ' l tn tnan non-classrool I l Iescdl( I \ rs 5tr I r rcrr ru j ! r r_w_l l l l ! ! ! ! ! l !$! r l \ ' - ! r \ bqt , -

ffirro*-ed somervha(but idcannot be 6lled b1glrssroom

6;;;h,".'..,"'h"qlhist91,iiEu-Fo.,I"th..thu^ q!tq!!+s.---*ffir*:ff;;id"r"d

r,r,hat variourF....".chers have had to say regarding the

application of research/theorv to language pedagogv.The vier,v of change implicitin all of

the positions r,r.e have examined is a top-down one. Appiied linguists draw on information

from SLA to initiate tentativelv or conlidentlv - various pedagogic proposals.The proposals

mav be based on pure research, on a theorv of L2 acquisit ion, or on classroom-centred

,.re"r.h but in each case the presumed originator of the proposal is the SLA researcher/

theorist. It is time now. to brieflv consider an alternative wav in rvhich SLA can be used to

inform language pedagogr'.

Wb." thr helPing

teachers solr,e the p;t.J;;Et"qlth.i have identifi"d.@touch-can

be for@p.mi-ifi"iSlA itself but rather the questions

that teachers have asked her 'both in the privacv of their classrooms and in the more public

domain of professional meetings' (ibid. : 50) . Pica offers a list of ten guestions dealing with

such matteis as the relative impqlgnggpleslqpr.+ension and production, the role of explicit- ----: '

--:.-rs--- .lg1ggrmqr Ultruction, and the u ." l ' lca Provldes answers to tnese

q".rtlo"i b"sed on her understanding ofthe SLA research literature.

The obvious advantage of such an approach to applving SLA is that the information

provided is more l ikelv to be heeded bv teachers because it addresses issues thev have

identif ied as important. Bahns (1990: 115) goes so far as to claim:

1 -Tl. iniriative for applving research results of anv kind to anv field of practice\'( rvhatsoeverghould come from the practitioners themselves.

\_ _ - ./'\

Such a statement ignores, holvever, some obvious l imitations in this insider approaJ:

Teachers can onlv ask questions based on their olr'n experience. They cannot ask questi,:,:

C *uy to organize a svllabus - in terms of structures, notions, or tasks?' because they l'ou- -

not have knolvn what'notions' or 'tasks' (in its technical sense) lvere. These concepts ha'..

been derived from the w.ork of linguists or applied linguists, but have not arisen spontaneou:,

through the practice of teaching. Thus, although much can be said in favour of an insic-

approach, there is also a case for the outsider application ofSLA

about issues thev har e no knou ledge of. If Bahns's dictum n ere to be religiouslv adhered : :

<1 manv ol the der elopments in language p[dagog) ouer thelaiinrein*FfrFould plobar .i , . , _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ l n - _

\ / n o t h a @ p l e , t e a c h e r s r v o u l d h a r . e b e e n u n l i k e I v t o a s k . W h a t i s t h e h . . :V r u

S E C O N D L A N G U A G E A C Q U I S I T I O N 5 3

A number of more recent discussions of the relationship betlr-een SLA and languagepedagogv have grappled rvith this issue. Gass (.1995: 16), for example, suggests that one vl.ayround the insider,/outsider problem is for researchers and teachers to lvork'in tandem todetermine holr' SLA findings can be evaluated and be made applicable to a classroomsituation, and to determine r,vhich SLA findings to use'.The kind of collaborative endeavour

Gass has in mind is one rvhere researchers and teachers seek to understand each other's goais

and needs and she suggests a number of areas r,r-here the concerns of the t"r'o groups coirrcide

(e.g. the issue of correction). Hou-ever, true collaboration involves not just agreement aboutu'hat to investigate but also how. Gass partlv addresses this bv quoting from Schachter ( 1993:

1 8 1 ) :

We need to create a mindset in u'hich both teachers and researchers vieu' classrooms

as laboratories u'here theorv and practice can interact to make bot} better practice and

better theorv.

The problem here is that r.vhereas researchers mav feel comfortable in vier,ving classrooms

u..luiorgtori"r. t"u.h.., Schachter seems to do

tlallgseayghelr engage in theor)'and teadhErs inFiaEice. SLA and language pedagogy are /

b. f f i *J-

i - - ) '

' r

- 1 - , {

reiearchers and teachers can effectivelv collaborate is complex. It is one that has been I

addr

researchers have paid scant attention to this literature.-Frorn

this inifa-I eTploration of u-hat it means to applv SLA research it is clear that

there is no easv ans\\:er. For some, the immaturitv of SLA as a field of enquirr- precludesapplications. For others, SLA can onh'hope to shape teachers' expectations ofu'hat is possiblein the classroom. Others have deveioped specific proposals on the basis of general theories

of L2 acquisition. Others have suggested that the gap betrveen SLA and teaching can be filled ,

by conducting research in and on L2 classrooms. Finallv, some researchers have argued for

an approach u'here thev act as consultants addressing issues raised bv teachers or where thev

participate in coilaborative research with teacher.. t Ar ',,r-. have seen, each of these approaches

has something in its favour but none of them is entirelv successful in closing the gap between

SLA research and language pedagogv. In the next section rve consider the iiews of a number

ofeducators on how'research can be made relevant to teachers.

Educational perspectives

Earlier we noted that the once close connection rvhich SLA researchers initiallv envisaged

between SLA and language pedagogv has not continued.To understand the gulf that-frequentlv

divides the theorv a@ onlqqrp-haryl, and the th-eor)'andpr&Iic--f.

teaching on the oth-e-r, n'e need to examine thegurding principies and assumptions of each.Weru-_

need to conslder the culture ol research and the culture ol teacfung.

Let us begin with research. It is customarv to distinguish tr,vo broad traditions in empirical

enquirv - the confirmatorv and the interpretatiue. The co.,ffiilii6il' t*iliiiA li interven'-. . - . ! . L

) ' designed experiments, such as the agricultural experimentstio'nisL'lt is

of R. A. Fischer (1935) in the United Stjrtes, rvhichlr.eiE---"----'-

--1 ^r

ti6atment produced the best crop rields.Th" _t1gd_$on

@(i .e 'subjectsarerandomlvdist r ibutedintoanexper imenta land a control group) and the careful controlofextraLeous variables (i.e. those variables that

might confound the studv of the particular variable under investigation ) ' Thgit9.o

5 4 R O D E L L I S

io n ) . Thg,ialqggstative

tradition is ryflgggg{in Weber's ( 1 961P d r

L I U U r 4 l r a l r 4 u r L

(1961) faqious &){inition of sociologv:'Sociology ' ' ' is a-l.i lative ,,.'d"."tun6oT rocial action.' It is maniGst in

"ffiffintionitt ttrli.. tEtt seek to develop an u-iiltlFiS social rules thEt-

""d"Ji.oput@i[emeani

- . 1

t the socral actors tnvolvec In tne

actir itrtlhimFdlr n Ller ;F."t. "I"*-cottFi .nuto.r ."t"ttch

s e et#au seTlinGip reTatir-" r"6[h Io o ks for

Bot e have alreadv noted, SLA began with

. u , " e s e s t u d i e s f o c u s e d o n i n d i v i d u a l l e a r n e r s ,

collecting samples of spoke., Ianguage bv observing the learners in naturallv occurring

"rr,riro.#".rts.! These .ure ,trrdie, investigated naturalistic learning by examining the

Iangu3ggg-rodu99d b1 l"art'ets, t[e-p1ote."i ind tli*

;d;ffiJi;lloi. ufi".t.d their p.ogiess. One of the outco6es offiitradition of research

ffitf,waS descnptir.e lnformition about the order in r,vhich learners acquired different

tf )

grammatical struciures and the sequence of stages thev follou'ed in mastering particular

,"t.r1.trrr., such as negatives, interrogativ.r, ".tJ

relative clauses. Another branch of the

interpretative traditiJn of research - SI-n can be found in ethnograP-hic studies.of L2

.l"rrroom. (e.g.Van Lier 1988, Markee 1994a).These studies have sought_to describe the

kinds of discourse in r,vhich classroom learners engage and how these influence their L2

development.Th,e-qo4firqutoti'-ltiqiti9"]l:I!9ryI--uch of the w'orkbased on Universal Grammar

(e.s. Flynn and Martohar-djdtl9ttJ"@+E9tg.d{-#i1s of such insinrments as

grr---.ti.ulitv ludg"-.nit"rt, huu" b".., ,,ridJoE"-ilL-"fi.iF-.. learners with different

ErstIanguag".*""@iplesof languug".t t i . " l .oei iFent instudies.of for*]fo.-rrseilin ,VlfiPatten and Cadierno 1993).

Where applications to t.u.hl"g are concerned, the con{irmator-v tradition frequentlv

entails u patticular view of u.hat it means for a teacher to be professionallv competent.

Accordini to this rier,r, education is an aPplied scienT'..Researchers do researslrrdiscov9ring

rh; b"ffi.lJ hGse aE-then passed on.to

t""r1"r,;*i'; f" tEEu19}tt",+rcscr+dons' Thisp r e S u p p o S e S u * " " . , , - t ) , l v h e r 9 . ! h 9 c u r r i c u l u m i s v i e w e d

ffi;r;h p;tidt.gT"iormation about the most effecti\e me,ans

ffiEih--e curri *gllr:d

with r4eans--tst4g than

ina , , ' , t ' i . r ' u - i " t uk "nasg i ven 'T@t \ \een reSearchandeduca t i on

f f i ohns ton (1987 )and , i npa r t , o fLong (1983a ,1990 )d i scussedin the previous se.tio.t.

Th"." ur. manv problems u'ith the applied science vievr of the relationship between

research and practice. A, .t" have alreadv note_d, theinformation provided b1' even the best

designed explrimental studv mav not be applicablelo otJrg. !:jc.bing cglle&t' AEo, it is

doubtfulrvhethertheffiexperimentaI'.,"" '.hhastheobjective

status often claimed for it, as subjective and social factors piav a crucial role in the production

of anv kind of knorvledge, including that obtained experimentallv (see Kuhn 1 970) . As Carr

and Kemmis (1936) pJint out, the separation of ends (or values) and means is notreallr '

possible. Also, ends iould not be taken as given but should themselves be the subject of

critical scrutiny, as protagonists of critical pedagogv have argued (see Pennycook 1989). A

.good example of tie need to consider ends u: *'"lbcqt94lt@igations

if t.".h"rr; qrr"riio.rJ,ru*be. of L2 studies have investigated the effect of display and

..GG.tiuGi"rtlo"r o., l"ur.". output te. g. Brock 1985). In these studies it is assumed that

teachers will and should ask questions and the onlv issue is what kind of questions work best

for language learning. One might legitimatelv challenge this assumption horvever. It has been

S E C O N D L A N G U A G E A C Q U I S I T I O N 5 5

suggested that classroom L2 acquisition is likelv to 9d_lr.1,st smoothl-v if learners enjol

su-e pu. t ic ipat t i r ights as thei r teacher tPica 1987 veverr, Teacners quesl lons, In an\ 't -

prob lem is tha t the app l red sc lence v le \ \ 'o t teacn lng a l loca tes Par t l cu la r ro les to researcners

and to teachers, lr.hich are nece \alue laoen ln nalure. t(e ers are tn

o\l-leoge \\

t\\'een-Tesearc

kind "F.{iitJid

*[iEft;ists and students in traditional classrooms and,

aiguaSffi

I

LJ

rela

Bv adhering to what van Lier t 1990t calls the emic principle (i.e. tr.v to understand h.

socia l context \vorks through the perspect l \es ot the par t lc lPants) ancl tne nol ls t lc Pr lncsornsthi.lg j ln lerms of its_n4_!_U4l sll lroundings). it mar ma

er therr own te ffixts are the same as. or different from, the contextsc lear lv \ \ ' ne tner Ine l r owI I Lcac Iu I Ig co l lLcxL5 d l c L l rc 5dr l r t r d5 , u l u l r l c l E l rL r r w l r r , L r rc uvr rL l ! r

' - -studied in the reseat.n.Fo i.tt"tp..tutiu" .... aim to provide objective

@kesavirtueofseekingoutsubjectiveknou'ledge.interpretative research mav have theorl construction as its ultimate goal, it can be considered

practical in nature. Carr and Kemmis ( 1986) expiain horv interpretative accounts facilitate

dialogue betu.een interested parties (i.e. researchers and teachers).Thev can lead to changes

in the way actors comprehend themselves and their situations; 'practices are understood bv

changing the rvavs in rvhich thev are understood' (ibid.:91). In fact, interpretative research

achieves validitv r,r'hen it passes the test of participant confirmation.Thus, the beliefs, values,

and perceptions ofteachers are not ignored (or controlled) as in educational research in the

confirmatorv tradition, but are given a constitutive place in the research. The traffic of ideas

between researcher and teacher is, potentiallv at least, trl.o lva\'.

Again, though, there are problems. .One

is that because interpretative research

insiststn e*planutions t-Flt-a?e consistent u ith the participlnts' orvri percepiions it runs the

r isk of u. . .p t t . rg iccoTnG-f f i fare i l lu*orr lObr iousl r . actors can be mistaken. so thei r

interpre ned criticalli'. In oth., words, aclherenc€-to thq

emic principlq can lead to faultv understandings. The hoJiStlc principleis also problemati-c.

f{unresult in information that is too rich, so detailed that the rvood cannot be seen for the

,r""rJh-rn@withc-onfr rmato;i;;;-E;Gi"th.i"latlonshlp,

b.t*=.i-th. ..r"u..h"r an thg teachqr. For, althorrgh the gap h., b..ttiu.rowed, they stiil

inhabit different worlds. Carr and Kemmis (1986: 99) put it this u'av:

Despite their differences . both the'interpretative'and the positivist [ i.e. con--".

firmutor-vl approach convey a similar understanding of educational researchers and of ,'the relationship to the research act. In both approaches, the researcher stands outside /

the researcheJ situation adopting a disinterested stance in w-hich an-v explicit concern ]w.ith crit ically evaluating and changing the educational realit ies being analysed is (

re jected. l

The truth ofthis is evident in rvhat is perhaps the best piece ofinterpretative research in SLA

to date -van Lier's (1988) studv of aspects of classroom discourse (i.e. turn-taking, topic

and activitri and repair rvork). Although van Lier offers a fen' comments on hou' teachers

5 6 R O D E L L I S

might profitablv engage in interpretative research themselves (ibtd.: 230 onw'ards), the bulk

of his book is rvritten from the standgoint of the researcher fuqcLiA4llgl1s a gatherer of

knowledge and concJrne-f,iirith truth t.th". thu.r from the standpoint of the practitioner'-concerned \4 ' l th act lon.

- Researchers, then, follon' agendas that are set bl 'the requirements of the research

traditions to which thev adhere. Thev also have their orvn social agendas. As members of

universit ' i ' departments, researcher! qe er.pected to be pr earch and_are

rewarded accordins to th" qn.ntit)'n"J u-b1ish-they- . , - t - - k

*61r.,"1-:b:l-pSSf:_ti.e. other researchers), '"ho fnn.tiiiiii.iGG&iFotthe journals

i,r *lri;h tfi;;;;f;;b.;ublished.Their research nilsiE[ibGTiate ttratlTmeets establified- . = - , . = J = , - - - - - - l ' -- # r , , l - ; T . -

.r-i!.i-i. "f

t.liubilio' diaf (i.e. that it is rvell designed and that the results warrant the

conclusions made). Researchellqg ngl gbliged to rya\e tberr-L.1.{* T::@e!o,-teq-chersor to demonstrate that ltls reievant to them. Still less are thev required to rvork w'ith teachers

---i

to 6nd r,vavs in u-hich research can be converted into action. Indeed, it mav rvell be that in

the depariments r,vhere the researchers rvork practical research receives less recognition

than oure research.

As we have seen, teachers have verv different agendas and operate from a different

kno*'ledge base. Whereas researchers are concerned in establishing the truth, teachers are

interested in linding out rvhat rvorks, Teachers select tasks that thev believe will contribute

to their students' learning but thev are rarelv able to investigate whether their predictions

are borne out. Thev determine the success of the tasks in other ways (".g. by impres-

sionisticallv evaluating *-hether the task stimulates active participation bv the learners).

Teachers w-ork from practical knorvledge. They use their experience of teaching (and

of learning) in classrooms to develop a bodv of knowledge as habit and custom, as skil l

know-ledge (e.g. how-to deal rvith a student who dominates classroom discussion), as

common-sense know-ledge about practice, as contextual knor,vledge (i.e. regarding the

particular class thev are teaching) and, over time, as a set of beliefs about holr,'learners learn

anL2. Polanvi (1958) refers to this kind of knowledge as personal knowledge.As Schon

( 198 3) has obser.r,ed, and as w'e noted earlier, much of this knorvledge is onlv evident in use

(i.e. it is revealed in actual teaching but the teacher cannot articulate it) although some of it

mav become espoused through reflection (i.e. the teacher can provide an explicit account

of i t ) .

Given these differences in goals and in u'hat counts as know'ledge, the gap between

research and pedagogv and the gulf betr'r 'een researchers and teachers is not surprising.

Zahorik (1985), cited in Freeman and Richards (1993), has identif ied anumber of different

w'ays in w.hich teaching can be conceptualized. Scientificallv based conceptions emphasize

the development of models of effective classroom practice based on the results of empirical

research. This is the kind of conception we are l ikelv to find in researchers. Alternative

conceptions are r.alues-based 1i.e. effective practice is that w'hich takes into account the

identitv and indiridualitv of learners) and art-craft (i . e . effective practice is built up gradually

through experience and reflection). It is these conceptions that 1r'e are more likely to find in

teachers. As a consequence, some teachers mav feel that research is of l i tt le value to them,

not just because it is d'ifficult to access (a familiai complaint ) , but because it does not conform

lvith their olvn ideas of lvhat teaching is and, therefore, does not address their concerns.

Other teachers, horn'ever, mav feel that their own conceptions of teaching lack value and

status in comparison to the scientificallv-based conceptions of researchers. As Bolitho (1991:

25) notes, 'teachers often take up extreme positions, often deferring blindly to theory or

rejecting it out of hand as irrelevant to classroom issues'. In either case, the outcome is

unsatisfactorv' .

of the researcher/theorist and the teacher cioser together. One lr a1 mighl_b9 to lfrdrryays -*_l

of familiarizing teachers u-ith the technical knou'iedge obtained from research and, also, of. o

in theii o*1n-4@t.We u-ill brieflr'examine bothTl'TEese,I

CA., .r.n-f,t ion of manv educators, is that both pre-service and in-service teacher

education courses should provide students r'r'ith an understanding of a range of academic

issues considered relevant to their lvork as teachers. Teacher preparation and further

education programmes, therefore, tvpicallv offer courses,designed to familiarize teachers

with these basic elements. In the case o.f progr.+mmes fuLLLlqaching there is a broad

consensus regarding u-hat t}rese elements consist of: r.vhat language isl horv it is used inlpgsgh

w'language

curricula can be developed, taught, and er,aluated and hor,v languge is learnt. '' OnE6#

S E C O N D L A N G U A G E A C Q U I S I T I O N 5 7

What then can be done about ali this? Clearlv, something is needed to bring the w-orlds

qrou- an a\\'aren

er ootions from rvhich teachers must select

with the Darticular contexts in r.vhich thel'lvork

need for a foundation in t}ese basic elements has been stronqlv argued by Stern

( 1 983). In t}re introduction to his book Fundamental Concepts in LanguageTeaching, Stern argues

the need for guides to help the student teacher'pick his rvav through the mass of accumulated

information, opinion, and conflicting advice; to make sense of the vast l i terature, and to

dis t inguishbetu 'eensol id t ruthandephemeral fadsorpla inmis informat ion ' ( ibrd. :1-2) .He

sees such guides as not telling teachers u.hat to think but rather helping them to sharpen their

own judgements. He w-orks on the common-sense premise that judgements that are

informed, based on sound theoretical foundations, u.ill produce better results than those that

are not. Stern's ou.n guide is comprehensive, involving sections dealing r,vith historical

perspectives, concepts of language, concepts of societv, concepts of language learning and

concepts of language teaching. Other guides have focused on specific areas, including SLA

(e.g. Larsen-Freeman and Long 1991 , Lightbou-n and Spada 1993, Ell is 199+).

The aim of these guides is to make technical knorvledge available to teachers in a

digestible form.There is still the question of horv teachers are to integrate this knowledge

in to t he i r on 'n p rac t i ce . - \ s H i r s t t 19o6 :40 t has po in ted ou t :

To trv to understand the nature and pattern of some practical discourse in terms of

the nature and patterns of some pr,."lr: theoreticai dir.o,l.r. can onlv result in its beins

radicallv misconceived.

Often enough, teachers in training, particularlv pre-service, complain about the lack of

relevance of the foundation courses thev har,e taken to the actuai task of teaching (see for

example Schuvler and Sitterlev 1995).This has led to the suggestion that teachqra sh_-o"ld

become more than consumers of theories anffreseiich: thev should become researchers. - - - -

and theor ls ts ln the l r o \ \ 'n r lgh t .

The caii-I6F teaChEiconducting research in their ou'n classrooms is norv w-ell

established in education, largelv as a product of the pioneering r,vork of such educators as

Stenhouse (1975), El l io t t and Ebut t (1985) and Kemmis and McTaggert (1981) among

others. More recentlv, educators of language teachers (e.g. Nunan 1990 and Crookes 1993)

have also argued the need for teachers to research their ow'n ciassrooms. One form of teacher

research that is commonlv advocated is action research.

Action researgh orlqlnates ln the \\olt(_pl-Kql.]LLsfl l j) ln the Unlted Stalel (see

Ad"lff i,,o.k,,- '.] i tscontribution).Lew.inwasconcernedwith

decision-making centred around changes in pract ice in the u ork pl fA H. t i ls i" i . . . ""a i t

\rL

l < ' , u < .

1-?h"cls ' ,ow'1 1pP'ta^L

rinq this kind of educall4is to d".=

to teach a lanqua

5 8 R O D E L L I S

r,vhat effect involving rvorkers in the decision-making Process (tE_r::.-utt.d ""

factorl'

@en t i n t he Ha r r , rood

ed on workers bv

ment, substantiallv, that qfuq representatives of the

tion initiailv d b"t lut"t recoo'eiEd

inlFe-decision-makin ion rose markedl

5

u 'e re in io lved In researcn lnq tne cn+

-:- * -----:-.

and tha t $ hen a l l the \ lo rKers par l l c l l

a "d th" practical benefits of involvin€ actors in

ffiMore importantlv for L.oui., t-d

utw--gllC;i".t-" r.t.ut.h, as it has been applied subsequently to education: a@J9!93=L

is intlded both to improve classroom practice and also to serve as a means for emancipating

teachers. lt nas Dotn an instrumerrt"l frr.t.tio '

Case of the latter, it mav be politicallv charged and, for that reason, potentialll'-risky'

It is customarv to identifv three kinds of ugtio.r I"rgg.h.8.tq there ij"-technical actiln

-..----research, u'here outside r.r"ut.h d' - - - ' 1 - - : - - 1 - : I

l rom tneorv or prev lous researcn. L rooKes 1 r eel ; ihutucter izes th is k ind oFact ion research

d e c i s i o n - m a I 0 n g . ' . 1 V I o r e 1 m P o r t a n I r v I O r L c w . t I l ' r L u c l r ' 1 U l ] ! ] 1 : 5 , r -- < ' - - - - - - - - - - ? " 1 - r - - , t - * l ^ ^ ^ t ^ . , - : - . ' - . . , ^ * 1 , ; - ^ t i - + a r a c t l - ^ - ' " . ^ i t r p t l e r t c t h eadvantages or oemocracv in the ,torkpl".* Ler'vin's work is of interest because it reflects th.

research, u'here outside researchers co-

5.s a refaTl\-.ATydserl'atGlfr-e, noting that i! is likelv to result in-worklgblished by scholarsts a reEtiie-It conservative li.te, ttottttg that tt ls Il{9 worKlg9trsneu L y

i;, "

ecause it fgltgf9glr]igliT

tffi; m""l r.rr..r, *ntl" -.ii.i.,;.,g tih. values ".,d .tundlrdrli-Elffiott"1-researcn.

Second-rthere is research undertaken bv teachers in their ow'n classrooms with a view

to im-proving local prl11-."t Carf tndKcmrnis=cfer-tothis kind ol'reiearCh ;t fi.t.i

i .t io" ..r"uih brrt Hopkins ( 1985) prefers the term teacher research. As Long ( 198 3a:-268)

pointsout , theaiTo' | teqch", . "1.u ' .h isnot to@se-archers,tut to provid" Jil.*, bv rttri.ti thev can monitor their orvn practice. It involves a cvcle of

-i.tluitiesa.-*O*.,-r;T,grr.eT ).The starting point is

planning (i.e. the identif ication of some problem that needs solving).This results in action

ii... thi"u.hing of a lesson in rvhich the problematic behaviour r,vill arise). Observation of

the action protid., material for reflection,',vhich mav then lead to further planning. Each

step or moment in the cl.cle looks back to the previous step and forward to the next step'

The cvcle serves to link the pa,st uith th9 futulg thrgggtdte Dlocessss qf l-e-c-g1ffuc_tion and

co,-,struitio.r- F"r-thEmo.e-iGir gtiryq(i.e. talking about the action) with,actual

practi-eli}. the action in contexf,.Th" tturtl"g point of the cvcle, planning, is generally seen-ilthelnost

problematic. Ideallv, teachers should form plans for action based on an analysis

of their o'uvnexperience, but in realitv they are likel-v to pick out issues from the educational

or applied l inguistlcs l iterature (see, for example, McDonough and McDonough's (1990)

studl:of langul.ge teachers' r.ien s about research). Carr and Kemmis acknor,t'ledge a role for

an outs ide f ic i l i tu tor in help ing teachers formulate appropr iate p lans of act ion.

Discour/se/amodg ParticiPants

I\\Praci\ein the so'eQl-context

Figure 3. 1 'Moments' of act ion research

Source: Carr and Kemmis 1986: 185

4 Reflect ------------->

tII

3 Observe <--

Reconstructive Constructi\

1 Plan

II

,],

2 Act

S E C O N D L A N G U A G E A C Q U I S I T I O N 5 9

The,thir_d*type of action research is critlc_ql_ gctrg319s1ar9h - research that is_n_ot onlvd i r e c t e d a t i m p r o \ . i n q p r a c t i c e b u t a t e m a n c i @ " i n i t . I t i s t h i s k i n d

that most c losel r ref lecrs Le\ \ ' ln s or lg lnal tormulat ion. Crookes considers i t more Droores-- - #

iive.Teachers are required not onlv to understand local problems and identify soluqrgryb_r$ ;7: i - ' \ ' ,

to exariline the underlling;sgial causes ofg'oblems and u-hat needs to be done about them v

r;ffime aware that their cQga-cities for reflectio" (*.J.tiuip;ii;f ;h" 6)

action research cvcle) are influenced bv social factols. Thev need to recognize that theirunderstandino, of clur.ro6Er6uiEEil-iriorted.The -Jhunlr* for achievinsL, i, dir.oi.r.. _ € _

- ; - , 1 . . - _ , _ . _ - i _

in the sense intended br.Habermas (1979) l iee communicaTion?6ong participants u-ho

s h a r c e c u a I d i s c o u r s c r i q h t s . I n c r i t i c a l a C t i o n r s i b i l G .

f f i d | o r d i s c o u r s i n g o n i t . T h e D r e S e n c e o l . a n o u t s i d e r e s e a r c h e r

ilhile not outlawed, is seen as dangerous b_ecauseit is Likeiv to undermine the social$'r4lSgtry

needed to ensure collaborative discourse.

,q"ti."i.*"..hJh"", triJt;,h+ulf betrveen the researcher and the teacher. Crookes

(1993) suggests that it overcomes the limitations of traditional research bv ensuring that its

results are relevant to the needs ofteachers; bv encouraging and supporting teacher reflection

and through this professional development; bv encouraging teachers to engage in other kinds

ofresearch and use the results ofsuch research; and, in the case ofcrit ical action research,

bv prompting teachers to address the unquestioned values embodied in educational

institutions. According to Carr and Kemmis (1985) action research provides a basis for

developing truiv educational theories through theorizing about practice.Action research is not r'r-ithout its critics, horvever. Hopkins ( 198 5) argues that the action

research practised in education has departed from Leu'in's original concept of externallv

initiated intervention for assisting a ciient system. He also suggests that the models of action

research such as that shor,vn in Figure 3. 1 mav strait-jacket teachers making them reluctant

to engage in independent action.These crit icisms, horvever, do not seem to be especiallv

damaging as there is no reason w-hv educationalists should adhere to Ler,vin's initial conception

ofaction research nor is there any reason rvhr-teachers should not depart from the proposedcvcle whenever thev feel the need to do so. More serious are crit icisms concerning the

impracticalitv of asking teachers to engage in research and the qualitv of the research they

Proouce.Teachers do not alu'avs find it easv to undertake research. Nunan (1990), drawing on

his experience of rvorking u.ith teachers in Australia, l ists a number of diff icult ies they

experienced. Because the teachers u'ere not used to observing each other teach, thev found

collaboration diff icuit.Thev tended torvards excessive self-crit icism u'hen thev hrst engaged

in analvsinq their on-n .Iur.?oornr.T ;-;;;q".-_,, - :----=---=-=T- -,- +_ __- -Qable rn nature Decause tneY clrcl not lrnd rt eisr to idenEfi:Geciffc reseurch cuestions. a

p D""*,g"hand McDonough 1990). It proved extremelv time-consuming to design properly formulated

projects.The teachers u'ere unclear as to horv the research should be reported because thel'

were uncertain lvho their audience \r'as. Finallr., there u'as a host of problems to do lvith the

range and scope of the research. Or,er t ime, of course, such problems can be overcome as

teachers accumulate experience of hou- to do research, but init iallv the task thet'face can

appear daunting.

Another objection to action research concerns doubts about the qualitv of research

carr ied out bv i " " .h . r r . Brumf i t and Mi tchel i (1990a: 9) argue that ' there is no good

argument for action research producing less care and rigour (than other modes of research,;

unless it is less concerned rvith clear understanding, *.hich it is not' . Implicit in this statement

is a beliefthat manv teachers rvill not be able to achieve the standards professional researchers

*\7Yc

6 O R O D E L L I S

deem necessary. Crookes (1993), horvever, argues that n'hen research is entirelrv local and

no attempt to generalize is made it is less necessarv to conform to the requirements of

reliability, validitv, and trust*-orthiness. He also suggests that action research reports do not

need to be academic in styie.Thev can take the form of'teacher-oriented reports' and thus

be more discursive, subjective, and anecdotal.The difference betrveen the positions of

Brumfit and Mitchell and Crookes are indicative of the iack of clear criteria for determining

u'hat constitutes good qualitv action research.

From the educational perspective described above, the gap between the researcher/

theorist on the one hand and the practitioner on the other is seen as the inevitable product

of the social (and, one might add, polit ical) lr-orlds'"vhich thev inhabit. As Kramsch (1995)

has pointed out the behaviours that these tu'o social groups tvpicallv manifest are s,vmbolic

of the value svstems to u.hich thev adhere.The move to involve teachers in research can

be seen, in part, as a move to reshape the sl 'mbolic capital of teachers' behaviour bv inves-

tigating it rvith the authoritv to be derived from research.This is one reason why the rationale

for action research so frequentlv makes reference to its contribution to professionalism in

the teaching fraternitr.

One lvav of viewing action research is as a means bl'rvhich teachers can test'provisional

specifications' (Stenhouse 19751in the context of their or'vn classrooms.These specifications

can be dralvn from the teacher's own practical knolvledge, in rvhich case action research can

help to make explicit the principles, assumptions, and procedures for action that comprise

this kind of knorvledge. Alternativelv, the specifications can be drau'n from the technical

knowledge provided bv research. Action research serves as an empirical test of whether the

generalizations provided bv confirmatorv research or the understandings provided by inter-

pretative research are applicabie to specifrc classroom settings. When teachers consistently

find the results of their own research do not support the findings of confirmatory or

interpretative research thev need to be prepared to reject these as inapplicable to their

own contexts. Action research, then, functions as a u'av of implementing the third of Weiss'

models of research use the interactive model - bv bridging the gap between technical

knowledge and practical knovuledge.

The question arises as to r,r'hether the applicabilitv of proposals based on research must

necessarilv be submitted to an empirical test bv requiring teachers to take on the role of

researcher (as Stenhouse advocates) or rvhether it might be possible to predict r,vhich proposals

are l ikeiy to be acted on through an examination of the proposals themselves. It seems

reasonable to suppose that some proposals are inherentiv more practical than ot}ers.What

makes them so?To address this cuestion w'e turn to the studv of the uptake of innovations.

Innovationist perspective

f- A number of applied linguists have recentlv turned to u'ork on innovation to help them

I understand the variable success ther,have observed in both large-scale language projects in

, the developing world and the variabie response to nel\'ideas among teachers in the developed

\ wor ld. Kennedv (1988),Whi te (1988 and 1993) and N{arkee (1993) have a l l drawn on-innovation

research in a varietv of disciplines (e.g. Rogers (1983) in sociologt', Lambright

and Flvnn ( 1980) in urban planning, Cooper ( 1989t in language planning and Fullan (198)1

aad (1993) in educat ion) . Henr ichsen (1989.r , Beret ta (1990), Sto l ler (199+) and Markee(199+b) have reported actual studies ofinnovation in language teaching. It should be noted,

however, that to date there has been no studv of innovations stemming from proposals based

on SLA .12

such an innovation. Secondi.the-re are perceir_ed r11g_rg!!ggs.That is, the change is perceived

as innova to rvbv thep rac t i t i one rs r r . hoadop t i t .@probab l vo f - t h i s

kind-a4rd, indeed, most definitions of innovation mSFe par-tftufrffi.."." ioldo@rr'

perceptions.As Lightbown (1985) has observed, SLA has not produced much in the rvav of ner,v

pe!4ggg1-c-propasaHJhus.prop osal s d e r i r e

absolute innovations. For example, Krashen andTerreil (1983) vielv their NaturalApproach

usTGGitiiiltiorZf the principles and techniques of earlier methods rather than as original.

Hou'ever, the-v clearly believe that their proposals rvill be new to manv practitioners. SLA

may also serve to provide a rationale for innovations that have originated elsew'here. For

examplElTh?JdFa o{ the inlormation-gap task tJohnson I982toriginaiedTiohT-thFb'F\ of

communicative language teaching, but it has undoubtediv received support and, arguablv,

been refined through SLA research (see, for example, Long 1 98 1 and Skehan 1996).

l lnnovation i,s inherentlr threatening, as Prabhu (1987:105) has pointed out in the

context ofdiscussing his proposal for a procedural svllabus in India:

S E C O N D L A N G U A G E A C Q U I S I T I O N 6 1

Innovation can be conceived of in tu-o different wavs - a distinction that is importantwhereSL . \ i sconce .ned . ( i rS t . J \ \ . e@o] .a I l o ! -Ln . l heSense tha ta

proposal represents a te l l neu idea. not prer iousl r ev ident in pract ice anvuhere.

Th@n ces oi absol u te i n nor ati on i ;T;EuagFGachfi g, althou$,arguabll 'Wilkins' (1976) proposal for constructing sl ' l iabuses around notions constituted

A neu'perception in pedagogr', implving a different pattern of classroom activitv, is an

intruder into teachers' mental frames an unsettling one, because there is a conflict

of mismatch betrveen old and new perceptions and, more seriouslv, a threat to

prevail ing routines and to the sense of securitv dependent on them.

What then determines lvhether and to uhat extent teachers cope r,vith these threats?The

answ-er to this question involves a consideration offour sets offactors:

' the sociocultural context of the innor-ation. the personalitv and skills of indir.idual teachers' the method of implementation' a t t r ibutes of the proposals themselres.

First, as Kennedv ( 1988) notes, there is a hierarchv of intglleb.cingllrb-svstems in rvhich anya nrerarcnv ol rnterrelatrng suD-svstems ln \\'nlcn any' . ; . : : l ,'ess or an\ DroDosal emanaung Irom )Ld ror anr'-oth-er.Thus, the succEss6TTfriproposal emanating from SLA (oianf ot

s o r t r c e ) r e q a r d i n o c l a S S r o o m D I a c t i c e " d , , . " i i o 'source)."g 19"u1,administrative. nolitical. or cultural factors. Kennedv comments:'the cultural svstem isadministrative. polit ical. or iultural factors. Kennedv comments: 'the cum;fsvitem is

moblle) may be -o." i^.lirEd1o?

'l

r lI

AU

" / tti(

a.silmed qq be the -ffiooo".lul as it rvill influ-e4*cg._[gtll_pljgggl-]l$ldminlitra6rcl

stn4tu lgtgqdbq!3vlour ' ( ib td. :332) .This isapoint thatWiddowson(1993)alsoemphasizes.

He cites an unpublished paper bv Scollon and Scollon to the effect that'gonversational-methods' ma.y q!19 take root in China b"

"Confucian emphasis on benevolence and respect betrveen teacher and.students.

p*a on the p..ro.r"litv and quaiities

of indi.,id-uat t-".tr" Itr{dlrcatgd ur,d "p*

uidty

*ujo-ryudgpt*r,g$gp$t. Personal factors are likelv to plav a major part in determining!\ hich categorr a teacher belongs to.

6 2 R O D E L L I S

Third, the method of implementation is likelv to influence to what extent an innovation

takes root. Havelock (1971) distinguishes three basic models of innovation.The research,

development and diffusion model vier,vs the researcher as the originator of proposals and the

teachers as consumers and implementors of them. It is i ikelv to be used in conjunction with

a power-coercive strateg), lvhere some authoritv takes a decision to adopt an innovation

(e.g. a new- svllabus) and then devises r,vavs of providing teachers vl'ith the knowledge and

skil ls thev need to implement it. Innovation in this model, then, takes place top-down. The

problem-solving model involves engaging teachers in identifving problems, researching

possible solutions and then trr-ing them out in their teaching. Innovation in this model,then, originates r,vith the teachers. A social interaction model emphasizes the importance ofsocial relationships in determining adoption and emphasizes the role of communication indetermining uptake of an innovatorv idea.To a large extent, these three models parallel thethree approaches to relating research and pedagogy discussed in tlre previous section.Thatis, the research development and diffusion model reflects the positivist, technical view; the

problem-solving model reflects the call for teacher research, w-hile the importance placedon communication in the social interaction model mirrors that olaced on discourse in criticalact ion research.

The fourth set of factors governing the uptake of innovatorv proposals concerns theattributes of the proposals themseives. These are of particular interest to us because theymay provide the applied linguist r'vith a basis for evaluating proposals emanating from SLA.The principal attributes discussed in the l iterature (see Kellv 1980, Rogers 1983, and Stoller1994) are l isted inTable 3.1, together w-ith brief de{init ions. Some of these attributes are

Table 3.1 Attributes of innovation

Attribute Definit ion

' Initial dissatisJaction

Feasibilttv

Acceptabilitl

Relevance

Complexitl'

Explicitness

Triabihty

ObservabtlitS,

Originaliq,

uwnef snlP

The level of dissatisfactron that teachers experience r""'ith some aspect

ol their existing teaching.

The extent to which the innovation is seen as implementabie giventhe conditions in rvhich teachers work.

The extent to \\.hich the innovation is seen as compatible with teachers'

existing teaching stvle and ideologv.

The extent to rvhich the innovation is vierved as matching the needs of

the teachers' students.

The extent to which the innovation is dilficult or easv to grasp.

The extent to rl,hich the rationale for the rnnovation is clear and

convincing.

The extent to \\'hich the innovation can be easilr.tried out in stages.

The extent to \r'hich the results of innovation are visible to others.

The extent to u'hich the teachers are required to demonstrate a high

level of originalitv in order to implement the innovation (e.g. bv

preparing special materials).

The extent to u'hich teachers come to feel that ther. 'possess' the

inno'r'ation.

S E C O N D L A N G U A G E A C Q U I S I T l O N 6 3

seen as increasing the likelihood of an innovation becoming adopted (e.g. feasibility, relevance

and explicitness).That is u'hv thev are to be vieu-ed positiveiv. Other attributes are likely

to inhibit innovation (e.g. complexitv). Sti l l others ma\-promote or inhibit innovation

depending upon the particular adopters. For example, in the case of originality, some teachers

mav be more likelv to implement an innovation if it calls for their own original contribution

(e.g. in developing neu. teaching materials) u.hereas others mav be less l ikely to do so. The

attributes also varv in another lr.av. Some (e.g. initial dissatisfaction and relevance) seem to

be more relative than absolute in the sense that their application depends on the Particularcontext in which teachers are \\rorking, r 'vhereas others (i.e. complexitr ', explicitness,

triabilitv, and obserr.abilitv) seem more concerned lvith the inherent characteristics of the

innovation. Applied linguists interested in evaluating proposals dra'uvn from SLA are likely

to benefit from paving close attention to the inherent rather than the relative attributes of

proposais.In addition to these sets offactors that influence the uptake ofinnovatorv ideas, there is

also the question of ects oflan pedagogv are involved in the change.This, too,

can influence the likelihood of the innovation es5fuf. Markee (.199+b), drar,ving in

particular on the rvork of Fullan ( 1982 and 1993) in education, suggests that innovations in

the form of the development and use of nerv teaching materials constitute the easiest kind

of change. Innovations requiring change in methodological practices and, even more so in

the teachers' underlving pedagogicai values, are less l ikelv to prove successful.

There have b""" ..1q!r:"b_&Legg4p!r_!g tppllq11-tfrryf qtionist perspective to language--

pedug6ly. Beretra 11990) sought to evaluate the extent to rvhich the methodologicai

1n".t.tion;proposed bv Prabhu as part of the CommunicationalTeaching Project (CTP) in

India (Prabhu 1987) u.ere actuallv implemented bv the teachers involved.This project is

based on the assumption that learners acquire grammar subconsciouslv w'hen their attention

is focused on communicating in meaning-focused tasks. Although Prabhu did not draw

directlv on SLA research/theorv, his proposal is verv similar to that advanced bl' Krashen

and for this reason is of considerable interest here. Beretta collected historical narratives from

1 5 teachers involved in the project and then rated these according to three levels of imple-

mentation:

1 orientation (i.e. the teacher demonstrates he/she does not really understand the

innovation and is unable to implement it)

2 routine (i.e. the teacher understands the rationale of the CTP and is able to implement

it in a relativelv stable fashion), and

3 renewal (i.e. the teacher has adopted a crit ical perspective on the innovation,

demonstrating awareness of its strengths and lveaknesses).

Fortv per cent of the teachers rvere rated at Level 1 , 47 per cent of teachers at Let'el 2

and 1 3 per cent at Level 3. Beretta considered Levels 2 and 3 demonstrated an adequate ler,'el

of adoption. However, u.hen he distinguished betrveen regular and non-regular classroom

teachers involved in the project, he found that three out offour ofthe regular teachers were

at Level 1 . He concluded that:

. . . it seems reasonable to infer that CTP u'ould not be readil-v assimilable bv tvpical

teachers in South Indian schools (or, bv extension, in other schoois elselvhere where' similar antecedent conditions pertain) (ibid.: 333).

He points out that the fajJyrs. of the--regular-teachers to rea4_st lgggplgb-Je-1s19-f -ofimplementationref]ectstf,-eirlackofowt@obIemsregarding-

f

6 4 R O D E L L I S

the innovation's feasibil i tv because, for example, the teachers lacked the command

teaching.Therea@iudy for

Eample, we cannot be sule-uhether the regular teachers reallr.failed to adopt the innovation

or w'hether thev simplv lacked the English needed to produce narrative accounts of their

experience - but, nevertheless, it demonstrates the potential of an innovationist perspectivefor evaluating pedagogic proposals derived from SLA theor-v and research.

Probablv the most comprehensive studv of innovation in language pedagogy is to be

found in Stoller's (199+) studv of innovation in intensive English language programmes

in the United States. Stoller obtained completed questionnaires from 43 such programmesand also conducted in-depth intervier'vs u-ith fir-e programme administrators. She found

that the most frequentlv cited innovations related to the development of nerv curricula or

th. r.rtr@s"r"*." p.-;;;a.r rn.* t*fitant tha.r ot-6irsfoj successfuLinnoration. Attributes rated as particrrlii\rimporrant-were usefulness(relevance), feasibilitr', improvement ol'er past placticeq_(r,vhich rvould seem to relate to

+initial dissatisfaction) and p_racticlltv (which relates to acceptabilitv). Stoller was able to

identifv three major factors in the questionnaire responses. One factor lvas w'hat she termed

a'balanced divergent factor'. The attributes involved here rvere explicitness, complexity,

compatibilitv with past experiences, visibilitr', flexibilitv, and originalitv. In the case of this

factor, however, the attributes operated in a zone ofinnovation in the sense that they facilitated

innovation'w.hen thev \\-ere present to a moderate degree but not when they were strongly

or weakh.present.The second factor rvas dissatisfaction and the third factor viability. Stoller

a lso demonstrates that there appear to be d i l ferent paths to innovat ion deoendins on thc

nature of the inno'ation6tG5 tl-r. *r.?.r. .

"6-rtGp".t*, f"ffRiBt dir..tirfaction and finallv the balanced din'..g..rt factor. The

emphasis that Stoller places on viabiiitv in this type of innovation reflects the importance that

Beretta attaches to feasibilitv in the communicational teaching project.An innor, ir,e, then, r.vould seem to afford applied iinguists a way of

evaldating t l ike.b to succsgd iGili-"oi be possible,Eourse, to make very precise predictions about rvhich proposals wil l be taken up and

rvhich ones u.i l l not, but, arguablr', the verv act of evaluating their potential wil l help

researchers to make them more practical. One might also add that an innovationist analvsis,

using the kinds of categories discussed in this section, ma\.provide teachers with an explicit

and relativelv svstematic u'ay of determining whether specific proposals derived from SLAare of use to them.The studl of innovations, therefore, offers another possible rvay of bridging

the gap betrveen SLA and language pedagogr'.

Ii-rguistics' and,' linguistics applie d' . One obviousTEii6iliTiffip inquistics uti l izes-inf;rmation-sfrrceFoTEer linsuistics. as the above definiti&n-ak..

-.1"".. Ttt.t. it- - - - - - - - '

lor,vever, a deeper reason. Widdow.son ( 1 984) argues that 'it is the responsibilit,v of appliedlinguists to consider the criteria for an educationallv relevant approach to language' (ibid.:17) and that this cannot be achier,ed bl simplv applving linguistic theorv. This is because the

irvay linguists conceive of their task is inherentlv different from the rvav teachers conceive

[ f t t " i . . . L inquists are concerned u- i th the precise descr ipt ion o l , ]C!g.u€r3 ld u ' i th i1si

1,_,rwf*.t/

--/ |I

\ JI

LJ

" l

:

.tr-t--,n^^^^roJ+t,_rr.zrrS-uN -.*.lJ L-wn<-t".-<.'<r1i'<'-

*11,-"-.1 a.*r.-il-? D rsl ,,ra.r-u"nn^1 ..=a"Applied lingriist's perspective ; - Jrs,,lA, .-,,..."_L+LiftJ +

r hare dehned an apptiSd l-g-:,,, *r:,." ,*;*1.J. ,ffG&i1.?*6*:.Ift'T*i.f*'psvcholinguistics. sociolinguistics. education. and anio[Fer area of potentiallv relevantpsvcholinguistics, sociolinggrsrqlcs, education, and arn'oTher area of potentially relevir

l r . r . .enou l r \ to languape Deoagog\ . l t l s lmDor tan t to maKe a c lear c l rs t lnc t lon Detween ann l l (

S E C O N D L A N G U A G E A C Q U I S I T I O N 6 5

explanatior. Teachers are concerned \\ ' i th the e-ffective use of language and_ r,vith jts

,p-ropagatiqq'=fuSfi''r in-e can distinguish betrveen applied linguistics and linguistics applied so we can

" l ' o . I n t h e c a s e o f t h e I a t t e r , a n a t t e m P t i s m a d e t oapplv SLA research and theon'to language pedagogv.This is u-hat man,v SLA researchers haveexpressed doubt about doing, adr,ising caution. In the case of applied SLA, horvever, anattempt is made to examine the relevance of SLA in educational terms; it requires the SLA..r.u.th.. to have knor,vledge ofthe theorv and practice ofboth SLA and langrrage pedagogy.Onlv w.hen SLA researchers engage in appiied SLA do thev function as applied l inguists. 13

A good example of applied SLA is to be found in Brindlev's ( 1 990) account of a course

he taught as part of a postgraduate dipioma in adultTESOL. Brindlev dismisses what

he sees as the traditional approach of SLA courses rvhich he characterizes as 'we give you the

theorv - vou apply it' (the approach implicit in Stern's 1 98 3 advocacv of foundation studies)

in favour of a.r upp.ou.h thai pror.ides opportunities for the participants to analyse data. This

encourages them to reformulate broad SLA research questions in terms of classroom

implications and includes a strong problem-posing/problem-soh'ing element bv invit ing the

participants to address specific classroom situations in the light of insights drawn from their

stud-v of SLA and to discuss options for classroom applications. Brindler'- did include a

knowledge component of the iourse (i.e. he provideJ an introduction tokev topics and

terminologv) but in accordance w-ith his applied SLA stance, he invited the participants to

identifv those SLA topics the-v found most relevant to their concerns. Interestingll', he found

that psvcholinguistic studies of developmental sequences (generallv considered of central

importance bv SLA researchers) came bottom of the l ist, possiblv because the teachers'

primarv concern rvas lr-ith teaching rather than learning.

ied SLA, then, as a branch of applied linguistics, must necessarilv concern itself with

relevance.SLAIs c-n

ofa seco cannot be a that these mode f anl

lndeed, in manv cases thev probablv are not. It is no more correct to assume that a theorv

oflanguage learning is ofrelevance to teachers than it is to assume that a theorv oflanguage

is. Relevance must necessarilv be determined not from u.ithin SLA but from without bv

demonstrating hou' the findings of SL.\ address the needs and concerns of practit ioners.

Hou' then can SLA be made reievant to pedagogv? An answ'er to this question can be

found inWiddorvson's (1990) discussion of the roles of the applied l inguist (see Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2 Relating disciplinarr theorv and language pedagogr

Source: Widdorvson 1990: 32

Practice

6 6 R O D E L L I S

ForWiddorvson, the applied l inguist's task is to mediate between disciplinarv theory/

research and language pedagogr'. He suggests that this mediation inr,'oh'es two interdependent

processes. The first is appratsal, u.hich involves interpretation (i.e. the explication of ideas

within their orvn terms of reference), follorved bv conceptual evaluation (i.e.'the process

of specifving r,vhat might be calied the transfer value of idea s' (ibtd.: 3 1)). The second process

is appltcation, rvhich also involves tlvo phases. In the case of operation, specific techniques are

proposed based on the conclusions of the conceptual evaluation. Alternatively, specific

techniques taken from teachers' customarv practices can be subjected to scrutiny, a process

that both drarvs on the results ofprior conceptual evaluation and potentiallv contributes to

it.The result of this process is a rationale for proposed action.The second phase of application

is whatWiddowson calls'empirical evaluation'.This is undertaken b-v teachers, possibly w'ith

the assistance of applied linguists, and involves monitoring the effects of their actions by

examining the relationship betu'een teaching and learning. It cails for teacher research.

Widdowson's frameu-ork provides a basis for applving SLA in the follow'ing ways:

f\aking SLA accessible

V-Hs function involves interoretation. Because the bulk of SLA oublications were written for

researchers and not Dract i t ioners. there is an obr ious need for summaries of the marn

findings. Such summaries u'i l l hale four major purposes: to make a principled selection of

those findings that are likely to be ofinterest to teachers; to provide surveys ofthe findings

of a rvide range ofresearch r,vhich has addressed these issues ; to evaluate the findings in their

o\\-n terms 1i .e. to establish rvhich ones are valid, reliable and trustr'vorthv);to present the

survevs in a language that makes them accessible to practitioners and rvhich provide the

means by which teachers can receive a foundation in SLA.

The organization of these summaries bears some thought. One possibility is to structure

them around the issues identified in the rgsear-eh-This lvould lead to survevs of such issues

as learner errors, input and interactioryi-i35ili3ggirrL, the role of formal instruction, etc. An

alternative, however, is to base the sufvevs-on pedagogical concepts. This would lead to

surveys ofresearch findings that are relevant to such issues as error treatment, the use ofthe

learner's L1 in the classroom, and options in grammar teaching.This latter approach is clearlv

more demanding but is l ikelv to increase the perceived reievance. It provides a bridge

betw'een interpretation and conceptual evaluation.

2 Theorv development and its application

One wav of conducting conceptual evaluation is through theory construction. As Krashen( 1 98 3) has noted there are dangers in ,r)'irg !o uppl)' th9j ."r"

"tr - - - r T H ri anda more prrncrp led approacJ\ is to use research to construct a theorv nhich can then be

# -applied. One advan-age of such an approTch'EErrceptuaiization is that it provides an

opportunitv for developing a pedagogicallv relevant theorr'. As Brumfit (1983) has noted,

teachers necessar i l r operate u- i th categorv sr s tems. A theorv of inst ructed language accui -sit ion can assist them in creating appropriate categoriEiWFnGd earlier, however, that} : - i - ' _ 'there are aiso dangers in such an approach. In particular, so much investment mav be madein a theor-v that it becomes petrif ied, resistant to modification in the i ight of counter

. arguments and ner'v research findings. If this happens, of course conceptual evaluation givesrvay to persuasion.

The application of the hvpotheses that comprise a theory is one rvay of operationalizing

SLA for pedagogv.This operationalization takes the form of specific proposals for the practiceof teaching. The proposals mav concern overall approaches, the aims of the language

curriculum, the content and organization of a s"'llabus, teaching activities, methodological

S E C O N D L A N G U A G E A C Q U I S I T I O N 6 7

procedures, and methods of testing learners and evaluating curricula - in other words anvaspect of language pedagogv. These proposals, mav take the form of original ideas, but as Ihave alreadv pointed out, it is more likelv that thev rvill identifv options alread_v to be foundu,' ithin pedagogv. Irrespective of their form, these proposals cannot hr". th. status ofprescriptions. Rather thev serve as illuminative ideas. The',' are suggestions '"vhich practi-t ioners, if thev see fit, mav or mal not choose to experiment rvith.The provisional nature ofproposals is determined not bv doubts about the r,aliditv of the theorv/research upon whichlh.v u." based (even though such doubts mav u'ell exist ) but bv the recognition thaino theorvand no research can claim to be applicable to the mvriad contexts in r,vhich practitioners

operate. The applied SLA researcher, hou.ever, has a dutr. to ensure that anl I has

Potent l l l rer apPl 'cat ton and, ct. the attributes ol dilterentexamined from the innor,ationist oe ir-e described in the previous section. InJhii-war,,it mav be possible to identifv u'hich proposals have a good chance of being adopted b1teachers

3 Researching the L2 classroom

As rt'e have seen, another rvav of operationalizing constructs, lvhether these have been derivedfrom pure research or from teachers'personal knorvledge, is to carrv out investigationsofclass.r-qqrnlegI!.e\sQIo55-9,thisshouldinvo1veresearchonclass@

r ! , : I

in classrooms 1Wr-ght 1rn). Suc ie3r.h ptotid.i-u@gp e d a g o g i c p i o p o , u l . ] L o n g 1 9 9 O ; . t t ' . . p " * r . , " * . ' . " " a .:rhelps-6-lv-aTd ofi-attacks that proposals derived from teachers' own experience or frommethodologists'r'vritings are nothing more than hunches or unproven prescriptions. Furthermore, Practitioners are likelv to attend to classroom research more seriousiv than to pureresearch because it directlv addresses issues that thev are concerned u.ith.

Classroom-centred r.r.u..h conducted bo'res"urchers, hou'ever, does not suppl-v a bodrof information about effective pedagogv rvhich can be transmitted to teachers as solutionsto their problems anv more than does pure research. The most that can be said is thatproposals that are tested through classroom research mav become more fully illuminated.In accordance rvith the vie,"'n's of Stenhouse,verma,Wili, and Nixon (1982i, the externalvalidit,v of anv research, including classroom research, can onlv be established bv individualteachers in the contexts of their or'vn classrooms. It follolr-s, then, that w.hatWiddolr,'son(1990) refers to as'outsider research' needs to be complemented br, ' insider research, w.hichis research conducted b"' teachers themselves.

4 The teacher as researcher

We saw'eariier in our discussion of the educational perspective that there is a compelling case_ -I o r l n v o I \ ' l n q t e a c n e r S i n . e s e a r c h i J o . . , , " i o . ,

l t . ! t t - - . - -

ProDlems loen l lnec Dv teacners . l t Pro \ ldes means o l enabhng teachers to re f lec t on the l r

theories ofian learnins and teachin slEat-Irer e l e r . a n t t o t h e i r o r r - n c l a s s r o o m c o n t e x t S ' T h e a d r . o c a c ' o f t e a c h e f f i

1 990) in recGnt iearFrEllects maiftreasilg all'areness thai language teaching is an ed"ucationalr ) )v ) rrr r cLclrL vedr s fellecLs urc lncreasrng all-areness mat language teacrung ts an educatlona^enterprise and, thus, needs to be informed bv mainstream educational thinking.Widdowson(1990) sees the need for teachers to be engaged in the active process of exp'erimenting intheir classrooms as a r,vav of determining the practical effect of ideas in action.

There is sti l l a role for SLA in teacher'led research, hou.er, 'er. AsWiddorvson ( 1993) haspointed out, action research, l ike anr- other kind of research, cannot take place w.ithouttheorizing. Teachers need to engage in the process of conceptual evaluation in order toidentifv research problems. A familiaritv rvith SLA, then, can help teachers shape problems

5 B R O D E L L i S

in a wav that makes them researchabie. In so doing, holvever, it must not impose issues or.r

teachers but rather act as a resource bv which teachers can refine questions derived from their

o\vn experience. AsWiddo\\'son (1993) puts it, theorizing must be client-centred.

SLA can help in another u'ar'. It can provide teachers w'ith information about the kinds

of instruments and procedures thev rvili need to use in order to collect and analyse data. Some

thirty vears of researching L2 acquisition have led to the development of a number of research

tools (see Larsen-Freeman and Long 1 991 , Alhvright and Baile-v 1 991 ), manl' of which can

be used bv teachers in their ou,n classrooms.

As lve noted earlier, the idea of the teacher as researcher r,vill not always be lvelcomed

bv teachers. For some teachers, at least, horvever, SLA can be made real through the

discoveries thev make about holv their olvn learners learn a second language.

From an applied l inguist's perspecti" 'e, then, SLA is relevant to language pedagogy in

a number of lva-vs. It can contribute to the appraisal of pedagogic issues. To this end, the

applied SLA u,orker can assist bv making research accessible to teachers, bv developing

theories ofinstructed L2 acquisit ion and bv advancing pedagogic proposals based on t}ese

theories. SLA also has a role in application. The appiied SLA researcher can seek to i l lumi-

nate pedagogic problems and their possible solutions through conducting experimental and

interpretative studies in and, particularlv on L2 classrooms. Finalh', the SLA worker can act

as a facilitator of teachers' o$,-n research bv helping them formulate research questions and

choose appropriate research methods. These functions can be seen as strung out on a

continuum with'outsider activitv' at one pole and'insider-activitv' at the other.While it can

be argued that the relevance of SI-A increases as one moves ulong the continuum, outsider

activity should not be disparaged, as has become fashionable in some quarters.Teachers can

and do benefit from an understanding of the issues discussed in SLA. How.ever, the deter-

mination of reievance is ultimatelv the dutv of the teacher, not the applied SLA worker,

although the latter can aid the process and, doubtlesslv, should try to do so.

Finally, it must be clearlv acknou.ledged that SLA does not constitute a body of

knowledge that is necessarv for the development of effective teaching skil ls. As Brumfit

( 1983: 61) has observed,' learning to perform competentlv is never the same as learning how

to understand the process ofperformance and to explain it'. SLA can contribute to teachers'

understanding; it cannot ensure competent practice and, to quote Brumfit again, 'there is

alw'ays the possibiiitv that practice u'ill run ahead of theorl', as lvell as the reverse' (rbid. : 68 ) .

Notes

1 The failure of the comoarative method studies to demonstrate the suoerioritv of onemethod over another did not lead to the abandonment of classroo- ."r"u..h bur.d o.t

pedagogical constructs, hor'vever. Rather it led to a focus on particular aspects ofteaching,such as error treatment or learner participation. Alhvright ( 1 98 8) describes how the globalmethod studies gave \^-av to the detailed studv of classroom processes.

2 SLA researchers w'ho began their careers as teachers inciudeVivian Cook, Pit Corder,Mike Long, John Schumann, ElaineTarone and mvself.

3 Preciseh'ivhat counts as a relevant freld of..qri.. in SLA u'here language pedagogy isconcerned is, ofcourse, debatable. In Ell is (1995), I argue the case for the irrelevance ofUG-based research and theon'. Another area in rvhich I have oersonallv been able to findl i t t l e re le rance i s l anguage t rans fe r .Thecompe t i t i onmode i rBa tesandMacWh innev 1982yhas proved productive in promoting research but to date has had little to say to teachers.However, this faiiure to find relevance should not be perceived as a criticism ofthese areas

S E C O N D L A N G U A G E A C Q U I S I T I O N 6 9

of enquirv.The studv of language transfer, for example, is obviouslv of centrai importancefbr understanding L2 acquisit ion, the goal of SLA.Other factors to do rvith the relative status of pure research (i.e. research directedexclusivelv at the creation oftechnical knor,r-ledge) as opposed to applied research (i.e.research directed at addressing practical iss.re"s; i" th. universitt settings in r,vhichresearchers tvpicallv'rvork mav also have contributed to the diminishing interest in addingappl icat ion sect ions to publ ished paper: .According to the positivist vierv of the relationship betu-een research and languagepedagogr', research pror.ides technicai knou-ledge u'hich teachers use in making decisionsabout vl-hat and hor,r- to teach. Research prescribes and proscribes w.hat teachers shoulddo.Pica (1994) does not indicate hou'her teachers arrived at the questions thev asked. Onepossibilitv is that their questions rvere influenced, in part at least, bv their knon'ledge ofthe SLA literature and their perception of u-hat this l i terature claims is important andrelevant. It r.vouid be interesting to knorv u-hat kinds of questions are asked bv teachersu'ho are not familiar lr'ith SL-A.. I am grateful for Jim Lantolf for raising this point.It should be noted that some researchers see a positive disadvantage in trying to establishlinks w'ith language pedagog'"'. Neu.mever and Steinberg ( 1988), for example, consider thatone of the reasons for the immaturitv of SLA is preciselv the felt need to make applications.Sometimes, horvever, these natural samples of spoken language'r,vere supplemented withsamples of elicited language. For example, Cazden, Cancino, Rosansky, and Schumann(1915) used experimental elicitations bv asking their subjects to imitate or transform amodei utterance.The interpretative tradition of research, r'i'edded to ideas borrowed from critical sociologv,has more recentlv been used to examine a third tl'pe of knou.ledge sociallv constructedknolvledge.This post-modern approach has, .r.rtil .ecentlv, not b"een strongiv reflected inSLA.Richards (1991), in a survev of 50 MATESOL programmes listed in theTESOL director,v,found that 29 ofthem included required courses on SLA.There is, of course, a dual application of Leu'in's model of action research to teaching. Oneis that researchers interested in changing classroom practices need to work rvith teachersrvith a simiiar interest in researching change.The other is that teachers need to work withlearners in negotiating the activities thel' will engage in. The latter appiication is reflectedin the idea of a process svllabus (Breen 1984), according to'"vhich the content, method-ologv, and methods of evaluation for a language course are established jointlt.bv teacherand students as the course takes place.To the best of mr.knor",-ledge, however, proponentsof the process svilabus have not made direct links betrveen their ideas and those of Le'"r-in.Markee's (199+b) studv examined task-based language teaching, w'hich, as Markee pointsout, has been influenced bv psvcholinguistic theories of L2 learning.It should be clear from this that the SLA researcher and the applied linguist can be one andthe same person. Indeed, manv SLA researchers (mvself included) would considerthemselves applied l inguists. It should be equallv clear that the two roles need notbe related; there are manv SLA researchers u'ho are not applied l inguists.There are alsosome SLA researchers orlith ,ro foundation in language p"augogt ,:uho

"ngug. in 'SLA

appl ied ' .

References

Adelman, C. (1993)'Kurt Lervin and the origins of act ions research', EducationalActionResearch

1: 7 -24 .

1 0

l t

12

7 O R O D E L L I S

Agard, p. and Dunkel, H. (1948) An lnvestigation oJ Second LanguageTeaching. Boston, Mass.:

Ginn.

Agnevl.,J ("d ) (1980) Innovatton,Research andPublic Pol icr, ' . Svracuse, N.Y.:Svracuse Universitr .

A l -a t i s ,J . (ed . ) (1991) (Jn ivers i tvoJGeorgetownRoundTdb leonLanguageandL ingu is t i cs .Wash ing ton

D.C. : Georgetor,vn Universit l Press.

Alat is, J., Stern, H. and Stevens, P. (eds) (1933) Applted Linguist ics and the Preparation oJTeachers,

hward a Rationale . Wishington D. C. : Georgeton'n Unil'ersitv Press.

Alhvright, R. ( 1988) Observation in the Language Classroom. London: Longman.

Allu,'right, D. and Bailev, K. ( 1991) Focus on the Language Classroom: An Introduction rc Classroom

ResearchJor Tbachers. Cambridge: Cambridge Universitv Press.

Bahns, J. ( 1 990) 'Consultant not ini t iator: the role of the applied SLA researcher' . ELT Journal

4 4 : 1 1 0 - 1 6 .Bates, E. and MacWhinner', B. (1982)'Functionalist approaches to grammar', inWanner and

Glei tman (eds) (1982).

Beebe, L. (ed.) (1988) lssues in Second Language ,i 'cquisit ion: ,Mulfiple Perspectives, New'York:

Ner,vburl' House.

Beretta, A. (1990) ' lmplementation of the Bangalore Project' , Applted Linguistics 11 321-40.- (1991) 'Theor-v construction in SLA: complementaritv and opposition' , Studies in Second

Language Acquisit ion 73 493 511.

Bolitho, R. (1991)'A place for second ianguage acquisit ions in teacher development and in

teacher educat ion programmes' , in Sadtono (ed.) (199 1) .

Breen, M. (1984) 'Process svllabuses for the language classroom' in Brumfit (ed.) (19Sab).

Breen, M. (1985)'Authenticitr. in the language il"sr.oorn' , Applied Linguistics 6:60_70.

Breen, M. and Candl in , C. (1987) 'Which mater ia ls? a consumer 's and designer 's guide ' in

Sheldon (ed.) (1987).

Bright, J. and McGregor, G. (1910). Teaching English as a Second Language, London: Longman.

Brindiev, G. (1990)'lnquirv-based teacher education: a case study'. Paper presented at24tn

AnnualTESOL Convention, San Francisco March 6-10,1990'

Brock, C. (1985) 'The effects of referential questions on ESL classroom discourse' . TESOL

@rarterly 2O: 4148.

Brooks, N. (1950) Language and Language Learning. NervYork: Harcourt Brace andWorld.

Brown, H. (ed.) (1915) Papers in Second Language Acquisit ion. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Language

Learning, Universitv of Michigan.

Brou,n, H. ,Yor io, C. and Crvmes, R. (eds) (1977) OnTESOL 'TT.Washington D.C. :TESOL.

Brumfit, C. (1983) 'The integration of theorv and practice', in Alatis er a1. (eds) (1983).- (ed.) (1984) General Engltsh Svllabus Design. ELT Documents 1 18. Oxford: Pergamon.

Brumfit, C. and Mitchell, R. (1990a) 'The language classroom as a focus for research', in

Brumlit and Mitchell (eds) (1990b).

Brumfit, c. and Nlitchell, R. (eds) (1990b)'Research in the Language classroom'. EIr

Documents 1 3 3. London: Modern English Publications.

Calderhead, J ("d ) (1938) Teachers'Professional Learninq. London: Falmer.

Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming Crjt ical: Education, Knowledge and Action Research.

London: Falmer.

Cazden, C., Cancino, E., Rosanskr', E. and Schumann, l. (1915) SecondLanguageAcquisit ionin

Children, Adolescents and Aduhs. Final Report. \{'ashington D.C.: National Institute of

Education.

Clarke, M. and Handscombe, J . (eds) (1983) OnTESOL'E2:Pact fcPerspect ives on Language and

Teachtng.Washington, D. C. : TESOL.

Cook. G. and Seidlhofer, B. (eds) (199;) Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in

Honour oJ H. G.Widdouson. Oxlbrd: Oxford Universitv Press.

Cooper, R. (1989) LanguagePlanning and Social Change. Cambridge: Cambridge Universitv Press.

S E C O N D L A N G U A G E A C Q U I S I T I O N 7 T

Corder, S. P. (1973) Introducing Applied Linguistrcs. Harmondsworth: Penguin.- (1977)'Language teaching and learning: a social encounter', in Brown er a1. (eds)

(1917).- (1980) 'Second language acquisit ion research and the teaching of grammar', BAAL

Newslet ter 10: 1-12.

Crookes, G. (1993) 'Action research and second language teachers: going bevond teacherresearch' . Applted Linguistics l4: 130-44.

Crookes, G. and Gass, S. (eds) ( i 993) Tasks and Language Learning: integratinBTheor)t and Practjce.

Cle'r,edon, North Somerset: N{ultilingual N{atters.

Dahl, H. (ed.) (1979) Spotlight on Educational Research. Oslo: Oslo Universitv Press.

Dulav, H. and Burt, M. (i973)'should rve teach children svntax?' Lonjuog, Learning )3:

245-s 8.Duskova, L. (.1969) 'On sources of errors in foreign language learning' ,|KAL'7:11 36.

Eckman, F., Highland, D., Lee, P., N{ileham, J. andWeber, J. (eds) (1995) Second Language

AcquisitionTheorv and Pedagogl . N{ahrva, N.J.: Lalvrence Erlbaum.

Ell iott, J. and Ebutt, D. (1985) Facil itating Educational Acilon Research in Schools. NewYork:

Longman.Ell is, R. (199+) The Stud), oJ Second Language Acquisirion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.- (.1995) 'Appraising second language acquisit ion theorv in reiatron to pedagogv', in Cook

and Seid lhofer (eds) (1995).

Eraut, NI. (199+) Developing ProJessional Knowledge and Competence. London: Falmer.

Fischer, R. (1935) The Design oJExperiments. Edinburgh: Oliver and Bovd.

Flow.erde'ur, ', J., Brooks, M. and Hsia, S. (eds) (1992) Perspectives on Second Language Teacher

Education. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Citl 'Polvtechnic.

Flynn, S. and Nlartohardjono, G. (1995)'Ton'ards theon'-driven language pedagogr'. in

Eckman er a1. (eds) (1995).

Freeman, D. and Richards, J. (1993)'Conceptions of teaching and the education of secondlanguage teachers' . TESOL @tarterlr ' 27: 193-211 .

Freidson, E. (1977) ProJesion oJ Medicine:A Smdv oJ Sociolog,v of Applied Knowledge. Nes']brk:

Dodd, N{ead and Co.Fullan, M. (1982) The,Meaning oJEducational Change. NervYork:Teachers College Press.

Fullan, M. (1993) Change Forces:Probing the Depths oJEducational ReJorn. London: Falmer.

Galton, M. (ed.) (1980) Curriculum Change. Leicester: Leicester Universitv Press.

Gass, S. (1989)'Language universals and second language acquisit ion'. Language Learning )9:

+91-53+.Gass. S. (1995)'Learning and teaching: the necessarv intersection', in Eckman er a1. (eds)

( 1 ees).Gass, S. and Schachter, J. (eds) (199+) lssues in Constructing Second Language Classroom Research.

Hil lsdale, N.J. : Larvrence Erlbaum.

Habermas, I. (.1979) Communication and the Evolution of Society (tr. T. Mccarthl '). Boston: BeaconPress.

Harlev, B, Allen, P. , Cummins, J. and Su.ain, M. (eds) ( 1990) The Development of Second LanguageProfciency. Cambridge : Cambridge Unir-ersitv Press.

Hatch, E. (1978) 'Appll ' rvith caution' . kudies in Second Language Acquisit ion 2: 123-43.

Haveiock, R. (1971)'The uti l ization of educational research and development'. Brit ishJournal

oJ EducationalTechnologv 2: 81-9'7 .'

Henrichsen, L. (1989) Dffision o;f Innovations ;n EnglishTeaching:The ELEC ffirt in_.i lcpan. Ner,v

York: Greenu-ood Press.Hirs t , P. (1966) 'Educat ional theorr ' ' inTibbles (ed.) (1955).

Hopkins, D. (1985) Akacher's Guide to Classroom Research. Milton Keynes: Open University

Press.

7 2 R O D E L L I S

Jarr.is, G. (1983)'Pedagogical knorvledge for the second language teacher', inAlatis et c1. (eds)

(1 e83 ) .Johnson, K. ( 1982) 'Five principles in a "communicative" exercise tYPe', in Johnson, K. (19821

C o m muni cativ e S v Il abu s D es i gn an d,l l eth o d o 1 o g;', Oxford : Pergamon.

Johnston, M. (1987) 'Understanding learner language' in Numan (ed.) (1987).

Kelly, P. (1980) 'From innovation to adaptabil itr ' ' , in Galton (ed.) (1980).

Kemmis, S. and N1cTiggert, R. (1981) The Action Research Planner. Victoria, Australia: Deakin

Universitv Press.

Kenned1., G. (1988) 'Er-aluation and the management of change in ELT projects'. Applted

Linguistics 9: 329-42.

Kramsch, C. ( 1995) 'The polit ics of applied l inguistics' . Plenar., ' lecture, Annual Conference of

the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Long Beach, California'

Kramsch, C. and McConnell-Ginet, S. (eds) (1992) Text and Context: Cross-Disciplinary

Perspectives on Language Srud,r. Lexington, N{ass.: D.C. Heath and Companv.

Krashen, S. (1983)'second language acquisit ion theon'and the preparation ofteachers', in

Alat is et a1. (eds) (1 98 3) .

Krashen, S. and Terrell, T. (1983) The Natural Approach: Language Acquisit ion in the Classroom.

Oxford: Pergamon.

Kuhn, T. (1910) The Structure of Scienttfc Revolutions (2nd edn.). Chicago: Chicago University

Press.Lambright, W and Flvnn, P (1980) 'The role of local bureaucracv-centered coalit ions in

technologv transfer to the citv' in Agnerv (ed.) (1980).

Lantolf, J. (1995) 'second language acquisit ion theorr' ' . Plenarv address, 1995 Annual BAAL

Conference, Southampton, UK.

Larsen-Freeman,D.andLong,Nl . (1991)Anlnt roduct iontoSecondLanguageAcquis i t ionResearch.

London: Longman.

Lightbown, P. (1985)'Great expectation: second language acquisit ion research and classroom

teaching ' . .4ppl red L ingurst tcs 6: l7 l -89.

Lightbow.n, P. and Spada, N. (1993) How Languages are Learned Oxford: Oxford University

Press.Long, NI . (1981) ' lnput , in teract ion and second language acquis i t ion ' inWini tz (ed.) (1981b)- 11983a.y

'Training the second language teacher as classroom researcher' in Alatis et a1.

( e d s ) ( 1 9 8 3 ) .- (1983b) 'Natil 'e speaker/non-native speaker conversation in the second language

classroom', in Clarke and Handscombe (eds) (1983).- (1990)'second language classroom research and teacher education', in Brumfit and

Mitchel l (eds) (1990b).- (1993, ; ' . {ssessment s t rategies for SLA theor ies ' . Appl iedLtnguist ics 14:22549.

Markee, N. (1993) 'The difference of innovation in language teaching' . Annual Review oJApplied

Linguistics 13 : 229-43.

Markee, N. (1994a) 'Tor,vards an ethnomethodological respectification of second-language

acquisit ion studies', in Gass and Schachter (eds) (199+).- (1994b)'Curricular innovation: issues and problems' . Applied Language Learning 5: 1-30.

McDonough, J. and McDonough, S. (i990)'What's the use of research?' ELT Journal 44:

t02 -9 .Ne',r'mark, L. (.1966) 'Hou not to interfere in language learning' , International Journal of

Amer ican L inguist ics 32:11-81 .

Nervmeyer, F. and Steinberg (1988)'The ontogenesis of the field of second language learning

research ' in F lvnn and O'Nei l l (eds) (19881.

Noffke, S. and Stevenson, R. (eds) (1995) Educattonal . lction Research: Becoming Practtcally

Crit ical. Neu'York: Teachers' College Press.

S E c O N D L A N G U A G E A C Q U I S I T I O N 7 3

Nunan, D. (ed.) (1987) .4pptving Second LanguaBe Acquisit ion Research. National Curriculum

Research Centre, Adelaide, Australia: Adult Migrant Education Program.

Nunan. D. (1990) 'The teacher as researcher ' , in Brumf i t and Mi tchel l (eds) (1990b).

pennycook, A. (1989) 'The concept of method, interested knorvledge, and the polit ics of

language teaching' . TESOL @Ldrterl1 25: 589-6i8.pica, T. (1 987) 'second language acquisit ion: soclal interaction in the classroom'. Applied

L tngu i s r i csT : | 2 ' t .- (1992) 'The textual outcomes of native speaker-non-native sPeaker negotiation: what do

ther. reveal about second language learning' in Kramsch and McConnell-Ginet (eds)

(1ee2).- (199+) 'Questions from the language classroom: research perspectives' . TESOL Qtarterlv

28:49-19.pica, T. and Doughtr., C. (1985) 'The role of group rvork in classroom second language

acquisition' . Studies jn Second Language Acqujsition J "

233 48.

Polanvi, M. (1958) Personal Knowledge:Towards a Post-Crit ical Philosop\. London: Routledge.

Prabhu, N. S. ( 1987) Second Language Pedagog,v. Oxford: Oxford Universitv Press.

Ravem, R. (1968) 'Language acquis i t ion in a second language envi ronment ' . lK4L 5: 165 85.

Richards, J. (1991)'Co.rt"nt knou'ledge and instructional practice in second language teacher

educat ion ' , in Aiat is (ed.) ( 1 991 ) 'Rogers, R. (1983) The D{fuston oJlnnovations (3rd ed.1. London and Ner'vYork: Nlacmilian and

Free Press.

Sadtono, E. (ed.) (1991) Language Acquisit ion and the Second/Foreign Language Classroom.

Singapore: SEAMFO Regional Engiish Language Centre.

Schachter, J. ( 1 993) 'second language acquisit ion: perception and possibil i t ies'. Second Language

Research 9: 113-81 .

Scherer, A. and Wertheimer, N,l. (.196+:) .4 Psvcholinguistic Experiment in Fordgn LanguageTeaching .

Neu'York: NIcGrau- Hil l.

Schon, D. (1983) The Ref.ectivePrcojtioner. Nelr'York: Basic Books'

Schumann, J. 119931 'Some problems u.ith falsif ication: an i l lustration from SLA research'.

Applied Linguistics 1 4 : 29 5-306.

Schuvlea P. and Sitterle)', D. (1 995)'Pre-service teacher supervision and reflective practice', in

Nol{ke and Stevenson (eds) (1995).

Skehan, P. (1996)'second language acquisit ion research and task-based instruction', inWill is

andWi l l is (eds) (1 995) .

Smith, P. (1970)'A comparison of the Audiolingual and Cognitive Approaches to Foreign

Language Instruction:The Pennsr'lr'ania Foreign Language Project.' Philadelphia: Center

for Curriculum DeveloPment.

Spada, N. and Lightbor.r-n, P (1993)'lnstruction and the development o[ questions in L2

classrooms' . Studies in Second Language Acquisit ion 75 205 21.

Stenhouse, L. (1975) "4n lntroduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London:

Heinemann.- (1919) 'Using research means doing research ' , in Dah] (ed.) (1979).

Stenhouse, L. ,Verma, G. ,Wi ld, R. and Nixon, l . (1982) Teaching abour Race Relat ions. London:

Routledge.

Stern, H. (1983) Fundamental Concepts of LanguageTeachtng. Oxford: Oxford Universitv Press.

Stoller, F. (199+) 'The diffusion of innovations in intensive ESL programs'. Apphed Linguistics

1 5 : 3 0 0 - 2 7 .Tarone, E., Su,ain, M. and Fathman, A. (1915) 'Some limitations to the classroom applications

of current second language acquisition research' . TESOL Qyarteily 1 0: 1 9-3 1 .

Tibbles, I ("d ) (1966) The Study oJ Educatton. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

1,vler, R. (]9+9) Basic Principles oJ Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: Chicago Universitv Press.

7 4 R O D E L L I S

Van Lier, L. (1988) The Classroom andthe Language Learner. London: Longman.- (1990)'Ethnographr': bandaid, handvragon, or contraband'in Brumfit and Mitchell (eds)

( 1 eeOb).VanPatten, B. and Cadierno,T. (1993)'Explicit instruction and input processing'. Studies in

Second Language Acquisit ion l5: 22541 .

Wanner, E. and Gleitman, L. (eds) (1982) Language,Tcquisii lon:The State of the.4rt. Nen'York:

Cambridge Universitv Press.

Weber, M. (1951) TheTheorl 'oJSoctal and Economic Organizatton. New'York:The Free Press.

Weiss, C. (ed.) (.1911) using Social Research in Public Polic,r '-making. Lexington: D. C. Heath.

White, R. (1988) The ELT Currjculum: Design, Innovation and tVanagemenr. Oxford: Basil

Blackwell.- (1993) ' lnnovation in program der,elopment' . Annual Review oJ Applied Linguistics 73:

2++-s9.Widdowson, H. (19S4) 'Appl ied l inguist ics: the pursui t o f re levance' inWiddowson (198a)

Explorattons in Applied Linguistics 2. Oxford: Oxford Universitv Press.- (1990) Aspects oJ LangrageTeaching. Oxford: Oxford Universitv Press.- (.1993) 'lnnovation in teacher development' . Annual Rev)ew oJ Applied Llnguistics 13:

2 6 0 1 5 .Wilkins, D. (1916) Notional Sr' l labuses. Oxford: Oxford Universit l 'Press.

Will is, J. and Will is, D. (eds) (1996) Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. Oxford:

Heinemann.Winitz, H. (ed.) (1981)'Native Language and Foreign LanguageAcquisit ion' . Annals oJtheNew

York Academy of Sciences 379.

Wright, T. (1992) 'Classroom research and teacher education: torvards a collaborative

approach' , in Florverdel et al. (eds) ( 1 992).

Zahorik, J. ( 1 9 8 6) 'Acquiring teaching skills' , rlournc I of Teacher Education 27 : 21-25 .

C h a p t e r 4

Peter Skehan

COM PREHENSION AND PRODUCTION

STRATEGiES IN LANGUAGE LEARNING

f N AN INFTUENTIAL PAPER WHICH d i scusses d i f f e rences be tween f i r s t

|. und second language learning, Blev-Vroman (1989) drarvs attention to the extent' lq

*hi.h .".ord lung!3g9_( .lfirst ]qlgugel -tittr*.tt""-"nr.ttti"gt'ot. of;;;nffiA

':--"."-;1, - -it is hardlv srlrpfrfinglEatlFelanguage teaching profession has explored manv alternatives

in the search to find more effective methods (Larsen-Freeman 1985). And it is equallv

unsurprising that one of the responses the profession has made is to see rvhether upprou.h",

to second language teaching w.hich connect rvithfrsr language acquisit ion hold out anv

promise.This chapter u'i l l review t$.o such instructional approaches. The first is broadlr'

concerned ouith .o.r.pr"hension-drir.en learning, regarding second language development

as l ikelv to proceed, under the right conditions, simplv as a result of exposure to meaningful

input. The second, lvhich in some wavs arose out of dissatisfaction with the {irst, proposesthat engaging in interaction and producing output w'ill be sufficient to drive second language

development forw-ard. In each case, clearlr ', interlanguage development is seen to be the

bv-product of engaging in meaning-processing - in the first case through comprehension,and in the second through production. As a broader aim, the chapter develops the claim that

instructionai activit ies that emphasize meaning, whether comprehension or productionbased, mav induce learners to reiv on strategies for communication rvhich result in a

bypassing ofthe form oflanguage.

The place of comprehension in language learning

The clearest example of a comprehension-based account of second language development

derives from Krashen (1985). He proposed that comprehensible input is the driving force

for interlanguage der.elopment and change, and that the effects ofsuch change carrv over to

influence production - that is, one learns to speak bv listening, a claim which is interesting

because ofits counter-intuitir.e nature. Krashen argues that the predictabilitv ofthe context

makes what is said function as a commentarv on u'hat is alreadv understood. The result is

that it is more l ikelr, that the interlanguage svstem rvil l be extended bv the context-to-

language mapping involved.

7 6 P E T E R S I ( E H A N

Krashen articulates a rationale for comprehension-based instruction. He draws attention

to the success that various listening-based methodologies can claim, such asTotal Physical

Response (Asher 1977), as r,vell as more experimental research in its support (Winitz 1978;

Postovskv 1977). Most of all, though, he is enthusiastic about the achievements of immersion

education, in r.vhich content-based learning'drags' language learning $-ith it parasiticallv.The

features of immersion education, such as learning environment lvhich is supportive, and

w-here bil ingual teachers provide ample content-based input while allorving learners to

produce language at their pace, are seen as consistent rvith Krashen's position. Manv

evaluations ofsuch an approach to foreign language education (Sw'ain and Lapkin 1982) have

shou.n that immersion-educated children reach much higher levels of achievement than

do children educated bv traditional'core' methods, and in some areas perform at levels

comparable to those of native-speaker children. And this is achieved rvithout compromising

content-based learning in areas such as geographv, mathematics, science, and so on.

Krashen's vier,vs har,e been influential u'ithin second ianguage education and have had

considerable impact on the nature of pedagogic provision. Not surprisingh', therefore, they

have been subjected to searching criticism, and it rvould no\\'seem that the claims that "vere

made cannot be substantiated. General crit icisms of the theoretical status of Krashen's

Moni tor Model canbe found in Mclaughi in (1987), Gregg (1984), Spolskv (1985) and

Skehan (1984).The present discussion rvil l be confined to analyses ofthe functioning of

comprehension, and the lvays that comprehension-driven learning mav (or may not) occur.

Perhaps, first of all, holver.er, it is u-orth returning to the Canadian immersion pro-

grammes. Earlier evaluations were generallv favourable, and suggested that such an approach

to Ianguage provision might be rvorth adapting in other contexts. Ho'"vever, more recently

the limitations of immersion approaches have also become apparent. In particular, attention

is nou'increasinglv dralvn to the contrast in achievement betlveen receptive and productive

skills. Although the chiidren concerned perform at levels of comprehension close to native

speakers, the same cannot be said of their production abii it ies. Harler and Su'ain ( 1984) and

Sw.ain (1985) report that immersion-educated children, after manv vears of instruction,

still make persistent errors u'hen speaking and."r'riting, suggesting that the automatic transfer

betu.een comprehension and production that Krashen argues for does not occur w-ith any

certaintv.This sort of evaluation demonstrates that an unqualified interpretation of the benefits

of comprehension-based methodologies is not justi{ied. In retrospect, it is difficult to see how

comprehension-based approaches could have been so readilv accepted, since thev offered

oniy rudimentary accounts of the mechanisms and processes bv which comprehension lvas

supposed to influence underlving interlanguage and generalize to production. Consequently,

the next section r,vill examine comprehension processes in more detail to tn'to account for

the immersion evaluation hndings.

Comprehension strategies

The findings become much more understandable if one examines the relevance of native-

speaker comprehension models for the process of second language learning. Looking at

comprehension in more'micro'terms, Clark and Clark 11977)have argued that native-

speaker listeners t1-picallv drarv upon a range of comprehension strategies when they are

listening. Thev focus on holv svntactic and semantic strategies mav be used to recover the

meaning of rvhat is heard in a rather impror-isatorv manner (ibid.: 57-85). Examples of

s,vntactic strategies that thev discuss are:

C O M P R E H E N S I O N A N D P R O D U C T I O N S T R A T E G I E S 7 7

Whenever r'ou find a determiner (a, an, the) or quantifrer (some, all, many, two, six,etc.) begin a ne\\-noun phrase.Whenever r,ou find a co-ordinating conjunction (and, or, but, nor) begin a ne\\.

constituent similar to the one tou-juit completed.

Trv to attach each neu'u.ord to the constituent that came just before.

( i b i d . : 6 6 \

Thev i l lustrate this last strategv through an advertising campaign run b"' a London

evening paper'"vith posters such as'Zoo keeper finds Jaguar queuing for underground ticket',

and'Butler f inds ner'v station betr,veen Piccadil lv and Oxford Street'.The paper wanted more

people to realize holv useful its small adr,ertisements section u'as and to attract their attention

to posters ther' rvould normallv glance at onlv brieflv u-hile passing. So thev exploited the'double-take' that readers \r 'ere led into br- using the third of the above micro-strategies.

Readers then had to recognize the improbabilit\: of their first interpretatio. of 'qrr.rri.rg'

being attached to'Jaguar' and 'nelr' station' to'betrveen Piccadii lv and Oxford Street', and

rnoo'I th" link to the first noun in each sentence.

Clark arid Clark (;bid. :72*79'1 also discuss semantic strategies, such as:

4 Using content rvords alone, build propositions that make sense and parse the sentence

into constituents accordinglv.

Fillenbaum (1971) illustrates the operation of this strategv bv showing that rvhen people

were asked to paraphrase'perverse ' sentences l ike 'John dressed and had a bath ' , thev

normalized them, lvith more than half of his subjects even asserting there u'as 'not a shred

ofdifference'betrveen the paraphrase and the original.

Clark and Clark are, in effect, arguing that native-speaker comprehension is probabilistic

in nature, and does not follorv anv sort of deterministic model rvhich *'ould rely on an

exhaustive parsing of the utterar." .o.r."..red. Instead, l isteners use a variety of means to

maximize the chances that thel u'ill be able to recover the intended meaning of u,hat is being

said to them.Thev are not, in other u'ords, using some linguistic model to retrieve meaning

comprehensivelv and unambiguouslr'. Instead, thev cope r'r. ith the problem of having to

process language in real t ime bv emploving a varietv of strategies nhich rvil l probably

combine to be effectir,'e, even though there is no guarantee that this rvill be the case.

Presumablv if a comprehension difficultv arises during ongoing processing, the listener can

shift to a different mode of meaning extraction, as perhaps in the case of the zoo keeper and

the Jaguar (as rvas intended bv the authors ofthe poster). But this is not done routinelv: the

primarv strategv is to achieve effectir,eness in ver1, fast language processing. Most listeners,

in their native language, prefer to make a best-guess and keep up, rather than be accused of

being slorv-u.itted but accurate pedants (although \ve can all bring to mind some members

ofthis species).

These 'micro' issues discussed bv Clark and Clark (1977) can be located r'vithin a wider

model of comprehension, u'hich has a more macro perspectir.e.The follou.ing table is adapted

fromAnderson and Lvnch 11988: 13; , n 'ho suggest that comprehension (again, for the

moment, native-speaker comprehension) is dependent on three main sources of knowledge:

Schematic knov,ledge

background knou'ledge- factual- sociocultural

7 B P E T E R S I ( E H A N

procedural knorvledge- how'knou'ledge is used in discourse

Contextual knowledge

knou'ledge of situation

phvsical setting, participants, etc.

knol' ledge of co text

n'hat has been, rvil l be said

-i :,:;:: ;n; kn o. w- I e' l qe

: " r ^ t aa i iC

>: i l - , l i l ! i c

: : t , , r nh ,_ r l og i ca l

These knowledge sources are drau'n on, interactiveh', to achieve comprehension. Micro

approaches (compare Clark and Clark 1 977) are largelv concerned u'ith the operation of

siitematic knowledge r,vhich ailow's effective guesses to be made as to the meaning of what

is being said. ButAnderson and Lvnch are proposing that listeners build meanings bv drawing

,n u.,. l ide. ranqe of resources, including both schematic and contextual know'ledge.This

:,--:--:=. r:f,t \\ 'e are not exclusivelv dependent on the nature of the sounds addressed to us

,, .,..-- ' ,. meaning. l iu.e can relate u-hat is being said to previous knorvledge that we have,

i i : r . ' . , . . r :a , be able to make ver l e f fect ive in ferences about the messages concerned'

.-::...,: ... :: sr rt lare the message to the probable things that are l ikel,v to be said given the

:.::..:: .t ,-n. siruational context, lor example the bus queue, or r 'r 'hathas been said previously,.. ' ,.. ::- .utting dou'n the range of possible meanings that u'e encounter, and making our

.--:!:t : ab, rut n'reaninq more l ikelv to n'ork. In this respect, l isteners are behaving in exactly

i--..: ..::-.: r ' . r l :: .krl led readers do u'hen thev sample the printed material in front of them,

::--:.:: ::-.::. l , ,r ing o\ er everv letter. Comprehension, in other words, is a mixture of bottom-

,: :: '- : ' : i ' ,.., n F)rocesses tEsker- 1988), lvith the more effective use of top-dolvn Processes:: t..--n. rne e \tent oithe dependence on the acoustic or visual stimulus involved.

'. ' . :,,: : l l this implies is that the comprehension process can be partl-v detached from the

. .: . .r.. : ' ,:r l.t ic svstem and from production. If comprehension dralvs on effective

. ,: :i: .-. *.. and on a capacitv to relate input to context, then it mav partll, be an autonomous

-- :c development does not transfer automaticallv to other areas. A good compre -

:r t:r r-..r\ be an effective and appropriate strategv user, rather than someone who

:.: -,: r i trti., r-\trdCtS useful svntactic inferences from the ianguage rvhich is being processed

)-,, :.:. iy.r jr. Effective comprehension mav leave the underlving interlanguage sYstem

-:.: -rched and unscathed.

Thcse arguments applv particuiarlv forcefuliv to the second or foreign language learner.

.:- .uch .n."r, rt. are deali.rg r,vith people u'ho do not lack schematic knou'ledge, but w'ho

I n3\e limited svstemic knor,r.ledqe. Such learners, rvhen confronted bv comprehension

:.r, ,blems. are l lkeli ' to exploit *-hit thev are best at - mobil izing relevant schematic and

.,-,,-,,.*,r-rul k roltleig" to or,ercome theii svstemic limitations. As a result, the need for the

interlanguage system to be engaged, and to have the chance to change and grow, i-s reduced'

To put ,ii. Ir directlv u. porribl-., it rvouid seem that, after all, learning to speak a second

Ianquaqe, at least for most people, is not accomplished simplv by l istening to it.

C O M P R E H E N S I O N A N D P R O D U C T I O N S T R A T E G I E S 7 9

From comprehension to production

Krashen's proposal (1985), that comprehensible input drives forlr 'ard language development

and generalizes to speaking rvas attractir-e. Claiming that u'e learn through exposure to

meaningful material mav not be verv startling \!-e are unlikelv to learn from material rve

do not understand, after all. But claiming that interlanguage change arises in a receptive

modalitv and later becomes ar,aiiable to production rvas bv no means self-evident - hence

the at t ract ion of the argument .

We have seen, though, that the evidence reported from evaluations of immersion w'as

supportive of the original claim and so rve have to accept that speaking does not come'for

free' simpll. through listening to comprehensible input. In this respect, Long ( 1985) makes

a three-level distinction betn'een conditions for second language learning. He suggests that

it is valuable to consider lvhether factors such as input are:

I necessarv

2 sufficient

3 eflicient

Logicallv, an influence might operate at a level 7 , 2, or 3, u'ith 3 efliciencv constituting the

most searching criterion, that an influence is not just causative (necessar-v and sufficient), but

is likelv to produce successful language learning most quicklv. At the other extreme, ievel

1 , necessarv, an influence \\.ould have to be present, but u'ould not be enough, in itself to

produce successful learning (let alone accomplish this rapidl-v) since it rvould act simplv as

a precondition. Krashen's proposal \\'as that input is necessary) sufficient, and efficient, while

the preceding pages have argued against this.

Roles for output

Swain (1985; Su-ain and Lapkin 1982), an important contr ibutor of immersion-based

evidence, was led to consider rvhether other factors besides input might take us further in

meeting the three levels of condition proposed bv Long, and account for horv language

development might be driven foru'ard. In particular, she proposed the Comprehensible

Output Hvpothesis, that to learn to speak u-e have to actuallv speak! Drau'ing on her specific

suggestions (Srvain 1985), as well as on other sources, several roles for outPut can be

identified that are relevant to language learning. The first tw'o of the proposed roles still have

a connection witl input, but rework this relationship in some !vav. The remaining roles for

output are more specificallv targeted on the productive modalitv itself.

Paradoxically, one needs to start bv drawing attention to the u'av in rvhich one could onlv

get good q,rilt,o input bv using output ispeafng) to give one's interlocutor feedback, so that

the input directed to the listener is more finel-v tuned to the iistener's current comPetence

(Long 1985). In this vierl-, output is important as a signalling device to negotiate better input:

input rvould sti l l be the major explanatorv construct, but output rvould be necessary to

generate it most effectivelv. Simplv listening rvould not ensure that good quality input r,vould

be received, since one u.ould have to reh'on good luck or the sensitivitv of one's interlocutor,

neither of rvhich is verv dependable. The strongest form of this account concerns the

b generate better input

B O P E T E R S I ( E H A N

'negotiation for meaning'l i terature (Pica 1994).This proposes that engaging in meaning

negotiation, as indexed bv the use of, for example, clarif ication requests, confirmation

checks, and comprehension checks, evidences e16cient signall ing of miscomprehension and

the clear engagement of a malleable interlanguage system rvhich is more likely', as a result,

to develop productivelv. In such cases, better input should be received, but in addition the

attempt to engage in conversation lvil l tr igger support at verv important points for

interlanguage development.

- fOr , * ra iv t17W"-::g) ,.)"' .J .''lo"n,-7

Sw'ain (1985) argues that knon'ing that one u'i l l need to rpglk makes one more l ikely to )

attend to syntax 'uvhen one is listening. She suggests that if l;iteners are aware that it is not

enoughsimplvtoextraCtmeaningfrominput ,but that th"1,q@o'

to thJ].r"urrc ty ,r'hi.h -.u.ri.rg, -ur.

"*pr"rr"d in ord==-.. to"*" @ri,

for their ow yntax'.-a.-=.=-

fnderlving speech. It is similar to r,vatching a top-class tennis plaver, say, and making a

distinction betrveen simplv obserr.ing and admiring a stroke, on the one hand, and observing

and analvsing the stroke so that it can be emulated later, on the other. So once again, we are

dealing here rvith output having an indirect effect in that it causeS input and listening to be

used more effectivelv for interlanguage development.

WTo accept the input hvpothesis is to be dependent on w-hat is said by others. If this is

enlightening, given the learner's current state of interlanguage grammar, then progress may

result. But one is extremeh'unlikeh.to be so fortunate as to receive relevant information

for specific points of interlanguage development relevant to the areas where one is framinghvpotheses at exactlv the right time. Speaking, in contrast, allou.s the speaker to control theagenda and to take risks and look for feedback on the points ofuncertainty in a developing

grammar (Swain 1985; 1995). This is unlikelv to make learning more efficient, sincet"h. ,p.uk., can control u'hat is going on and engineer feedback tlhut l, likely to be mostrevealrng.

-WTo be effective in the use of a language, one needs to be able to use the language w'ith someease and speed. Ear l ier , in the sect ion on comprehension, the ' real t ime'problem was

mentioned, according to rvhich it is important to posit mechanisms of comprehension whichhave some chance of explaining listening in real time.The same basically applies to speaking,the onll'lvav in r.vhich iearners can go bevond carefulll constructed utterances and achievesome level of natural speed and rhythm.To obtain the automaticitl'that this involves requires

frecuent rtunrtv to components of utterances so that they can be

[roduced imoortantspeech ruth". thu. th" .p"".h this respect, there is an aspect of

speaking which makes it an example of skilied behaviour, like driving a car, or, probablymore reler,antl-v, like plaving a musical instrument. O."lf by fr"q"."t

"r. d"

. o f sp jech l ike l ) to he imn.or"d-

This applies to all speech, but it is likelv to appll even more forcefuliv to some aspects

than others. It mav affect morphologv vitalh', but hardlv affects rvord order. Hence the

C O M P R E H E N S I O N A N D P R O D U C T I O N S T R A T E G I E S 8 1

opportunity to practise speech in ianguages u.here morphologv plavs a more prominent rolemay be all the more important.

The previous arguments for the importance of output have not challenged the view' that

language learning is essentiallv the development of a sentence-based interlanguage svstem.

BUt it has been claimed (Brorvn and Yule 198 3) that much ELT rvork focuses excessivel), on I l'shor t turns ' . and that as a resul t learners ' capaci t ies to take Dart in extended d iscourse are I I

not stretched. Certainlv, current developments in discourse analvsis suggest that there is a ' '

%

Iot to be learned if one is to become an effective communicator. Discourse management

(Bygate 1987), turn-taking skil ls, and a range of similar capacities rvhich underlie the

negotiation of meaning in ongoing discourse (Cook 1989), can onlv be achieved bv actuallv

participating in discourse. If meaning-making is a jointlv collaborative activity, then rn'e

cannot read about these skills, or even acquire them passivelv, but instead have to take part

in discourse and realize hou- our resources are put to vuork to build conr,'ersations and

negotiate meaning. Extensive speaking practice is ihere fore unaloidable.

develop a oersonal vo

A learner w'ho is com letelv de ent on u'hat others sav. is unlikelv to be able to deve

a Dersonal manner ot s Such a learner rvil l be dependent on the sorts of meanings

5ilhe has been exposed to, and n'ill not b" ubjclp_q_Ig!-atj versauon

Es.TfiFlmpiies a strange, passive vieu-of w'hat language is used for, and how personalconoeifr's are manifested bv it. It seems inevitable that if one $'ants to sav things that are

important, one must have, during language learning, the opportunitv to steer con-versations

along routes of interest to the speaker, and to find rvays of expressing individual meanings.

A role for output here seems unavoidable.

The importance of output

These six reasons for the importance of output provide yet another argument against the

sufficiencv of a comprehension-based approach. Thev detail the inadequacv of simpll '

listening, and sholv that output too is a necessarv condition for successful language learning.

But the next question is to consider *'hether output, in turn, is sufficient and ef{icient as a

condition for language .

The six roles for output listed above might suggest that it is.The first such use, obtaining

better input (see p.79), w-il l not be pursued here since it is only a more sensitive form of

Krashen's vieu's. The iast trvo roles, acquiring discourse skil ls and developing a personalvoice (see above), are more concerned rvith the construct of communicative competence.

The centrai roles for output in promoting interlanguage development are forcing syntactic

processing, testing hypotheses, and der-eloping automaticitl'. The first trvo of these central

roles focus on form u,hile the third is more concerned u.ith performance and fluency.

The contrast implied here betr".een attention to form and attention to performance,

suggests a question rvhich is susceptible to empirical investigation.We need to devise studies

u'hich can establish lvhether actual output favours form or emphasizes fluency at the expense

of form. Although output mav generallr ' be a good thing, the roles it serves in specific

situations may not be so beneficial. It then becomes important to establish, through research,

the conditions and constraints under rvhich output promotes a focus on form.

8 2 P E T E R S I ( E H A N

In the l iterature. r\\ 'o ienerai ac.ounts of the role of communication in language devel-

opment hal'e been proposed: language development through the negotiation of meaning

(Pica 1 994, for exampi. ,: an,l de..lopment through the operation of strategic competence

(such as Bialvstok 1 990 r. \\ e s i l l eramine each of them in turn to assess r,vhether they can

clarifl.rvhether output and interaction have a positive influence, and if so, r,l'hat that influence

might be.

Advocates of the negotiation of meaning approach (Gass andVaronis 1994 andPica 1994,

for example) suggest that the ongoing identification of difficuities in interactive encounters

stimulates learners to overcome such diff iculties. In so doing, it is hvpothesized that

modificationslvhich are made to speech in the serr.ice of repairing conversational breakdown

havebeneficialspin-offeffectsonunderIr.inginterlanguag".@

ideal support ive mechanism to:

12

identifv areas rvhere interlanguage is limited and needs extension;

prgl-l{e scaffo!!1gg e!{1 feedback at preciselv the point r,vhen it w-ill be most useful

s incc the learner u ' i l l be oar t icu lar lv scnsi t ive to the cues oror ided to enable new

meanrngs to be encoded.

Conversational moves such as comprehension checks. clarif ica

like u'i l l reflect hon conversation leids to enqaqement \\ ith an underlvinq interlaneuaqe

system when it is made un v malleabie. To link back rvith the roles for output discussed

, such negotiation of meaning provides ideal opportunities for hypotheses to be tested

and a syntactic mode of processing to be highhghted.

There are, holvever, problems h".SJ-L!gtr_{_L_2_E_6), for example, has questioned the

i r d. r i rubi l i t . 'o f . . .

| | and l rhose . -u l@we] l t h i s i sach ieved . t {eProPoSes ' i n fac t , t ha t. -l l such rn te rac t l ons can be r r r t t u t t nq l o s . and r yu l

l J discourse is concerned. The u'ider issue, essentiallv, is that it is one thing for successful'

negotiation to take place, but quite another for this to have beneficial consequences for

interlanguage development. Far "

sequences mav distract the learners and overload the processing svstems the]'are using, withthe rezuk that even u 'hen successfu l scai to lded negot iat ions occur uhich produce morecOno time to consolidate them.

In an,v case, there is also the possibilitv that such studies may have over-estimated theempirical importance of negotiation for meaning. Foster ( 1 998) demonstrates that althoughone can, indeed, point to differences betr,r..een interaction tvpes and participation patterns asfar as negotiation of meaning indices are concerned, global figures disguise the true state of

affairs. In fact, unusuallv active students, lvhatever the task or participation pattern, engagein the same amount of negotiation of meaning - nil. .A.s a result, we have to conclude that for

most students this aspect of output does not have a definite impact on interlanguage change

and development.

Strateqic comDete

The situation is not particulariv different u'ith respect to the operation of strategic

competence and communication strategies, the other more qeneral framew'ork which might

C O M P R E H E N S I O N A N D P R O D U C T I O N S T R A T E G I E S 8 3

provide a rationale for output-led interlanguage development.This l iterature (Tarone 1981 ;Ferch and Kasper 1983;Bialvstok 1990; has examined the r,vays in r,r 'hich the strategiesthat learners adopt when faced bv communication problems can be described cl"arlv ?.rdclassified. Manv categorization svstems har.e been proposed, such as Ferch and Kasper's(1983) distinction betrveen achievement and avoidance strategies, and Bialvstok's (1990)contrast between linguistic and cognitive factors. One attraction of such systems is that thevaccount for the range of strategies lvhich are used as parsimoniouslv and vet as compre-hensivelv as possible. In addition, it is useful if thev can be grounded in related fields, as isthe case rvith Ferch and Kasper's (i983) appeal to general psvcholinguistic models.

Hor,vever, a central issue is rvhether the operation of such strategies of communicationat a particular time to soh'e particular problems has anv implications for interlanguage changeand development over time.l C)ne could ask, for example, r,vhether achievement strategies(that is, retain the original intention of meaning, and use resources creativelv to solve acommunication problem) are more i ikelv to lead to development than avoidance st.ategies(that is, do not extend one's l inguistic repertoire, but instead change the message to becommunicated so that it comes rvithin available resources). Similarlv, one could ask whetherthere are different implications from the use of linguistic strategies compared rvith cognitiveones.

A different rvav of examining essentiallv the same point is to consider the relationshipbetween communitation strategies and the Can"l" u.rd Srvain (1980) model of communi-cative competence.This contains three (Canale and Sr.vain 1980) or four (Canale 198:7competences: l inguistic, sociolinguistic, discourse, and strategic (discourse being the addedfourth competence : see the discussion in McNamar a 1995) . Linguistic, sociolinguistic, anddiscourse competences are, in a sense, more basic, since thel represent areas of coherentcomPetence in relation to different aspects of communication. Strategic competence, in thtsformulation, has a less integrated qualitv in that it is meant to function in an impro",isaron'manner w'hen problems are encountered because other competences are lacking (seeBachman 1990). Presumablv the capacitv to negotiate meaning would be part of a moregeneral strategic competence.

A w'eak interpretation ofrvhat is happening rvould be that such strategies have no otherfunction than to solve some sort of communicative breakdor,vn in order that conversationcan proceed.With this interpretation, all that happens r,vhen a problem is encountered is thatsome degree of resourcefulness is drarvn on, and the problem in question may or may notbe solved. In this t'i"t1., it is not assumed that there is much rrace from the activity of solvingthe problem in question. Although the'solution' mav enable further interaction to take place(whichis, of course, not a bad thing), its details are regarded as transitorv and unimportant.

However, a stronger interpretation is that u'hen communication strategies are used,thev have implications for longer-term language development.There are three requirementsfor this to happen. First, it is necessarv that solving current communicative problems leavessome sort of trace. In other w-ords, u-hat is initiallv an impro','isation to convev one's meaninsw'hen resources are l imited is noticed and becomes more than a,.u.,ria.tU,r;

";";"r.#success; there must be something about the interaction *.hich is sufficientlv ,uli".rt, and,/orthe processing capacitv available allou's such attention. Second, the improvisation w.hichhas become a solution must be useful to future problems - it must have some transfer orgeneralizing po\\rer. Such an outcome lvould reflect the u,'av the interaction itself has ledto useful h,vpothesis generation or to svntactic processing (Su.ain 1985; 1995). Third,the communicative solution needs to become proceduralized, either because it is so strikingduring one occurrence (Logan 1998), or because its strength is built up more graduallvthrough repeated related solutions to essentiallv the same communicative problem

8 4 P E T E R S I ( E H A N

(Anderson 1992).ln anv case, it becomes available as part of one's communicative repertoire

o.r..,br.qr.nt occasions rvhen problems similar to the original one are encountered. If all

these conditions are met, and interlanguage deveiopment occurs, then lve do indeed have a

case of learning to talk bv talking. In this case solving communicative problems engages a

language l"ar.ring capacitv directlv, since solving problems is rvhat Puts Pressure on the

communicat ive svstem to change.

Problems with communication strategies

There are a number of problems rvith such an interpretation of holv communication

strategies function beneficiallv over time. Of course, w'hat rvould be ideal, in this regard,

1vouid be longitudinal studies of the impact of different patterns of communication strategy

use on interlanguage development, since such studies rvould chart the nature of interlanguage

change, fo.."l.uu.rt learners, relating interaction patterns and strategic language use to the

,r.rd"ilvi.rg svstems change rvhich occurs. Unfortunatelv, such studies are in short supply and

isolated ca-se studies huloe to be relied upon to an excessive degree. (The thrust of most such

research has been to establish classification schemes or analvtic framervorks r,vhich have littie

to sav about longer-term change.) Even so, there is some information available.

Em p i r i c aIIy- m ot ivat e d con c er n s

Schmidt (19S3) reports the case ofWes, a Japanese learner of English in Hawaii. Schmidt

studiedWes over an extended period, gathering data on his language performance in informal

settings over t\,vo vears. Schmidt used as a guiding theoretical framervork the Canale and

Sr.ain (1980) model of communicative competence mentioned earlier. He also drew'

attention to Wes's attitude to learning and using English, since Wes ',vas quite clear that he

was uninterested in instruction or correctness, and lvas more concerned with achieving

effective communication r,r.ith those people he rvanted to talk to. In this he was successful,

since in the period of the studv he rvent from being regarded as a minimal English speaker

to being taken as a worthw'hile interlocutor bv native speakers w'ho clearly reacted to him,

at the end ofthe period ofstudv, as a conversational equai.

The most interesting aspect of the studv, however, is that w'hen Wes's improvement

over the period r,vas charted in terms of the Canale and Su'ain framework, it was apparent

that nhiie his strategic and discourse competence changed markedly for the better,

his improvement in terms of linguistic competence r,vas minimal (and his s)/ntax \vas as

fractured at the end of the period as it rvas at the beginning) , while in the sociolinguistic area

the change w-as not verv great. In this case, then,Wes's reliance on strategic capabilities to

achieve communication rvas spectacularlv successful lvhen judged in terms of conveying

meanings and being acceptable as a conversational partner, but ver-v unsuccessful when

judged in terms of development in his underll ing interlanguage system. Reliance .on

communication strategies, that is, seemed to be harmful to his linguistic health, a point that

evidently did not disturbWes, since he had achiei-ed the goals he had set for himself as far as

communicat ion u 'as concerned.

A similar conclusion arises from s'ork done at the Foreign Service Institute (Higgs and

Clifford 1982), u.hich is also of a longitudinal nature.The Foreign Service Institute (FSI,

training programme emphasizes the acquisit ion of oral skil ls, and is accompanied by the

administration of the FSI-lLR (lnteragencr Lanquaqe Roundtable) oral interview test (Lou't

1982).This test enables both a global and an anah'tic vieu'of the competence of the personne-

C O M P R E H E N S I O N A N D P R O D U C T I O N S T R A T E G I E S 8 5

being trained to be obtained. The former is based on a five step scale on w.hich globalproficiencv can be estimated (supplemented by plus scores for each numeri."l

"ut"go.1:;.Th.Iatter gives seParate ratings for svntax, r.ocabuiarr', fiuencv, and other skill areas. Ii thi, *uy,the longitudinal development of the learners can be monitored through an examination ofthe profiles generated bv the analvtic markings scheme over ser.eral points in time.

Higgs and Clifford ( 1982) report that profiles of students at earlier points of instructioncan be used predictivelv to estimate the likelv later gain of the candidates in question. Giventhe basic five-step scale, candidates lr.hose grammar ratings u,ere abor.e or equal to theirratings in vocabularv or fluencv tended to continue to progress and reach higher performancelevels as ther,'received more instruction. In other lvords, balanced analvticratings or highergrammar predicted continued gain and capacitl ' to profit from instruction. In contrast,students lvhose earlier profiles shor'ved strong fluencv and vocabularv skills did not manifestthe same degree of sustained improvement. Higgs and Clifford (1982) called these learners'terminal 2's' (from the 6ve-step scale), suggesting that the earlier profile rvas associated rvitha probable plateaurng in achievement at around Level 2. It seemed as though the earlier fluencyand vocabularv gains comprised continued development, and mav have been associated witirfossil ization. These learners corresponded, in some wavs, to Schmidt's Wes, since earliercommunicative effectiveness (and the higher fluencv and vocabularv scores earlier ininstruction might be connected lvith a communicative orientation on the part of such learners)represented a short-term advantage

"vhich proved expensive in the longer run since it was

associated with an interlanguage svstem u'hich became less permeable. Once again, thesuggestion is that unless there is direct involvement of the underlving languag" Jurt"- i.,communication, it need not develop, even though communicative effectiveness does chanqe.

T h eoreti c aIIy-b as e d con cern s

In addition to these empiricallv motivated concerns over the usefulness of communicationstrategies, there are some more theoreticalh.-based worries. First of all, there are r,vhat mightbe termed logical criticisms of the vie'lr'point. For example, it is difficult to imagine

"*u"'aluhow such strategies can leave a trace. It is likelv that interesting operations will occur whenachievement strategies are used to cope r,r'ith communicative problems whose solution willrequire some adaptation of the underh'ing svstem. But in such cases the need to solveunforeseen problems lvill ensure that the lion's share of cognitive resources lvill be directedto conveving meanings. As a result, it is not easv to see ho.rv memory of u-hat exactly hasworked .u.t b" effectivelv retained for the next occasion rvhen the strategv may be .,..fr,rl,since this outcome u,ould require the spare capacitv to fumble tow-ards,rrit

" solution and

simultaneously to monitor its nature and its effect. It seems unlikelv that the conflicting callson limited resources rvill allou' this r,r'ith anl dependabilitr . VanPatten t I 990 I makes a si"mila.point in re lat ion to comprehension. , rh" . . he demonsi .ates that srntact ic and semant icprocessing seem to conf-lict as far as attentional resources are concerned, and that attentionspan is too limited to aliolv both to be emphasized simultaneoush,. One can only assume thatspeaking, as Part of the interaction, u-ill pose significantlv greater problems for l"a.ni.rg.

More generallv, for the use of communication strategies to lr.ork to foster p.ogi.r,svstematicall-v, it r.vould be necessarv to shorv not simplv that thev leave a trace, but also thatthe use of such strategies has some cumulative brulding potential. For if SLA research hasdemonstrated anvthing, it is that developmental sequences have considerabie importance.It would be necessary, therefore, to shorv that the progressive improvisations which solvecommunication problems build upon one another, and are not isolated chance manipulationsof language elements in one restricted area, but have svstem-der.eloping potential, and push

8 5 P E T E R S K E H A N

the interlanguage svstem in some consistent direction. Unfortunateir', this argument,seems

hard to ".o'"irug-..

dommunication strategies seem much easier to imagine as unplanned

resourceful so-lutions rather than as cumulative building blocks. It rvould seem that

researchers in this area have devoted much more effort to debating the relative merits of

different classification sYstems for strategies than to examining the developmental potential

of the different strategi. tvpes that have been classified. when one examines the literature

on types of strategvuJJ, ihi.rg. are distinctlv unpromising. First of all, a researchbias in this

ur.u of,..r leads inr'estigators to p.o"oke the need for strategv use bv requiring. subjects to

focus on vocabularv ptJbl.*.. As a result, the area rve knorv most about is probably the least

relevant for interlanguage development. Further, tl,hen one looks at exampies of strategies

(for example, upp.oii-ution, r.void coinage, circumlocution, literal translation, avoidance,

and so o.r lnlulurtok 1 990)), one can hardlv see horv thev can help make a sustained contri-

bution to language development. Similarlv, negotiation of meaning sequences (Pica 1994;

Lyster u.rd n.-ntu*t g97) shorv little evidence of useful modi{ications to interlanguage being

made, or of the incorporation of scaffolded supports for more complex language' So, once

again, a potential *'un il rvhich interaction could drive foru'ard interlanguage development

reveals itself to be implausible.

Even more generailv there is the point that much of communication is elliptical,_a joint

creation bv the participants in conversation r,vho each spend their time working out what the

other knows. In other u,ords, if Grice's maxims are being follorved, speakers r'r'ill judge their

contributions to conversation so that ther, are relevant and brief. Such people, native speakers

or learners, are going to place great emphasis on communicating meanings, but^may

not necessarilv u,orrv ibout the exact form that the-v use (Kess 1992).ln this respect, Grice

( 1 975) hr, -"d. it ciear that maxims for conversation make for a considerable processing

burden because of rvhat is nor said. To spell evervt}ing out in comPlete and rt'ell-formed

sentences would soon emptv rooms, and get one classified as a boring pedant. Much adult

conversation is elliptical u.ri ir-r.o-plete in surface form, heavY in the assumptions that it

makes about background knorvledge ."vhich enables inferences about intended meaning,

speaker attitudes, ".rd

,o on (Widdo*'son 1989). It goes against the grain, in other words,

to do more than use form as one element or pressure in native-speaker communication,

w.here the major emphasis will be on the satisfactoriness of the florv of the conversation, not

the correctness, or completeness (or the usefulness for interlanguage development amongst

Iearners) of rvhat is said.

So speakers w.ill generally, or at ieast often, sav onlv w.hat needs to be said, confident

that their interlocutors rvill engage in w-hatever conversational implicature is necessarY to

recover the intended *"utring (oi rvill sav something that w-ill enable the {rrst speaker to

correct anv misinterpretation that r.r'ill occur). Learning to participate in such conversations

g,il l therefore not be learning to use complete and rvell-formed sentences' but instead

learning hou' to make r.r'ell-judged interventions s-hich one's conversational partners will

judge ai furthering the conversation. And just as rvith comprehension, the problem from a

l^.rgu"g" learner's point of vierv is that mature languagl users are just too good at grasping

thJfrli-""ning of utterances u.hich are elliptical.The knou'ledge sources covered earlier

fromAnderso. und Lvnch (1988) in relation to comprehension (schematic, contextual, and

systemic) are just as relevant in the case of production, since the speaker is framing rvhat is

,uid *.i,h the comprehension abilities of the listener in mind. In this respect w'e have_a clear

difference betrveen the mature and the child language learner. The mature language learner

is able to drau'on vastlv greater stores of schematic and contextual knorvledge, and is not

(particularl,v) egocentric in orientation lalthough \\'e can all quicklv think of e-xceptions

amongst our acquaintances). Consequentlr he or she is abie to br"pass svntax for a great

C O M P R E H E N S I O N A N D P R O D U C T I O N S T R A T E G I E S 8 7

deal of the time. Since it is meanings which are primarr', as long as the speaker feels thatcommunication is proceeding satisfactorih-, the need for precise svntax is diminished.Thiscontrasts verv clearlv lr.ith the vounger language learner rn'ho has much less schematic andcontextual knorvledge available personallv, and u'ho is also much less able to imagine rvhathis or her interlocutor has bv rvav of knou-ledge in each of these areas. As a result, the childhas much less scone to take svntactic l iberties and short cuts.

We are ,ror" fucirrg quite a changed picture regarding the usefulness (or lack of it) ofconversation for language development.There is Iess need, for the older learner, to producecomplete and lvell-formed utterances, because most interactions require collaborative

construction of meaning rather than solipsistic partv pieces. Further,."r-hen communicative

problems occur, the strategies second language learners adopt are not likelv to push for'"vard

underlying system change in anv cumulative lvar'. Finallv, there is the issue that, even if

conversation u'ere b\- means of complete, rvell-formed utterances, cnd attempts to cope

with communicative problems u.ere useful, there is stiil the likelihood that attempts to cope

with ongoing processing demands w'ould not allou-the learner to capitalize upon such a

temporary breakthrough, establish a memorv trace of it, and use it in the future.

Conclusion

The central theme of this chapter has been that syntax has fragile properties. Normal

communication is pervaded bv the pressures of processing language in real t ime. We

comprehend and produce language not bv exhaustivelv anah'sing and computing (although

we can do these things if rve have to, for reasons of creativitv or precision) but instead br'

drawing shamelesslr'-on probabilistic strategies r.vhich rvork effeclively enough (given the

support and potential for retrieval of miscommunication that discourse provides) at

considerable speed of processing. \\ 'e reiv on time-creating devices, context, predictionskills, elliptical language, and a range of similar performance factors to reduce the processingload that rve have to deal rvith during conversation. And the older rve become (up to a point)the more adept lve can be at exploiting these resources.

The central point is that language use, in itseif, does not lead to the development of an

analvtic knolvledge svstem since meaning distracts attention from form. But clearlv

communication does proceed, so one can infer that speakers dralv upon other non-analytic

knowledge svstems u'hich, one assumes, have qualities reievant to real-time communication.

Note

In one sense, of course, this point is addressed through the distinction betweencommunication and iearning strategies. The former emphasizes solutions to immediatecommunication problems, u.hile the latter are concerned u'ith activities w'hich are intendedbv the learner to lead to longer-term development. In some cases this distinction is clear,as r,vhen, for example, a communication strategv deals r,vith (sav) hou. to express an ideawhen a lexical item is missing (and has no lasting effect) or w'hen a learner deliberatellorganizes a list of

"r'ords for memorization, not attempting to use these r,r.ords immediately,

but instead r,vorking towards the extension of an underlving vocabulary. But the centralissue is that one can also regard the operation of manv communication strategies as

containing iearning potential, for example u-hen a useful communication strategv becomes

proceduralized and so reusable. It is preciselv this tvpe of communication strategy that is

relevant in this section.

B B P E T E R S I ( E H A N

References

Anderson, A. and Lvnch,T. (1988) Listening. Oxford: Oxford Universitv Press.

Anderson, J.R. (1992) 'Automaticitv and the ACT theorr' ' . Amer)can Journal oJ Psychology 105:

1 65-80.Asher, J.J. (.1977) Learning Another LanguageThrough Actions:The CompleteTeacher's Guidebook. Los

Gatos, Calif.: Skv Oaks Pubiications.

Aston, G. (1936)'Trouble-shooting in interaction rvith learners: the more the merrier?'

Applied Linguistics 1: 128-43.

Bach-an, L. (1990) Fundamental Consideratrons in LanguageTbsting. Oxford: Oxford Universitv

Press.Bialvstok, E. (1990) Communjcation Strateg)es: A Psvchologicdl Analvsis oJ Second Language Use.

Oxford: Blacku'ell.

Blev-Vroman, R. (1989)'The logical problem of second language acquisit ion', in Grass, S. and

Schachter, J. (eds) Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge'

Cambridge Universitl Press.

Brow.n, G. and Yule, G. (1983) Teaching the Spoken Language. Cambridge: Cambridge

Universitv Press.

Bvgate, M (1987) Speaktng. Oxford: Oxford Universitv Press'

Canale, M. (1983) 'On some dimensions of language prof ic iencv ' in Ol ler (ed.) .

Canale, M. and Srvain, I,1. (1980)'Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second

language teaching and testing' . Applied Linguistics 1: 1-17.

Clark, H.H. and Clark, E. (1911) Psvcholog,v and Language. Neu'York: Harcourt, Brace.

Jovanovitch.Cook, G. (1989) Discourse. Oxford: Oxford Universitv Press.

Eskey, D. (1988)'Holding in the bottom', in Carrell, P., Devine, J. and Eskel', D. (edst

lnteractive Approaches in Second Language Aeading. Cambridge: Cambridge Universitv

Press.Farch, C. and Kasper, G. (1983) Strategies in lnteilanguage Communicatron, London: Longman.

Fil lenbaum, l. (1911) 'On coping u'ith ordered and unordered conjunctive sentences' . JournaioJ Experimental PsS cholog-v 87: 9 l- 8 .

Foster, P. (1998)'A classroom perspecti\:e on the negotiation of meaning'. Applied Linguistic:

1 9 / 1 .Gass, S. andVaronis, E.M. (1994)'lnput, interaction, and second language production' . Studies

in Second Language Acquisit ion 76:283-302

Gregg, K. (1984) 'Krashen's Monitor and Occam's Razor' . Applied LinBuistics 5: 79-100.

Grice, H.P. (.1915)'Logic and conversation" in P. cole and Morgan, J. (eds) sJntax ani

Semantics 3: Speech.4crs. NervYork: Academic Press.

Harlel', B. and Swain, M. ( 198+) 'The interlanguage of immersion students and its implication:

for second language teaching', in Davies, A., Criper, C. and Horvatt, A. (eds) lnrer-

language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Universitv Press.

Higgs, T. and Clifford, R. (1982) 'The push torvard communication', in Higgs, T. (ed.

Curriculum, Competence, and the Foreign Language Teacher. Skokie, Ill.: National Textbook

Comoanv.Kess, J.E. (19i2) Psvcholtngu)stLcs. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Krashen, S. (1985) The Input H,vpothesis. London: Longman'

Larsen-Freeman, D. ( 1985 ) Techdques and Principles in LanguageTeaching. NervYork: Oxford.

Logan, G.D. (1988)'Tou.ards an instance theorr-of automatisation'. Psychological Review 9>

+92-s27.Long, NI. (1985)'lnput and second language acquisit ion theorl", in Gass, S. and Madden.

C. (eds) Input and Second Language Acquisition. Rorvlel', Mass.: Nelvburv House.

C O M P R E H E N S I O N A N D P R O D U C T I O N S T R A T E G I E S 8 9

Lowe, P. Jr. (1982) TLRHandbook on Oral Intervievt 'Testinq.Washington, D.C.: Defense Language

Institute.

Lvster, R. and Ranta, L. (1997) 'Corrective feedback and learner uptake: negotiat ion of form

in communicatir .e classrooms'. Studres in Second Language,lcquisit ion 79: 3l-66.

N{claughlin, B. (1987) Theories oJSecond LanguageAcquisrt ion. London: Edw.ardArnold.

McNamara,T. (1995)'Modell ing performance: opening Pandora's box' . Applied Linguist ics l6

159-79.Oller, J.W (1983) (ed.). lssues in LanguageTbsting ResearcA. Rorvler', .N{ass.: Newburv House.Pica,T. (199+) 'Research on negotiation: u'hat does it rer-eai about second }anguage learning,

conditions, processes, outcomes?' . Language Learning 44:491-521.

Postovskl',Y. (1971) 'Whv not start speaking later?', in Burt, M., Dulal', H. and Finocchiaro,M. (eds) Viewpoints on English as a Second Language. NervYork: Regents.

Schmidt, R. (1983) ' lnteraction, accuituration, and the acquisit ion of communicativecompetence , in \fublfson, N. and Judd, E. (eds) Socrolinguistics and Second LanguageA cquisiti on. Rorvlel', Mass. : Ne*-burv House.

Skehan, P. ( 1984) 'On the non-magical nature of foreign language learning' . Polvgot 5: Fiche I .Spolsky, B. (1985) 'Formulating a theorv of second language learning'. Studies in Second

Language Acquisit ion 7 : 259-88.Slvain, M. (1985)'Communicative competence: some roies of comprehensible input and

comprehensible output in its de., 'elopment', in Gass, S. and Madden, C. (eds) lnput inSecond Language,lcquisit ion. Rou.lev, N{ass. : Ner.vburv House.

Sw-ain, M. (1995)'Three functions of output in second language learning', in G. Cook and B.Seidlhofer (eds) Principles and Practice in Applied Linguistlcs. Oxford: Oxford UniversitvPress.

Swain, M . and Lapkin, S. ( 1 9 8 2 ) Evaluating Bilingual Education: A Canadian Case Studv . Clevedon .Avon : Multilingual N1atters.

Tarone, E. ( i 98 1 ) 'Some thoughts on the notion of communication strategy' . TESOL @rarterlt

1 5 : 2 8 4 5 - 9 5 .VanPatten, B. (1990)'Attending to content and form in the input: an experiment in

consciousness'. Studies in Second Language Acquislt ion 72: 281 301 .Widdowson, H.G. (1989)'Knorvledge of language and abil itv for use' . Applted Linguistics l0:

128 31.Winitz, H. (1978)'A reconsideration of comprehension and production in language training'.

Applied Health and Behavioural Sciences 1: 212-315 .

truction) o learn ing does not make

/qOb" -tA , , the iniestigation of learning processes anv easier. On the contrarv. The security of isolating

U X-t'r. )i

I variables and defining them operationally, a securitv obtained bv laboratory-like experiment-.

. ,.9) -l

\u"d statistical inferences, is largelr-lost, as the researcher is forced to look for determinants

)\ -k I iot learning in the fluid dv,lu-iL, of real-time learning contexts.r V - r - ^ l : . : ^ - ^ l l - - - - - ^ L ^ , , ^ + L ^ , , ^ l ^ + ^ f . ^ ; ^ - + ; C ^ - ^ . ^ ^ * ^ l ^ . c . ' - r r + 6 r ^ f l ^ ^ L i - ^ i n r n n a r r c e rLv Traditionallr- rve have thought of scientific research as a matter of looking into causes

Q f\ and effects, and the benefits have been cast in the shape of generalizations from a sample to\ a population and ofaccurate predictions offuture occurrences.This research scenario, while

adequate for simple phvsical processes and laboratorv-controlled behaviors, u'i l l no longer

lr'ork once w'e venture forth into the real r,vorld of complexitv, in which manv people and

circumstances act and interact. Here there are no simple causes, and predictabil ity must

yield to contingencl'3::gelgb$Qe aimed at increasing our understanding, both

holisticalh' and in the smallest details, oflthe-social settinf as a cohp-ldada

terms likithem testifv to a fundamentuT-E-ift fro-. conclrtgiog, association, and other

laboratorv-based notions of Iearning to human learning uiiiiilt*.E" theGydal'social

. t wor ld of the le arner .\A }

N ]\ This shift to the/ .'./ \\ .-.-S- " r l t he i nves t i o : t i nn o f ' 1 ,

lntreased understandrnq alio\\-s us not to generalrze-hrHo-DarnrCIIIAnze;TmrTs;TraoaPI

o u r s k i l l s , i d e a s , a n d s t r a ? e g i e s t o t h . r i o u s i n f l u e n c e .

of the contexts in r'r'hich the investigated processes occur.

It is of the utmost importance to realize hor,r. different the job of researching languagt

learnins becomes once we decide that the social context is central.To continue looking f,l nqonq Ior

D

. - r r - - r L - I . l

ti\.e $rublgs 1quld be to approach one job w-ith tools that belong to another. It rvould b.operaftonail\- - - - . - :gperati inallv defined. discreteh'measured, statisticall-v -.niprrlut.dltnd .ausall l predPreorc

C h a p t e r 5

Leo van Lier

CONSTRAINTS AND RESOURCES IN

CLASSROOM TALI( : ISSUES OF EQUALITY

AND SYMMETRY

quicktion," "cooperative learning," "responsive teaching," and many other

- t l t - . _

creasec l unc le rs tand lng a l lo \ \ s us no t to

like going to an archaeological site rvith a combine harr,ester oi like shining shoes with a

nail file.

In this essav I examine social interaction in language-learning settings from the poin:

of vieu. that such settings are complex svstems in rvhich both attention to detail and globa.

C O N S T R A I N T S A N D R E S O U R C E S I N C L A S S R O O M T A L I ( 9 1

understanding are necessar\'. There are manv different kinds of interaction that may occurin these settings, but I group them into t ',vo broad tvpes: teacher learner interaction andlearner-learner interaction. Both hare been-Thffib]Fct ol considerable research, and their

ie arning bq$,gss,sucl-deb ate_d i-lobk -x-

I learnrnp nas-E)r" , ,^^" ,*- - " ^*- , - - - - -_-a>-

franscribed examples of learning talk to trv to understand hor,v social interaction facilitates

learning.The first example is an extract from a teacher learner interaction; the second, an

extract from a learner-learner interaction. (ln the transcriptions that follou'; x's in

parentheses indicate an unintell igible, brief exclamation or r,vord; a left square bracket

indicates overlap; colons indicate lengthening of the previous sound;the equals sign indicates

that the turn continues belorv at the next equals sign; and three ellipsis dots indicate a pause

ofabout one second.

Teacher: Put the umbrella . . .

Student: Put the umbrella on thef oor . . .

Teacher: On thefoor . . .

Student : . berween .

T e a c h e r : . . . b e t w e e n

Student: . . . the bookshelf and theTl'.

Teacher: Vbry good.

In this example of interaction in an ESL classroom, it is easv to distinguish teacher from

student.The teacher prompts and gives feedback, lvhile the student produces language as

part ofa task (here, placing objects in a picture as a wav ofpracticing prepositions).

That such classroom interaction is easilv recognizable is often taken as evidence of its

artificiality. The characteristic pattern has the teacher doing most of the talking while the

students act as rather passive responders and follou'ers of directions. As Anthonv Edwards

and DavidWestqate (1987) put it, classroom talk seems to run along "

settings that aim to

clpate ln the la assroom," as John Sinclair and David Brazil (1982) note. "I R F,assroom w.av it is? Hou it differ from interaction in other

settings, and hor,v can it be brought in line u'ith present-dav critical and constructivist goals

for education?

Learner 1 : Here I - sometimes go to the beach lxxxxxx)Learner 2: Pebble Beach?

Learner 1: llot Pebble Beach. My (xxxxxx)

Learner 2 : lThe.r near - Oh. . r eah.

Learner 1: [UhuhLearner 2: Wow. ls it good?

Learner 1: Yeah, I thtnk so.

Learner 2: But I think here the beach not beautiJul

Learner 1 : O:h, re: :allv?

Learner 2: Yes. It 's not white.The sand is not white.

Learner 1: [UhuhLearner 2: And the vater -

lou cannot suim.

Learner 1 : I see because yeah! lVe can swim but-

Lea rne r 2 : [Th i s va te r i s -

Learner 1 : [-the water is co]d.

dv

,tr;M-jt

, governed by rules that allorv cerrlaT mov., l. !9 -.d" *hi]g disallor'ving (or dlsfavo{ngr

[l r.ql"gr the ruies are often tacit and ambiguous, and their precise interp.etiti6li.

/ ' / 7 i o n a m o n g p a r t i c i p a n t s t a k e s p I a c e a g a i n s t{'/2 a backdrop of constraints and resources that are in some r.vavs different, in some ways similar.

r . The Brit ish sociolopist Anthonv Giddens describes the structure of social systems in terms

,4t of rules that both enable and constraintfi-aracteristics. lust as in a game, and I include the

special ," "language guri"," t lElq.tu!-9.1d1,

to those that characterize other settings.The classroom thus can be seen to constitute a{ i r r o

sPeecn excnanSe s) j ls-re1cKS, )cnegloll.

9 2 L E O V A N L I E R

In this conversation betlveen tr,vo ESL learners, in contrast to the teacher-student

interaction above, no one dominates or is in control: both learners contribute fairly equallv

to the ta lk .Th" l " r r t-----

'"frffit-vance arguments. Th=@g_at least not in this extract, infect each other vr.ijh

Jl l inguistic errors or create some form of interl inguai pidgin, as teachers sometimes feart,// learners might do when left to their ou-n devices.tf = -T[t

wtraTIinffi]5FFo=ilniries do learners har e to learn netl language rvhen thel talk

to each other in this rvav? Are the blind leading the blind here, or can such learner-learner

conversation become a sort of interactional bootstrapping, rvhere participants assemble

learning material or contribute learning material to each other in the natural course of their

talk?- The effectiveness of teacher talk and of iearner talk as input for learning has been

On the lvhole, research has been s tive of learner learner interaction more than of

t&cTer talk.Tu-t t-FTdffierlearner talk studied has usualh'bei _ - ( - -

</lonar (e.9. , as|

_-f

worK: see Lo 5),;ffi the teacher talk has tended to be-?ronologic

(e.g., in the form oflectures or instructions; see Parker an ron 1 987). We therefore

cld noTTrou-Tfl fE-the nature of the talk or the nature ol the rnterlocutor or a comtl lnaLlon

of both that makes

Constraints and resources

o fFurn taling r duties.The-classroom is the priqlar.

ch talk-for-la rning iiearnine qlk)__t!_g.rd and as such thei , f f

classroom demonstrates tne norms lor--7. !---

r behavior (u-hat is cal@d "fuity".bv Giddens, (le-a84);...'t.bi@E

teachrng.

Gpl. in language classrooms, engaged in the official business of language learnireople rn language classrooms, engaged rn tne olnclal Dusrness ot language learnlng., - i , - r ' i

tend to behave and talk in lvays that ratifr,that business, in other rn'ords, they behave and:-T|_:taIK approprrately

term). Elements o

visible also outside the classroom, lvhenever learning talk is carried out in nondesignateri

places and at nonscheduled times (in caf eterias, around picnic tables, and so on), as wher:

two students in the extract of learner learner interaction given above agree to engage in ;

r an tnctslve drscussron

i f f iness, most prominent inside the classroom, may remain

.-, -.extensir.elv discussed and researched (Chaudron 1988; Pica 1987; Ell is 1994). Teacher talk

il | f;. bee.r iauded for being comprehensible and criticized fo. b"i.rg inuuthffilffiot

I I ff i-nea to student needs. Learner talk has been lauded for providing opportunities forr , ! iI negot ra t rng mean lng and Cr r t l c lzed lo r be lng a c le lec t l ve mode l , r ldd leC \ \ l tn lnaccurac les .

i e u ( 1 9

SIee Fairclough t 19921

There are practical consequences ofthis constraints-resources vieu'oflanguage learning * I Lcontexts. In an article entit led "NoTalking in Class,"J. H. Lii (1994) depicts the traditional I r&Sr Ir 5*q-

role ofteacher as o ano tna l o I s tuoents as mosu\ l l s ten lng pass lve lv ln c lass . ek raeu^4' c t '

hiileed, a student is quoted as saving that he used6

w-as so bored bv lectures."These comments fit thbored bv lectures."Th"r. .o-*..ts f it the knd@-r-:r--------:-

' t\\G here is that in the innovative class described (w'hich has tri'enty-enough. I he ln terestrnt

five students), the problem is solved not bv the teacher's changing his wav of speaking and

interacting r,vith the students but bv the placing of a computer betu-een the teacher and the

taught. Thanks to the insertion of the computer, students "no$- have the opportunitv to

interact n'ith teachers and receive instant feedback."A skeptical person might ask,Whv do

interaction and feedback recuire an artificial interface?Whv can't professors interact with

thei r s tudents u i thout a computer?

C O N S T R A I N T S A N D R E S O U R C E S I N C L A S S R O O M T A L I < 9 3

conversation at the req uest of a researcher. But time and place mar- make a difference in ther v a r . t a I k i s c o n d u c t g g i . a n c i l e a r n i n g t a l k i n f , d e i 8#taik outdile lessons.This possibil i tv needs to be taken into account when learners'and

teachers' interactions are analvzed.

Pierre Bourdieu and Jean-Claude Passejon, in their u'ork on cultural reproduction,_ - . . - ; - - - : - - 1 . - - ' | - . - - - - - - - - _ - - 1 - - _ _

sugfest that the institution equips the teacher rvith certain distancing techni tsuggesl rnar rne lnsuruuon equrPS fne feacner \\rtn cerfarn olsrancrngre9nn]gugL_grq nnosr

efficient technique is "magistEil ifdiscourse," \thich condemns th cher to "theatrical

onorogue. rnstitutionai control over the teacher's language use,___--__i:_____K r.according to Bourdieu and Passeron (1977) that "efforts to set up dialogue immediately turn

i n t o f i c t i L n o r f a r c e , , ' T h e p o s s i b i I i t , . t h . t , .- i i-stitutional

constraints is intriguing. :

This characterization of teacher- student interaction mav seem overdralvn and

unrepresentative of todav's classrooms, manv of r,r'hich are more d).namic and dem kBu t the re i snodoub t tha t i nva r i ouss , ' b t ] eo iove r t \ \ . aYs th . i@, , -A

the tvpes of talk thut .u a\teldhGTls free to ignore such constraints in the interests ofpedagogical action. Bourdieu

and Passeron are clearlv skeptical about the possibil i tv of that freedom, though perhapstransformation-minded educators may $-ant to see horv far thev can go, and to what effect.

The institutional setting, of course, offers resources and facilitates their deployment in

to control and evaluate the speech of others.TffiI iTT and this pounerhave traditionallv

defi e teacher and the uork oTr:-ff itr-ng. but ther are increasinglr r iewed as no longer

appropriate in todav's Iearning environments. John Merroll.reports the storv of a teacher's

not knor,ving how' to continue rvith a multimedia project after a specialized instructor was

laid off. It had not occurred to this teacher that she couid ask the students to teach her;

asking them did not f it her concept of the teacher's role. As Merror.v (1995) suggests,

"teachers u'on't survive, and school rvil l become increasinglv irrelevant, if teachers don't

change their stvle of teaching," a stvle he refers to as "the bank deposit approach".

It is lr'ithin the structure of institutional constraints and resources that the teacher's

interaction w'ith learners must take olace.When teacher talk and teacher learner interaction

are examined, particularlv rvhen ,".o--..rdations for changes are made, these structuring

forces must be kept in mind. If interaction is as important for ianguage learning as current

theories claim it is, then the kinds of interaction the classroom permits and the changes the

teacher can realisticallr- make to those kinds of interaction are of qreat importance to

research.

,h . ,u@mater ia ls Er r . - , , Ipa lpab le t f raush perhaps more lmpor tan t , o t au thor r ty and po \ \ 'e r : the au thor l ty to se t the v lbu , lq uv ,

fg."C1_!bsg"=1,. judge randgrade, test, pass. lailt; the authori!-Jo- spe;k;EaFo\lfr -

1lt

Learner:

Teacher:

initiation-response-feedback exchange

ll'hat ts this called?

PIastic.

You ca l ]ed t r p lasL ic . Good! l t ' s p las t tc . But j r s gor another name Ioo

trcnsParencJ.

/x

This exchange betu'een a teacher and a learner is unmistakablv classroom talk. It

contains the follou'ing steps:

Theteacher,holdingupanor.erheadtransparen.).,u,@'

alreadv knolvs the ansrver.

The teaiElr wishes to see if the learner has some particular piece of knowledge and

can displav this knorvledge.

The learner responds effectivelv and efficientlv, but also elliptically, using just one

woro.

The teacher evaluates the learner's response, approving of it, but then suggests that

there might be another, more felicitous, ans\\.er.

This particular form of classroom interaction, the teaching exchange, is considered amonq

the most frequentl,v occurring t.vpes of teacheesrudent talk in the classroom (Sinclair and

I 988: \r 'el ls ff ial led an IRFexchange, since it consists of these three parts (or moves):init iation, response, feedback.

In the IRF format, a number of different things can be accomplished. !1!h= rnot,

C5mechanical, rote-lqarning end of IRF, the teacher's questions require the students merel.r I I - , 1 1 , - 1 , - - , , - l - ^ - - - ^ - ^ ^ : f ' ^ ! - - l ^ - - -to-recite prJviouslv learned items. IRF mav also be used bv the teacher to see if students

v a certain u'ord o item. IRF can demand more, challenginq students to think.

-i-------+4.

s t lons . to c lan t \ .

IRF therefore

continuum belw'een mechanical and demanding, as shou'n in the figure below

iren the .'arGE:6i-FdagoElFit \o-itr-h"t the IRF tb-ril@-ns, it would be a

* mistake to dismiss it altogether as bad practice. Everl case must be examined on its merits.' ^As a rule of thumb, the precise nature of the IRF being emplo)'ed in a particular instance is

t.@-sinFthisi.*.h"..:&s_!gg.h.rt]'pialffi IF,h.pttp*tquestion or seqqslse o:fuuestions. .\[ter the follou"ing question-answer pair

Recitation Display Cognition Precision

Figure 5 . 1 lRF cont inuum

C O N S T R A I N T S A N D R E S O U R C E S I N C L A S S R O O M T A L I < 9 5

Teacher: What's the dyfference betneen"water is heattng"and"water is heated'?

Learner: Whter is heatin7, t t i t 's the one v, 'ho's heattng.

a varietv of third turns are possible. In each case, a different tvpe of task is

in progress:

Teacher: Good. Sav the whole sentence:l later is heating the radiators.

(recitation)

Teacher: Good.l4hat do we cal l rhat construction?

(display)

Teacher: And can ),ou think oJ some thlngs

(cognition)

that t t mtght be heattng?

Teacher: Aha, can 1ou explain that in a htt le more

(precision)

revealed to be

'd''"tVt*1

t -,t^..tL WI ,,

k^-o-t -'

{"Dirw\VT, " *xu*i:"

++

Adapted from van Lier (1995a)

This example shorvs that the IRF structure cannot be regarded as a single t,vpe of pedagogical

activitv. All four IRF t-vpes of teacher-learner interaction given above can be used to evaluate

or control or to invite participation. Knou-ing the purpose of a particular IRF exercise-

though this mav not alu'avs be easr', is crucial in determining its pedagogical r-alue. But there

are some things that all IRF sequences have in common, and these common features must

be examined before IRF can be assessed as a pedagogical tool.

Learning as co-construction: the l imits of IRF ( .- ) u<A

\_/The central feature of IRF is that the teacher is r'.eouivocallv in charge.This being in charge

------mani fEsts i tse l f in a number o[u 'ars.

Everv IRF exchange is a step in an overall plan designed bv the teacher. The plan mav

be to check lr.hat the s"tudents knorv (as in recitation or"displuj)rfro construct knowledge. €

or an argument . Derhaps a long Socrat lc l lnes, or to push tne stuc lents to\ \ 'arc l c lar l t \ ''

d f e_xpression. l t is important to note that the p lan is not €gcgnstructed. lo rarr inq.-- "r"'--"' i:: ' - -:-:-;:; - :-

degrees, stTdFnts mal be an are of the nature o[ th-e plan and au are of the direction in u hich

the discourse is moving, but usuallv these matters are revealed onl,v gradualh' and

incidentalh'.

The teacher does ali the initiating and closinq_(in other u'ords, takes all the first and.I turnslJftlThe students' u-ork is done exclusivelv in the response slot.The IRF formatthird turnr- students' u-ork is done exclusivelv in the response slot.The IRF format

dir.orr.ug"r,trd..!114@d.1, i.gd A, D",-ti:Tffi g h

ansrvers". It is extremelv hard, if qot impossible, in the IRF format, for the stu

stions Fffi self-correct, and so on. Indeed, I found that such student utterances

oteru'helm quences. or in other Iryd:+:lIFformat. Often thev are *'hispered comments to a fellou-learner or questions rvrit n- - r .j n a no tebook. lhe IKF to rmat d lscouraqes ln te r rup t ton (o r d ls rup t lon) and can tnere lo re

be cailed'a closed re491qhlace. I t i i urslve gul

olvn to the studelts.

9 6 L E O V A N L I E R

sense of being emPorl-ered) are extremelv restricted in the IRF format. Not only are student

l,r{ uttt' g @mrne rapon*

Jr \ \ - ' s lo t , iandu iched betneen t \ \o teacher turns l ranTGi 1996a1, ther a lso prevent the studenr!V ' ' 4 , ^ r + : -h - z I f r om c lo lng tu rn t aK tng , t op rc deve lopmen t , and ac t i r i t v s t ruc tu r i ng uo rk .The t do no t

. ].*Jl\ alJovr, to anv signihcant extent, negotiation of the directioiTT'iiEuition]' r ' \ | , r - ,

t 4 i ' ' . " t t ' { G i l - e n t h e s e b a s i c f e a t u r . t r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s o f

Ff-$I"; :H+lo"t Hgf":T"$,1t-*:'^':j Flinders 1ee0; Shul' 1ee1), o' +1:'t'"'-f r* { 1+J.+ I Lv-LUrrrLruLLr" ," ,_}Sj l l j la t r r t \D( j \ lcrsdI lQf l lnoers t>>V; )nuv l>>l) rOf t l le lnstruc-

'^o!tr61'\fr" tional con\Ittlg! l.!)nrp and Gallimore 1988), especiallv if such recommendali6i-s are, = . . * - ' 1 - # -

do** . )Or discusseflfr\r lhglperspecti le of crit ical pedagogr- (Darder 1991; Shor 1992)? I explore

unities to exercise init iatire (see r.an Lier 1988; Kinginger 1994:) or-regulation (a sense of or,vnership of the discourse, a

'different though related angles.

/-f\ t'ygotsky's

)- \.f)' calfotding\ r v

\_./ LevVygotsk

6J proximal development and the notion oJ pedagogical

LevVygotskv discusses the range of activit ies a learner can accomplish r,vith the assistanceof a more capable person, such as . t"u.h.r.activit ies (skil ls ations, etc.) are rvithin the learner's compitence (this miqht be cali"d

a reao fse | l - r egu la t i on ) ,o the rscanbeu . .o -p l . i - ' h "do ' ' l ' ' ' ' i t f f i u .1

re entrrelv outs earner s scope. I he mrddle activit\.. which is naturdllr- , - - - # -agog l ca l ac r t on . l s r e l e r red t o b \ . V \ - go t sk r as t h .e zone o f

and Cole), a teacher develops strategies fo. uGting th. l.o.-ffih. ,r*io* kinds ofaf f ie-whichguidealearner intoanact iv i t r . that in i t ia l lv is toocof f i

scarrororng (Dru-i-J

-cat lolding (Bruner I 98 3;.

The inlT-iation- , at least rvhen it moves beyond mere

the tocus o

k exchan

Scaffoldi be oftrueucrurlng PartlclPatlon.I benefit, must be temporarv. The scaffold must be

allr dismantled as rner shorrs sjpilt--

handling more of tltask in question. This

t t | | - t

i\4 'OUlCl SlmDh' breed

structure the flexibilitv to effect handover. I suspect that, for handover to be possible, IRFmust be a ned at some point to make place lor autonomour l.urn"rff irre. Thisswitch from IRF to more o scourse structures mav be a cruciapoint, and research shouldTocus on ii cloiJr..

- \recitation and displav, can be re scaffolding i".trygro",a w.ay of developingcognitive structures in --l oe \e lopment . o r a u 'av o l ass ls t tnq-

.:.--sslstrng learners to

a platform of shared knor,vledge that rvill facilitate the introduction and integration ofnew know.ledge. IRF used in several steps in a iesson or during one activitl. am-ong othera c t i v i t i e s ( s e e W e l i s | 9 9 3 ) , . . a l . o n c e i t h a s s e r v e d

its purpose, it vields to other lvals of stiucturing participation. -

over, (BruneFT9S 3 I . and lr.ithout it scaffoldin,,=-- --' lessness. l t is unclear u 'hether IRF has in i ts

in that it structurallr,and functionallybus tour, but the itinerary is olten

slon

U..a-SVtd tc '& tto"*e/V o

C O N S T R A I N T S A N D R E S O U R C E S I N C L A S S R O O M T A L I ( 9 7

Intrinsic motivation and learner autonomv Co'^,*f!ffi,^r,,can be defined as t1re human response

-/'/'-p.t64!9 needs forr competence,

,,^^-o\vq,,tl t *

@r' (Dec iandRr 'an1992;Dec i , !u1G6d,R. I I " t i " . ,u . 'dRy" "199DIt expresses itself as a here-and-nor,r' interest in col.dircting an activitv for its orvn sake, for

the pleasure, stimulation, o. challenge the acti, i lv

ated to the perceptlon ing able to chg/le and of being somehow in contrp4 of orre s N+actionf. Acti6-ns that are perceir-ed as bei ieduceintil nft6ffi rat-ibffAtdo e xtri nsic reu aise or crit icism (see Ju.Sutrg

ren'ards ( in the form of teacher a al or praise in the third turn) a onged

useo f the lRF fo rma tmavha reanesa t i vee f l ec ton in t r i ns i cmo t i va t i onandcauseadec rease l r , , n_ _ r t x

in levels of attention and involr.ement. IRF exchanges are like discoursal traininq w

In bicycle riding the training rvheels must eventuallv come off, and liker,visein interaction v ^..IRF must be ,eplaced br f ree socia l in teract ion. ' Qi ,

at ion (see \ .an L ier 1996a), peClgoerca.L A l .

ac t i onmus tbeo r i e@ve ]so f i n t r i ns i cmo t i va t i onu , ' d f f i f f i d / r \ r l

i f t r e a s i n g s e I f - r e g u l a t i o n a n d a u t o n o m \ . . I R F m u s t A \, , : : : : i : i i : i - - - T - - j - - - , , \ {

FffiiFffi" patterns, ones that allou' student initiative and choice to develop.

Transformation; or, chang ing educational reality through inte raction\ (

" l l

Cri t ica l pedagogv seeks to t ransform exis t ing st ructures ofcontro l and inequal i t r ' (Young

1992: Darder 1991) and to allorv students to frnd voices of their ou-n and become crit ical

and autonomous learne.r o.".JEqili6l1iG

fialogu-, *hich, according to Paulo Freire ( 1972), can f-lourish only in a climate of equalit)'

among_pgrticipants. Freire maintains th"t di

dialosue there is no communication, and rvithout cqlnm

participation in its cons-ructio

to be real ized, d iscourse must mo\1e f rom t t t e rns R ;Se r tTonns t199 ) t ap t l r ca l l s

WDPK (What do pupils knorv?) and 1 G,.rs'rthat teacher think;1fr more discursivi

patterns mar irauirr'. lt thus m@st igate hou IRF i tse l f

can be transformed and ho'"v tra\zuitions from IRFto other discourse forms can be.---

6.e TsThe IRF structure is clearlv a sisnificant advance oter the ritual m isterial rformances

@r&ss@ ince at least it

involves students and asks themTil"CixiTii6trt€-Iffiit-hillomeone else's agenda.olvever, in terms of communicatio-, control-tnitiative, meaning areatlon anilIregotratlon,

message elaboration, and a number of other features characteristic of social interaction, the

extrinsic

Equality and symmetrv

learner's side of the IRF interaction is seriouslv curtailed.

9 8 L E O V A N L I E R

It is therefore useful to consider other forms of interaction, including conversational

(such as learner-learner interactions) and see n'hat characteristics thel' have that might be

relevant to language learning. For a general examination ofinteraction, I suggest that there

are two main groups of issues:

thinks

tn anv

a less

Issues of negotiation and the joint construction of talk. This relates to shared rights and'r, duties of participation, that iicipation, that is, interactional ,)'ory,.1 Such svmmetr.)', most clearly visible

' inconr.ersat ionamonq"quul, , f f iu.hi .* ] . fbrIesspi. f i . ie ' - tspeakErs.

ff as the conversatton betu-een tu-o ESL students cuoted above demonstrates. it is bv no, in conversation among eq u4-s,E-aF

,fry b'v

BqI as tle con€rsatfonEetu.een t$-o ESL students quoted above demonstrates, it is by no-*"r impossible. \,r/1,r,ft ,o.- ,,eq,t{c" .)'*"* c-rft<rta J'+-,<- L:^Ul^ak a^-+ "eq,'Jc".) uLt cstl<rta l"l<- f4*'?

-_ -'{--_--

..f1 The phenomena relating to, on the oneland, contiol, power, and equalill'and, on t!e'bt!q,' conversational svmmetrv and negotiation of meaning are connected: unequal participants

tend to have asvmmetrical interactions. But a distinction must be made between interactionsthat are oriented tou'ard achieving symmetrv and those that are not (lRF, lectures,iristructions, and other common teacher talk belong to the second categorvfl

<ffi;t.tio,.,-tffieces.sariIvinvolveu,'u.,,i-piionofequality

or some sort of abdication of authorit-v. A separation between svmmetry and equality iscrucial for the possibil i tv of fruitful communication between teachers and learners and,indeed, betu'een native speakers and nonnative speakers. If true communication werepossibie onlv betlveen equals, then teachers and learners (and even parents and theirchildren) would be forever condemned to pseudo-communication.This is obviously not so.

Having postulated that communication, lvhether betw'een equals or unequals, requiresan orientation tow-ard interactional symmetrv, I norv show', first, how' such an orientationmav be visible and, second, what benefits it might have for language learning.

In w'hat wavs can utterances be oriented tolvard svmmetrv? Basicallv. the orientationexpresses itself ir lrelations of contingencrtetween

, I . v s e r v s r r r t

t

an utterance and other entities -

primarilv other utterangXiprece-ding lolrgurrentl and follorving), shared knowledge, and

relevant features in t)/u'or-ldGbson llWtg)

Calisthem affqrdangeqsee further below).

/'Contingency

€ - - ' - - . rance) or through shared knon'ledge or shared affordances in-fEe environmenti

]:xF?ETltigns:"d the crafting o so that futurutte-ra4ces can find a conversational home 1sffi-Lier 1992,1994 and 1996a).The firstcharacterlstlc has weII studied under the heading of contextualization by John Gumperz(1992).The rvays in rvhich utterancq are l inked to one another have also been studiedextensivelv bv ethnomethodologistsj,rvho have used related concepts such as conditionalrelevance and reflexive tving (Garfintel 1 957; Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferso n 197 4) .

M-v preoccupation u'ith contingencv originates inthe belief that speakers, b1'usinglanquaqe'conrinqenrh,

"^@ i" rffi-"y prrribr"

efers to trvo distinct characteristics ofinte

contingencv exists on a continuum - proceeds more staticallv and encourages a treatment

of la;@ instead of as an organic *'hole.

Contingent features are most visible in the kind of talk usualiv referred to as- # - - | t I a

conversati-667[3T-ITl forms of talk. conversation is perhaps the hardest to dehne. It is. in a'sense, a catchall concept that can contain other kinds oftaik - such as instructions. requests

srorres. Dusiness oears. A complication is that other kinds of talk can have conversation

C O N S T R A I N T S A N D R E S O U R C E S I N C L A S S R O O M T A L I ( 9 9

(unit" the gi""n and the e comment, the foregrounded anfu

gy'ounded). Contingent language use encourages, justif ies, and motivates grammatical-' ization.

Noncontingent language use - or, rather, less contingent, since Se qualit.v of

f f i rv iervs. lessons,orsalestransact ionsmavsuddenIvbecomechat ty ,then after a r,vhile s',r-itch back to business. So neat boundaries cannot be drarvn around the

I

ph-nomenon of conr-ersation.Yet lve usuallv knon'rvhen a conversation is taking place.

In conversation, everv utterance is connected bv manv links some of them overt

manv more of them iovert - to previous utteiances and through them to the shared (or

woild of the partlcrpants. L.\,erv utterance sets uP ex s for what will

be sarc lnex t . u t te rances ln con\ersa t lon are tnus , a t tne same t lme.

f f i a n t s ' m u t u a } e n g a g e m e n t ( l r . h a t R o m m e t r . e i t ( ' 1 9 7 4 ) c a

To il lustrate w"hat makes an interaction conversational. I quote two extracts fron-t

nonnative speaker interactions. In the first there is a high ievel ofcontingencv; in the second.

a much lorr -er level :

intersubjectivitr') is achieved and maintained.

_ -=.+Vlen.rzruls contingent, rather than planned in

advance. In addition, t n, at

least ideallv.a I sav "ideallv" since it often happens that one person monopolizes the

conversation and does not let tle others get a word in edqer,vise. But the orientation tou-ard: : : : i : r : : l i r i i

svfrifrFtFsti l l holds. since the participants u'i l l note that the conrersatron * t-dSd-

a\q[*

c l <

'.Speaker 1 :Speaker 2:Speaker 1:Speaker 2:Speaker 1:Speaker 2:Speaker 1:Speaker 2:Speaker 1:

From mv room I can see the ocean view' -'f

W'ow I

And- II a ^ ) L ^ , , . I t Il - 1nd n t ) n r r r d r r r uom do - r ou have :

ITwo bedroom twoJull bathroom

IWhar what what I

Two bedroom- |

[Ti'o bedroom I-and twoJull bathroom ____)

1// _,,).-<.l/c ''--n... ' -"t"-r - ' I- - -

aa , - w'?L-Y ww'

L

Speaker 1 : I never asked vou, what did,vou do in Japan beJqrgyu came here?

Speaker 2: Uhn aJterfntsh high school

Speaker 1: Uhuh

S p e a k e r 2 : l w o & - f r r . . . . . t h r e e ) ' e a r s

Speaker 1: Hmm

Speaker 2: And -

Speaker 1: fiIthercAdJes-wotkSpeaker 2: h - this is ver,v - dtfficultJor explain

Speaker 1: Tr),

Speaker 2: I use . . .the computer

Speaker 1: Uhuh

o

6

l O O L E O V A N L I E R

Speaker 2, an ESL learner, is the same person in both interactions, but in the first her

interlocutor is ofroughlv equal proficiencv and in the second her interlocutor is a nativelike

bilingual speaker. The first extract illustrates svmmetry, and all utterances exhibit a high

degree of contingencv. The second extract is more l ike an intervierv in which speaker 1

encourages speaker 2 to speak. Relations of contingencv are weaker, and symmetry is

reduced. If contingen_c1 cofd be visgalized-as bundles of jtr i lgs connecting utterances,

then the strings u.ould be thicker a"d moie nurmerous in the first conversation and more

se and sprndly rn tne seconcl.

@ used to create contingencv: empatlr) 'Irar\ers ("l/owl"),

repetit ions of parts of each other's utterances ("two bedroom - two bedroom"), intonationl r ' , !

p-tterns, gestures, and so on. The devices come from a stock of resources similar to

Gu-m-p#s(Ig9Tf"contextuaiization cues" (indeed, as I suggested above, the creation of

contingencies overlaps significanth. r 'r. i th the process of contextualization), though any

interactional marker that can be used to make a contingent link can also be used for other

purposes, and this makes tabulating and quantifving contingency impossible.

Contingency, negotiation, and language learning

The dynamics of interaction have been studied in most detaii by Teresa Pica and her

colieagues iPica 1 987 , 1992; Pica and Doughtv 1 985; Pica,Young, and Doughty 1 987). This

research, which focuses on opportunities for learners to carry out repair strategies following

communicative problems, has revealed various conditions that favor or disfavor such

what enables learners to move DeYond tnerr current rnterlanguage reeceptrve ancl

e *pr e s si u6-c ip a c- ti e@ s tan d unfalq ili ar liqgui stic inpur! o1 when

reoulred to proouce a comprehensible messas(are dpportunities to modify and restructurefequfe?-to proiluce a comprehensible messagdare dpportunities to modify and restructure

i-lt"i. i.rt..uction w'ith their interlocutor until-mutual com sion is reached".- . -

t J \ reso l \ lng communlca t lve

interactional modification and has shou'n t oilitbe;anG c-o'mpreherislon:freeo-rdinp-to Pica-(1987), "What enables learners to move bevond their current in-erlafrFguage receptive and

----8,\--r€solvrn[cornmunic-atireproblems through the use of interactional modifications

(."q,'estsforcla]rif icationorconfirmation,.o-p.".h..,sionchecks,ff i

re ehe-nsiSlFln'pfit o??n.kEii*T"put availablef6r leirniilg. R-esearch has shown horv learners activelv lr'ork on the language to increase

their knowledge and proficiencr'.The follo.rving observations, based on these analvses of repair in inter-language talk,

might help to place repairing in the overall context of interactional language use.

First, as Gul'Aston has pointed out, repair '"vork and adjustments of various kinds can

be used to€xpress convergence of perspectives among participants or to "seek closure onf,-r--<- ' --:;--=---__

a problem" iRudl_uck 1991), not necessarilv to make something comprehensible. George*

ffi11996'l found that more-proficient interlocutors sometimes simplv decide to give up

on certain problematic it o]he.. , . - - - - . l - . . - - : - : - - - - : - : :=: : :T l - . r - - - - . . ' -_- fJth'a.jl rncreased compre ot t.glg."

usi ts .ht -----Seco;4,

the preponderance of repair (in the highlv visible form of interactional

modifications) ma,-v be the result of the tvpe of discourse investigated. In much of the w'ork

of Pica and associates (Pica,Young, and Doughtr' 1987; Pica 1992), the activitv types in

question are communication tasks in rvhich participants (often a native speaker and a

nonnative speaker) need to exchange information. This need leads to interaction that

is usually both asvmmetrical and unequal, an environment in u-hich explicit repair.

rvith imbalances of the kind i l lustrated br,Yule. tends to be salient. A similar focus on

C O N S T R A I N T S A N D R E S O U R C E S I N C L A S S R O O M T A L I ( 1 0 1

repair can be seen in the analvsis bv Michael Moerman (1988) of interaction among native

speakers ofThai. He concludes that"repair is of central importance to the organization

of conversation". Moerman's discussion of repair, horvever, is based on transcripts of

testimonv inThai court cases, rvhere the status of overt repair is probablv different from

that in general conr.ersation. Indeed, ethnomethodological analvses of repair and related

matters in conversation (Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977;Heritage 1984; Pomerantz

1 9 8 4 ) indi cat=_s-t-19:g p_Iglgrylc e for s eif- re p air an

that is . repai r that fo l lor , r s communicat ion problems.-Third,

and related to the second observation, the interactional activitl of repajringalust

be placed irti!-!9ed-q?g. Repairing, .n utt" g ir,, -L;"------;-'7-

the face of p-oblems, is one set of actions among manv that manifest orientation toward

mutual ".rgug.-".,a

(inter-subjecti\.itv) and svmmetrv. ilepairing occurs in response to the-.. ---------T-i-- ,, ,

percept lon o l those t roubles. but s tnce t rouDles snoulc l De a\-o lcec ln tne nrst Place, r t maKes

sense to focus attention aiso on other mechanisms for achier.ing mutual understanding and

intersubjectivitr'. It makes no sense, from a discourse-analvtical or a pedagogical perspective,

to assign special status to an activitv that is undertaken onlv lvhen other, more-preferred

activities have been unsuccessful. To use an analog)', ice skaters are iudged more on hovl'

Success in interaction - thiiE tFe-aEhielement of mutual understandinq. continqencv, \

/+ . , , ' ' , , , . ,

- ; : i i i ' l i - - - l - i l - 1 .

and ln te rsub lec t l \ ' t t J - t s c lependat - r tg ! tne sKr l l lu l use o I a l l re le \ .an t soc la l ano l rngu ls l rc - -'r

es and those that

c i"-U" al"ial into ittree c*egories, as floliou's (seeAtlti"ro"

""a:H"rltug!19S+; DuncanTgT2; Kasper 1989; r'an Lier and Matsuo 1995 fbr I

additional examples): /

fP#;lb I anni ng, p re di ct in g tf --V

- ly )Opening sequences

Cataphora -)

Grounders and preparers

Strategic moves

,z----.=-S_qE:"-:faking signals during one's own or another person's turn)

Back channels

GazeTurnover signals

Empathy markers

Repair and correction

Demonstrations of understanding

Gists and upshots

(By the wav;Do you know w'hat?)r \ - ^ . , , . / i ^ - ^ - . ^ + L ; - |l .

r u n ! l l J a c l r L U L t t r J /

(OK, three potnts I wanna make)

(Let me give you an example)

(Uhuh;Hn)

(eve contact, Iooking ar,r'ar')(Let mefnish; ltrhat do you think?)(Oh; l|bw;Really?1

(Do you mean x?;Acrualll' tt's y)(Oh;l see)(So; In a nutshell; lYhat you're saying is)

\{eaj}l summarizing, rephrasing,'"vrapping up)

The relations betrveen interaction and learning are not explained bv this list or, indeed, bv

anv other that might be devised. But at the very least the analvsis shou's that the concept ot

v need to be expanded from Piclls-d_9.fin1{gp;W\en a listener signals to.a

aker's message is not clear, and lis and soea er vrork in teract i \e- S

to ve this impasse" (1992) . Negotiation includes the proactive and concurrent resources

L O z L E O V A N L I E R

for utterance design, as w'ell as reactive resources other than repair. Repair is thus only oneamong many torms oi negotiation of meaning.

A fourth and final consideration goes to the very foundations oflearning and its relationto the environment. Almost all the r'vork in applied Iinguistics that addresses the role ofinput and interaction (see Ellis (199+) for an overvieu') assumes an input-output model ofcommunication and learning. This model is based on a vielr' of language use as the transferof linguistic matter from one person to another and largelv ignores issues of reciprocity andcontingency. Being basicallv a transmission model (as rvords like inpur and output indicate),it does not address learning as transformation and language learning as grammaticalization(the development of grammatical complexitv in the organic sense, outl ined, e.g., byRutherford (1987)). It is l ikelv that the true role of interaction in learning and the true

..-senseof u,hatVvg.i@;.-"-rtrq4;;r'.1"p-.nt.unU-Jieveiledon\,

L\@;;..l"pr;".i(r"Lciur*,igl-qlBo;,;-rtu.,dJlir,-ders1990-).-]f Z'_fi@qpgoath, no-ionrllk. .o"tingencl'and ,ur.r*.,.y rvili be central, and overt acts

/ , . - _ r =

./) f .llggqlqg IILL. gFiJEglgqrgrr4l 1Ma'cui an?Z{onc-1985;Giaumann t990; Platt andt Brooks 199+1. Linguistic matter in the environment, to the extent that the learner has access

to it (see van Lier (1996) for a detailed discussion of access), provides affordances to theactive and perceptive learner (Gibson 1979;Deci and Rvan 1994.s Whether or not suchaffbrdances are packaged as repair sequences is likelv to be a minor issue.

A theoretical conclusion

I have discussed trvo different tvpes of interaction in language learning, teacher-learnerinteraction in the IRF mode and iearner-learner interaction, to i l lustrate equality and

iff icult to orient their interaction torvard svmmetrv: as a result-Theiriflteractions often look li uences or intervier,vs ll-here one of the pafrners takes i

Two questions remain:What are some \\.avs in r'vhich unequal discourse partners suchas teachers and learners or native speakers and nonnative speakers - can engage insymmetrical and contingent interaction, and horv r,vould that engagement benefit learning?What are the pedagogicai benefits of r-arious forms of asymmetrical discourse, such aslectures and IRF exchanges?

to relevant language material

L C t -

r ime external condi t ion to ensure access and learners ' act i r "e engaqement.Cont ingent interact ionprovidesan. . in t r ins i tmot ivat ionfor l is t@

andJef ferson 197+).Learners 'natura l learn ingprocesses, throughthedesi retounderstand

^bJ

and be understood, svnchronize rvith eflicient perception and focusing. Learners will bevigilant tou-ard linguistic features and rvili *"k. an effort to b. p.ug-"utii;Ily-pi6AFJetambiquous r , r 'here a

ol contingent interaction. To put this idea in the strongest possible (though of coursehypothetical) terms: the organic, self-regulating process of contingent interaction is anecessarv and sufficient condition for language development to occur. In the absence ofappropriate research, this is ofcour ulative hvpothesis

symmetry. I have suggested that interaction is particularlv beneficial for learnins when it is- - - - '.)k contingent. Sl' _tya+s_ b_rrt'

5sl'mmetrical interaction is deficient in contingencl'. Unequal discourse partners tend to

t that is onlv one side of the coin. To the exGnt target of language learning

C O N S T R A I N T S A N D R E S O U R C E S I N C L A S S R O O M T A L I ( I O 3

is a standardized, oflicial code (a set of cultural habits) to $'hich the learner has to or wants

to conform, linguistic affordances marked as appropriate and desirable must be presented

in the environment, and access to these affordances must be facil i tated. Here organic

language development and external language demands (socioculturallv and institutionally

mandated) meet each other halft'av, and Vr

space wherein internal and external realms (inner resources and outer constraints) of

langif, F-fl Fe-ffie-diarTd.,,-ffimEAl-latlon takes place under the guidance of parents, teachers, and other

competent persons, and the different u'al-s thev do this can be captured bv terms such as

Bruner's scalfolding. (Teaching, didactics, instruction, training, drilhng, and so on are of course

also terms that have traditionallr,been used for such expert-novice activit ies.)

If this vierv of the reiations between language learning and social interaction has merit,

then the dl,namic connections betu'een more didactic (asvmmetrical, less contingent) and

more conversational (svmmetrical, more contingent) forms of interaction are of central

importance in the language learning enterprise.

A practical conclusion

In a book on talented teenagers, Mihah' Csikszentmihalyi, Kevin Rathunde, and Samuel

Whalen (1993) compare current teaching u.ith the traditional role of the master in an

apprentice system.Thev observe that theleacher, instead of being a practitioner in a domain,l l ) /

is now' a transmitter of information and thus di es the deve lopment o [ ex tended and ; t / l ̂ , ^nt of extended and

transforff if iT--relationslips suctr--l l-TEose betrt 'een master and apprentjce. Relarion_

- r : - ----'-:-. rauJ^ =r f f ib. t* ' .en- i .ucf i . . t und t tudents are depersonal ized and "kept highl) special ized. >wy. ) 'J

Programmatlc,I del i ler r s ts ie-mlanJ

r@tructionalobjectivescorroboratethistendenc1..ihing'canon]r/=

get worse when, as is currentlv happening in manv parts of theWestern lvorld, class size{ . ' t,

Ir"rd school sizes keep increasing, u, io ,.J.h".r' *o.klo.d, ------\ t i

\ ,,,Th-eTe areTF-us phrsical and instiiutional constraints that tend to minimize the possi-

\r''_

bil i t ies for meaninplul interactron bet\\ 'een teachers and studentS. ln (Jlddens s structuratlon

tfi l:eor1 consrraints ideallv direct and guide, facilitating the deplovment of resources. But in

a defective institution (definable as one in rvhich constraints and resources are out ofbalance),

constraints mav obstruct the r-en' purposes for rvhich thev rvere brought into being. Against

constraints of this second tvpe, the teacher must marshal all the resources, meager though

thev often appear to be, that are available to proride learning opportunities to students. As

the historv of educational reform mo\,ements sholvs, lalge-scale reforms tend to achieve

litt letra.'sformationofthestatusquo.ButgraSSroots,bot

o n i n d i v i d u a l i n i t i a t i r e t a t t h e | o c a l l e r . e l o n l r . .nd among

students must be the individual responsibilitt' of everv teacher. For teacher development

this responsibilit-v means the promotion of u-hat Max van Manen (1991) calls "pedagogical.^ I : - - - - . . i+ l^ .+, , ' l^-+. ^^A I l - )

thoughtfulness" or "tac!] 'VA'fl*t-anv teacners na \e resDonoeo to ca l l s to r more in te rac t i re and -+- -

ful, understanding orientation in dealings r,vith students and -(r/q

E@nsloiooiv. of teaching bv reducing their teacher-fronted activities and increasing

learner-learner interaction through cooperative learning and task-based learning. In current

jargon, thev have become a "guide on the side" instead of a "sage on the stage".

However, before rve slving the pendulum from teacher-centered entirely to teacher-

peripheral, it *

. Y , )

Learnersneed, inaddi t iontop"" i i ' ' t " 'a i t ion,d i rect in tera; t to@it is quality interaction. If rve ask learners, manv rvill sa1.-that thev *,ant-lecture-s, expla!g!g!!_

and ottr-er loims of explicit teacher guidance. And '"ve should never neglect the univ

po1&-erof stories(Effi-Th€ answeftd a disproportionate amount of highlv controlling and depersonalizedteacher talk is not to minimize ali teacher talk per se but to find u-avs to modifv ir in more-teacher talk is not to minimize ali teacher talk per se but to find lr-ays to modify it in more-. * -corgnge.n t d t r :S ] lons . ln add l t lon . teacher learner in te rac t ion , such as the IRF, tha t - i i

**l[ej€! e d .fo rj! a ffo I d i n g I e a r n e r s' I a { u a g e u s e GGn-iiii?

I 0 4 L E O V A N L I E R

i [ the seeds er (SruneratlY ) must contarn wlt

ontinuallv be on-theuage users.

con

rocusrng. I-ln stat gc-v,

inEqualit) ' in clenc\ aker carn

T the main bu

bachers can also experiment u'ith r.r'avs of counterbalancing the inherent inequalitheir talk rvith learners (though in most institutional and c befor them to preteld differences betlr.eE-n them and their learners do not exi-it).In1 docum-entarl ' r ' ideo, classes in various Brit ish schools set up l inks with classes infar-flung places l ike Finland, Greece, and Portugal (Trvitchin 1993).At one point, a faxcame in from a class in Greece; it contained drawings and descriptions of weavingtechniques, with labels and expressions in Greek.The teacher and learners were naturall l 'at the same level w'ith respect to this text, and interaction among them became symmetricaland exploratorv. When a parent rvho knerv Greek *'as found and invited to class to explainthe text, the teacher and his students r,vere all learners.

Takiig guidance fro- tl6ffiI er e*amplooksforwaYstomakeclassroominteract ionvar iedandf f i n the world oflanguage, we all embodv different voices on different occasions (Bakhtin 1981;Wertsch1991 ; Mavbin 19947.It is usefui for learners to find that their teachers haveand that the learners thesuch expemmenTatlon is crucialif thev are to find th"ffi tpurpose of language education.

NOTES

I thank Kathi Bailev for insightful comments on an earlier draft.

1 I realize I gioss over the problems that are inherent in the concept of rule and that havebeen highlighted in much of the u'ork of Wittgenstein, for example, PhilosophicaltnvestlBatlons.

2 While the problem of poor teacher-student communication cannot be solved bv iust anr.comPuter u-ork, there is certainlv evidence that innovative use of computers can

".rhu.r""interaction, for example, througir interactive r, ' 'r i t ing programs und .ollubo.utive projectu'ork (for extensive discussion, see Crook 1994; van Lier 1996).

3 Wells distinguishes betrveen third turns that evaluate or provide follow-up (29-30). Seealso Barnes (.1916).

4 Svmmetrl' and contingencv are closelv related but not svnonymous. Symmetry is a

t fbr signs that learners are readv to be more autonclassroorn nxlsl regularh' pror,ide learners lvith opportunities to engage in

Hud' sl mmetr ica l in teract ions,s ince such interact ions immerse Iearners in contextual ized and

t

-t s

:E=true

he thoushtful Gacher-reseiriEF

structural discourse term, the result of interactional '"vork bv participants. Contingencl'_'- iJuTognit i te qual i t i lher usualh occur together. but this does not mean that thepe. : " : :

^ i

J&itical. As an analogv, iight and heat often occur together, for example, in flames,

sunl ight , and l ight bulbs, but ther are not the 5ame .

GibsJn describ;6mU;;>, foilo', 'r, "The aflordances of the environment are r,rhat it

ollers the uni-ulftftffir'ides or frt

C O N S T R A I N T S A N D R E S O U R C E S I N C L A S S R O O M T A L I < 1 0 5

reGi;To;E to tEe-environment and the animal. . . . It im ementaritv of

animal and vironment" (127). The term ffirdance speciflcallv relers to those

;p-t-t the linguistic environment that become perceivable by the iearner as a result

of meaningful activitv. Affordance is neither the external language nor the learner's

i n te rna l i za t i ono f i t . I t r e fe rs to the re la t i osigns, and rele'ant p."

References

Aston, G. (1986) "Trouble-shooting in Interaction u'ith Learners: The More the Merrier?"

Applied Linguistics 7: 12343 .

Atkinson, J.M. and Heritage, J. (eds) (1984) Structures oJ Soctal Action: Studies in Conversation

Analysu. Cambridge: Cambridge Universitv Press.

Bakhtin, M.M. (1981 1The Dialogtc Imag)nation. Austin: Universitv of Texas Press.

Birnei, D. (1976) From Communication to Curriculum. Harmondsr'vorth: Penguin.

Bourdieu, P. (1990) The Logtc oJPractice. Stanford: Stanford Universitv Press.

Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J.C. (1971) Reproduction in Educatjon, Society and Cuhure. London:

Sage.Bor.r,ers, C.A., and Flinders, D.J. (1990) ResponsiveTeaching:An Ecological Approach to Classroom

Patterns oJ Language, Cuhure, andThought. NervYork:Gachers Coll. Press.

Bruner, l. (1983) Child'sTalk: Learning to (Jse Language. NervYork: Norton.

Chaudron, C. (i988) Second Language Classrooms: Research onTeaching and Learning. Cambridge:

Cambridge Universitv Press.

Crook, C.(199+)ComputersandtheCol laborat iveExper)enceoJLearning. London: Rout ledge.

Csikszentmlhalvi, M., Rathunde, K. andWhalen, S. (1993) TalentedTeenagers:The Roots oJSuccess

and Failure. Cambridge: Cambridge Universitv Press.

Darder, A. (1991) Culture and Power in the Classroom:A Crit ical FoundationJor Bicultural Educatton.

Ner" York: Bergin.

Deci,8.L., and Rvan, R.M. (1992) "The Init iation and Regulation of Intrinsicallv Motivated

Learning and Achievement" in ,4chievement and ilotivation: A Social-Development Perspective,

Ann K. Boggiano andThane S. Pittman (eds) Cambridge: Cambridge Universitv Press.

- (1985) Intrjnsic;l4otivatjon and Sef-Determination in Human Behavior. NelvYork: Plenum.

Deci , E.L. , \ 'a l lerand, R.J. , Pel le t ier , L .G. and Rvan, R.M. (1991) "Mot ivat ion and Educat ion:

The Self-Determination Perspective." Educdtional Psvchologist )6 : 325-46.

Duncan, S. (1972) "Some Signals and Rules forTaking SpeakingTurns in Conversation." JournaloJPersonalitv and Sodal Ps,vcholog,v 23: 283 9).

Edrv'ards, A.D., andWestgate, D.P.G. (1981) lnvestigating Classroom %1ft. London: Palmer.

Egan, K. (1986) Teaching as Storvtell)ng. Chicago: Universitv of Chicago Press.

Ell is, R. (199+) The Stu$' oJ Second Language Acquisjrjon. Oxford: Oxford Universitv Press.

Fairclough, N. (1992) 'The Appropriacv of "Appropriateness"', in Crit ical Language Awareness,

Norman Fairclough (ed.1. London: Longman: 33-55.

Freire, P. (1972) Pedagog,v oJthe Oppressed. Neu-York: Herder.

Garflnkel, H. (1961) Studies in Ethnomethodologv'. Englervood cliffs: Prentice.

Gass, S.M., and N{adden, C.G. (1985 ) Input jn SecondLanguageAcquisirion. Rorvlev: Nervburv.

1 0 6 L E O V A N L I E R

Gibson, J.l. (1979) The Ecological Approach rcVisual Perception. Boston: Houghton.Giddens, A . ( 1 984) The Constitution oJ Sociery' . Berkelel ': University of Caiifornia press.Graumann, C.F. (1990) "Perspectival Structure and Dvnamics in Dialogue",inTheDynamics oJ

Dio logue, Markovj . I . and Foppa, K. redst . Nen york, Harr .ester .Gumperz, l.l. (1992) "Contextualization and Understandin g" , in Rethinking Context: LanBua7e as

an Interactive Phenomenon, Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C. (eds). Cambridge: CambrldgeUniversitv Press.

Heritage, J. (1984) "A Change-of-state Token and Aspects of Its Sequential Placement", inAtkinson and Heritage: 299-345

Kasper, G. (1984) "Variation in Speech Act Realization", in Variation in Second LanguageAcquisit ion, Gass, S., Madden, c., preston, D. and Selinker, L. (eds) clevedon, Lng".:Multilingual Matters.

Kinginger, C' (199+) "Learner Initiative in Conversation Management: An Appiication ofVanLier's Pilot Coding Scheme." Modern Language Journal J8:1g +0.

Lii, J.H. "NoTalking in Class." NewYorkTimes 10 Apr. 1994, educ. supp 7.Long, M. and Porter, P; (1985) "Group wbrk, Interlanguage Talk, and Second Language

Acquisition ." TESOL Quarterly 1 9: 201-28 .Marcus, H. and zajonc, R.B. (1985) "The Cognitive perspective in Social psvchology',, in

Theor,v and lkthod, LindzeJ', G. and Aronson, E. (eds). Nelr,york: Random. 13J_n1.\bl. 1 of Handbook oJ Social Psychologl. 3rd ed.

^\lalbin, J. (199+S "Children'sVoices: Talk, Knowledge, and ldentit).", in Researching Languageand Literacy in Social Context, Graddoi, D., Mavbin, J. and Stierer, B. (eds). Cl.,r"don,"E.r!,A,lult i l ingual Matters: 1 3 1-50.

Mehan, H. (.1979) Learning Lessons: Social organization in the Classroom.Universitv Press.

Cambridge: Harvard

Merrow, J. 0995) "Four N{ill ion Computers Can Be Wrongl" EducationWeek 29 Mar. 1995:52+.

Moerman, M. (1988) Talking Cuhure: Ethnographl' and Conversation Analysis. philadelphia:Universitv of Pennsyh.ania Press.

Newman, D., Griffin, P and Cole, M. r 1989; The Construction Zone: WorktngJor Cognitive Changein School. Cambridge: Cambridge Universitv press.

Parker, K. and Chaudron, C. (1987);Th" Eff..t of Linguistic Simplif ications and ElaborativeModifications on L2 Comprehenston." (Jniversitl iJ HawatiWorktng papers in English as aSecond Language 6.2: 107-33.

Pica, T. (1987) "Second Language Acquisit ion, Social Interaction, and the Classroo11,, AppliedL i n g u i s t i c s f : 1 2 5 .

- (1992) "The Gxtual Outcomes of Native Speaker-Non-native Speaker Negotiation:What Do Thev Reveal about Second Language Learning?", rn Text and Context: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Language srud,r,, Kramsch, c. and Mcconnell-Ginet, S. (eds).Lexington: Heath: 198 237 .

Pica,T, and Doughtr,; C. (1985) "Non-native Speaker Interaction in the ESL Classroom,,, inInput in second LanguaBeAcquisit ion, Gass, S. and Madden, C. (eds). Rowlev: Newburv,1 r - f 1

Pica, T.,Young, R. and Doughtr-, C. (1987) "The Impact ofTESOL @tarterly 21 : 7 37 -58.

Platt, E., and Brooks, F.B. (1994) "The 'Acquisit ion-Rich

Language Journal J8: +91 -51 1 .Pomerantz, A. ( 1 984) "Pursuing a Response" in Atkinson and Heritage : 1 s2-63.Rommetveit, R. (1974) On Message Sftucture. \en.\brk: \ \- i ler.Rudduck, I (1997) Innovation and Change: Dereloptng lnrolrr^ent and [Jnderstanding. Mil ton

Kevnes: Open Universitv Press.

Interaction on Comprehension."

Enr-ironment' Revisited." Modern

C O N S T R A I N T S A N D R E S O U R C E S I N C L A S S R O O M T A L I ( I O 7 \

Rutherford,W. (1987) Second Language Grammar:Learning andTeaching. London: Longman.Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. and Jefferson, G. (1974) "A Simplest Sr.stematics for the Organization

ofTirrnTaking in Conr.ersation." Language 50 696 135.

Schegloff, E.A., Jefferson, G. and Sacks, H. (1977 l "The Preference for Seif-Correction in theOrganization of Repair in Conr-ersation." Language 53: 351 82.

Shor, L (1992) Emporvering Education: CriticalTbachingJor Social Change. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Shuv, R. (1991) "Secretarv Bennett'sTeaching: An Argument for ResponsiveTeaching", in IAeEnlightened Eve: @rclintive Inquiry' and the Enhancement of Educational Practice, Elliott Eisner(ed.). NervYork: N{acmillan.

Sinclair, J.M., and Brazil, D. (1982) Tbacher la1ft. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Sinclair, J.M., and Coulthard, N/t. (1975) Tbwards an Analysis oJ Discourse. Oxford: Oxford

Universitv Press.n | ^ l l .Tharp, R. and Gall imore, R. (1988) Rousing tN[inds rc l1&. Cambridge: Cambridge Universitv

Press.T'"vitchin, J. 0993) European Awareness in Primary Schools. Mosaic Films. Central Bureau for

Educ. Visits and Exchanges.van Lier, L. (1988) The Classroom and the Language Learner: Ethnography and Second-LanBua7e

Classroom Research. London: Longman.- (1992) "Not the Nine O'clock Linguistics Ciass: Investigating Contingencv Grammar."

Language Awareness 7.2: 91-108.- (1994) "Language Arvareness, Contingencr,, and Interaction", in Conscjousness in Second

Language Learning, Hulsti jn, J. and Schmidt, R. (eds) .l lLA Review' l1t 69-82.- (1996a) Interaction in the Language Curriculum: Awareness, Autonom,t and .luthentictt,t .

London: Longman.(1996b) "Social Interaction and Cooperative Learning at, around, l ' i th, and throughComputers." Eler-enthWorld Congress of Applied Linguistics (AILA 96). Unnersitv of

Jyviskr' ld, Finland. 5 Aug. 1996.van Lier, L., and Matsuo, N. (1995) "Varieties of Conversationai Experience." Unpublished

essav. Monterev Institute of International Studies.van Manen, M. (1991) TheTact oflbaching:The ,Meafing oJPedagogicalThoughtJulness. Albany: State

Universit)' of Neu'York Press.Vfggt.\fr!"v, S. ( 1 97 81 I'lind in Sociery' . Cambridge : Harvard University Press.Wells, G. (1993) "Reevaluating the IRF Sequence : A Proposal for the Articulation of Theories

of Activitv and Discourse for the Analvsis of Teaching and Learning in the Classroom."L inguist ics dnd Educat ion 5:1-37.

Wertsch, J.\a (1991) lbices o;f the ;l l ind: A Sociocultural Approach to Mediarcd Action. Cambridge:Harvard Universitv Press.

Wittgenstein, L. ( 1 95 8) Philosophical lnvestigations. Oxford: Blackrveil.Young, R. (1992) Crjt icalTheor,v and Classroom ?.c1ft. Clevedon, Eng: Multi l ingual Matters.Yule, G. (1990) "lnteractive Conflict Resolution in English." Wbrld Engltshes9: 53-62.

C h a p t e r 6

Gelia Roberts

LANGUAGE ACQ

SOCIALISATION

DISCOURSE?

Towards a Redef io f S LA

UISITION OR

IN AND THR

LANGUAGE

OUGH

ni t ion of the Domain

Introduction

vER THE LAST TWENTY YEARS SLA s tud ies have no t i gno red i ssues o f

discourse and the social context. But often the references to social or socio-cultural

So, this paper is concerned rvith second language development and mmediate socialr ' )o, tnls PaPer ls concerneo wrtn second ta

I context in r,vhich individuals succeed. or faii. t

context give it onlv a marginal role in the processes of language development. Equally, there

. is relati'"'eh' Iittle concern r'vith the social import of second language developmenrjilggf4

ll t:t..,' {*gant}es&gt ol-'o.i"l id.nti

\ l in tercul tura l in teract ions u-h ich take o lace everv dav]a lso inc lude the e l fect of these,--'iI inref6ultural errcounters on individuals - u'ho are. themselves. part of these u'ider social

forces.

\-

Yd

truct Iocal meani

Processes are

coriiTituted in iuih-iriteliefiofrs and-EiT66ebrocesses in turn feJd back ntercultura

ffio un te r s and-16-6 ..............p r or.'i d e ih e c o n d i ti o n s ( o r for discour, - - l

lon ano

ifiterpr-ation.

L-ngfage socialisation rather than language acquisition better describes holv learners

ine to produce and interpret discourse and hou- such learning is supported (or not) bv

the assumptions of societv at large about multi l ingualism and second language learners.

These issues are particularlv saiient rvhen researching SLA u,ith minority group workers.

And here, Gumperz's notion of contextuaiisation i l luminates the ways in w-hich local

understandings and misunderstandings have an eftect both on the immediate context for

learning and on the u'ider assumptions and ideoloqies about l inguistic minority groupsn'hich also enter into and have an effect on local interactions and conditions for discourse

develooment.

L A N G U A G E A C Q U I S i T I O N O R L A N G U A G E S O C I A L I S A T I O N ? 1 0 9

The transformation of manv cities inWestern and Northern Europe from monolingual

to multi l ingual environments creates crucial sites for the studv of second language

development. Adult minoritv rvorkers lr-ho are struggling to make a nerv life for themselves

represent a particularlv significant group lvhen researchers are considering u'hat constitutes

the domain for second language acquisit ion studies. For manv of them, contact w'ith the

majoritv group is in institutional settings at rvork or in bureaucratic encounters - and

th.r" b..9 .These

settings provide far from ideai conditions for language learning and vet they mav be the only

ones nhere the nerv language is used at all. Charting the interactions and relative Progressof this group in an indifferent and often hostile lvorld drives the researcher to conceptualise

individuals not simplv as language learners but as social beings struggling to manage often

conflicting goals. After all, the researcher mav be interested in their language develop-

ment, but the minoritv u-orkers are concerned r.vith getting things done. As Bourdieu

asserts: "What s

1977 , p. G:1. Looklng at the 'rvhole sociai person' argues for a more holistic approach to--_---_______ - - | |J[ond language de nd

-----T----r--r--methodologrcal l \ ' .

Limits to a social perspective on SLA

Interaction and pragmatics in SLA

There is of course an extensive l iterature on interaction studies in SLA u.hich examines t-

the conversational devices rvhich foster certaiq l jnguisti. a more dialogic

vein, recent v,,.ge,!.i.i@6tiutio.t of '.o-p..h".trib1" i,-tpr., -in \

social interaction. But despite the concentration on collaborative dialogue, language is sti l l

conceived ofas a i s - i n to - -

tf[:ch' r.r"mbe.-s of a communitr are socialised. Learners are nori-Efiaif, iteii:ed as 'socialh .

co ositions to think and act in certain u'aYs

roo ted in the i rd i scu rs i veh i s to r i es " (Lan to l f andPar , l enko , 1995 ,p . 115 )bu t thegoa lo f

dialogic learning is sti l l the abil it-v to deplo-v l inguistic phenomena. Methodologically,

the analvsis tends to fo.nt o.t u Putti.,rl.. f..,.t. h

local in terpretat ions and react ions. Unsurpr is ingh, there lore, there is l i t t le or no ethno- i- :?raph.-tie"ce to suppEtEiclusions drau.n. The relatively neu' field of interlanguage

i.ug-uti.. *o.rld seem io b" u more promising area for looking at the ih=oGTocia-l pEison.

But desnite its concern rvith contextual factors, it is the narro\l-concept of the learner and

_]fg-gpsr+19l9g!s9_sp9-c{c sPge.glLlc-t! \l.hi_.h g"""tu," ,h" k. Th"

Ed". , ,o , , , remainsu. 'essent iu i | 'cogni t i r 'e"""* thEu"tho '@nt io1

significance of sociocultural issues implies:

It would be a mistake to vieu'developmental issues in ILP (interlanguage pragmaticsf

in purelv cognitive terms because the strategies for linguullq 4glpn are so closelv tied i

to self-identitv and social identitr ' . (Kasper and Schmidt,1996l'p. 159'

To date, hou.ever, these issues of social identitv and, indeed, other social issues outside the

immediate context of utterance, have not ligured to anv significant extent in interlanguage

pragmatics.Finalll', the interaction and pragmatics studies in SLA literature continue the tendency

in SLA more generallv to reifv language so that French, Enghsh and so on are treated

d ratEer than as a discouiiE---I

1 } O C E L I A R O B E R T S

unproblematicallv as homogenised 'target languages'. This essentialising of a language

assumes that there is onlv one variety to be learned and that the language and communicative

style of the broker's vard or the baker's rs similar to that of the standard varietv.

A sociolinguistic perspective on SLA

From a sociolinguistic point of vielv mainstream SLA studies remain asociai - the social

rmpdFTTi learnrng to rnteract through language remalns fudden. A socrolrngulstrc perspectlveshifts awav from the linguistic system and from ajgryjllth specific items of prag-ma t i candd i scou rsed .o : . l op * . . ' t t o l ook ingu t l u

lversrtY an^

rned with interactionles. )Pecrncall\ ' , ttus m

as communicative piactice and hor,v such practice helps us to understand larger social forces

fh,41,0

and, in turn, their impact on interactions. This connecting up the macro and the micro in

sociolinguistic theory gives due recognition to interactions as sites r,r'here minority workers

are not simplv exposqd to and able to negotiate comprehensible input butlk?rll-ac-tors

r ,-

Recortstituting learners as social actors brings into focus issues ofsocial identitv.There

is a derCloping literature on language-ifr-d social identitr- and its relation to SLA in which

applied and sociolinguistics meet.Within this literature, the iearner is understood as a personwith multiple identities, man.v of them contradictorv. Identity is dvnamic across time and

plaE an-dlangUefuse, social identitv and ethnicitr-are inextricablv linked and understood

within larger social processes. For example, Pierce ( 1 995) ajgrsses*Ue+ersonal and so-eiali " .

how'these are observable in their interactions and the rvavs in r,r'hich certain sociai identities

r backgrounded. lOqce not ions of socia l ident i t r are?iT lEd up, the

dominant tradition of SLA as an asocial phenomenon is put into question. I

Language socialisation

One response to the critique of the relatively asocial character of SLA is tg-sqggest hrg!3ge

iocialisation as an alternati\e p..erspectir-e.The concept w'as originallv developed within- . r - - - T - - rinthropoiogl'to describe the process rr-herebv a child becomes an emergent member of thecommunitv in rvhich they are grou-ing up. More recentlv it has been extended to include

, S t l D u f f , 1 9 9 6 ) . I t i n c l u d e s b o t h t h e s o c i a l i s a t i o n r e q u i r e d\ , - i 6use language inspec ihc in te rac t i ona l sequencesund@nth 'o !gh

_language - tne rnolrect means ot develoPrng socro-culturat Kno\\' leclge. w here 5LA has used-----=--:

modelli-ng and experimentation as the dominant paradigm to research how-linguistic featuresare attended to, stored and accessed, Ianguage socialisation studies have used participantobservation. Studies of adult minoritv w'orkers based on naturallv occurring ianguage use

- provide data that more nearly resembles child language socialisation studies. Su"h d.tu ."n/ offer insights into the SLS process provided that it is also supplemented by ethnographic

\ data on speech events and local histories and identities ofparticioants.\- In the follor,r. ing example (from Bremer et a|.,1996, pp 50-51) Marcello, an Italian

rvorker in Germany, is being intervierved bvl a counsellor in the Job Centre. Marcello wasone of the informants on the European Science Foundation project on natural secondlanguage acquisition. He had been in Heidelberg for about a year rvhen this interview wastaped, having come to Germanv as a real beqinner. He rvas sti l l seeking work and theinterview with the counsellor u'as both an opportunitv to find out about rvork possibilitres

L A N G U A G E A C Q U I S I T I O N O R L A N G U A G E S O C I A L I S A T I O N ? 1 1 ;

and to use his developing German. As an example of language socialisation, Marcello needed

to be socialised into the specific genre of counselling intervieu's and use this interaction as

an opportunitv to develop his socio-cultural knorvledge of how bureaucracies r,vork, how'

work is categorised, u,hat the goals of such an interl'ierv are likelv to be and so on:

Data Example 1

1 M: rvir muss vergessen <laughs>

we have toforget

2 T: ja * gut * dann hatten r,vir die saache fur heut

ok good so we're tfuoughJor rcda1'

3 und rvenn sie also in zukunft noch fragen haben kommen

and tJyou have anv questions tnJuture you'l l \ook in ok

sie bei mir vorbei ja

789

M : j a

TEST: (rufen sie an ) ok (leans, back, speaks quietl l ' , looks at door, stands up)

give me a cal l ok

M: so und jetzt muss ich gehen

so and now I must go

T: < ja>

M: < > <both laugh>. l l

I : \4'teoersenen

bve

M: u'iedersehen danke

b,ve thank you

Transcr i ption Convention s

10

T

t l(xxx)

short pauseadditional comments on \,vav of speaking etc.

overlap

inaudible or omitted rvord

At one level, this could be construed as a simple case of pragmatic failure. Marcello

fails to understand the pre-closing signals of T including'Ja", "gut" and "dann hatten rvir die

sache fiir heut" and advice for the future. It is onl-v u'ith the non-verbal cues that Marcello

realises that thel a.e in the mi is interpretive difficultv is not surprising

;ffi;;celia 1 1982) has argued conversational features such as greetings are acquired

before pre,closings. But this rJqr"n." is also an unusuailv explicit moment of language

socialisation *'hen at line 5 Marcello topicalises the act of departure. This is more than just

a matter of picking up on some pre-closing signals, and it is u'orth mentioning here that the

crucial nonuerbal rlgtruir r,vhich are part of the interactive environment are rarelv considered

in linguistic pragmatics.Ii o.d"i foi Marcello to manage this tvpe of institutional discourse and understand

w.hen ,ho l r ; and rvh r ' t heencoun te rc losesa tapa r t i cu la rPo i ' ' t ,@d

into the norms, ro le re lat ionships and goals of 'gatekeeping ' encounters. Ethnographic

;t rd;." f-- minoritv *.orkers' e*perieniE-f-outtTeTling tnterr.ieu's (Bremer et al., 7996;

Gumperz, 1982a, tg8Ub; Roberts et a\ . ,19921suggests that issues of speaker r ights and

responsibil i t ies, expectations about speci6c goals and the boundaries of rvhat constitutes

t /./T_

i<

I T 2 C E L I A R O B E R T S

the personal mav differ markedlv from that of the majoritv gatekeepers. In this instance.one of the difficulties for Marcello is the relativelv inconclusive rvav in which the intervieu.aPPears to end.Whereas counsellors see such interr.ie\^-s as an opportunity to discuss workpreferences, minoritY r'r'orkers are more likeh' to expect to b. giu.r, ,p".ifi. informationabout particular jobs. Once this information has been given, ther expect the intervien- tobe terminated. But in this instance, the counsellor ends the encounrer once someinformation has been elicited from the client and some advice given.

Another frequentlv occurring example of differenc" surrounds the issue of thecategorisation of u'ork experience around skiils and responsibilities and often, therefore.around social status. In the next example (from Bremer et a\.,1996,p.63), I lhami, aTirrkishlvorker from Germanv, is interviewed for an apprenticeship in a garage and is asked whatlob h ls la ther does:

Data Example 2

I T: e r.l'as arbeit' denn dein vater lvas macht der von berufwhat work does yourJather do what ts his iob

2 l: metallberuf [und]metal job

3 T. [ja] undok and

4 I: (r,vxxx) schnellpresse (names the tou.n)(u'xxx) f iampinB press

5 T: in der schnel lpresse in u.in the tamping press in u.

6 l : f i a lmhmves

[ja] und dort tut er metaliand he does metal theremetall [und]metal and

Iaha]die machen auch das macht auch papierthey also make it makes paper toomhm ah so ist dasmhm ah its l ike that

(For transcription conventions see Data Example 1.)

This question and ansr,ver sequence is unsatisfactorv because Ilhami is unaware ofthe underlving question u'hich is about the social status of his father's job and so of hrsfather's class position. The garage owner interrupts on several occasions to elicit a morespecific replv but never makes explicit rvhat he u.ants to know.. These are examples of'socio-pragmatic-failure'

in Thomas' terms (Thomas, 1Zg3), But this term tends toagmatic diff i culties rarhcr

T:

8

91 0

l 1

T:I :

T:

this instance concerns the discourse a

light the process of

L A N G U A G E A C Q U I S I T I O N O R L A N G U A G E S O C I A L I S A T I O N ? 1 1 3

5w to evaluate her

earnlng *.hat Rogoff ( 1 984) calls i lstration of thinking through

cultural institutions and normative techniques of problem solving" (p. 5). But socialisation

is more than cognitir.e learning in social contexts. It assumes a Process of 'belonging', of

beins oart of the 'neu' communitr'' . And this is u'here the notion of SLS runs into difficulties

o l

since it "assumes that groups ate soctoc..ltutal totali 6. : : : :an endpo rn t o t expe r t be long ing (RamPton , 1995b , p . 4871 '

Th" rpfrffiJl!-.n"a.t "tsl@of the stor;. It does not fullyl

take account ofthe relationship betrveen the discourses to rvhich learners are exposed and Ithe Iearners themselves. In other rvords it is an overlv functionalist model. It underplays /

the total role and r.lf id" ourse and the \

constructednatureof intercul tura lcontact inpIura landfragmentedsociet ies

So, it is not possible to talk unproblematicallv of socialisation through language as the

means of developing sociocultural knorvledge as if there is a stable bodv of such knou'ledge.

The idea of graduallv being inducted into a communitv's pre-existing discourses suggests a

simple, functional model lvhich does not accord rvith our data of naturailr. occurrinq

intercultural encounters. In other u'ords, such events are not simplr. opportunities lbr the

transmission, horvever indirectlv, of the necessarv socio-cultural knou-ledge, but thel are

sites w-here social identit ies are constructed, r", 'here the interactants are positioned and

position themselves. People speak from rvithin a particular discursive formation. In the case

of minoritv workers, this inclu-es o l e thnrc and c lass Dos l t lon . tne \ \ ' l ce r

ourses ofracis tence and Dercel l

Positioning in and through discourse

the detail"d u'avs in rvhich interactants position themselves and are positioned illuminates

some of the problems rvith an orthodox vieu- of language socialisation. Different minority

w-orkers invest in interactions and in the process of language socialisation in different lvavs

\ a.rd are themselves defined relativelv differenth'.(- There are numerous examples of this positioning in the srr""a u"g""g" al aa*

lmmigrants proiect (Bremer er a1., 1996; Perdue, 1993). A contrastive studv of two ltalian

il-for*ants in Britain rtho are enquiring about buving propertv in an estate agents (Roberts

and Simonot, 1987) shorvs horv thev are positioned differentlr'. One of Santo's strategies

lvhich helps to maintain conversational involvement is to make general, evaluative

comments:

Data Example 3

1 N: then vou might get one for about fiftr- or sixtv * or sa)' fortv eight sixty something

like that

Some problems with the model of SLS

!)rts an apprenticeshiP model

SIS ."n be seen as an apprenticeship model. The learner over time participates in the

interactional life of the ne\\: communitv and is graduallv inducted into what are taken to be Ii ts pre-exist ing discourset j5 lamo-del. impl ies a' learninq bv doing' approach in whicf i ) l , f_u,,to r example . the ac lu l t mtn or 1

' ' - )

:e-tFarrffTrcTn-her rnteractlons wlth neT*sui€Efvlsor I " ,

rvith complaints about qualit) (Cl1'ne, 1995). Thi's--l

f-

t l

o

positioning u'hich em

1 1 4 C E L I A R O B E R T S

23

S: \ 'e r \ e \pens i r t a r ta an \ \ \ j - '

\ : u e l l t l - u . t h i s i r c \ p c r , i i ' , q ' . : - - . - . - - . r : . -

Bv contrast.\ndrea s strategies ar. r., l.t i \ q

the estate aqent has inrp l ic i t l r :d . r r t t iuncu:

1 N: blackstock road er thats a onc2 A.: ,veah3 ON: its not t lvo bedrooms4 A: mhm

#

: , rc\ elop onl.,' those t}emes which

b.dr{rc,m f lat

(Roberts and Simonot, 1987 )

Santo's socialisation into maintaining conversational involvement in service encountersmeans that he elicits more helpful and extended comments from the clerk. Andrea'sencounters are less successful, do not produce opportunities for learning hou' to do thistvpe of conversational involvement and, as ethnographic evidence show:s, cumulatively,

ionAndrea as marginalised discursir-elv and socialh.(Roberts and Simonot, 198j).

Data from multi l ingual Brit ish factories also shorvs hor,v minority w.orkers positionthemselves strategicallv in order to attempt to co-construct an argument in their favour. lnthis example (Roberts et al. , 7992, p.39), the minoritv lvorker, IA, is trving to negotiate ajob for his son in the same factorv as he rvorks in. The problem is that his son is only sixteenyears old and is not allou.ed to rr-ork the regulation 5i hour w.eek:

Data Example 4

1 Mrs B: Can't help him.2 IA: What forl;3 Mrs B: All the men in this mill are on 55 hours4 I A : 5 5 h o u r s ?5 Mrs B: All the men6 IA: Old men?7 Mrs B: All men8 IA: Young men and just 8 hours er.erv dal9 Mrs S: But Mrs B savs not the oLD men..\l i the men evervbodv - must work 55

hours10 Mrs B: Ladies rvork 40 hours1 1 IA: This is voung bol.. the same like ladr rlaughterl12 Thev are too voung. If not u'anted then too long time . . . just 40 hours per

\\.eeK

Despite the misunderstanding at l ine 5, I.\. at l ines 8 and 11-12, begins to negotiatehis u'av around the companv rule. He does this hr cappinq \{rs B's asserti,on u.ith his ow.nassertions about voung men and prelents this 1r,rn.r becoming a distancing strategy byclaiming solidaritv through the joke that roun; nrin are similar to ladies.The condrtions

Fo ro the r i n fo rman ts i " t h l@ofsoc io -cu l t u ra l know ledge i s

refracted through their experience of l iving in a racist societv. For example, Abdelmalek, a

L A N G U A G E A C Q U I S I T I O N O R L A N G U A G E S O C I A L I S A T I O N ? 1 1 5

for furthering his sociocultural competence are in place since his assertions are respondedto bv Mrs B and the encounter ends rvith her agreeing to talk to the overlooke, ubout he.son.

The contingent nature of such interactional positioning means that conditions for theproduction and interpretation ofdiscourse varv from interaction to interaction. But theseconditions are also constrained bv rvider socio-polit ical formations - such as the inequalit iesthat exist in a stratif ied multi- l ingual societv. So a model of second language ,o.i"i lruaio.,needs to include an understanding of the ideologies w'hich feed into and aie constructedout of interactions.

Language practice and ideologsi

@-ef languageas.sociaIPract ice,helpsustoseet l ]9 j ideol9gicaLtn interact ions.- f f i - - i , , , - - - - - ' - r - - -I nere has been a lot oi dtscussion aroun-tfthe term 'practice' in u-hat has been called th-e

New Li teracv Studies in Br i ta in and the USA. 'Pract ice 'or more usefu l lv 'pract ices 'aremore than action and events. In the case of literacv practices for example, thev include boththe literacv event and the knou'ledge and assumptions about rvhat this event is and whatgives it meaning. For example, [b4!_qgg$-s as literacv in a subgroup is determined by th

a societr. Literao' pracTi cesJE-rc-6T{arertthjderuity,"laa!Il9!ru++)v fra{1err.J -Jr;_e;_t

The notion of 'practice'has

also been used and debated in cri t ical and anthropological *Le-L4r^r.J - t L n ^ ' 'linguistics as both action and the ideologies r'vhich surround it. Eirthgh (1992) makei the

@tTF-a t l anguagePrac t i ceSareConSt ruC tedno ton l r . ou to@,o u t o I t n e d r s c o u r s e S w f u c h u ' e r e p r o @ u c e d i n t h e i n t e r a c t i o n a n d i n

nt drscourses. r example, \1' l crit icai perspective, questions have beer.rraised aboui takenI-or granted notions of r.vhat constitutes a speaker of a particular languaqervhat is a non-native speaker, r,vhat*cert4n qroups count as 'target

language,' and io or.tHowever, this problematising rvork, although it has influenced applied linquistics, has had \-

l i t t | e i n f l u e n c e r r . i t h i n m a i n s t r e a m S L A . F o r " f f i w i l l b e

pos i t i oned ,b r : t he l i ngu i s t i c i deo log ies tha tc i r cu la te ' aSa .no@, , , - /speaker' .

'poor communic@r' and so on. These feed into frilit-lnt..actlon itself and f".a off "

i, ajq.i.*ll .j.,hg ruid..T*orrrr., ".orn

,/ Within the British tradition there are two comp-Ei!-sets of discourses around ethnicity.

/ The first has been u'idelv reflected in government policv and popular discourse. This tenis

( to essentialise ethnic groups, equate land,-Ianguage and ethnicitv and cast minority ethnis

\ r9gPi-aEj@(SeeGi l ro1. ,1987, foradiscussion) . IntheNe-t } re ' Iu ' 'ds,van Dijk and his associates have traced simiiar processes in the discourses of elite groupswhich shor,v

horv ethnic beliefs are strategicallv expressed, acquired and distributed throughoutt}e dominant group, that is as part of managing ethnic affairs and reproducing elitepower and r,vhite group dominance. (Van Dijk et al., 1997 , p. 165)

An extreme example of this first set of discourses is from data gathered in multiethnicBrit ish r,vorkplaces during the Iate 1970s (Roberts et al., 1992).A supervisor was runningthrough a routine list of questions in English as part of a simple recruiiment procedure.TheSouth Asian applicant had ansrvered several questions about himself and his previous u.orkexperience rvhen he w-as asked "Do vou speak English?" to rvhich he replied, "What do vouthink I 'm talking to you in norv!"The current discourse that r,vas circulating at the time

l

I lI

JD

1 I 6 C E L I A R O B E R T S

'assumed that someone of South ,\sian ba:k;: '- 'und " as unlikelv to speak English and the

evidence to the contrarv did not aPPear to dent the super\' isor's certainty that here was

another non-Engiish speaker.We .o,rid .p".,tlate on tie outcomes of such an encounter and

the possible teniions set up for the individual minoritr n'orker rvho both needs to become

u fulrl.ipu.ing member of "

rr"ot communitv but rr'ho is insultingh'positioned by a member

of th"t communitv as a non-English speaker''

Th" second set of discourses stem from the Brit ish-based Cultural Studies and, in

particular, Hall 's (1988) notion of'ne',v ethnicit ies'and u'hat Hervitt (1985) has called'local

multiracial vernaculars'. Recent research has sho*'n the destabil isation of inherited

ethnicit ies and the emergence of neu- ethnolinguistic identit ies which challenge the

orthodox essentialist ideas of language and race (Gilrov, 1987; Hervitt, 1986; Rampton,

1 995a). This second set of discouries suggest that the process of second language socialisa-

tion is not a straightfonvard case of becoming communicativelv competent, within a fixed

aDart - o f har ins serera l socia l ident i t

i"atrlffi ' idersocialformationsrvhichthemselvesdetermines'hat socialisation means.

Contextualisation and wider social Processes

The link betw.een SLS and these u,ider social processes is r 'vell i l lustrated in Gumperz's

studies and their recent formulation in Eermans et a\. (1997). As Levinson (1997) in the

same volume asserts:

it is the large-scale sociological effects of multitudes of small-scale interactions that

still partiall"y fuels his (Gumperz's) preoccupations r'vith conrersations, most evident

p"rhup, in his concern rvith the plight ofthe individual caught up in these large-scale

forces. (p. 24)

albeit within a con\ allv respectful interpersonal framework. I |ls rn9yj:jy

Levinf6i-talks of ;affiia;ls since the kind of intercultural interactions tlat

routinely occur i!--6-p-.F.oncern lvith the linguistic dlmension of social action shows how asPects

of l inguisiic signall ing and cultural and sociai background knowledge work together to

o.odui. communicati,,,e involvement (or not) and outcomes at both individual and societal

Ievels. , therefore, in liner-i$4e41!cusslon above is on@

I,, o.d"ffii,'Gr,rnp"., 4ryryf:- eclectic bag of tools an{, as

Levinson ( 1 997) suggests, is none fthFili.o.et[on pragmatic notions in his

interest. Similarly, he has been

analvsis focuses on members'

Levinson captures here manv of the elements central to a redefinition of second language

acquisition as a social ph".rom.rron. The focus on the micro - the fine-grained detail of

conversations - is linked to the macro - the lvider social processes w'here social networks,

identit ies and relationships are structured and restructured. What is significant for_ a

redefinition of SLA as part of this is the fact, as Gumperz asserts, that individuals are'caught

up in these large-scale forces'. So ever,v encounter n'here there are laqguage differences is

h n t h e n o n n o r t t t n i t v f o r l a n g u a q " , f f i a s i t e w h e r e i d e n t i t i e s a . l 1 dboth an opportunjty {or laqguagq sgcialisation b9! also a sit_e. where ide+trt}es. a-nd

- ant discourses of language and ethnicitv,

\L4--

can be found in Conversation Analvsis. Gunrperz drau's. -7 - - - -

. - - : . ' ' I

i n te rpre t i te p rocedures E lu t as Par t o I a \ \ Io ( r :o \ ' lo log lca l

much inf luenced bv Conr. 'ersation -\nal lsi=. Likc C\ his

L A N G U A G E A C Q U I S I T I O N O R L A N G U A G E S O C I A L I S A T I O N ? I L 7

procedures, elucidating hou-participants use their interactional resources to maintain theinteraction and create a level of mutual interpretation. But Gumperz suggests CA is limitedin as far as the participants'interpretations are seen as depending on sequential orderingrather than on active involvement. And this invoh,'ement rests on tr,vo kev terms forGumoerz:'conversational inference' and'contextualisation'.

The cupacitv to understand interactions and be socialised into ne'uv communities ofpractice depends absolutelv on some level of shared inferential processes. This does notmean that interlocutorc shuie interpretive conclusions about the meaning of th,].r-g, bufdii

, | : - o . .

t. "rd"tttt "

."*" t. ' . This is in no sense an absolute sharing since anv

conclusions over meaning have to be accomplished, not taken for granted. And, as I have

suggested abor e, being competent is not a s imple process of learn ing to manage inst i tu t ignal

d i scou rses ince i t i s j us f f i i s cbu rses r r . h i chma l .pos i t i on themino r i t v

Nevertheless , the process of socialisation, horvever ambiguous , must relv on negotiating

local meanings through conversational inference. The question is:What is the relationship

between the linguistic signs that participants must process and conversational inference?

Gumperz has proposed the notion of 'contextualisation cues' to account for how these signs

are taken up bv interactants. Contexfrralisation consists of:

all activities bv participants lvhich make reler.ant, maintain, revise, cancel, anv aspect

of context which in turn is responsible for the interpretation of an utterance in its

particular locus of occurrence. (Auer, 1992, p. 4)

Cpe1eqglsa:gcues are defined as:

constellations of surface features of message form . . . The means bv rvhich speakers

signal and listeners interpret lvhat the actir-itv is, hou'semantic content is to be

understood and horv each sentence relates to rvhat precedes or follou.s. (Gumperz,

1982a , p . 1 31 )

These cues serve to f"."gr.""d "r

-"k" ,. ture in relation to

oth..r und .o6ll ,p .. 'r, 'ot"d i.rt.rp."i.t lonr. So, lor e* u

Example 1 signals a preclosing sequence rvith the rvords 'ok' and 'good' both spoken with

falling intonation. These contextualisation cues routinelv mark the closing of a particulartoplc or'activity' (Gumperz, 1982a) in an interaction.

Contextualisation cues call up background knou'ledge u'hich not onl,v relates to

traditional linguistic and pragmatic knorvledge but to social relations, rights and obligations,

l inguistic ideologies and so on. In Ilhami's case, mentioned above, the question abouthis

father's job u-ithin the speech event of an intervierv and occurring at that point in the

sequence is expected to cue in information about social status. (See also Tr,'l er, 7995 , on the

interactive negotiation of participant status. )Not onlv are contextualisation cues heavilv charged lr.ith social and cultural freight, the

g'ays in r,r'hich thev invoke context mark them as problematic for the minority speaker.

Levinson, in providing an analt 't ic framelvork for contextualisation cues, makes the

aVa

7

important point that message and context are not in opposition - the message can caI-Lf-

n'ith it or project the context (Levinson, 1997).This makes the process of coming to a level

of shared understanding, and learning from this experience, an_extrelffionplex_gg.

t-7

Levinson argues that contextualisation cues invoke context in particular r.l-avs. The cue is:

\ \ l

tr\

Final I r ' , ther .areabout inrok ingw'e- t the ' Iearner isor ientated

\L -5townrcls processrng Lne messaqel rn sum, contextualisation cues are srrppery t.utu.TT\'

! Equaliv important is the fact tha\.contextual cues are indexical markers ot membership

of a paiticgllqgloup Kno*'ing ho.u t

f-i , l* int..uctionll-Eornerr to pick\ l r i , i : 1 ; ' = ' = -\ i u-p_pl I cue not onlr creatEffiTsunderstanding but sets the minorit l ' l inguistic speaker

\/" apart. She rs not ln that rnteractronal moment an emergent member ot the same com-

socret]'

Contextualisation, therefore, functions at the micro level, both guiding (or not) minute

bv minute interpretative processes and also indexes "those implicit values of relational

ident i tv and porver that . . .go b) ' the name of cu l ture" (Si lverste in, 1,992,p.57) at the

macro level. Local situated meaning and u'ider ideological concerns are caught up together

It is not simplr- a case of pragmatic failure or even of sociaiisation into some stable bodv of

a second language.The meaning of contextuali.uiion cues can;tfy U3 t-#11,a second language.The meaning of contextualisation cues can only b6 leaigt k^9tminority speaker if there is extended exposure to the communicatit'e practices o

a L A v -

nqulsuco

the groupor network from r,vhich the majoritv language speaker comes.

It is long-term exposure to . . communicative experience in institutionalised

netlvorks of relationship and not language or communitl ' membership as such

that lies at the root of shared culture and shared inferential practices. (Gumperz, 1997 ,

P. 1s )

The need for this long exposure or immersion is that, as I have said, t[e relationship

bStfy_."" c"e ""d

co"te"t l Cffg! fualtiot r&!Ig!gliv, that is in coq!1q!t t!9 vr,\at

has not been said, just been said and so qp (Gumperz. 1922DAlso manv of the formal

P'"Pf f ioncueSaredi f f icu i t toProceSS,|orexampleaSPectsofprosodv.

-- apart. She is not in that interactional moment an emerfeniffier oT-the same com-) municative communitv. As a result, small interactive differences can contribute to large

:S!ra]g": to be allocated a house

o rge ta joband , i n te rmso f thesoc ia ]o rde r , f eed ing in to thes t@ns

:1""tF""d l n t o r - , . 1

1 1 8 C E L I A R O B E R T S

A conventional reminder, like a knot in a handkerchief, u'here the content of the memo

is inferentiallv determined. Thus the 'cue' cannot be said to encode or directly' invoke

the interpretive background, it's simplv a nudge to the inferential process & -illerpretive process ma-v be guided b)' general pragmatic principles of a -Gricean so4

and thus be in manv lvavs universal in character: but the 'ques' are anvthing but

\-n... u.. ,{=l-pr9}-leqs here for minoritv language ,p""t"(@ the)'have to

identifv that there is a cu,e (for example a particular prosodic featurehra+']rave conventional.#

' ., ,<-*---fh. ' rnn-

significance-ii-ne language or rarien' and not in anothert(S"g!dE, as Ll'r inso*5r; 1997)

suggestsr thgjgcio-culturalb-kg."' cular cqe..It sets

al different g ' \ P ' 2 9 t .

These issues are central to an understanding of u'hat it might rr}l li

Of f the in [erent ia l Drocess but unless in teractants share in terpretat ive ls

po knowing what part s of background kno\\' mav be called uui. Thirdthere is the fact that contextlalisation cues are reflexive e s ntext'as much

a6ntext shapes languag{$glhe majoritv and minorit-v interlocutors may make di

situated iudsements both Ii uisticallv and contextua v moment by moment in the

irylerar:ion: a misread prosodicTne-ffidex a seti p.e-st ppositions about speaker -

perspective, for example, rvhich creates a neu'interpretative.context and, t- ,

' r-^' +. h'.-- (1 )

on a different footing. -'^q.A ,L -.f1^rt,fr'J^ 7.

tLro

L A N G U A G E A C Q U I S I T I O N O R L A N G U A G E S O C I A L I S A T I O N ? 1 I 9

socio-cuitural knolvledge. Rather, it is a question of the struggle or.er meaning at manylevels. Any item produced b1- either side mar' lack stabilitv and create ne.,o' u.rd confusingcontexts. But there is also the struggie over meaning at a more macro socio-polit ical levelHere it is a question of \a-hat counts as meaning. W

"o\4't vv na AS-De l u ( What do?s'understanding' the other's inten?6e;nl;uncertaintv that iuncertaintv that inhabits f lixedjudgements and positions after the event smce it is the gatek , as representatir-e

nt \ \na t l s c l l l fe ren t , o tner , e \en e ano ol

of a major social institution, controls the u'ar,in rvhich realitv is represented and contributes

,

Pe r ; ; ; i ; ; ; duc to [ t h "g "@,as I i nd i ca tedabove ln thecaseo fAbdelmalek,ar

orthodoxgggg.t "l

socialisation. Abdelmalek mav be developing a competence in. -interpreting change of topic cues and er,en in understanding the goals of such counsell ingintervieu's. But the developing competence that results from such socio-cultural knorvledgemav bema), be match e d h)' r- hi gJ ritTli-5infrEie si stance . Sffi

. , - r uDe long lng ln a ne \ \ - communl l \ ano \e t lne lns i l luuons \ \ 'nere language socra l l sa t ton can . . [

- _ _ - - - 1 h e l n s t a b l l l t \ ' o t m e a n i n g a n d t h m p l e x s e t o f

social conditions rvithin lvhich there is the potential for communicative and material successor not and the potential for language socialisation and the readiness for it - or not. Giventhe wider discourses that circulate about ethnic minorities, each intercultural interactioncan both produce relativeiv adverse conditions for ianguage learning and can feed into theservider discourses each time a misunderstanding remains unresolved.

Some methodological implications

The connection betvreen micro and macro-in redefining the domain of SLA has method-ological as rvell as theoreqr_cal imfliqqll-ons. As ser.eral examples m ffi;Faper E;;-rho*:.n,

"@. i l ;d in te rac t iona lsoc io I ingu i . t i .upp .ou .h , i sessent ia l inunderstanding the sequential ordering of interaction but it needs to be complemented bv

"thqggfeptri-._*.qodr. Wh"..us CA is concerned otith th"ffi

by members in accomplishing interact/on, a method lhat will help anall-sts draw g.jg".r.!1,about online inferencing is also needed. I ltrt

";a;t t i n . e s o f a p a r t i c u l a r g r o u P i n o r d e r t o u n d e r s t a n dconventionalised rvavs of interpreting meaning.

Ethnografhic methods are also !reLdSd& uqderstand interactants' subjectivity (Bremer, , oI,1996; G,r*p.rz,19B2b; Pre;; l t95 irr l". pu.-ticfe.tion in the liver oJq-pqq!!!a_r sub-group conEiEGETe anah.sts'""derstanding of p/how minority lvorkers are position m'effect of this on individual motivati al and social investment a ructron

Conclusion

Bv looking at the enr-ironment rvithin r.vhich a particular group of people are expected todevelop communicative competence - minoritv rvorkers in a stratified multilingual society

N,

of social identities lr'ithin ions of domination that characteiEET?iT

I 2 O C E L I A R O B E R T S

- a number of questions have been raised about SLA and its relativelv asocial perspectir.

Language socialisation better describes the process ofbeing a social actor in a new language

butjn its orthodox form it does not full l-account for the connection between micro

interactional processes and the macro social issues.Wider discourses of racism, indifference

and stratificaiion feed into and off local interactional differences, misunderstandings and

covert or explicit opposition.The environments created bv these social forces, at micro and

macro leuels, produce complex and often hosti le conditions for the understanding and

production of i ir.o,rrr" in a second language. Bl examining these conditions, it is possible

io begin to redefine the process of second language acquisit ion as second language

socialiation but in so doing, questions are also raised about anv orthodox SLS' Learning to

belong to a neu..orn-rr.ritu *a1'also mean learning to resist,_or at the least take up an

ambig"uous position i., reiaiio., to the socio-cultural knowledge and discourse-s which

constitute it. As in manv other theoretical and practical areas, the transformation of Western

Europe into a multilingual societv illuminates the process of second language development

and redefines its domain as centrallv concerned lvith the social.

Acknowledgements

Mv thanks are due to Mike Ba-vnham, Ben Rampton, Jo Arditty and MarieTh6rdseVasseur

for comments on earlier drafts of this PaPer.

References

Auer, P. (1992) ' lntroduction: John Gumperz's approach to contextualisation', inAuer, P' & dr

Luzio, A. (eds) Ifie contextualisatton of language (pp. 1-37). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Bourdieu, p. (I9il) Outline oJ a theory oJ practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press'

Bremer, K., Roberts, c., \ 'asseuf, M., Simonet, M. and Breeder, P. (.1996) Achievin;

understanding : D tscourse in jnter cuhural encounter s. London : Longman.

Clvne, M. (1994)lntercuhurdl communicatjon at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Orrff, p. (1996) 'Different languages, different practices: Socialization of discourse comPetenci

in dual-anguage schoofclurr.oo-. in Hungarv', in Bailey', K. and Nunan, D. (eds) /oi';.

Jrom the longrog, classroom: @talitative research in second language education rcseart:

(pp. a07-a33). NervYork: Cambridge Universitv Press'

E"r..ru.rr, S., Prer.ignano, C. andThibault, P. (eds) (1997) Discussing CommunicationAnalysts '

JohnJ.Gumperz (pp. 6-23). Lausanne: Beta Press.

Fairclough, N. ( 1992) Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Politv Press'

qiF6i\ 19 87) There ain't no black in the lJnion Jack London: Hutchinson.

y/ Gurnp"rt). 1t laZu; Discourse stratelies. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversitY Press.

\ --4<{ (1982b) Language and social identttl'. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

- (992) 'Contextuali..t ion u.rd understanding', in Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C. (eci.

Rethinkjn1 Context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (PP. 229-252). Cambridgt

Cambridge Universitv Press.- (1997)',{dis.rlssio.r s' ith John J. Gumperz' (discussants: C. Prevignano andA' di Luzio

in Eerdmans, S., Prevignano, C. andThibault, P. (eds), pp' 6-23

Hal l . S. (1988) 'Nerv ethnic i t ies ' ,1C, '1 Documents,7,2 '7 31 '

Hew-itt, R. (1985) l,Thttetalkblackdk, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kasper, G. and Schmidt, R. (1995)'Developing issues in interlanguage pragmatics'. Studies -

Second Language Acquisition , I 8 , 1+9-1 63 '

L A N G U A G E A C Q U I S I T I O N O R L A N G U A G E S O C I A L I S A T I O N ? L z I

Lantolf, J. and Pavlenko,A. (1995)'Sociocultural theorv and second language acquisit ion'.4 n n t t n l R p v i p u ' n f ] r r l i o , l I i n n t t i r r i r s / ; 1 0 8 - l 2 4 .' * " ' " Y J " r ( " ' " ' " ' d " ' " " " ' '

" ' "

Levinson, S. , (1997) 'Contextual is ing"contextual isat ion cues" ' , in Eermans, S. , Prevignano, C.

andThibault, P. (eds), pp. 2+-30.

Perdue, C. (ed.) (1993) Aduh language acquisit ion. Cross-linguistic perspectives (Vols. 1 and 2).Cambridge: Cambridge Universitv Press

Pierce, B. (1995) 'Socia l ident i tv , investment and language learn ing ' . TESOL Quarter \ ; ,29,o ? 1

Rampton, B. (1995a) Crossing: Language and ethnicity among adolescents. Harlorr': Longman.- (1995b)'Language crossing and the problematisation of ethnicitv and socialisation'

P ragmat i cs ,5 ,485 515 .Roberts, C., Davies, E. and Jupp,T. t l992l Language and discrimjnation.A study o;f communication

in muhiethnic workplaces. Harlou': Longman.

Roberts, C. and Simonot, M. (1987) "'This is mv life": Horv language acquisit ion is

interactionallv accomplished', in Ell is, R. ted. ) jecond language acquisit ion in context (.pp.

1 33-148). Hemel Hempstead: Prent ice-Hal l .

Rogoff, B. (1984)'lntroduction: Thinking and learning in social context', in Rogoff, B. and

Lave, J. @ds) Ever,vdav Cognition:The development in social context (pp. 1-8). Cambridge,

MA: Harvard Universitv Press.

Scarcella, R. (1982)'Discouise accent in second language production', in Selinker, L. and

Gass, S. (.eds) Languagetransfer inlanguage learning (pp. 306 326). Rou.lev, MA: Ner,r.burr'

House.Silverstein, M. (1992) 'The indeterminacv of contextualisation:When is enough enough?', in

Auer, P. , and di Luzio, A. (eds) Iie contextualisation oJ language (pp. 5 5-76). Amsterdam.

Beniamins.Thomas, J. (1983) 'Cross-cultural

pragmatic failure' . Applied Linguistics,l,91-112.

Tyler, A. (1995)'The co-construction of cross-cultural miscommunication'. kudies in Second

Language Acquisttion, 1 7, 129 152.van Dijk,T.,Ting-Toome-v, S., Smitherman, G. andTroutman, D. (.1991) 'Discourse, ethnicit,r,

culture and racism', in van Dijk,T. (ed.) Discourse as social interaction:Discourse studies 2

(pp. 14180; . London: Sage.

C h a p t e r 7

Michael P. Breen

TH E SOCIAL CONTEXT FOR

LEARNING: A NEGLECTED

LANGUAGE

SITUATION?

Introduction

f W I S H T O E X P L O R E T H E B E L I E F that therlassroom will have certain effects

r @ h e a s s u m p t i o n r e s t i n g w i t h i n w . h a t I h a v e t o s a y i s t h a t

relationships can be discovered betw'een the social processes of the classroom group and the

individual psychological process of second language development. Given the present state

of our knowledge about the learning of foreign languages, this assumption is supported

upon tenuous foundations. As most people at least begin to learn new languages in

classrooms, the researcher can hardly fail to locate some variable of classroom life that uill

have a systematic effect upon language learning, or some variable of learning behaviour

which has correlational potential with instructional treatment. The researcher may ask,

"What are the spectJic contributions of the classroom to the process of language devel-

opment?" The assumption being that we mav be able to explain hora/ classroom-based

instruction influences and interacts with learning if we come to understand the special

workings of the classroom context. The teacher's priorities - perhaps more urgent and

direct - are to build upon those inherent features of the classroom situation which ma.

facilitate the learning of u."*- Ianguage.Tlg.leaclerlguestion may be: "ln what ways miglrt

I exploit theseei'al-relirv-pf th" .Iurrroo---

Itus paper olters partlcular ans\\ers to both the researcner s and tne teacner s questlons.

It begins with an examination of the approaches of current research towards the language

class. I offer a particular evaluation of recent developments in investigations devoted to

second language acquisition and to language learning in the classroom situation. This

evaluation, though necessarily brief, has three purposes. First, to identify the possible

contributions of the language classroom rvhich are perceived and revealed by current

research. Second, to identifv rvhat seem to be significant contributions of the classroom

which current research appears to neglect. And third, to deduce certain implications for

future research and for language teaching.

The researcher and the teacher are confronted br. a crucial common problem: how'to

relate social activitl', to psr-chological change and how to relate psychological processing

to the social dvnamics of a group.The researcher must explain these relationships if he is to

understand adequatelv language learning as it is experienced by most people - in a gathering

made up of other learners and a teachet. T .it l

T H E S O C I A L C O N T E X T F O R L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G I 2 3

event with the aim of i s nt . The teacher is obl iged-ontinually to integrate the learning experiences of individuals with the collective andcommunal activities of a group of u'hich, unlike the researcher, he is not an outsider. Theresearcher enters the classroom when a genuine sociocognitive experiment is already wellunder way. In evaluating the findings of research, because of abstraction from the daily llfeof the class, we need to discover and make clear for ourselves the particular perceptions of aclassroom which r!'e, as researchers, hold either before we enter it or subsequent to thecollection of our data. It is a truism of social anthropology that no human sociaiinstitutionso r re la t i onsh ipscanbeadequa te l vunde rs toodun lessaccoun t f f i

/ ra lues, and bel ie ts that thel engaqe. ' lh is is no less t rue of the inst i tu t ion of research.Thedefinit ion of the classroom situation that we hold wil l influence how we perceive theclassroom group and how we might act w-ithin it, and this is as unavoidable for the researcheras it is for a teacher or a learner. One of the paradoxes of research is to challenge taken-for-granted beliefs whilst, at the same time, clinging to beliefs which sustain the researchendeavour. Belief allows the researcher (and many teachers and learners) to take for grantedthe capacitv 6fi to metamorDhose r uts into learning outcomes

t\4een teaching and learning, or isit a.-.-=-'-ief sustained primarilv bv the social we invest in a gatherins of te

Can we detect particular definitions of the classroom situation within current languagelearning research? What metaphors for a classroom are available to us as researchers atpresent? I wish to explore two metaphors for the classroom that emerge from tvr-o reientand influential research traditions. I ar.n conscious that there may be as manl.metaphorsfor the classroom as there are researchers in language learning. But I have to be brief and Iam encouraged to generalise here by the tendencv ofresearchers to seek securitv aroundparticular dominant paradigms or wavs of seeing. I One prevailing metaphor is the clparttcular domtnant paradigms or wavs of seeing.' One prevailing metaphor is the classroomas elperimental laboraqqry, and another, more recently emergent, is the clas#oom as, . - - - f #

discourse. I wll l brieflv exolore both.discourse. Ililfbriefly explore both.

The classroom

^l/ l* a

i bn-Jr*XWe are encouraged to regard the clasi ntal laboratory by the area oftheorl 'a@ec-ond Language Acq,uigition ISLA,1. Its tradition caiE?ictostudiesinrirst;" j:;#ift:;.'X:macquisit ion of certain grammatical morphemes, through the comprehensive theoriesof Krashen, and up to the recent flowering in the identification of learner strategies fromretrospective accounts offered by individual learners - either verbally or within learningdiaries.The primary function of the language classroom as implied or sometimes directly

to provide linguistic data that are finsllruned for the efficient processing of new know-ledge;classrooms can w'ash learnets ttitir optimlearners accounts of their olvn strategies encourage us to deduce further that the classroomis a place in which we might reinforce good language-iearning strategies so that the inputbecomes unavoidably optimal. As the mainstream of SLA research rests on the assumptionthat the comprehension of input is the catalyst of language development, it implies arole for the teacher that is delimited vet complex. In essence, either the teacher must

I

I

experimental laborator

recommended bl' SLA research is that the learner, by being placed in a classroom, can be ff

:xposgd ,!o a certain kind of ling";stie I

des i rab le - Iea rn ingou tcomes .Here , theva lueandpu rposeo f t hec l l l s roomis i t spo ten t i a l l l

I 2 4 M I C H A E L P . B R E E N

facilitalrcomprehensi

i-rner inclinations the teacher learning behavioirs

so that each learner ma.' *tain a repertoire of effici atesies. The SLA

66m implies teacher as sur ntal

Iearners as subject to behavioural reinforcement.

Mof thelanguageclassroomleavesuswl thani lmberofunresolvedproblems t}at warrant more attention if we seek to understand the relationship between a

language class and language learning. First, the interesting variables of linguistic input

anJthe strategic behaviour of learner s are not special to classrooms.They were not uncovered

as prevail ing features of classroom life at all.2The second and perhaps more significant

problem is that tw-o crucial intervening variables seem to have been bypassed by SLA

."r.u..h. Both of these variables are centrallv related to the processing of input. Both will

determine rvhat a learner might actually intake.-SLA research whic! emplgglggaQgristic

input (provided_llinltruction or exposure) as the ilariable and somellter

over any actire 'ith-TtTE6-earj reliance on I

Ite a 6r plvchological c[ange there is a resultant ,suPerficiality in its

\r - - - - | ) o o

, { 4 .__ j * -attention to learners' internal perceptual processes. The research takes f6i-pffihTed-What

--------------.--- rr .. I l t . ,l

t t , ' " l@t ima l fo rh im .More fundamen ta l I y ' i t doesno tadd re j ss thequestion oI' how a learner selectir-elr perceives parts of l inguir,i. tff i .@T.n-a

_worffi lace. Therefore, the interveni@

u t i s n e g i e c t e d ' G i v e n i h e i m p o r t a n c e a t t a c h e d t o

.o*p."h".rrion by SLA ,"r.u..h it seems paradoxical that the active reinterpretat)dn and

reconstruction of anv input bt' the learner is not accounted for. The search for correlations

between, for example, the frequency of a grammatical form in input and the frequent

occurrence of that form in some later learner performance seems motivated by a rather

narrow view of human learning. The research leads us to a causal conditioning as opposed

to a cognitive and interactive explanation of language development. We are left unsure hor

these investigations primarily coiffi rners are unpredictable, inconsistent, and

sometimes seeminglv inefficient processors. Thus, the same learning outcome can

be achieved bv different strategies while different learning outcomes can be achieved bv.

the same strategy. Investigations into Iearner strategies have not yethelped us to understand

how or why it is that one thing can be interpreted or learned bv any two learners

with seemingly different profiles of strategies. Until we understand these things, the

capacity of instruction to encourage or shape desirable or efficient strategic behaviour of

Iearners remains unfounded.3This problem emerging from t}e data we derive from learners

concerning their strategies leads to the second crucial intervening variable which seems

to be neglected in SLA research. Learners certainlv are strategic in how they go about

learning, but if we ask them u'hat thev think thev do, or if they keep a diary of what

they do, such retrospections, inevitablv posr hoc rationalisations, will exhibit a coherence

that bears onlv metaphorical resemblance to the actual moment of learning. Something

intervenes betw-een a learner's introspections to a researcher or to a diary reader, just as

something intervenes between input to a learner and benveen rvhat a learner has intaken

and some later test performance. I suggest that one thinq u'hich crucially intervenes is the

learner's definition of situation: the definition oibeing an informant to someone investigating

strategies, the deflnit ion of being a language learner in a classroom, and the definit ion of

doing a test. If we hope to explain fullv the relationship betu'een classroom input and

T H E S O C I A L C O N T E X T F O R L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G 1 2 5

learning outcomes, or to explain possible relationships between strategic behaviourand language learning, then *.s_nqed to locate these Tlationships socially. Aow and whvlearners do what they do

Titl b," strongl_y influenced

and by their perceptions of both.a -(Given t-hat lve rvish to understand how.the external social situation of a classroom relates

to the internal psvchological states of t}re learner, tlre metaphor of the classroom as providerof optimal input or reinforcer of good strategies is inadequate.ltreduces the act or experi-ence of learning a language to linguistic or behavioural conditioning somehow independentof the learner's social reality. Not onlv is SLA research currentlv offering ,,s a delimitedaccount of language learning, reducing active cognition to passive internalisation andreducing language to verv specific grammatical performance, the mainstream of SLAresearch is also asocial. It neglects the social significance ofeven those variables which theinvestigators regard as central. The priority given to l inguistic and mentalistic variablesin terms of the efficient processing of knowledge as input leads inevitably to a partialaccount of the language learning process. The social context of learning and the sociafforceswithin it will always shape what is made available to be learned and the interaction ofindividual mind with external linguistic or communicative knowledge. EvenWundt, thefirst experimgntal psych ou]d not studv hisherr'eGial66.E;",su6h ai reasoning, belief, and language in a laboratoly precisely b:Sgglg-glgb

recent research traditionwere rootecl wrt

dn oflspring of work rn ress intervening social variables. This traditionprovides mv second metaphor.

Recent classroom-based or classroom-oriented research explicitlv seeks to describe whatgelually happens in a rather special social situation.This reiear.hrelies upon methods ofconversational and sociolinguistic data collection and analysis, thereby seeking to offer aricher and less prescriptive account ofclassroom language learning than earlier investigationsof the comparative effects of different teaching methodologies.6 Classroom-orlented

ees teacher , IFt,-6G'a t/as variable l(researcher explores the classroom aJa-

participation by learners, various error treatments by teachers, and specific features ofclassroom talk such as teacher evaluation, teacher-learner negotiation, and prevalentinstructional speech acts including displav questions, formulation o,

"*plu.r"i ion, and

message adjustment. Although much of this research seems to avoid beinq intentionallyexplanatorv in terms of the possible effects of classroom discourse r'rpon lung:rruge learning,some investigators seek to correlate selected features of classroom talk with certain learn-ing behaviours or learned outcomes. Classroom-oriented research rests on the assumptionthat the discourse of a ianguage class will reveal w-hat is special and important aboui thatIanguage learning situation. It intends no practical implications for the teacher, althoughsome of the more overtly correlational studies may encourage the teacher to assume th-athe must endeavour to orchestrate his own and the learners'contributions to the discourseaccording to conversational moves or speech acts which exemplify "good" instruction and"good" learner participation.

Clearly, this focus upon the actual discourse of classroom communication providesa valid location ifrve rvish to begin to understand the experience oflearning a language in

T 2 6 M I C H A E L P . B R E E N

a classroom. However, even with such an ecologically valid point of departure, cuffent

classroom-oriented research leaves us with tr,vo important areas of uncertainty. We have

to question the extent to which the surface text of classroom discourse can adequatelr

between n9o

formulation of a rule, for example, and a learner's later use or reformulation of that rule

- does not expla in h. ; . ; ; t : " - i endencl

on the ,rrp"rfi.i"l features of classroom talk can force us to deduce that if other learners in

the class iailed to use the rule correctly or w'ere unable to reformulate it the[ the teacher's

original formulation was inadequate. But what of the internal dimensions)f classroom

corimunication: the learners' lrariable perception, reinterpretation, and accommodation of

whatever may be provided through classroom discourse? In these matters, classroom-

oriented research seems to share a ps,vchological naivety with SLA research.

The second area of uncertainty is perhaps more fundamental. Most current

classroom-oriented research paradoxically reduces the external dimensions of classroom

communication, the actual social event, to observable features of the talk between teacher

and learners. Sixty years ago, Edr'r'ard SaPir cannot use observable data

alone from s even II \4 m to describe them uatelv. Nor can ue

i@roughour"v. 'o iTi fweeueiseektoexplainwhatthosedata actually mean.Even Del Hvmei, who was foremost in proposing the ethnographrv of

speaking *iri.h now underlies much sociolinguistic research, also insisted that if we wish

,eu.ul th. underlving social psychological forces which generate it (the exoectations, beliefs

andat t i tudesof thqpa4q!E!p4!) .andaIsoreveaI thesociocog" i@

t ifi@.i.tions and learning it provokes). This central issue leads us back into

ih" lorrg-"rtablished debate on the poisible relationships between communicaai"g.lltt

lear.rini, betw'een language and cognition. A number of the correlational studies within

.lurr.oo--oriented research avoid the complexities of this debate by appearing to assume

6|rat certain phenomena in clasgrolm discourse cause,learnin$Looccur. Anv correlation

hetween observable f 'eatures of discourse and testable learning ofr;", I u t"u.h"r',

nd"q,-,u,lety to explain any speech event we .r".d to discover its existential and experiential

,ig.rifi"u.r.. for. thor. taking part.TThese proposalsimply that the-meanings and values oi

.l"ur..oo- discourse reside behind and beneath what is said and unsaid. {-5eseerrcher's

they investin the overt communication of the class. Put simplyrthe discourse of the classroom

does not itseh re'eal *hut th. t"""hur. arrd th.

inteisubjecti't e experience. The subjective experience of teacher and. - ^ - r : r - - l ^ ^ ^ - l - - ^ f ^ * - ^ 1 , . , ^ , . , of doing things. Th.

and learner share.is@urposes, attitudes, and preferred ways

inte f the "text" of classroom discourse has derived throush the participants'

i"@?Eir.tutiont of thuiffir". th" teu n as error

'a l."rn.rZ Is a learner'frequest for information - even if- lto as sucn

bvf f ip ieceof t ime-wast ingore\ .enexpressingsomethingelseent i re l r?

Is superficial negotiation of meaning or a learner's generation of further input evidence of

the wish to learn more?

To begin to understand language learning experience in a classroom the researcher

must discover what teacher and taught themselves perceive as inherent within the discourse

of lessons. More importantly, recent classroom research clearly shows the researcher as

someone who invests into his text of classroom discourse certain patternedness or

meaningfulness. Classroom communication, l ike anv text, realizes and carries meaning

potentiJ . Because of this, if we wish to discover what the teaching and learning of a language

i.r u "lurrroom

is for the people undertaking it, we need to know rvhat orderliness and sense

learners in a classroon

c\utt

intersubjectit 'e experience derives from and maintains teacher

T H E S O C I A L C O N T E X T F O R L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G L 2 7

definitions, conventions, and procedures which enable a working together in a crowd. Ofcourse, the discourse of a classroom mav provide a lvindolv onto the surface expressionof the intersubjective experience and even onto momentar-v expressions of subjectiveexperiences, for these tlvo dimensions of experience must interrelate and influence oneanother. However, classroom discourse alone allolvs us a partial vielv from which we areobliged to describe others' experiences as if "through a glass darklv."

Classroom-oriented research shares w.ith SLA studies tJTe tendency to reduce or avoidconsideration of certain intervening variables rvhich inevitabl-v influence how and whylearners mav internalise input and hor,v and rvhy learners interact w.ith a teacher in the waysthey do.This reductionism is characterised bv an emphatic focus upon linguistic performance- upon observable features oflanguage and discourse.To be fair, neither research traditionmav intend to understand or even explain language learning in the classroom situation.However, any researcher r,vho tries to correlate features of linguistic performance data interms of classroom input w'ith some learning outcome is, at least implicit ly, seeking apossible explanation of that learning outcome. And such an explanation can only be causal.Classroom research is not asocial like SLA research, but it does share a non-cognitive vievi' lA

qtl"gryi:"gprysron ano...on*^Eilr-iG-pur o 1rinput as d iscourse rather than merel l grammat ica l data. @'oom-or iented researchperceives the learner as ac to the discourse.ffi

i ff i 'non-contributions.oEF*;T.,, ' ing?Learnersandteachersare

not dualities of social being and mental being - an idea appareitl@Iby the very separateness of SLA and classroom-oriented research pnorrtres. lt rs rncumbentupon classroom-based investigations of language learning to;count for those socialpsychological forces rvhich generate classroom discourse and for those socio-cognitiveeffects of the discourse even 3[its objective is primarilv to describe social phenomena. If thesubjective and intersubjective experiences ofand from classroom discourse are reduced towhat we can find in the discourse alone, then rve are allowed to deduce that classroom

;i. ^i;

;;;;;; '; i londitioning - no more nor less th". ,o"iul U

determinism! Jn"<g-It appears that the tu.oYnelgg[9p-for the classroom u,hich@t

'er definitions of the classroom situation which se.* to\-"qle.iiE" ,o.i"lrJiit

of lan f . -

learnlnq as 1t E exDerl y teachers and learners. metaDhors

unloitunately constrain our understanding of language learning because e@Les fof_granted crucial intervening psvchological and social variables w'hich are the fulcra upon1 f f i j - ch language Iea rn ing i sba lanced .@t iono l l ea rne rsand thesoc i i l____----ii:v---and psvchological forces which permeate the processes of teaching and learning must residewithin anv explanation concerning horv and why people do what they do when they worktogether on a new language. More seriouslv, perhaps, both contemporary metaphorsimplicitly reduce human action and interaction to classical conditioning, wherein,learnersthough superficiallv participating are essentiall-v passive respondents to observable linguisticand discoursal stimuli. It therefore appears necessary that research has sti l l to adopt adefinition of the classroom rvhich will e h coonitive and social variables so that

their mutual influence can be better understood. More precis"ly *-nEET...,"t.pFotclassroom neri can be viewed as thinking social actors

6recf

rr [7+

sP't'ol

P(oI

and not reduced to generators of input-ou\p-urifor analyzed as dualities of either conceptualor soclal Dernqs. rernaPs tne metap e a basis for the svnthesis of.or soclal Delngs. rernaPs the metapnor 1ve requrre can proude a basts tor the synthesrs ol1--;#SLA and classroom-oriented research endeavours whilst necessarily being more com-prehensive than both. These deductions lead me to propose a third metaphor for theclassroom in the hope that it might further facil i tate our understanding of classroom

&e

1 2 8 M I C H A E L

ianguage learning'

rnore exPetientialry

researchers.

P . B R E E N

One of the characteristics of mv third metaphor is that it is likely to be

fu-lti", to most language teactrers and learners than it may be to some

A proposal that the .lu.ooiill*",ion could be perceived as coral gardens may be initially

reacted to as rather oaa fft" metaPhor d"'iui' from Malino*t[]-:'*t:]t:i:":Y::"::

;::'rJ":fi;;;i,;, in particuiar those investigations he described in corat Gardens

andrheir Magic.l off" th" -"t"phorF+Re it'"t;11'Ll;:: TTI''{'*'"! 'h

a"no,.atocl'assroomlanguaselearl'"(q'^":^1'"'.::ili::::,lo'*:tH:iJ,l,i::l:T:

e classroom f,s coral gardens)

ili *"t" s*"ted m"g,t-il-tE;l-iut t bv rs, a ranguagc Lr4Jr -class - outwardlY

insists that we perceive the language class as tftilllure hnd worth i!Yg!!gt'rg as

:"::,'r::1""-:ffi;ilt;;^;;^;;;:J.o-,,,o., purpose - i, q,' u'."a of subiectiue_eld

t::::il::,,"":"::il;.,,vhich -" -er "'::: locate and defineorraiir iolbackgrounlio thetasks oJ teacnlng anQ teultt lttS s 'utauvav' ̂ , '"r ^----

t1e new language itr"lf u, if it nevei existed"before, "ttd

"thty clntinually specify and mould

the activities of teaching and learning' In essence' the metaPhor of cl11.::l i:::::9:*::

oco_ # _r"

necessarilY an antwithinTTilma-n grouP' our investigations a - .-t-

ical endeavour.w l t h l n a n u m a n R I U l P ' " : ' , . j : " " - 5 - * " ; - - f f i p o I o g i c a l

C@;naa'a;r'n*11 1T o,@6 *" rto,-,ld explore.lu.r-- ttFtlg$-l* ils;5;;t it. And,humrutY

(@TMln.

u' vvr )rrvuru '^r'" ' ----i; tr*;st in a social situation\th s

il i' t"o5-lqperlelt, ,,* 2s oardens ot6fi. on *hii might be obser'ed as i f f iustasgardensof

such.8...-3%-" -n adopt this definition of the classroom situation, .n"t

i":"1*::1.*,",t-*t': ^ ^ - I t A + - - ^ f o l " . o r r : o r -

,.,n':;;;ii""' ii,.;;;;;;;;;";rs we:T "PP'ou:n t:,11::" t-:::..,:1.:]:.c::'

r r ' - -^--

-^ r - -^- . , . l^ l^^ - " .

i .vnlv inq socio-

:;r.'_;3;;;;g;., u.,J ."air.overing of lu.,g,.ug.. knowledge - as involving socio-L - , l ^ l : . ^ : + , ; ^ - o ^ f r i l c:'#:-J:"J"T;:1';';;;";;;;;";";;"" ^ f::':::lf^::l::f:i*:'"::'"'::"f:Il

;:il'.il;:i.,;;;;;;;;"';;';iar activities,;T'ot'1"1'"?::::fl::':::,i:i:i::ff:,!il:"il#;;."mprehension as central, *r'ir'tit'. J"'T:'*-A;*H

:omDrehension within the intersubjective construction of meantnqlutness attu utc r*"1""" -' " " ' ( - - ' - -

: F i i . .oJ "^ - . . "hens ib le .

ln o ther uords ' Input l sreinterpretatron oI *ttutt"tt .,'"v o" tttott"diiliLEilibk"llother'w1:t:^'**-

" of the class Bene-ratesu-nfamiliar by those r'r-ho participate in its e

T:::::: J* r:: :*:i T1?::.'#ffi;;;;s *#r,g i., j"tior,. clur...,omloriented research explores the discourse

of lessons, rvhilst th. tl"'s'Jorn as culture extends across islands "t*tt-::"I]::li::::::

I:tililrffiil;. intentions and interpretations which only rarely touch,the surface

of talk and which th" dlr.or.r.re itself oft"r, d'"lib"tately hides' The discourse of lessons will

mainiy symbolise*fr" f".,i.iPants contribute to thot" lt"o"s and it will not signify what

th.v u"t.t"lly invest in ih"t ot derive from them'

It is, of course, incumbent uPon me to justify my own belief in the classroom as genuine

culture. In order to meet th. .ha.g" that such "

rn"iuphot may b; too idealised or abstract'

I need to identifv some of the essJntial features of thl cttlt"re of the language classroom' I

wi l lbr ie f lYdet . ' lb .@

1,)The culture

T H E S O C I A L C O N T E X T F O R L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G I 2 9

of the classroom is interactive

The language class involves all its participants in verbal and non-verbal interaction ofcertain

in the class. Therefqre the researcher needs to be w'ary of assuming that the patterns ofinteraction which we perceive as si the same salience tor teacher a

tiuiht.4 special characteristic of the language class is that interaction is further motivate

kinds. This interaction exists on a continuum from ritualised, predictable. phatic

communrcatron to dvnamic, unpredictable, d iversely in terpreted communicaTi ,o i lOl

course 'humanrnteract ionu- i l lbere lat i re11. loca1edonf f ioc ia l

situations. One special characteristic of classroom interaction, however, is that it is motivatedb1'the assumption that people can learn together in a group.This means that a high premiumis pl5!_upon_l9lsens,ur tuhilr, - i.r.tff idfgr, ult.rr.t ir ndnegotiable meaning r.r'ill paradoxicall-v be the norm, and from which participants will seekt ts nr.ill impose their own purposes.Thisis not to sav that the observable interaction rvill not be patterned or constrained, but thatit is very likely to be patterned differently in the interpretations invested in it by each person

by the assumption that people can objectifv a language and talk about it and analyse it in

wavs they may not naturallv do if left alone. Th-e lanquaqe class implies metalinguistic

i n t e r a c t i o n . H o w e v e r , i t i s o f t e n f u r t h e r u . , u * u i d .

oppor6nilles for genuine interaction through the new l".rg.r"g" code. A language class. I - l - H

entaifs interaction /"bST{__1.!g!age_and interaction lthrougFl/anBua7es in continual

juxtaPosluon.. #--TIIlEest

and other characteristics of the interactive process of the language class mav

or may not be efficient or optimal for language learning. However, all represent the jnherent

authenticit)/ of the interaction within a language class given the external constraints of space,

time, participation, etc., w'hich tvpifv anv classroom devoted to any subject matter.

A significant paradox for the language teacher - a paradox of which teachers are w'ell aware- is that the established interaction which is evolved and maintained by the culture of the

classroom group often conflicts lvith efforts towards communication through the newlanguage. Communication in the new language requires the temporary suspension of those

cultural conventions governing the evervday interaction ofthe particular classroom group.It requires communication r,t'hich is, in fact, inauthentic to the interactive context inwhich it has to occur. This implies that one of the conventions assumed to be honoured by

participants in the culture of a language class is the wil l ingness and capacity to suspenddisbelief, to participate in simulated communication within classroom-specific interaction.e

/4\. _ _

'qhs{Iure oJ the classroom is differentiare\

Although the language class mav be one social situation, it is a different social context for all

those who participate within it.The culture of th" .l"rr.o

6FEiff.t".rt social rei'iiRfhis means that the c9!!g{ofl9ss9!L(the language being taught) /and the p (the things being done) are both coljlnugll1- 4interpreteddi f ferenth.u ' th" l i@heclassroomisthemeet ing/

point ofi 'arious subjective r-ier,r 's of language, diverse learning purposes, and different

preferences concerning how' Iearning should be done. Such differentiation brings with it

potential for disagreement, frustrated expectations, and conflict. The culture of the

.lur..oo^ do., .roi erase these differences; it contains them. A major'ca-a'Il6-g?1or%iEF \und l" f l icting internal iocial realit ies )

t a k i n d o f s u b i e c t i v e a n a r c h v | ) a n d a n e x t e r n a l r e a l i t r ' , , h i /

l(I'

individual and the social world of the group,u.ecll lsn! juxtaposition of

experiences and communal teaching-t;#"g

1 3 0 M I C H A E L P . B R E E N

The outside observer has access to the compromise lvhich results, but we would be naive

to deduce that such a compromise represents what is actuallv intended or perceived as the

social realit,v for anv one Person in the class.

The culture of the classroom represents a tension between the internal world of the

'reality, a mind of its olvn, which

-s trom thrs tuxtaDoslt lon.

) l

group s \ -a lues, meanrngs.

F-. thu.r the sum of the individual psychological orientations of teacher and learners.

departure for psychological change. A teacher and a learner have to discover rfict definition

of situation r,vhich seems to maintain the group and its activities - riat definition of situation

which will be relativelv distinct from their personal definitions. This involves all members

of the group in empathising with the roles and views of others and continually checking

such external frames of reference. The individual has to

fs, and attitudes it generates) implies that

the researcher should be wary of crediting the classroom with powers separable from what

individual learners actuallv mafte classrooms do for them, and similarly wary of crediting

individual learners with powers separable from what the classroom group provides. An

individual learner in a classroom is engaged in both an individual learning process and a

group teaching-learning process.Therefore individual psychological change will continually

relate to group psvchological forces.The researcher is obliged to discover tlese two worlds

because they are distinctive. To inJer individual learning process from classroom process or

vice versa w'ill lead to a partial understanding of classroom Ianguage learning. We need to

exnlore both and how thev relate one to the other.

Our mem 6-ur behaviour rvill be evaluated against certain

norms and conventions - membership entails sho*tii we

assrooms are very special in this regard. Schools an are among the main

t oI'us enteidlrinq

continual and exolicit evaluation of our worth as \earners.When a e learner enters a

classroom. he anticipates that the evaluation of him as a leiTfrEi to be a crucial partr €

oI _tnat expe

reducing the potential threat of negative judgements of one's capabilities will impinge upon

whatever internal criteria a learner mar- evolve regarding his own learning progress.

offfitGxFEiience.Tffi-implies that the search for external criteria for success in coping

with language leaining and, less optimisticallv perhaps, the day-to-day search for ways of

culture oJ the classroom is highly normative,

our l i-.s, our vie*s of classrooms wil l be silrnif icanth coloured bv this init ial experierce.

More importantly, our personal identities as learners w'ithin a group derive much from such

experience.This is due to the fact that our public learning selves have been moulded by a

T H E S O C I A L C O N T E X T F O R L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G 1 3 1

Learners in a class will obviouslv varv with regard to tleir relative dependence upon external

and internal criteria. However, one ofthe prevalent features ofthe culture ofthe classroom

is the establishment of overt and covert criteria against which its members are continually

judged. In I1q-. of the classroom refies the persons who participate

within it in(a l I t t teachers an teachers,

characteristic of classroom life implies for the researcher that we need to discover the overt

and covert grorrp .rit"ri" (ond -

*h 'a

error corrections are consistentlv based upon objective linguistic criteria or are otherwise

apparently random would lead to a superficial analysis of phenomena which, though opaque,

are deeply significant for a teacher and learners in the particular classroom.

\.fficifture of the classroom is arymm-dilita*-1

Because teaqhers are exBected to knou- lvhat learners are expected not to know, certain

.J [ Iu. 'dpsychologicalconsequencesinevi tablyobta infor@

"b6fiiners," "adv " participators, etc., etc. P[f51IEill

theTanguage class is a hlv normative and evaluative environment wE-iEh engages teacher

and tqe€b! in conlilgiuudgement of each othe@s members who

are supposed to learn and a member u.ho is supposed to teach. This highly normative

class. The culture of the classroom insists upon asymmetrical relationships. The duties and

r i g h t s o f t e a c h e r a n d t a u g h t a r e d i f f e r e n t . M o . u u

beeoua] ]vre]uctant toupset theasYmmetrvofro lesandident i t ie . tof f in most societies perhaps all, despite some relative variation - an

taril@ltp betu'een teacher and taught is a contradiction of what a classroom rl. Teachers arners are ver)-+ lgraoualr \

-establishing the precise degree of asymmetry w'hich enables them to maintain a relativelr'

harmonious *oi.i.rg gro.ri As teachers, \\'e are also familiar r,vith a class which erodes rvhat

they perceive as being too democratic or too authoritarian an approach on our part, even

though we ourselves may perceive our teaching style as consistently something else entirely!

Here is a paradox. Learners gjut a te to a role and identitv ofteacher.

And a teacher has ib ta.n uties in t arnlng grouD.- - I

ffiffitFistory of the tribe marches behind the teacher, and a teacFer throug

unfoldinq culture "f

th" pq$i."lu. "lutttoot

to learners. Indeed, one of the rights andluties of a teacher is to do precisely tlatl However,

ffiffi.i.ul relationships do not only exist betw'een teacher and taught. Sub-groupings

which are asvmmetrical with the dominant classroom culture also emerqe and orosoer. such

as ant i -academic peer groupings o, . . . , " t " 1"" . " . . , *h

successful or less successful and ev6fil--o$iwho share a common identity (such- as

f r o o m . T h u s , n o t o n l y i s t h e c u l t u r e o f t h e c l a s s r o o m

individually differentiated yet collective, it is also made up of sub-grorrl. which develop for

themselves mainly covert, though sometimes overtly expressed, roles and identities which

are potentiallv asymmetrical rvith both the dominant culture and with other sub-groupings

in the class.

Asvmmetry of roles and identities, and of the rights and duties they bear, derives from

and further generates conceptual and affective dissonances. Asymmetrical relationships very

often entail disagreement in beliefs, in attitudes, and in values held.The collective nature

of the classroom culture and the negotiated compromises which permeate the teaching-

learning process often hide within themselves - sometimes w-ith difficulty and often onlv

I 3 2 M I C H A E L P . B R E E N

fbr a tirnc - difl'crcnt views of what should be happening in a class and what should not.

Tlris suggcsts that, although the nature of interpersonal and intergroup relationships within

the language classroom may be complex and changing, the researcher needs to uncover

what these are if we wish to describei what happens in the class and further interpret this

as it is experienced by those within the class. As researchers in the past, we have tended to

be teacher-centred in our assuming that the major asymmetry in role and identity, and thelikely Iocation of dissonance in perceptions and effects, resides between the teacher andthe rest. We have also perhaps underestimated the possible effects - both negative and

positive - of asymmetry and dissonance within the classroom upon the language learning

process . 1 o

Perhaps one of the best wavs of revealing the established culture of the classroom group is

to try to introduce an innovation which the majority neither expects nor defines asappropriate. Most teachers have had direct experience of the effort to be radical in theirapproach with a class (be it through different material, tasks, or procedure, etc.) and have

suffered the experience of at least initial rejection. A genuine cultureis one in which itsmembe Iative har actorv mi l ieu. As such th insstake time to develop. inp' which the gro rceives as chanse will also take time tobe absorbed or it wil l be resisted as deviant. (This does not mean that harmony wil lnecessarily reign in the classroom, for even apparent anarchy - as long as it is the preferredethos of that group - may be quite consistent with a definition of classroom life for someseemingly unsocialised collection of learners!). In essence, a classroom group seeks aparticular social and emotional equilibrium just as soon as it can - even one

- 1'newlvseem to titheticalto-Iffi

established order. The indivi arner risks ostracisation from the group ifhe does not -

overtly at least - conform, and the teacher risks rebellion in various forms if he does nothonour the conventions expected bv the collective definition of what a language teachershould be. Although thls conservative spirit has its origins in the prior educationalexperiences of the learners, each new classroom group reinvents "tle rules of the game" inways which both reflect and form the classroom-culture assumptions of the particularparticipants who are suddenly sharing each others' company. It has to be said, of course,that a teacher may participate in this conservatism and, indeed, work through it in order tohelp develop group harmonv, security and efficient ways of working. And teachers arecertainly familiar with the dilemma of wishing to innovate whilst being cautious ofdisruption. This means that the very presence of a researcher, or even the awareness withinthe group that thev are the focus of apparentlv objective evaluation and study will mobilisechange. Our personal experience of having someone visit our home for the first time andthen looking at it with them, as if seeing it through their eyes, can remind us of the effectof intrusion. In a sense, the classroom changes in the eyes of those within it and, tJrerefore,wlLL change in certain rn'avs.This is, of course, the truism of observer effect. But there is also

tglbcryg*fgl4.-1n that the classroom we now see will be in a state of dis-equilibrium:it will not be the same cl;ssroom as vesterday and w-e will be investigating a classroom groupwhich is ner,vly adapting in a number of subtle rvays. This phenomenon can be either badnews or good news for the researcher. It will render short-term, one-shot investigationsinto classroom language learning largely"invalid and unreliable. If, on the othe, haid, *eapproach studies of classroom language learning on a longitudinal basis, then we may beable to explore the process of re-establishment of social and emotional equilibrium which

social dvnamic of the ins is ts that lessons evol

T H E S O C I A L C O N T E X T F O R L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G I 3 3

our initial arrival challenged. In other words, 1r'e mav uncover more precisely the "rulesof the game" u'hich represent the self-maintaining culture of that particular working group.

Whilst we may accept the truism that all knowledge is sociallv constructed - most especiallvif we are working wi{ the knowledge of a language and how it is used between people -

we need to consider how classroorns re-construcr knowledge. In a language class, theclassroom group togeth" e (the coiten-t oflessons),

but toge-ther also jointlv constructs the lessons i ihE-Fiiar or not thaieacher plans a lesson in advance, the actual we4<jng gut of

socia l dJrnamic of the group ins is ts that lessons evolve. throqgh expl ic i l or - imol ic i t /negotiation. In whatever wavs the lesson mav be perceived bv those who participate in it, Qpp*

f[iToit takes wil l be drawn bv the joint contributions of most, if not all, of the members . - -, 'n,of the class. Teachers and learners are well aware that lessons are rarely straightforw ̂ ra 4//M*journevs but are punctuated bv hesitant starts, diversions, momentary losses of momentum, U'

interesting side tracks, and unexpected breakdowns. That it may be better to plan classroom

learning in advance has little to do with this entirely normal and creative evolution of

l essons . t t

Several important implications for the researcher result from the fact that the content

and process of language classes are jointlv constructed. First, any teacher-centred (or

researcher-centred) perspective on lessons is partial. Second, the researcher's background

knowledge of the actual language being worked upon in a class can be a serious handicap

because it potentiallv blinds us to the process of re-invention of tlat language which teacher

and taught engage in together. (This implication warns us against relying on external

linguistic criteria alone in assessing the nature of comprehensible input, for example.)The

problem reminds us of a similar gap betrn-een the teacher's definition of the new language

and the different learners'definitions.There are likelv to be as manv versions of the new

Ianguage, and changing versions of it, as there are people in the room.Third, the researcher

has to be continually wary of being dazzled by what seems salient in classroom life. For

example, even the most passive or non-contributorv learner in a class can be a poltergeiston the proceedings. Silence, encouraged or not, is a characteristic part ofthe culture ofthe

classroom and it has great significance. Silence or w'ithdrawal can change a Iesson just as

powerfully as their opposites, and not just for the person w'ho w-ithdraws, but also for all

the others who sense it.The fourth implication of the joint construction of the content and

process of a language class is particularlv significant for researchers who wish to examine

the effects of classroom language learning. The fact that lessons-in-process are communal

endeavours means that any learning outcome, for any member of the class, has been socially

processed. The actual nature of individual achievements has been communally moulded.

The culture of the classroom inevitably mediates between a new language and a learner in

class. The culture of a particular class will shape what is made available for learning, will

work upon what is made available in particular ways, will evolve its own criteria for progressand achievement, and rvill attain specific and various objectives. (lt is worth emphasising

here that linguistic input is only a part of the first of these classroom-based phenomena.)What someone learns in a language class will be a dynamic synthesis of individual

and collective experience. Individual definit ions of the new language, of what is to be

attended to as rvorth learning, ofhorv to learn, and personal definitions ofprogress will all

culture oJ the classroom is jointly construct

T 3 4 M I C H A E L P . B R E E N

interact with the particular classroom culture's dehnitions of each of these things. If strictlv

individualised or autonomous language learning is desirabie or even possible then the

classroom is necessarih' antlthetica\ torvards it.The \anguage I \earn in a classroom is a

communal product detit ed through a jointlv constructed Process.

What is overtly done in a classroom and what can be described by an observer are

epiphenomena; thev are reductions of classroom reality. How things are done and why things

nr" do.r. have particular psychological signilicance for the individual and for the group. The

particular culture of a language class w-iil socially act in certain ways, but these actions are

Lxtensions or manifestations of the psychology of the group, its collective consciousness and

subconscious. Individual perceptions and definitions w-ill, of course, feed into and evoh'e

from those of the group. However, the socio-cognitive world of the class - its culture - u'ill

be a world other than the sum of the individual worlds within it.What is signtfcant for learners

(and a teacher) in a classroom is not oniy their individual thinking and behaviour nor, for

instance, a longer-term masterv of a syllabus, but the day-to-day interpersonal rationalisation

of what is to be done, why, and how. The immediate significance of the experience oi

classroom language learning resides in how individual priorit ies (teacher and learner

definitions of what, why, and how) can be given social space here and now. It is precisely this

interplay between the individual, the individual as group member, and the grouP which

represents and generates the social and psychological nexus which I have proposed as the

culture of the language classroom. Most often the flow of classroom life is actually under the

surface.What is observable is the rim of a socio-cognitive coral reef! Classroom life seemsto

require that many learners spend surprising amounts of time doing little, whilst a teacher

spends equally surprising amounts of time trying to do too much. As researchers we can

describe such overt peculiarities, but we also need to explain them.We have to ask whether

or not such phenomena are true, and we must doubt the integrity of the observable. If u-e

do, then we are led towards discovering what is, in fact, immediately significant for the group

of people we started to observe. The search for the significance which a person, learner or

teacher, invests in moments of classroom life (and for the significance granted to these

moments by the classroom culture) is neither trivial nor avoidable, though it may be compler

and subtle. We will never understand classroom language learning unless we explore it-.

Iesson-by-lesson significance for those w'ho undertake it.

Reviewing the classroom as culture

I have offered brief descriptions of eight features of the genuine culture of the language

classroom in order to achieve two purposes. First, to illustrate the potential of classroorr,

life itself, its social and psy'chological richness. The particular features I have selected art

offered with no evaluative intent. I would not wish to suggest here that such features art

"good" or "bad" aspects of a classroom. Thev are the inevitable characteristics of the socia,

event in which most people learn a foreign language. My second purpose has been to drau

attention to significant social and psvchological variables which we seem to be neglectin;

in our current research in language learning. My main argument would be that, if we u'is:

to investigate language learning, these variables must be contained in whatever metaph,::

we have for that special social location from w'hich a great deal of language learning actuai.'

der ives. l2

T H E S O C I A L C O N T E X T F O R L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G 1 3 5

My practical purpose in exploring the metaphor of the classroom as culture has been

to seek to offer a possible means for relattng social and cognitive varrables which may influence

language learning; to suggest a particularTrame we may come to understand

bles aical and social factors. A teacher or a

learner is not ejther individual mind or social actor when participating in lessons. Each is at

once cognitive and social, and so are the classroom realities which each perceives. Current

language learning research tends to examine psvchological change in an asocial way or social

events in a non-cognitive w.a,v. Either approach implies distinctiveness of psvchological and

social dimensions of learning and, therebv, risks offering both a partial account and a

simplistic causal explanation of the relations betw'een social phenomena and individual

development. The metaphor of the classroom as culture allows us to perceive the two

dimensions as irrevocably l inked and mutuallv engaged.The metaphor also captures the

classroom group as a socio-cognitive dynamic r'vhich is an extension of the individual within

it. Because the classroom culture is a human enterprise, it provides the researcher with a

living subject, an informant, not unlike a single learner.When investigating an individual's

learning process, we may endeavour to account for the particular permutation of attributes

and activities of that learner u'hich may influence the learning. Similarly, the study of a

Ianguage class as culture can provide us u'ith a holistic and integrated framework which

incorporates the experimental and discoursal attributes of a classroom, but which also

locates these attributes within a richer cluster oftvpical characteristics.

The eight features I have described are selective, and there are further features which

reflect and create the socio-cognitive realities of a language class. A classroom group will

achieve interaction, collectivism, or significance in its own ways. But all of the features

overlap and interrelate, and a class will evolve particular permutations of features over time.

Just as each feature will varv as the life of the class proceeds, there r,vill also be changes in

the patterning and interaction of all the features. Although I r,r,ould suggest that the classroom

as culture and the features w'hich represent its cultural nature are universal to language

classrooms wherever they mav be, a particular classroom will evolve both individual features

and a synthesis of features in particular ways at particular times. And it is the synt}esis of

features which is the specilic culture of a classroom group. If such proposals are acceptable

and valid, w.hat do they imply for undertaking research w'ith a language class? Also, what

does the metaphor of classroom as culture offer to the language teacher? I wish to conclude

by briefly outlining some major deductions for researching and teaching.

Researching within the classroom as culture

A researcher's sympathies rvith u'hat I have argued so far may be strained by the seeming

complexity suggested for methods of investigation. If our goal is to move closer to the

realities of language learning and to understand the experience of discovering a new-

Ianguage in a classroom group, then such an audacious inquiry demands anthropological

sensitivity. The culture of the language class rvill resist exposure from a single source - a

sampled informant or a special moment perhaps or through a single investigatory lens.

Cautious triangulation has to be married with longitudinal patience!We are required to

enter a cultural world - as if from Mars, perhaps and intrude upon a relatively unique

socio-cognitive process, unavoidably participating within as manv realities as there are people

in the room. In essence, we have to criticallv reexamine our own assumptions and familiar

ways of collecting information. We will be obliged to employ what Gar{inkel referred to as

methods oJ understand;ng. I 3 And such methods rvill lead us in the follorving directions :

I } 6 - l f r l C T f A E L P . B R E E N

1 An init ial questioning of our own rvell-established perceptions of the classroom

situation - its purposes, its subject matter, capacities, and social and psychological

processes. (lf we have learned or taught a language, or if we know the language being

taught for example, we are unlikely to be objectiveh'innocent.)

2 A recurrent reasonable doubt about the integritv of the observable, and an insistent

curiosity for learner and teacher points of view'.

3 An uncovering of the intentions and interpretations invested in classroom activities

and content by its participants. A search for what is significant in the immediate and

existential (historical) experiences ofthe classroom for those lvithin it.

+ A socio,cognitive frame of reference which will give access to mutual relationships

between social activity and psychological changes. An investigatory template which

can reveal social behaviour as mentally motivated and thinking and learning as socially

shaped.

5 An anthropological exploration of what, ho*', and why things are done within the

classroom from the perspectives of all the members of the group (and including the

researcher's perspective). A discoverl', over time, of the subjective realities which that

classroom contains and the distinctive intersubjective world of the group which is

evolved by them but w.hich is also other than the sum of individual definitions of the

situation.

6 An evaluation of change and progress which accounts for individual and collective

contributions, achievements, and failures. Evaluation which seeks the interac\ns

between individual and collective and which can be based upon criteria deriv\d

directly from individual expectations and the group's emerging norms and values. \7 A study of the interpersonal and inter-group relationships, the roles and identities\

generated and maintained, and the rights and duties which are entailed (and including ]the researcher's location in these relationships).

8 A description and explanation of the specific culture of the classroom group which

accounts for all the features of classroom life which generate the language learning

context for that group. A profile of features and their dynamic permutations which

avoids the partialitv of the isolation and comparison of a few selected variables.

9 A research approach lr'hich honestly grapples lvith'observer effects' so that we can

move from intrusion towards a reciprocity of frust and helpfulness; becomingwithin

the classroom culture over time and being seen as contributing as much to the groupas we receive from it.

If the above objectives are seen to be difficuit or impossible to attain, then our future

investigations into classroom language learning *.ill need to acknowledge more explicitly

those things which we have not accounted for.

Teaching within the classroom as culture

As direct participants in the culture oi t}eir language classes, teachers are very likely to be

highly sensitive to t}re nuances oi tle ieatures of classroom life which I have tried to describe.

However, the metaphor oi the classroom as culture suggests two major implications for

the language teacher. The flrst relates to the special task of teaching a language, and the

secoryd relates to the teacher's direct concern s-ith the process of learning in classrooms.//\\

{ l . lHott can the culturt ,-, i de :la-.sroom be exploited as a resource for the development

of Kguist ic and conrnr : l : - - r : . - . : Nro\ \ ledge and abi l i t ies? Al though a c lassroom is an#ry

T H E S O C I A L C O N T E X T F O R L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G T 3 7

apprenticeship for later authentic communication and anv use of the new language primarily

serves the learning and teaching ofthat language, anv group oflanguage learners has two

significant contributions to make to the development of the new'Ianguage: first, individual

prior definit ions and experiences of language and communication, of learning, and of

working in classrooms: second, the capacitv to be metalinguistic and metacommunicative.,

to talk about, to explore collectivell', and to reconstruct jointly language and its use. The

language class has the communicative potential for a dialogue about subjective definitions

of language, how language mav be best learned, and how the classroom context mav be best

used. The positive and explicit use of the interactive, collective, normative, and jointly

constructed nature of lessons can be a means to uncovering and sharing what individual

learners and the teacher perceive as significant for them in learning a language together.

And what is revealed can, in turn, provide the starting points for later interaction, collective

#more overt lv. I do not have sDace here to cletal l the practlcal l t les ol moDll lsln

of language and communicating from rvhich anv new know'ledge and experience must flow.

SF6"9, tlhe teaching-learning p.o."r, requires decisions to be made, and decision-making

h)rs"ffgh communicative potential. The sharing of decision-making in a language class will

qenerate communication u-hich has authentic roots in getting things done here and norv.-

'?Ho* can the culture of the classroom help the teacher to facilitate classroom language

l-FgiThe cul ture oFlhe c lass has the potent ia l to rereal to the teacherthe language

leirning process as it is actually experienced. In this lvay, teachiag language and investigating

language learning may be seen to be synonymous. Teachersrahd learners alreadv undertake

research in classrooms, but their joint investigation tend( to focus upon subject matter -

the new language and its use. An additional focus of investigation could be the language

learning process as it actually unfolds and as it is directly experienced in the class. Manr'

teachers and learners alreadv undertake such action research, but it is sometimes rather

implicit and accorded little space and significance. I am suggesting here that genuine

classroom language learning research may progress to the extent t}at those people who are

immediately involved in its evervdav realities also become explicitly engaged in a methodical

reflection upon their own learning and teaching. The pedagogtc motivation would be that

teacher-learner research has the potential to facilitate a delicate understanding and

refinement of language developmentwithin the classroom itself. If this pedagogic purPose

may be seen as valuable, then the researcher can offer knowledge and skills to a classroom

rather than act onlv as a recipient of its riches.ls

Learning within the classroom as culture

I have briefly argued for the explicit use of shared decision making and for teacher-learner

research in the language class because both seem to me pedagogically appropriate within

classrooms devoted to the discoverv and development of a new language andits use. However,

both proposals derive from considering the potential of the culture of the classroom;for

language teaching. Both also derive from the wish to bring research in language learning

u.rJ th. classroom experience of language learning closer together. The research approach

suggested earlier requires participating investigators and Iongitudinal involvement (at least),

1 3 8 M I C H A E L P . B R E E . .

and it could lead to a positir. erc,sii 'n -: -;.t i :.: l ; l . i lc'n: bet\\ 'een doing research, doing

teaching, and learn inq.

Th[ paper is not intended as sonre Rousseau.squr appeal for a return to the primitive

savager) t l. l .rrroo- l i ie. in reaction. perhaps. to a vision of f inely-tuned classrooms

*,heiei. Iearners might be discoursallr programmed. \or is it intended as a rejection of

the metaphors of classroom as erperimental laboratorv or classroom as discourse.

Classrooms are experiments and thel are places *-here the discourse symbolizes significant

actions and thoughts of those participating. .\nd classrooms are specific cultures. All three

metaphors ...-io me to be true, but all three are also partial. I have tried to show that the

.lurr.oo- as culture embraces variables u-hich \\'e mal have formerly neglected in research.

The metaphor can allow us to see the classroom more distinctly u.td to re-explore its

potential more precisely. However, \\'e still need to develop, during the research Process,sufficiently sensitive methods of investigation so that the culture of the language class may

be less of a metaphor and more of a revelation.

I am pleased to be able to end with one of Edw'ard Sapir's enlightening observations

because hL .*pr"rred, sixty years ago, a crucial consideration regarding the relationship

between scientific efficiency and genuine culture. Sapir comments on his imPortant

distinction between human progress and cultural experience:

We have no right to demand of higher levels of sophistication that they Preserve to

the individual his manifold functioning, but we may well ask whether, as a

compensation, the individual may not reasonably demand an intensfcation in cultural

,olur, aspiritual heightening of such functions as are left him.l5

i (1949:97 fmv emPhasis])

In this paper, I have tried to argue that our professional contern with one of the individual's

most socially motivated functions - learning how to colxiunicate with members of another

social group, another culture - requires ,r, to ,.,odJ.stand how the individual may best

achieloe this. And if the individual undertakes t}re task in a classroom, we need to understand

the socio-cognitive experience made available through the meeting of individual and

classroom group. The classroom may be a relatively inefficient environment for the

methodical mastery of a language system, just as it is limited in providing opportunities for

real world communication in a new language. But the classroom has its or,vn communicative

potential and its own authentic metacommunicative purpose. It can be a particular social

context for the intensification ofthe cultural experience of learning.

Notes

1 This tendency has been captured bv Kuhn's (1962) analysis of scientific research.

Research exemplifying the first r-ierr- I u'ish to explore is represented in the excellent

anthologies ofHatch (1978), Felix ( 1980t, Scarcella and Krashen (1983) and Baily, Long,

and Peck (1984).The second prevalent vieu-is implied by recent studies of classroom

language learning, fairlv represented in the valuable collections of Larsen-Freeman

(1980), Seliger and Long f 19E3r and Ferch and Kasper (1983). Of course, much

language learning research makes no reterence to the classroom and several researchers

do .rot assume the perspectives discussed in this paper. Mv emphasis is upon currentir

influential views of languaqe learning and l-hat these imply for the functions of the

classroom.

2

T H E S O C I A L C O N T E X T F O R L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G 1 3 9

Paradoxically, the features of optimal input were initiallv derived from (1) the order ofemergence of certain linguistic features in the production of language learners and (2)the characteristics of simple codes used bv people other than learners - e.g., motherese,

foreigner talk, talk to foreigners, etc. Neither phenomenon has been shown to have anvnecessary relationship with learning language. (On the relationship between motherese

and learning, for example, see Newport, Gleitman, and Gleitman 1977; Shantz 1982.)

Most work on learning strategies has tended to be individual case studies undertaken

outside classrooms or through simulated tasks. These points are not intended critically

but suggest limitations in relating research findings on learning to the language classroom.

To try to teach learning strategies seems to me an inappropriate interpretation of the

investigations of, inter alia, Naiman, Frcihlich, Stern, andTodesco (1978), Rubin (1981),

and Cohen and Hosenfeld (1981). Apart from the major problem of the researcher

having to inJer strategies from retrospections (Mann 1982) or from communication

strategies (Ferch and Kasper, 1983), we need to maintain clear distinctions between the

act of iearning and the influences of teaching. Language learning research currently lacks

an approach to learning strategies and stvles which accounts for key intervening variables- such as the context in \4,-hich the learner rvorks and how the learner strategicallv reacts

to that context. Examples of a more comprehensive analysis can be found in Gibson and

Levin (1975), Mann (1983) and Marton, Hounsell, and Entwistle (1984).

Although SLA research evolved from work in L1 acquisition, it has persisted in a narrow

focus upon linguistic and mentalistic variables whilst the last decade of L1 research has

been characterised bv its concern rvith social, contextual and interactive variables also

(Waterson and Snow, 1978; Lock, 1978).The significant theoretical synthesis pror,ided

to SLA research by Krashen (1981, 1982) has encouraged this asocial perspective.

However, a paradox thrives at present u'herein it is fashionable in some quarters to

belittle Krashen's invaluable contributions to the SLA paradigm lvhilst manv researchers

unquestioningly assume his hypotheses proven as the starting. point of their os n

investigations. Both positions seem equally unjustifed. ..,"See Mueiler's (1979) historical analysis of the "science" of psvehologr'. In this paper, I s'ill

argue for a socio,cognitive perspective on language learning. Current influential approaches

to the social psychologv of language learning seem to me too narrowlv focused upon

motivational and attitudinal factors (Gardner, 1979) and, although social psychology grants

significance to relationships between the individual and social context, its prevailingtradition is non-cognitive and somew-hat deterministic in its evaluation of the effects of

social experience. A socio-cognitive perspective allows us to identifv variables of learning

both within the social situation and within the active cognition of the learner (Forgas,

1 98 I ). It also encourages seeking relationships between learner cognition and situations

and implies the need to understand, to see through language learning in ways cogently

argued by Ochsner (1979).Allwright (1983), Gaies (1983) and Long (1983) provide excellent reviews of

c lassroom-or iented research.

Sapir (1949) and Hvmes (1972) are, of course, emphasising collective meanings and

values. Other scholars, notablv Goffman (1959) and Cicourel (1,973), would also assert

the significance of personal intentions and interpretations within social events. I will argue

that we need to account for both and their interrelationships.

The notion of "genuine culture" derives from Sapir's discussion of "Culture, Genuine and

Spurious" (19+9).ln referring to Malinorvskit (1935) study, I do not wish to imply that

we adopt a narrol!' social anthropological approach to the classroom; rather one which

relates soctal experience and psvchological change in the tradition of Margaret Mead,

Ruth Benedict, and Clvde Kluckhohn (see, for example, Beattie's 1964 overview of

social anthropolog).Perhaps the studv of the classroom group might resemble Oscar

1 4 0

1 1

1 0

M I C H A E L P . B R E E N

Lewis's investigations of family life in Mexico ( 1959) but with a particular focus upon the

relationships between classroom life and language development.

"lnteractivl" is becoming a much-used term in language teaching circles and is, thereby,

expanded to encompass manv assumptions and diverse meanings (as has been tle fate of

"fu^nctional," "communicative," "negotiation," and, when applied to pedagogy, "natural").

Ambiguitv resides in the fact that human interaction can be both interpersonal and intra-

persoial;'both overtly social and covertly mental. Allwright's (1982, 1984a) fruitful

identification ofinteractive rvork as a defining feature ofclassrooms clearly relates to the

interpersonal. However, interactive w'ork also occurs in the recreative relating of mind

to external phenomena (Neisser, 1976). But interaction is more comprehensive than

(1) overt behaviour between people and 121 covert perception and reconstruction

of perceptions and experiences. We also need to regard social interaction as having

pry"hologl"ul roots and outcomes (Rommetveit 1981) and mental interaction as being

rlrt j".t to social forces (Gauld and Shotter, 7977; Harr6, 1978; Shotter, 1978). Thus,

interaction is also (3) a socio-cognitive process which continually relates social action

and experience to the content and capabilities of the mind, and vice versa.

Ou., tir" past t\r.entv years there h"u" b".., a number of interesting studies of ciassroom

relationships and roles within the school system. Jackson's (1968) seminal investigation

is complemented by Hargreaves (1972) and Woods (1919) - the more recent works

echoing Goffman's (1961) revelations of the effects upon the perceptions and activities

of people in situations which maintain asymmetrical relationships. Learner experience.s

uni ;,rJg.-.nts have been studied by Taytor (1952) , Nash ( 1 974), Meighan (1977) , anQ

Ha.grea.,res (1977), whilst teacher perspectives are considered by Morrison and

Maclntvre (1959).

A well-established tradition within the sociology of knowledge argues that most of our

learning is socially constructed. Berger and Luckmann's (1965) justification of sueh a

view is based upon a phenomenological approach to human experience. (Douglas, 1973.

and Luckmann, Tg'/8, offer a range of studies whilst Filmer, Phillipson, Silverman, and

Walsh, 1972, provide an overview.) Perhaps the two major influences uPon recent

endeavours to relate social experience and knowledge have been Schultz (1962-65.

1967) and Husserl (1965, 1967). Investigations directly concerned with the joint

construction of classroom life are exemplified within Hargreaves (1977) , Nash ( 1 97 3 I .

Stubbs and Delamont (1976),Woods and Hammersley (1917), andWoods (1980a, b).

The eight essential features u'hich I describe are based on my own experience as a

teachei and the shared experiences of many teachers from most countries of the world

r,r,.ith n'hom I have worked. The features are also influenced by *y interpretation of a

number of scholars.WillardWaller's (1932) evaluation of the teaching process is still the

most comprehensive, *'hilst the studies of teaching and learning referred to in notes 1Cf

and 1 1 provide strongjustification for seeing the classroom group as a special culture. (.\

helpful overvierv of classroom research w'ithin general education is provided by Cohen

and Manion 1981.)

Garfinkel asserts the need for methods of understanding the everyday life of the group

we may be investigating through an ethnomethodological approach. (Douglas, 1971.

Tirrner 19J4, and Douglas, 1973 provide examples of this approach, whilst Hughes.

1980, offers a humanistic interpretation of ethnomethodology.) For a broader critica-

consideration of methods of investigation, see Taylor (1911).Interesting examples ol

current research in classroom language learning which adopt various methods o:

understanding are found in Dingwall (1982), Wenden (1983), Murphy-O'Du-r'e:

(1983), Allwright (1984b), and Bonamy, cherchali i, Johnson, Kubrusly, schwerdtfeger.

Soule- Susbielles (all 19 84) :

In Breen (1982), I examine the practical realit ies ofclassroom language and procedure.

l aI L

l . J

t+

T H E S O C I A L C O N T E X T F O R L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G 1 4 1

The more explicit involvement of learners is considered in Breen (1983), r,vhilst syllabus

planning through shared decision making is discussed in Breen (1984).

l5 This implies that mv proposals for the researcher may also be directly relevant to the

teaching-learning process itself. If the culture of the group is explicitlv mobilised for

sharing decisions and for reflective investigation, then the generalisability of what may

be derived from that classroom may seem to be undermined. But more mav be gainedfrom participatory research than might be lost.We have failed, as vet, to discover actual

relationships betw.een the classroom situation and language learning. We simply do not

know wficr the classroom contributes to the developmental process. Research which

implies that phenomena unique to classrooms must be tfre contributions to learning

which only classrooms can offer is trapped in its own circularity. Objective investigations- through discourse analvsis or the quantification of selected variables of classroom life,

for example - represent little more than a researcher's inferencing and, thereby, remain

only relatively objective.Yet we cling onto a faith in the chasteness of neutral impartiality

which is assumed to be synonvmous with non-participant data collection and analysis.

Validity of classroom data and its interpretation demands direct teacher-learner

intervention in the research process, w'hilst the researcher can facilitate their exploration

bv contributing rigourous and established research methods and criteria.

l5 Sapir ( 1949: 97), rny emphasis.

References

Allwright, R.L. (1982) Interactive workJor input jn the language classroom. Kevnote paper at the

Second Language Research Forum, Los Angeles.- (1983)'Classroom-centered research on language teaching and learning: \ briei

historical overview' TESOL @tarterly 17 : 191-20+.- (1984a) 'The importance of interaction in ciassroom language learning' ,lpplted Ltngutsttcs

5 : 1 5 6 - 7 1 .- (1984b) Making sense oJ classroom instruction. Presentation at the Spnposium on

Classroom-centred Research, AILA TthWorld Congress, Brussels.

Bailey, K., Long, M.H. and Peck, S. (eds) (198a) Second language acquisit ion studies. Rowley,

MA: Newburv House.

Beattie, l. (196+) Other cuhures: Aims, methods and achievements in social anthropology. London:

Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Berger, P. and Luckmann,T. (1966) The social consfiuction of reality. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Bonamy, D. (1984)'Perceptions of saliencv in a language classroom'. Unpublished M.A. thesis.

University of Lancaster.

Breen, M. P. ( 1982) 'Authenticity in the language classroom' . Bulletin of the Canadian Association

oJ Applied Linguistics (ACLA) 4: 7-23.-- (1983)'Hor.v would we recognise a communicative classroom?', in B. Coffey (ed.) Tbacher

training and the curriculum, pp. 132 54. London:The Brit ish Council.- (198+)'Process syllabuses for the language classroom', in C.J. Brumfit (ed.) General

English syllabus deign, pp. +7-60. Oxford: Pergamon Press/The British Council.

Cherchalli, S. (1984) Asking learners about language learning. Presentation at the Symposium on

Classroom Research, University of Lancaster.

Cicourel, A.V (1 973) Co7nitive sociology. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Cohen, A.D. and Hosenfeld, C. (198 1)'Some uses of mentalistic data in second language

research' . Language Learning 3 I : 285-31 3.

Cohen, L. and Manion, L. (198 1) Percpectives on classrooms and schools, London: Holt, Rinehart

andWinston.

L 4 2 M I C H A E L P . B R E E N

Cole, M., Gay, J. , Click, J. A. and Sharp, D'W. ( 1971) The cuhural context oJ learning and thinking '

London: Methuen.

Cole, M. and Scribner, S. (1974) Cuhure and thought' NewYork:Wiley'

Dingwall, s.D. (1982)'Crit ical self-reflection and decisions in doing research" in Dingrvall,

s.D., Mann, S.J. and Katamba, F.X. (eds) Methods and problems in doing applied l inguistrc

research , pp. 3_25 . Universitv of Lancaster'

Douglas, J D a"d ) (19i1) IJnderst'anding everyday 1/?:. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Oouglas. M. (ed.) (1913) Rules and meanings. Harmondsworth: Pengurn'

F-.."h, C. and Kasper, G. (eds) (1983) Strategies in intetlanguage communication. London:

Longman.

Felix, S.\d(ed.) (1980) Second language development:trends and issues,Tiibingen: Gunter Narr.

Filmer, P., Phil l ipson, M., Silverman, D. andwalsh, D (1972) New directions in sociological

theory. London: Coliier Macmillan.

Forgas, J.P. (ed.) (1981) Social cognition. NewYork: Academic Press'

Cui!., d.1. (1983)'The investigation of language classroom processes', TESOL @Larteily 17:

20s-11 .Gardner, R. c. ( 1 979) ' Social psvchological aspects of second language acquisition

' , i"gl"t' T

and St. Claia R. (eds) Longuag, oid roriolprychology,pp. 193-200. London: B{lackwell.

Gauld, A. and Shotter, I. (1917) Human action and its psychological investigltion. London:

Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Gibson, r.1. and Levin, H. (1975) The psychology oJreadtng. cambridge, MAi M.l.T. Press.

Goffman, C.E. (1959) The presentation oJselJin everyday llfe.Harrnondsworthi Penguin.

- (1961) Asylums. Harmondsworth: Pengurn'

Hargreaves, D.H. (1972) lnterpersonal relations and education London: Routledge and Kegan

Paul.- (lgii)

'The process of typification in classroom interaction' . British Journal oJ Educational

Psychology 41 : 274-84.

Harr6, if. l f fZa;'Accounts, actions and meanings:The practice of participatory psychologv'.

in M. Brenner er a/. (eds) The social contexts oJ nethod. London: Croom Helm.

Hatch, E.M. (ed.) (1918) Second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Hughes, J. (1980) The philosophy of social reseatch. London: Longman'

Huiserl, E. (1955) Phenomenology and the crisis oJphiiosophy. NewYork: Harper.

- (1970) Cartesian meditations.The Hague: Nijhoff.

Hymes, D. (1972) 'Models of the interaction of language and social life', in Gumperz, J.J

and Hymes, D. (eds) Directions in sociolinguistics. The ethnogrophy oJ communicaticc.

pp. 35-71. NewYork: Holt Rinehart andWinston.

Jackson, P.W (1968) LiJe in classrooms. NewYork: Holt Rinehart andWinston.

Johnson, P. (1984) Oral communicationbetween non-native English speakers inthe ESLPtacticum clr:: '

paper at the Svmposium on Classroom-centred Research, AILA 7th World Congress.

Brussels.

Krashen, S.D. (198 17 Secondlanguage acquisit ionand secondlanguagelearning. Oxford: Pergamor-

Press.- (1982) Prtnciples and practice jn second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Kubruslv, N,I.H. (i98+r 'Do". the teacher make a difference?'. Unpublished M.A. thesr.-

Universitv of Lancaster'

Kuhn,T.S. (19521 The :tru;ture c{sctenttfc revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Larsen-Freeman. D. red. t , 19t0) Discourse analysis in second language research. Rowlel', 11\

\ e r t bu r . Housc .

Lerr- is , O. r19l9rF: ' : . ' :n ; , r : . , , . l /ar ican casestudies inthecuhureoJpoverty . NewYork: BasicBook.

Lock, . \ . red. , , iq l : l , - : r - . : q . j rurc , tnd rmbol :The emergence oJlanguage. NewYork: Acaden: ' -

P ress .

T H E S O C I A L C O N T E X T F O R L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G I 4 3

Long, M.H. (1983)'Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of

research' . TESOL @rarterly 17;359-82 '

Luckmann,T. (ed.) (1978) Phenomenologv and sociology. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Malinou'ski, B. (1935) Coral gardens and their mcgic. London: Allen and Unvl' in (2nd edition,

1966).Mann, S.J. (1982)'Verbal reports as data: A focus on retrospection', in Dingwall, S.D., Mann,

S.J. and Katamba, F.X. (eds) Methods and problems in doing applied Lin7uistic rcsearch,

pp. 87 l0 5 . Univers i tv of Lancaster .- (1983) Problemsinreadingandhowtheymaybesolvedbythereader. Paperat the lTthAnnual

TESOL Convention, Toronto.

Marton, F., Hounsell, D.J. and Entw.istle, N.J. (eds) (1984) The experience oJ learning.

Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

Meighan, R. (1977)'The pupil as client: The learner's experience of schooling'. Educational

R e v i e w ) 9 : 1 2 3 3 ; .

Morrison, A. and Maclntyre, D. (1969) Teachers and teaching.,Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Mueller, C. (1919) 'Some origins of psychology as a sciente' . Annual Review oJ Psychology 30

9-20.Murphy-O'Dwyer, M. ( 1983) 'Gachers in training:A -diarl studv during an in-service course'.

Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Lancaster.

Naiman, M., Frolich, M., Stern, H.H. and Todesco, A. (1978) The good language learner

Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Nash, R. (1973) Classrooms observed. London: Routledge and Kegan Paui.- (197+)'Pupil 's expectations for their teachers' . Research in Education, November 1974:

+ r J - / t .

Neisser, U. (1975) Cognition and reality. New-York:W.H' Freeman.

Newport, E.L., Gleitman, H. and Gleitman, L.R. (1977)'Mother I 'd rather do it mvself: Some

effects and non-effects of maternal speech style' , in Snow, C. E. and Ferguson, C. .\ . r ed s r

Talking to children: LanBua7e inpfi and acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge Universiil Pre ss

Ochsner, R. (i979)A poetics of second language acquisit ion. Language Learning 29: 5l-80.

Rommetveit. R. (1981)'On meanings of situations and social control of such meanings in

human communication', in Magnussen, D. (ed.) Toward a psychology oJ situations: An

interactional pe$pective, pp. 151-57. Hil lsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rubin, J. (1981) 'The studl of cognitive processes in second language learning'. Applied

Linguistics 2:111-31 .

Sapir, E. (19+9) Culture, language and personality: Selected essaTs. Berkeley: University of

California Press.

Scarcella, R. and Krashen, S.D. (eds) (1983) Research in second language acquisit ion. Rowley, MA:

Nelvburv House.

Schutz, A. (.19 62, 6+, 56) Collected PapersVols I -3. The Hague : Nijhoff.- (1961) The phenomenology oJ the social world. Chicago: Northwestern University Press.

Schwerdtfeger, I.C.(1984) ExercisesintheJorcignlanguageclassroom:Thepupils'pointoJview.Papet

at the Symposium on Foreign Language learning under Classroom Conditions, AILA 7th

World Congress. Brussels.

Shatz, M. (1982)'On mechanisms of language acquisit ion: Can features of the communicative

environment account for development?', in Wanner, E. and Gleitman, L'R. (eds)

Language acquisition:The state oJ the art, pp. 102-27. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Shotter, J. ( 1 978) 'Torvards a social psvchologl' of evervday life: A standpoint "in action"' , in

Brenner, M. et al. (eds), pp. 33--+3.

Soule-susbielles, N. ( 1984) Pupils analvse their own classroom behaviour. Paper at the Symposium

on Classroom-centred Research, AILA TthWorld Congress, Brussels

I 4 4 M I C H A E L P . B R E E N

Stubbs, M. and Delamont, S. (edst t19l5t Erplorations in classroom observation. London:Wilev.

Gylor, C. (1971)'lnterpretation and the sciences of }lan'. Review oJMetaphysicsxxv: 3-5 1.

Tayloa P.H. (1962) 'Children's evaiuations of the characteristics of a good teacher'. Brit ish

Journal oJ Educational Ps.vcholog.r 3l : I i E 56.

T[rner, R. (ed. ) (1 9] +) Ethnometho dologr'. Harmondsrvorth : Penguin.

Waller, W (1 9 32) The so ciolog,r oJ rcaching. \eu- \brk: Wilev.

Waterson, N. and Snou', C.E. 1eds1 (19781 The development 2f communication. London:Wiley.

Wenden ,A .L (1983 ) 'Thep rocesso f i n te rac t i on ' . LanguageLea rn ing 33 :103 -2 1 .

Woods, P. and Hammersley, M. (eds) (1971 1 School experience. London: Croom Helm.

Woods, P. (1979) The divided scfiool. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Woods, P. (ed.) (1980a) Pupils'strategies. London: Croom Helm.- (1980b) Tbachers' strategies. London: Croom Helm.

PART TWO

Strategies and goals in theclassroom context

- Ft?C h a p t e r 8

Paul l(night

THE DEVELOPMENT OF EFL

METHODOLOGY

Introduction---"/

H E N P L A N N I N G T H I S C H A P T E R I C O N S I D E R E D m v o w n U K - b a s e d

training as an EFL teacher and the fact that it contained virtuallv no explanation of

the practices I u'as trained in. Further training informed me how Communicative Language

Teaching had superseded Audio-Lingualism, but it was not until later that further studies

made me aware that the field of foreign language teaching has a long and rich methodological

tradition.Ways of teaching English have been shaped by developments in manv disciplines

including linguistics, psychology and education. Thev have been informed U;:*pgXg!

research, purelv theoretical developments and the practical hands-on experience of

u"Ein-g "f

these influences is necessary. I hope this chapter can help foster that! '

understanding by: pre-EiEQ an ovEivi6w ofthe debates and issues, illustrated by reference

to a variety of approaches, practices and materials.

First, it is important to remember that most second language learning, both in the past

and todal', has not been influenced by any of the methodologies that I will revierv here.

Outside of the UK and NorthAmerica, the prevalence of multilingualism across the globe

shows that monolingualism is the exception rather than the norm. Most second languages

are still learnt informally. Formal methodologies have tried to copy certain features of .,1informal second language learning and tlis is something to look out for as we proceed. qe:

While the term'method' might be used to describe any practical procedure for teaching ^,"du?l\.a language, the term 'methodolgg''' implies the existence of a set of procjgllg: rglgted b,y Jf u

teaching and lEi? lTEe approaches I w-illall been t ir advocates as constituting a'methodology in that

What is the desired outcome?

What model of language is it based on?

What model of learning is it based on?

sense. I will examine each of them bv considering three questions:

1 4 8 P A U L I ( N I G H T

Historical / Pre-World War I I

In mv experience, ferv modern EFL teachers have looked at the history of their profession

urrd ih" methodoiogical practices of the past.The common perception is that until the advent

of Audio-Lingualism, language teaching methodology consisted simply of the grammar-

translation method, and the reform movement at the end of the nineteenth century was

simply a reaction against this. Holr'ever, as we shall see, methodological debates have

characterised the profession for much longer.

Howatt records the use of materials to teach both French and Latin in the middle ages

which were based on the studv of dialogues (Howatt 1984). He.notes the development of

methods bv teachers like Bellot and Holl'band in the 16th and 17'h centuries which included

substitution tables, dialogues based on common situations and an emphasis on spoken

pro{iciencv. DescribingWebbe's'anti-grammar' stance in the 17m century, Howatt observes

that:

there is . . ever\.reason to suppose thatWebbe w-as proposing a form of l 'direct

method' of language teaching rvithout the use of reference grammars, which] lvould

depend heavilv on spoken interaction . . . ' (Howatt 1984:37)

By the 19'h century, grammar-translation was the dominant methodology. lhis was

b""urrr. of the importanle given to the study of Greek and Latin in public schobls'The

study of Lati.r and Greek at tfus time focused on accessing their literature, somethingr,vhich

was thought to be best achieved by cops-ciousl),@l rules. and lexical

items of "the

target language. The basic unit of study was the sentence and, as the name of

@g"rt, I.@ translating both into and

from the target language. si'?n t".ffiqG"'ere not onll'thought 6t.[-i-*-.t"T!,ET1lto

t6GtFil'.n.fii-AG+ffie' ( Stern 1 98 3 1.The 19s centur). i^*, u gr"d.,ul disillusionment with the grammar-translation method.

which led to a number of observations which w-ere to change language teaching. Marcel.

Prendergast and Gouin each drew on children's language learning to inform new theortes

(Richardl and Rogers 1986: 5). Marcel argued for a focus on meaning; Prendergast noted

the use of contextual factors in furthering comprehension and Gouin argued for the

importance of context and that language learning was facilitated by 'using language to

accomplish events' (Richards and Rogers 1985: 5 & 6)'

By the end of the 19s centurv iJeas which previously had only had a limited impact

became more widelv promoted. Central to this was the Reform Movement, an internationai

movement which grew. out of the formation of the International Phonetic Association rn

1885. Its most significant British member w'as Henry Sweet, who argued for a scientihc

1!!-roach to t}e practice of language teaching in his Ifie Practical Study oJ Languages in 1899

The key principles of the Reform Movement were:

the primacv of speech, the centrality of the connected text as the kernel of tht

t"u.ffilifi;iff"ss, and the absolute prioritl' of an oral methodolog)' in th.

c lass room. (Houa t t 1984 : 17 17

-=F

It is important to note that it is not just the ideas of th. &fot*J4ry,.nt which art

significant; its approach also shaped developments which followed. It was the first trul.

sc]entific approach to language learning and can be seen as an important step in th.

development of the disciplines of linguistics and applied linguistics.

T H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F E F L M E T H O D O L O G Y I 4 9

"'...This challenge to grammar-translation in the 19th centurv and the increasing interestin childlanguage learning led to the development of natural approaches to language teaching.Sauver's focus on oral interaction and

"uoidu.". of &" *oth"r to.g hool

in th tical

principles of which were outlined bv Franke in 1884. fillA6;ha-t became known as

the Direct Method, r,vhich rvas in turn popularised as the'Berlitz Method' by Maximiliang.rV- .-

In the first decades of the 20'n century, the forerunners of today's applied l inguists

started to take the ideas of the Reform Movement furiher. In the United States thefoundat ionsof .$udio-L ing!a l ismwerebeingla id, rvhi le intheUKthe@-was

developed bv Palm-Effio?fi6-Tiid others. The Oral Approach proposed principles of

selection, gradation and presentation r.vhich had been lacking in the Direct Method (Richards

andRogers1985 :33 ) .Thep r i nc ip le tha t l anguageshou Idb .@"

situations, that is, it should be contextualised, led to the Oral Approach becoming known

@gThi-Tid-notmeanthatasituationalyllabuswasproposed,rather that references should be made to_the real world in or!€r to teach a structuralsyllabus, e.g.bi3 ia and'.actions'hee Figure S.l,fo. example). By the 1950s*ris was the standard British approach to language teaching. It shared withAudio-Lingualism

both ",

rt.""t"r"l ui"* and a belief in behaviouriirt *o94l9l!g.nlrg, but itsfocus on situations made it distinct.

Audio-Lingualism

' t ,53\>z a1b P. ''- t

The Second World War and its aftermath provided a great spur to language teaching,

especially in the USA.The Armv SpecializedTraining Program (ASTP) rvas established in

1,942 to provide the large number of foreign language speakers required bv the militarr.This programme influenced the development of what became know'n as Audio-Linguaiism

andwasi fo. , , ,o fat tent ionamongstappI iedl inguists longaf ter i t f f i

militarv.

4gdlg-!-l"g"alism saw itself as the first 'scientific' language teaching methodology.

when he outlined the 'Oral Approach', a forerunner of Audio-Lingualism,€-Sfi66ess of teaching as depending not only on classroom methodology, but also:

fundamentally upon having satisfactor)'materials selected and arranged in accord with. '

souncl l lnqurst lc Drrnclplesj_( t-rres I y+))o l

The principles he is referring to here r,vere those of structural linguistics, whose main tenets

were that language is primarilv oral, and that it is a rule-governed system understandable

in terms "@plexit1..

There p@ously outlined

b } ' B l o o e e , , 1 9 1 4 a n - d 1 9 4 2 ( B l o o m f i e l d 1 9 1 4 , 1 9 3 3 ,

1e+2) .The other important strand underlyin as that of behaviourist

t-lo rTfu1,4l

psychologv. Behaviourist models of learning e ssentilllillil as a behavioural skill

where l.ui.,... receive a stimulus (such as a Ju. i.r u d.illF;.Ffiurrerance) uno ffi-rlGG, ."

t that this vii l l lead to t}e errbrs beinp reinforced and'bad

dio-Lingualism

hahits' engendered. Language had been view.ed in terms of habit-fo.-ationTefbqe.'G+Falmer outlinad a theory based on r.r.hat rvould later have been called behaviourist principles

] 5 0 P A U L I ( N I G H T

U N I T A O N ETHEY DO \s. THE' I ' - \RE DOING

OFTEN/NE\-ER, etc. Questions and Negatives

1 DOES vs . IS DOING

Problem Situations

i. Mr. Collins is a businessman He gets

"The Financial Times" every dav and

alwavs f inds i t verv interesting'

At the moment, he is in his office'

His copv of "The Financial Times" is

in his overcoat Pocket.

ii Jack Cariton is a famous football-

player. At the moment he is at the

dinner-table. There is a large

beefsteak in front of him.

2 IllustrativeSituations

i. John Dallas is a film director. A.t the

moment he is in a Plane ovelthe

Atlantic. He is on his waY to

Hollywood. There is a glass of

champagne in his hand, a stnile on

his face, and a pretty girl opposite him

Question: What DOES HE DO?

The only answer is: HE DIRECTS FILMS

OT: HE IS A FILM DIRECTOR

Question: What IS HE DOING

Answer: HE IS FLYING TO

HOLLYWOOD

HE IS DRINKING A GLASS OF

CHAMPAGNE

HE IS SMILING AT A PRETTY GIRL

ii. Arthur Docker is on the same plane.

He is a verv rich man. He drives a

Rolls Rovce, often eats caviar, plavs

rouiette at Monte Carlo, hunts lions

and elephants in Africa, and smokes

large Havana cigars. At the moment

he is having a nap.

Question: What IS HE DOING?

The only answer is: FIE IS HAVING A \AP

Question: What are some of the things he

DOES

Answers: HE DRIVES A ROLLS RO\-CE'

HE PLAYS ROULETTE. HE HU\TS

LIONS AND ELEPH-\\TS. HE

SMOKES H.\\"\ \ . \ CIG \RS.

Where is Mr. Collins?

What does he do?

Does he read "The Financial Times"?

Is he reading it?

Where is his copy of "The Financial

I lmes ,

Who is Jack Carlton?

Where is he?

Does he play footbali?

What is he doing?

Question Prompts:

1 . Ask and answer these questions

about John Dallas:

(a) Who (b) Where

2. Use DOES HE DO?

3. or IS HE DOING? in these

questions:(a) fiims (b) a glass of chamPagne

(c) to Hollywood (d) at a pretty girl

Questions and Question PromPts:

1. Is he smoking a Havana cigar?

2. Does he smoke Havana cigars?

3. What is he doing?

4. Ask and answer questions with these

w.ords:

(a) rouiette (b) lions and eiephants

ro a Ro l ls Royce {d ; cav ia r

F igure 8 .1 S i tua t iona l l . r r . ; - i : . . : ( : . h l r . f matc r ia l

T H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F E F L M E T H O D O L O G Y 1 5 I

(Palmer 1921). However, it is Skinner who is generallv credited as laying down the most

complete theoretical basis for this assumption in his Verbal Behavior, lvhere he asserted that:

We have no reason to assume . . . that verbal behaviour differs in any fundamental

respect from non-verbal behaviour. (Skinner 1957: 10)

The role of the learner inAudio-Li ilism came to be portra)'ed as that of an 'empty vessel'

in the drills organised bv his/her teacher to learn the 1/vAno more

tareet languqgg1l5s Figure 8.2- r - t _

no-tff iat the exponents oi the

for example). This is to some degree unfair; it was certainly

method had in mind. Fries outlines the role of the student

as an active one:

Exercise 1

Look at 13.What's his job?He's a manager

Look at 17.,)

The student must be vgilling to give himself whole-heartedly to the strenuous business

of l.u.@(Fries 1945)

What's your iob?,

Look at 15.What are their jobs?They're wailers.

Look at 19.2

Look at 16.2

Use these words:

cleanerscooksecretaryporter

/->rr\ )\arY

Look at 14.What's her job?She's a receptionist

Look at 18.2

Figure 8.2 A tvpical audio-lingual drill

Subsequent at tacks on \udro-L ingual ism c la

communication. TLus is rather unfair as it saw communication as bein

T 5 2 P A U L K N I G H T

tion over

I and saw this

as bein_qTiiiTilated br learners not har translate o tarset Ia

havi i l l-Klein;ans 19511.

i*F..t*rt t"""t of \udio-Lingualism was tha@g1lggre

tarqet language and the learners ' f i rs t lan r,vould influence lan learning either

ffi rib e d the se-influence s as' facilitffiT6-' interference'

ffi@ffi;eant that skilled linguists w.ere needed tolrepare materials based on a

: 'Failure

uage laboratorv was a develoPmen io:linEual method. It was seen

as the ideal Loi* ith n'hich to applv behaviourist principles as it l l lowed self-monitoring,

reinforcement of correct lgarner responses and the cotte"tion of e.. e

drawn !,g{6"- (M"eller i 959). Although the language laboratory has been

#

attention

b"i.,g "r,

attempt to applv the principle that language is primarily oral.

From these roots, Audio-Lingualism developed into a system which is still used in mgy

oarts of the world today.The cont]nued pubhcJon and success of teffiFE;ffi1-I6;farge

i@inc ip les , , . ,&" , theSt ream] ineser ies(Har t leyandVine1978) ,shJw thatAudio-Lingualism has not disappeared. However, Audio-Linguali:* T "

..h"1*:

.rts of more communicative approaches to language learning, it is

important to-remember that it marked an important departure from book-based learning,

-ts tod4y. bven belore the method aPProacneo

ay, lts t tical basis was shed. Chomsky exposed the inadequacies

Lge is not just a learnt habit but somethingof Audio-Lingualism',vhen he showed that la

created by the s r usrng an lnnate la i l ity (Chomsky 1957, 1965 etc.), therebr

ca rnto o odel and of la learning.

Parallel to theoretical attacks was an increasing sense of the's limited practical

value amongst teachers and learners.

Humanistic methodologies

Duiln&t!&POs a number of methodologies appeared which have been broadly labelled

u(H"-."irtA Broadlv speaking, this label applies to those methodologies which-see the

Iear:6$.5ffi.Bole' person and the classroom as an environment where more than the

me \1-l ar. the\ are northl ol some atff is to

an€@f ig t romd i rec t i onso the r than l i ngu i s t i c .Wew i l l l ooka t fou r

methodologies' The Sijent \\ai. Communitv Language Learning, Suggestopedia andTotal

Phvsical Response.

The Silent ll'at

Caleb Gat tc 'n : , ' : : : -

and 19 l c T : . . ' i . . -Siient \\ ar in tn-o publications in the 1970s (Gattengo 197-

.,,als are self-expression in the target language, learne:

a { \ 66111astlu. urrulrri, of

N'$9o --=afffiF6eaudio-lingual classroom was ver):teacher :en_tred,tlT,9ggl.gltgagher

I autonomy could be minimal.Teach6ffiffii l i mmanagersofl - , ^ . - : - - - -

- - - - ' -r f I q A f l \ | l - r i c n t f a n m a r h l r r q l n o n r e q c r l r ) e a l

@e,judg:s

'(hr/'e'

T H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F E F L M E T H O D O L O G Y I 5 3

r: icpendence and the development of the learner's ow'n facility to assess correctness.These

- :ls are tvpical of modern language methodologies; it is the way they are to be achieved' rr is unique. The roles of teachers and learners are the key to this.

Teachers, although silent much of the time, should be constantly monitoring the

:rners as learners' errors are used to shape future input. Learners are expected to be',.r.onsible for their own learnin$, to make their own generalisations from the language

:::sented to them and to self-assess their orvn output. Feer correction is encou.ug.d, ,o

:.ners are expected to become comfortable with each other. It is also thought that learners

.: learn' what they have been exposed to while they are sleeping.

Silent Way lessons are characterised bv the use of Cuisenaire rods (coloured wooden' is ofdifferent lengths), Fidel charts (colour-coded pronunciation charts), vocabularv

:.rrts and the fact that the teacher is silent 1!ryt*rytb].. Typically, the teacher w'ili-

Jel an utterance usirr-fT6-e-Effi1i?fEharts and elicit student responses to it. which the

: r.her wil l accept or ask to be rephrased.

The SilentWay takes an essentiallv traditional structural vierv of language. It does,- -,\ever, see the spoken language as paramount. Reading and lvriting are not explicitly

::ght, but are seen to follow'from the spoken language. .r..

./-.mmunity Language Learning i

:rmunity Language Learning (CLL) is the nary€ given to a teaching methodolog,v

,.cloped by Charles Curran in the'1970s based op psychological counsell ing techniques

:rran 1972,1976).The teacher acts as the'counsellor', and ners are the 'c l ients '- '-rractice this means that a translation of w'hat the learners rrl ihJo

:' irom their L1 to the target language, thus allow'ing the learners to interact usinq theI n . 1:::rt language. Dialogues developed in this wav then form the basis for further studr'.

It is a crucial part of t}e teacher's job to create an unthreatening supportive atmosphere

:rin the classroom as this is seen to be crucial for successful learning. In addition,

,--her-learner interaction should not be l imited to the exchange of information'but- -rld include the discussion of the learners' feelings about the learning process. This

' .=rionship has been compared to that of a parent helping a child attain greater levels of

:.pendence (Richards and Rogers 1985).

The desired outcome of CLL is not only that the learner should be able to communicate- :re target language, but also that helshe should learn about his/her own learning and

... . rncreasing responsibil i ty for it (Larsen-Freeman 1 986).

Init iallv CLL rvas not based on any nell ' theories of language; La Forge, Curran's

, --essor in promoting CLL, saw the learners' job as being to master the sound and

- -.:rmatical systems of the language (La Forge 1983), which suggests a traditional structural

.:nus. However, he later w'ent on to suggest a theory of language which sees language as. --ral orocess.This seems more consistent u'ith the wider foundations of CLL as it focuses' :5e interactional nature of language, something mentioned earlier by Curran but not

: .nded upon.

: : lgestoPedia

..estopedia, the system espoused bv Georgi Lozanov, is perhaps the best-known

- -'.anistic method due to the media interest it attracted and the extent of the claims made'.s proponents (Lozanov 1978). It is famous for its use of music to create a non-

, tening atmosphere conduci te to learn inq.

I'.C

{ (N !

,6

T 5 4 P A U L I ( N I G H T

It is this focus o that makes

Suggesropedia an interesting methodilogfT-ozanov claimed that language learning based

or,'ii, -"rhod could be 25 times more effective than other metlods (Lozanov 1978). Amid

such claims it is not surprising that Suggestopedia has also had equally ardent critics, most

famouslv Scovel (Scovel 1979).

Suggestopedia's target is conversational proficiency in the language being_studied'

Although Suggestopedia is not based on a model of language, it usually describes Ianguage

in ternis of ii, r,oc"brrlary and grammatical system. In other words, the underlying model

of language appears to be structural. Lozanov does say that Suggestopedia directs learners

to'acts oi communication' (Lozanov 1978: 109), but goes no further towards a commu-

nicative model of either language or language learning.

It is its model and conditions of learning that characterise Suggestopedia - the creation

of the right learning environment and the fact that learners are expected to have faith in the

system and accept that they are in 4 childlike situation where they follow the teacher/Parent.

Iir this *"y le.ng "dT.T*iiffit" Ae creation of the right enviroynt{{or learning to occur.

e Tbtal Physical Response

Total Phvsical Response (TPR) is a language teaching methodology proposed by James Asher

rhroughout the second hal f o f the 1950s and 1970s (Asher 1965, 65,69,77) . l ts

distinguishing feature is thg bki ment. Asher was

not the first person to propose a link between physical activity and learning. Since the early

part of t}e century, several psychological models of learning had argued for a link between

physical activity and learning, including language learning (Palmer and Palmer 1925).TPR

"lro dru*, on models of first language acquisition, in particular the ideas that comprehension

comes before output and that earl,v Iearning is usually associated with the concrete rather

than the abstract.

TVpically, learners respond physically to commands given by the teacher. Learner output

is not required until the learner feels he/she is ready. The limitations of t}e method mean

that it is rarely used beyond beginner level. This has meant, however, that the method has

been used more n'idely than the other humanistic methodologies described here. Many

teachers have been huppy to borrow.its techniques and use them with lower level classes as

a prelude to moving on to more mainstream practices, usually CLT. Asher acknowledges

this and considers it a positive trend (Asher 1977).

TPR is not based on a particular model of language. Simple structures are usually

selected and vocabulary is selected for its relevance to learners' needs. Although this might

suggest a structural view' of language, TPR proponents would claim that the linking of the

language with a physical response shorvs that meaning is considered paramount:-tnlheTPR classroom the teacher is expected to direct the lesson.The material to be

taught and the actual classroom activities are all selected by the teacher. The learner is

required to listen and act upon the instructions given.The degree of reflection on the content

is not specified, and the method clearly has some links with habit-formation theories of

language learning.

The teacher-centredness and apparently formulaic responses of the learners might not

appear'humanistic', however, these practices are believed to reduce the stress thatTPR

proponents claim accompanies learning a language.

T H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F E F L M E T H O D O L O G Y 1 5 5

,rnrmunicative LanguageTeaching >t4- a'tro F'

6 3

:r-rmunicati can be said to be the current dominant

Even in countries u'here CLT has not been adopted in t e sector. m-ost_-_>."v, ' ' " ' : ' " " " ; - ' ' - " . " " " - . . " r ' - - "-.,rrstries of education appear to be mor-ing in its direction. Manv of its practit ioners,-. '.\ever, would espouse it on intuitive rather than theoretical grounds. Ithas become an

-nbrella term which covers a u,ide range -f classroom practices. A4anI teggher traiffig

CLT which is original; many of the classroom practices with rvhich it is associated areAund elsewhere (see Figure 8.3 for example).

_:-,-- j-- _ r -L:- ^L _. ,r^lJ,Az-DIf rve look at the questions asked at the beginning of this chapter, we can answer the. . : . t .about thedes i redoutcome,bvsay ing tha t fo rc I - r t@

:l use of language, giving .iie . In order

:rner can communicate successfullv in the target language in real situati,ons, raiFi-I

. rc rvhich considers language as it is used rather dpn as an abstract svstem.The concept-,

".r1."l""1..,fG-."*p.*d is the kev to this (Widdowson 1978, Hymes 1971, Canale

-.-.; ,iwain 19801. A thEEiidlmodel of language was developed to include ideas about ftrr' '.' language is actually used to communicate in real life situations. Chomsky had alreadl' -.- , r.\A -

- .EG-"rbe4PK{ -c- .p.aker l<lrows and the lutti. b"rng ryh+th" rp.ukq1 .!q4lly does, r\rt+*6fi seen in--,''-,:=1.,

Tinguistic terms. TFq_idea was developed to include ideas of appropliacy ari-fthe

.r . ich covers a u'rde ranpt ul classroom practlces.lvlany teacher tralnlng Trr@.5

.l br.i. 'JrilTt

'=hne communicative competence, Hymes proposed a four point model concerned w-ith

',.t a speaker both knor,r,'s ".rd

i, ublffi iHy-"r 1971).ihe points of this model are

, 11o.t- ngurge, what is feasible given the means of

:.eme.rtatio e*t, and lasffi-v. what is in fact done.--ffi .*.ironme@oxy of Ar@..t

.-:edited, the concept of communicative competence helped shape new models of

--:raqe teaching and learning. CLT has been described as:

a

an approach that aims to (a) make communicative competence the goal of language

teaching and (b) develop procedures for the teaching of the four language skills that

acknowledge the interdependence of language and communication. (Richards and

Rogers 1986 66)

..r basic principles have been applied in a variety of w-ays. Holever, Richards and Rogers

. isolated three key elements which thev feel characterise CLT classroom practice and

::l.orv of learning underlving it:

' (lne such element might be described "t

S,"g*-""i."ti"" p_:i": ctivities that

! . .ornot" real lommunicat iq promote learn ing. A second e lement is the task\- \rinciple' Activit ies in rvhich language is used for carrying out meaningful tasks

^<- : romote learn lng . A tn t rd e ss p i inc ip le: Language that

- ning process. (Richards and Rogers

,--/ q86 72)

\

a

1 5 6 P A U L I ( N I G H T

L I S T E N I N G A N D S P E A K I N G

Leaving home

Pre-listening task

Discuss the following questions in groups '

I Do vou live in the capital citv of Your country?

a. I f vou do

do vou l ike i t?

N'hat are its attractions?

l . l : S a l e :

a -.r, :-=: :. i. p,,,pulatron of I our caPital citv?

' . t , l - : : . ' ' : : . : . i . J ! f u t l t i

I ' . . , ' : - . : . i . . : : . . \ '4.. . t i tm home (for a short or a

- :-. -:j:-a . :: 1 .1 1..t ,. t.'x;11 flou'?

Jig=ar*' l istening

Dlr. l i . r . : , t \ . ' , a-- 'rr .

T.2a Group -\ \'c,u srii hear Darrd SnoK', $'ho lives in the north-west of Engiand, talking

about hrs oniv daughter. Jackie.

T .2b GroupBYoux i l lhea .Jac l re ,DaTrdSno$ ' ' sdaughter , ta lk ingabouther l i fe inLondon '

b. I f you don't- would you like to?- have vou visited your capital city?

- r.r'hat attractions does it have that

your town doesn't have?

Figure 8. 3 CLT materials u.hich encourage grouPwork and participation (continued opposite)

T H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F E F L M E T H O D O L O G Y L 5 7

icad and answer the questions belolr' as vou listen.

You can't answer them al i !)

Comprehension check

I Why did Jackie come to London?

2 When did she come?'

3 Where is she living?

4 Who is she living with?

5 What's she doing in I ondonl '

6 What does her bovfriend do?

7 What does she do at the u'eekend?

8 What does she think of living in London?

9 How often does she keep in touch?

l0 What does she think of her parentsi

\\:hen you har.e answered your questions, find a partner lrom the other group.

Compare your ansrl'ers and swap information.

What do you think?

I Is Jackie's father right to be so u.orried about his daughter? Was Jackie right to leave home at

eighteen?

7 Use your dictionarv to find out what generation Bap means. Is there a generation gap between

you and your parents? Between you and vour children?

3 In your countrY, at what age

can people get married? - can thev smoke?

can they vote? - can thev drive?

.: has been observed that CLT exists in bot} rsion (Howatt 1984).j,,rs'att suggests that:

/a^r , / / ' lTh{ t'veak)"'ersion, rvhich has become more or less standard practice in the last

tenLleafs, stresses the importance of providing learners withopportunities to

use their English for communicative purposes and, characteristically, attempts

to lntegrate such actl l l t les lnto a \1 lcer Programme or language teacnlng. (t-lowalt. 98+ , ;

/:',, h i lst the ' f t rong' ,version:

I / ,w4.

2e7)

i : concludes:

If the former could be described as---<-

dnslish to learnl\Hou'att 198{:\€__________,

advanFes the claim that language is acquired throushcommunicat ion, so that

not merelv a quest ion of lc t ivat ing tn ex is t in but iner

but of stimula the develooment of the aqe s (Howatt

A@.@\t'utQ^

1984

{* .

297 tEnglish, the latter ..tui6Q

1 5 8 P A T J L ( \ I G H T

Our third question, concerninllggner and teacher roles, is perhaps the most oPen.

\\'e can see that in all strands ot Cf- th

other learners and the material. A strong cooperative element is also Present in many

.lurffith"d.fi,tiiio greeto,, hi. li-..ct their ow-n learning-:r ol"t

assigned-br aleacher. Nunan analysed this question^-C-' learner

indepgndence u-ithin CLT (Nunan 1989).

rncreaslng

lsf^l14\

Ncc

at"' ( '. t l

N e

'(fr

Tlll"l-la..fhe CLT teacher is often more autonomous than the ""di _]i"g4lgggh.r because-

.lffi.o practices a.e ,rsually less predicqrble, and in his/her role as facilitator of commu-

Breen and Candlin identifi three kev roles for the ILT teach€ - facilitator of the

nication tt6t"".h"t oft"nGl-t"r..ts with the learners in ways rvhich mirror interaction outside

?n\its elevation by writers such as Mun r tnan an

--------___--=-=

Immersion progralnmes

a significant change (Munby 1978). For individual teachers in

collaboration with their learners to decide on the content of courses was very different to

the audio-lingual tradition where it u'as thought that it rvas the job of structural linguists to

prescribe course content.THe realisation that learner needs vary can be seen as a Precursorof the trend tovi-ards learner n

and the Natural Approach

Parallel to the development of CLT in the late 1970s and early 1980s another methodology

was being developed which had at its base a model of language learning partly based on

studies of students in Canadian immersion programmes. This methodology was called the

Natural Approach and its proponents were Steven Krashen andTracyTerrell.

The Canadian immersion programme dates back to the 1950s, but really became

widespread in the 1970s and 1980s. It marked a move away from the formal teaching o1[

French in Canadian schools to the teaching in French of other subjects. It was felt that while

the content would be clear to the students through the context, they would acquire the

target language through exposure. This process has been described as t}e partial'deschooling' of language (Stern 1992 12).

Canadian French immersion programmes seem to have had interesting but mixed

results. Surveying the various studies into their effectiveness, Ellis notes that they do not

seem to have had a negative impact on the students'proficiency in English, their L1, and

that they have also tended to break dou-n ethnolinguistic stereotypes. He also notes that

they have led to hlgh levels of proficiencv in the target language, French, in the areas of

discourse and strategic competence. Thev have not, horvever, been as successful in promoting

grammatical proficiencr and it has been observed that a fossilised non-standard variant of

the target can result (Ell is 199+ ).

In 1983 Krashen andTerrell pubiished fr= \ 'arural.1 pproach,which essentially contained

Krashen's theoret ica l p. r .pe ct i res. dere loped in ear l ier publ icat ions (Krashen 1981 and

19821, andTerr.l i . --r:-:.. ines ior their classroom application (Krashen andTerrell 1983).

.orylun'.ttto" p-cess, particrpant withi,n the le,arn o"p' un5!g59t.\.-

l.u6E 1Bt"en and Candlin 1980).The1,ilso see these roles as including those of organiser

the classroom,e.g.by asking real questions about t}e learner's background, opinions, etc.

o n e n e w r o l e f i s t h a t o f . n e e d s a n a l 1 s t ' , i ' e . s o m e -

T H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F E F L I \ l E T H O D O L O G Y 1 5 9

- ,ti'..n andTerrell saw the NaturalApproach as'similar to other communicative approaches._. deleloped', and it can be seen as sharing the same qoals as CLT (Krashen andTerrell

- ' : : 1 7 t .

The Natural Approach's uniqueness l ies in its model of learning. Krashen drew a-:.:.. t ion between conscious learning and 'acquisit ion',

u-hich paraliels L1 development..- language which is 'acquired'

is seen as being ar-ailable for natural language use.. .:-rage rvhich has been'learnt' can be used to monitor and correct output based on

, ,-lrr.d' Iearning, but that is all; a function u'hich has obvious time constraints in natural_.- : i lge Processlng.

learners 'acquire 'ner ,v language by being exposed to 'comprehensib le input ' . Such: -: rs defined by Krashen as being comprehensible to the learner but containing language

- , : :'rot'e the learner's current level. According to Krashen it is only comprehensible input.:h lacil i tates acquisit ion, learner output is essentially irrelevant. Also according to

' :..hen learners are only able to acquire new grammatical structures in a certain order.--. i .: called the Natural Order Hypothesis and is based on studies of children learning

. :.: Ll rvhich suggested a certain order of acquisit ion. This focus on grammatical'--::ures, usuallv individual morphemes, suggests a grammatical view of language more

..:-pinq rvith the audio-l ingual tradition than CLT (Richards and Rogers 1985: 130).Krashen also thought that learning was influenced by the learner's emotional state, an

.': ' :hared bv humanistic approaches. Krashen argued that an'Affective Filter'existed,----:l meant that learners who weren't very motivated, lacked confidence or who were

-- ,.- 'us u-ould not do as well as thbse w'ho were motivated, confident and reiaxed.The breadth of Krashen's model obviously attracted a lot of attention, and it would not

-:.reasonable to sa,v that a lot of the claims on which it was based have been overturned.-'ughlin has shown that the acquisition/learning differentiation is hard to support and

- :i irere is no need-to postTlate-amonitor' based upon it (Mclaughlin, 1987).Krashen's ideas concerning comp\xehensible input have also led to a great deal of debate .

-.. been clearly argued that comprehensible input is not the only, or even the most. :tant, factor in language learning (Mclaughlin, 1987;White, 1 987). The Natural order: ' .hesis and Affective Filter Hypothesis have also been subjected to crit icism-:ughlin, 1987).ln the case of the former for methodological ,"urorm concerning the

.---i ion of data; in the case of the latter because it is unclear exactlv how such a fi l ter-. ; rvork, and aiternative models seem better able to explain the evidence.^: u'ould be unfair to leave our discussion of the Natuial Approach on such a critical

- . .,r ithout acknowledging its role in increasing our understanding of the language learning" :)s. Krashen's model of language learning l\,as an attempt to find a broad universal

---.:u'ork and although it is not widely accepted now, it has acted as a spur for a great deal-:sequent thinking and debate.

. : .k based learning (TBL)

. . ased learning of languages is currently attracting a lot of attention. However, as with, :ne definition of this methodolog) is not fixed. In general though it can be said that. - :-..thodologles:

.hare a common idea: giving learners tasks to transact, rather than items to learn,:rovloes an envlronment \\ 'nlcn DeSt Promotes the natural . language learning process

I.to

al( ,N !

'14r.

1 6 0 P A U L K \ I G H T

Long ar: C: .- i=. :.:.. - jtnrihed three approaches toTBL, including theirown: Prabhu's,

., 'rhi.Ih .,-,-r :::t: i :. ":,r,-,cedural syllabus; Breen and Candlin's, which they regard as a

p.o..,. ,. -,.. r.. -. i :r,.r. ,r.r-n, u'hich the,v regard as a true task based svllabus (Long and

Crookts i ' : -

Undi r-tc.n:,., mr.t classroom teachers w.ere only l ikell ' to have encounteredTBL in

reterence ro rhe Bangalore Project, the name bv u'hich the Bangalore,/Madras Com-

municarional Teachinl Project (CTP) in India is commonlv known. This project was

established b.. \.S. Piabhu in 1979 and formed the basis of his Second LanguagePedagogl

(prabhu 19S7 r. It s'as a conscious attempt to compare different methodological approaches

to the teaching oi Enghsh.

Prabhu.s , . . . io .o iTBLr r 'asbu i l ta roundasy l labuswhic@st ici f ications but

' instead contained a series of tasks in the 6-rm of problem-solvingspecl lrcatlons-:-

r6ilGl f6.retra and Davies 1985). When evaluating the project' Beretta and Davis

conclude that the results of their investigation: 'provide tentative suPPort for the CTP claim

that srarmat-colstruction can take place through a focus on meaning alone''

F "thrr',

approach focuses on t1le input the students receive and the cognitive processing

which th"y u." required to carrv out. Unlike the otherTBL approaches we will look at, it

does not focus on interaction as a facilitator of acquisition. Groupwork is allowed in the

classroom, but not activelv encouraged; the argument being that language- -can

be

consolidated in this way but not acquired (Prabhu 1987:82). Prabhu outlines suitable types

of tasks and a procedri. for their uie, including guidelines for the selection and grading of

tasks (see Figure 8.4 for exdmple). He found that the best activities were'reasoning-gap

activities', *lhi.h'involve deriving some ne\4' information from given information through

processes of inference, deduction, practical reasoning, or a PercePtion of relationships or

patterns' (Prabhu 1987 : 46).

Long and Crookes criticise Prabhu's approach for failings deriving from its being based

o., u pro"."dural svllabus (Long and Crookes 1992:37).Thus they claim that no rationalt

exists for the syllabus content; grading and sequencing of tasks appear arbitrary and tJrt

syllabus does.,'i address specific language acquisition issues (Long and Crookes 1992 3i t.

W" could say that the Bangalore Project has proved influential because of the questions it

has raised rather than the questions it has answered.

During the 1980s Breen and Candlin started outlining their ownTBL proposals, which

*.'.bu,.jofficaIratherthanpsycho1inguisticprinciples(Lon;and Crooke, t otiated svlla6ii:il]Tfi-b6TF teiitrers anc

learners selecting the content oIa couise built upon social and problem-solvinginteraction

J8-ents'capacitylottglqlqg-,ttt-.-ution-rathcrltrEir---ts aim would be to increase the students capaclt)' Ior cg!q1q!-,rl

declaratt"e kno"'l ough the.teacher would be expectec

6-E"r*" th"t ,,rffi.ie.rt b.e"dth of languagercontent was included in the course (Breen

1984.1987:Breen and candlin 1980; candlin 1984, 1987; Candlin and Murphv 1987).

This approach has been criticised because ,t t:glS. highly comfergllgachel-nc

s e l f . a w a r e s t u d e n t s i n o r d e r t o b e s u c c e s s f . , l t t o .exist.These are not insurmountable problem:

Ho*:.'uer, Long and Crookes feel that there are four possible theoretical problem,s with *u.

approach (Long and Crookes 1992: 4041). First, the lack of preselection of material '

*"un, that leainers' needs might not be adequately assessed or addressed. Secondl'

although the basis of materials sJlection is discussed, ii is not sufficiently outlined. Thirdl''.,o .*pli.it provision is made for a focus on language form' (Long and Crookes 1'992:41

Finally, the model's lack of a clear psycholinguistic foundation makes it difficult to asse:,

according to current models of language acquisition.

T H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F E F L M E T H O D O L O G Y 1 6 1

Pallavan Transport Corporation

(Madras City)

' - -cnts can buv and use bus tokens for a month, buving a ticket for each bus

.: ne\..

..ie cost of tokens is as follows:

t ' tokens Rs 7.50

tokens Rs 15 .00- , t okens Rs 22 .50

. l r l t okens Rs 30 .00

\ student has to buv at least 30 tokens a month. He/she cannot buy more than 120

:,,,kens a month.(lne token is equal to one bus ticket: the student has to give a token to the

conductor of the bus, instead of buving a ticket from him.

Tokens should be used only for the purpose of travelling between one's home and

:he school or college where one is studving.

Tokens should be bought each month between the 1st and the 15th. They can be

used only between the 16th of that month and the 15th of the next month.

\o money will be refunded on unused tokens.

Onlv full-t ime students of i school, college, or university can buy and use bus

tokens.They have to produce a certificate from the head ofthe institution to shou'

that they are full-time students.

Tokens cannot be transferred from one person to another.

If a student misuses his/her tokens, helshe wil l not be allowed to buy any more

tokens during that year.

: ' '--::sft After a glossing, at the students'request, of some words (for example

..iunded', 'misused') and a preliminary discussion, involving questions, about the

:.::ure of some rules (for example on the point that tokens can be bought only in

:--ultiples of thirty and that a direct bus from home to school involves the use of a single

: ,ken while a change of buses involves using one token on eachbus), the following

--ase is discussed as the pre-task:

Raman is a student of the GovernmentArts College in Nandanam. He lives inT Nagar.

He has classes from Monday to Friday each week and eats his lunch at the college

canteen.There are direct buses fromT. Nagar to Nandanam.

I How many bus tokens does Raman need each week?

2 How many tokens does he need for a month (i.e. 4 weeks, by convention)?

J A bus ticket fromT. Nagar to Nandanam costs Rs 0.50. How much does Raman

save by buving tokens?

{ How many tokens should he buv each month? Why? How many will he actually

use ?

5 Raman's brother goes to a

tokens? Holv do vou knorv?

School in Saidapet. Can he use Raman's extra

T 6 2 P A U L I ( N I G H T

5 Raman goes to see his uncle in K. K. Nagar everv

go to K. K. \agar? Hou'do vou know?

Sundav. Can he use his tokens to

Icsl Balan studies at the Higher Secondary School in Nungambakkam. His home is in

Advar. He has classes onlv in the afternoons, from Monday to Saturday.There are direct

buses from Nungambakkam to Adyar and a ticket costs one rupee.

1 Horv many tokens does Balan need each month?

2 Horv many tokens should he buv each month? How'much money does he save?

3 He bought 50 tokens in July. His school had some holidays in August, so he used

only 30 tokens up to 15 August.

a Can he go on using the remaining 30 tokens? How do you know?

b Can he return the remaining 30 tokens and get back the money? How can youtell?

Figure 8.4 A typical Prabhu task

Having used Long's and Crookes' analysis ofTBL, we now come to the model that theypropose, knon'n as task-based language teaching (TBLT).They argue that this model is soundlyi "based on SLA research, on classroom-centred research and on principles of syllabus andcourse design (Long and Crookes 1992: 41). A distinctive feature of this model is that itencourages a'focus on form'.This is not a traditional structural syllabus approach, but an

can be accelerated if learners' attention is drawn to specilicl inguistic features of the target language (Long 1991). In developing the model ofTBLTfuTTE-er, Long has outlined those features which should characterise a'task' and attemptedto provide a solid theoretical framew'ork for an approach based on them (Long 1,996 , et a\.) .

However, there are still questionsTBLT needs to address. Long and Crookes acknowl-edge this when they compare it to other TBL approaches (Long and Crookes 1992: 46) . ltsresearch base is still small and no complete programmes have yet been undertaken to accessit. The question of sequencing tasks is sti l l an issue, as is the question of producing ataxonomy of tasks. Finally, the degree of reduced learner autonomy could invite criticism.Long and Crookes' model has also never actually been realised in terms of materialsdevelopment or classroom practice, in contrast to Prabhu's model or Breen and Candlin's.

Overall,TBL looks like a verv exciting area and one which is already strongly influencingthinking in the field of language teaching methodologr.. It is not just limited to those modelsdescribed here; other models are being proposed and specific questions of task definitionand design are also being examined (Skehan 1996,1998;Nunan 1989, etc.).

Text-based teaching

Another new post-CLT approach to language teaching has been text-based teaching(alsoknown as genre-based). UnlikeTBL, rr-hich \\'e sa\\-is based o.riGod-JiTIEffiGllt.*t-f f r -based learning grew' out of a model of language. namelr Sr-stemic-Functional Grammar. Itis a1r approa.li *hi.h has been summarised in rtr.

I - panguage occurs as whole texts u-hich are embedded in the social contexts in which

I fh.y are used.

\ . ,,4eople learn Ianguage throughu'orkin_;',\r::. .,:. ,Ie rexts. (Feez 1998)\-/

T

T H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F E F L M E T H O D O L O G Y 1 6 3

This approach is perhaps better know'n and more widelv applied in Australia, where

r:uch of the theory w'as developed, than elsew'here. Its development there has primarih'

.:urred within the provision of English as a second language for migrants, as well as more

_:rcrally in language and literacv programmes. English for Academic Purposes (EAP)- :rammes have also been influenced bv its innovations.

scribes language not only in terms of l inguistic. lnfff i iElJtes these to the social interaction [hev are used to undertake and the wider

r.. ' in-* u.E-rrt@--@l l idav1973) .

The model of learning upon w'hich this method is based is informed by research in first, * . : u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n . L e a r n i n g i s s e e n a S a P r o c e s s o .

with iearners through an ilti-ceship' process as they

gree to w ners are expectecl to_ t : n m

,=:ffi ow'leoqe a has been debated by proponents AJati^ u,frpa: text-based met ogies and, in general, somE ieclarative knowl i, ,"".r

"/.. irable, in other words, learners are e d to become, to some de

s gs iSt_o theg=uRlidn-6T-learMit'Gdeflles Fffhin this approach. l&t--:.ed approaches can be seen as mo@ other current methodologies

:.. the role of teacher as'expert' is central. Typically, the teacher rvould lead the init ial

: rp lorat ion ofa text

sole uctron

roles, as asV skian notions of the social interactional nature of communication

:ro Iearnlng.aa--,::-l-r-lt

will bEnteresting to see this methodology develop further as more materials based

n it become avaiiable and it becomes taken up more wideh'.

Conclusion

:1orv does one conclude an outline of a process which has been underway for centuries -

: amely the search for better ways to teach languages? This search has probably never been

rs intense as it is today, with universities, classroom teachers and publishers all active.The

:ealisation that this is an'on-going'process is perhaps the first step.This might make us

,pproach more criticalll'the claims of researchers and pubiishers who are trying to promote

:articular solutions. Instead, lvith a sense of historical perspective, we should assess each

reu,' development ourselves. This assessment should draw on the disciplines which inform

-,ur field, .rot only r.co.rd lu.rg.t"-- uel l . Our three auest ions l rom the in t roduct ion that we have usefr to examine the

ffioil6Togies presented here can provide a starting point. We should not ignore our own

c\perience either; classroom-centred research has been one of the most important steps

iorward in recent vears. In this way the field of language teaching methodology will remain

vibrant and exciting.

ls not seen as a necessarv outcome o

Ncoal

( l' dN !

t5',

1 6 4 P A U L I ( N I G H T

Figure 8.5 An example of unit objectives within a text-based approach

References

Anthony, E.M. (1953)'Approach, method and technique' . Engltsh LanguageTbaching:63-'1 .Asher, J. (1965) 'The strategy of the total physical response: an application to learning

Russian' . International Review of Applied Linguisilcs 3: 291-300.- (1955)'The learning strategy of the total physical response: a review' . Modern Languaai

Journal 50:79-84.- (1969) 'The total phvsical response approach to second language learning'. Moder:

Language Journal 53: 3-17 .- (1977\ Learning Anorher LanguageThrough Actions:The CompleteTeacher's Guide Book. Lt.,

Gatos, Calif.: Sky Oaks Productions Inc.Beretta,A. and Davies,A. (1985)'Evaluation of the Bangalore Project' . ELTJournal 39/2.Bloomfield, L. (191+) An Introduction rc the Study oJ Langucrge. NewYork: Holt.

/ 19 l l r I nnn t tnnp Nen \b rk : Ho l t .' " " t 1 " " 4 1 ' '

UNIT OFWORKCASUAT CONVERSATION

GoalTo enable learners to participate in a casual conversation in a workplace.

Learner objectives

The learners w'ill:- understand the purpose of casual conversation in Australian workplace culture

know which conversation topics are appropriate in Australian workplaces- recognise and use the key features of a casual conversation, i.e. greetings and

closures, feedback, clarification, managing topic shifts- recognise and use conversation chunks such as comments, descriptions or recounts- take turns appropriately rvithin simple exchanges ie question/answer, statement,

agreement, statement / disagreement- use language appropriate to casual conversation including politeness strategies,

informal language, idiom- build pronunciation and paralinguistic skills and strategies, specifically in the areas

of intonation and gesture

Teacher objectives '

The teacher u'ill:- provide authentic Iistening materials- provide conversation practice through scaffolded roleplay- record learner language for analysis

Achievement assessment

The unit will enable students to achieve the following curriculum outcome, eg CSWEIII Competencv 7.

T H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F E F L M E T H O D O L O G Y 1 6 5

- (19+2) Outline Guidefor the Practical Stud;' oJ Foreign Languages. Baltimore: LinguisticSociety of America.

Breen, M.P. (1984)'Process svliabuses for the language classroom', in C.J. Brumfit (ed.),General Engltsh syllabus design. (El) Documents No. 118,+1-50). London: PerqamonPress &The Brit ish Council.

- (1987) 'Learner contributions to task design', in C.N. Candlin and D. Murphy (eds)Lancaster Practical Papers in English Language Education:Vol 7. Language learning tasks.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Breen, M.P. and Candlin, C.N. (1980)'The essentials of a communicative curriculum inlanguage teaching' . Applied Linguistics, 1 (2).89 112.

Canale, M. and Swain, H. (1980)'Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to secondlanguage teaching and testing'. Applied Linguistics I / 1.1 7

Candlin, C.N. (1984)'Svllabus design as a crit ical process', in C.J. Brumfit (ed.) General Englishsyllabus design. (Elff Documents No. 118, 2946). London: Pergamon Press and TheBritish Council.

- (1987) 'Ton'ards task-based language learning', in C.N. Candlin and D. Murphv (eds)Lancaster Practical Papers in English Language Educatton:Vol 7. Language learning tasks.Engieu'ood Ciiffs, NJ : Prentice Hail.

Candlin, C.N. and Murphy, D. (eds) (1987) Lancaster Practical Papers in Engltsh LanguageEducation:Vol 7. Language learning rasis. Englewood Ciiffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Chomskl', N. (1957) Svntactic Structures.The Hague: Mouton.Chomsky, N. (1956) Aspects oJtheTheory oJ Svntax. Boston: MIT Press.Curran, C.A. (1972) Counseling-Leirning:AWhole-Person ModelJor Education. NewYork: Grune

and Stratton.- (1975) Counseling-Learning in Second Languages. Apple River, I l1.:Apple River Press.Ellis, R. (1994) The Study oJ Second Language Acquisjrion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Feez, S. (1998) Tbxt-based Syllabus Desi:gn. Sydney: NCELTR, Macquarie University.Foster, P. (1999) 'Task-based learning and pedagogy' . ELT Journal 5 3 / 1 . 69-70 .Fries, C. (1945) Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language. Michigan: Michigan

University Press.Gattengo, C. (1972) Teachtng Foreign Languages in Schools:The SilentWay (2nd ed.). NewYork:

Educational Solutions.- (1976) The Common Sense oJTeaching Foreign Languages. NewYork: Educational Solutions.Hall iday, M.A.K. (1973)'Towards a socioiogical semantics'. Explorations in the Functlons of

Language . London: Edw'ard ArnoldHartley, B. andVine, P (1978) Streamline Engltsh. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Howatt,A.P.R. (1984) A HistorSr oJEnglish LanguageTeaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Hymes, D.H. (1971) On communicative competence. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia

Press.Kleinjans, E. (1961)'From Mim-Mem to Communication'. Srudies in Descriptive and Applted

Linguistics: Bulletin oJ the Summer lnstitute in LinguisticsYol 7 .Krashen, S.D. (1981) Second Language Acquisit ion and Second Language Learning. Oxford:

Pergamon.- ( 1982'1 Principles and Practices in Second Language Acqujsirjon. Oxford, Pergammon.Krashen, S.D. and Terrell, T. (1 983) The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroor,.

Oxford, Pergamon.La Forge, P.G. (1983) Counseling and Cuhure in Second Language Acqursition. Oxford: Pergamon.Lado, R. (196+) LanguageTbaching:A scientfic approach. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.Larsen-Freeman, D. (1986) Techniques and Prtnctples in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.Long, M.H. (1991) 'Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodologv', in

Irc(

1t(N u '

. ( t

1 6 6 P A U L I ( N I G H T

Foreign language research in cross-cuhural perspective, K' de Bot, D. Coste, R. Ginsberg and

C. K-ramsch (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins'

- (1996)'The role of the l inguistic environment in second language acquisit ion', in

Handbook oJ Second Language Acquisition, w.c. B. Ritchie (ed.). T K, Academic Press.

Long, M.H. und-c.ook", , G. (1992) 'Three Approaches toTisk-Based Syllabus Design' . TES)I'

@ta r te r l y )6 : I : 27 - ; ;

Lorun*:., G. (i978) Suggestology and Outlines of Suggestopedy. NewYork: Gordon and Breach'

Mclaughlin, B. ( i 987i Ih eories oJ Second-Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold.

Moskoi-itz, G. (1978) Caring and Sharing in the Foreign Language C1ass. Rowley, Mass': Newbury

House.

Mueiler, T. (1959) 'Psychology and the Language Arts'. scfioo1 and Society 87 .

Munby, l. ( 1978) Communicative Syllabus Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (1988) The Learner-Centred Currjculurn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press'

- (1989) DestgningTasksJor the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

O'Connor, j.C. and Twaddell, W.F. (1950) ' lntensive Training for an Orai Approach in

LanguageTeaching'. The Modern Language Journal Vol XLIV 2:2.

Palmer, H.E. (192 1) The Oral fulethod inTbaching Languages. Cambridge: Heffer.palmer, H.E. and Palmer, D. (1925) EngltshThrough Actions. Toyko: IRET. Repubiished by

Longmans, Green, 1959.

Prabhu, N.S. (1 9877 Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Richards, J.C. and Rogers,T.S. (1986) Approaches and Methods in LanguageTbachtng. Cambridge:

Cambridgc Universit; ' Press.

Scovel, T. (1979) 'Review of "suggestology and Outlines of Suggestopedy"' . TESOL Qgarterly

1 3 . 255 -266 .

Skehan, P. (1996) A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied

Lingdstics 17 1 : 38-52.- ( 1998) A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Skinner, B. F. ( 1 95 7) Verbal Behavior. N eu'York : Appleton- Century- Crofts.

Stern, H.H. (1983) Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Stern, H.H. (1992) Issues and Options in LanguageTeaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

White, L. (1987)'Against Comprehensible Input' . Applted Linguistics 8: 95-109.

Widdowson, H.G. (1978) Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

l6?C h a p t e r 9

Jack G. Richards

E T H o o o - a 6 c v I N T E A C H I N G I S T H E A C T I V I T I E S , t a s k s , a n d

learnffexperiences-used by the teacher r,r ' i thin the teaching and learning process.

is seen to have ions about (a)

r".--l-"d h"guage learning, (b) ,"u.h"t ""d

l""t".t t

lnstruct lonal mater la ls. I nese aSSUmptlOnS ano Del leIS pro\- lce tne DaSIS

t m a k i n g t h a t u n d e r l i e s t h e m o m e n t - t o - m o m e n t

processes of teaching. Methodologl is not therefore something hxed, a set of rigid principles

and procedures that tff i nform to.

il*ploruto.y p.o."t. ,hut b"Teaiffin!-as an exploratory process is different from the approach to teaching seen in many

teacher preparation programs or Ianguage teaching programs, where particular instructional

methods, such as the SilentWay,Total Physical Response, or the NaturalApproach, are

presented as models to be imitated and internalized. In this chapter, these two approaches

to teaching will be explored in more depth.The use of methods as the basis for instructional

processes in a second language program rvil l be compared with one that moves beyond

methods and focuses on exploring the nature of effective classroom teaching and learning.

Approaching teaching in terms of methods

For many centuries the goal of language teachers has been to find the right method (Kelly

1959).The history of language teaching in the last hundred years has done much to support

the impression that improvements in language teaching will result from improvements in

the quality of methods, and that ultimatelv an effective language teaching method will be

developed. Some breakthrough in l inquist ic theorv or in second language acquis i t ion

, . , "u.Jh, i t i fassufr -ed,r ,v i l leventual lyunIockthesecretsof , " .o@

"ffiteac

such as the SilentWay, Suggestopedia, or the

Natural Approach will bring about dramatic improvements in language learning.

Common to all methods is a set of specifications for how teaching should be

accomplished, derived from a particular theory of the nature of language and second

language learning. Differences in the instructional specifications reflect differences in the

theories underlying the methods. Some methods advocate an earlv emphasis on speaking as

(.

1 5 8 J A C K C . R I C H A R D S

a basis for establishing basic language Patterns. Others recommend that speaking be delayed

until the learner hasluitt up a receptive comPetence in the language. Some make use of

memorized dialogues and texts; others require that learners attemPt to communicate with

each other u, ,oo.t as possible using their or,vn language resources. Common to all methods

is a set of prescriptio.t, o., u'hat teachers and learners should do in the langlag-e classroom'

prescriptions for the teacher include rn"'hat material should be presented and when it should

be taugit and how., and prescriptions for learners include what approach they should take

towarJlearning. Specific rol", io, teachers, learners, and instructional materials are hence

established (Ri;ha;ds and Rodgers 1985). The teacher's job is to match his or her teaching

style as *.li u, the learners' learning stvles to the method. Special training packages and

progru*, are available for some methods to ensure that teachers do what they are supposed

to do and teach according to the method.

Despite the appeal of methods, their past history is somewhat of an embarrassment.

Studies of the effectiveness of specific methods have had a hard time demonstrating that the

method itself, ratler than othei factors, such as t)re teacher's enthusiasm or the novelty of

the new method, was the crucial variable. Likewise, observers of teachers using specific

methods have reported that teachers seldom conform to the methods they are supposed to

be following. Swaffar, Arens, and Morgan (1982), for example, investigated differences

between wf,at thev termed rationalist and empiricist approaches to foreign language

instruction. By a rationalist approach thev refer to process-oriented approaches in which

language is seen us ".r

i.rt.ir"lated whole, where Ianguage learning is a function of

.o,iprIh..rrion preceding pr6duction, and where it involves critical thinking and the desire

to communicate. Empiricist approaches focus on the four discrete language skills.Would

ciassroom practices reflect such differences? "One consistent problem is whether or not

teachers involved in presenting materials created for a particular method are actuallr-

reflecting the underlyiig philoroihi.s of these methods in their classroom practices" (Swaffar

"t al. l9d2:25). Swaffai er a1. found that many of the distinctions used to contrast methods,

particularly those based on classroom activities, did not exist in actual practice:

Methodological labels assigned to teaching activit ies are, in themselves, not

informative, because thev refer to a pool of classroom practices which are used

uniformly.The differences among major methodologies are to be found in the ordered

hierarchy, the priorit ies assigned to tasks. (1982: 31)

but is a dynamic, interactional process in which the teacher's "method" results from the- - - - - - ) ' - ' . | - -;t""#;f ,.t"r".tton between the teacher, the learners, and the instrucfintal tasks and

i*"-ffut et al' 1982)'AttemPts

to find general *Efr"Er that are suitable for all teachers and all teaching situations reflect

B E Y O N D M E T H O D S 1 6 9

anessent ia l lynegat iveviewof teachers 'onewhichimpl iesthats inc@s

cannotb"g, . ' " , " i t . .d , thecontr ibut ionof t f f iouIdbeminimizedbv

d r .+ _

methods is hence esienTldlfT:hrsih-chers cannot be trusted to teach well. Left to their owndevices, teachers wil l invariably make a mess of things. A method, because it imposes auniform set ofteaching roles, teaching styles, teaching strategies, and teaching techniqueson the teacher, will not be affected bv the variations that are found in individual teachingskil l and teaching style in the real *o.ld.

Researchers who have investigated the nature of teaching, however, have proposed adifferent view of teaching (Good 1979; Ell iot 1980;Tikunoff 1985).Thev begin with theassumption that teachers (rather than methods) do make a difference; that teachers workin ways that are, to an extent, independent of methods; and that the characteristics ofeffective teaching can be determined. Other researchers have turned their attention toIearnerr 4!I!_!pugh!l!o determine what characterizes effective learning. This requires adifferent approach to teaching, one in wFtFTEilEErs are involved in observing andEuDon thelr own

The nature of effective teaching

Teacher strategies

Every teacher aims to be an effectiv'e teacher. The concept of effective teaching is a somewhatelusive one, however. Can it be determined from the teacher's behavior, the learner'sbehavior, classroom interaction, or the results of learning? Researchers have attempted to

operationalize the notion of effective teaching by describing it as teaching that produceshigher-than-predicted gains on standardized achievement tests (Good 1979). Studies ofteacher effectiveness have dealt mainly witl first language classrooms and w'ith the teachingof reading and math. One major studv has dealt rvith effective teachers in bilingual programs(Tikunoff et al. 1 980). These studies are characterized by detailed observation of teachers

performing instructional activities in the classroom in an attempt to isolate the qualities and

Several dimensions of teaching have been found to account for differences between effectiveand ineffective instruction (Dovle 1977; Good 1979).These include classroom management,

structuring, tasks, and grouping.

\.In a comprehensive survev of the research on effective schooling, Blum (198+: 3-6)

summarizes effective classroom practices as follows:

1 Instruction is guided by a preplanned curriculum.2 There are high expectations for student learning.

3 Students are carefullv oriented to lessons.

4 Instruction is clear and focused.

5 Learning progress is monitored ciosel,v.

5 When students don't understand, thev are retaught.

7 Class time is used for learning.

8 There are smooth and efficient ciassroom routines.

9 Instructional groups formed in the classroom fit instructional needs.10 Standards for classroom behavior are high.

1 1 Personal interactions between teachers and students are positive.12 Incentives and rewards for students are used to Dromote excellence.

:*

1 7 0 J A C I ( C . R I C H A R D S

Classroom manaBement

C]assroom manaBement refers to the ways in which student behavior, movement, and

interaction during a lesson are organized and controlled by the teacher to enable teaching

to take place most effectivelr'. Good managerial skills on the part of the teacher are an

essential component of good teaching. In a well-managed class, discipline problems are few,

and learners are activell.engaged in learning tasks and activities; this contributes to high

motivation and expectations for success. Evertson, Anderson, and Brophy (1978) found that

it was possible to identify teachers w'ith managerial problems in the first few days of the

school year, that such problems continued throughout the year, and that managerial skilis

in the classroom lvere related to levels of student involvement.

Structuring

A lesson reflects the concept of structurinq when the teacher's intentions are clear and

instructional activities are sequenced according to a logic that students can perceive.

Classroom observations and studies of lesson protocols indicate that sometimes neither the

teacher nor the learners understood what the intentions of an activity were, why an activity

occurred when it did, what directions they w'ere supposed to follow, or what the relationship

between one activity and another was. Hence, it may not have been clear what students

needed to focus on to complete a task successful\. Fisher et a1. ( 1980; conclude t]lat students

"pay attention more whenth€ teacher .p..rd, ti*. $"4)

t etimes not done at all,

sometimes it is done only minimally, and sometimes it is overdone" (p. 63).

Iasfrs

Iasfu, or activity structures, refer to activities that teachers assign to attain particular learning

objectives. For any given subject at any given level, a teacher uses a limited repertoire of

tasks that essentially define that teacher's methodology of teaching. These might include

completing worksheets, reading aloud, dictation, quickwriting, and practicing dialogues.

According toTikunoff (1985), class tasks vary according to three types of demands thev

make on learners: rcsponse mode demands (the kind of skills they demand, such as knowledge,

comprehension, application, analysis/synthesis, evaluation); interactional mode demands (the

rules governing how classroom tasks are accomplished, such as individually, in a grouP, or

with the help of the teacher); and rasl complexity demands (how difficult the learner perceives

the task to be).

Teachers have to make decisions not only about the appropriate kinds of tasks to assign

to learners, but also about the order oJ rasis (the sequence in which tasks should be

introduced; ; pacing (how much time learners should spend on tasks); products (whether the' t t . u

product or .Eilt oh-iTalET expected to be the same for all students); Iearning strategies

iwhat learning strategies wili be recommended for particular tasks); and materials (what

sources and materials to use in completing a task) (Tikunoff 1985).

The concept of tasks has been central to studies of effective teaching. The amount of

time students spend actively engaged on learning tasks is directly related to learning (Good

and Beckerman 1978). For example, Gacher A and Gacher B are both teaching the same

reading lesson. In Teacher A's class, learners are actively engaged in reading tasks for 759 i

of the lesson, the remaining time being occupied with noninstructional activities such a.

x

B E Y O N D M E T H O D S 1 7 1

taking breaks, lining up, distributing books, homework, and making arrangements for future

events. Students inTeacher B's class, holvever, are actively involved in reading for only

55% of the lesson. Not surprisingly, studies of time-on-task have found that the more time

students spend studying content, the better they learn it. In one study (Stall ings and

Kaskowitz 197+), the students with the highest levels of achievement in a reading programwere spending about 50%o more time actively engaged in reading activities than the children

with the lowest achievement gains. Good teaching ir h"r." r"id to b" t. .tiu.

teachers also monitor performan6e on

been completed

ufouPlnB

A related dimension of effective teaching is the grouping of learners to carrv out instructional

tasks, and the relation between grouping arrangement and achievement. An effective teacher

understands how' different kinds of grouping (such as seat work, pair u'ork, discussion,

reading circle, or lecture) can impede or promote learning.Webb (1980) found that the

middle-ability child suffers a loss of achievement, while the low-ability child shows some

gains in achievement in mixed-abil itv groups, compared with what would be expected

if both were in uniform-abilitv groups. Tikunoff ( 1985) cites Good and Marshall's findings

on groupings.

Good and Marshall (1984) found that students in low-ability reading groups in the

early grades received very little challenge, thus perceiving of themselves as unable to

read. In addition, a long-range result of interacting most frequently with onh'other

students of low-ability in such groups was an inability to respond to the demands of

more complex instructional activities. Ironically, Good pointed out that the ven-

strategy,rr.d,o presumably help low'-abilitv youngstem onlth their reading p.obl"-,- pull-out programs in which teachers worked with small groups of these students

outside the regular classroom - exacerbated the problem. Demands in the special

reading groups were verv different from those in the regular classroom and at a much

lower level of complexity, so low-abilit,v students were not learning to respond to

high level demands that would help them participate competently in their regular

c lassrooms. tp. 56r

The research findlngs suggest therefore that effective teaching depends on such factors

as time-on-task, feedback, grouping and task decisions, classroom management, and

structuring. Although the concept of effective teaching evolved from studies of content

teaching,Tikunoff 's ( 1983) major stud,v of effective teaching in bilingual education programs

has examined the extent to which it also applies to other contexts, such as bilingual and

ESL classrooms.

ffictive teaching in bilingual classrooms

etence are needed for the student

abilitv "to res

appropriately to class demands and the 6}-accomplishing them" (p. 4);

Mabilitt-to classroom rules o[discourse and social

T/\AA

L 7 2 J A C I < C . R I C H A R D S

information, and construct ne$, concepts" (p. 4). Furthermore, to be functionally proficient

the classroom, the student must be able to utilize these competences to perform three

Ttajor functions: (a) to decgde and und-erstand both task expectati^n. and new information;

1U;-to engage "pp.op.i"t. ly

in completing tasks, with high accuracy; and (c) to-obtain

ura te ly (p .s ) .G;>\

n-his Significant Bil ingual InstFuE ftiiptive',u{,,f 'ku'$)

(1983) collected data to lind out how effective teachers in bilingual education progTams

organize instruction, structure teaching activities, and enhance student performance on

taJks.Teachers were interviewed to determine their instructional philosophies, goals, and

the demands they rvould structure into class tasks. Teachers were clearly able to specify class

task demands and intended outcomes and to indicate what LEP students had to do to be

functionallv proficient. Case studies of teachers were undertaken in w-hich teachers were

observed during instruction, rvith three observers collecting data for the teacher and for

four target LEP students. Teachers were interview'ed again after instruction.

An analysis of data across the case studies revealed a clear linkage between ( I ) teachers'

ability to clearly specifv the intent of instruction, and a belief that students could

achieve accuracy in instructional tasks, (2) the organization and delivery ofinstruction

such that tasks and institutional demands reflected this intent, requiring intended

student responses, and (3) the fidelity of student consequences with intended

outcomes. In other words, teachers q--ab19 ibe clearlv what instruction

would entail, to operatlonalizE ts

in terms of s tudent per formance. (p. 9;--------+

This approach to teaching is

studving the classroom Practices d bv effective teachers

GliEing ts not viewed as something t}at results from using M X or Methodl

or something that results from the teacher modifying teaching behaviors to match some

external set of rules and principles. Rather, it resultsfrom the teacher's a:ctiv: nd

management of the processes of teaching, learning, and comfrrunication within the classroom

and from an understanding ofthese processes.The classroom is seen as a place where there: : T - : - . - - , ,

is ongoQ-arul dynamic interaction between the teacher's instructional goals, Iearners

purposes, classroom tasks and activities, the teacher's instructional activities and behaviors,

student behaviors in completing assigned tasks, and learning outcomes.

In the bilingual classrooms observed inTikunoff's study, effective teaching was found

to reflect tlre degree to which the teacher is able to successfully communicate his or her

intentions, maintain students' engagement in instructional tasks, and monitor students'

performance on tasks. In classrooms where different instructional goals are present and

different aspects of second language proficiency are being addressed, the characteristics of

effective teaching in those settings cannot be inferred merely from reading about the

theoretical principles underlying the method or approach the teacher is supposed to be

following. Rather, classroom obt..uuti .t

predicteJ levels of achi"r:-@assessed as perfor{ning at high

f oIETIEctiiEn6s s acc ordin g to other criteri a, ifrom which

ctive teachers rn llstenrng, readtng, wrlt aking, and other ki classes can

place in the classroom. However, what the teacher does is only half of the picture. The other

haif concerns what learners do to achieve successful learning, or \earner strategies.P,lcfiied

bvtheawarenessthat learnersmaysucceeddespi tetheteac} f f i techniques

rather than because of them, researchers as w-ell as teachers have begun to look more closely

at learners themselves in an attempt to discover hor'v successful learners achieve their results

r O ' M a l l e - v e t a l . 1 9 8 5 a , b ; W i l l i n g l 9 8 5 r .

Studies of learner strategies attempt to identify the specific techniques and strategies

learners use to facilitate their ou'n learning (Oxford 1985b). The locus is on the particular

cognitive operations, processes, procedures, and heuristics that learners apply to the task

of learning a second language. Given any language learning task, such as understanding a

lecture, reading a text, writ ing a composition, understanding the meaning of a new

grammatical or lexical item, or preparing a r,r 'r itten summary of a text, a number of

strategies are available to a learner to help carry out the task. But what is the practical value

of knowing which particular strategies a learner employed?

Just as research on effective teaching has identified the kinds ofteaching behaviors that

appear to account for superior teaching, so research on effective learning seeks to identifv

the kinds oflearning behaviors that can best facilitate learning. Good language learners seem

tobesuccess fu lbecause theyhaveabe t te runde rs tand ing f f i . n

f €

touncl to account lor t rformance ners on many classroom learnlng tas

t should therefore be possible to improre-studenipeiT6?fri(ft63€ntelcfT9-/9). lt should theretore be possrble to improve student pertormantE5nlearning tasks by identifying successful approaches to learning and by directing learners

toward these kinds ofstrategies. Research on learner strategies in second language learning

hence seeks to identify the strategies emploved by successful learners and then to teach

those strategies to other learners in order to improve their language learning capacities

(Hosenfeld 1977; Cohen and Aphek 1980; Chamot and O'Malley 1984). The premises

underlying Cohen and Aphek's work, for example, are:

Some language learners are more successful than others.

' ( c r r

T AJ'+ ..--

t Some aspects of the learning process are conscior+s and others are not-e Less successfuUearnel, .un"u'rdilEE*6i **.gi.. .onr.io.rrly to accelerate learnin

classes.

The field of learner strategy research in second language learning is hence now an ,Sn-i.*C'important domain of classroom research, and differs substantially from previous researchr,p---{

in this area. Earlier w-ork on learning strategies lacked a sound th"o."ti.4!gis and consisted

iffwere developed from interviews with successful language learners (e.g., Rubin 1975,

1 9 8 1 ; S t e r n 1 9 7 5 ; N a i m a n e t a l . 1 9 7 8 ) . W i l l i n g ( 1 9 8 7 : 2 7 5 ) p o i n t s o u t t h a t " w h i l e s u c h

generalizations have their usefulness as a help in understanding t}e process of language

learning from the point of vieu. of the learner, thev do not immediately yield prescriptions

for teaching."

1 7 4 J A C K C . R I C I T A R D S

More recent s'ork on learner strategies has attempted to yield more usable results b'

making use of data obtarned hom a brouder.ung. of .o,rr."r, ..l.h as classroom observarior:-

"think--aloud" procedures rin s'hich learners record their thoughts and observations as ther

perform different tasks). intervieu-s, self-reports emploviig note-taking and diaries.

questionnaires, as u'ell as conrrolled experimental studies designed to investigate specih-

cognitive processes (e.g. , Heuring 1984).These kinds of approache s are yielding information

of greaterpractical value. For example, Cohen (cited in Oxford 1985a) Iists six strategi.:

used by successful language learners:

1 Attention-enhancing strategies, such as responding silently to tasks asked of otF=:

students in classng knowledge of the world, knou'lei.=

effor t-to de code communi c ative me anin g

3 Oral production tricks, such as @, ParaPhrasing,and ask:-;

for helsuch as makinq associations, attending to_the mY - g

Ioffi-=tn. structr.ile of the word, placing the word in a tor--arl' l

---1--i-----:--'11 r-.group $- i th s imi la r $ords , \ ' i sua l i z ing l l son tex tua l l z lng l t , l l nk lng l t to tne s l tua : :d

Use of a variety of background sources, ing knowledge ot t eci:-rreness

of stress and tone of voice of the speaker' PercePtior' :ol the srven toDlc. awa' - - 1 - - - - i r t ^ -

thd-speaker's body la.tguf,ge,ind cues from earlier parts of the conversation in -,.

sensation to it

Gaing-oltext-processing strategies, such as clarifying the communicative Puri -ie

of the text, distinguishing imPortqllfgrnls_frgrn lrr,/9, skipping around to E€: arL

ou"r3]lgglruig1se1; nd kno* Ie:.--'srt_ ."udiigE-ET-oud phrases rather th"g:lrrd &r:ryqd, relying on cj$9xtya\lii-making onSin$-uirmlries, and looking for;g

text

Writing techniques such as focusing on simplY getting ideas doln'n on paper in=r.aC

of trying for perfectiol]ight away; purposefully using parallel structures and c'i=.

@and writing multiple drafts.

Willing (1,987 : 278 9) notes that strategies are essentially "methods employed by the per.s:m

for processing input language information in such a way as to gain control of it, thus enab'--'E

the assimilatio.r-of thai information bv the self." Strategies are hence viewed as s'a'*': :f

managing the complex information that the learner is receiving about the target lanqua.-:

W.rd".t (1983) intervieu'ed adult language learners about how they organized d.=o'

language learning experiences and found that they asked themselves eight kinds of quesri' "--*.

@rcst ion

1 Hou'does this ianguage rr'ork?

2 \\'hat's it like to learn a language?

Decision

Learners make judgments about the

linguistic and sociolinguistic codes.

Learners make judgments about hou- to

learn a language and about what languag.

learning is like.

Learners decide upon linguistic objecti..,

resources, and use of resources.3 \A'hat should I learn and how?

4 What should I emphasize?

5 How'should I change?

How am I doing?

What am I getting out of this?

B How am I responsible for learning?

How is language learning affecting

me?

B E Y O N D M E T H O D S 1 7 5

Learners decide to give priority to speciallinguistic items.

Learners decide to change their approach tolanquaqe Iearninq.

o o o

Learners determine how well they use theIanguage and diagnose their needs.

Learners determine if an activity or strategy

is useful.

Learners make judgments about how to

learn a language and about what language

learning is l ike.

O'Malley et al.have investigated the use of strategies bv ESL learners both in and out of

classrooms (O'Mallel ' et al. 1985a, b; O'Mallev and Chamot 1989). ESL students and their

teachers were interviewed about the strategies learners used on specific language learning

tasks, and the learners were observed in ESL classrooms. Thev were also asked about their

use of English in communicative situations outside the classroom. A total of twenty-six

different kinds of learning strategies were identified.

In a follow-up-str*ffdparticular strategies in order to det€rmine if it would improve their effectiveness as language

learners and their performance on vocabularl', listening, and speaking tasks. Strategies lvere

compared across proficiencv levels and r'vith learners of different language backgrounds.

Students \r'ere given training in the use ofspecific strategies for particular language learninq

tasks. Results supported the notion that learners can be taught to use more effective iearninq

strategies (O'Mallev et a|. 7985a,b1:

Strategies training was successfullv demonstrated in a natural teaching environment

with second language listening and speaking tasks. This indicates that classrooms

instruction o" l"ul"iie t,.","gi; *i

@t-Phillips (1975) investigated how- learners approach reading tasks and identified strategies

employed by good and poor readers. She emploved a "think-aloud" procedure to investigate

readers' strategies in dealing "vith

unknon'n vocabulary. From her students' descriptions

Phil l ips found that strategies used bv efficient readers included categorizing words

gram-;"4t!e!y, interpretini grammatiial operations, and recogniri.rftofi.t-6iE-6-ot

i lar..H.*rf. u.r@uf"*_-tg. language readers when encountering unfamiliar words. In one study (Hosenfeld

1977), some of the differences bet'r,'l'een those with high and lou,' scores on a reading

oroficiencv test were these: Hish scorers tended to keep the meanins of the passase in minfr-\

..dl}ro lpfr*:.r, skip u-nesssntial *-ords, . r If romcontex t ; lowscorers tendedto Iose themian ingof@d.d |th" ord by word or in short phrases,,u..ly".kip words, and turn to the glossary Iwhen they encountered neu'words. In addition successful readers tended to identify theJgrammatical categories of words, could detect-word-order differences in the forei

blg"lg., re co8lnlzcd ro€pals! and us e cl th e q I o s s an' o n@ :t7J j t .Ho ' .n fe id foundtha tunsuccess tu l readers .@ica ls t ra teg ies

Tv

o

**

L 7 6 J A C K C . R I C H A R D S

successful readers, confirmingWenden's observation that i'ineffective le?rners are inactive

learners. Their apparent inabiltt l to learn is. in fact- drre tn their not having an appropriate

reoerto i re of learn ins st rategies" t 1 98 5: 7 r .

Studies of horv learners approach writing tasks have also focused on the effectiveness

of the processes learners emplov (Raimes 1985). Lapp (1984) summarizes some of the

research findings on differences betrveen skil led and unskil led writers with respect to

rehearsing and prewriting behaviors (what a writer does before beginning writing), drafting

and writing processes (how the writer actuallv composes a piece of writing), and revising

b_ehaviors (revisions and corrections the writer makes).

Research findings on learner strategies in reading and writing classes (e.g., Heuring

1984) suggest that teachers need to evaluate their teaching strategies on an ongoing basis,

to determine if thev are promoting effective or ineffective learning strategies in learners.

Many commonly emploved techniques in the teaching of writ ing, such as outl ining or

writing from a rhetorical model, might well inhibit rather than encourage the development---v?Y--=-:-5f-effective writing skills, because they direct the learner's attention to the form and

-."hu.ri.r of *.laiig ,o.'ln

order to present information about learning strategies to students, strategies need

to be operationalized in the form of specific techniques (see Fraser and Skibickl 1987);

however, there is no consensus yet concerning how to approach the teaching of learning

strategies. As rvith other aspects of language teaching, qgjlue_g{Ihether strategies arebest . .Larned, 'or . .accui red ' i isacentra lone- .Some."s.u. f f i '

T ilililililililililililililililis involves explicit training in the use of specific strategies and teaching students to

consciously monitor their own strategies (e.g., O'Malley et al. 1985a, b; Russo and Stewner-Manzanares 1985). Others favor a more indirect approach in which strategies are

incorporated into other kinds oflearning content. Fraser and Skibicki (1987) describe the

development of self-directed learning materials for adult migrant learners in Australia,w-hich focus on specific strategies in different skill areas. A related issue concerns whetherthe focus of teacher intervention should be to provide additional strategies to learners ormerely to help the learner develop a better aw-areness of and control over existing strategies.Will ing (1987: 277) observes that despite the recent amount of attention to learning

strategies, some serious issues still await resolution:

12

Current notions of learning strategies lack conceptual coherence . . .Learning strategies as currently described have been identified more or less in isolationand on a purely empirical and arbitrarv basis and have not been related to an overallv i e w o f l e a r n i n g . . .

There has been little systematic work on placing learning strategies within a broaderdescription of the nature and meaning oflearning itself . . .There has been little effort to relate the notion of learning strategies (within a generalIearning theory) to current ideas about second language acquisition.

In addition, there has been little attempt to relate theories of learn

general t the one di

Summary

Two approaches to language teaching have been discussed and contrasted. One con-ceptualizes teaching as application of a teaching method, in which both the teacher and the

B E Y O N D M E T H O D S 1 7 7

attempt is then made to make the teacher's and learner's classroom beha,rioiiEE& thespecifications of the method.This can b".ont.urt.d *ith ur

"pp ch that starts with the

ise.,rable processes of classroom f

s'a

| )) /

PrrnclPres rces ln ranguage i e d . @ o

The study of effective teaching provides information about how effective teachersorganize and delir.er instruction. This relates to classroom management skills, and tothe strategies teachers r.",o p..t.^, i^r,.r",i u.rdactivities, monitor learning, and provide feedback on it.The on about the learning strategieseffective learners applv to the process of using and learning G"dliJfoilg"language.

However, a word of caution is in order, since the goal of this approach is not simply to arriveat a set of general principles that can be taught to teachers and learners.Lhis of course wouldbe to come full circle. and "method" lr-ith another. The aooroach

1 -aovoca starts with the assumption that the investigation of effective teaching andlearning-strategies is a central and ongoing component of the process of teaching.This is the

.".\ - ^, r, I

"dby@externallv derived set incioles to their eachers are seen rather as I

their own classroom practices and those of the learners. Much of the effort to

teaching and learning in their ou'n classrooms. In the domain of learning strategies, theteacher also has an important role to plav.The teacher is initiallv an observer and investigatorof the learners' learning behaviors and subsequentlv provides feedback on the kind ofstrategies that are most successful for carrving out specific learning tasks. Relevant concernsfor the teacher thus focus not on the search for the best method, but rather on thecircumstances and conditions under r,vhich more effective teaching and learning areaccomplished.

References

Berliner, D.C. (1984)'The half-full glass: a review of research on teaching', in P.L. Hosford(ed.) Using WhatlVe Know about Teaching, pp. 51 77. Alexandria, Va.: Association forSupervision and Curriculum Development.

Blum, R.E. (1984) Effective Schooling Practices:A Research Synthesis. Portland, Ore.: NorthwestRegional Educational Laboratorv.

Chall, J. (Xl; Learning to Read:The Great Debate. NervYork: McGraw-Hill.Chamot, A.U., and O'Malley, J.M. (1986) A Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach: An

ESL Content-Based Curriculum. Rosslln,Va.: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

:@determine what constitutes effective tGacEing and learning is initiated by the teacherrirr""gh."g"1". .br. Ateachers can obtain valuable feedback about the effectiveness of their own teaching. At thA--/

1 7 8 J A C I ( C . R I C H A R D S

Cohen, A.D., and Aphek, E. (1980)'Retention of second-language vocabulary over time:investigating the role of mnemonic associations' . SSrstem 8: 221 35.

Doyle, W. (1977)'Paradigms for research on teacher effectiveness', in L.S. Shulman (ed.)

Review oJResearch inTeacher Educat ion,Yoi . 5 ,pp. 153-98. l tasca, I l l . : Peacock.

Dunkin, M., and Biddle , B (197+) The Study oJTeaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart andWinston.

Ell iot, J. ( 1980 r ' lmplications of classroom research for professional development', in E. Hoyle

and J. .\le _garrr r eds I llbrld Yearbook oJ Education, 1980, pp. 308-2+. London: Kogan Page.Evertson. C.]1...\nderson, L.M. and Brophy, J.E. (1978) TheTexas junior high school study:report

.- "..'--.-,,,-;r-'iu:t

relailonships. University ofGxas, Research and Development Center forT-a;ltr Education, .\ustin.

F: . i - . : . C \ \ . . Ber l iner , D.C. , F i lb l ' , N.N. , Mar l iave, R.S. , Cahen, L.S. and Dishaw, M.M.' '.r 'r , 'Teaching behaviors, academic learning time and academic achievement: an

-.r c:r ies '.

in C. Denham and A. Lieberman (eds) ftme to Learn, pp. 7-32. Washington,D C. : U. S. Department of Education, National Institute of Education.

i::...r. H., and Skibicki, A. (1987) 'Self-directed learning strategies for adult Vietnameselearners of ESL'. Prospect 3, 1: 33 44.

Good, T. L. (1979)'Teacher effectiveness in the elementarv school' . Journal ofTeacher Education3 0 , 2 : 5 2 6 4 .

Good,T.L., and Beckerman,T.M. (1978)'Time on task: a naturalistic study in sixth gradeclassrooms' . Elementarv School Journal 7 8: 193-201 .

Good, T.L., and Marshall, S. (198+) 'Do students Iearn more in heterogeneous orhomogeneous groups?', in P. Peterson, L.C. Wilkinson and M. Hall inan (eds) IieSocial Context oJ Instruction: Group Organization and Group Processes. NewYork: AcademicPress.

Heuring, D.L. (1984)'The revision strategies of skil led and unskil led ESL rvriters: f ive casestudies. Master's thesis. University of Hawaii at Manoa.

Hosenfeld, C. (1977)'A preliminarv investigation of the reading strategies of successful andnon-successful second language learners'. System 5: 110-23.

-11979)'Alearning-teachingvie'n'ofsecondianguageinstruction'.ForeignLanguageAnnals

1 2 , 1 : 5 1 - 4 .- (198+) 'Case studies of ninth grade readers', in J.C. Alderson andA.H. Urquhart (eds),

Reading in a Foreign Language, pp. 23149. London: Longman.Kelly, L. (1969) Twenry-f ve Centuries oJ LanguageTbachtng. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.Lapp, R. (1984)'The process approach to writ ing: towards a curriculum for international

students'. Master's thesis. Working Paper available from Department of English as aSecond Language, University of Hawaii.

Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H.H. andTodesco, A (1978) The Good Language Learner.Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

O'Mallev, J., and Chamot, A.U. (1989) Learner Strategies in Second Language,4cguisit ion. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

O'Malley, J., Chamot, A.U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo, R.P. and Kupper, L. (1985a)'Learning strategy appiications with students of English as a second language' . TESOL

Quar te r l y 19 ,3 :557 84 .O'Mallev. J., Chamot,A.U., Stew'ner-Manzanares, G., Kupper, L. and Russo, R.P. (1985b)

'Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL learners'. LanguageLearning 35, l .

Oxford, R. (1985a) ,4 Ner.v Taxonomv oJ Second Language Learning Strategies. Washington, D.C.:Center for Appiied Linguistics.

- (1985b)'Second language learning strategies: rvhat the research has to say'. ERIC/CLL\ews Bulletin 9, | .

B E Y O N D M E T H O D S 1 7 9

Phillips, J. (915)'Second language reading: teaching decoding skills'. Foreign Language Annals8 :227 -30 .

Raimes, A. (1985)'What unskil led ESL students do as thev w'rite: a classroom studv ofcomposing ' . TESOL Qtar ter l r 19,2: ) )9-5q.

Richards, J. C., and Rodgers,T. (1985) Approaches and Methods in LanguageTeaching. NewYork:Cambridge University Press.

Rub in , J .0975 ) 'wha t thegood language lea rne rcan teachus ' .

rESor Quar te r l y9 ,1 :47 s l .- ( 1 9 8 1 )

'Studv of cognitive processes in second language learning' . Applied Linguistics I I ,2 : 1 1 7 3 1 .

Russo, R. P., and Stewner-Manzanares, G. (1985)'The training and use of learning strategiesfor English as a second language in a military context'. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Stallings, J. A., and Kaskowitz, D.H. (197+) Follow through Classroom Observation Evaluailon,1 972-1 97 3. Menlo Park, Cal. : Stanford Research Institute.

Stern, H. H. (1975)'What can we learn from the good language learner?' Canadian l4odernI n n n t t n n p R p v i e w 7 l : 3 0 4 - 1 8 .' - "d"" t1"

Sw-affar, J.K., Arens, K. and Morgan, M. (1982)'Teacher classroom practices: redefiningmethod as task hierarchl.'. Modern Language Journal 66, 1: 24-33.

Tikunoff, WJ. (1983)'Uti l i tv of the SBIF features for the instruction of l imited Englishprof ic ient s tudents ' . Report N*o. SBIF-S1-R.15/ l6 for NIE Conrract Xo. +00-80-062e .San Francisco: FarWest Laboratorv for Educational Research and Development.

- (1985) Applying Signtjcant Bil.ingual Instructional Features in the Classroom. Rosslyn, Va.-National Clearinghouse for Bifingual Education.

Tikunoff, WJ., Ward, B.A., Fisher, C.A., Armendariz, J.C., Parker, L. Dominguez, VJ.A.,Mercado, c., Romero, M. and Good, R.A. (1980)'Review of the l iterature for adescriptive studv of significant bilinguai instructional features'. Report No. SBIF,81-D. 1 .1. San Francisco: FarWest Laboratory for Educational Research and Development

Webb, N.M. (1980)'A process-outcome of learning in group and individual settings'.Educational Psychologist I 5: 69-8 3 .

Wenden,A (19S3) 'Al i teraturereview:theprocessof intervent ion ' .LanguageLearning33, l :103-21.

- (1 985)'Learner strategies'. TESOL Newslecrer (October).Willing, K. (1985) Helptng Adults Develop Their Learning Strategies. Sydney: Adult Migrant

Education Service.- (1987) 'Learner

strategies as information manageme nt' . Prospect 2 , 3 : 2i 3_92 .

C h a p t e r 1 0

Michael H. Long

FOCUS ON

LANGUAGE

FORM: A DESIGN FEATURE

TEACHING METHODOLOGY

IN

A N G U A G E T E A C H E R E D U C A T I c | N P R r | ( r R { } i T S P E R S I S T i N

presenting.lurrrooi o--ptions to trainees in terms of methods.Whl" Plh*.l,o,pred

cojpqs,-4ld-some elen giue college cred lt

d-",relope., o. lr!""*d "$tes.

Books on methods sell very well' books surveying methods

a@veone-day..seminars''offeringtraininginparticuIarmet]rodsare rarely short of customers.Yet it is no exaggeration to say thSt.lanquage teaching methods

do not exist - at least, not where theJ.yegld rnggg! if they did, in the classroom.as idealized

rrescribing and proscribing

manv of the same clasirooJ

fls. For example, while oie method may have teachers

;" "r-;

using hand-signals, and one verbally, U.ttt pt.*ltb="-::19iidFT-eedback on error using hand-signals, and one verbally, bglrl_prescrlDe error.

rection". Almost all methods in fact advocate error correctlor, 1KEf,E-itt?'-S6@

endins thal any one mettod is a panacea or at lgast lbqt they know *hich one is, most

nevertheless continue to usecredit for training in particular methods ta

commlsslon oI error y or non-

real classei, as opposed to staged demonstration lessons (

r ) .

Second, u.hen third parties analyze l.pryPg - records of what teachers and

Iearners actualll' do, as opposed to w-hat ;ffiE;Egttttiell them to do - brief excerpts

can occasionullv b. identified as the product of this or that method, but thfiliiilfidlions

ffiFhuu. to-b" -ud" on th. Uffiut 1as far as we know)Tijvial

featffi, e. g. whether students lidinloT

different methods (e.g. Scherer andWertheimer 1964; Smith 1970;Von Elek and Oskarsson

1975) have typicall),Tound little or no advantage for-one.over another, or only local and

usually shortTueTidvantages. One inteSpretation o[ such results is that methods do ncit

f f idonot "ds te*quire this, after all), whatever they are

supposed to be doing, especiallv over time. The absence of a systematic observational

component in most of the comparative methods studies makes either interpretation

ainst methods-

F O C U S O N F O R M 1 8 1

problematic. However, the second vie'iv is supported retrospectively by descriptive studieswhich have found the same classroom practices surviving differences not only in,'methods,,(Nunan 1987), but also in professional training (Long and Sato 1983;, materials lphil l ipsand Shet t lesrvor th 1975; Long, Adams Mclean and Castanos 1976; Ross, to upp.u i ,teaching generations (Hoetker and Ahlbrand 1959) and teaching experience (pica and Long1e86).

, .t:".*, -.thod -"),

?. -")" r?t b"

1rr. g,Dut lt ls tot a cor:eptuul . Numerous studies of the*"rr r3"_t ransPlres In the c lassroom ln terms of inst ruct ional act iv i t ies, or tasks ( for rev iew. seeShavelson and Stern 1 98 1 ; Crookes 1 985). The same appears to be true of FL teachers.Swaffer, Arens and Morgan (1982) conducted a six-month comparative methods studv("comprehension" and "four skil ls" approaches) of German t"u.hi.rg at the UniversitvofTexas. Classroom observations and debriefing interviews with teachlrs at the end of thestudy showed that, desE chers havins receiv(r"pport4lD lEli"e .".h

"r"dr for a semester, there was no clear distinction

between them in their miFor these and other reasons, it is clear that "method" is an unverlfiiUte ana irrelevant

cons t ruc twhena t temPt ing to impro r .ec lass roo

d. aying that -ethods donot exist and so do not matter at the classroom level does not mean, after;ll, that what goeson in c lassrooms does not mat tef . On the contrary, there is growing ev idence of th .importance of classroom processes. of pedagogic t";k.ffi i'

success and failure in FLs (foffiRSTher than focus on metlod i v. however, we would do better to think in terms olp./il"lttg"trtt.l prelerabh. learureswhich caPture important characteristics of a wide range oT-syllabus types, methods,materials, tasks, and tests. It is to one of thesffZus-onlofrf,that we now turn.

Focus on form in language teaching

Many develoPments in foreign language syllabus design, materials writing, methodologyand testing during the past 30 years reflect the tension between the desirability ;f

l in-guistic focus in language lea r. However, while discussion has occurredinsfdll-rooms and journals alike, it has qenerallv concerned how best to achieve such afocus, not whether or not to have one. Most applied linguists and continue toadvocate teachins and testinq i linffi6iliTnlTi of one kind or another in-o.,. -uv o,rnother. Thus. while procedural

1987; Breen t98Z; ioig-""d Creen 1987; I ong and Crookes 1989), th. ot".*h"l*i.g -ujo.itystructural, notional-fun or a hybrid, and superficiallv di " , l i keALM,

There have alwavs been a few dissenting voices. Newmark (1966),N"*-..r".ki.rd1Gb-.1(1958), Corder (1957) and Alhvright (1916), among others, have argued strongly against

---:\\

.. interfering',*i.@hiIedifferingconsiderablr'bothinthedetaiIoftheir

red for them' each has claimed that the best way to

\lgarn a language, irrrli" o' outside a classroom' ilr*ot b' treating it as an obiect of studY'

T B 2 M I C H A E L H . L O N G

t bv experiencing it as a medium of communication'

Johnston 1985.)

Numerous studies show, for instance, that ESL negation has a four-stage sequence (for

review, see Schumann 19797

t.#i";;;;;"l.o"'''@hfindings(seee.g.!ula1^and|'urt1973;El l is" l l5+; f" i l * t lSt; ' f .ash.. t u. tdT"rr . l l 1983;Prabhu 1987;Wode 1981) ' Most

often cited in this context are the u'ell attested de,'e1o?menral sequ:nces in interlanguage-llL)'

such as those for Swedish negation, English relative clauses and German word order' I nese

,.q,r"rr.., are fixed ,e.i". "of

oo'erlafping stages_, each characterizable by the relative

fr"qrr.rr.n of IL structures, rt hich le"rrr.t, apparently have to traverse on the way to mastery

of tire target language system. (For the rnori "o*p.ehensive

study of this phenomenon, see

f-ft"n, -'

I ' i,*"| 2 no /no t /don ' t

Sample uttercnces

No is happy/No You PaY it

They not working/He don't

I can't play/You musgn't do

I didn't see her/She doesn't

..-- \

I\

have job I

that Ilive there /

| ^ I can't play/ You musln't do that I

\ i lllnffi,,', n rdidn'i see her/She io""'t li'oe there /

I%'- -At stages 1 and 2, notjust Spanish speakers, whose L1 has pre-verbal negation, but also

^ ! ^ l

\iI

\

J"p";"Jf;t"";;,;;.r" native systemis post-,rerbal, lnitlally p.oduce pre-verbally negated

,r, ',"r".r.", in ESL (Gil l is andWeber 1976; Stauble 1981), although the Japanese abandon

the strategy sooner (Zobl 1982). Pre-verbal negator placement aPPears to reflect strong

internal p?".r,rt"r, for it is widel,v observed in s"tudles of both naturalistic and instructed

st-R. turklsh speakers receiving formal instruction, for example, start with pre-verbal

negation in S.nredlsh, even thoulh both L1 and L2 have post-verbal systems (Hyltenstam

\ 1977).

\ Wn6 minor variations, the evidence to date suggests that the sarylgvelopmeggrl

\, ,""".":;:-";. obr.ru"a in the ILs of children u'd uJilt., of naturalistic, instructed and

\ffi;ers, of learners from different L1 backgrounds, and of learners performing on

different tasks. L1 differences occasionally r.rrrltl.t additional sub-stages and swifter or

slower passage through stages, but not in disruption of the basic sequence by skipping stages

(for review, see Ell is"lg85lLarsen-Freeman and Long, in press; Zobl1982).

Passage through.u.h rtug", in order, aPPears to be unavoidable, and obligatoriness has

been incorpor","iinto the d"fi.tition of "siage" in SLA (Meisel, Clahsen and Pienemann

1981 ; Johnston 1985). As would be predictedlf this definition is accurate, it also seems that

cleveloomental sequences are impervious to instruction ' lt has repeatedly bl-Eilotttttu6d

;; ences do not reflect instructional

,"q,r..r.., (Lightborvn 1983;Ellis 1989), "nd

t,,,ition in a German sL word order structure

b.yond studJnts' current processing abilities has been shown not to result in learning

(Pienemann 1984).

The results for developmental sequences, together with related findings of common

(although not invariant) naturalistic ani it'str"cted morphem"e acculacl orf:t:l:lrt:,Pi

iungrrqg". learning is obviously at least Partlv qorerngd.b)' forcqs t

text ter s co Frealization i"G" t"a some theorists to conclude that

F O C U S O N F O R M I B 3

classrooms are useful to the extent that thev provide sheltered Ii

content and focus is a series of isola orms (sound contrasts, lex ica l i tems,stfuctu eech acts, notions, etc. with no overt tocus on

o rno t theye i t he rpe rm i to r requ i rea focuson fo rm.@ndr i I I s

the valency of focus on form. It apfears to be a parameter one value or another of whichcharacterizes almost all language teaching options.

Five caveats are in order. First, it is not being suggested that whether or not a programtype, syllabus, method, task or test focuses on form is the only relevant design characteristicor that important differences will not eist among members of groups which share the feature,and vice versa. Second, while most programs, svllabi, methods, tasks and tests either do or donot overtly focus on form, some withi yisolate linguistic structures, not to mention as to how they do so; there are, in other words,

t . _ - - - - < . f f irelative as well ", "Urot

ifferences.Thi.d,i!, hkglyule, w.tuurr-group as welr as rnrer-group, orrrerences. r ruro, ]!]r-l]Sgly_that students will often focus on form when teachers or materials designers intendthem notto, and i form when thev are s to concentrate on it. Fourth, some degreeawareness of form and a focus oi-frEaning may not be mutually exclusive on some tasks (forreview, see Schmidt 1990). Fifth, the fact that the distinction can be made does not mean thatit should; whether it is important is a theoretical and/or an empirical matter.

Focus on form: a choli istic

g

' r r * " ' - '5 ' " ' ;J : : : : :_ : - "* . '=** : : : i : : ' : " : r " ' ' - l ' * " . ' '_" , r ' "5 ' * " ' 'J r ' - ' '

f 0o t r r : rimmersion, sheltered subject-matter, which on the surface appear to differ greatly. Groups

| /Lv' ' ' 'r-- ( I

(a) and (b) all uti l ize an overt focus on form, E ""p

l.) 6;;1. It also allows

generalizations across traditional boundaries, identify\ng a link between the program typesin group (c) and in theory, at least, a linguisticallv non-isolating teaching "method", suchas the Natural Approach (Krashen and Terrell 1983). At the classroom process level,

techniques, procedures, exercises and pedagogic tasks can also be categorized as to whetlpl

a feature wh=ich reveals an underlvins simiiFity a*ong-TTiiiET! of(a) teaching "methods", e.g. ALM,TP\ Grammartanslation and SilentWa)', (b) syllabus .. riyp.r,

".g. structuralr.rotiJ.,"l-ffiiltiort=lJ.*--[il*d GDt.g.;- typof .g. r.rb-..rion, ]br;;=

f,ecluuqucs, Pfoccuurcs, excrulses allt.l Pcuagoglc LasKs can also De categorlzeo aS tO wneU{f-1

o r n o t t h e y e i t h e r p e r m i t o r r e q u i r e a f o c u s o n f o r m . @ n d r i I I s l

and error correction, for e*ample, all overtlr foqus students on form;..f.r.r, i iul qu"r,ionr, I,r,rJt1Tffi u,-,d t*o-*u' turk, do'ffi potentially."l"uunt Idesign features *lll dlruri@ffiil!ilodfryllabi, tasks and tests from others, fe*hryq\

Th"P. " .@! , teach ingandtes t iy 'g them\neata t ime,waso.igi'ull ol"qy 6r;a structLahst linguistics.combined with the advent of a world *u. ull']ffi-#d f.@speakers, these events led to the growth of ALM and its many progeny. As distinct from afocus onyform, to which we return below, structural syllabi, ALM, and variants thereofinvolve a focus

{Ior;}That is to saX the content of the syllabus and of lessons based on it

is the l inguistic iTE--rru themselves (structures, gotions. l"*r*Lrt.-j, etc.); a lesson is-

oesrgneo ro reacn rne Dasr conrlnuous requesting" and so on. notl inq else.--Arguments abound against making isolated linguistic structures the content of a FL

course, that is, against a focus onJorms. Of the hundreds of studies of interlanguage (lL)

#

1 8 4 M I C H A E L H . L O N G

development now completed, not one shows either tutored or naturalistic learners

developing proficiency one linguistic item at a time. On the contrary,3!]:sygll camPlex.

/1

,@/*,,;

grudrui "rrilnt..-t"lated

developmental paths for grammatical subsystehs, such as auxiliarl

l"a cst-d*rcR.";;aEenemann 1 98 1). Moreover' de ffil;

as does accuracy of suppliance.r r r v r r / J q y y u + . . r ' v . " ' v r r ^ r u r - * - ^ E - ' < , - - - - - - - - -

J L L-Altho"gh most syllabi and methods assume the opposite, lggrnel-g., learners do not mov+o-1n

teachers abandon not just t'focus onJorms,but a focus onJorm,i.e. any attention to language

asobject,asweIl.Flawsinthi.."uso.' i,,gareobviou,.F,,.th",,reuieffics

61'lnsd;AionSn IL development (Harley 1988; Long 1988) find clear evidence of some

beneficial effects of a focus onJorm , and suggestive evidence of otiers. Briefly, while it is true

that instruction does not seem cap4l" .f .tt".i"g ttqrrl.t t, it does aPPear

to off.. c SLA or classroom instruction with no

focus on form. (1) It speeds up the rate of learning (for review, see Long 1983). (2) It affect:

acquisition processes in ways possiblv beneficial to long-term accuracy (Lightbown 198 3; Pica

198 3). And most crucially, on the basis of preliminary data, (3) it appears to raise the ultimare

Ievel of attainmenr. Further, asWhite (1987, 1989) has argued, incomprehensible input and

dr"oui.rg learners' attention to inadmissable constructions in the L2 (two kinds of negative

evidence) may be necessar)' when learning from positive evidence alone will be inadequate.

To illustrate, an L1 may allow'piacement of adverbs of manner more flexibly than an L2. "He

drinks every day coffee" and "He drinks coffee every day" are both acceptable in French, for

example, but not in English. Both w'ill be communicatively effective in English, however.

with the result that the French learner of English (but not the English learner of French) r'rill

need negative input (e.g. error correction) on this point.

Whe.eas the content of lessons with a focus onlforms is therlorms themselves, a syllabu-'

with a fo.r. oqfo., t.u.h.r ..'-"th lse - biology, mathematics, workshop practice.

ulTtoilG lelelelelelelelelelelelelele" repair, the geography of a country where the foreign language is spoken, tht

cultures of its speakers, and so on - and overtly draws students' attention to linguistic

elements as they arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning, oi

communication.Vien's about hor,l ' to achieve this vary. Une proposal ls lor lessons to Dc

Tqyt '":l'i:fJ:H:

[:liFe miifr&, and only gradually imProves in accurac\',or use. rL sorneLulcb-)L!!!L:j!\Lglt!* Lr rrr -^

::_F-,/' If,e; fo.ms enter (Huebner i 9831. It quite

"i ." a".U""t fucy or even temporarilr' j i a ;_ - :_ : . . ' - - - +

dis;FfdhfioEather due to a change "lse..fiEei.t

the IL (see, %. Meisel, Clahsen and

Pier.-".rr, 1981; Huebner 1983; Lightborvn 1983; Neumann 7977), a phenomenon

imes describ,able as U-shaped behavior (Kellerman 1985). Further, attemPts to teach

ns to be one the learner can process

rs Psy inguisticallv readv to uire. In Pienemann's ( I terminologr.

r o s nguage teachers, employers and learners

Fl[i--*itt utt"rt, th".. l.l-g.E-t diff...""" b"t*."" tt "ug"'.glk -I when that is achieved. and ubilitv to use that knowledge to communicative effect.'A

t dvocatethat

_-ffi;fltGEffipted" bv tgachers rvhen they notice students_making errors_which are (1

svstematic, (2) pervasive and (3) remediable.TEE]inguistic feature is brought to learner'

a t t en t i on inany@studen ts .age ,p ro f i c i enc1 ' | e re I , e t c .be to re thec la : .

returns to whatever pedagogic task thev were rvorking on when the interruption occurrec

(For details and a rationale, see Crookes and Long 1987; Long, in press).

F O C U S O N F O R M 1 8 5

An example of the probable effect of instruction on ultimate attainment comes fromw'ork on the acquisition of relative clauses in a SL. Several studies (e.g., for English: Gass1982; Gass and Ard 1980; Pavesi 1986; Eckman, Bel l and Nelson 1988; for Swedish:Hvltenstam 1984) have shou,n that both naturaiistic and instructed acquirers develop relativeclauses in the order predictable from the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy (Keenan andComrie 1977; Comrie and Keenan 1979; see Figure 10.1), although with occasionalreversals oflevels 5 and 6.

j

least marked

1. subject (The man that stole the car . . .)2. direct object (The man that the police arrested . . .)3. indirect object (The car that he paid nothing for . . .)4. object of a preposition (The man that he spoke to . . .)5. possessive/genitive (The man w'hose . . .)6. object of a comparative (The man that Joe is older than . . . )

most marked

Figure 10. i Noun phrase accessibilitv hierarchv

t

Of particular interest in the present context, Pavesi (1985) compared relative clauseformation by instructed and naturalistic acquirers. The former were 48 Italian high schoolstudents, ages 14-18, who had received from 2 to 7 years (an average of 4 r.ears) ofgrammar-based EFL instruction and who had had minimal or (in 45 of 48 cases) no informalexposure to English. The untutored learners lvere 38 Italian workers (mostlv restaurantwaiters), ages 19-50, whohad lived in Scotland anyr,vhere from 3 months to 25 vears (anaverage of 6 years), with considerable exposure to English at home and at work, but whohad received minimal (usually no) formal English instruction.

Relative clause constructions were elicited using a set of numbered pictures andquestion Prompts: ("Number 7 is the girl w-ho is running", and so on). Implicational scalingshowed that both groups' developmental sequences correlated significantly with the nounphrase accessibilitv hierarchy. There w-ere two other kinds of differences, however. First,naturalistic learners produced statisticallv significantlv more full nominal copies than theinstructed learners (e.g. "Number 4 is thl woman who the cat is looking at tle woman"),whereas instructed iearners produced more pronominal copies ("Number 4 is the womanwho the cat is looking at her"). Given that neither English nor Italian allow copies of eitherkind, this is further evidence of the at least partial autonomy of IL syntax, a claim alsosupported by the developmental sequence itself, of course. Interestingly, the relativefrequencies of the different kinds of copies suggest that the instructed learners had"grammaticized" more, even in the errors they made, a result consistent with findings byPica (1983) and Lightbown (1983). Second, more instructed learners reached 80 percentcriterion on all of the five lowest NP categories in the hierarchy, with differences attainingstatistical significance at the second lowest (genitive; level and falling just short (p. 05) atthe lowest (object of a comparative) level. More instructed learners (and very fewnaturalistic acquirers) were able to relativize out of the more marked NPs in the hierarchy.In considerablv less average time, t}rat is, instructed learners had reached higher levels ofattainment.

- + ' - - - - - - - 5 -

fI two conclusrons. (1) InJruction fqill around a focus on forms is counter-productii 'e'

I ellnstruction rvhich en er

/ .rryj@attainmentthaninstruction$'ithl r tL;fh;"#m". programs exist u,hich have this feature, alternating in some princiPled

way between a focus o" t"gt"g:lq1!:119n fo:m' riOne, example is task-base €

t andCrookes 1989;Long, inPresst '

1 8 5 M I C H A E L H . L O N G

Pavesi's study is a non-equivalent control grouPs design, so causal claims are precluded

There are also no data o.r ro'h.th". or not the high school students were ever actually taught

relative clauses, or if so, w'hich ones. We know: simply that they received something like a

grammar-translation course. The findings are nonetheless suggestive of the kind of effects

i fo.r* on form ma,v have on ultimate SL attainment. Two other studies, furthermore, have

shown that structurully fo..,r"d teaching of relative clause formation can accelerate learning.

also that, at least u, fu. do*n as level 4 (object ofa preposition) in the hierarchy, instruction

in a more marked structure will generalize back "p

th. implicational scale to less marked

structures (Gass 1982; Eckman et a1.1988;and see a lso Zobl 1985).

SLA research findings l ike those brieflv described here would seem to suPPort

F-Ei-;. with a Tocus on form need to be compared in carefully controlled studies w'ith

pro[."-, with a focus on forms and with (e.g. Natural Approach) Programs with no overt

focus on form.

Further research

True experiments are needed which compare rate of learning and ultimate level oi

attainme^nt alter one of three programs:f ,r, inJor^r.Jocus onform,andllocus on communication

preliminary research in this u..u hur produced mixed results, two studies finding positive

relationships between the amount of class time given to a focus on Jorms and various

proficiencv measures (McDonald, Stone andYates 1977, for ESL; Mitchell, Parkinson anri

iohnstone 1 98 1 , for French FL), and a third study of ESL (Spada 1986, 1987) finding no

such effects. (For detailed revien, see Chaudron 1988.) All three studies were comparisons

of intact groups which differed in degree of focus onJorms,it should be noted. Research ha-'

yet to be conducted comparing the unique program tvpes'

Studies of this kind should be true exPeriments, employing a pretest/post-test control

group design, and should also include a process comPonent to monitor implementation oi

Ih. thre" distinct treatments.They should utilize multiple outcome measures, some focusing

on accuracy, some on communicative ability or fluency, thereby avoiding (supposed)-bias in

favour of o.r. program or another. The post-tests should include immediate and delavec

measures, ri... ulleast one study (Harley 1989) has found a short-term advantage,for

students receiving form-focused instruction disappeared (three months) later. Some of the

measures should lurther reflect knorvn developmental sequences and patterns of variation

in ILs, appropriate for the developmental stages of the subjects as revealed on the Pretest-r

A distinciion should be maintained between constructions which are in principle learnabl.

from positive instantiation in the input and constructions which in principle require negatir t

evidence. (For further details and desirable characteristics ofsuch studies, see Long 198+.

forthcoming; Larsen-Freeman and Long 1989.)

S"o'e.u[dditional issues need to be addressed, either as separate studies of the;focus c-

,[orm design feature or as sub-parts of the basic study outlined above. Many interestin.

questioniemain unanswered, after all. It will be useful to ascertain w'hich structures requir

F O C U S O N F O R M 1 8 7

focus and/or negative evidence, and w-hich can be left to the care of"natural processes"(White 1987). Other possibilities include studies motivated by implicational markedness

relationships designed to determine the principles governing maximal generalizability ofinstruction (see, e.g. Eckman et al. 1988). Similarh', one can envisage studies inspired bycurrent models of UG designed to test the claimed potential of certain structures to triggerinstantaneous (re-)setting of a parameter. An example would be Chomsky's (1981) workon the pro-drop parameter, and the claimed triggering effects of expletives with ir and thereas dummy subjects (Hvams 1983;Hil les 1985). Finally, further theoretically motivatedr'vork, Iike that of Pienemann ( 1984) and Pienemann and Johnston (1,987), is clearly neededon the fiminB of instruction. Research of these and other kinds will establish the validity andscope offocus onJorm as a design feature in language teaching methodologv.

References

Allwright, R.L. (1977) "Language learning through communication practice." ELT Docs16 /3 .2 1+ .

Breen, M.P. (1987) "Contemporarv paradigms in syllabus design." Language Tbachtng20 / 2.81-92, and 20/ 3.151-17+.

Chaudron, C. (1988) Second Language Classrooms. Aesearch onTeaching and Learning. Cambridge:Cambridge Universitv Press.

Chomsky, N. ( 198 l) Lectures on Goverfi,ment and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Comrie, B. and Keenan, E.L. (1979) "Noun phrase accessibil i ty revisited". Language

55.6+9-66+.Corder, S.P. (1967) "The significance of learners' errors." International Review oJ Applied

Linguistics 5 . | 61 -11 0.Crookes, G. (1985) Task classfication: a uoss-disciplinary rcview (Technical Report 4.) Honolulu:

Center for Second Language Classroom Research, Social Science Research InstituteUniversity of Hawaii at Manoa.

Crookes, G. and Long, M.H. (1981) "Task-based language teaching. A brief report". ModernEngl tshTbachtng (Part 1) 8.26-28 * 61,and(Part2) 9.20-23.

Dinsmore, D. ( 1985) "Waiting for Godot in the EFL classroom." ELT Journal 39.225-23+.Dulay, M. and Bert, H. (1913) 'Should we teach children syntax?' Language Learning

2+ / 2 .2+5-258.Eckman, F.R., Bell, L. and Nelson, D. (1988) "On the generalization of relative clause

instruction in the acquisition of English as a second ianguage." Applied Linguistics9 / 1 . 1 2 0 .

Ellis, R. (1984) "The role of instruction in second language acquisition." Language Learning inFormal and InJormal Contexts ed. bv D.M. Singleton and D.G. Little, 19-31 . Dublin.IRAAL.

- (1985) I.Jnderstanding Second LanguageAcquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.- (1989) "Are classroom and naturalistic acquisition the same? A study of the classroom

acquisition of German word order rules." Studies in Second Language Acquisition1 1 l 3 . 3 0 5 - 3 2 8 .

Felix, S.\M (1981) "The effect of formal instruction on second language acquisition." LanguageLea rn ing31 /1 .87 -112 .

Gass, S. M. ( 1982) "From theory to practice." OnTESOL'81 ed. by M. Hines andW Rutherford,1 29 -1 39 .Washington, D C : TESOL.

Gass, S.M. and Ard, J (1980) "L2 data: their relevance for language universals." TESOL

@rarterly 14 / +.4+3452.

1 8 8 M ] C H A E L H . L O N G

Gill is, M. andWeber, R. (1975) "The emergence of sentence modalit ies in the English ot

japanese-speaking children." Language Learning 26/ l.7l 9+.

Harley, B. (1988) "Effects of instruction on SLA: issues and evidence." Annual Aeview oJApphea

Linguistics 9 . 1 65-17 8.- (1989) "Functional grammar in French immersion: a ciassroom experiment." Appliec

Linguist ics 10 / 3 .331-359.

Hilles, S. (1986). "lnterlanguage and the pro-drop parameter." Second Language Research

2 / 1 .33 -s2 .Hoetker, J. and Ahlbrand, W P. (1969) "The persistence of the recitation ." American Educationa'

Research Journal 6 / 1 / 1+5-1 67 .

Hyams, N. (1983) "The pro-drop parameter in child grammars." Proceedings oJtheWest Coasr

ConJerence on Formal Linguistics ed. by M. Barlow', D. Flickinger and M.Westcoat. Stanford.

CA: Stanford Universitl', Department of Linguistics.

Hyltenstam, K. (1917) "lmplicational patterns in interlanguage syntax variation." Language

Learning 27 / 2 .383411 .- (1984) "The use oftvpological markedness conditions as predictors in second language

acquisition: the case of pronominal copies in relative clauses." Second Languages.A Cross-

Linguistic Perspective ed. bv R.W Andersen, 39-58. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Johnston, M. (1985) Syntactic and morphological progressions in learner Engllsh. Canberra.

Australia: Commonwealth Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.

Keenan, E. and Comrie,B. (1977)"Noun phrase accessibil i ty and universal grammar."l inguistttlnqui ry 8.6 l -99

Ke l l e rman ,E . (19S5) " l f a t f i r s t , voudosucceed . . . " I npu t i nSecondLanguageAcqu is i r i oned .b rS. Gass and C. Madden, 345-353. Rowlel', MA: Nelr'burv House.

Krashen, S.D. and Seliger, H.W (1975) "The essential contributions of formal instruction ir

adult second language learning." TESOL @tarterly 9 / 12.173-183 .

Krashen, S.D. andGrrell,T. (1983) The NaturalApproach. NewYork: Pergamon Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M.H. (1989) Research Priorit ies in Foreign Language Learnjn;

and Teaching. Washington, DC: Johns Hopkins University, National Foreign Language

Center.Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M.H. (1991) An lntroduction to Second Language Acquisit ic:

Research. London: Longman.

Lightbow.n, P.M. (1983) "Exploring relationships between developmental and instructiona-

sequences." Classroom-Oriented Research on Second Language Acquisition ed. by H.W Seliger

and M.H. Long,217 2+3. Rou'ley, MA: Newbury House.

Long, M.H. (1983) "Does instruction make a difference? A review of research." TESOL

@Larterly 1l / 3.359-382.(1984) "Process and product in ESL program evaluation." TESOL @Lateri.'

18/ 3.+09425.- (1985) "A role for instruction in second language acquisition: task-based language

teaching." Modelling and Assessing Second Language Acquisition ed. bv K. Hyltenstam and ll

Pienemann, ll*99. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.- (1988) "Instructed interlanguage development." lssues in Second Language Acquisitictl

Multtple Perspectives ed by L.M. Beebe, 115-1+1. NewYork: Newbury House.- (1991) "The design and psvcholinguistic motivation of research on foreign languag.

learning." Foreign Language Acquisition Aesearch and the Classroom ed. by B. Freed. Bostor.

D.C. Heakin.- (2001) Task-Based LanguageTeaching. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Long, M.H., Adams, L., Mclean, M. and Castanos, F. (1976) "Doing things with words: verb.

interaction in lockstep and small group classroom situations." On TESOL.'76 ed. i

J .F. Fanselorv and R. Crvmes, 137-153.Washington, DC:TESOL.

F O C U S O N F O R M 1 8 9

Long,M.H.andCrookes,G.(1989) Uni tsoJanalys is insy l labusdesign.Ms.DepartmentofEsL,Universitv of Hawaii at Manoa.

Long, M.H. and Sato, C.J. (1983) "Classroom foreigner talk discourse: forms and functionsof teachers' questions." Classroom-Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition ed. byH.W Seliger and M.H. Long, 258 285. Rowley', MA: New'burv House.

McDonald, F.J., Stone, M.K. andYates, A. (1977 5 The effects oJ clasvoom interaction patterns andstudent characteristics on the acquisition of profcienc,v in English as a second language.Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Meisel, J.M., Clahsen, H. and Pienemann, M. (1981) "On determining developmental stagesin natural second language acquisitions." Studies in Second Language Acquisition3 / 2 .109-135 .

Mitchell, R., Parkinson, B. and Johnstone, R. (1981) The Joreign language classroom: anobservational study. (Stirling Educational Monographs 9.) Stirling: Department of Education,University of Stirling.

Neumann, R. (1977) An attempt to dejne through error analysis an intermedjate ESL level at UCLA.M.A. inTESLthesis. LosAngeles, CA: UCLA.

Newmark, L. (1966) "How not to interfere with language learning." International Journal oJAmer ican L inguist ics 32/ 1.71-83.

Newmark, L. and Reibel, D.A. (1958) "Necessit-v and sufficiency in language learning."International Review of Applied Linguistics 6.1+5-16+.

Nunan, D. (1987) "Communicative language teaching: making it rvork." ELT Journal+ 1 / 2 . 1 1 6 t + 5 .

Pavesi, M. (1985) "Markedness, discoursal modes, and relative clause formation in a formaland an informal context." Studies in Second Language Acquisition 8.1 38-55.

Phil l ips, D. and Shettlesworth, C. (1975). "Questions in the design and implementation ofcourses in English for specialized purposes." Proceedings of the 4th International Congress oJApplied Linguistics (Volume /) ed. bv G. Nickel, 249-26+. Stuttgart: HochschuleVerlag.

Pica, T. ( 1 98 3) "Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditions ofexposure." Language Learning 33 / +.+65--+97 .

Pica,T. and Long, M.H. (1986) "The linguistic and conversation performance of experiencedand inexperienced teachers.""Talking to learn": Conversation in Second LanguageAcquisitioned. b-v R.R. Day, 85 98. Rou'ley, MA: Newburv House.

Pienemann, M. (1984) "Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages' ." Studies inSecond Language Acquisit ion 6 / 2.186-21+

Pienemann, M. and Johnston M. (1987) "Factors influencing the development of languageproficiency." Applying Second Language Acquisition Research ed. by D. Nunan, +5-1.+1Adelaide. SA: National Curriculum Resource Centre.

Prabhu, N.S. (1987) Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Ross, S. (1992) "Program-defining evaluation in a decade of eciecticism." In Alderson C. and

Beretta, A. (eds). Evaluating Second Language Education. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Scherer,G.andWertheimer,M. (196+)APsycholinguisticExperimentinForei7nLanguageTeaching.NewYork: McGraw'-Hil l.

Schmidt, R.W. (1990) "The role of consciousness in second language learning" AppliedLinguist ics 11 / 2 .11-45.

Schumann, J.H. (1 979'1"The acquisition of English negation by speakers of Spanish: a review ofthe literature ." The Acquisition and Use oJ Spantsh and English as First and Second Languagesed. bv R.W Andersen, 3-32.Washington, DC:TESOL.

Smith, P. (1970) A Comparison oJthe Cognitive and Audiolingual Approaches to Foreign Languagelnstruction:The Penns/vania Foreign Language Project. Philadelphia: Center for CurriculumDeveiopment.

1 9 0 M I C H A E L H . L O N G

Spada, N. (1986) "The interaction between types of content and types of instruction: som.

effects on the L2 proficienc,v of adult learners." Studies in Second Language Acquisirtc:.

8 / 2 .181 -199 .- (1987) "Relationships between instructional differences and learning outcomes: a

process-product studv of communicative language teaching." Apphed Linguistit.

8 .131 -16LStauble, A. -M. ( 1981 ) A comparative study oJ a Spanish-English and Japanese-English second languag;

continuum : verb phrase morphology. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.

Swaffer, J.K., Arens, K. and Morgan, M. (1982) "Teacher classroom practices: redefining

method as task hierarchy." Modern Language Journal 66.24-33.

Von Elek, T. and Oskarsson, M. (1975) Comparative Methods Experiments in Foreign Languagi

Teaching. Department of Educational Research. Gothenburg, Sweden: Molnda School oi

Education.White, L (1987) "Against comprehensible input: the Input Hypothesis and the development oi

second -language compete nce." Applied Ling ui sti cs 8 / 2 .9 5 - I | 0 .

\\ 'hite, L. (1989)'The principle of adjacency in second language acquisit ion: do learners

obserte the subset principle?' Paper presented at the Child Language Conference Boston

\1.A.. N{arch.\\bde, H. (1981) "Language-acquisitionai universals: a unified view of language acquisition."

\-ative Language and Foreign Language Acquisition. (Annals oJ the NewYork Academy of Sciences

379) ed. by H.Winitz,218-23+. NewYork: New'YorkAcademy of Sciences'

ZobI,H. (1982) "A direction for contrastive analysis: the comparative study of developmental

sequences." TESOL Qyirterly 16. 169-183,- ( I 9 8 5 ) "Grammars in search of input and intake." Input in Second Language Acquisition ed.

by S.M. Gass and C. Madden, 329-3+4. Rowley, MA: Newbury House,

r4 [C h a p t e r 1 1

David N unan

TEACHING GRAMMAR IN CONTEXT

Introduction

E R o M A G R A M M A T I C A L P E R S P E C T I V E , M A N Y f o r e i g n l a n g u a g e

|' programmes and teaching materials are based on a linear model of language acquisition.

This model operates on the premise that learners acquire one target language item at a time,

in a sequential, step-bv-step fashion. However, such a model is inconsistent with what is

observed as Iearners go about the process of acquiring another language. In this chapter I ,.

argue for an alternativl to the linearmodei w'hich I call,"for want of aietlr termg-gggic ltsapproach to second language pedagog,v. In the first part of the chapter I shall contrast both

approaches, and look at evidence from second language acquisition and discourse analysis

which supports the organic view. In the second part I shall outline some of the pedagogicalimplications of the organic approach, illustrating them with practical ideas for the classroom.

Metaphors for second language acquisition

A strictly linear approach to language learning is based on the premise thallg3yrgrs acquire

one grammatical item at a time3nd that they should dg!gg"!E"t" tleir mastery of oneTE1E. .*u-pl!, ir, 1"u..,

oire tense form, such as the simple present, before being introduced to other forms, such

as the present continuous or the simple past. Metaphorically, learning another language by

ttxs memod ts ttke co ll.The langfrage wall is erected ̂

a time.The easy grammatical bricks are Iaid at the bottom of the wall, providing a foundation ^ A_6i6EEo."di fH.. , l tones.ThetaskfortheIearneristogetth" l i , - ,8@.,-%&

ff is,andthenthesentencebricks.I f thebricksarenot inthecorrec-t .rC&.)order, tJ-re wall will collapse under its own ungrammaticality.

-. t'

When we observe learners as thev go aboufthe process of learning another language,

we see that, by and large, they do not acquire language in the step-by-stepr building block

fashion suggested by the linear model. It is simply not the case that language learners acquire

target items perfectly, one at a time. Kellerman (1983), for example, notes the'u-shaped

behavior' of certain linguistic items in learners' interlanguage development. Accuracy does

not increase in a linear fashion. from 20Yo to 40oh to 100%: at times. it actuallv decreases.

It appears that, rather than being isolated bti.k., th" "utio"r

.1.-.

with bv. other elements to which thev are closelv related i

w senSe.This interre lat ionshipaccountsfor thefact thata- le*1Iner j_@

T..rgru$ l."qI "ggble,

appearing to increase and decrease at different times during the

T 9 2 D A V I D N U N A N

The adoption of an 'o-ganid perspective can greatl '

language acquisit ion and use. Without this perspective, our understanding of other

di-enSo.rs of language such as the notion of 'grammaticality' wil l be piecemeal and

incomplete, as will any attempt at understanding and interpreting utterances in isolation

from the contexts in which thev occur. The organic metaphor sees second language

learnffillo hot learn one thing Pe v' numerous things

simultaneously (and impei inguisttc rs do not all apPear at the same trmeS I I l l t l l L d l l c u u ) r ) \ 4 r r u r r r r P L r r u L L l l / t

e.SomeevenaPPeartowi l t , forat ime,beforerener, t - ingI t L r t u u L l t E / t 4 r t 5 r

u v v 4 L L l r L J @ r r r L L v Y Y r r l t r v r u r r ^ r r v t ^ ' ^ . * " ^ - - b

their growth.The rate of grow.th is determined by a complex interplay of factors related to)j all gr

speech processing constraints (Pienemann and Johnston 1987), pedagogical interventions

(Pica 1985), acquisit ional processes (Johnston 1987), and the influence of the discoursal

environment in w'hich the items occur (Nunan 1993).

Language in context .

rners \Ll ve maste

they make the task of developing procedural

n e to use the I 6-r communication - more dif{icult than it needs to

se le ic relationships that

exist

{A'l\A, , ffi*u-p1., -rri.r.'of the simple present deteriorates (temporaril) r at

) t2 ,n .o" i i t * - i " r i " " r " . r r@resentcont f f i'/ \a;irU* ,fts process as u kinJ of lgga

In textbooks, grammar is very often presented out of context. Learners are given isolated

sefi-tences, which therjare expEcTdfrtb1-nterilahze through exercises involving rePetition,

As teache that effective communication involves achieving

harmony between functional interpretation and formal appropriacy (Halliday 1985) by giving

m tasks 4matize the relationship between grammatical items and the discoursal

6itr i.r which occur. In genuine comm room, qrammar

context are otten so c related that a riate matical choices .un [i]u b"-

th refe re n ce-To-TE6i6nt e x t rpose of t}e communication.This,6yTFe way, is

onJ of the reasons *Tl' itli oft-."T[Ei"lt to answer learners' questions about grammatical

appropriacy : in rygn1in s9alg9s,_Jhe orientation

that the wants to towards wishes to report.

If l-u.n.rr *e .r6Qi"..r opportunities to explore grammar in context, it will be difficult

for them to see how' and w.h,v alternative forms exist to express different communicative

meanings. For example, $etting learners to read a set of sentences in the active voice, and

then transform these into passives follorving a model, is a standard way of introducing the

passive voice. However, it needs to be supplemented b1' tasks which give learners

opportunities to explore when it is communicativelrv appropriate to use the passive rather

than the active voice. (One of my favourite textbook instructions is an injunction to students,

in a book which shall remain nameless, that'the passive should be avoided if at all

We need to supplement form-focused exercises u'ith an a ch that for

T E A C H I N G G R A M M A R I N C O N T E X T I 9 3

grammar allows them to make meanings of increasinglv sophisticated kinds, to escape fromthe tyrannv of the here and noll', not only to report events and states of affairs, but toeditorialize, and to communicate their own attitudes towards these events and affairs.Unfortunatelv. manv courses fail to make clear the relationshio bet andLearners are taught a t not how

For example, through exercises such as the one referred to in the preceding paragraph, theyare taught how to transform sentences from the active voice into the passive, and back intothe active voice; holvever, thev are not shou'n that passive forms have evolved to achievecertain communicative ends - to enable the speaker or writer to place the communicative

focus on the action rather than on t r o f the act ion, to avoid referr ing to the

performer of the action. I!

made clear to learners, they coEE-awa m with the impression that thea l te rna t lve lo rms exrs t mere ly to make t tungs d l t t l cu l t to r them. an approach

through which orreiilfiTn-d-al-so how to use them tocommunicate meaning. Such a methodolog.', r,r.ill show learners how to use grammar to get

things done, socialize, obtain goods and serfises, and express tFeir personality through

lang,G.In other words, i t u i l l shorr ' them-

to achieve [heir communicaii iFT

Some practical implications

In therestof th ischapter Ishal l focusontheimpI icat io , , ,o f

teaching.Suchanapproachof fersexci t ingoPPortuni t ies[or

at language in a neu.way - as a vehicle for taking voyages ofpedagogical exploration in the

classroom and beyond.

There are manv different ways of activating organic learning, and manv 'traditional'

"*... ir. typ"r .u^, *it ,

partilularly ifthey are introduced into the classroom as exploratory and collaborative tasks.,

(For examples, seeWajnryb's (1990)'grammar dictation'tasks, and Woods'(1995) gap and

cloze exercises.)

In my own classroom, I trv to activate an organic approach bv:

. teachinllanguageis-rset of cho

. providing opportunities for iearners to explore grammatical and discoursalrelationships in autlentic data;

teaching language in rvays that make form,/function relatio o o -

rent;

encouraging IEainers t-o 6-ecome acti\e explorers of language:

encouraging learners to explore relationships between grammar and discourse.

Teaching language as a set of choices

As indicated in the preceding section, one of the reasons lvhy it is difficuit to give learners

hard-and. fastqrammat icu lJ , ' l " , is that , inmanYinstances, ; ; f f i, - - f f

ffimunicative service, d..istor. "bort

*hich fot

meanings ljglners themselves wish to make. For example, if learners wish to give equalweight to two pieces of information, thev can present the information in a single sentence,

using co-ordination. If they wish to give one of these pieces of information greater weight,

they can use subordination.

In order to help learners see that alternative grammatical realizations exist in order to

a

I 9 4 D A V I D N U N A N

enable them to make different kinds of meanings, and that ultimately it is up to them to

begin my language courses with'ice-

breaker' tasks such as Example 1. In completing this task, learners come to fashion their

own understanding of the functional distinctions between contrasting forms.They also come

to appreciate the fact that in manv instances it is only the speaker or writer who can decide

which of the contrasting forms is the appropriate one.

Example I

In groups of 3 or 4, study the following conversational extracts. Focus in particular on the

parts of the conversation in italics. What is the difference between what Person A says and

what Person B t"y.?,Wh"" *o"ld yo" r 9I?

A: I've seen Romeo and Juliet twice.

B: Me too. I saw it lastTuesday, and again on the weekend.

A: Want to go to the movies?

B: No. 1'm golng to study tonight We have an exam tomorrow, you know.

A: Oh, in that case, I'11 study as well.

A: Looks wet outside. I 'm supposed to go to Central, but I don't have an

I went out without one, I'd get wet.J

B: Yes, I went out a rvhile ago. IJ I'd Bone out without an umbrella, I'd have Bot wet.

A: Ifnnhed m)/ essq/ just before the deadline for submission.

B: Yes, mine wasjnishedjust in time as well.

A: My brother, who lives in liewYork, is visiting me here in Hong Kong.

B: What a coincidence! My brother, who is visiting me in Hong Kong, lives in NewYork, too.

A: I need you to look after the kids.You'l l be home early tonight, won't you?

B: Oh, you'l l be late tonight, wtl l you?A: I won a prize in the English-speaking competition.

B: Yeah? I won the prize in the poetry competition.

A: The baby was sleeping when I got home.

B: So, he'11 be sleeping u'hen I get home, then?

A: Are you hungry?

B: No, I'r,e already eaten.

A: Well, 1'11 have already eatenby the time you get home.

Compare explanations with another group. What similarities and differences are there in

your expianations?

Providing opportunities for learners to explore Brammatical and discoursal

relationships in authentic data

Non-authentic texts are meant to make language easier to comprehend but an unvarying

diet of such texts can make language learning more, not less, difficult for learners. Authentic

language shows how grammatical forms operate in the'real world', rather than in the mind

of a textbook writer; it allows learners to encounter target language items - such as the

comparative adjectives and adverbs in Example 2 - in interaction with other closely related

grammatical and discoursal elements. Wlq

4t"xt-

T E A C H I N G G R A M M A R I N C O N T E X T 1 9 5

Example 2

Study the following extracts. One is a piece of genuine conversation, the other is taken froma language teaching textbook. Which is which? What differences can you see between thetwo extracts?What language do vou think the non-authentic conversation is trying to teach?What grammar would you need in order to take part in the authentic conversation?

Text Al

A: Excuse me, please. Do vou know

where the nearest bank is?

B: Well, the Cit,v Bank isn't far from

here. Do you know where the main

post office is?

A: No, not really. I 'm just passing through.

B: Well, first go down this street to ther-^ CC ̂ l: -L.r r d r r rL uBr r r ,

A : O K .

B: Then turn left and go west on Sunset

Boulevard for about two blocks. The

bank is on your right, just past the postoffice.

A: All r ight. Thanks!

B: You're welcome.

Text B'

A: How do I get to Kensington Road?B: Well you go down Fullarton Road . . .A: . what, down Old Belair, and around

, . , ?Yeah. And then you go straight . . .. . . past the hospital?

Yeah, keep going straight, past theracecourse to the roundabout.You

know the big roundabout?A: Yeah.B: And Kensington Road's off to the right.A: What, off the roundabout?B: YeahA: Right.

B:A :B :

Teaching la s that make unction relationshi transDarent

This principle can be activated by .r. lland restructure their own qqderstanding o]Lform/function relationships through inductive aJ - Z'and crecuctr \ -e tasKs. Cxample J. taken f rom nacatament l ancl Henner- j tancnlna ( ryy j :

"^71'--:-;-7-;- | r. (rf05), is usetul lor exploring a range of structures, including'there * be', articles, )es/noquestions, and conjunctions.The teacher can determine which form/function relationshipsare focused on by giving the learners certain types of prompts, for example: Whose

apartment is this? How much can you tell about the person who lives here? Is the personpoor?Why is the person fit?

Encouraging learners to become active explorers oJ language

By exploit ing this principle, teachers can encourage their students to take greaterresponsibility for their ovr.rr learning. (A striking example of this principle, in an ESL setting,

can be found in Heath ( 1 992) .) Students ."., b.i.rg samples of h"g""g" into class, u.rd *oik fX All O.,together to formulate their orvn hvpotheses about language structures and functions. I (Aa-r-i"sometimes give my students a Polaroid camera, and get them to walk around the campus

'v-vt 'l

taking photographs, either of signs and public notices *hi.h th"y believe are ungrammuti.ul, -

or of signs which ther: think are interesting, or puzzling, or which contain language they

would like to know more about. The photographs then become the raw material for our

next language lesson. In fact, the last time I did this, the lesson culminated in the students

writing a letter to the universitv estates office pointing out the errors and suggesting

amendments.

1 9 6 D A V I D N U N A N

Example 3

Look at the picture. Whose apartment is

here. Circle your guesses and then explain

this? Make guesses about the

them b-v circling the clues inperson who lives

the picture.

1. The person is2. The person3. The person4. The person is5. The person is6. The person is7. The person is8. The person is9. The person is

'10. The person is

a m a n / a w o m a nhas a baby i doesn't have a babyhas a pet / doesn't have a petathletic / not athletica coffee drinker / not a coffee drinkerwell-educated / not well-educateda smoker / not a smokermiddle class / ooora music lover / not a music loveron a diet / not on a diet

Classrooms nhere the principle of active exploration has been activated w'i i l b=

characterized by an inductive approach to learning in which learners are given access I:

data and provided with structured opportunities to work out rules, principles, ar,:

applications for themselves. The idea here is that information will be more deeply processe:

and stored if learners are given an opportunity to work things out for themselves, rathe:

than simply being given the principle or rule.

Encouraging learners to explore rclationships between Brsmmar and discourse

Tasks exploiting this principle show learners that grammar and discourse are inextricab,r

interlinked, anithat gram-atical choices (for exaiple, whether to combine two pieces ,-:

information using co-ordination or subordination) will be determined by considerations '

context and purpose. Such tasks help learners to explore the functioning of grammar -:

T E A C H I N G G R A M M A R I N C O N T E X T I 9 7

context, and assist them in deploying their developing grammatical competence in the

creat ion oI coherent d iscourse.

Example 4

Consider the follow'ing pieces of information about nursing.

The nursing process is a systematic method.

The nursing process is a rational method.

The method involves planning nursing care.

The method involves providing nursing care.

These can be 'packaged' into a single sentence by using grammatical resources of various

kinds:

The nursing process is a systematic and rational method of planning and providing

nursing care.

Tdsk I Using the above sentence as the topic sentence in a paragraph, produce a coherent

paragraph incorporating the follow'ing information. (You can rearrange the order in r,r,'hich

the in format ion is presented. ;

The goal of the nursing process is to identify a client's health status.

The goal of the nursing process is to identifv a client's health care problems.

A client's health care problems mav be actual or potential.

The goal of the nursing process is to establish plans to meet a client's health care

needs.

The goal ofthe nursing process is to deliver specific nursing interventions.

Nursing interventions are designed to meet a client's health care needs.

The nurse must collaborate with the client to carry out the nursing process effectively.

The nurse must collaborate with the client to individualize approaches to each person's

Dart icu lar needs.

The nurse must collaborate with other members of the health care team to carry out the

nursing process effectively.

The nurse must collaborate u.ith other members of the health care team to individualize

approaches to each person's particular needs.

Task 2 Compare your text rvith that written bv another student. Make a note of similarities

and differences. Can you explain the differences? Do different ways of combining

information lead to differences of meaning?

Iasft 3 Now revise your text and compare it w'ith the original. [This is supp]ied separately

to the students.](Adapted from Nunan 1996)

1 9 8 D A V I D N U N A N

Conclusion

In this chapter, I have argued that we need to go beyond linear approaches and traditional

form-focused methodological practices in the grammar class, and that while such practicesmight be necessar), thev do not go far enough in preparing learners to press their

grammaticai resources into communicative use. I have suggested that grammar instructionwill be more effective in classrooms where:

@ contexts 1. ---K it is not assumed that once learners have been d4]lgdjl ticular form have

acquired it, and drilling is iEEEtEIylS-I-fr-rst step towards eventual mastsfy:. a - - : - . : _

ihere are opportunities for recvcling of language forms, and learners are enqaqed intasks designed to make traniparent the links between form. meaniq53ldJgq:learners are 8 l 'en oppo. ,unorng, oI tne

presentations by the teacher, have no place in the grammar class. What we need is anappropriate balance between exercises that help learie.s come to grSTGthliu-muilcal

grammatical principies of English !lan inductive learnin iences which encourthe functionin

over time, learners encounter target language items in an increasinglycomplex range of linguistic an environments._-.---.1

In making a case for a more organic approach to grammar teaching, I hope that I have not

given the impression that speciallv written texts and dialogues, dri l ls, and deductive

forfrs, or explorrn ms to communrcate eln seeking to explore alternative ways of achieving our pedagogical goals, itTfiilpbrtant

not to overstate t}re case for one viewpoint rather than another, or to discount factors suchas cognitive style, learning strategy p..f".".r..r, prior learning experiences, and the culturalcontexts in which the language is being taught and learnt. However, while there are somegrammatical structures that may be acquired in a linear way, it seems clear from a rapidly

growing body of research that the majority of structures are acquired in complex, nonlinear wavs.

Notes

I have not acknow'ledged the source of this extract, because I do not wish to appear to becriticizing the text from which it was taken. It is cited here for contrastive purposes only.Source: D. Nunan (1993).

Acknowledgement

The author and the publisher rvould like to thank Heinle and Heinle for their kindpermission to reproduce copyright material from Badalamenti and Henner-stanchina( 1 ee3) .

T E A C H I N G G R A M M A R I N C O N T E X T 1 9 9

References

Badalamenti, V and Henner-Stanchina, C. ( 1993) Grammar Dimensions One. Boston: Heinle andHeinle.

Ellis, R. (199+) The Study of Second Language Acquisicion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Hall iday, M.A.K. (1985) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.

Heath, S.B. (1992)'Literary skil ls or l i terate skil ls? Considerations for ESL/EFL learners'in

Nunan (1992\.

Johnston, M. ( 1 987)'Understanding learner language' in Nunan ( 1 987).

Kellerman, E. (1983)'lf at f irst you do succeed . , i . S. Gass and C. Madden (eds) lnpur in

Second Language Acquisition. Ror,r.'ley, Mass.: New-bury House.

Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M. (1991) An Introduction to Second LanguageAcquisit ion Research.

London: Longman.

Nunan, D. (ed.) (1987) Applytng Second Language Acquisit ion Research. Adelaide: NCRC.- (1992) Collaborative Language Learning andTeaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.Nunan, D. (1993) Introducing Discourse Analnis. London: Penguin.- (1996) AcademicWritingJor'l',lursing Students. Hong Kong:The English Centre. University

of Hong Kong.Pica, T. ( 1 98 5) 'The selective impact of classroom instruction on second language acquisition' .

Applied Linguistics 6/ 3: 2I+-22.

Pienemann, M. and Johnston, M..(1987)'Factors influencing the development of language

proficiency' in Nunan ( 1987).

Rutherford,W (1987) Second Language Grammar:Teaching and Learning. London: Longman.

Wajnryb, R. (1990) Grammar Dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Woods, E. (1995) Introducing Grammar. London: Penguin.

C h a p t e r 1 2

Anne Burns

GENRE-BAS

AND BEGIN

ED APPROAC

NING ADULT

H ES TO WRITING

ESL LEARNERS

Introduction

O M M U N I C A T I V E L A N G U A G E T E A C H I N G (CLT) HAS played i ts par tin revo luti oni s in g larra$llvronceiyed-theoi Iearning and most language

v t}lev no lotiser equate the learnins of a second e with the learning

@tthesamet ime'CLThasgivenr isetoasomet imesconfusingarrarof methodologies, some of which claim to be'the method'by which second languages uil ibe acquired and all of which call themselves'communicative'.This has often led to a stateo f "intuition.

,--.f, |IVI-ore and more, researchers and educators have begun to question some of t}rassumptions implicit in communicative approaches to second-language teaceffilTffi:ffi8-.efailed to take into acTount a well-lormulated theory of language. Cope (1989) has arguedtJlat what is needed is an

'authoritative' pedagogy for the 1990s which will replace what he

terms the'progressive'curriculum whichhas existed since the mid-1970s. Because of is

( - \ u - 3 d i s c o v e r y l e a r n i n g , e g o - c e n t r e d b " ' " , P .

\ / to learners the knon'ledqe thev need to gain access to sociall) ' powerfu] forms o[ ]anguage\_-/ ffif{V- | . . It has emphasised inquirv learning, process and naturalism but has neglected to offer learners

/ ( A H A . > : , : i ^ #/-\ual-- systematic explanations of how language functions in various social contexts.\ '

4do In recent vea- es of languageln recent vears mucn attentron nas Deen glven to soclally based theorles ot languageL and in Australia work drawing on svstemic l inguistics and notions of genre and register

developed by Michael Hall iday (e.g. Hall iday 1985; Hall iday and Hasan 1985) has provideda model for explaining language in relation to the contextin which it is used, while att hesamet ime tak ing i ' , t o . . . ou@. I f f i .E } . Iwou lda l soa rgu t

t l l d t 5 ) 5 L c t l l l L - t u l I L . , . . , , , c n l n g I l [ w e l l 1 \ - l I n

Communicative LanguageTeaching, as the,vprovide teachers and learners with a means oiexploringlanguage use n ithin u f.u*.*o.

Ot,,',o,r*t', ken and writrerlanguage, much of the work done in educational settings has related to literacy developmenrin the schools context (Martin and Rotherv 1 980, 198 1 ; Martin 1 985 ). The Adult Migran:Education Program (AMEP) Literacv Project organised throughout the National Centre fc,:English LanguageTeaching and Research (NCELTR) described by Hammond (1989; ha.

G E N R E - B A S E D A P P R O A C H E S T O W R I T I N G 2 O L

lrau'n on this work as well as on w.ork done bv t}e Svdnev Metropolitan East Disadvantagect

Schools Program (Callaghan and Rotherv 1988).

The NCELTR Literacy Project: a genre-based aPProach

\s one of the te s involved in the Project, I rvas particularlv interested in investigating

holv uld be applied to adult second-language learners at the earlv

of learning. T\'pically in beginning ESL classes, reading and r,vriting are consigned to

second place and the focus is on the development of speaking and listening. In addition,

assumptions are frequently made that beginning learners are unable or not readv to cope

r.r'ith the development of reading and u'riting in English, even though there is a frequent

reliance on written materials to support spoken language development.Teachers sometimes

maintain that learners do not have u'ell-developed skil ls in first-language literacy and

therefore it will be difficult to provide instruction in a second language where oral skills are p lyalmost non-existent also. This mav be true, b"t -""i ' b.gi""i"g 1"".

developed literacy skills in frrst lan and those w'ho do not will senerallv wis

I w.ould argue that these beliefs prevent learners from gaining access to opportunikie, S€a

to develop their literacv skills in second language and from understanding and responding t;-r. eT?to the *iitt.n texts $.hich rvill be of value to them in furthering their learning and in t:

extending their ability to cope w'ith a range of tasks common in the w.ider community, manv

of which depend on the ability to read and u-rite.

In the schools context the range of genres deait u'ith in the classroom is fairl-v restricted,

as they *'ttt U" *o.. *tt"tt .." Oof the s-6Fool curriculum. In the adult context the choice is more open-ended, as texts lvi, .------'-------1- t -'----T-

be drawn l rom a la rger numDer o l s grq;. At present,t e a c hir s-G-iLi ni-rv i t h b e s i nn i n€-a d u I t E S L I e a r n e r s h av e [e w lines to direct them to

Beginning learners and a genre-based approach

(o

Within the group oll$erac1' Project participants was one teacher rvho was w'orking on a

.lur, 1ffi;i-ing l.uii#)g.cause part oi the participants' involvement in the piojectL.'€--.-L-\__/

was thi recordii!-of?lassi6bm interaction and the documenting of any written texts usey',

she agreed that I would work collaborativeh'with her, collecting and recording the cl

data as she taught the class. The 19 learners were all within their first year of settlement as ttJSe',;'P[LaJtc

permanent immigrants to Australia and had all been rated as less than 1 .0 on a seven-ficrint

oral rating ,.u1. 1LMES, Sp"uki.rg Profi.i".,.v fih"-

school and, of these, six had some post-high school education. Of the

others, two had primarv school education only, while six had received varving levels of high

school education.The-v came from a rvide varietv of first-language backgrounds, some of

wftich used non-Roman script. //\ ( - - - - - - - - - |\\One_o{the genres identified as important bythe learners, in consultation with the

furJo u.g!'

ir9.Zteacher, waq;[ cations, and the writing of a lettd of application r,vas used by the

2 0 2 A N N E B U R N S

teacher to structure a unit of w'ork. During the theoretical input sessions at the beginning

of the project, Jennifer Hammond had proposed a teaching-learning cycle (Callaghan and

Rothery 1 988), an adaptation of which (Hammond 1 990) is presented in Figure 1 2. I below,

Figure 1 2.1 The teaching-learning cvcle

Source: Hammond (1990)

This cycle incorporates different classroom activities which move the learners througn

various spoken and written tasks related to the genre being taught. The teacher can begin

the cycle at any point,bttteacher to work through all stages. For this particular class, the teacher decided to work in

1 Modelling2 Joint Negotiation ofText

3 IndependentConstruction.

read examples of genre;discuss and analyse textstructure and language

teacher and learnersconstruct text; ongoing

discussion of how to do this

DEVELOPING

redraftino and editino CONTROL OF learner writesto "pr'btith"bt""

- THE GENRE own lext

standard '.

,'conferencinq between t.

leacher and learner

JOINTNEGOTIATION

OF TEXT

INDEPENDENT CONSTRUCTION OF TEXT

G E N R E - B A S E D A P P R O A C H E S T O W R I T I N G 2 0 3

Putting theory into practice

The rest of this paper {"rgib.. p"*:f a lesson which focuses on the stage where the teacher

gr.€4,+'re.effation o a

Ii*lluri"*t. At the beglnnilfof the lesson, the teacher and learners again discussed a model

job-application letter which had been presented to them the previous day:

Text 1: Model job application letter

11 CoLLen AvenueKeneinqLonN?W 2033

7th Oecember 1989

The Tereonnel }ff icerElfex LLdI' iqh SLreeLNorth Ry/eNew 2113

Dear ) t r o r Madam

Ke: ReceVtioniet's Job

I am wril inq for Lhe job of receplionief, adverr,ieed in The )ydney Mornin1 Aerald

today.I have worked ae a receptionlel for Lhree yearo in a denlieL'e coneullancy and I am

very experienced in answer'tnq the Lelephone, wrlLinq letters and Vreparinq accounf'a.

I am 20 yeare old and I have my I' iqher )chool CerLificaLe. I epeak and writ 'e f luenl

Enql ieh and Greek and conelder myeel f a moof , su i table candtdate for Lhe job.

I have enclosed a ref erence lrom my laeL job. Tlease conLacf, me af' home on 37O

2915 any t tme in the eveninq.

Youre o incerely(Siqnature)

teacher's aim was to h the learners describe rhe )Kschematic stffiTfiie S tCXt ich woEltl assist them during the joint ructron

Sctivitv which w'aS to lollowing extract from the classroom illustrates how- this

was done:

Classroom transcript I

T: AII right, have a look at the letter we wrote together yesterday. In fact I'm going to

read it to you so that we can recall what rve did. At the top right hand corner we put

the . . .?

LL: Address . . . address . . . date.

T: Address . . . OK and date.Then on the left underneath we put . . .?

L : W h o . . . a n d a d d r e s s .

T:

2 0 4 A N N E B U R N S

OK . . . to whom and the address. Then 'Dear Sir or Madam'. Why did we put'Sir or

Madam'?

Because I don't knolv man or woman.

You don' t know i f i t is a man or a woman. 'Re: Recept ionis t 's job ' .What does ' re 'mean?

A b o u t . . . a b o u t . . .'l am w'riting to applv for the job of the receptionist advertised inThe Sydney MorningHerald today.' So the first t\llgaou should say in the letter iq what the letter is about.'l'm w-riting to applv for the job. I have worked as a receptionist for three 1'ears ii-adentist's consultancy and I am very experienced in answering the phone, writing lettersand preparing accounts. So, the seconjljel!!what is that . . . ?Exper ience. . .

RThJTo"s the experience (w-riting on board next to number 2). What was one?What would you put for one?

LL: (Untntelltgible')

T: What is the first thing in the letter?'l am writ ing. . . '?L: Address?

L L : N o . . . n o .

T: ' l am writ ing to appiv . . . 'What could we put there?L: The problem . . .T: Not a problem .L : N o . . . i n f o r m a t i o n

L L : N o . . . a b o u t m e . . .

T: The main information in the letter . . . OK? (writes on board next to number 1)

the learners.The result r.r,'as the followinfde@ion oTttrdschernai

Text 2: Schematic structure of job application letter

1 Address

2 Date

3 Who to and address

+ Dear

5 Re (about)

5 Main Information

7 Experience

8 About me (relevant to job)

9 Ending

10 Reference

1 1 Contact

12 Yours sincerelv1 3 Signature.

I

T:

L .

T:

L :T:

The teacher follor,ved this bv discussing rvith the learners some of the distinctive features

G E N R E . B A S E D A P P R O A C H E S T O W R I T I N G 2 0 5

of the text, such as the predominant use of the Present tense, the bt o! ""j!AS""l' - . , , - ^ , - - - - -

participant and the use of primarii)' 'being' and 'having' clauses.,At the end of this segmeni ofthe-1eS6n] the learners were asked to construct their ow'n letters in response to

Commonwealth Emplovment Service (CES) advertisements, which had also been read and

discussed in a previous lesson. Each grouP was given a samPle advertisement (seeTbxt I below)

and asked to choose a scribe lvhotwould record the text as it was produced.The account which

follows described how one group of three learners rvent about constructing their text.

The group was composed of three female learners; Katia, who was Chilean;Zorka, who

wasYugoslav; and Susanna,aCzech.All three w'ere in their 20s and had post-high school

education, two haling been nurses and one a teacher in her owrr countrl'.They had all indicated

that job-seeking \!.as a priority for them and were highly motivated to improve their ianguage

skills so that they could eventuallv find emplovment. Susanna was nominated to scribe t}re

iointlv negotiated text and *'hut .h.^

6:r

ty \4Tote \{'as ln resPons9 to me lollo)vlng aov'

q.u [o*( &> 4\a-rs l" t\^*. cr,L>e-.)

Text 3: CES job advertisement

Mechanic

Woolloomooloo

General RepairWork on Jaguars8 a . m . - 5 p . - .gAward - Negotiabl.

''

Age : 25*

Tradesman Mechanic

Exp. On Jaguars

Despite their l imited proficiencv in English, the group employed a wide range of

strategies during the joint construction activitv. The following extract illustrates how they

collaborated to produce their text:

Classroom transcript 2

Su: I am writing to applv . . . (w-riting)

K a : O f t h e j " b . . .

Zo: Excuse me

Su: About the job . . .

Zo: Of ? Of the job?

Su: About

K a : A b o u t . . . a b o u t . . . o f . . . o f . . .

Zo : No . . . f o r t he . . . f o r t he job

Su: For the j"b . . . 1u'riting)Z o : O f . . .

Ka: Motor mechanic

(Susanna writes, then reads aloud)

Su: I am u'riting to apply for the job . . . (compares with model) in the CES todav . . .

Ka: In the service station . . . in the nel4'sPaPer . . . Spanish . . . new-sPaPer

5052 a /531 kcsMotor repairs

2 0 6 A N N E B U R N S

Oh (laughs) . . . (looks at job advertisement)

(watches as Susannawrites) C . . . E . . . S .

In the CES C . . . ( w r i t e s )Su:Ka:

This extract illustrates how the learners:

referred to the model

transferred language fro ext of their own

text -

---+#

oFfered suggestions for constructing the text

collaborated to produce what they believed to be correct versions ofthe text

monitored what was being written

used the model to check their version of the text

read aloud to'trv out' the text on each other

used each other as resources for writing

exchanged .Ior*:ylt".ul i"fo.*utior ocial context of the

The final version of the letter by this group of learners is reproduced below and is

representative of similar texts completed by other groups in the class during this activity.

Text 4: Jointly negotiated letter of application

Z/fl7 ea.ec PeReD€'

.rQzoulQqlosf

P.A T

TH€ HAOECE?te\ytc€ .fTBT/dl./

ADotzss

Deap ,,rB/ ua)a// ,R€: aoroQ ,E1*411 JOt

'1'

. t o. -")fi? /" ?ryo? ter /he7ob

o, -fuf -.chant4r1.,6 lhe C.€.f. tc4r.

.t!- ha-ve vork4 a.r elo? taeclauL {o, d

fQrt ',o

4 getn.rmczl tcrrtZ? tja/rba.

f fflffE"arinuis q*'aio,h (teqo,pe.j ) a.,a

f cott -o.L-('/l ]inz od cune& ovzt'/ttt'e

q,d o,glQf 1-rrrA . f, ce'tlr'd'cr ttSrzlf amotf

. torhb/o'-vfnbaal €.r lhe2ob ,

/ hor< c-nc/otc4 a.oferencc {.o-, tt; ht/

7 . b ,?lc.,p- coatt. :c, l ne o{ i j i l f , , , ' . ' ,

cn sef,c rz ,#. or )n iAo "n"ri;--i*on rr ( f,43 .f'arr

V nn,

ro structure the texlapplggiarQ\'in terms gf Uygl*and oveEU-Pls!]3nIation.ln addition ^thev ha , *,i* fi"-$<ltrlg and-lllesgrel!-sl+eneral-.

G E N R E - B A S E D A P P R O A C H E S T O W R I T I N G 2 0 7

It can be observed that the learners hut'. dtu*l tPon th. *od.l ptot h..

to structure the text a

introduction, follorved by accounts g,f plet*i-o-gs experience,

ich they n-cre focusing.

purpOSe COmtng aS an ln t ro ( luc t lon , IOI IO\ \ -eO D) - accounIs OI Pre \ lous exPer lence ,

""ffiheyhavealsowrittenaiuitabIeconclusionwFctr-reI-ersr l --i-:-l-- |to the reterence and lncludes a contact numDer'

Although these learners are at the beginning stage in their second-language

developmenl, they have been able to produce a fairly effective text approximating the genre,'letter of job application'. I believe that this u'as made possible because the approach taken

Even at early stages in second-language learning, Iearners can, and must, be assisted to

begin the process oiacquiring and extending skills in reading and writing. As there is no

."J.on to suppose that written language acquisit ion in a second language cannot-be

developmental in the same l4y-lh4lspoken lqg+g uisit ion is general to be,

it is'vitaf that in a techno oriented and hi iterate societ ult learnerFre

giverf instruction in written lan as earlv as possible ln a Drl

ba's?d approach provitles t w'ith lea actlvltles Dresen n a social contextual

them to focus on langua lssist them to

Note

I am grateful to the other participants in the NCELTR Literacy Project and in particular-to

J".rniHam-ond and Eileen Lustig for their advice and contributions to the writing of this

PaPer.

References

Brindley, G. (1919) The Assessment oJ Speaking ProfciencyTfuough the Oral Interviev'. Sydney:

AMES.Callaghan, M. and Rother,v, j. ( 1988) Teaching FactualWriting: A Genre Based Approacfi. Report of

-the DSP Literacv Project, Metropolitan East Region. Sydney: NSW School Education

Deoartment.

Cope, W (1989) A historical background to current curriculum changes and the shift to gente.

Presentation at the First LERN Conference, SydneJ'.

Hal l iday,M.A.K. (1985) Anlnt roduct iontoFunct ionalGrammar. London: EdwardArnold.

Hall iday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R. (1985) Language, context and text:Aspects oJlanguage in a social

semjotic percpective. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press'

Hammond, J. (1989)'The NCELTR Literacy Proiect. ' Prospect 5, 1: 23-30.

- (1990) Collaborating in Literaqr Teaching and Research. Paper presented at 26th Annual

TESOL Convention, San Francisco.

Martin, J.R. (1985) Factualwtit inB: Exploring and Challenging Sodal Reality. Geelong,Victoria:

Deakin Universitv Press.

Martin, J.R. and Rothery, J. (19S0) Writing Project, Report No. l,Working Papers in Linguistics No.

1. University of Sydnel': Department of Linguistics.- (1981) Wri t ingProject ,ReportNo.2,Work ingPapers inLinguist icsNo.2.Univers i tyofSydney:

Department of Linguistics.

C h a p t e r 1 3

A. Suresh Canagarajah

CRITICAL ETHNOGRAPHY OF A SRI

LANKAN CLASSROOM: AMBIGUITIES IN

STUDENT OPPOSITION TO

REPRODUCTION THROUGH ESOL

Introduction

T1 H IS CHAPTER ARGUES THAT THE way inwh ichdomina t i on i sexpe r i enced

I and oppositional tendencies are formed in classroom life has to be observed closeh'rather than conceived abstractlv. This ethnographic study of 2 2 tertiary-level Tamil studentsfollowing a mandatory English for general purposes (EGP) course reveals that whereas thelived culture displays opposition to the alienating discourses inscribed in a U.S. textbook.the students affirm in their more conscious statements before and after the course t}eirstrong motivation to study ESOL. Interpreting this contradiction as reflecting the conflictstudents face between cultural integrity, on the one hand, and socioeconomic mobility, onthe other, the studv explains how students' desire for learning only grammar in a product-oriented manner enables them to be somer,r'hat detached from cultural alienation whilebeing sufficiently examination oriented to pass the course and fulf i l l a socioeconomicnecessity. However, this two-pronged strategy is an ideologically l imiting oppositionalbehavior that contains elements of accommodation as well as resistance and unwittinglrleads students to participate in their oq'n domination.

The recent introduction of poststructuralist perspectives on language and radicaltheories of schooling that view language teaching as a polit ical act is a long-awaiteddevelopment inTESOL. Such theories enjoy much currency in L1 circles, almost becomingthe orthodoxy in areas like composition teaching, with w'ords like discourse and ,^po*rr^rn,becoming clich6d and posing the danger that they might have lost their critical edge.TESOL.on the other hand, tvhile being a far more controversial activity, has managed io see itselfas safelv "apolitical" due to its positivistic preoccupation with methods and techniques.

In recent issues of the IESOI Qgarterly, scholars such as Pennycook (1989) and Peirce(1989) have deconstructed dominant methods and the idea of met}od itself in order tcexPose the ideologies that inform TESOL. Though their papers perform a pioneeringfunction, the force rvith w'hich they are compelled to present their theses also involves somesimplification.Whereas Pennycook's delineation of ideological domination throughTESOLaPPears overdetermined and pessimistic, Peirce's characterization of the possibil i t ies c:

E T H N O G R A P H Y O F A S R I L A N I ( A N C L A S S R O O M 2 0 9

pedagogical resistance appears too volit ionist and romantic. We should now turn to the

sober task of analyzing the complexities of domination and resistance as they are plaved out

in ESOL classrooms and the confusing manner in which they are often interconnected.

Pennycook (1989) is generally convincing when, after a detailed analvsis of the socially

constructed nature of the concept of method, he asserts, "The power of the Western male

academy in defining and prescribing concepts . . . plavs an imPortant role in maintaining

inequities between, on the one hand, predominantly male academics and, on the other,

female teachers and language classrooms on the international power periphery" (p.612).

This scenario is so true that, ironicaliy, even pedagogies of resistance (of those like

Pennycook and Peirce) have to reach us in the peripher,v from the West. However, in

stretching the effects of the political economy of textbook publishing and research at the

macrolevel to language classrooms, Pennycook is making too wide a leap - especially

because his paper does not focus on classroom realities. What Pennycook overlooks in the

process is that the classroom is a site of diverse discourses and cultures rePresented by the

ua.ying backgrounds ofteachers and students such that the effects ofdomination cannot be

blindll: predicted. Such classroom cultures mediate the concepts defined and prescribed by

the Western academy as they reach the periphery. It is possible that various modes of

opposition are sparked during this encounter. Although Pennycook himself eventually

"*ho.tr teachers and academics to envision a more democratic social environment, this will

not be possible if a space is not created for such resistance by acknowledging the relative

autonom)/ of the school from other social institutions and processes.Through this term, Henry

Giroux (1983) posits that the different social institutions and cultural sites"are governed

by complex ideological properties that often generate contradictions both within and

betu,een them" (p. 102), that a specific institution like the school is not ruled inexorably by

the interests of the state and economy, although necessarily influenced by them. Giroux

(1983) in fact crit icizes reproductive perspectives ofschooling, such as those ofAlthusser

(1971),Bowles and Gintis (1976),and Bourdieu and Passeron (1977) for deterministically

conceiving the school as serving to inculcate only the culture, ideologies, and social relations

necessary to build and sustain the status quo

If Pennycook has to attend the noun in t}e term relative autonoml, Peirce has to note

the adjective.That is, the attitudes, needs, and desires of minoritv communities and students

are only partially free from the structures of domination in the larger social svstem. Hence,

whereas Peirce (1989) makes a porverful case for how'the teaching of English can oPen uP

possibilities for students bv helping them to explore what might be desirable, as well asnappropriate," uses of English' (p. 401), she assumes too much in considering "People's"

English as what w-ill be unanimously desired bv the "minority" students of South Africa. This

is not to slight the importance of developing such pedagogies of resistance, that is, politicallv

conscious approaches to learning/teaching which crit ically interrogate the oppressive

tendencies behind the existing content and forms of know'ledge and classroom relations to

fashion a more liberating educational context that would lead to student emPowerment and

social transformation (see Giroux, 1983).They are certainly a pressing concern inTESOL

and a much needed corrective to deterministic theories of schooling. However, with

remarkable balance, Giroux (1983) also crit icizes one-sided pedagogies of resistance for

"not giving enough attention to the issue of how domination reaches into the structure of

personality itself " (p. 106). Minoritv students may then display a complex range of attitudes

towards domination with a mixture of oppositional and accommodative tendencies which

have to be critically examined.

Pennycook and Peirce are unable to attend to the complexities of the classroom culture

in the face of domination because their papers are broadlv theoretical, focus on the politics

2 T O A . S U R E S H C A N A G A R A J A H

ofTESOL-related macrostructures, and onlv assume implications for language classrooms

rather than reporting empirical observations of the classroom itself for how domination is

experienced and oppositional tendencies are formed there. We can understand the

"ambiguous areas" (Giroux, 1983, p. 109) of student response, where a confusing range of

accommodative and oppositional tendencies are displayed, only if we take a closer look at

the day-to-day functioning of the classroom and the lived culture of the students. It is br

doing so thai we can attlain a realistic understanding of the challenges as well as the

possibilities for a pedagogy of resistance in TESOL. The objective of this chapter is not to

outline one more pedagogv of resistance, but to interrogate the range of behaviors students

display in the face of domination the awareness of which should precede and inform any

development of such pedagogies. The ethnographic study below of an ESOL classroom in

Sri Lanka creatively complicates the perspectives on domination and resistance presented

by Pennycook and Peirce.

Contextualizing the study

Ever since the British colonial polr'er brought the whole island of (then) Ceylon under its

control in 1796 and instituted English education to create a supportive lower administrative

work force, English has functioned as a valued linguistic capital over the local Sinhala and

Tamil languages to provide socioeconomic advantages for native Lankans. Although since

1956 (8 years after independence), "leftist" governments have professed to raise the status

of Sinhala (and, to a limited extent, Tamil), it is the English-speaking bilinguals who have

dominated the professions and social hierarchy. On the other hand, the democratization or

popularization of English promised bv "rightist" governments has only amounted to

providing limited mobility into low'er-middle-class rungs for aspirants whose newly acquired

English is marked as a nonprestige "sub-standard Sri Lankan English" (see Kandiah , 1979).

These developments have historicallv disgruntled the monolingual majority to make them

perceive English as a double-edged weapon that frustrates both those who desire it as well

as those who neglect it (Kandiah, 1984). Similarly, in theTamil society, whereas the emergent

militant nationalism has unleashed a Tamil-only and even "pure Tamil" movement, such

parallel developments as t}re exodus to the West or the cosmopolitan capital as economic

and political refuges have bolstered English to assure the dominance of English bilinguals

and to attract monolinguals.

As for English language teaching, the teachers, administrators, and general public in

Sri Lanka agree that English language teaching is a "colossal failure" (de Souza, 1969, p. 1.81

considering the vast resources expended on tlris enterprise by the state andWestern cultural

agencies. Though all identify the problem as one of student motivation, they differ as to

why students are unmotivated. Hanson-Smith (1984), a U.S. TESOL consultant, and

Goonetil leke (1983), a local professor of English, fault the educational system. In the

university, for instance, thev perceive that the requirements for English are not stringent

enough to motivate students to take the subject as seriously as other subjects. Both, however,

are in agreement that English does a u'orld of good for Sri Lankan students:"English is

learned not primarilv to communicate with other Lankans . . but to converse with the

world at large - and not just the world of technologv and machines, but also of dreams.

aspirations and ideals" (Hanson-Smith, 1984, p. 30).Because Kandiah (1984), on the other

hand, is of the view that the dreams encouraged bv English are illusory (as English learning

does not challenge but in fact perpetuates inequality) and its ideals are suspected by students

of resulting in cultural deracination, he sees the problem of motivation differently: "1The '

E T H N O G R A P H Y O F A S R I L A N I ( A N C L A S S R O O M z T L

reasons why thev lack this motivation are socioeconomic-polit ical" (p. 132). The presentstudy developed as an attempt to arbitrate between these divergent approaches to theproblems of motivation w-ith empirical data because the papers of the above scholars werelargely impressionistic and simply imputed to students attitudes neither systematicallyobserved nor e l ic i ted.

Method

The methodological orientation and fieldwork techniques developed bv ethnography enableus to systematically study the students' own point of view. of English language teaching inits natural context. Though ethnographv is noted for its intensive, detailed focus on the1ocal, contextualized, and concrete, the challenge in this studv is to analyze how the attitudesiormed by students in dailv classroom life are impinged upon by the more abstractsociopolitical forces outside the walls of the classroom. Holvever, current ethnographv istaking up the challenge of"how to represent the embedding ofrichly described local cultural.r 'orlds in larger impersonal svstems of polit ical economy" (Marcus and Fischer, 1985, p.S'l).This new orientation in the {reldn'ork and writing of ethnography is inspired by a morecomplex, polit icized view of culture in both anthropology and polit ical economy. Suchdevelopments account for a small but grow-ing body of ethnographic literature that looksat the culture of classrooms and student communities in relation to social confl ict andpolit ical domination (see Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977; Ogbu, 1986;weis, 1985;Will is,1977). .,

In order to conduct such politically motivated ethnography, we have to go bevond thedominant descriptive ethnography that is practiced today inTESOL circies (see, e.g., Benson,1989) and theorized in delinit ive terms foTTESOL practit ioners byWatson-Gegeo (1988).What we need in its place is a critical ethnography - an ideologically sensitive orientation tothe study of culture that can penetrate the noncommittal objectivity and scientismencouraged by the positivistic empirical attitude behind descriptive ethnography and candemystify the interests served bv particular cultures to unravel their relation to issues of

Power (see Marcus and Fisher, 1985).Will is (1978), whose 1977 study of working-classblack students in an urban British school is a pioneering and sophisticated example of thisorientation, defines the project of critical etlinography thus:

We must interrogate cultures, ask what are the missing questions they answer, probethe invisible grid of context, inquire what unsaid propositions are assumed to theinvisible and surprising external forms of cultural life. If we can supply the premises,dynamics, logical relations of responses rvhich look quite untheoretical and lived out"merely" as cultures, we lvill uncover a cultural politics. (p 18)

Practicing such a committed, value-laden ethnography does not mean that we can ignoreWatson-Gegeo's (1988) warning that "true ethnographic work is systematic, detailed andrigorous, rather than anecdotal or impressionistic" (p. 588). Hence, an intensive participantobservation of the ESOL class I taught 5 hrlweek was carried out for an academic vear(November 1990 to J ulv 1 99 1 1. Though it is possible that my dual roles as teacher andresearcher could create certain tensions (as could be expected in any observation by aparticipant), mv teaching also created certain advantages w-hich I would have lacked as adetached observer. My daily interaction r,r-ith the students in negotiating meanings throughEnglish and participating in the students' successes and failures,'with the attendalnt ,r".diorevise my own teaching strategv, provided a vantage point to their perspectives. Moreover,

2 I 2 A . S U R E S H C A N A G A R A J A H

I enjoyed natural access to the dailv exercises and notes ofthe students and the record ol

their attendance u,ithout having to foreground my role as researcher. As the teachinE

progressed, I stumbled into other naturalistic data that provided insights into students' o$Tr

point of .i,i"*' of the course, such as the comments students had scribbled during class time

in the margins of the textbook (which, due to frequent losses, was distributed before each

class and collected at the end).

To add a chronological dimension to the study, I situated the other methods of data

collection at significanf points in the progression of the course. During the first week of

classes, I conducted a free recall procedure, asking the students to jot down their impressions

ofEnglish. I also gave a detailed questionnaire covering their social and linguistic background

to be completed at home. At the end of the course, but before their final examination,

I conducted an oral interview with the students in my office to analyze their responses to

the course, textbook, and learning English in general. Though I invited the students for a

15-min interview, eventually each interview ranged from 70 to 90 min. Because some

students preferred to converse with me in the company of anotJrer classmate, I permitted

them to meet me in pairs. Even then, 7 students, all females, failed to turn uP - probablr'

reflecting the taboo on close interpersonal relations between the sexes inThmil society.The

interview, Iike the questionnaire, was inThmil so that students could express themselves

freely. (Such data is presented below, in translation, unless otherwise stated. The original

Thmil is cited only w'hen discursively significant.)

The ouestionnaire and the interl.iew modules were constructed in such manner as to

enable cross-checking of sttrdents' opinions. In the questionnaire, the 6rst part surveyed

students' educational backgrounds and exposure to English.The second part surveyed the

educational and socioeconomic background ofthe parents.The third part provided a set o[

true/false statements to test more obliquely students' attitudes toward the use of English.

The final part contained open-ended questions that further sampled their attitudes, allowing

comparison of these with their previous statements. Though the final interview u'as

prestructured, I shifted topic freel,v according to the flow of conversation. Questions 1-l

queried the attitude of the students towards English in relation to their other courses:

Questions 4-7 checked their response to the organization and cultural content of the

textbook; 8 and 9 sampled t}re effects of English learning on their thinking and identitr:

10-1,2 invited a crit ique of the pedagogv and curriculum; 13-15 explored their use of

English outside the class; and 16-18 solicited their recommendations for the improvement

of the course. Some of the similar questions in the interview then enabled me to comPar€

the motivation and attitudes of the students with their opinions stated in the questionnaire

in the beginning of the course.The other modes of data collection, too, enabled me tc

authenticate the data more effectively through triangulation (see Denzin, 1970). For

instance, the lived culture of the students (as recorded in my field notes and student-.'

comments in the textbook) was at odds with their stated opinions in the interview anc

questionnaire, compelling me to reconstruct more complex hypotheses to explain thei:

attitudes.

The course

The class that I observed consisted of 22 flrst-vear students in the arts and humanities at th.

University of Jaffna.The ESoL course is mandatorv for all students of the faculty of arr'

A pass is required in ESOL to qualifv for admission to the second year. For eligibil i :

to specialize in a specific subject from the second vear onwards, students are required :

score at least a B on the ESOL exam in the first sitting. It is from the second year that Engl:'

E T H N O G R A P H Y O F A S R I L A N I ( A N C L A S S R O O M 2 I 3

teaching is structured into English for specific purposes (ESP), catering to the differentsubject specialt ies. The first-year course is based on English for general purposes (EGp;,providing practice in all four skills.

Because the course is structured around a core text, it is necessarv to discuss theorganization of American Kernel Lessons (AKL): Intermediare (O'Neill, Kingbury,Yeadon, andCornelius, 1978). We have to remember that such prepackaged material, which comes wit}a teachers' manual, testing kit, and audiotapes for listening comprehension, represents "adirect assault on the traditional role of the teacher as an intellectual whose function is toconceptualize, design and implement learning experiences suited to the specificity and needsof a particular classroom experience" (Aronorvitz and Giroux, 1985, p. 149). Althoughteachers in the Universitv of Jaffna realize these problems, the limitations of time, funds,stationerv. and printing facilities in w-ar-torn Jaffna eventually drive them to use texts such as,4KI which have been amply gifted bvWestern agencies such as the Asia Foundation. If existingbooks become dated, teachers have to simply'w.ait for the next consignment of material.

As the title implies, the text is targeted towards intermediate-level students and focuseson the tenses, using eclectic methods organized around a predominantlv situational approach(see Richards and Rodgers, 1986). Each unit contains five parts. PartA introduces thegrammatical item for that unit through a set of "situations," accompanied by visuals. Part B,labeled Formation and Manipulation, introduces the grammatical item more overtly andprovides pattern practice. Part C is a serialized detective story that introduces newvocabulary in addition to providing practice in reading/listening comprehension. Part Dpresents a conversation for role pl"ftg, r,vhereas the final part contains guided composition.The last t$'o parts also provide grammar revision exercises. Though grammar is presentedovertly in some sections, in most others, students are encouraged to formulate their ovi'nhypotheses inductively through active use ofthe language in specific skills.

It is also necessary to analyze the ideologies that structure the text in order to place incontext the attitudes and responses of tJle students to the course. What stands out in thenote, "To the Student andTeacher," in the beginning of the text is the concern with providingadequate "practice" so that students w'ill "progress" in the "fundamentals of English" whichintermediate students "still cannot seem to use correctl)', easily and as automatically as theyw'ould l ike" (O'Neil l et a|.,1978,p. vi).The language echoes behaviorism and assumes thatwith sufficient drill, students can be made to display habit-oriented automatic responses.Furthermore, the fundamentals of English are considered autonomous, value-freegrammatical structures (in the fashion of U.S. structuralism), ignoring the culture andideologies that inform the language or the textbook. The students themselves are isolatedfrom their social context, and there is no consideration of how their own linguistic andcultural backgrounds can affect or enhance their learning. In its concern with correctness(which, of course, is based on standard U.S. English rath-er than on the Englishes studentsbring with them), the textbook empo\!€rs the teacher as the sole autlority ii th. .lr.rroornto regulate, discipline, and arbitrate the learning process. Such assumptions amount to whatGiroux (1983) has identif ied as instrumental ideology (p. 209).Though,4KI acknowledgesthe need to make learning an "enjoyable experience" and also provides opportunities forcollaborative pair work, these attempts provide only occasional relief from t}e largelypositivistic pedagogy.

In fairness to AKL, we have to note that certain sections are influenced by the notion ofcommunicative competence lr.ith advice to students that "the situations themselves are moreimportant than isolated rvords" (O'Neil l et a\.,1978, p. v). However, the interactions andthe discourse employed in such situations assume an urbanized, technocratic, Westernculture that is alien to the students. Even such simple speech activities as conversations are

2 I 4 A . S U R E S H C A N A G A R A J A H

conducted in a strictly goal-oriented manner (see Unit 2d), whereasTamil discourse . a, -.

the "digression" and indirection typical of oral communities. The values that emerge thro r.

the situations are not hard to decipher, such as upward social mobility and consumerl::

(4d).The work ethic (12a) and routine of factory life (13a) are presented positively, r,r'hert.-

strikes and demonstrations (5a) and the l ifestyie of blacks (in the story of Jane and h.:

boyfriends) are not. The potential of the textbook to influence students with cert:-.

dominant values of U.S. societv is subtly effective because,4KI disarms its users : '

presenting language learning as a value-free, instrumental activity.

The class

The class consisted of 13 female and 9 male nativeTamil students, of whom 3 were Rom":-

Catholics and the rest Hindus.These students had failed the initial placement test in EngL=-

and fared among the worst among the new entrants for that academic year. Thev u'er=

enrolled in a range of subjects related to the humanities and social sciences besides *-.

mandatory ESOL. A majorit,v of these students were from rural communities and from tr:,=

poorest economic groups. Except for 4 students whose parents were in clerical or teachir-:

professions (thus earning the relatively decent sum of 1000 rupees, or US$25 a month

the other parents did not have steady jobs or salaries. In the latter group, some were tenar----

farmers, and others were seasonal casual laborers.The families of the students had also ha:

limited education. Only one student's parents had proceeded beyond Grade 10.The Paren-of 5 others had not completed an elementary school education.

Furthermore, the students came from backgrounds in which English held limittj

currency. Only 8 students said their parents had managed to studv some elementary Engli=:

in school. Of these, 3 reported that their parents might listen to English programs on the

multilingual television or radio. Five reported that their parents could be expected to uttc.

some English words if they encountered foreigners or if need arose in their workplace. None

of them could read or write English. Considering the students themselves, although 18 hal

sat for the Grade 10 English language test, only 10 had managed to score a simple pass (i.t..

a grade op 4go/oS.Three students reported that they had read English newspapers/books '--.r

seen English films - although thev could not remember the titles of any. Fourteen rePorte'l

that they might occasionall-v switch on some English programs on radio or television.The

same number said they might code-mix English with friends or when thev needed a linr

language.

Contextualizing classroom life

Precourse determination

When the universitv reopened belatedlv for the academic year, it was after much doubt as

to whether it would continue to function at all because renewed hostilities between d:=

Sinhala government andTamil nationalists had brought life to a standstill in theTamil regior-

Yet students trickled in from jungles where thev had taken refuge from the fighting - ;

some cases, trekking hundreds of miles b,v foot. In a country where only a small percenta!.

of all those u'ho annually qualify for tertiary education do get admission, the students valut:

their university degrees sufficiently to turn up for classes. As a grim reminder of the violen: .

and tension that u'ould continue to loom behind their studies, government fighter jt-.

screamed overhead and bombed the vicinity of the university while the students were taki: -

the English placement test during the opening week of classes.

E T H N O G R A P H Y O F A S R I L A N I ( A N C L A S S R O O M 2 I 5

Despite these problems or because of them, students were highlv motivated for studies(including English), as is evident in an initial questionnaire I gave them. Asked whether the,v."vanted to study English at the universitv, all of the students replied in the affirmative.How'ever, the intensitv of the feelings that accompanied their motivation is conveyed throughsome of the other data in which students enjoyed more scope for free expression. Thirurvrote the following personal note at the end ofhis free recall procedure:

It is difficult to studv English in the village. And I am from Kaddaiparichchan in Mutur.There was no English from Grade 3 to 7 . I lacked opportunities. But I really(extremely) desire learning English (Please don't reveal this to anybodv else in theclass: Here in Jaffna there are a lot of opportunities, and I am presentlv studyingEnglish from a private tutor also).

Students from remote villages profoundlv regretted not having enjoyed opportunitiesto learn English earlier and admitted that it u,as belatedlv that they had realized the need

for the l"ngrrug.. Some of the male students includingThiru caught me alone a couple oftimes in the first month (while I u.alked back to mv office after class) to impress upon metheir previous frustrations with the language and their present desire to master it in theuniversitv.

The reasons for learning English however seemed predominantly utilitarian. In the

questionnaire,76.l04 stated "educational need" as their f irst preference (including 61 .9o/owho considered this their sole chc;ice). "Job prospects"was cited by 19.20h, and"socialstatus" bv + .7oh. "To travel abroad" was cited bv none. But the categories students themselves

proffered suggest motives that are more pragmatic or idealistic as they emerge through arelatively open-ended later question. Students needed English (a) because ESOL ismandatory in the universitl', 5 .8%o; (b) because a pass is required in the first-year test, 5 .8%;(c) to pursue postgraduate studies, 5 .8oh; (d) to understand other cultures, 1 1 .7o/o; (e) tointeract with a wider group of people, 14.70k; (f) to gather more information, 20.8%; (g)to know an international language,23.5o/o; (h) "to become a complete person," 11.7o .Although Motives a-c show a narrowlv pragmatic view of education, Motives d-g are less

so. And the final reason, w.hich is the most idealistic stated, suggests that students are notalways purely utilitarian in their perspective. Some, Iike Lathan, insisted, "Through Englisha student becomes a mulu manithan [i.e., a complete man]." In fact, when the question wasreframed as "What are the disadvantages of being aTamil monolingual?" students expresseda paralyzing sense of powerlessness in the face of diverse peoples and circumstances.

Such high notions as Lathan's about the functions of English are confirmed in thestudents' attitudes tow'ard English as a language. Although students would be expected toresist English at a time of heightened linguistic nationalism and purism in the communitywith political leaders daily condemning English, students' attitudes were, on the contrary,

quite positive. Except for one student (i.e., Supendran - whose remarkably consistentopposition will be discussed later), the rest disagreed rvith the statement "studying Englishas a second language would create damage forThmil language and culture." Similarly, for themore personalized variant of this statement, "What are the social/personal disadvantagesthat would occur to you by your use of English," all answered "none." Such a favorableattitude on the part of the students is partly explained bv a phrase that kept recurring intheir responses: English as apothu moli (i.e, common language). It was evident that studentswere not using this synonymouslv with sarvathesa moli or akila ulaka moli (i.e., internationallanguage) with its usual connotations. When they used pothu moli in addition to the latter

terms, they seemed to use it ' lvith the meaning that it was an "unmarked" language that

2 T 6 A . S U R E S H C A N A G A R A J A H

transcended the specific cultures and ideologies of different nations. So Gnani stated,

"Although it is the language of a particular nation, it is a common language for all people

and nations."

Although the relatively more spontaneous impressions of the students in the free recall

procedure largeiy con{irm their positive attitudes toward English, they are also tinged with

fears and inhibit ions. Hence, though a majority of the students associated English with

development, progress, learning, civil ization, l i teracy, culture, social respect, and

personality', one can also detect other comments lvhich suggest that students are not unaware

of the sociopsychological damage and politics of the language. Shanthi wrote:

British mother tongue. We were forced to studv it because of colonialism. If we have

a knowledge of this language we can live in whichever country we want. Brings to

mind the developed life of the white people. A language that evervbody should know.

Though conflicting impressions are mixed in Shanthi's stream of consciousness, what

is remarkable is that she remains detached from the negative features and fails to take a

perspective on them.The fact that students are probably consciously rationalizing their fears

or suppressing their inhibitions is evident from Ratnam's comments. He argued, "Since t}e

dominance of English is uncontestabie, the best strategy is to exploit its resources to develop

our own language and culture."

Midcourse resistance

The inhibitions towards English which lay partly suppressed during the initial period of the

course in the conscious responses of the students, came into relief in their largelr'

unconscious lived culture as the course proceeded. It is evident from the record of dailr

attendance that students faced problems in the course. Although students recorded an

impressive 94oh dail1, turn out for most of the first 2 months, at the end of the second month.

attendance fell to 500%. Students began to miss classes for the slightest reason: to write

tutorials for another subject, to prepare for a test, to attend funerals offriends'relatives.

At times intense fighting in the district or the imposition of curfew also affected attendance.

But none of this deterred 90% of the students from attending from the eighth month as the

final examination was approaching, demanding that past test papers be done and revision

undertaken.

The comments, drawings, and paintings students had penned in the textbook are more

subtle evidence of the flagging interest of students. Because students had written these

during class time, this activity suggested that topics other than English grammar had

preoccupied them u'hile teaching was going on. Although students had appeared to be

passively observing or listening to the teacher, as required bv the instrumental pedagogv in

the class, the glosses in the text suggest a very active underlife. Unknown to the teacher.

students were communicating with each other or sometimes with tlemselves through these

glosses. The glosses suggest the discourses and themes that seem to have interested thr

students more than those in the textbook. In one sense, these are the discourses which

mediate for the students the situations) grammar, and language taught by the textbook. Ir:

another sense, these are students' counterdiscourses that challenge the textual languag..

values, and ideology. Hence, they deserve close examination.

Many of the glosses are inspired by the ongoing nationalist struggle for a separateTam;

state. For this reason, in Unit 1c, the picture of Fletcher (the protagonist in the detectir.

story) as he is seated in a prison cell is modified in a couple of textbooks. He has been paintt

z L B A . S U R E S H C A N A G A R A J A H

(.) Teacher: Armv?What makes vou sav that?

tdt Shanth i : He is uear ing a uni form.

(e ) Teache r : We l l . . . l nd ran?

(0 Indran: He is in the hospital. . ' . He is seated on a bed.

(g) Teacher: But rvhat about the bars? . . Don't vou see the bars? He is actuallv in

o r i son .

(h) Shanthi: bkur', b.rt he is rvearing good clothes. He is rvearing shoes.

itl Indran: And he is said to be going to the librarv and having regular meals. ' . . And

he is seated alone in the room.

0) Teacher: (Explains in detail the difference betu,een prison life in Sri Lanka and th.

U.S )

The students'image of prison l ife as overcrow.ded, dirtv, and more rePressive (based

on Sri Lankan conditions) interferes u-ith their interpretation.The other situations visuallr

represented, such as an orchestra plaving, air tral-el, department store shopping, and

apa.tme.rt l iving, also confused the students. Such cultural estrangement created an

uiditio.rul luv.. of problems to the linguistic ones students were alreadv confronted with

Other tensions in the course resulted from the styles of iearning desired by the students

The students seemed uncomfortable r,r..ith a collaborative approach to learning whenever tr

was encouraged. Because the textbook specified pairrvork occasionally, and I myself wantec

to create mo-re linguistic interaction among students, I insisted that the desks be arranged in

a circle. But before each cliss, the students rearranged the desks into a traditional lecture-

room format, w-ith the teacher's desk in front of the room and their own in horizontal rou'..

Thus, students minimized interaction among themselves and failed to take initiative in thc

florn'of classroom discourse. As the conversation cited above suggests, tlpical interaction.

follow- the features of traditional teacher-centered classroom discourse (see Mehan, 1985.

Stubbs, 19'76),in rvhich the teacher regulates and dominates talk.Turn taking follows th.

tripartite Structure of Question (see Turn a above), Ansr,ver (Turn b), and Evaluatior-

(Turn c); such sequences follow in c d--e, e-f-g.Turns for students are assigned by the teacher

(seeTurns a and e); for each single turn bv the student, the teacher takes trvo, thus dominatin;

the quantity of talk. The questi,ons asked are displav questions for which the teacher alread.

knows the ans*,er. I.r u qrit. atvpical -oo'" h.o, Sh""tttl and Indran attemPt to contradic

the teacher's explanation; sigruGcantll these u-ere not framed as questions but simply as casur

asides. It was onlv Supendran rvho asked for clarifications or challenged my explanations mor.

explicitlv. For most of the time, the rest preferred to sit, pen in hand, and rwite down whateve:

*,u, on ih" bourd or simph'listen to the teacher's lecture (as inTirrn j).lronically, one of tht

glosses abor,e an interactive pair-rvork exercise said, "This is a job for the jobless."

Accompanr.ing this desire for teacher-centered learning, students made learning .

product rather than process. Students expected to be provided rvith the abstract forms an:

iules of language deductivelv or prescriptivelv for them to store in memory rather than t -

inductivelv formulate the rules for themselves through active use of the language i:.

communicative interactions. Disregarding activities, students demanded notes. Whenevc:

charts or grammaticai paradigms were presented, the students eagerly wrote them dolr-

The_v demanded more r,vritten r'vork rather than speech or listening exercises because tht'

felt that thev could retain it for personal studv and revision before tests. Mv diarv recorc,

much time iaken in discussing the importance of "use rather than rules." But the slogan fail. -

to create changes in their attitude. Graduailv students noted mv practice of reservinq t:-

2-hr classes for activities and t hr slots for the more overtlv grammar-oriented secti(-:

of the textbook and attended the latter u'hile cutting the former.

E T H N O G R A P H Y O F A S R I L A N K A N C L A S S R O O M 2 I 9

Students also resisted the active use of English as a medium for instruction or interaction

in the classroom. During the first r.veek'"vhen I asked students to introduce themselves in

English by making use of simple svntactic structures I had u.ritten on the board, thev simply

giggled and found it embarrassing to do so. Students responded inTamil even though I used

English for questions, commands, and explanations, lvhether in formal or informal

situations.Thiru displaved the most paralvzing sense of inhibition. It u'as simplv impossible

fbr him to produce a single r,vord of English from the textbook or bv himself. The long

moments of siience rvould become embarrassing as the ciass r'vaited patientlv for Thiru to

open his mouth rvhen his turn came to do an exercise or read a passage orally. Although

Thiru was very voluble in class in Tamil about matters related to universitv policies and

regulations, in English he was simplv tongue-tied.

Much of the stress seemed to result from the implications of Engiish for the identity

and group solidarit l- of the students. A particularlv trving time was the correction of

pronunciation as required bv the textbook. BecauseTamil lacks svllable-initial fricatives, the

students pronounced he and she as /ki/ and /si/.The discomfort of the students in my

repeated attempts to correct such pronunciation lvas explained br,their later comments

that revealed their awareness of such pronunciation being identif ied as "nonstandard" Sri

Lankan English. These students had been the target of insults bv middle-class speakers of

"educated" Sri Lankan English. Not onlv pronunciation but the verv language was a class

marker. Supendran said that he simplv avoided contexts in rvhich students (from "better

backgrounds") used English rvith him because he felt that the-v rvere flaunting their

knowledge of the ianguage in ord€r to make him look ignorant. English then provided

unfavorable subject positions to such students, making them feel disadvantaged, helpless,

inferior, and uneducated. Students also felt that the use of English for interactions rvould

be interpreted bv their peers as an attempt to discard their local rural identitv and pass off

as an anglicized bourgeois or even a foreigner. It was probablv for this reason that in the

questionnaire, although 50%o stated that thev rvould use English "rvith a foreigner rvho also

knewTamil," all except one rejected the possibilitv of using English "u'ith aTamil who also

knew English."

The conflicts English created for the representation of their identitv become more

explicit in the conversation pieces students had to role-plar in each unit. Students typicallv

uttered their parts in a flat reading intonation when thev w'ere asked to dramatize the

dialogue in front of the class. Mv model renditions rvith an eve for realism only increased

their inhibition. Students said that it rvas "funn\'" or "unbecoming of themselves" to speak

in such manner. It soon became apparent that the discourse behind these dialogues was itself

so alien to these students that thev had difficultv entering into the roles specified. One such

conversation rvas betu,een Joe and Susan in Unit 4d u.hile thev budgeted their weekly

expenses:Joe's casual remark that he has to hold a party soon for 35 people in his office to

celebrate his nromotion irks Susan because of insufficient notice and the amount of additional

expenses inlolved rvhen thev have just purchased a nelv house. When, as usual, students

found it difficult to imaginativeiv enter into the situation, I tried to construct local situations

w-here such dialogue could be expected to occur. Students hor,vever pointed out that the

genre of "monev talk" or "budgeting conversation" was alien to their peasant background.

"We spend as $,e earn," according to one student, r'vas their lifestvle. Even the consumerism,

thrift, delayed gratification, and drive for social mobilitv assumed bv the conversation turned

out to be alien. It u'as not surprising then that such role-plaf ing exercises lr'ere purely of

academic interest to them and, therefore, nothing better could be emploved for these other

than tlre reading intonation for descriptive prose. Indran's notes in his notebook at the end

of the class 1\.ere a telling comment on his attitude to the exercise. He had simplv jotted

2 2 0 A . S U R E S H C A N A G A R A J A H

dorvnTamil svnonvms for nerv lexical items like adding, ftadition, and promotion and identified

some exampi.. of .ou.rtlnoncount structures rvhich the unit was suPPosed to teach:"Hou'

,.ru.ru .-plovees are at the bank? Holv much moneY did vou spend iast lveek?" Indran had

t."Ott nt't"r"d out the necessarl grammatical and l'ocabular'"' items from the supposedlv

interesting conversation'

What the lived culture of the students suggests is a dual oppositional trend' On the one

hand, the,v oppose the alien discourses behi"d the language and textbook' On the other

hand, the,v oppose a process-oriented pedagogy and desire a product oriented one' Indran's

,rotebook ,.,gg.rt, that both trends could be -connected,

Seeing little possibilitv of relating

r,vhat theV l#n.d to their sociocultural background., students saw' Iittle meaning for the

course other than the formal, academic one of i'cti.tg through the examination and satisfying

the English requirements of the institution'

Postcourse contradiction

Although the final intervierv rvith the students soliciting their ou'n impressions of the content

urrd oriu.irution of the course confrrmed some of the observations on their lived culture'

it also contradicted many findings at least at face value. Asked which subjects they had

enjo-ved most and rvhictrthev ha"d lvorked hardest in, students mentioned their different

,nf;".,, of specialization for ih" fornr.. but unanimousll' cited English for the latter' When

t pol.,t"d orrt th" flagging attendance in English and contradicted their claim, I rva'

confronted r.vith a ,rr.p?iri.,"g piece of evid"n.".1h. majoritv of the students in the class had

been going for private lnstriction in English outside the universitv. As Indran put it-conclu-

sio.ehi,Foino oth". subject in the univeisitv do'"ve go for tutoring, thus spending additionai

timeand monev on it.The fact that rve do this onlv for English.proves our motivation tc

master the language."The students continued to affirm, as thev had done at the beginnin;

of the cours", th. .r".d for English and the prioritv thev had given to it'

The admission that .trrdJ.tt, had sought heip outside the class was potentiallv ar'

indictment of the universitv ESOL course-. I then began exploring what it_was that tht

students were getting in theii private instruction that thev were not getting in the universit'

It appeared thit the iutoru ou"r" using Sri I ankan or Indian textbooks - if they used anv a:

ull.'ti,rt it lvas not the cultural ,.I"tu.t." that students seemed to value in these courses I'

much as the grammar instruction. In fact, the texts and pedagogv \\"ere overtly grammx

oriented and u'ere rarely contextualized.Tharma praised his tutor (using lexical borrow'ing'

from English): "He 'cleared' the 'grammar'"'

Othlr questions in the interr,ielv confirm the desire of the students for gramma:

oriented instruction.When asked rvhich section of the textbook thev had enjoved and rn'hic-

thev had found useful ( 1 3 out of the 1 5 intervierved) replied that thev found the gramma--

tubi", u.d exercises (Sections b and e) useful although thev had variously enjoyed t: '

serialized storv, conversation, and listening sections. Some conflated these distinction:

Jeyanthi said ihat she enjoved the grammlr section "because it is useful for the tes: -

Statements such as luuu.rJh;. r.u."l""d that the desire of the students to learn the rules ':

grammar prescriptivelv was related to an examination-oriented motivation. In fact. ' '--

f inal 3-hr,,vritten test featured mostlv discrete-item questions on formal aspects. Lat-:

asked specificallv u'hat the students had initiallv hoped to achier''e through.this course r:

the extlnt to nfuich the course had fulfilled their expectations, Siva said, "l expected::-'"

t he cou rse u 'ou ld p rePare me l o r t he t es t ' . . t ha t i s . co re r t he necessa ry g ram: - -

comprehensivelv." It rtas.rot surprising, then, lvhen all eventuallv agreed that the co--

had failed to satisfv their expectations'

E T H N O G R A P H Y O F A S R I L A N I ( A N C L A S S R O O M 2 2 I

The recommendations of the students for a more effective ESOL course that r,vould

also successfully motivateTamil students n-as quite predictable.Tharma argued that a more

grammar-based textbook should replace ,1K1. Vilvan expounded, "Grammar should be given

primacv and covered first since this is crucial for other areas l ike l istening, reading, or

speaking." Most students agreed that grammar has to be taught first before "w.asting time"

on skil ls and activit ies. Other recommendations also confirmed a product-oriented,

examination-based motivation:"More notes should be provided . . more homework should

be given to retain grammar . . . allovr.textbooks to be taken home for personal stud,v . . .

teach more slor,vlv . . . " Onlv a couple also added: "Provide more communicative tasks

. . . get more culturallv relevant textbooks."

Moving on to the attitudes of the students to the cultural content of the textbook, here

again some observations on their lived culture lr-ere contradicted. Students did not perceive

anv threats stemming from the foreign culture. Some students disclosed that they had

actuall-v enjoved learning about life in the U.S. In fact, because students failed to understand

the force of mv questions, I often had to reframe the questions to highlight the issue of the

damage U.S. values and lifestvle could do to their subjectivitv or culture.When I pointed

to instances where details of people, places, and situations had confused them, students

agreed that these had created some confusion especiallv at the beginning of the course but

added that these difliculties rvere outrveighed bv the nerv and interesting information that

thev could gather from the textbook. Thev rvent on to state that ,4KI '"vas "interesting,"

although not "useful" - perhaps from the examination point of vier,r-.

Discussing next their impressidns of U. S. societ\ ', thev l isted a varietv of both positive

and negative features rvith tvpical academic poise. Although thev observed the individual

freedom, technological development, comfort, and liberai relationship betr,veen the sexes,

thev also stressed the subtle forms of racism, social inequalitl', "decadence," and imperialism

(although it u.as not clear rvhere in the text thev saw' the last feature displaved). Asked hou'

these had influenced their ou'n r.alues and behavior, students displaved a remarkable

detachment tou'ards this clash of cultures. Jevanthi said , "We don't have to accept evervthing:

We can take the good and leave out the bad." It has to be observed that the students'relaxed

attitude to',vard U. S. culture (at least in their statements) might result from making culture,

too, a product - something to be learnt for its information value and stored in memory.

Although the retrospective statements of'most students are at tension rvith their lived

culture, it was Supendran r,vho displaved a remarkable consistencv. Supendran, r.vho came

from a remote rural communitv and lvhose nonliterate parents iacked anv formal education,

entered the universitv relativelv late after u'orking as a teacher in his community. He did

not go for private tutoring - partlv due to lack of finances. Rather than being examination

oriented or desiring grammar-based instruction, Supendran rvanted English to equip him

to serve his own communitv: "to enable me to help mv village folk to draft official letters

to institutions, to read documents rve receive from the state, to understand foreign news

broadcasts, to read labels on fertilizers and farm equipment." Therefore, Supendran was

the onlv student rvho categoricallv stated "l lKl has to go." He w.anted a textbook and

pedagogv that w'as not just communicative, but aiso based on local culture: "Rather than

talking about apples, talk about mangoes; rather than talking about apartment houses, talk

about village huts. Are lve all emigrating to America? Nol Some of us rviil continue to live

here." Being the single student rvho consistentlv stated that English posed a cultural threat,

he sought deep social relevance from the teaching and textbook.

Before concluding the storr of our classroom life, it is necessarv to provide at least

sufficient information to enable a consideration of hou,'mv ow-n subject positions could have

contributed to the construction of student attitudes and classroom culture.Younq (in mv

2 2 2 A . S U R E S H C A N A G A R A J A H

earlv 30s), male, "progressive," Christian, culturallvWesternized, middle class, nativeTamil.

bilingual, director ofEnglish teaching at the universitv are the identities that I believe rvere

most salient for the students. So students' insistence on the use ofTamii in the classroom.

for example, is motivated b1'm,v being a bil ingualTamil. If there had been a native-English-

speaking teacher, students u.ould har.e been compelled to use English. Additionalll', use oi

English with me rvould have been perceived to violate our Tamil in-group solidaritr.

(Hor,vever, m1'class and cultural identities separate me from the rural poor and lvould likelr

have increased students'inhibit ions in using their marked English.) Our commonThmil

identity rl ould likeh' have also forced students to sound more nationalistic, especially as the

present communalist mood tends not to tolerate neutralit-v. In this context, however, their

;ff irmation of English is daring. On the other hand, because I ' ,vas in an institutionalh

powerful role, instlnces of oppo"sition to English (as their falling attendance) are significani.

The same identitr,., however, rvould have motivated students to affirm the language, textbook.

and the course. (ln a sense, then, ml.multiple subject positions seem to qualifv each other. ,

Although the uniqueness of each teacher/researcher-student interaction should not bt

slighted in favor of the generalizabilitv of this studv, rve have to note that almost all Srr

Lankan ESOL teachers areWesternized, middle-class, bil ingual, native Lankans l ike me.

Contextualizing student opposition

At face value, the findings of the studv seem inconclusir.e, if not contradictory. On the ont

hand, students seemed to graduallv lose motivation in the course, as it was most objectivel:

displaved in their record of attendance. There is reason to beiieve that this drop in motivailo:-

*u, ."lut"d to an oppositional response to the threats posed bv the discourse inscribed i:

the language, pedagog,v, and the textbook. At the verv least, students were experiencing .

tension or discomfort in the confrontation bet',veen the discourse they preferred and th.

discourses informing the ESOL course. But, on the other hand, students insisted that the r

w-orked hardest in Eirglish compared to all the other subjects (which is true because t]rtl.

had been attending private.lurr", as rvell).Thev maintained, as they did in the beginnir:;

of the course, the importance of English and the high priority given to learning the language

Thev went further to insist that thev enjor-ed learning Western culture and using the U. !

textbook (although thev did not find them useful from the examination point of vieu'1. b-

general, the oppositional attitude w'as manifested in the largelv unreflected, untheorizt:

lived culture of the students emerging from their glosses in the textbooks and my field not.. "the receptive attitude emerges from the more conscious expression of their views in ti:.

quest ionnaires and interv iervs.

As arvay of reconcil ing this tension, rve have several options:We can suppress one s.:

of data in favor of the other; !\ 'e can judge the students as confused and contradictin;

themselves; or we can simplv fault the methodologv. Not seeing valid reasons to do anr -:

this, I f ind it challenging to preserve both sets of data and consider how both attitud..

of the students displav a complex response to the learning of English. It appears that tie .=

dual attitudes simplv dramatize the conflict students faced in the course between the thre:'-.

of cultural alienation experienced intuit ivelv or instinctivelv and the promises o: .

socioeconomic necessitv acknolvledged at a more conscious level.The students experien;= -

discomfort in the face of the alien discourses, although thev do not theorize about it. B--

this experience has to be juxtaposed rvith their a',vareness of the powerful discourses u'f' , '

glorif-v the roie of English (such as those of policvmakers Goonetil leke, 1983, and Hans -

Smith, 198+), the pressure from the educational svstem to displav proficiency in Eng-..

E T H N O G R A P H Y O F A S R I L A N I < A N C L A S S R O O M 2 2 3

the promise of social and economic advancement English holds, and (especially forTamil.tudents todav) the uses of English as a buffer against Sinhala nationalism and passport forcxodus as polit ical or economic refugees abroad.

The grammar-based, product-oriented learninq u-hich students alternativelv desired'as exemplif ied in the l ived culture as u-ell as their statements) is one lvav for them tolcconcile this confl ict. That is, grammar learning enabled the students to be ietached lromtl'rc language and the course, avoid actir-e use of the language u'hich could involveinternalization ofits discourses, and therebv continue their opposition to the reproductivetendencies of the course. At the same time, this strategv enabled them to maintain therninimal contact necessarv w'ith the language in order to acquire the rules of grammarn'hich in their vierv u'as the most efficient preparation for getting through the examination.'fhis

strategv rvhile enabling them to preserve their cultural integritv (horvever tenuously)

also enabled them to accommodate the institutional requirement of having to pass English

and thus bid for the socioeconomic advantages associated r,vith the language.

Although noting that grammar learning functions as a possible strategy to negotiate theconflicts students face in the ESOL classroom, rve har,e to realize that there are signi{icanthistorical and cultural reasons rvhich motivate them to adopt this strategy. The populardemand for grammar among all Sri Lankan unir,ersitv students is attested to bv the

chairperson for English Language Teaching Centres in the countr). (R. Raheem, personalcommunication, September 2Sth, 1991). Students'desire to be simply given the abstractrules of the language bl- the teacher could be influenced bv traditional stvles of learning inTamil sociel.(or, for that matteriSri Lankan societ|), w'hich have been largely productoriented and teacher centered. Although it is hard to generalize about the differentinstitutions of learning that have existed historicaliv (such as thtnnai, or "house front," and

temple schools), it can be said that tvpicallv the teacher (alwavs male) passed on his stockof received knou-ledge orailv to the disciple at his feet (see Jevasuriva, no date; Sirisena,1969; Somasegaram, 1959).The disciples had to cultivate the art of l istening meditativelvand memorizing accurateh' the huge stock of information to be preserved withoutcorruption.The reverence paid to the guru, as to the knowledge he transmitted, was almostreligious in character. This tradition is directlv inherited bv private institutes incontemporarvTamil societr, enjoving immense popularitv among parents and students (and

pitted bv my own students as a corrective to the universitv ESOL course), u-hich intensivelv

prepare passi re s tudents for compet i t ive examinat ions.Moreover, traditional descriptions of language and pedagogies of language teaching

display a penchant for prescriptive, deductive, and formalistic methods. Although thervell-know-n Dravidian scholar Emeneau (1955) outl ines the fundamental influence ofHindu linguistic tradition onWestern descriptive l inguistics, he also notes: "lntellectual

thoroughness and an urge torvard ratiocination, intellection, and learned classification fortheir ow'n sakes should surelv be recognized as characteristic of the Hindu higher culture .. . . Thev become grammarians, i t u 'ould seem, for grammar 's sake" (pp. 145 1+6).Similarl l ' , as late as the colonial period, the teaching of locai languages to Europeanadministrators was primarilv based on studving and memorizing learned grammaticaltreatises (see Wickramasuri-va, 1 98 1 ).

Anthropological approaches based on a narrolvlv conceived egalitarianism wouldencourage us to fashion a method of ianguage teaching that resembles the native traditionof a communi ty (see, e.g. , a descr ipt ion of the KEEP pro ject inWatson-Gegeo, 1988).Holvever, the grammar-focused tradition of Tamils - rl'hich resembles the now disreputed

grammar-translation method inTESOL - drives to a reductio ad absurdum such attempts.Critical ethnographv rvould posit that native Iearning traditions have to be interrogated for

2 2 4 A . S U R E S H C A N A G A R A J A H

the interests thev serve because minoritr,' cultures are steeped in traditions of domination

as *'ell as resistance. Without delving too much into horv this favored pedagogv of Tamiis

traditionallv bolstered their caste structure and religious hierarchv, \'ve can proceed to its

contemporarv implications for the students discussed in this study. We must remember that

such a pedagogv encourages a teacher-controlled, nondialogic, "banking" style oflearning

that is knolr.n to reproduce the dominant values and social relations of an oppressivelv

strati l ied societv (see Freire, 1970; Giroux, 1983).

Furthermore, though a formaiistic approach to the abstract rules of "standard English"

might appear to preserve students from the more obvious cuitural content associated w'ith

the communicative orientation of the course, it in no lvav saves them from other forms ot

domination: It disconlirms the Englishes students bring u'ith them; it pre\,ents students from

interrogating their or'vn culture and societv through literacl''; it fails to alter the unfavorable

subject positions belonging to monolingual and English-incompetent Lankans. Nor does

the formalistic approach enable students to effectivelv internalize the rules of the language

or progress rupia-ty in fluent language use. In the in-course assessments carried out to

monitor their progress, the majoritv of the students continued to score below the passing

grade.Thev remained u-ith the smattering of "marked" English thev brought with them.

What all this implies is that these students u'ill continue to occupv the marginalized position

accorded to the monoiingual, poorlv educated, rural poor in a social system dominated br

the English-speaking, bilingual, urban middie class (see Kandiah, 1984). Ironically, the desire

for grammar-oriented learning onlv influences students to accept these limitations more

uncritically and give in to sotial reproduction.

Hence, although on one level the grammatical approach w'hich is a culturallr '

mandated, indigeno"us form of learning - eiables students to somewhat resist the ideological

thrusts of the foreign language and textbook, it is doubtful w.hether we can glorify this as a

form of radical "resistance" as Kandiah (1984) implies.This is not to denv that the studr

sympathizes u'ith Kandiah's explanation of lack of motivation in ESOL students as being

a result of the sociopolit ical impiications of English in Sri Lanka; the study also refutes

the alternative explanations of Goonetil leke (1983) and Hanson-Smith (1984) that this is

simplv a consequence of the educational policv rvhich makes students give more time to

rival subjects even though students are convinced ofthe benefits ofEnglish.Yet Kandiah

fails to grapple u'ith the complexitv of students' opposition '"vhich has to be qualified by their

belief in the benefits of English, resulting in examination-oriented motivation. This tension

results eventually in their giving in to social and ideological reproduction through EnglishIt becomes important therefbre to unravel the ambiguous strands of students' behavior

with the help of Giroux ( 1 9 8 3 ) u'ho rvarns that the concept of resistance must not be allou'ed

to become a categorv indiscriminatelv hung o\:er everv expression of "oppositional behavior-

(p. 109). Thus, Giroux distinguishes betrveen resistance, which he sees as displaying

ideological ciaritv and commitment to collective action for social transformation from mert

opposition, which is unclear, ambivalent, and passive. Har.ing analvzed the effects of classroon"l

behavior in the larger historical and social contexts, we can say that the responses anc

attitudes of the students do not fall under Giroux's definition of radical resistance. Student.fail to sustain consciousness-raising or collective crit ical action.Theirs is largely a vague.

instinctive oppositional behavior r,vhich, due to its lack of ideological clarity, ironicall ' .

accommodates to their reproductive forces. It is perhaps in Supendran we see any signs c:

conscious resistance that displav potential for the development ofa radical pedagogy for th.Lankan context.The behar,ior of most other students in the class is an ambivalent state r.l-hic:.

contains elements of accommodation as lvell as opposition in response to the conflictir. -

pulls of socioeconomic mobilitr', on the one harrd, and cultural integritv on the other.

E T H N O G R A P H Y O F A S R I L A N I ( A N C L A S S R O O M 2 2 5

Hou,'ever, the prospects for a pedagogv of resistance for such students is not all thatb leak. Giroux (1983; is quick to point out :

On the other hand, as a matter of radical strateg\- all forms of oppositional behavior,rvhether thev can be judged as forms of resistance or not, need to be examined in theinterests being used as a basis for crit ical analvsis and dialogue.Thus oppositionalbehavior becomes the object of theoretical classification as rvell as the basis for possible

radical strategv considerations. (p. 1 10)

The foregoing studl'has been conducted in the same spirit and for the same objectir,'es.

It attempts to disentangle the conflicting strands in the classroom culture of marginalized

students, to expose the accommodative impulses and encourage the potential for resistance,

in order to fashion a pedagogv that is ideologicallv l iberating as rvell as educationally

meaningful for such students.

References

Althusser, L. (1911) ' ldeologv and ideological state apparatuses' , rn Lenin and philosophy andother essays (pp. 1 2 1-1731. London: Nerv Left Books.

Aronowitz, S., and Giroux, H. (1985) Education under siege:The conservative, l iberal and radicaldebate over schooling. South Ha8ler', N{A: Bergin and Garvev.

Benson, M. J (1989) 'The academic l istening task: A case studr' ' . TESOL @rarterly, 23(31,+214+s.

Bourdieu, P., and Passeron, l-P. (1917) Reproduction in educafion, socien and culture. London:Sage.

Bovr..les, S., and Gintis, H. (1916) Schoolng in capitalist,Lmerica. Nell 'York: Basic Books.de Souza, D. (1969, April) 'The teaching of Engiish' . The Ce1'lon Observer, pp. 18 29.Denzin,\M (1970) The research acr. Chicago:Aldine.Emeneau, M. B. (1955) ' lndia and linguistics'. Journal oJ the American Oriental Sociery, 75,

1 A f r . ll + ) - 1 ) ) .

Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy oJthe oppressed. NewYork: Herder and Herder.Giroux, H. (1983) Theorv and resistance in education:A pedagogvJor the opposition. South Hadley,

MA: Bergin and Garvev.Goonet i l leke, D.C.R.A. (1983) 'Language p lanning in Sr i Lanka' . Narasi lu , 5, 13 18.Hanson-Smith, E. (198+)'A plan for the improvement of English instruction in Sri Lanka'

Navasr'1u, 6, 26 30.

Jevasuriva, J. E. (no date)'The indigenous religious traditions in education', in Educational

policies and progress during Brit ish rule )n CevLon (pp. +-23). Colombo, Sri Lanka:AssociatedEducational Publishers.

Kandiah,T. (1979) 'Disinherited Englishes:The case of Lankan English' . Navasilu, 3,'75-89.Kandiah, T. (1984) "'Kaduva": Porver and the English language weapon in Sri Lanka', in P.

Col in-Thome, andA. Halpe (eds) Honour ing E.F.C.LudowJf t (pp. 111-15+). Colombo, Sr iLanka: Tisara Prakasavo.

Marcus, G.E., and Fischer, N{ 1,1 J (1986) Anthropology as cultural crit ique: An experimentalmoment in the human sciences. Chicago: Universitv of Chicago Press.

Mehan, H. ( 1985 ) 'The structure of classroom discourse' , in T. A. r-an Dijk (ed.) Handbook oJ

discourse analys is (Vol . 3 , pp. 1 19-1 31) . London: Academic.

Ogbu, J. (1986)'Class stratif ication, racial stratif ication and schooling', in L.\Veis (ed.) Race,class and schooltng (pp. iO 25). Buffalo, \\ ' : Comparative Education Center.

2 2 6 A . S U R E S H C A N A G A R A J A H

O'Neil i, R., Kingburl., R., Yeadon, T., and Cornelius, E.T. (i978) American kernel lessons:

Inter mediate. Ne*-York: Longman.

Peirce, B.N. (1989)'Tou.ard a pedagogv of possibil i tv in the teaching of English internationally:

People's Enghsh in SouthAfrica' . TESOL @Larterly,23(3), +01 420.

Pennycook, A. (1989)'The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the polit ics of

language teaching' . TESOL Quarterll', 23(.+), 589 618.

Richards, J. C., and Rodgers,T.S. (1986) Approaches and methods in language teaching:A description

and anal'lsis . Cambridge : Cambridge Uni'r'ersitr, Press.

Sirisena, U.D.l. (1959) Editorial introduction in Education in Ceylon (Pt. 1, pp. xxv-xvii).

Colombo, Sri Lanka: Ministrv of Education and Cultural Affairs.

Somasegaram, S.W (1969)'The Hindu tradition', in U.D.l. Sirisena (ed.) Educatton 1n Ceylon

(Pt. 3, pp. 1 1 3 1-1 144). Colombo, Sri Lanka: Ministr-v of Education and Cultural Affairs.

Stubbs, M. (1976) Language,schools and classrooms. London: Methuen.

Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (1988)'Ethnographv in ESL: Defining the essentials'. IESOI Qgarteily,22 (+ \ ,515 -592 .

Weis, L. (1985) Between two worlds, B\ack students in an urban community college. Boston:

Routiedge.Wickramasuriva, S.(1981)'James de Alu.is and second language teaching in Sri Lanka'.

Navasilu, 4, 11-29.

Willis, P. (1917) Learning to labour: How working class kids get worktng class jobs. Manchester,

England: Saxon House.- (1978) ProJane cuhures. London: Routledge,

, c t e r I 4

J. Keith Ghicl<

SAFE-TALI( : C0LLUSI0N IN

APARTHEID EDUCATION

In t roduct ion

Background to the study

- T r H E R E I S w I D E S P R E A D A G R E E M E N T A M O N G S T o b s e r v e r s a b o u t r , v h a t

I u-ere the essentiai characteristics of interactions in schools for black people in South:,ir ica under the former apartheid system: highlv centralised, rvith teachers adopting

.-rthoritarian roles and doing most of the talking, w.ith ferv pupil initiations, and u'ith most

: the pupil responses taking the form of group chorusing. Schlemmer and Bot (1986: 801

::.port a senior African school inspector as stating that black pupils rvere discouraged from

..king questions or participating activeh'in learning and explain that it rvas regarded as

.:rpolite and even insubordinate to ask questions or make suggestions in class. Thembela'r986:41) refers to classroom practice being characterised bt'rote learning and teacher-

-- c r-rtre d instruction.

Most observers, moreover, agree that the educational consequences of such interaction.rvles w.ere unfortunate. Schlemmer and Bot (1985) andThembela (1985), for example,

:rque that the use of such stvles oppressed creativit\., initiative and assertiveness. MacDonald

1 988) claims that there are aspects of metacognition and disembedded thinking crucial to

rdr-anced learning and to effectir,e functioning in a technological societv w-hich these stvles

rf interacting and learning did not promote.

I became verv a\\,are of the possible negative educational consequences of the'..erw.helming preference for such stvles of interaction in schools for black peopie in SouthI r:ica. through mv involvement u,'ith in-service teacher education projects w.hich had, as. . ,r their primarv objectives, the fostering of communicati"'e approaches to the teaching

-nqlish in Kn'aZulu schools. (Kr,vaZulu rvas a patchu.ork of geographical areas on the

,.:ern seaboard of South Africa r.r 'hich, in terms of apartheid policl-, r,vas designated a

, rneland' for Zulu people. At the time of the studv reported here, the total population of

,-,r. e speakers of Zulu rvas almost seven million; thev thus constituted the largest language

- irp in South Africa . Zulu speakers live in manv parts of South Africa, but at that time

. :rroximateiv 6ve mill ion of them lived in Ku-aZulu.)

.\ number of the implementors of the in-serr.ice teacher education projects complained'-rt the reluctance of manv of the teachers, and even some of the students, to adopt the

2 2 8 J . K E I T H C H I C K

more egalitarian, de-centralised lr 'avs of interacting associated rvith these approaches to

language teaching. This reluctance lvas pervasive enough to make at least some of those

involved rvith the in-serr,ice projects, including mvself, question whether the choice

of communicative language teaching as a goal was an appropriate one. Given that

communicative language teaching approaches had their origins chiefl,v in Europe and the

USA, contexts very different from those u-hich obtained in KrvaZulu, I began to wonder

whether our choice of communicative language teaching as a goal rvas possibly a sort of

naive ethnocentricism prompted bv the thought that rvhat is good for Europe or the USA

had to be good for KrvaZulu. I reasoned that, in order to discover rvhether the goal of

communicative language teaching \\:as appropriate or not, it lvould be necessary to discover

why students and teachers in KrvaZulu schools found it so difficult to transfer to styles

compatible rvith communicative language teaching. With this goal in mind, I encouraged

Marianne Claude - u,ho, under mv supervision, u'as engaged in action research/in-service

education w.ith teachers in a peri-urban area of Kr'vaZulu to collect, by means of

participant observation, interviervs and discussions u'ith the teachers, relevant ethnographic

data, including classroom interactional data. I supplemented this w-ith mjv o\r'n participant

observation and discussions u-ith teachers during visits to classrooms elsewhere in KwaZulu.

In this chapter, I report on my analvsis and interpretation of some of this data.

Mv thinking at this stage was heavilv influenced bv the findings of research I had

completed earlier, u.orking r,vithin the interactional sociolinguistic framework developed

bt 'scholars such as Gumperz (see, for example, 1982a, 1982b) and Er ickson (see, for

example, 1975 and 1976).'\n analvsing interethnic encounters betrveen a white South

African English-speaking academic and Zulu graduate students at the Universit-v of Natal

(see Chick 1985) I had identif ied putatir-e culturallv-specific Zulu-English interactional

stvles. These stvles are characterised, amongst other things, bv the preference bv higher

status speakers in asvmmetrical encounters (i.e. those in rvhich there are marked differences

in the relative status ofthe participants) for rvhat Scollon and Scollon ( I 983) term solidaritr

politeness, including the politeness or face-preserving strategv of volubilit,v (much talking , .

and by lower status speakers for lvhat thev term deference politeness, including the strategr

of taciturnitv (avoidance of talking). I hvpothesised that KwaZulu teachers and student.

found it dlfficult to transfer to stvies compatible rvith communicative language teachin_.

because these stvles, which call on students to be voluble, differ markedly from those which

predominate in a r.vide range of domains r.vithin the Zulu-speaking community, and w-hich

are transferred to their use of English in academic and other settings.

Incidentally-, to avoid misinterpretation, I need to clarifv that I am using'preference'

not in its lav sense of speaker's or hearer's individual preferences. Rather, I am borrou'ing

a technical term from ethnomethodologl; a branch of sociologv concerned rvith investigating

how.people organise and make sense of social activit ies.As Levinson (1983: 307) explains.'preference'is not a psvchologicai notion but a structural notion that corresponds closel.

to the linguistic concept of markedness, according to which certain linguistic features are

more basic and conventional and occur more frequentlv ('unmarked') than other feature.

(referred to as'marked'1.Thus,'i,,'hen Zulus rvho have relativelv low status choose deferentia-

politeness, it is not because thel' l ike behaving deferentiall-v, or that the-v'feel'deferential

but rather because such behaviour is conventional, or as Lakoff expresses it, 'targeted'. Sht

explains (1979:69) that each culture has implicit lv in its collective mind a concept of ho.'.

a good human being should behave : 'a

target for its members to aim at and judge themselle .

and others br".

S A F E - T A L I ( 2 2 9

Organisation of the study

-\lost research reports implv that the research which thev are reporting on proceeded in

lerv orderlv and logical lvavs, and that the researchers, from the outset, lvere more

know-ledgeable and insightful than ther- actuallv rvere. The false starts, the partialunderstandings and the dead ends do not feature. In this chapter I r,r'ill be departing from

this tradition, and sharing rvith mv readers the often tortuous paths I follorved in exploring

the significance of interactional stvles n'idelv emploved in schools for black people in South\frica.

To begin r,vith, I report on mv micro-ethnographic analvsis of an episode in a lesson in

a KwaZulu classroom. The general goal of micro-ethnographic analvsis is to provide a

description of horv interlocutors set up or constitute conte xts that allorv t}em to make sense,rf one another's messages. Mv specific purpose llas to trv to establish w'hy teachers and

.tudents in such classrooms found it difficult to transfer to stvles compatible r,vith com-

n.runicative language teaching. The analvsis reveals interactional behaviour consistent "vith

the putatir.e Zulu-English interactional stl ' les identif ied in the interethnic encounters

referred to above. More significantlv, it reveals that such stvles served valuable social

tunctions for students and teachers alike.This could account for r,.,'hv teachers and students

nere reluctant to abandon such stvles, despite the fact that the academic consequences of

.uch oreference \\'ere probabh' unfortunate.

I then explain hoiv mv gior.-ing a\\ 'areness of the l imitations of micro-ethnographic

re search in general, and explanatio.ps of pervasive school failure amongst dominated groups

.n terms of culturallr '-specific interactional stvles in particular, prompted me to rr-cranrine

:lv classroom interactional data. Crit ics have pointed out that micro-ethnographic sturl iei, iten take insufficient account of holv p..o'uiir ' . r 'alues, ideologies and structures in tht

rl ider societ) (macro context) constrain rvhat takes place at a micro lelel..{ccordinqh. I

. ive an account of the historical, structural circumstances rvhich contributed to making'--.rimarv school education for most teachers and students in so-called black education in

,partheid SouthAfrica such a traumatic experience. Finaliv I offer a reinterpretation of the

,nalvsed data. I suggest that what is most significantlv displayed in this episode is not

-ulturally-specific Zulu interactional stvles, but stvles consistent lvith interactional norms,. tri.t'r t"".tr"rs and students interactionulh'.o.r.titl,ted as a means of avoiding the oppressive-.nd demeaning effects of apartheid ideologv and structures. Follou.ing McDermott and

Tr lbor (1987) I see the teacher and her students as colluding in preserving their dignitv bv

:.rding the fact that little or no learning is taking place.While serving the short-term interests

iteachers and students, such strategies, I suggest, contributed to the lvidelv documented'.rgh failure rate in black education in apartheid SouthAfrica, and made teachers and students

:rsistant to educational innovation.The strategies thus served to reinforce and reproduce

:he inequalit ies betu'een the r.arious population groups r.vhich characterised apartheid. rciet)..

Culturally-specific interactional styles as barriers to innovation.rnd learning

.\- ith the goal, then, of trving to estabiish rvhv manv teachers and students in KwaZulu,:hools resisted the adoption ofegalitarian, decentralised q'avs ofinteracting, I carried out

. nne-grained micro-ethnographic anaivsis of an episode in a video recorded mathematics

,sson, initiallv rvith the help of Marianne Claude (rr'ho had observed the lesson rvhile it''as taking place) and, later, independentlr'. I selected this episode from the corpus collected

2 3 0 J . I ( E I T H C H I C I (

bv Marianne Claude because it contains features that I had observed in many lessons taught

bv t.u.h.., rvho rvere highlv regarded either bv students or-b1'school authorit ies in the

(*-uZrl1, educational ,yri"-. In other u'ords, I chose part of a'good'lesson. I did this to

ensure that I u.ould be analvsing conventional'targeted' behaviour in Lakoff 's

sense' I chose

a content subject rather than an Engiish lesson so as to lessen the chance that the teacher's

style might have been influenced bv Marianne claude's intervention.

I baied the analvsis on methods developed bv interactional socio-l inguists (see, for

example, Gumperz 1982a1u'ho, rather than impose their ow'n categories, attemPt to access

the inierpretative or inferential processes ofthe participants bv repeatedly playing t1re video

or .orr.rd recordings to the participants and/or informants who share their cultural

backgrounds, and bu eliciting interpretations from them about pro€ressively finer detaiis

of thJ dis.ourse. I make use of transcription conventions rvhich highlight the nature of turn

exchange and which provide information about the supra-segmental phonology of the

episodel Latch marks 1 l-1 u." used to shou- smooth exchange of turns r'vithout overlap,

while square brackets are used to signifv simultaneous speech ( [ ). Underlining is used to

signify phonological prominence such as stress or marked pitch movement.The'shape' of

ttt. plt.t, movement is indicated above the part of the utterance rvhere this occurs' and so. t .( ) s lgnlhes r ls lng tone.

Relevant contextual information is that the class consisted of 3 B students of both sexes

rvho lvere native speakers of Zulu, lvhose average age at the time was fourteen years, and

w.ho u,ere in their seventh vear of schooling (the fourth vear of the Senior Primary phase).

The teacher, w-hom I shall rdfer to as Mrs Gumbi, also a native Zulu speaker, was 32 years

of age and had completed ten vears of schooling and trvo vears of teacher training. Mrs

CnJt i conducted the entire lesson from the front of the ciassroom, making considerabie

use of the board. The students lvere cror,r,ded into multiple-seat w'ooden desks arranged in

rorvs facing the board. The lesson took place through the medium of English. (ln KwaT,ulu

schools Engtistr served as the medium of instruction across the curriculum after the first

four vears of schooling through the medium of Zulu. )n, th. uideo-recJrdi.rg ,'honus, the focus of the lesson u'as 'elements which form the

union set'. At the start of the lesson Mrs Gumbi introduced the notion of elements of a

union set u.ith the aid of the board. Elements r,vere u.ritten on the board, and common

elements pointed to. She individuallv nominated one student to answer a question but,

significantlv, onlv after the information to be provided had been written on the board. The

few other student responses took the form of teacher-initiated group chorusing.

The lesson continued:

Mrs Gumbi:but I knor,v that these tlvo elements are common

because they are found in set B as rvell as in set C do vou get

thatStudents: l ) 'es

Mrs Gumbi: I norv nou- a let us form the universal set the

univers I mean sorrv union set is the set lvhich

has the elements of both sets get it B dnd I C

Students: t C

Mrs Gumbi: collect

the elements of those tu.o sets and rvrite them togellher

all them thev rvil'..T,#f" I :::

Mrs Gumbi: lcan . 'ou trv to to l ist

123+5o

789

1 01 11 21 3

S A F E - T A L K 2 3 I

the elements of the union set

StudentA: l tn-o I threeNlrs Gumbi: I that is tri'o

Student A: three

Mrs Gumbi: lthr6eStudent A: lfour

Mrs Gumbi: lfouiStudent A: l{ i le

N{ rs Gumb i : h r .

Stud.nt t , s i r

- \ l r s Gumb i : ' s i - r

StudentA: lsevenMrs Gumbi: lser:en

Student A: leightMrs Gumbi: leight and eight . . .

r,vhat tvpe of set is this nor,r' . . . it is d I union set

Students: I union set

Mrs Gumbi : l l t is a

union set because we have been listing no$r at the elements

of set B togelher rvith the elements of set I C

Students: I C'' Mrs Gumbi: lto form one

setr,vhich called rvhat . . . a uri ion I set

Students: I set

Mrs Gumbi: lbut remember

u-hen you list the union set the elements for for the union set

do not repeat those elements w.hich are lvritten tlvice do vou get that

Students: lves

Mrs Gumbi: ido not repeat them list them once OK

Students: lvesM.s i l*bi, ldo vou understand this

Students: lyelN{rs Gumbi: ]do vou understand this

Students: lves

'. irar is immediatelv striking about this episode (as also the lesson as a rvhole) is the

:ncidence ofteacher volubil itv and student (particuiarlv individual student) taciturnity,

:'.:racteristics of interactions in the formerlv segregated schools for black people in South-.::lca, which, as I noted above, have been commented upon bv manv observers. Mrs Gumbi-. :his extract, as elsew.here in the lesson, does most of the talking. Indeed, of the total 19

.nutes duration of the lesson as a u'hole, f ive seconds short of 16 minutes consists of

::;her talk. Also the students'opportunities to talk (r,vith one or two exceptions) are

:uced to group chorusing.

\blubil itv on the part of the teacher, u'hich Scoilon and Scollon (1983) regard as a

..daritv strategv, and taciturnitv on the part of the students, which they regard as a

:r.rerlc€ strateg;-, is consistent w'ith the culturallr'-specific interactional styles I had found

.lence for in ml'analvsis of interethnic encounters betrveen Zulu-English speakers and- -LthAfrican (u'hite) English speakers (Chick 1985).This finding might, therefore, be seen. .ending credence to the notion that the interactional stvles emploved in KrvaZulu

2 3 2 J . I ( E I T H C H I C I (

classrooms rvere similar to those used in a u'ide range of domains w'ithin the Zulu-speaking

communltv.A problem for this interpretation is that teacher volubilitr'' and student taciturnity have

been shown to be characteristic of classroom discourse in manv parts of the lr-orld including

r,vhite, middle class European (see, for example, Sinclair and Coulthard 1975) and USA

classrooms (see, for example, Mehan 1979).lndeed Ell is ( 1 987 : 87) suggests that teacher-

centred instruction, rvhich has been so pervasive in black education in South Africa, is

derived from classroom practices common in pre-lvar European schools. An equally, if not

more plausible interpretation, is that teacher volubilitv and student taciturnitv are features

of instltutio.r-.p".if i . rather than culturall l -specific discourse. According to this

interpretation, the source of teacher volubilitv and student taciturnity is the asvmmetrical

distribution of social po\\:er and knorvledge betu-een teachers ani students evident in

educational institutions throughout the n'orld.

lVhat is not found, horvever, in classroom discourse throughout the world is the

chorusing behaviour evident in this episode, r 'vhich is u-hy I chose to focus on it in ml'

analvsis. Closer examination revealed that trvo kinds of cues to chorusing are provided bv

Mrs Gumbi .The one k ind of cue involves the use of a set of yes/no quest ions: 'do

you

understand th is? ' ( l ines 4 ' l and 46) ; 'do you get that? ' ( l ines 2-3 and 40) ; 'OK' ( l ine 42) ;' isn ' t i t? 'and'do vou see that? ' ; 'can I go on?' (e lse lvhere in the lesson).The second k ind of

cue inr .o lves the use of r is ing tone on accented sv i lab les (e.g. l ines 7,17, )9,33, 36) .This

cue is also used as a prompt to individual student responses in a sequence (l ines 1 6, 1 8 , 20,

22,2+,26 etc.).What this sr:iggests is the operation of a relativelv simple prosodic system

in which a restricted set of prosodic cues is used for a wide range of prosodic functions.

Interestingly, this observation is consistent w-ith mv finding in a studv of interethnic

encounters (see Chick 1985) that Zulu-English speakers relv iess than do white South

African English speakers on prosodic cues to signal (together with kinesic, paralinguistic,

lexical and syntactic cues) the relationship betw-een different parts ofthe text, the relative

importance of information units, speaker transition points and so on.This ma1'be related

to the fact that the prosodv ofZulu, a tone language, is very different from that of English

The closer examination of the chorusing behaviour in this episode points to a possible

exolanation for the difficultr, rvhich teachers and students in KwaZulu schools have in

transferring from the putatire culturallr '-specific Zulu-English stvles (of w'hich the system

of prosodic cues is apparentlv a distinctive feature) to styles compatible with communicative

Ianguage teaching. I examined, first, the possibilitv that the chorusing elicited by the one

kind of cue (rising tone), in certain cases, serves the academic function of reinforcing certain

key information items and, perhaps, helping the students to become more familiar rvith (to

memorise?) technical terms (e.g. l ines 29-30). Horvever, further analysis revealed that it is

often not new information that students are asked to chorus, but information already available

to the students before the lesson (e.g. in lines 1 2 and 3l the students are required to supplv

the word SET rather than the name of the set that thev have learnt about in the lesson).

Elsewhere in the lesson the rising tone prompts them merelv to complete words (e.g.

intersecTlON; w.e are looking for the unKNOWN).The fact that the information value of

items chorused is often low- prompted me to investigate the possibiiitv that the primarv

function of the chorusing eiicited bv this kind of cue is social rather than academic.

I also examined the possibilitv that the chorusing elicited by the other kind of cue (the

set of questions) serves the academic function of enabiing Mrs Gumbi to access the level of

her students' understanding so that she can knorv r,vhether or not to recvcle her explanation

at a lou'er level of abstraction. Holvever, I discovered that the chorused responses are without

exception'ves'.This suggests that the questions are not realir-open questions, and that their

S A F E - T A L I ( 2 3 3

function is to signal participation rather than ler-el of understanding, i.e. it is again social

rather than academic in purpose.

The social function of chorusing became even more clearlv evident when I

examined the lesson as a vi.hole. I discorered that the students u.. ."qui."d, in response to

both kinds of cue, to provide mainlv confirmative one- or tu'o-w-ord responses, or responses

rvhich repeat information on the board or information u'hich has been rec-vcled again and

again bv Mrs Gumbi. This suggests that chorusing gives the students opportunities to

participate in rvavs that reduce the possibilitv of the loss of face associated with providing

incorrect responses to teacher elicitations, or not being able to provide responses at all. It

is interesting to note that the chorusing is more evident at the beginning of the lesson than

later on. Once responses have been u'ell rehearsed, so that the chance of being wrong

publiclv is reduced, more individual responses are elicited, and at the end students are even

invited to leave their desks and carrv out the verv public act of '"vrit ing their responses

on the board.

There is, of course, nothing unusual about teachers needing to resort to face-saving

strategies, since the asvmmetrical roie relations betlveen teachers and students to be found

in most parts of the lr'orld ensure that the risk of face threat is great. As Cazden (1979 : 147)

expiains,'teachers, bv the verv nature oftheir professional role, are continuously threatening

both aspects oftheir students'face constraining their freedom ofaction; evaluating, often

negativelv, a high proportion ofstudent acts and utterances; and often interrupting student

w.ork and student talk'.To reduce this risk, teachers empiov face-saving strategies such as

expressing directives indirectlv bri 'means of interrogatives, e.g. 'Can vou open your books,

please?' This strategv reduces the sense of imposition associated u'ith the directive

bv suggesting that the students are free to decide rvhether or not to compll'. Horvever, the

need to resort to face-saving strategies is particularlv great in Kw'aZulu classrooms because

the asymmetrv in the relative status of teachers and students is marked. This reflects the

marked asvmmetrv in the relative status of adults and children in the w-ider communitv.

According to Marianne Claude's informants (see Chick and Claude 1985), an adult in that

communitv has the right to ask anv child, r,vho mav rvell be a stranger, to do errands for

them (i.e. take a message to someone; buv something at the shop) and mav even chastise a

child not tireir ou.n.

Another striking feature of this episode is the remarkablv rhvthmic manner in which

teacher and students svnchronise their verbal and prosodic behaviours, particularly in

accompl ish ing the chorusing sequences. Contexl anal r ls ts te.g. Schef l in I 97l ; Condo n 1977:

Kendon 1973,1979; McDermott, Gospodinoff and Aaron 1978) have demonstrated that

participants in conversations organise their behaviours in co-operative, reciprocal,

rhvthmicalll' co-ordinated u'ays in signalling to one another and negotiating the context of

their talk. This enables them to make sense of rvhat it is that thev are doing together. In the

episode such interactional svnchronv is possible, presumabiv, because the teacher and her

students are abie to dralv on their shared, implicit knowledge of the discourse conventions

associated',vith conventional interactional stvles. I suggest that this synchronv contributes

to the perception that purposeful activitv and learning are taking place.

To sum up, the micro-ethnographic analvsis of this episode reveals interactional

behaviour consistent rvith Zulu-English interactional stvles identified in a studv of interethnic

encounters (see Chick 1985). Particularlv noteu'orthv features ofthe discourse are the

chorusing behaviour and the remarkablv rhvthmic manner in w'hich the participants

synchronise their interactional behaviours in accomplishing the chorusing sequences.

Analvsis revealed that these putative stvles serve social rather than academic functions. For

example, thel help the students to avoid the loss of face associated lvith being wrong in a

2 3 4 J . I ( E I T H C H I C I (

public situation, and provide them u-ith a sense of purpose and accomplishment. Something

not examined here, but equallv important, is that these stvles also help teachers avoid the

loss of face associated with displavs of incompetence. This is because thev ensure that the

Iesson develops along predetermined lines, and that the opportunities for students to raise

issues and problems that teachers mav not be competent to handle are few'. It is for such

reasons that I refer to discourse associated r,vith these stl ' les as'safe-talk'.

What this analysis suggests is that the task of making a transition - from the culturally-

preferred interactional styles empioved conventionallv in KlvaZulu classrooms to the styles

associated lr.ith the more egalitarian relationships required by the communicative language

teaching approach rvas likelv to be fraught rvith risk for both teachers and students.Thev

all resisted innovation because thev had vested interests in the maintenance of 'safe-talk'.

Limitations of explanations of school failure in terms ofculturally-specifi c styles

One of the advantages of doing sociolinguistic research rvithin the context of apartheid

South Africa w-as that one rvas constantlv prompted to reconsider one's interpretations.

Man_v scholars in this context were verv suspicious of sociolinguistic research which had

un "ih.rog.uphic

orientation, and indeed of ethnography in g..r"rul. As Kuper, writ ing

during the apartheid era, explained, 'almost bv its verr' nature, ethnographic research mav

appear to provide some support for the ideological assumptions underpinning apartheid.

notably the belief that "traditional" and "tribal" institutions remain viabie, and command

respect' (1985: 1). It was in part the negative reaction of such crit ics to my analysis and

interpretation of the episode referred to above which prompted the reinterpretation

outlined below'.

Another advantage of researching within the context of apartheid South Africa was that

the discriminatorv legislation tended to make visible'r'i'hat is normallv hidden in democratic

societies, namelv thJmechanisms in the r,vider (macro) societv through which groups and

individuals exercise pow.er and denv it to others. It rvas the visibility of those mechanisms

that had prompted me in an earlier studv (see Chick 1985) to trv to account for how macro-

level factors, such as segregation, constrain r,vhat takes place at a micro level of interethnic

communication. I lvas, therefore, open to the suggestion that a limitation of my originai

analysis of the episode u.as that I had not adequately contextualised my data; that I had not

taken suflicient account ofthe effect on ciassroom discourse ofsuch factors as the differential

funding ofthe raciallv segregated school svstems, differential teacher-student ratios, Ieveis

of teacher training and so on.

I was also familiar rvith the claim of such critics of micro-ethnography as Singh, Lele

and Martohardjono (1988) that, because micro-ethnographers fail to show how the

pervasive values, ideologies and structures of the r,vider societv constrain micro-ler-ei

behaviour, thev come perilouslv close to being apologists for the systems they are

investigating. Along similar l ines, Karabel and Halsev (1977 : 8) are crit ical of the neglect ot

macro factors in interactional accounts of the pervasive school failure of minority groups.They point out that:

Teachers and pupils do not come together in a historical vacuum: the weight ol

precedent conditions the outcome of 'negotiation' over meaning at every turn. It

empirical w'ork is confined to observation of classroom interaction, it may miss tht

process bv rvhich political and economic power set sharp bounds to w'hat is negotiabl.

S A F E - T A L I ( 2 3 5

-^'-r r1981), too, lr-hile not denving that micro-ethnographic studies have a role in. :..:r: hon-interaction acts as an immediate cause of a particular child's failure, arques

. - - : -.sential also to studv how'these classroom events are built up bv forces emanatrng- : - rde these - ic .o set t ings..:.nced bv such thinking, I concluded that mv micro-ethnographic analvsis oithe

. : - f rom the mathemat ics lesson needed to be in formed br .a macro ethnooraohi .-:.: ,, i the schooling provided for black students in K., ', 'aZulu.This accoun,. ul,-i. 1',n..

. - - . : : , 1 b l O g b u ( 1 9 8 1 ) , u ' o u l d b e o n e t h a t s h o r v e d h o u - t h e s c h o o l s \ s t e n r ' ' u . . . l . r . , - l

, ... organisation, economr', polit ical organisation, belie{'svstem and . alu... chan;. rn.1

.:. the section r.vhich follor,r 's, I provide information about the macro context of..r,g tor blacks in SouthAfrica during the apartheid era, l 'hich I identif ied as potentiallr

' ::: io the reinterpretation of this episode. Since the lesson occurred in a Senior Primary. , iourth to eighth vears ofschooling) I focus on this phase ofthe schooling system. I

.. : lso on the role of English as medium of instruction, since research suggests (see, for.-:.:le. \lacDonald 1990) that difficulties associated u.ith the transfer from mother tongue-:.. l ish in the first vear of this phase constrain classroom behaviour in powerful ways.

ihe macro context of schooling for black people in apartheid\ , ' u t h A f r i c a

- - ::,rst people are a\\rare, apartheid, an Afrikaans u'ord meaning l iterally'apartness' or::ateness, refers to the policv of the Nationalist Partv, r 'vhich, subsequent to its coming. ,\\ 'er in 1948, w'as implemented as a massive programme of social engineering. Racial

::._fation had been a feature of South African societv ever since the arrival of lr'hites inI . ;ttt century. How-ever, after 1948, segregation on iacial and even, r'vithin racial groups,-thnic lines, in every sphere of life, tvas impiemented on a scale unprecedented in human

-: ,r\'. Not merely were separate institutions such as educational institutions established. Iitterent race and ethnic groups, but geographical separation u'as attempted through

-:. , creation of ethnic 'homelands', of u-hich Ku'aZulu was one.Exemplifying as it does the classic dir. ide-and-rule strategy, the apartheid policy,

, ::rirablv served the goal of the Nationalist Partv of consolidating and increasing the ner,vlvr hegemony of Afrikanerdom. Segregation also served to maintain and increase the

:.r ileged status that u'hites had enjoved since the 17th centurv, bv facilitating the systematic,.::r imination against people of colour.

In education, svstematic discrimination was evident in the differential per capitar\penditure on education for the various population groups. Tow-ards the end of the

.: rrtheid era, there were attempts bv the government to narrow the gaps betlveen the' :,r\ ision for the various groups. Horvever, as recentlv as the financial vear 1986 / 7 , the per.pita expenditure on education for *-hites u'as R2508. That for blacks (i.e. Africans rather:'..rn Asians or so-called'coloureds') '"r,as onlv R+l6, r,r'hilst that for blacks in the homelands'. rs still lorver; for example, in Ku-aZulu it u'as onlv R359 (South African Institute of Race

.r r la t ions (SAIRR) Sun ev 1 987l88) .

One of the consequences of this differential expenditure, u'hich probablv played a role: determining lvhat stvles of interaction rvere possible, lr.as differential teacher-student

:':t ios. In 1987, lvhereas the student-teacher ratio for r,vhites r'vas 16 to 1, that for blacks in- ,-called r.vhite areas u.as,l1 to 1, and for Ku'aZulu primarv schools 53 to 1 and KwaZulu. :condarv schools 37 to 1(SAIRR Surver ' 1987/88) . l t is verv d i f f icu l t for teachers, r ,vho

2 3 6 J . I ( E I T H C H I C I (

are responsibie for large numbers of students and rvho usually have to cope w-ith

overcrolvded classrooms, to facilitate more egalitarian, decentralised r,vays of interacting.

The more long-term discriminatorv effects of segregated education were evident, also,

in the differential levels of professional qualification of teachers in schools for the various

population groups. According to Du Plessis, Du Pisani and Plekker ( 1 989) whereas, in 1989 .

t OO%o of teachers in schools for rvhites u'ere professionalh' qualified in the sense of having

at least matriculation or higher academic qualifications, as rvell as a teachers'certificate or

diploma, only 2Oo/o of teachers in black primarv schools and 10% in black secondary schools

were professionaiiy qualifi ed.

Of particular relevance to the constraints of macro factors upon classroom discourse

is another factor, namelv, horv apartheid ideoiogv rvas translated into language mediun:

policv in black education. Hartshorne (1987) reports that, unti i the Nationalists came tc

power, the position of English as sole medium of instruction after the first few' years o:

schooling was unchallenged. He rePorts, further, that the Nationalists:

made of Afrikaans a st'mbol of exclusiveness and separateness, and the struggle fo:

Afrikaans became part of the'mission'to control and rule SouthAfrica. In educatior-

this expressed itself in a commitment to separate schools and rigid mother-tongut

education policy. (Hartshorne 1987: BB)

This commitment eventuallv translated into mother-tongue instruction in primar'.

education with English and Aftikaans as compulsorv subjects from the first year of schooling.

and u'ith both Afrikaans and English as media of instruction in secondary education (ha-:

the subjects through English and half through Afrikaans) . It was the inflexible and doctrinair.

implementation of this policl; and the deafness to the protests of the black communitv, tha:

sparked the Soweto uprising of 1 976 . This spread to the rest of the country, almost assumin_;

the proportions of a full-scale civil lvar. As a consequence of the conflict, the governmer.:

rvas forced to concede to the black communitv the right to choose either English or Afrikaar.

as medium in the high schools. In response to further pressure from the communitr', th.

right to choose was extended to the higher primarv phase. English became overwhelming,.

the chosen medium in black education after the first three years of schooling. In 1988. i::

example, onlv 20 primar-v schools (including some verv smail farm schools) and no hu_.:

schools usedAfr ikaans as medium (SAIRR 1988/89) .

Though the choice of English as medium represented the wil l of the people. :.

MacDonald (1990) expla ins, in pr imarv educat ion at least , i t added to the burdens ' - :

teachers and students. She points out (1990:39) that the apartheid system ensured th::

most of t}e teachers in so-called black education did not speak English u'ith confidence :

fluency, used outmoded materials, and had almost no contact rvith English speakers. -{,ls

following the major shift to English as medium in primarv education from 1979 on\\'drC:

no changes were made to the sl'llabus for English to prepare the ground linguisticallr. r. -

conceptually for its use across the curriculum. As a consequence, black primary schc',.

students were not adequatelv prepared for the sudden transition to English in the four--

year ofschooling concurrentlv rvith the curriculum broadening into ten subjects. Nor st:.

most of the teachers equipped to explain effectivelv in English the new'concepts in i:..

various content subjects such as mathematics.

MacDonald and her fellorv researchers found that there rvas a considerable gap bets't.:

the English competence required for the reading of content subject textbooks in the fou:---

year of schooling, and the English competence that might have been expected if a stud.: '

had benefited optimallv from English as a second language teaching materials then usec

S A F E . T A L I ( 2 3 7

- :r: imarv schools.Thev also found that there rvas also a verl-larqe gap betr.veen this. ...cd optimal .o-p",".r.. and the level of competence studen'G i'.i,-,ull,u reached.

.:,r.nated, for example, that the vocabularv requirements in English increased bl

rn the fourth vear of schooling. Thev calculated that a student rvho had learnt'. trom the ESL materials in the junior primarr- phase might have encountered not.:. half the vocabularr', and might have been unfamiliar rvith svntactic elements in

- , i sentences in science textbooks used in the fourth vear of schooling. Moreover

- : . r .e been ro ignorant o[ the convent ions of exposi ton n ' r i t ing as to cxper ience

. . : : r€d to as ' regis ter shock 'u.hen reading those texts.- rse quence, the fourth vear of schooling ',r'as a time of trauma for both teachers' - :::: a trauma reflected in the high drop-out rate in black schools at the end of that

' r , r ( - ) or 8.9% of the tota l out f lou ' in 1987 according to the SAIRR Report

The researchers found that the effect of those conditions r'vas lvhat thev termed

: nreaning'. 'The children are l ikeiv to be alienated bv rvhat ther have to learn,

:;rnlv perceive the implications and linkages betw'een the concepts the'g are- : ' . i i th' (MacDonald 1990: 141). Faced u"ith these odds, teachers tended to resort

,.: ' .: notes that the students u'ere required to memorise. This gave the impression

.:ninq taking place, but as MacDonald (1990: 1'13) points out, the students often

: :: rhev did not understand, and n ere usuallv unable to use vrhat thev had learnt

. - r . . - nrode of educat ion d id not a l lorv the in tegrat ion of neu informat ion u ' i th uhat- '.rrnt before.

: : : .n t€rpr€tat ion: safe- ta lk as the outcome of co l lus ion bet \ \ 'een

. - i e r s and s tuden ts

,- .:rng mv micro-ethnographic analvsis of the episode in a mathematic-s les-son in a

- - .- classroom, I w'as struck bv the similaritv betlveen MacDonald's account ol the-. r-sponse to the trauma experienced in the earlv vears of senior primarv schooling

:.:(rpretation of the interactional behaviour in the episode as 'safe-talk' .

:ninking was also stronglv influenced bv tr ', 'o studies that attempt to trace the

. :..:r ip betrveen the structure of classroom discourse and the macro context in which

.:.. including the ideologies that are promoted in them. In the first of these studies,. 19S7) argues that the ideologr of abil itv grouping promoted in school systems in

, .::r,d States leads students in lou'abil itv groups and their teachers to socialise one- :: into systematic departures from the norms of classroom discourse. Behaviour

.:.nt rr-ith these'emergent' norms (see Mehan 1979 901interferes with the reading

: -. u'hich members of these groups so badlv need. Coll ins argues, further, that the

.', of prescriptivism also promoted in the United States school svstem results in

, .:. -,n being made on the basis of cultural background ratler than on academic aptitude.. . ,il,s to the svstematic exclusion of minoritv students from opportunities to learn and

. . : : torms of i i t " rur . 'd iscourse.

.:. rhe second of these studies, McDermott andl' lbor (1987) analy'se an episode in

: teachers and students do interactional rvork to make the i l l i teracy of one of the'i: ' . is. Rosa, not noticeable. In the process Rosa does not get a turn to practise her

,.. Thev sholr- that rvhile evaluation is constantiv taking place, teachers and students

-: in evaluating overtlv onlv w'hen the evaluation is positive, u'hile, at the same time,. .:-.: covert, unspoken, negative evaluations. Such collusion hides the unpleasant fact that

irng is structured in such a way as to provide access to opportunities for learning for

.tudents and to denr,it to others.

2 3 8 J . I < E I T H C H I C K

These tlvo studies show hon' features of the macro context, namelv the institutional

ideoiogies and bureaucratic structures, constrain u'hat takes place at a micro level. They also

,hoot t]r" participants u,orking together to reshape the structure of their discourse and to

socialise one another into a set of sociolinguistic norms that enable them to meet their

immediate needs. As Col l ins (1987:313) expla ins:

Institutional ideoiogies and bureaucratic organisation forms do not entirely constrain

participants;people sti l l strive to make sense of their situation, to avoid or resist that

r th ich is demeaning or oppressi re.

It was these insights that enabled me to recognise that the'safe-talk'w-hich I had

identified in my analrsis of the episode of the mathematics lesson does not represent the

inappropriate use of culturallv-specific Zulu-English interactional styles. Rather, it represents

stvies *'hlch the participants interactionallv developed and constituted as a means of coping

*ith the o,r..*'h.l-i.rg odds thev faced in their segregated schools. I suggest that these styles

enabled them to collude in hiding unpleasant realities.Thus, for example, the rhythmicallv

co-ordinated chorusing prompts and responses enabled the teacher and students in the

episode to hide their poor command of English; to obscure their inadequate understanding

oi academic content; and to maintain a fagade of effective learning taking place. In this rval

they r.vere able to preserve their dignitv to some extent. In terms of this interpretation.

.o-*onulities betw'een'safe-talk' ur,-d th. putative Zulu-English styles identified in an earlier

studt' (Chick 1 985) are featuies of conventional Zulu interactional styles that survived the

process of constituting a ne\,r'set of norms of interaction. In doing the interactional w'ork

i.rlrolued in constituting these norms, the participants inevitably started by making use oi

interactional stvles most familiar to them.

Unfortunately, as Coll ins (1987 :31 3) notes, 'solutions achieved to local problems ma.

have unforeseen consequences r.vhich are quite damaging'. 'Safe-talk'has proved to be a

barrier both to learning and to educational innovation in South Africa. As such it served tc'

reinforce the inequalities that gave rise to it in the {irst place.

Conclusion

To sum up, in this chapter I have explored the significance ofinteractional styles that lver.

widel-v employed in schools for black people in South Africa. The fine-grained analysis of ar.

episode from a lesson'"vhich exemplif ies such stvles revealed that thev served importani

social functions for teachers, but probably did not promote efficient learning. They ais'-

provided support for the hvpothesis that teachers and students in KwaZulu classrooms u-ert

often reluctant to adopt more egalitarian, decentralised rvavs of interacting advocated l:,

in-service education because thev had vested interests in'safe-taik'.

A richer contextualisation of the classroom data in terms of the ideology and structurt.

of the wider apartheid societv facilitated a reinterpretation of m,v findings. According to tli:.

reinterpretation. 'safe-talk' represents styles consistent lvith norms of interaction r,r'hic:.

teachers and students constituted as a means of avoiding the oppressive and demeanin;

constraints of apartheid educational sYstems.

One implication of this studv is that teaching innovation at the micro level which is n :

accompanied bv appropriate structural change at the macro level is unlikelv to succeed. F'-:

those like m-vself u.ho have been engaged in the difficult task of educational innovation rvitL.

the constraints imposed bv the apartheid societt ', i t has been exciting to experience t:, '

S A F E - T A L I ( 2 3 9

.:rartheid structures and the assembling of alternative structures. Hopefullv,

,.:ke it less necessarv for teachers and students to engage in'safe-talk'.

\ L - . . ' . r d g e m e n t

M r l i "

iiilllllL; -

.,. ledge the contribution of Marianne Claude,'"r-ho recorded the interactional

i in the analvsis of it, and that of mv colleagues RalphAdendorff and Nicole

.: ,nsightful comments and suggestions.

i lulTr:-: :- . c-S

. . I -

9 r ' Language in education: r'ariation in the teacher-talk register' , in J. E . Alatis

, I Tucker (edsl Language in Publjc 4fe, 1++-62. \Vashington D.C.: Georgeto$'n

: - - : r P r e s s .

: .qSi) 'The interactional accomplishment of discrimination in South Afr ica.

, , , - : ) n S o c t e t r 1 4 ( 3 ) : 2 2 9 - 3 2 6 .

: . . : rd C laude, M. (1985) 'TheVa l levTrus t Eng l ish Language Pro jec t : research in-

: ::: Proceedings oJ the Fourth \ational ConJerence oJ the Southern AJrican Applied- - . , . . : ,- i .{ssocicrion. Johannesburg: Universitv of theWitr 'r 'atersrand.

- . jSTr'Conversation and*knou.ledge in bureaucratic sett ings' . DiscourseProcesses 70:. . , ) .' , i ,

t1977)'The relation of interactional svnchronv to cognitive and emotional- - : j :es, in M. Kev (ed.) fhe Relailonship oJ lbrbal and \-onverbal Communicatjon, 50 6j.

- , i la.que: Mouton.

- - . . . . \ . , Du Pisani , T. and Plekker , S. 11989, f Educat ion and ' \ {anpower Developmenr.: :ntontein: Research Institute for Education Planning.- .qS7) 'Using the Engl ish medium inAfr ican Schools ' , in D.Young (ed.1 Br idgtng the

,. ..LqeenTheorv and Prdctice in English Second LanguageTeaching, S2-99. Cape Tor.r'n:'. I ..ken' Mil ler Longman.

. . :-.. F. \1915) 'Gatekeeping and the melting pot: interaction in counsell ing encounters'.

- . . t ' ,ard Educat ional Ret iew 4> (1) :44 70

.9761 'Gatekeeping encounters: A socia l se lect ion process ' , in P.R. Sandav (ed.)'...:hropologt and the Public Interest: Fieldrvork andTheor,v,l 1 1-,+5. New'York: Academic Press.

-,-:2. l. (1982a) Discourse Strateg)es (Studies in interactional sociolinguistics 1).

r.rmbridge: Cambridge Universitv Press.

1982b) Language and Social Identitv (Studies in interactional sociolinguistics 2).

Cambridge: Cambridge Universitv Press' : . : rorne, K. (1987) 'Language pol io . inAfr ican educat ion in SouthAfr ica 1910-1985, u ' i th

particular reference to the issue of medium of instruction', in D.Young (ed.) Language:

Planning and .tr4edium oJ Education. Rondebosch: Language Education Unit and SAALA.. ,-::re1, J. and Halsev,,\.H. (Eds) (1911) Power and ldeologv jn Education. Ne'"vYork: oxford

Universitv Press.. :-.Jon, A. (1973) 'The role of visible behaviour in the organization of social interaction', ir-

I l.Von Cranach and LVine (eds) Socia1 Communication and Movement, ) 74. New'York:

Academic Press.(1979) 'Some theoretical and methodological aspects of the use of f i lm in the studv of

social interaction', in G. Ginsberg (ed.1 Emergtng Strategies in Soctal Ps;'chologtcal Research,

6l -91 . Nerv York: f ohn Wiler'.

2 4 0 J . I ( E I T H C H I C I (

Kuper, A. (1985) South AJrtca and the.4nthropologisr. London,/NewYork: Routledge and KeganPaul.

Lakoff, R. (1979)'Stl ' l istic strategies rvith a grammar of stvle', in J. Oraisainn, M. Slater andL. LoebAdler (eds) . nnals oJthe \ewlori .Tcadem-r oJsciences 127:53-78.

Levinson, S.C. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge Universitv Press.MacDonald, C. ( 1988) 'Teaching

primarv science in a second language: trvo teaching styles andtheir cognitive concomitants', in A. \! 'eideman (ed.1 Stl les oJTbaching and Styles oJLearning. Bloemfontein : SAALA.

- ( I 990) Crossing theThreshold jnto Standard lfiree. Report of the Threshold Project. HumanSciences Research Council.

McDermott, R., Gospodinoff, K. and Aaron, J. (1978)'Criteria for an ethnographicallyadequate description of the concerned activit ies and their contexts' . Semiotica 24:2+5 75 .

l lcDermott, R. and T\' lbor, H. (1987) 'On the necessitv of collusion in conversation', inL. Kedar (ed.) Pou'er through Dtscourse. Norrvood, N.J.:Ablex.

\lehan. H. (1919) Learning lessons: Social Oryanization in the Classroom. Cambridge, Mass..Harvard Universitr- Press.

t - lgbu. J i l931t 'School ethnographv: a mul t i - level approach' . Anthropology and Educat ional

Q;rrer l r pp. 3-29.>;het l in . . \ .E. (1913) Communicat ing Structures: .4nalvs is oJ a Psychotherapl T iansact ion.

B loominq ton : I nd iana Un i re rs i t r P ress .Schlemmer, L."and Bot , M. 11986; 'E iucat ion and race re lat ions in SouthAfr ica ' , in G. Kendal

(ed.) Education and the Diversity oJCultures. Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal.Scollon, R. and Scollon, S. (1983)'Face in interethnic communication', in J.C. Richards and

R.W Schmidt (eds) Language and Communication, T56-88. London: Longman.Sinclair, j.McH. and Coulthard, N{. (1915) Towards an AnalS,sis oJDiscourse. London: Oxford

Universitv Press.Singh, R., Leie, J. and N{artohardjono, G. (1988)'Communication in a multi- l ingual societr:

some missed opportunities' . Language in Society 17:43 59.SouthAJrican lnstitute oJRace Relations (SAIRR) Reports 87l88, 88/89Thembela, A. (1985) 'Some cultural factors u'hich affect school education for blacks in Souti-.

Africa', in G. Kendall (.d.) Education and the Diversity of Cuhures,3T--+)Pietermaritzburg: Universitv of Natal.

rART THREE

Analysing teaching and learning

er3

; 3 t e r l 5

Neil Mercer

LANGUAGE FOR TEACHING A LANGUAGE

: : t roduct ion

H I S c H A P T E R I S A B o u r r H E u s e o f l a n g u a g e a s a m e d i u m f o r t e a c h i n g a n dlearning, rvith special relevance to the teaching of English. Horvever, many of the issues, dcal lr'ith, especiallv those in the earlv parts of the chapter, are not specific to the use

:'i particular language in the classroom, or the teaching of any particular curriculumrt. Of course, languages of irstruction and curricula varv from countrv to countrv,

- n to region and even from school to school.Teachers differ in their st1'le and approach, -l

:reir classes are made up of individuals of various personal characteristics and cultural i GrfL..-rounds, rvho differ in the u.avs thev respond to teachers and particular str-les oi [- f6r r

.rng. But, as I rvil l explain, observational research suggests that some wavs thar languaqe I ' fta,\t*

, - . .1 in interactions betu,een teachers and students "..L--on

features of .lurrrooirl liL t '

,- .._lhout the w'orld. I will illustrate some of these features of classroom language .lr-ith

- .-fc examples, and discuss their possible educationai functions. In the latter part of the,. icr. I r 'vi l l use the theoretical perspective of socio-cultural psvchologv to relate the

'r analysis of classroom language to a consideration of the nature and quality of, ' ' :-)om education. In these rt 'ays, I hope to demonstrate the practical educational value. . :reful anall'sis of the interactive process of teaching-and-learning.

- rnqlrage and teaching

:.r'er thev are and u'hatever thev are teaching, teachers in schools and other educational' . -ttions are likelv to face some simiiar practical tasks. Thel, have to organize activities to I

r c l asses o Id i spa ra te j nd i r i dua l s . l ea rne rs uho mar ra r r cons ide . ]b lu i n t he i r a ims , I-.-r-s and motivations.Thev have to control unrulv behauio,r..Thev are exoected to teach Ji l i c cu r r i cu l r r - , . bo i . ' o f knou ledg . . nd , k i l l , uh i ch rhe i r s tuden ts n ' ou ld no t

-:..alh-encounter in their out-of-school l ives. And thev have to monitor and assess the.tional progress the students make. All these aspects of t"uchers'responsibil i t ies are. ted in their use of language as the principal tool of their responsibil i t ies. As examples

".., I '"vould l ike I 'ou no\\-to consider two transcribed sequences of classroom talk,. - 'nces 1 and 2 overleaf. For each in turn, consider:

Can t''ou identifv anr recurring patterns of interaction in the talk betrveen teacher and. l r

D U D I l S i

S :T:S :T:S :T :

2 4 4 N E I L M E R C E R

2 \\ 'hat \1,ould vou sa\'\\ 'ere the main functions of the teacher's questions in each of the

sequences? Do the sequences differ at all in this respect?

I have made mv o\\-n comments after both the sequences'

(Note: in the transcriptions \\-ords sPoken particularlv emphaticaliv are underlined'Words

rvhich u.ere unclear during transcription are in curled brackets { }. The onset of

simultaneous speech is marked u-ith a square bracket [ ')

Sequence 1:Tov animals

This sequence was recorded in an English lesson in a Russian primary school.The teacher

has just set up a collection of soft tov animals in front of the class.

Have vou got anv to-v animals at home? Be quick. Raise Volr hand (she raises her own hani

and show -e. Huo'e vou got anY tov animals? S- {Name of child}

(Standing up) I have got a cat, a

No, sit dou'n, in vour place'

Yes, I have.

I have got manv?

Tovs at home.

Tov animals at home. '

Sequence 2: Personal qualities

This next sequence comes from aTESOL class for voungadults in a college in London l-

little earlier, th. t.u.h", had asked each of the students to list their own Personal qualiti" '

both posi t ive and negat i re.

T: Who w-ould Iike to tell,the class about their personal qualities? Dalia?

D: I am polite, friendly, organized, trustu'orthv, responsible but sometimes I am impat:'":

and unpunctual. Sometimes (laughs)'

T: Good, isn't it? (Addressing rfie class)Thank vou, Dalia.That rvas good. Now can you tell : '

the posi t i te qual i t ies vou have iust sa id

D: Yeah?

T: That is . f r iendl r , um, organized.

D: {Right}I : Ho\ \ rs I t ne lPrng You . .

D: Yeah?T: . . . u'ith vour friends [in the class?

D: [It help me to get along rvith people and to understand then-' -'d]

helo them.

T: That's good. And u.hat about the, the not verv positive ones [like punctual

D: [Sometimes

T: What happens then?

D: Sometimes I lose mv friend basicailv of that because I lose mv temPer very quickli

T: And what happens rvith me? I don't smile at vou that much do I ?

ll

hll

L A N G U A G E F O R T E A C H I N G A L A N G U A G E 2 4 5

Comments on Sequences 1 and 2

Sequence 1 illustrates some patterns u.hich tvpifv most classroom talk. First, the teachertook lolgStJgrls_:t_spSglTg than anv students. Second. she asked Jl.-tTe queTtr--ons.^- - -\ rDServa i lona l researcn nas sno\ \ 'n tna t In c lassroom conversa t lons teachers usua l l t ' ask the

to direct the topic or content of the talk torvards issues that she u.ishes to66iiIIEiFo.t

on . LooKIng more care lu l l \ a t )equence l , \1 'e can see tha t there ts a s t ruc tu ra l pa t te rn to--4-i l-Th-e

talk: a teacher's Susstion is follorved by u tLylS"t;4Lg-follolved in turn bv some teacher

feedback o, "roluotiF.rts

structural .I"rn"nt of cluir.oo- talk rvas first describ.d ffi.t.----1---F1---7=- | ^l i ngu i s t -S inc la i r and Cou l tha rd ( l 97J l see a l so Mehan , 1979 ;Van L je r , Chap te r 5 o f t h i sbook) and usually knorvn as a For example:

T: . Have vou got anv tov animals? S {Name of chi ld}

S: t Sranding up ) I have got a cat. a

T: No, sit dolvn, in vour place.

\a::_

IRF exchanges can be thought of as the archetvpal form of interaction between a teacherand a pupil - a basic unit ofclassroom talk as a continuous stretch oflanguage or'text'.They do not typifv the pattern of talk in all classroom activities; other kinds of talk involvins

) - _ , , t ) |

diff".."!p ionsofteachers, or ofother,t".iilt$?f6ppen too. R.rd outrid. th ms, thevmav not often be found in their classic, simple form. But IRFs hare been obserr'"d us acommon feature in classrooms the rvorld or,er, and in other languages besides English.

In Sequence 1, the IRF exchanges are being used to perform a common function inclassrooms, one that is almost certainlv familiar to you from I'our olvn schooldavs: a teacheris eliciting from learners their ktro.tledge of the relevant curriculum subject ii.r thi, .ur.,English). Research shou's that this particular kind of use of question-and-ansr.ver by a teacher- rik.rg questions to ll'hich

.o^-o' function of IRF to prffiinforrfi'dTiolfr-tEat the teacher expects them to knou'. As the classroom researchers EdwardsandWestgate sav:

Most classroom talk u'hich has been recorded displavs a clear boundarv betweenknou ledge and ignorance . . . Tb be asked a question b.: ,o-.o." * ho u'unt, to kno* Iis to be given the initiative in deciding the amount of information to be offered and I pthe manner o[ te l l ing. But to be asked bv someone r rho a l readv knou's. and r , r 'ants to I, G---7-'----'--t<11.12l11|;Su knS\, is to hate lour ansn'er accepted, reiected or otbenvise evaluated t-according to the questioner's beliefs about rvhat is relevant ald truq, (1994, p 48) j

great majority of questions:5+]b_- as in thjs case to elicit some kind yresponse fiom the stude.ts She th@qq..s the replies &e)'gqShe is also using questions

Teachers need to check students'understanding ofprocedural, factual matters, and thatisIcommonlv the tunct ion of IRF exchanges. Sequence I i l lust rates a l f f iT iFeedback ' f iom

,'I

D

E /

t(a teacher mav also be used to control students' behaviour. These are quite legitimatefunctions of teacher-E all teachers might expect to use language in this rval' quitefrequentlv. But relving heavilv and continuouslv on traditional, formalq"":trol-u"!_glrlg ffifo. guiding leafo. fr - such as experiminling \\ith neu tl pes ot languEeconstructtons.

b,6As4".'"3s,\F

wv

2 4 6 N E I L M E R C E R

As in much classroom talk, in Fequence 2 we can also see IRF exchanges occurring,

though here as slightlv rno.".o*plex, linked structures, in r'vhich th" tgd".!itt"!:gt'

drrririg the teachei's .ii.itutionr, perhaps seeking clarification rvhich the3ggbgryIgvrlgl

Anf f i tandfu i i t ionof thequest ion-and-ans1Verexchangesinthe

two sequences, \\,e can see that something rather different is going on in each of them. In

S.q,r".r6ftre teacher is asking her primar,y school. pupils to prodyge English sentenggs

which conform to the mod

these,r 2 is not doing that. I"gsd_fuIr*}lg

questiffi e-age the students to elaboratl in En_g!r!4r!at thev have'"vritten. ln: . : i : -

this *'ar', the teacher tr h'

but ratfrer encourugin el' I

am not suggesting that either teacher is using their quesUonlng technlques to better or worse

effect, b"ilmpti ill,ttt.uting th. fr.

A4

pragmatic, educational functions.

Techniques for teaching

Having identified the archetvpal structure of teacher-student talk, I n'ill next describe some

specifi"c w.avs of interacting with students which are commonlr used b)'teachers. I call these

f.tffioGl becl.tto u rJolf *itable tools for'pursuinq their professiot'ti

una s of teaching-and-learning' The

techniques are summarised in Table 15 ' 1 below'

,\ Table I 5.'l Some techniques that teachers use/ , \/ r \ | n

LJI . . . to elicit knowledgc from learnett Ut hrpl I Dircct elit ' itations

"^o8rl I cuc<lelicitations

ly- l ,.-\

fu r t | . . . to respondto u 'ha t learnerssu t ' I Z )

Q t .c6 ' I Conhrmat ion , '

Y /

l^\ | R.lectionst

I Repetitrons

I 1,.1"'.tlations f-'

I L labora t rons

l / \I

. to describe signif icant asPects of shared experience / 1)

I ampnncations \/

I exolanations

[

' ; 'statements

I recapst -q\

/.,

1?\rli.it ing knowledge Jrom learnerst iV W" have seen that vuhen a teacher initiates an IRF sequence, thislggbllut ,n. 1'ntt"1ion r :

eliciting information from a student. If thisGmplu "

,t..iglffiii request, we ca:.

d;tr" t-h" teacher's verbal act as a direct elrcttatton. But teachers also often engage in u'h.-

can be r^Ira@ rTrorr* thich ers thelnformati,

they are seeking - the 'right' answers to their questions

L A N G U A G E F O R T E A C H I N G A L A N G U A G E 2 4 7

-'-=:-;-ple recorded in an English lesson

ln a Zimbabwean primarv school. The teacher has set up a number of objects on her desk,and also has a set of cards on w.hich various consonants ('b', ' f, ' j '

etc.) are rvritten. Thechildren have to come to the front of the class and match the consonants to the name of anobject.

Sequence 3: say the sound

Teacher: (to chi ld): Sav the sound.

chtld: b-b bTeacher: b-b-b ls for?

)€reI \ L

(Child does not answer.Teacher waves her hand over the nearest oblects, one of which u o book; ) e;/6

Child: b-b-b is for book.Gacher: Well donel

The use of cued elicitation as a teaching technique is r'videspread. It can be traced to theSocrat ic d ia logues constructed bv Plato (Edu'ards, 1988). By us ing th is tcchniquc. , thetcacher avoids simply giving the chiid the risht ans\\-cr. Sequence 3 also i l lustratis hor,r,non-vcrbal comrnunicat ion - thc use of gestures and other s igns - can be an important

- r lcoml)onent oI classroom taIK.

1) Responding to what learners sa)/

As illustrated bv the sequences above, one of the u.avs that teachers sustain dialogues u-iththeir students is to use what students sav as the basis for lvhat thev sav next. In this r,r'av. thelearners o\4n remarKs are lncorporateo ln to the teacnrng- learn lng process. I he mostoUulo 's 'Yes,

that'sright'to a pupil 's ans\ver). B@ of things learners sav are another way, one whichallows the teacher to draly to the attention of a r,vhole class an anslver or other remark which

.the teacher to have educational significance.

a revised. tidied-up versiron of what

wishes to make or..--I rom )equence l :

S: Yes, I have.T: I have got many?S: Tovs at home.l : l o v an lma l s a t nome

DZb pupitt remark. usuallv so as to offer the class I,uia *tti.h e,r in U"r,"r *i,h ,tr" pJ

t. For example, in this extract

I./ -l

There are ulto@,lrrhen a teacherpic,ks-g1- 4-

ancl exPands and/ or expla lns l ts s lgnl t lcanqg_ls lon a cr l p t ic s tatement made br- a pupi l

rest of the class. Wrong answers orunsuita'68-6fr tri butions mav be explicitlv v a teacher. But lve should also note a

ue that teachers have for ith u rong ans\vers - rr*p.!_jg...-g

2 4 8 N E I L M E R C E R

Describing shared exPetience

Classroom activities oft"rr ..lt, o.r ttnd.tttt .e , lvhether in print ::,

o" u

computer screen. I, tr t-Poffi.h..lt.t'=.tndtltt1rd pfT 'computer sc reen. l t i s impor tan t t [g j j l sv L lnders tand proper l \ ' \ \ ' na t l s expec leo o t r ' I le r r r '

i f the ac t i ' i t r i , ,o ru . .

.f s. Other t"ffi^:utrocontain information w'hich

Fense of v continue anv further. In ciassrooms it is common

some confusion about them seems to arise. for example,

I e s GiT5iililTltillen t s :

Sequence 4z Ser and Estar

Gacher: It savs (readin gJrom text) 'This is one of the main difficulties for Engiish spe-aking

learners' -"u-r1ing the tu.o .r'erbs ser and estar r.vhich both, uh, translate as 'to be' in

English. (Reading-again) 'Ser means to exist '"vhi le esrar means to be situated'.Tha:

so.rnd, horriblrl cJmplicated, I think to start bv thinking of ser as being abou:

permanenr things and estar as temporarY rvavs of being. lhmos a ver . . (He continut'

rn Spanish)

An important task for a teachel is to help lea{ngrs see how the.vario-gq actiYities dhey do'

merelv the effiecutive events, it must be a deve

of la ones. Fc:in ,r'lrich earlier experiences provide the foundations for

Iear!$l--f

ffi;-,**rl(.r i" a teacher saving to a class'last rveek we learned horv to measu:=

sed * hen. teach"rs,are tryry:::,tflll-rtr

.ttrt\

a7 > /\' .rtrY.

,C. f \

C/

bf f i - ' i . ' - ' . . in- .o--o ' 'andsohu'"g@andco/ !Sct i , \ .eunderStand: : :

@n to progressTurther. Teachers also often lecaplbhared classro'- =

'jiE:=J

ffi"* acti\ i t\ ' .Thev short hou teachers help learners see that thev have significant p-:' - -< - - :

l - ^ l - ^ - -^ -^ i - ^ l ^ t *^ -

reinterpreting"that .*i"t i"rr.", u"d "f "rrttg

tt ",

th" bt.i. fot fu k, activitv ar-:

experience from earlier in a lesson, and from previous lessons, emphasising -:,:

thor. i.r"o@i"g, ."tti"to", .h"t. e is one of the mos:

preclous resources available. There are manY wa,vs that teachers try tol:ryff1ti1u+:

in thee*peri..rg. oI l"u.*rs - bv sequencing activities in certain rvft, bi:g-lhg .ti

,@dsoon .econt inu i ty in r 'h " :

i;ffiguage there i, th. ing u''

obvious function; but this is a simplification, for the sake of claritv of exposition, ot --:rt

relationship betrveen l*gfi;T.;.-'F;-tion and context. An analvst of classroom disco';"t| 4 u ! r : t t .

re la0onsnlp Det lveen ranzuage lot I l l r lur lLLrurrI

hu. to r..Jgni-zc that@.: particufar utterance ''

that, as i., ti'e 6rr, pu.Vs"qu '

U.ur"a-Uf ".tiiE1f;;6;..:'..

c : 'a

contextual tactors not avallable to t as intormatton

ence of Interactlon; see n , t 7 . fot furtler discussion of such matt-:

Fo* e, e., desp-iTer-ffiie ats, I

practical aid to analvsis

have found the identif ication ofthese techniques a ust

L A N G U A G E F O R T E A C H I N G A L A N G U A G E 2 4 9

Interaction in bilingual and multilingual settings

In the next part of the chapter I u.ill consider some aspects of teacher-student interaction

in classrooms lr 'here English is being used as a classroom language, but is not the first

language of the children. I hope to shorv through these examples some of the qualities these

bilingual settings have in commo_ry;$ghmonolingmlcla-s-sro-oms. lvhile also pointing out

some of the special interaitional features the)'ma)'generate.There are tlvo main sorts ofsituation u''hich can be included here. The first occurs in countries r,vhere English is not the

usual evervdav language and the mother tongue of most of the children is not English.The

second is u,.here pupils rvhose mother tongue is not English enter schools in a predominantlvEnglish speaking countrv. I rvill provide examples from both of these tvpes of situation.

In anv situation u'here English is used as a classroom language but is not the main

language of children's hone or communitr', teachers ma)' have th1 mlultiple task of teaching

(a) the F.glish l ' .gu.ge (h) th , u.rd

(c) anv specific subiect content. Jo Arthur (1992) carried out obserr.ational research on#

teactring and learning in primarv school ciassrooms in Botsrvana. English w.as used as the

medium of education, but it rn-as not the main language of the pupils' local community. She. i , , , - . 1

db'-served that \\hen teachers Fere teaching mathematics, thev commonlv used question-

and-ansr.r.er sessions as opportunities for schooling children in the use of appropriate'classroom English' as rvell as maths. For exampie, one primarv teacher 99lq11g!]yf4;f$gdt iln-full sentences', as show.n belolr.:

Sequence 5: How many parts?

Teacher:First pupil:Teacher:Pupil:Teacher:

Second pupil:Teacher:Second pupil:Teacher:

Hou.manv parts are left here (first pupil's name)?

Seven parts.

. \nsu 'e r fu l l r . Hos manv par ts a re there?

There are . . . there are sel'en parts.

Hou'manv parts are left? Sit dorvn mv bot ' .You have tr ied.Yes (second pupil 's

name)?

We are left rvith seven parts.

We are left rvith seven parts. Sav that (second pupil's name).

We are left vrith seven parts.

Good bov. W'e are left with seven parts.

(Artl'rur, 1992, pp. 6 7 S

Sequence 5 is made up of a l inked series of IRF exchanges. For example:

Horv many parts are left here? flnitiation]Seven parts [Response]Answ.er fullv IFeedback / Er.aluation]

The Botsu.anan students therefore needed to understand that their teacher lvas using these

exchanges not onlr-to evaluate their mathematical understanding, but also to test their

fluencf in spoken English and their abilitv to conform to a'ground rule' that she enforced

in her classroom - 'ansr,ver in full sentences' . Arthur comments that for pupils in this kind

of situation, the demands of classroom .o*^ui6-tion ur. complicated b..urrr" their teacher

is attempting to

2 5 0 N E I L M E R C E R

Arthur reports that such dual focus is common in Botsrvanan classrooms, as the follow'ing

sequence from another lesson sholvs:

Sequence 6: the continent of Africa

T: In vr.hich continent is r,our countrr'? In rvhich continent is your country? Give an ans\\'er

P1 : In Africa is mv countn'

T: He says in Africa is mv countn'. Who could frame her sentence? In Africa is mv countrr.

P2: Africa is mt' continent

T: My question u'as in rvhich continent is vour countrr'?

PJ: l ts cont inent is in Afr ica

T: It is in the continent of Africa. evervbodv

Ps: It is in the continent of Africa(Arthur, 1992, p. 13 t

Bilingual code-switching in the classroom

In circumstances where one language is being used as a classroom language, but w-here tht

pupils' f irst language is a different one, a tetch-er mav_sometimes'code-slyitcb' to the {rrs:

iu,lg,rug" if thev judge it necessarv. (\A/e sa'lt' this kind oi su'irch= taEng pliie between Spanisl:

anJ English in Sequence 4 afove). Sometimes the first language mav be use{91]y for asides.

for control purposes or to makgasSsnal rengn::tS-. Floiilevi:i, when code-sn'itchin,.

amointE-liin5lation bv the teacher of the curriculum content being taught, its use as ar.

explanatorv teaching strategy is someu'hat controversial. On the one hand, there are thost

*ho ".grr"

that it is a sensible, common-sense response bv a teacher to the specific kind c:

teaching and learning situation.Thus in studving its use in English-medium classrooms ir-

Hong Kong, Angel Lin (Chapter 17 of this book) explains a particular teacher's use of codc-

switching as follou's:

irJLt\Teacher D aln'avs starts from rvhere the student is - fror:. . . . " .< r l

.unYutfi, understand aqd5 falqt]t4g. witb- (p. 2 8 2 )

Researchers of bil ingual code-su-itching (as revierved bv Martvn-Jones, 1995) have ofie:-

concluded that it is of dubious value as a teaching strateg)', if one of the aims of the teachir.;

is to improve students' competence in English. Thus Jacobson comments:

t}e translation into the child's vernacular of evervthinq that is bein t mav Pre\ t

him/her from ever developing-t of Enslish lan encv that must

one o l the ob tcc t l \ .es o l a sou inglil programme (Jacobson,1990 , p .6 . )

It seems, hou'el,er, that teachers often use code-srvitching in more complex lvays than sin.i-

translating content directlv into another language. On observing classrooms in Hong Ko:..

Johnson and Lee (1987) observed that the sr,vitching strategv most commonly emploveo -

teachers had a three-part structure as follort's:

1 'Kev statement' of topic in English

Z nmpllfication, clarification or lxplanation in Cantonese

3 Restatement in English

alr'var,s startin. -f,iTE6-student

L A N G U A G E F O R T E A C H I N G A L A N G U A G E 2 5 1

They comment that'direct translation \\'as comparativeiv rare; the general effect was of aspirall ing and apparentlv haphazard recvcling of content, rvhich on closer examination

proved to be more organised than it appeared.' (.1987, p 106).The implication here is thatsuch teachers are pursuing the familiar task of guiding children's understanding ofcurriculum content through language, but using special bilingual techniques to do so.

An interesting studv of code-srvitching in bilingual classrooms in Malta w-as carried outbyAntoinette Camilleri (199+). She shorved that code-su-itching rvas used as a teachingtechnique by teachers in a varietv of rvays. Look for example at these t\\.o extracts from thetalk of a teacher in a secondarv school lesson about the production and use of wool, andbased on a textbook u-ritten in English. The teacher b"gi.r, bv reading part of the text (ltranslation oJ talk in Mahese is given in the right hand column)

Sequence 7:Wool

Extract 1England Australia Nerv Zealand andArgentina are the best producers of lr'ooldawk |-aktar Ii gfiandhom farms 1;7

rabbu n-nagflag ghas- suJ O. K. England

tghtduli minn licma post England

ghandhom Scotland naghruf n tont ' '

ghall-wool u 6ersijtct taghhom O.K.

Extract 2

wool issa it does not crease but it has to be

washed with care issa din rmporranri

ma ghidtilkomx tllt lekk tkollt nara xagttra jewsuJa wahda under the microscope ghandha

qisha haJna scales ta1. ltuta tssa lekk ma nah

slux sewwa dawk l-tscales jitgfiaqqdu go xulxin

u indahh 6ersi daqshekl gol- u ashing'

machine u nohor7u daqshekk gttax jixxrinklaliu jitghaqqad kollu

(Adapted from Camilleri, 1994)

Camilleri notes that the first extract shorvs the teacher using the switch from English toMaltese to expand

"{ a-;if i the poinf bRg made, rath"er than simplv repeat it in

t ranslat ion. In the second extract . sh(e.rp la in i r the Engl ish statement in Mal tese, againavoiding IISSI translation. Camilleri comments that the lesson therefore is a particular kind

--of Iiteracl' event,Tn r'vhich these are 'two parallel discourses the u'ritten one in English,

the spoken one in Maltese' (p 12)

Studies of code-su.itching in classrooms have revealed a variety of patterns of bllingualuse (Martvn-Jones, 1995). For example, Zenteila (1981) observed and recorded events in

two bilingual classes in Ne*.York schools, one a first grade class (in rvhich the children were

about six vears old) and the other a sixth grade (in rvhich the average age would be about

12).The pupils and teachers u'erd all native Spanish speakers, of Puerto Rican origin, but

the official medium for classroom education rvas English. One of the focuses of her anaiysis

of teacher-pupii interactions u'as IRF sequences. Both Spanish and English were actuall)

thev have the largest number of farmsand the largest number of sheep for woolO.K. England where in England we reallvmean Scotland thev are verv lvell-knownfor their rvoollen oroducts

norv this is important didn't I tell vou thatif I had a look at a single hair or 6breit has manv scales w.hich if not washed

properlv get entangled and I put a jersey

this size into the r,vashing machine and itcomes out this size because it shrinks and

gets entangled

2 5 2 N E I L M E R C E R

used bv teachers and pupils in t]]e classes,.and Zentella rvas able to show that there rvere

three recurring patterns of language-slvitching in IRF_sequences, rn"hich seem to represent

the use of certain 'grorr.rd r...l"i' g3t'.rrring lan"guage choice. These are summarized belou':

teacher initiation student rePlv teacher feedbackRules governinglanguage choice

1. Teacher and

student: ' fol low

the leader'

2. Teacher: ' fol lou'

the child'

3. Teacher: ' include

the child's choice

not vours'

EnglishSpanish

EnglishSpanish

EnglishSpanish

SpanishSpanish

SpanishEnglish

SpanishEnglish

EnglishSpanish

SpanishEngllsh

both languagesboth languages

(Adapted from Zentella, 1981)

From this example, we can see that distinctive Patte-rns of language use emerge lr'

bil ingual classrooms, but these can be interpreted as adaptations of the common IRF

structure and language strategies used bv teac-hers in monolingual settings'What is more'

the distinctive patterns of ,*iihlng *hl.h emerge in teacher-talk can be explained in term'

of the special communicative resoirrces that ..ir" in a modern language classroom and tht

wavs that teachers a".i,l" to respond to these special circumstances'The extent to whici-

;; ;;;;gi","*"" English and.another lu.g,tug" o^ccurs in a particular setting *ii'

therefore be influenced b,t fuZtot. such as (a) the d!gt." of fluencyin English that member'

oi u pural.,rtar class hu.'. l.hi.t.d; (b) the bilingual"competence,of teachers (c) the specih:

teaching goals of.teachers; and - cruciallv - (dithe attirudes of both children and teacher:

i. ,i. p?i",lce of code-sw-itching and to the languages invoived'

What learners have to und,erstand about classroom language

L A N G U A G E F O R T E A C H I N G A L A N G U A G E 2 5 3

in relation to the learning of u-ritten as u'ell as spoken Enslish. and is r'vell illustrated bv the

.. r.-ur.ffi ;;-*r@ ren or non - E ng'sn spea Krng

immigrant families entering secondarv schools in Britain.

Because of his close and continuous involvement in classroom events as a kind of 'action

researcher'(Ell iot, 1991), Moore rvas able to observe, describe and analvse teaching and

learning over several r,veeks or months in one class. One of his special 'case studies'u'as of

the progress of a S-vlheti bov of 15 u'ho had been in Britain one year since coming from

Bangladesh (rvhere he had been educated in Bengali). Moore focused on Mashud's classr.oom

education in writing English. Mashud had quite a fer'v problems w'ith'surface features' of

English such as handwriting, spelling and grammatical structures, but -!vas an enthusiastic

w'riter. However, Moore and Mashud's teacher (Mrs Montgomery) both noticed that:

his rvork had a particular idiosvncrasl'in that w'henever he w'as set creative writing- or e\ren discursive r'vriting - assignments, he produced heavilv formulaic fairy-story-

style moral tales which \!'ere apparentlv - according to information volunteered by

other Sylheti pupils in the class translations of stories he had learnt in his native

tongue. (Moore, 1995 : 362)

Despite being a uil l ing pupil, Mashud seemed unable to transcend this traditional style of

f.@u.,a ,.'ii,. j.r thJger,res that his teachers k r.ro'*'oriTllreq]rir"d of hi- l.,ih"Eiitfh

tdlrr.ution system u.rJ i., u' ider societt '. Further consideration led Moore and Mrs

Montgomeru ,o .o-. hvpotheses about u'hv this rvas so:

It has to be said that neither Mrs Montgomerv or I knerv enough about Bangladeshi

or Sylheti storv-telling traditions to be able to expound rvith anv degree of con{idence

on the cause of Mashud's particular wav of going about things. The kev to our future

pedagogv, horvever [. . .] lu,u in Mrs Montgomerv's very w'ise recognition that "there

could be the most enormous difference betrveen rvhat Mashud has been brought up

to value in narratives and r,vhat lve're telling him he should be valuing". (Moore, 1995:

366) ..{,)

This insight into Mashud's difficulties w-ith genres of writing was supported bv a more carefulR\\

analysis of Mashud's texts, which had a linear, additive, chronological structure associated R \. Sjrvith oral, rather than literate cultural traditions (Ong, 1982).'The outcome lr'1the;lggg\e-r

R+ +

lf lve responded appropriatelv, Mashud r,r-ould, ',ve hoped, learn somethi"g "J:lbgt

r1a1-alued in expressive u'rit inq in his neu school, and how that was different from

thoggh !9-q9$erltha4 - ''r:hatFe mav have learned to r.alue at schoolin Panglaclesh.

This approach proved successful, as during the remaining period of Moore's research

Mashud shou'ed clear progress in coming to understand and cope w-ith the demands of

writing in the genres of English required in the British schooi svstem. Describing research

w.ith children in a Spanish-English bil ingual program in Caiifornian schools, Moll and

Dworin (1996) also highlight the important role of a teacher in helping learners make the

best educational use of their bi-cultural language experience in developing their literacl

skil ls in the second language.

(Moore 1995:368;

2 5 4 N E I L M E R C E R

A socio-cultural perspective on classroom interaction

I now- rvish to relate the abor.e discussion of language as the medium of teaching-and-learning

to a consideration of the qualitv of education.To do this, I will draw on a particular approach

to human learning and development r,vhich is known as sociocultural psychology.This approach

has emerged during the final decades of the tr'ventieth century from a belated appreciation

c a r r i e d o u t b v t h e R u s s i a n p s v c h o T - g i s t L e l . V l . g o t s k v 1 @ ) .

Vygotskv rvorked in Moscorv in the 1920s and 30s, in an institution for children who had

special educational needs, but his ideas on the process ofteaching and learning have much

\ broader educational relevance than the specilic institutional settings in u'hich he put them

Jnto practice. Vvgotskv gave language a special, important role in human cognitive

development, describing human individuals and their societies as being linked by language

into a historical, continuing, dvnamic, interactive, spiral of change. Led bv the example of

Jerome Bruner (1985, 1986), a considerable bodv of research has nor,v emerged which uses

"'n.o-Vvgotskian', socio-cultural perspectiv" i., ihe anah sis of educational piocesses. So-e

of the most significant and distinctive implications of adopting a socio-cultural perspective

on classroom education are. I believe. as follou-s:

,:lAlthough thev do not necessarilv make thisis our most-expficit, I suggest that the most influential socio-cultural theorists of cognitive

development (as represented bv such as Bruner, 1985;Wertsch, 1991 ; Rogoff, 1 990)

ascribe three important functions to language: 1u1 ^, or6friliili(:*hose"acquisitionenables chi ldren to qain, process. orqanize and evaluate knowledge; {b)as aful tural Ito:Jly w'hich k"g!generations; (c) as a f

is shared, stored and made available to successive

v u 'h ich@is provided tot # r < - -

chlldren bv other people.These roles are inextricablv intertu'ined.To this specification. T J

of the roles of Ianguage rve might add the comment: learning how to use language

effectivelv as a cultural tooi is an important educational goal for native speakers as

teachinq-and-learninq and also that \\ 'hich is miant to be learnt and iiuEEr -

Etucarion it o diolofftJ@rural proce\ The der elopment of studenii-E6tledge and

IA\,| | . \\ u .z

3

understanding is shaped b\-'-ih€iiGfationships rvith teachers and other students, and

b-v the culture in rvhich those relationships are located. (Newman, Griffin and Cole.

1989; Gee, 1996).The educational .rr.."r, students achieve is onlv partly under their

own control, and onlv purl$@ the control of their teachers. This is where the

sociocultural concept 'hich I mentioned briefly earlier, is useful.Thr

tha tane f fec t i ve teache rp ro l ' i des th "@twh ichenab les

Iearners to make intellectual achievements thev lvould nev

one \\ a\ the'r ' do so is b)' usinq dialoque t.o guide and ;gppgll1hl qe''/.91o-pment o:

understanding.---". 'fanguage carries th, hlIpry4.:.!! j lro:!_gy,tLr"ro i,t fut"r. lhe socio-cultura.

perspective suggests that if \\'e $'ant to understand the process of learning, we mu:l

studl not only r,r 'hat a learner does but also the activit ies of parents. teachers]Eder.

vrho create - indeed. const i tu te - the d) 'namic context o l thei r learn ing exper ieni -

, in-bei..;irf 'olrecf-in a process of 'guided

participation' in the intellectual l i fe of the.:

communities, lvhich implies the necessan' involvement of others. For similar reason i

r-1r .3 )

L A N G U A G E F O R T E A C H I N G A L A N G U A G E 2 5 5

I have described the process of teaching-and-learning as 'the guided construction of

k n o u I e d g e ' t i \ 1 e r c e r , l 9 9 5 r . T h j s i s u p i o . . , , r r h i c h L c # f t a t ''--------asTFE- language researcher Janet Nlavbin { 1994) has put i t , the ta lk on anv occasionbetween a teacher and their regular class of students can be considered part of the. l o . g . o a n g u a g e i s a t o o l f o r b u i I d i n g t h e f u t u r e o u t

6ft-e past: the meaningfulness of .EIS.I "td

fulgre_jogt activities of teachers andlearners foundations r common knou'ledqe (Mercer, 2000)

CIassr socio-cultural perspective

emphasises that evervdav human activitv depends heavilv on participants being able

to dran on a considerable bodv of shared knou'ledge and understanding, based on

their past shared experience or simiiar histories of experience. The conventions or'ground rules'^u'hich ensure that speakers and listeners, lvriters and readers areo--_.:--#o p e r x i n q r r i t h i n t h e s a m e q e n r e s o f l a n q u a g e @ u t S o l o n q a s

participa@d knou ledge,,!1@g"uge of everydaf i{e119[qnparticipants ggn rs!!I_issume shared knou ledge, the language of er-er; 'dav interaction, Tff

lolows l ts con\-entronal oatterns. l l ' the contextual tbundatio-ns ol lnarec Kno\\ leose

Slre iacking -,such as vrhen students' home backgrounds have not prepared them wellr---___-libr makr-ng sense of the language and culture of the classroom - misunderstanllings

I.. t f1U|-- u ' ,

I

IConclusion

Recordings and transcriptions of classroom talk, anal-vsed from a socio-cultural perspective,offer us glimpses of the social, cultural, communicative process of education being pursuedand, with varving degrees of success, accomplished. Thev may capture illustrations of the

best practice, in lr.hich teachers enable students to achieve levels of understanding which

might never , or at least not near l r so quick l r ' , have been achier" l . r : , t ryr , r ' *m. t { r rg 'quidance: thev as of ten reveal misu

at thev reveal. It is of course unrealistic to expect anv busv teacher to monitor

and evaluate everv interaction in their classroom; but recent research (in areas of the

suidance: thev as o i ten reveal misunderstandinps beinp qenerated. and oDDortuni t ies lor

guided develoTment bglg1glg4:..d..\s teachers, as uell as researchers, \\ 'e can learn

curr icu lumother thanlanguageteaching)hasshorr .nthat through@

of the use of lansuase as a ic tool, teachers can help students im rove their

um.relaleo learnlng ano rnelr use or language as a rool ror consrrucrlnq Kno\4 lecrge.

and Palincsar, 1989;Wegerif, Rojas-Drummond and Mercer, 1999; Mercer,Wegerif

and Darves, 1 999. l l . fsocro- 6Fas onlv quite recentlv

i?d learning in the modern language classroom (see Chapters 5, 15 and

19 ofthis book, br'\hn Lier, Gibbons and Breen), but I am convinced that its application

will have significant practical implications for this field of educational endeavour. ,r"eyl 1

Rererence " qry

"+/fllznrrO

Arthur, J. (1992)'English in Bots*.ana classrooms: functions and constraints'. Centre JorLanguage in Social L{elNbrking Papers \o.46. Universitt' of Lancaster, U. K.

earning and their use as a tool tor constructr e6

ws imp l ic i t ' o round

ru le

mav easily arise and persist unresolvedlHeath, 1983; LoCastro, 1997l. Makinq the-----_

l round ru les ' o f c lassroom act iv i t l expl ic i t can help overcome misunderstandings= r t . . - " : -- - ---

ind mis interpretat ions, and there is grou ' ing ev idence that s tudents 'progress is

es

2 5 6 N E I L M E R C E R

Brown, A. and Palincsar A.S. (1989) 'Guided, cooperative learning and individual knou'led,.acquisit ion', in L. Resnick (ed.) Knorring, Learning and Instruction. NewYork: Lau.renc.Erlbaum.

Bruner, J.S. (1985) 'Vvgotskr: a historical and conceptual perspective', in J.V. Wertsch (edCulture, Communication and Cognition: \tygotskian perspectives. Cambridge: CambridgtUniversitv Press

Bruner, J.S. (1986) Actual . i l l inds,Posstbleltrbrlds. London: Harvard Universitv Press.Camilleri, A. (199+)'Talking bil inguallv, r 'vrit ing monolinguallv'. Paper presented at tht

Sociolinguistics S1'mposium, Lancaster Universitl', March 1 994.Christie, F. (1990) LiteraclJor a Changing llbrld. tr{elbourne:Australian Council for Educationa,

Research.Edwards, A.D. andWestgate, D. (.199+) Investigating ClassroomTalk (Second Edttion). London:The

Falmer Press.Edw.ards, D. (1988) 'The Meno' , in Bi l l ig , N{ . , Condor, S. , Edl ,vards, D. , Gane, M., Middieton.

D. and Radler', A. (eds) Ideological Dilemmas: a social psychology oJ everyday thtnking.London: Sage.

Edr,r'ards, D. and Mercer, N. (1987) Common Knowledge: the development oJ understanding in th;classroom. London: Methuen/Routledge.

Ell iot, J. 0991) ' lction ResearchJor Educattonal Change. Milton Kevnes: Open Universitv Press.Gee, J.P. (1996) 'Vl'gotskv and current debates in education: some dilemmas as afterthoughts

to Discourse, Learning and Schooling', in D. Hicks (ed.) Discourse, Learning and Schooling.Cambridge: Cambridge Universitv Press.

Heath, S.B. (1983) Ways with Words: language, ltfe and work in communities and classrooms.Cambridge: Cambridge Universitt' Press.

Hicks, D. (1996) 'Contextual enquiries: a discourse-oriented study of classroom learning', inD. Hicks (ed.) Discourse, Learning and Schooling. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversitrPress.

Jacobson, R. ( 1990) 'Ailocating two languages as a kev feature of a bilingual methodology', inR. Jacobson and C. Faltis (eds) Language Distribution lssues in Bihngual Schooling.Clevedon : Multilingual Matters.

Johnson, R.K. and Lee, P.L.M. (1987) 'Modes of instruction: teaching strategies and studentsresponses', in R: Lord and H. Cheng (eds) Language Education in Hong Kong. Hong Kong:The Chinese Universit l ' Press.

LoCastro, Y. (1997)'Politeness and pragmatic competence in foreign language education'LanguageTbaching Research,YoI.l, No. 3, 239-268.

Martyn-Jones, M. (1995)'Code-sr,r ' i tching in the classroom', in L. Milroy and P. Muysken (eds.1One Speaker, two languages: cro.t.t disciplnar; perspectives on code-switcfring. Cambridge:Cambridge Universitv Press.

Mavbin, J 099+) 'Children's voices: talk, knorvledge and identity', in Graddol, D, Maybin, J.

and Stierer, B. (eds) Researching Language and Literacy in Social Context. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.

Mavbin, J., Mercer, N. and Stierer, B. (1992) "'scaffolding" learning in the classroom', inNorman, K. (ed.) Thtnkinglbices. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Mehan, H. (1979) Learning Lessons: social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, Mass: HarvardUniversitl' Press.

Mercer, N. (1995) The Gutded Construction of Knowledge: talk amongst teachers and learners.Clevedon: Mul t i l ingual Mat ters.

- (2000) Words and Minds: how' we use language to think together. London: Routledge.Mercer, N., Wegerif, R. and Da*-es, L. (1999)'Children's talk and the development of

reasoning in the classroom'. Bririsfi Educational Research Journal, 25, 7, 95-1 1 3.Moll, L. and Drvorin, I (996) 'Bil i terao'development

in classrooms: social dvnamics and

L A N G U A G E F O R T E A C H I N G A L A N G U A G E 2 5 7

cultural possibil i t ies', in D. Hicks (ed.) Discourse, Learning and Schooling. Cambridge:Cambridge Universitv Press.

Moore, A. (1995) TheAcademlc, Linguistic and Social Development of Bihngual Puptls in SecondaryEducation: issues oJ diagnosts, pedagog,r and culnre. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, The OpenUnivers i t r ' .

Newman, D., Griff in, P. and Cole, M. (1989) The Construction Zone. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversitv Press.

Ong, W ( 1982) Oralit l and Literau . London: N1ethuen.

Rogoff, B. (1990) Apprenticeship inThinking. Oxford: Oxford Universitv Press.Sinc la i r ,J .andCoui thard,M. (1915)hwardsananal ,vs isoJdiscourse: theEngl ishusedbyrcachersand

pupils. London: Oxford Universit.,' Press.Vvgotsky, L.S. (1962) Thought and Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. (Originally

published in Russian in 1 934. )Weger i f , R. , Rojas-Drummond, S. and Mercer , N. (1999) 'Language for the socia l

construction ofknoro-ledge: comparing classroom talk in N{exican pre-schools' , Languageand Educa t i on ,Vo l . 13 , No . 2 , pp . 133 150 .

Wertsch, J. (991) l6ces oJ rhe .l{ ind: a socio-cultural approach to mediated acrion. Cambridge,Mass.: Harvard Universitv Press.

Wood, D. i 1088.1 Hov chi ldren LLink ond 1earn. Oxford: Basi l B lackuel l .Zentella, A.C. (1981) 'Ta bien, r 'ou could ans\\ 'er rne in cudlquier idioma: Puerto Rican code-

switching in bil ingual classrooms', in R. Duran (ed.) Iar;no Language and CommunicativeBehavior, pp 109-132. Noru,ood, N.J.:Ablex Publishing Corporation.

C h a p t e r 1 6

Pauline Gibbons

LEARNING A NEW REGISTER IN A

SECOND LANGUAGE

lntroduction

O R S T U D E N T S W H O A R E L E A R N I N G E n g l i s h a s a s e c o n d l a n g u a g e i n a n

-F english medium school, €lglELllboth u ta.gei und.meliqg' ol education: thev are not

onlr learning the dominanr language but th.e\ are learntng 'n ', ,ndff,iQl-li..,"tll, flf

,t"r.t""..r"?s, t ust go hand in hand with t]re

development of the second language. r rThis chapter illustrates hontl t".h integration can be achieved' In it I argue that learners

current und"rstundings of a curriculum topic, and thetr use of gtFr e

rs tandings. t t tqu ld b. t " . " u ; ,h . b; t t t f

,rrot"' l' I sholv ho'"v teacher-student talk'

U56ia on shared.o-rnon ""p*i"nces,

Ieads to the develoPment of new w-ays of meaning'

I also suggest the usefulness' of bringing together, for the PulPoses of classroom-based

,"r.u..h]Eodies of knorvledge u'hich have rarel,v overlapped; second language acquisition

(SLA) reseat.h, .4*V;S!.f,i* socio-cultural approaches to teaching and learning' and

srsrer{aflunctional ""_*r"ffi-t' \ \ +o]I,5

d\^o\ trq1flThe context for the studv Ji1

The classroom from r,vhich the data derive is in an inner cit,v schooi in Svdner'' At the time

of t]-Ie study, t\\.entv three languages were spoken b-,1 $e

children in the school. The class

consisted of 30 chiidren aged betitee.t 8-10, u'ith all but tu'o children in the class coming

from homes where a langu'age other than English rvas spoken. Man-v children had been born

in Australia but entered-school r'r'ith little English, others were first generation migrants,

including tu,o children rvho had arrived in Austraiia rvithin the last Year. Generally, such

: JiE?;coll ier (1989) and McKav et al. (1997) have shorvn, children who appear'f luent' in such

contexts ma,v still huo'. '

[i-'t"aMi"largelvfluentinEngilshinface-to-face,evervda\'communication.

L E A R N I N G A N E W R E G I S T E R 2 5 9

The language model

Where the teaching of a nelv language is to be integrated u'ith the teaching of subject

content, then program planning needs to be informed bv a model of Ianguage u-hich relates

Ianguage to meaning, and to the context in u-hich it is used.This studv draws on svstemic

functional grammar (Hall idav, 1985) and related descriptions of register theorv (Hall iday

and Hasan. 1985).

A major organising principle of the teaching program described w-as the construct of

mode (which refers to the channel of the text, whether it is spoken or written) and the

notion of a mode continuum (Martin, 1984), because it offers a l inguistic framework

against rvhGh-teari@ffiTtffan-be sequenced from most sithus for ESL learners the most easilv understood), to least situationallv-depenGrThe

toll6wtng tOur texts l l lustrate tlxS mOde contlnuum. anO Sno\\' no\\ ' certaln l lngulSUc leatures

change as language becomes increasinglv closer to u'ritten forms.

Text 1: (spoken b1 three 1O-1ear-old students and accompanying action)

t h i s . . . n o i t d o e s n ' t g o . . . i t d o e s n ' t m o \ i e . . t r v t h a t . . . . y e s i t d o e s . . . a b i t . . . t h a t

won't . . u,,on'tworkit 's notmetal . . . these are the best . . . goingrealiv fast.

Tbxt 2: (spoken by one student about the action, aJter the event)

w e t r i e d a p i n . . . a p e n c i l s h a r p e . p e r . . s o m e i r o n f i l i n g s a n d a p i e c e o f p l a s t i c . . . t h e

magnet didn't attract the pin.

Text 3: (iritten by the same student)

Our experiment w-as to find out u'hat a magnet attracted. We discovered that a magnet

attracts some kinds of metal. It attracted the iron filings, but not the pin.

Texr 4: (takenfrom a child's encSclopediat

A magnet . . . is able to pick up, or attract, a piece of steel or iron because its magnetic field

flows into the magnet, turning it into a temporar\.magnet. Magnetic attraction occurs only

between ferrous materials.

Text 1 is tvpical of the kind of situationallv-dependent language produced in face-to-face

contexts. Because th. .. irrrul .ff i" ' th" ..f"r".rt. "*n.,ho.i.

reference is used (thts,these, rf iat), and is a relativelv lorv lexical densitv. or number of

s perlause. In-Text 2 the context changeT,'because the student is telling

6thers what arned, and no lo"g". hu, th" t. i""". . She must. =------T- r r r r . . , , l

no\(, reconstruct the .*p.rGiFthrough language alone, and so ggbes-e{p]lct ife

follow.s : Our experiment was to . . . In Text 4 the major participant (t ft4gnet) is generic : its

properties are those of all magnets. There is a further increase nE h"

l.*i l.rclrrd.s a nominalisation]the coding of a process term as u noil@f.tffi'hich is

tvoical of much vrritten text.

While spoken and r,,.r itten language obr,ioush'have distincti le characteristics, this

Nlt"M@y9'

participants (we. pin. pencil sharpener, iron fi l inTs, Pece of plasriel atA Process tarrracr; she is

."ferrin the audiencairnou'_unleeft it cannot relv

on shured assumptio4l3nd so the ivriter must.recreate experience through languagealgne€

--=--z=-T

nore, ror exampre, th" q,rre",gtiorybich rs neeclecl to provicle the context for what

continuum of texts illustrates that there is no absolute boundarv betrveen them.Technologt

260 P A u L lyE-4;letrN-s- 'f Wl rke q. ----t wt'ftu'^-- {;l..e

incr.-eases this blurrinq. Leaving a detailed message on an ans\\'ering machine, for example

be quite linguisti-calh'dem"anding since, in th-e absence of tr,ro-*-at'contact, and lvithout

l ini,irtt.:.t l"u,ir the shi.ed underiandings and expectations w'hich are implicit in nvo-

way, face-to-face communication, we are required to'speak aloud' the kind of language thar

fiilm reflects the process of formal education itself, as students

are required to move from personal er.ervdav rvavs of making meanings towards the sociallr

shared discourses of specilic disciplines. A second language learner is likelv to have fer,ver

diff iculties rvith producing something l ike text 1, nhere the situational context itseli

providesu,,ppo.ifo.-.uii.,gandtheiearethusferver1inguisffi*ritten--1ik-t red. It is r,vorthwrit s are required. It is lvorth

nffin too.-Ih-ai-Fh6?Eildren are expected to rr-rite simplv on the basis of persona-

' ru - " - r - - - - - - - - - - - - - -3 - -l [ i lou'ledge are iointff iructed, and rn-here learners are guided or'apprenticed' into tl-..

. , .<-7---broader unders-and-ngs and linguage of the curriculum and the particular subject disciplint

n man\' \18

uage learners.

more com

output'stretches' the learner, inGI-i lFE is

exper iences, ther are being asked to take a ver \ large l inguist ic s tep (as can be seen bt

), ano one \\ ion-qi6F c u rre nt I i n gu i s t i c re s o u rc e s ofldffi'.

fn the classroom described here, a major focus is on students using spoken language ir-

the wav that text 2 illustrates, that is, language n'hich, r,r.hile spoken, is not embedded ir.

the immediate situational context in rvhich it occurs. This more 'w'ritten-like' spoker.

Ianguage can be seen as a bridge between the language associated r,r''ith experiential activitit.

and the more formal - and 6ften rvritten - registers of the curriculum.

The role of talk in learning

While the importance of talk in learning has iong been recognised (Barnes 1975; Brunt:

1978; Martin et al . 197 61, a more recent focus, largelv influenced by the work ofVygotskr

has been on the social and cultural basis for learning (Mercer 199+,1995 and Chapter 1:

of this book; Mavbin, Mercer and Stierer 1992;Wells 1992,1999),.A rygo-g!".ul ot'*

@lacescfir*.teTffiT'endtheEi6ld-s?fi TGn-GEo{learningattl-.:h.g@'.s processi the classroom is vie*ed as a p-lacTaFr.k!:g3"'tg.=

The notion of apprenticeship into a culture is particulariv relevant in an ESL school conte\:.

e, coherent, and s-vntactically improved discourse. Tl:

svn tac t r . :

g!!9-ploclrssing. The classroom implication for thisJsuggest, is not tl:=

e a major teaching focus, but that it is important. .

r,vould more usuallv be rvritten.Thus in terms of the mode continuum it is perhaps mort

Eppropr iate to c lescr ibe texts as ' ar t

t

iA f '

r.r'here, in order to participate in societt', slllents must learn to control the dominant qenre .F \ L

l ' n . } , . ( M a r t i n T 9 8 6 - D e l p i t l 9 8 8 : K a l a n t z i s ' C o p t '* \1.$", / Noble and Povnt ing 1991t.-\7

SLA researchers have also shorvn the significance of interaction for second langua;t/ \ r

learn ing (see for example, El l is 1985, 1991,1994; van L ier 1988, 1995 and Chapter 5, - :

\this book; Sw.ain 1995;Swain 2000). Of particular importance are the kinds of on-goir;;

. \ .rilp, )modificatio"' *;T:l

"::"' i'^T,'.""':g t: ":g:ti:t"q orclarified (Long

:e8]i tt"u",o1-':

{ t \q f i ' l r "d ; "ghtv 1986; Pica 1994) . Sn,a in (1985, 1995) a lso argues f " ; ; ; " lJ l . :

V v"

/ 'cornptehensible ou!pul', w -:

t imes, for learners to have opportunities to use stretches of discourse in contexts u'he

i. oi'r".o.ra language learning depends tglg.Ir: ;"h"* .lurr.ooofi . - -,.1 i.. o,Nr r r. t

" d . T. u d i t i o n ul il I. r]r. o o ,.n i n ii.u. r i o n, . o@L-*lnr*

L E A R N I N G A N E W R E G I S T E R 2 6 7

there is a'press' on their l inguistic resources, and lvhere, for the benefit oftheir l isteners,

the,v mg4{ocui not only on r,vhat thev rvish to sav but on how the}' a()ne clear tea ese varlous st is that the degree to which a

, anTfi C ,es (Sinclair and Co I l:o\\'aros ano lvtercer

) may, in ive lea ust those interactional f"ut.r.., and interactive TWco nditi61r-mlc h S LA fglggdjygge s ts are e n abli n g iict o r 1 Tn-Iiifr

i-itiationTlead to single vr ord or sing[FT1EIS6Fesponses,-therF-i

e t o b e ' s t r e t , or lor the uctron oI comDre

F-o-om-program rvhich is supportive of se anguage learning must

opportunities for more dialogi t terns to occur

iscussion of these issues)

The data

The classroom context

Based on the science topic of magnetism,;E4hlqq and lgqnrng activities were planned to

group iearning experiences rvherq,the language used rvas clearlv situationaliy-embedded

This lvas follow'ed by a teacher-guided reporting session, '"r'here, in interaction lvith t

teacher, each group shared their learning rvith the rvhole class. Talking w'ith the teact

about w.hat had been learned. since this did not involve the use of the concrete materials

dt

T:"'"p ti ol b' -.g :h':,trlTTW- -6ere lopment in terms oTlanguage.- - l f ing.Thus students in i t ia l l r par t ic ipated in smal l -

led to a mode shift tor,vards more wlitten-like language, and provided a bridge into t, . r r r - - - - - T - -

\4'r l t lng, u'ruch \\ 'as the nnal act lvl tv ol lne cvcle and l lngulstrcal l \ tne most demanolng. L--Ere€F cl'cle u'as repeated several times during the course of the development of th\

unit of rn'ork.The three stages are described belorl', together lvith representative texts from

each stage. Taken as a sequence, thev i l lustrate horv language development can evolve

through jointlv constructed discourse.

Stage I

In many primarv schools it is usual for students to rotate through a number of activities over

the course of one or tu'o lessons. Holvever, such an organisational structure may negate an)'

authentic purpose for reporting back to others, since children are likelv to share verv similar

experiences. Here, an attempt rvas made to set up a genuine communicative situation by

having each group of children u'ork at dtferent (though related) science experiments; thus

thel'held different information from other class members. In its communicative structure

the classroom organisation rvas based on an important principle in second language task

desisn: the notion of an information'sap'and the need for information exchange lLono

t v 6 9 ) .One experiment consisted of a small polvstvrene block into rvhich a number of paddle

pop (ice-lolly) sticks had been inserted to enclose a bar magnet. The students were asked

to test the effect of a second magnet. (When the second magnet is placed above the first in

a position in which thev are repell ing, repulsion causes the second magnet to be suspended

in mid-air.)The texts belorv ( 1 . 1 and 1 .2) occurred as students \\'ere engaged in this activity.

Prior to beginning the activitr', thev rvere told that thev rvould later describe and attempt

t o e x p l a i n r v h a t h a p p e n e d t o t h e r e s t o f t h e c l a s s ( [ . . . ] m a r k s a n o b v i o u s p a u s e ) .

see van Lier 1

2 6 2 P A U L I N E G I B B O N S

Text 1.1

Hannah: tr)' . . . the other rvav

Patrick: like that

Hannah: north pole facing dou.n

Joanna: u'e tried that

Peter: oh!Hannah: it stavs upl

Patrick: magiclPeter: let's sho'"t- the others

Joanna: mad!Peter: I ' l l put north pole facing north pole . . . see rvhat happen

Patrick: that's rvhat lve just did

Peter: veah . . . like this . . . look

The dtalogue continuesJor several mjnutes longer as the students try dffirent positionsfor the magnet

and then the,v begin toJormulate an explanation.

Text 1.2

Hannah : can l t r v tha t? . . . I kno l * -h ) ' . . . l knou ' r vh1 ' . . . t ha t ' s l i ke . . . because theno r th

pole is on this side and that north pole's there . . so thev don't stick together

Peter: u'hat like this? veahHannah: veah see because the north pole on this side . but turn it on the other . . . this sidr

like that . . turn it that u.'ar' . . . veahPeter: and it r,vill stickHannah: and it w-ill stick because. look . . . the north pole's on that side because .Peter: the north pole's on that side veah

Stage 2

The overall aim of the teacher-guided reporting was to extend children's linguistic resources

and focus on aspects of the specific discourse of science. As the

the children'. we're tr;ing to talk like scientists. It r'vas anticipated that the reporting stagr

would create a context tor students to -reh.&G' Ianguage structures w-hich w-ere closer

to r,vritten discourse. Before the reporting began, there had been a short teacher-led

discussion focusing on the specific Iexis the children rvould need to use, including the lexical

item repel.

In the text belorv (Text 2), Hannah is explaining rvhat she learned.

Text 2

TEACHER

to tell them what you learned .

. . . (to Hannah) ves?

tr)'OK

L E A R N I N G A N E W R E G I S T E R 2 6 3

2 u'hen I put/ u.hen vou put . . . rvhen vou

put a magnet . . on top of a magnet and

the north pole poles are.

t7 second pause. Hannah is clearlv harmg

dtffculry tn expressing what she wants to sd1')

3 yes \-es vou're doing fine . . . vou put one

magnet on top of another . . .

4 and and the north poles are together er

em the magnet . . . repeis the magnet

er . . . the magnet and the other magnet

. . sort offloats in the air?

(The teacher inv i tes other contr ibut ions, and

then asks Hannah ro explam i t again. l

I think that \r'as verv well told . . . very

rvell told . . . do vou have anything to add

to that Charlene?

r. nor'r. listen . . no\.!' Hannah explain once

more. . alright Hannah . . excuse me

ererrbodt ' t regointng classes attentton )

listen again to her explanation

7 the tw-o north poles are leaning together

and the magnet on the bottom is repelling

the magnet on top so that the magnet on

the top is sor t o f . . . f loa t ing in the a i r

8 so that these tu'o magnets are repelling

(sald with emphasis) each other and . . .(.demonstrating) look at the force of it.

Stage 3

After the students had taken part in the reporting session, thev w'rote a response in theirjournals to the question

'u,hat have vou iearned?'These ' lr 'ere later used as a source ofinformation in the w'rit ing of more formal reports about magn"tr.fbgjtl53-of tb.journals here, holvever, is that thev provide some evidence of

'u in that thev reflect

nqs $o

i-red in the process of jointlr=pr glss.sanother strudent u'ho had listened

r discourse.Thes o\l'n entr\-, an

Text 3.1 (Hannah's journal entry)

I found it verv interesting that rvhen vou stuck at least 8

polystyrene, and then put a magnet rvith the North andpaddle pop sticks in a

South pole in the ovalpiece of

and put

to Hannah's talk with her teacher.

2 6 4 P A U L I N E G I B B O N S

another magnet u'ith the north and south pole on top, the magnet on the bottom u'ill r.':

the magnet on the top and the magnet on the top rvould look like it is floating in the air

Text 3.2 (another student's journal entry)

The thing made out of polvstvrene rvith paddle pop sticks, one group put one magnet faci:. .

north and another magnet on top facing north as rvell and thev repelled each other. It look. -

like the top magnet rvas floating up in the air.

Discussion

Stage 1 texts

The small group activities produced situationallv embedded,'here-and-now'' language. Nor=

f o r e x a m p l e , t h " . * o @ t h a t ; l i k e t h i s ; t h a t w 9 - ! 4 1 . 1 ( T h e . .

references, of cour fe, carr r - meanings u 'h ich. ln the absence oI a v isual context , must : ' -

realised in a different \\'a\', and it 1s g-re: cquses Hannr-

and manv of the other students, difficultv in the IIT-ter repgliingt::Ign.)__

h-"- Grpeiao:ral aspects of language. Students a::

concerned n ith diiecting eatl i other's actioifTit lff i I i l i-eTffianging inlormation. Ter:

1 . | i s a b o u t s o c i a I i n t e r a c t i o n a s m u c h a s @ s p e c i f r c l a n g u a q . . .

simplv not necessarr' lor communication betu een the interactants because oTffie v-i3[ITTa-a. =

to - t i l . i n i " i T rn f f i u r s . l ne rea rea lSope rSona tcommen ts lno lCaB : . :

affect. such as the expression ol attitude and t'eelings: in thifte-rtTr-ay,--i?Participar.--.-are senerallv-human a equentlv thematised. and thev relate to the interactar.--,

themselres( lve t)leJffiQ'l l lut norrh poleJactng north pole.----- \--,/ .v--Wh;i

islilportant aboTt the activities, horvever, is that they aliowed children to explc:.

and develop together certain scientifi.c understandings (the position of the poles is significa:.:

to the movement of the magnets). As the discourse progresses (text 1.2), indil idu:-

utterances become longer and more explicit, and this occurs as the students begin : -

formulate exolanat ions for . r 'hat thet see tnote the los ica l connect ives so. becdu. :

l n te rpers ona t e tem en tia-r6-ftEIFalTfrFiF-is no* u .,o n - @ .

and this. rather than the inte selves

cognitive challenge inherent in the teacher's instruction to'try to explain what you see' m:.

have been significant here, since it extended the task from simply'doing'to'doing a:-:

thinking'. This explicit focus on thinking is an important one in the l ight of this tvp. .:

teaching context, where a teacher must balance the need for suitablv high levels of cognitlr.

learning w.ith learners' relativelv low levels of English, and rn'here learning activities aim. :

at development of the second language must also be linked to cognitive growth. Clear.

lr'ithin these texts there is evidence of children's learning of science: the beginnings o[ -

understanding of u'hv the magnets are behaving as thev are, and attempts to hypothe.:'.

about the causal relati .olved. Through the kind of exploratorv talk which begins :

be el ident here inf l5 'smal l group uork.fknoulglge is made more publ ic lv accourta.and reasonlng rs more vlsl eger i f and N1ercer , 1996: 51 1.

From the point of vieu- of sec nguagelEarnTl!]iT is also important to note tr-.'

the children developed some understandings about magnets before thev u'ere expecteC :

understand and use more scientilic discourse. For example, at the beginning of t}e report,:

L E A R N I N G A N E W R E G I S T E R 2 6 5

session, the teacher introduces the term repel at a time *.hen students had alreadl'expressed

this meaning in familiar evervdav language, using terms such as it pushes away;itfeels ltke a

strong wind.There is some paraliel here to the principle u-ithin bilingual programs u.hich, , -

suggests that leirning should occur hrst in L i

i s ;

Stage 2 texts

Driver makes the important point about science education that 'activity bv itself is not

enough . I t i s t hesense tha t i smadeo f i t t ha tma t te rs ' (D r i ve r , 1983 :49 ) . l nS tage2 tex t s

w.e see the teacher u-orking rvith the children to'make sense'of the activities in r'r'hich thev

have been engaged, bv helping them reconstruct their experiences and develop shared

understandings through language. Weggltf and Mercer suggest that it is through beingundersrandlngs rnrougn ranguage. vlsgsl-io lvrercer sugSesr rnaf rr rs rnrougn Derng

encouraged and enabled'to clearlv describe e e

e ercer, 1996: 53).Text 2 i lf i-st.ates one tvperu

in which this process can occur.

wrat tnev

The teacher'

with individual students

to proieEl-rvhile giving the lear ne$. ffi eulsTfilaGfn Text 2, the interaction

betu'een teacher and students is different in several small but important respects from the

traditional IRF pattern, but th"r. "

' f f i Typ i ca i I 1 , , t he IRFPa t te rn i s rea l i sed ln f J i r l vp red i c tab Iewavs ,

f."qrr".r,l).ino'o1ui.rg u,"u; on, follorved bJ 3 siie"t uns*'flofien

b r i eT),-a n d fo I I o w e d bl_{Sglh gf sf I g}!91 .*, lg,9-, E . "I

* c t rylsg{g{l T 9Rf 1. . . . ' . . t . . . . . . . . . ' . . ' , . ' - . - - - - ; - - \ - \_ - - / : - r r - r -T_ t .Frurver . InTex t 2 . the in te rac t ions approx imate more c lose fv rvh-a t occurs in L l adut t -ch i: . \inteiac-tions outside of the formal te

l scourse on the l r own te rms. ra ther than respond lng to a

from the teacher. In. - - _ - _ - _ . : - _ ^ ^ . 1 _ lknower ' (Ber r r l98 l1 . A l though o f course i t i s the teacher l r -ho is in cont ro l o f the_--_knowledgffiffied r,r.ith the overall thematic der.eiopment of the unit of worLjteindividual exchanges locate that controi in the student.The recipro^citv and mutualitv in the

speaker roles leads to Ha

classroom interactign. As is tvpical in these reporting seTsioiiT,-TEffitr-----::->

.T/t1*

inteiac-tions outside of the formal te-cfiifr!'?oitext (see for example, Hallida-v 1975;Wells , *u ' i th inr i t ing students to re late *hr( .1g )

thev have learned, rather than achers -

c u e s t t o n s a r e o l t e n l r a m e c l n \ \ a Y s \ \ not a l l6w for s tudents to make extended

rl,3' ,l^o$.

bifld_: and u'hile follorving Hannah's lead and accepting as a valid contribution

information .h. gi.o"r,fh" ,.J.h.. ulro .9.urt, it, p*l{r.g llternative linguistic for :t#;iencode student meanins rn

is a lso c lear that teacher-guided repor t ing encourages Iearner language to be 'pushed' .

(As one student commented as she struggled to explain rvhat she had done: I can't say it

Miss!). Hu , because she is allowed a

second attempt, she has an opportuniq'to produce mge;gryIgbgrl$le output. Hannah'ssecond attempt, rh. hu t. Hannah's

second at tempt at her explanat ion is considerabl l_1" . r ! : r t , .11 {d srntact icg!} - nnore

responses (Dil lon, 1990), here, bv contrast,9aleacher sets up a context lr 'here it is the

students5lro init iate the specific topic of the exchange..A.s Eil is 119961shows, n'hen learners-

in i t ia te nhat they u ish to ta lk about , language learn lngls tacr l r ta ted because they enter the

complete than her first, and is s time n.ithout the help of the

- l / l ' l l * " ' - - - b - - - - b - - - - - - - A -

)KflI they typicalh' \ -ait one second or less for the students tot l l l l lt l l l l l ) : '

' I f , i t

- '

tin - /lf r rya;l+*'*efJa'r+$- "'J- lLf / f 11" th. arr i tudes and expectat ions of both students and teacherGJRowe, 1986). We car.

t / l oare formula t in .

, V ^, " responses in a language the-v do not fullv control. Ptlbgpt equally important, students u'ertr -' . " t - / ' i t , , a b I e t o c o m p I e t e l v h a t t h e v r r ' a n t e d t o s a r ' a n d a i - r

Y"- ^o ; . r I - .I n. lntEfaetants aRc learners. lnacrufirorr,-srnce lt ls tne rF t l F -1 l - - is in t luencing to a large e l tent the teacher 's choice of ng, it would seem likel.

to assist Hannah to continue

As Text 2 illustrates, the reporting context also gives students opportunities to produc.

lonoer stretches of discourse u:hich are more uritten-like than those which occurred in th.

small group lr 'ork. Often this required the teacher t e', on occasions 1o:-

as long as eight seconds. R.jg3ISb sts that ."vhen teachers ask questions of students

that this u"ording rvil l be i-.. more likely to be noticed - than if it

,n t 'h f r had occur-a.10dI-'- r .^^-#

6-text which w'as less immediate. (For discussion of the significance ol

,hl''*,-. ,1--n"4 in second languag€ development, see Ellis, 199+).I n6Np Another significant mode shift occurred towards the end of most reporting sessions.n( lV" -? Anotne f S fgn lncant mOLIC SI I IL UUCUI Ie lJ LOwdIus L I l c c l lu u l r r ru )L r t rPur u r r5 r tJ r ru r l : .

*;Y where the teacf,er used children's personal knowledge to show how generalisations might

'\J' be generated. Her questions at this point included, for example: can)/ou see somethinB tI)

2 6 6 P A U L I N E G I B B O N S

notion of the 'ZPD ' is significant here. Vvgotskv suggests that learning occurs , with supp,

rner ,S.Zoneofproximaldevelopment , (Vygotskv197:

that is, at the'outer edges'of a learner's current abil it ie.s. In 1-2, Hannah aPPe.ars to har.

reaqhed her o*.t ro.

P considerable time, and can presumablv go no further alone.The recasting and suppc'rt sh

receives t rom the teacher ( 1 . J \ then app_eats to be Prectsel ryn,

common with a]l these experiences? what's the same about all these experiments?

Such questions require ,h. . ,

of what thev did: thev must no\\, recontextualise this in terms of the teacher's quEitionl-

ffih."; is now characterif ield soecific lexis. and the thematisation of children themseives

ire no lonper the^---\------\--

the north pole oJ the magnet nicks. L ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ - )L I I ( ) C L U L l U t i l U H r t C L .

. attracts . . . the second magnet . . . the south pole oJ

tf you put the south and north toBethet then they wtll . . . attract bu {you put north and north

or south and south . .. together . . . they won't stick . . . attract.

Thus the teacher again mediates betu.een children's individual experiences and the broader

knorvledge and discourse into u-hich they are being apprenticed, Iocating these experiences

within a larger framervork of meanings. Stage 2 texts, then, both in the way language is

used, and in the k jnds of knouledge 11 h(ch is constructed, serre to create a

al experiential lvavs ofknorvi i6-c ihscourse of

and, sociallv constructed knou-ledge.

Stage 3 texts

Many of the journals reflected rvhat had been said in the teacher-guided reporting sessions.

Students included',vording rvhich thev had used in interaction with the teacher, or which

L E A R N I N G A N E W R E G I S T E R 2 6 7

had been part of the teacher's re and this rvas particularlv evident w-hen the students-r------i---r

-

themselves had retormul.t"ilhgffpl .r lalk. Compare, for example, Hannah's w'ritten text

( 3 l ) i t h t h e . t " u . h " , . T h " . J i s a l s o e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e

reporting back sessions influenced not onlr,' the interactants themseir.es but also those vl'ho'l istened to the interactions ai-; iart ol the larger group:Text 3.2 w'as r,vritten bv a studentwho had not taken part in this particular eip?iili-e-frTT-e-rself.

Conclusions Usu/Us4'"'^:While the research I fiave described illustrates the value o-f 'leaqnlng-br doing' (especialll

/ ,for second languade learners rvhere concrete exoeriences help to make languagefor second languag'e learners rvhere

comprehensible), it also i i lustrates the crit ical role of teacher-learner talk in childrenT

learning and language development, andTh? wav that s

co-construct a ne\\ ' ..gjtq]Egbg!-guid.d t.p"ttqin particular appears to offer a

potential for second language development

The research also suggests that in analvsing horv interactions are made comprehensible

to ESL students in the classroom context, rve need to look further than the linguistic features

of the interactions themselves (for example the simpiicitv or otherwise of svntactic

structures), and examine the on-going:ontext in lvhlchihose interactions a." ritrrut"d. Of

particular signifi cance-i-ithin tFe se -essons was the scattoldrng o

concepts through the_ sma rouo u-ork- l t al lo\\ teacher to use new' ll'orcli

wavs of meanin u hich u-ere Th-en more readilv interoretable bv the

sildents. The broader principle is that language i,r.hich rvould normallv students--'-----; ' . r.r-comprehension is likelv to be understood r""hen students can bring their experiences and

understandings as a basis for interpretation. The degree to lvhich interactions are

comprehensible for ESL students should therefore be related not onlv to the interactional

featuresthemselves.andtotheimmediates i tuat ionaIcontext i , ' f f io

,o r,nuinr@g1nem - rn , r.,rgr,f f i , F ::.*"";ls:H5:Hlffill+

because studea!! and teacher 'relate discourse to context, and build through time a joint

truTgjllg&I".."' (Edrvards and Mercer, 19951..\s\\bng'Fillmore statdlnTd.tuq

\r\ v4c*---f-F

{-/

$

fffSl kindergarten class, "!g pnor glglience becomes a context for interpreting the

ne\v exDer lence . Dr lor exDer lences se.

being used is to be understood" ( Wong- l - i l lmore 1 98 5 t .' - - - : -- .T_-rbeing used ir to_bs_.gnd9l15ood\ Wong-l-il lmore 1 98 5 t.-_- t he o'eratl ,"qu"iElf *il ' it ics

-also prgtents a challenge to more tradjtional * ays of C,f. oJt^ft

seouencinq teachinq and learninp act iv i t ies in the second lanquaqe classroom. uhere a unit fo. ̂ pft. _fc,ecAr"en oREF6@r i th thepre- teach ingof \ocab c tu re .Whi le th i , | . . - - . ,. ' - - - - - - - d " ' t V o c o ( .

@ e i n s o m e t e a c h i n g c o n t e X t S , i t i s u n d e r p i n n e d b v t h e n o t i o nthat learners must f irst ' learn' Ianguage before thev can'use' it. Aside from questions about

the nature of language and language learning vr-hich this sets up, it is also clear that it is an rapp roach r , r . h i chcanno tbeeas i i vapp l i ed to theschoo ]ESLcon tex t '@fda r r . .

)AIn t t .Turr. rtud""t, ur"d t r/ / | \the focus on.nerr language occurred.at later stages. a seque,nce.rr-hich gl lou'ed for s ludents TSt6bui ld on their exist ing understandingr rnd lunguisF.; ;a to- l ink-old l"arn'ng * i th ne.r; \o" 't -o bui ld on thei r ex is t inq understandinqs and lanquaqe. and to l inka. [ !_ learn ing u i th neu ;ln e l lect to mo|e successlu l l \ to \ tards tarqel texts. rather than beglnnlng u ' l th them.

2 6 8 P A U L I N E G I B B O N S

The research I have described also indicates the signilicance for language learning

the in ter textual nature of c lassroom language: hou one text is understood or produced l : '

r p l r t i nn t o : nn the r A * ' i de r anqe o l i n t " r t a *ation to another. A u'ide range of intertextual re lPs exrelation to another.,

A final point concerns the model of ianguage drarvn on in mv research. A language

mode l l vh i chadd resses the re Ia t i onsh ipbe Iweencon tex tandmean ing ,u@

concerned therefore u- i th more than grammat iCal comPetence, pro\ ' ldes a_ s lgnl l l -ng

Sctrvrtles.--FurflrcTclassroom-based studies are needed into the language learning processes of

Et--GJ";;".*p1", what a teicher savs and u'hat students are exPected to read; what

students listen to ".rd.,uhut

thev are expected to lr-rite; the discourse of the lesson and the

texts students are expected to r,r'ork rvith for homeu'ork; and the familiar language or dialect

the home a.,d th" less familiar language of the school. A consideration of how these links

made inter textual lv and recognis ing rvhere l ingu.r_s l ic 'br idges ' a le miss ing might

r insishts tbr the pianning;f-nTi.. l-ptogttd6r all learners, and help to suggest theo [e r i ns igh ts fo r thep lann ing@aI I l ea rne rs ,andhe lp tod of liiguistic ,upport *ort ."l.uu.rt for students iess familiar w'ith the language of the

tlassroom.

school-aged ESL learners, if educators are to develop more theoreticallv informed and

.qrrltubl" curricula and _ pedago$ This task requires

interdisciplinar roactrto research i ln multi l inqual ciassrooms, one which draws on

,i**l theoretical and methodological lines of enquirv andffi?Eis underPin

view oflearningl

tvt'*<rq+_)

References

Barnes. D. (1916) From Communication to Curticulum. Harmondsworth: Penguin'

Berry, M. (1981)'systemic l inguistics and discourse analysis: a multi- layered approach to

exchange structure', in M. Coulthard and M. Montgomery (eds) Studies in Discourse

Analysis. London: Routledge and Kegan.

Bruner, 1.-1ilza;'The role of dialogue in language acquisit ion" inA. Sinclair, R. Jarvella, and

W Levelt (eds) Ihe Chtld's Conception oJ Language. New'York: Springer-Verlag.

Coll ier, V. (1989) 'Hou. long? A svnthesis of research in academic achievement in a second

language' . TESOL Qgarterly,23, 509-531 .

CumminJ, l.-(1996) Negotiating Identities: EducationJor Empowerment jn a Diverse Socieur. Ontario

CA: California Association for Bilingual Education.

Delpit, L. (1988)'The silenced dialogue: po\\ 'er and pedagogv in educating other people's

children' . Harvard Educational Review,58(3), 280-298.

Dil lon, J. (1990) ThePractice of @testioning. London: Routledge.

Driver, R. (1983) ThePuptl as Scientjst? Milton Kevnes: Open Universitv Press.

Ed'"vards, D., and N{ercer, N. (1987) Common Knowledge:TheDevelopment oJUnderstanding inth.

Classroom . London: Methuen .

Ell is, R. (1985) IJnderstanding Second LangudgeAcquisit ion. Oxford: Oxford Universitv Press.

- (1991)'The interaction hvpothesis: a crit ical evaluation', in E. Sadtono (ed.), Languag;

Acquisition and the Second/Foreign Language Classroom. Singapore: Anthology Series 2E.

SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.- (199+) The Studl oJ Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hall iday, M. (1975) Learning How to ,Mean: Explorations in the Development of Language' London,

Arnold.- /1985) An Introductionto Functional Grammar. London: Edu'ardArnold.

t^tetdrsct

L E A R N I N G A N E W R E G I S T E R 2 6 9

Hallidav, M., and Hasan, R. (1985) Language, Context and Tbxt. Geelong Victoria: DeakinUniversitv Press.

Kalantzis, M., Cope, B., Noble, G., and Povnting, S. (1991) Cuhures oJSchooling:PedagogiesJor

Cuhural Dtfference and Social Access. London: Falmer Press.

Long, M. (1983)'Native speaker/non native speaker conversations and the negotiation ofcomprehensible input' . Applied Linguistics, +, 125-1+1 .

\ ' [artin, J. (1984)'Language, register and genre', in F. Christie (ed.) Chi]drenWrtting, Stud,v6uide. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin Unir-ersitv Press.

- (1986) Secret English: discourse technology in a junior secondar,v school. Proceedings from the

Working Conference on Language in Education, N{acquarie Universitv.

N1artin, N., Will iams, P, Wilding, J., Hemmings, S., and Medwa-v, P. (1976). Understanding

Chtldren Talking. London: Penguin.

Mavbin, l. (199+) 'Children's voices: talk, knorvledge and identitv', in D. Graddol, J. Mavbin

and B. Stierer (eds) Researching Language and Literacr n Social Contexts. Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters.

Mavbin, J., Mercer, N., and Stierer, B. (1992)'Scaffolding learning in the classroom', in

K. Norman (ed.) Ifr inft in glbices:The l4brk of the |iational Orac,v Project. London: Hodder

and Stoughton.McKav, P. , Davies,A. , Devl in , B. , Clavton, J . , Ol i r -er , R. , and Zammit , S. (1997) The Bi l tngual

InterJace Project Report Canberra: Department of Emplovment, Education,Training and

Youth Affairs.

Mercer , N. (1994) 'Neo-Vvgotsk ian theorv and c lassroom educat ion ' , in B. St ierer and

J. Mavbin Language, Literac,r' ahd Learntng in Educational Pracdce. Clevedon: Multilingual

Mat ters.- (1995) TheGuidedConstruct ionoJKnowledge:h lkAnongstTeachersandLearners. Clevedon

Multilingual Matters.Painter, C. (1985) Learning the MotherTongue. Geelong,Victoria: Deakin Universitv Press.

Pica,T. (.199+) 'Research on negotiation: rvhat does it reveal about second language learning

conditions, processes and outcomes?' Language Learning, +4, +91-527 .

Pica,T. ,Young, R. , and Doughtv, C. (1987) 'The impact of in teract ion on comprehension ' .

TESOL @Larterly, 27 (4), 1 31 -1 58.

Rowe, M. (1986)'Wait t ime: slor.r. ing dorvn mav be a u'av of speeding :up'.Journal oJTbacher

Educat ion,3T , +3-50.

Sinclair, J., and Coulthard, R. (1975) Towards an Analvsis oJDiscourse: the English Used bS'Teachers

and Pupils. London: Oxford Universitv Press.

Slvain, M. (1985)'Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and

comprehensible output in its development', ln S. Gass and C. Madden (eds) lnput rn

Second Language Acquisidon . Cambridge MA: Nervbur\ House.

Srvain, M. (1995)'Three functions of output in second language learning', in G. Cook and

B. Seidlehofer (eds) Princtple and Practice tn Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honour "J

H.G

Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford Unir.ersitv Press.

Swain, M. (2000) 'The output hvpothesis and bevond: mediating acquisition through

collaborative dialogue', ir-r J. Lantolf (ed.) Sociocultural Theor,y' and Second Language

Learning. Oxford: Oxford Universitv Press.

van Lier, L. (1988) The Classroom and the Language Learner. Harlo."r': Longman.- (1996) lnteraction in the Language Curriculum:Awareness,Autonomy andAuthenticirl. London:

Longman.Vygotskl', L. (1978) ,NIind in Socieq':The Developmefi oJ Higher Ps,vchological Processes. London.

Harvard Universitv Press.

Wegerif, R. , and Mer."r, N. ( 1996 t 'Computers and reasoning through talk in the classroom' .

Language and Educat ion. l0 t 1 t , +1 6+.

2 7 0 P A U L I N E G I B B O N S

Wells, G. (1981) Learning through Interaction: the Studl' of Language Development. Cambridge:

Cambridge Universitv Press.- (1992) 'The centralitv of talk in education', in K. Norman (ed.) ThinkingVoices:The Work

oJthe National Oracy Project. London: Hodder and Stoughton.- (1999) Dialogic lnquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversitY Press.

Wong-Fil lmore, L. (1985)'When does teacher talk n'ork as input?', in S. Gass and C. Madden

(eds) lnpur in Second Language Acquisit ion. Row.lel ' MA: Newburl ' House.

" c Jh*'J cayfrJ :, s7.,^,(/ils tttolzLtQ

, uX"u^trr t , Lsc'^rsi" t "?*3, ir.,^t-Ja r ̂ o'ft'

zt\

n a p t e r 1 7

?rAngel M. Y. Lin

DOING-ENGLISH-LESSONS IN THE

REPRODUCTION

SOCIAL WORLDS

OR TRANSFORMATION OF

?

I Introduction

HIS ARTICLE TELLS AF STORY o f f ou r c l ass rooms , s i t ua ted i n d i f f e ren t

socioeconomic backgrounds. Drau'ing on the theoretical notions of cultural capital,

habitus, symbolic violence, and creative, discursive agencv as analvtic tools, the storv unfolds

r,vitnessing the classroom dilemmas in *'hich students and teachers found themselves, as

rvell as the creative, discursive strategies w'hich they used to cope with these dilemmas.The

implicationsoftheirstrategiesarediscussedr'r. ithreferencetot!9qussti9g9I@

Engl '

social worlds.-'St"r,.-;s

about the global spread of English and its increasing socioeconomic

importance in the w-orld have almost become cliches. On colorful banners celebrating the

TESOL Annual Convention in Chicago streets in 1 995 r'vas rvritten the eve-catching mission

slogan, "Teaching English to theWorld". Indeed, English seems to have become a precious

commoditv increasinglv demanded bv the world, andTESOL practit ioners and researchers

seem to be striving to meet the demand of the rvorld market *'ith all our professionalism.

InTESOL journals and annual conventions, practitioners and researchers share their findings

about methods, approaches, material designs that are effective.

However, apart from the technical concern of efficiencv in teaching and learning, it

seems that a fai more diverse range of questions needs to te addressed *hich includes

questions such as w.hether, and if ves, horr-, English is implicated in the reproduction of social

inequalities in different conlexts in the rvorld. As regards the global influence of Englishlpen l doirinant p*ltio.r of English u.rJ th"

of it) to E"€l!b affects ihe social mobilitv and life chJ.,ces of manv.hild'ffillltFins Enslish as therr t ir it or angua

world is a aT ident i t ies and unequal re lat ions of power

lMartvn-Jones and Hel ler , 19961. I t is a lso l ike lv that manv students in

ambivalent, want-hate relationship rvith Engli e classroom becomes a site for

sr6

socioeconomic, cultural and political embeddedness of Engiish in the world. Access (or lack

student3 str tronal Practrces \ '\ horvever, often lead students to

2 7 2 A N G E L M . Y . L I N

participate i" thgg_glyl.dsmlourion (e.g. see Canagarajah, Chapter 13 of this book). This| , - * #

.{ffit.r is u'ritten foTTESOL practitioners and researchers u-ho want to listen to more oll r

the lived stories of English in the r,r'orld and r,r.ho share a similar concern in exploring wa\ s

of doingTESOL that do not par t ic ipate in the reploduct ion of s tudent d i e .

2 A theoretical preamble: cultural capital, symbolic violence, andcreative, discursive agency

Some theoretical notions that can serve as analvtical tools for achieving a greater

understanding of sociai phenomena of reproduction are discussed in this section. Given

limited space, rvhat goes beiou. must be treated as a highlv svnoptic characterization and

the interested reader is urged to consuit the references themselves for a more detailed

account. - t

,/L (o't''t"*dL

This is a concept from Bourdieu (Bourdieu ,1973; Bourdieu and Passeron ,1977; Bourdieu.

1977 ; Bou rd ieu . 1991 ) re fe r r i ng t o l anguage use . sk i l l s . and o r i en ta t i ons /d i spos i t i ons

attitudes,/schemes of perception (also called "habitus") that a child is endowed with by virlue

of socialization in her/his familv and communitv. Bourdieu's argument is that their familial

. omic elite th. .ight kind of cultural capital

for school success (i.e., their habitus becomes their cultural capital). A recurrent theme in

Bourdieu's w'or ildren from disadvan w'ith a habitus incompatible

vi'ith that presupposed in school, are not.o*pgtt ints u'ith children

irefrte Een ce.Eerenroducti tratification. The notion ot

t s ( e . g . . D e l p i t , 1 9 8 E ; L u k e , l 9 9 6 l t o d e s c r i b e

the disadvantaged position of etirnic and linguisti. ti.roriii", and to problematize the notion

that state education in modern societies is built on meritocracy and equal opportunity.

l C V

Another recurrent theme in Bourdieu's rvorks concerns how t}re disadvantaging effect of

the schooling sr' e's consciousness. School failure can

be convenientlv attributed to individual cognitive deficit or lack of and not to the

unequal lnl t lal s oi the cultura valuecl a i t imized in school:

the dominated ciasses allorv (the struggle) to be imposed on them w-hen thgy:ggqg1the stakes offered bflr":lqlfi"*Lelasse!. It is an integrative struggle and, by virtue

v___:__- --__,___oFthe initlal handicaps, a reproductive struggle, since those who enter this chase, in

which they are beaten before the)'start, as the constancv of the gaps testifies, rmphcitlr

fu"-"f t"h"g pJrt. (Bourdt.l.r, i ls+, t e s)

Svmbolic violence, according to Bourdieu,i, thj r-pgjio. of ..presentations of the world

and social meanings upon groups in such a u'av that theljlre experienced as legitimale.This

i sach ie r ' ed th roughap rocess@)For ins tance , the recen t . .Eng l i shOn l ,Y ' '

campaigns in the United States pror-idEillustrations of the political struggles required to

create and maintain a unified linguistic market in r'vhich onlv one language is recognized as

D O I N G - E N G L I S H - L E S S O N S 2 7 3

legitimate and appropriate fbr discourse in official settings, and this "English = American"

st.mbolic representation has numerous consequences for schooling and jobs (Collins, 1993) -

For another instance, manv Hong Kong parents insist on flghting for a place for their children

in English medium schools (often despite the lact that their children speak and understand

litt le English) because of the "English medium schools - good schools" svmbolic

representation that they have steadfastlv accepted even in a largelv Chinese societv and a

post-1997 era (for some background to the svmbolic domination of English in Hong Kong,

see Lin, 1996,1998; and more on this in section 3 belorv).

.d\ ^

> c t ) -

Bourdieu has often been accused of bejn'e overlv deterministic and a theorist more of, /----;-----S\ ,./, :.

reproductionthaq{an1lory9tt g.,Jenkins, 1992;Canagarajahin Chapter 13). Lemke,

holever, points ouitEaTBo[r-Fu is not limited to reproduction; w'hat he does limit is the

effectiveness of single agentin changing *-hole 6elds of taluatiofr-{uy...-.----L"mIE, pets-o-nul

com ched to English in Hong

Ko+g cannot be changed b)' single agents unless there are systematic changes in the social

. " l " a a

oft6?JoE?1ilil; see section 3 belorv).While the above seems true, an area in which

Bourdieu offers ferv analvses is the creative, discursive agencv of social actors who find

lhemselves caught in d i lemmas. As Col l ins points out :. t

rve need to allor,v for dilemmas and intractable oppositions; for dlvided consciousness,

not just dominated minds; ... for creatr,f:-_discurlve agencv in conditio.. U?tr,,rp r e s t . u c t u r e d , t o b e s u r e , b u t u l ' d y n a m i c * ^ " . ' . , i i o }(Coll ins, 1993 134) 0

ln section 4 below, rve shall see some examples, and discuss the consequences, olsg@-_

arger urFeT. ff i ir€\e7,5efore looking at the classrooms, let us first

iook at the larger social context of the classrooms.

3 Hong Kong: the setting of the story

Despite its international cosmopolitan appearance Hong Kong is ethnically rather

homogeneous. About 97o/o of tts population is ethnic Chinese, and Cantonese is the mother

tongue of the majoritv. English native speakers account for not more than 3%o of the entire

population.They constituted the privileged class of the societv until July 1 ,1997 w'hen Hong

Kong's sovereigntv was returned to China and Hong Kong became a Special Administrative

Region (SAR) of China.The English-conversant bilingual Chinese middle class has, however,

remained the socioeconomicalh' dominant group in Hong Kong.

Notwithstanding its being the mother tongue of oniv a minoritl, English has been the

language of educational and socioeconomic advancement; that is, the dominant symbolic

resource in the svmbolic market (Bourdieu, 1991) in Hong Kong. Even in the post-

1997 / colonial era, English has remained a socioeconomicallv dominant language in Hong

Kong society. For instance, a 1998 survev on business corporations in Hong Kong found

that the majoritv of business corporations said thev would prefer emplovees with a good

command of English to emplovees rvith a good command of Chinese (Sing Tao Jih Pao, Ma:,'

2 7 4 A N G E L M . Y . L I N

21 ,1998). Besides, English remains the medium of instruction in most universit ies ani

professional training programmes.It can be seen that the svmbolic market is embodied and enacted in the many ker

situations (e.g., educational and job settings) in u.hich svmbolic resources 1e.g., certainir p.,of linguistic skilis, cultural knorvledge, specialized know-ledge and skills) are demanded o:

social actors if thev $'ant to gain access to valuable social, educational and eventually materia-resources (Bourdieu, l99ll. For instance, a Hong Kong student must hal'e adequuie Englisi-.resources to enter and succeed in the Engiish-medium professional training programme:and in order to earn the qualif ications to enter high-income professions.

To see how.the larger social context can pose loca!$]g4ggl on teachers and studeni.and how they can exercise their creative discursive agencv in dealing w.ith their dilemma.Iet us compare and contrast four different classrooms.

4 A story of four classrooms

Tiken from the database ofthe author's ethnographic and classroom discourse study ofeigl.:classrooms in seven schoois from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds in Hong Kong, t.follorving four classroom scenarios are meant to give the reader a sense of the diversitr , :discursive practices that can be found across even simiiarlv constrained ciassrooms (e.gClassrooms B, C, and D) To protect the anonl'mitr: of the schools and the participants. a--names are pseudo-names and all identifving details of the schools and teachers are left ou:In iistening to these verv different stories, holever, -vou lvill sense a preoccupation r,",-ith .

current question:To rvhat extent are classroomlellicpan'tslhapgl bv the larger socia-structures such as sociocultura acKpround anc l to \ \ ' ha t ex ten t a re the \ t rc :

to tf-arxform their lot (and habitus)? We shall return to this question in section 5 . For ea.-iclassrooml-3h-ilfTrst describe the background, with information based on questionnairtsurvevs and intervier,vs of the students, and then an English reading lesson. All four teache ;'.are Hong Kong Chinese, sharing the same mother-tongue r,vith their students.

Classroom A: a scenario oJ compatible habitus

Background V

This is a form 3 (grade 9) class ofthirtv-three students, aged from fourteen to fifteen, in :

prestigious giris'school.The majoritv of the students came from families in the expensirtresidential area in'"vhich the school is located.Their parents \,vere professionals, busine'.executives, or universitv professors, r 'r 'hose education level ranged from secondar..university, to postgraduate. Thev spoke mostlv Cantonese at home , but sometimes als'-English, for example, w-hen speaking to their Fil ipino domestic helpers.They read a variet.of extra-curricular materials, including both English and Chinese, both serious and non-serious materials; for example, comics, Chinese ne\4'spapers, English newspapers, Englisr-.fashion magazines, English detectir-e stories, science fiction, pop vouth magazines,TV neu'..Reader's Digest (both English and Chinese editions), and Chinese translations of foreig:

{\ classics (e.g., Gone n-ith theWind;.The students \l 'ere fluent in their responses to th.

lJ teacher's questions and could elaborate their ansrvers w'ith the teacher's prompts.TeacherA's English u'as the best among the eight teachers r.r'ho participated in my studr

English seemed to be a tool she readilv used in her dailv l i fe and not just in academr.conteXts 'SWerdaughter ,hershoppinghabi ts ,Mother ,sDa. ' ,

D O I N G . E N G L I S H - L E S S O N S 2 7 5

and her feelings naturallv and comfortabh'in Enslish. She u'as interested in both Chinese'and

English l iterature, and she read for leisure English magazines. Sometimes, she w.ouldbring her old magazines from home to the class libran. and share them rvith her students.

the reading l"rro.r described belorv was run smoothlv and the teacher engaged studentsin high-level r,e.g., be)'ond factual) qugslions about the stor) thev had read ill"through rh.

, ,lFsson Engl ish u 'as coni ls tent l r used br both-TeacFer and students and the c lassroom / /atmosphere w-as interestinglv both relaxed and seriously on-task. i f)

t*, D""A reading lesson in classroom A iegr^'s c.( ;"s

The teacher began the reading lesson n.ith the follou-ing extended introduction:

T : O k a l ' . . n o \ 4 , ' . . h a v e v o u b r o u g h t b a c k . . . F l o r v e r s f o r M r s . H a r r i s ? . . . N o w . . .I 'd l ike to discuss one thing u'ith vou. . . for this lesson for this book. Have vou evervl'onderedWHY this book is called Flou'ers for N{rs. Harris . . . and not a Dior dress forMrs. Harris? . . . Norv the u'hole book rve are talking about HOW Mrs. Harris . . .saved . . . horv she ll'orked extra hard to sa\-e up the monev . . . so that she could go toParis to buy the dress. And after that . . aa . . . again she w.ent through a lot oftroublesin order to get the dress back . . . and at the end it rvas ruined. So all along -"ve w.eret a l k i n g a b o u t a d r e s s . . . a n d M r s H a r r i s . . . b u t r " " - h v . . . r v h v F l o l v e r s f o r M r s . H a r r i s ?. . . A l r i gh tno \ { : . I r . r , an t t o spend . aa . . . t henex t f i t " t o tenminu tes o rso .and try to discuss in groups, okav? aam . . . )'ou can probablv find some hints . . .tow'ards the end of this book,'fn the last chapter.

The students swiftl-v formed groups and discussed.The teacher w-alked to a group and startedto engage students in thinking deeper about the storvTl:i

. r r t f l r . I r . -

ons. e .9 . . vv na l o ro l v l rs . Har r ls see ln 6-rrers?" or. "Besides the {lolrers. howelse can she feel fter ing some time with one groupshefioved onto another group and did the same

After about f ifteen minutes she addressed the rvhole cla

questions about the storv. The students readilv gave her answers and she built on theirarFswers to bring out the themes of the storv: friendship, hard w.ork and courage. Then shetalked about the class's upcoming examination and encouraged her students to emuiate Mrs.Harris, to w'orkhard and not to lose heart u'hen faced with difficulties. Most of the timeduring the lesson, the students seemed to be attentive to their teacher or on-task.

Background

This is a form 2 (grade 8) class of fortv-tu'o students, twent\-bovs and tlr,'entv-tu'o girls,aged between thirteen to fourteen.The school is located in a government-subsidized publichousing estate. The students largelv came from families r,r 'ho l ived in the nearbv publichousing estates. Their parents u'ere manual or service r'vorkers and their education levelranged from primarv to secondarv school.Ther, spoke onlv Cantonese at home. Most of thebovs read comics, ne\\rspapers,TV neu's, and pop vouthmagazines. Most of the girls readTV new's, love stories, ghost stories, netl:spapers, and pop vouth magazinesrlhe). did notread any English extra-curricular materiais.

s r,vho r,vere obserr.ed to be the most resistantto the teacher in the .l^rr.oo*."Th"rl ,r-".. plavful and testing, as if checking out u'hether I

Classroom B: a scenario oJ i

2 7 6 A N G E L M . Y . L I N

F6'l

could understand their insider jokes. When I asked them questions such as w'hether ther'

liked English or their English l"r.o.,r, thev replied in the affirmative, but in an exaggerated

u.rd loki"g u,ay. I sensed that thev r,vere trving to give me rvhat thev thought I was after, so

I said again that I w.ould like to hear u'hat thev reallv thought and that I rvould not tell

anythin; theJ said to the schooi authorities. Then thev seemed to be more w'illing to voice_--___ -_____:_ -_ _frli, f"Jli.rgr.fn"1'said thel found their English lessons boring and they did not know a lot

of the things the teuchiilllilar the iiacher would onl,v speak in English. I TkdJh1he)'did

""tt. ll th" te

".h.Lg.@g' !-",:Iplq" qf th*gl th#'d.9llnder stand . The r

said t6e tei&eiw.nd i-1)'""pt"* .gr"l"T"glirt\ u.rd lh.u u'ouid still not understand.Thel.said thev chatted and plaved in the classroom because the lesson rvas too boring but

they u-ere also afra!{ of being asked bv the teacher to ans$'er questions. They said thev felt

""ry?f,r." ("r,vitbcq!,ia9s) standing-p-th-eTe in TEerclass an?TEin!-inable to answer the

-ffteacner s ouestlons.

Thev irad a verv cvnical r'ie*' about school life and about their future. They said thel'

did not like learning English but thev knerv thev could not 6nd a job without English in tfus

societv. Thev also stated that thet did not consider thel' would be able get into universitr

Teacher Bt relationship *ith so-e of t to be stressful at times. For example.

,6i!tii6rhe had to chide the bovs angrilv for not pa-ving attention or chatting with their

neighbours. The follou'ing reading lesson w-ill give the reader a sense of the atmosphere ir-

her classroom.

A reading lesson in Classroorr'f B

The teacher started b-v saying thev rvere going to read chapter 30 of the storybook.

.,1 Adventures of Tom Sarvyer, in groups of four or f ive and each grouP would send a

$O f t aJ '.=

representative to retell the stor-v in 5 0 to 60 words to the whole class. Each grouP was to

lvrite down a summarv on a piece of paper first and the summary should cover the main

points in that chapter. As the teacher u'as saving these instructions, the class was noisy and

some students said loudly in Cantonese that thev did not know rvhat to do. The teacher

repeated her instructions and w-alked around to help students to form grouPs and to explain

again what thev u,ere expected to do. Most of the students were off-task, chatting and joking

in Cantonese. A girl at the back rvas w-riting the lvrics of a popuiar Cantonese love song on

a piece of paper. There seemed to be a lot of non-teacher-approved activities going on in

the classroom and a lot of noise. The teacher seemed exhausted circulating around the

classroom trying to get her students to do the task. All through the lesson English was

consistentlv spoken bv the teacher w'hile, in contrast, Cantonese was invariablv spoken by

the students except rvhen thev rvere called upon to do the storv-retelling. When they did

that, thev read mechanicallr. from a series of sentences they w'rote on a piece of paper while

most other students continued to chat noisilv on their own. After a student had finished

r e a d i n g f r o m t h e p a p e r , t h e t e a c h e r r v o u l d . " ) . . . \ , . ' '

or'_Quite nice, thev have covered some of the points" and then immediatelv called another

gro,rp'r d had to

get all the retellings done rvithin the lesson.This might explain the brev$rof her feedback

to the students.

D O I N G - E N G L I S H - L E S S O N S 2 7 7

Classroom C:

Background

This is a form 2 (grade 8) class of thirtv-nine students, nineteen male and twentv female,aged from thirteen to fourteen. The school is located in a torvn close to an industrial area.The socioeconomic backgrounds of the students and their sociolinguistic and extracurricularliteracv habits are like those of their counterparts in Classroom B. Their English fluency, ascan be seen from horv and lvhat thev spoke in the classroom, seemed to be rather llmitedfor their grade level. There n'ere manv r,vords in the textbook that thel' did not understandor did not knolv hou- to Dronounce.

When I informallv interr-ieu'ed a group of bovs after class, thev expressed that theyfound English "boring" and "difficult" but thev also said thev knerv it w.as verv important tolearn English well. Thev found schooi u'ork generallv boring but said thev still preferred togo to school because they said thev could at least meet and plav rvith friends at school.Thevsaid it lvould be even more boring to stav ail dav at home. "Boring" lvas a word these boysused frequently to describe their life and school.The reader can get a sense of the atmospherein their classroom bv looking at the foilorving readrng lesson.

A reading lesson in Classroom C

The reading lesson can be divided'lnto three stages. In the pre-reading stage, the teacherus - Heaven-Queen Festival,using the Init iation-Response-Feedback (lRF) discourse format (Sinclair and Coulthardrsing the Init iation-Response-Feedback (lRF) discourse format (Sinclair and Coulthard,f lZi; lf teacher wrote ten numbered readingcomprehension ques d the class r,vas given fifteen minutes to readsilerit i.rr*'.., from the text to th.l..r questions bv undffi

ten numbered reading a*1rt3n*-

the-text.T@The final stage is a.r u.rs*.e. ng stage.t6ucfiEitlicited answers from the .1".. r.rri.rg the IRF dircourse format. The teichei oftenh a d t o r e - a s k o ' " | u b . t o q e t r e s P o n s e s f r o m s t u d e n t s

u"a tn ;.I"lF6tt"-t'-g

"-*tpt;ken f.o.r-r th. un.*.r-.h".k;g rt"g"Jt" fi"d the creativitv

of the students bu;sting ;ut in u ,riche that e;ffiurilnteresting IRF diTourse. The teacher had been asking lactual reading comprehension

: i i ;-questions about the Heaven-Queen story that thev have just read. She came to question 9

(What happened r,vhen she ansr.vered her mother?) and first asked the question in English.No response was forthcoming and so she was no\{' elaborating the question in Cantonesein pursuit of a response from her students:

Lesson Excerpt

(To facil i tate reading, Cantonese utterances have been translated into English; thev arebolded and placed in pointed brackets. See appendix for other notes on transcription.)

870T: <What happened? . . . Leih-Lohn-Mihng (2) rvhen she answered her mum(1) her mum called her name, and rvhen she answered her mum, whathappened>?

872 Leih: <Her old-man fell off to the (ground;>. { chuckling towards the end ofl . t _nls sentence I -

a scenarlo oJ inconpadble habitus

T v

2 7 8 A N G E L

8 7 2 . 5 S s :8 7 2 . 8 T :873.2 Chan:8 7 3 . 5 S 1 :8 7 3 . 8 S 2 :874T:874.5 L:874.8 / /T:875 L :875.2T:8 7 5 . 5 S 1 :8 7 5 . 8 S 2 :876T:876 / /538 / 6 . J = = l :

M . Y . L I N

=Haha! hahal haha! hahahahal {other Ss laughing hilariously}

<What?! (2) louder> I {against a background of Ss' laughter}

<Her old-man fell off to the street)l {chuckling } =

=Hihihihik!t= { laughing }-< ( l t t he re ta s t ree t ) l(ls there a street)? {T in an amused tone; some students lau

<fe l l in to t / the sea)==<WHERE did he fall into>? {quite amusinglv}(Sea that is) .(Yes . . . fell into the sea).

<fell off to the street).

<Her old-man feli off to the street).

// Right? (1) Her father dropped into the SEA!==

Hekhek! {laughing}Right? (2) <l; that manner died> . . . SHHI (1) <okay>

. . . SHH! number ten .

The need to base one'S ansrl'er (or to "find the ans'"ver") in the text has been a reculrent

concern of the teacher voiced in her recul.r.ent PromPts and follow'-up questions such as

"\\'here can r-ou {ind it?", "Does the book reall',' sav so?"' "l ook at paragraph -, h-"t - ,"

{bund in other parts of the lesson transcript. 'Hortener, there are times when a bookish

ans\\,er is boring to the studedts.The factual nature of the set of questions has left little room

for imaqination for these livelv thirt""rr-u"ut- t.

<finallv>

Iand that she coul:

for imagination for these livelv thirteen:,vear-olds. In the above lesson excerpt \\'-e see no\\'

se slot to do something plartul ' jg! l fgt i t t -{ : l )# '

forward a contribution that r,r.ill iurn the r,vhole storv into a comic-stri!-tvoe of story, whict

a. i "@Sementandenjovmentcome-f romthesuper imposing

of l-porribl" and u.rp.edictable fantasv rvith the familiar, predictable, and boring -"lqT'

*o.td. It seems that ihe bov $'ho proo'iies this funnv anslver (turns [872], t873.2]) is a skillful

storv-teller $'ith a..udu undi"rr.., urd this is reflected in the hilarious laughter ofhis fello$

-----= 'ide school. In their most favourite comlc strips,they enjov readlng oxtr ,:.

raEGrs usriall.

students.

Classroom

Background V

This is a form 1 (grade 7) remedial English class of thirtv students' twent)'bovs'.ten girls'

aged betrveen t*iue to thirteen. The Jtudents came from families u'ho lived in the nearbr'

public housing estates. The socioeconomic backgrounds- of the students and their

iociolinguistic"and extra-curricular literacv habits are like those of their counterparts in

Classrooms B and C.

The classroom at students were attentive to the teacher

and focused on thei tasks most of t

and rvere both eager and eten-gb]9&--en I asked the students in informal i I as s rvE-ether thg-lik.d En gl i sl-.

WAS \:CI\

and thei r Engl ish lessons, ther said vel andt the] especia l l ) ' . l iked th

said that the\,liked to h..rffiEnglis\eader

clearll tdthem. Thev l i . ta . ' she expla ined some $rammat i t :

' n g t h ; c l i f f e r e n c e b . i ' " e " . , . . l i 1 t l e ' ' a n d . . | e w , ' ' t h e t e a c h .

Iaugh)

D: a scenario tJ rr:lfuy

D O I N G . E N G L I S H - L E S S O N S 2 7 9

rF\'To-fin-ilthis mnemonic tip very helpful to them.Thev also@rf f i .The"saidthai thev. [@,h. , 'could learnEngI ishr ,ve1lbecauserev could see oing bet ter and bet ter in thei i ctanons. exerclses and

teacher had kept a persona ress chart for the students so that thellEew Eoil'irev w-ere-doing over time, and the teacher would giitidents.Thev felt that thev could succeed in their studies and rvould have a good chance,i lirthering their studies (e.g., entering universitv) in the future.

C a n t o n e s e t o e x o l a i n r o c rections, make the English

:tudents had made good progress over the academic vear, for instance, as reflected in their# r . - _ - - -and thei r improved scores in school tests and

rfter-school hours talkins to individual students ms, ror example,fo roe' ' - b . - to Drlng s to school , noisv in other teachers ' iessons, scor ing poor ly indictations or tests. I got a sense th;it the good relationships she had u.ith her students (ascould be reflected in their eager responses to her questions, and their co-operative responsesto her directives) might have something to do rvith the amount of individual attention sh,e

this 'vvar''. she maintained both a cHowever, that also seemed to make her school davs fullv packed and busv from earlvmorning till late into the afternoon. She seemed to be an energetic teacher w.ho did notmind doing extra w'ork and spending extra time u'ith her students. The reader can get asense of the atmosphere in her classroom bv looking at the follorving lesson excerpt.

A reading lesson in Classroom D

The lesson excerpt belou, is taken from the beginning ofthe reading lesson.The teacherannounces that she is going to ask them questions about the part of the English storybookthat thev have read in a previous lesson:

+69 T: <Okay, let me ask vou about the storv, and see if you can still remember itlLast time we told the ston' to page fortr; that is the last- the lesson before thelast lesson, and then in the last lesson rve told the storv from page forty tofortv-tu'o ! Nou' Iet me see if vou can still remember the story . . . Sinbad w-assail ing in a boat, remember?Those jervelries, then he had given awav half ofthe jer ' r r l r iesto. . . andhehadboughtaboat ,andhehadbought . . . recru i tedmanv sailors, after that, he also bought four boats, one sailing torvards the East,one tou'ards the South, one tow'ards theWest, and one tolvards the North.Sinbad himself took a boat, sailing back to rvhere? . . . sailing back to rvhere)?

{A girl raises her hand;T turns to her and savs} Yes,+78 Girl 1 {stands up and speaks}: <Brazil>l

478 .5T : <Go back to B raz i l >? l No : : : ,

lped them to remember the difference bv saving "little" has more letters than "few" and' i r uncountable

a

-tori texts come alive, explain grammatical points. and interact rvith students most of- -rhe time. She u'as the teacher rvho used the most Cantoneselfronq ahe eiqht teachersrhe time. She r.r'f,s-the teacher *'ho *SdiE* C@ersr l mV s tud \ .5ne De l le |ed tha t s lnce tne s tudents \ \ -e re s t r l l l -o rm I s tudents and r t 'e re

feGA:SU f.f"sing English all the time, using Cantonese could help them becomertlore rnterestecl rn tne lessons ancl understa-nd the lessons better. She also found that her

Teacher D lvas the form teacher of this class. She spent most of her recess. lunch. and

478. B479T:

2 B O A N G E L I V I . Y . L I N

Some Ss {speaking in their seats} : Baa'Gaak-Daaht!

No, not <Brazil> i (manv students raise their hands norv andT points to a bor

Bov 1 {stands up and speaks}: <Baghdad>!

<Baghdad>, hor'v to spell . . . <Baghdad>? English (that is), in English '

<nalhdad>. {Girl t raises her hand again;T turns to her and gestures her t

speak) Yes,

Girl 1 {stands up and speaks} :

b lackboard as the g i r l spel ls i t )Yes! (Horv to read this rvord>?

b-a-g-h . . . -d-a-d { T rvr i tes i t on th.

484T:Some Ss {speaking up in their seats}: <Baghdad>l <Baghdad>l

No, Baghdal, Baghdad, Baghdad (that is. okav, as thev rvere thinking of goin;

back home, alasl on the u-av back, thev ran into a GROUP OF> ' ' '

Ss {speaking up in their seats }: (monkeYs! monkeysl monkevs!)

Mo.,ievslYesl {T writes the rvord "monkey" on the blackboard} (That grour

of *o.rl.v-*en, that group . . . monkev-men that is, monkey-men that is, the.

took them to an island), w'hat is the na::me of this island? Can you spell th'

rvord? { Another girl raises her hand } Yes,

Girl 2 {stands up and speaks} : Z-u-g . . .

z -u ' ! , . .Girl 2 {standing up}: (d)

No, b, b for bori { T rvrites the word "Zugb" on the board } (How to read it;

A verv uglv plice.>

Some Ss {speaking in their seats } : Zugbl

Z::ugb ' .

Ss {repeating in their seats } : ZUGB!!

<Alas> I ZugalAu uglv place for the uglv men. (An ugly place for those ugi'.

men to live in.Those monkevs brought them there for what>?

Bov {speaking in his seat}: <(Dump him there)>l { Another boy raises Lu.

hand)

Yes,

Bov 2: <(Giant ? ? )><Rightl Ho',r 'to sav giant in Engiish>?

Another bov {speaking in his seat}: <Giant>!

<Giant in Engiish is . . . Leuhng-Mahn-Yih>!

{stands up and speaks} : Giant .

Giantl Verv goodlYesl { T rvrites the w'ord "giant" on board }

+87.f88 T:

L'79 \

4 ' 1 9 . 8 T .

4 8 1 . 5

483 T:

+9)- f 9 2 . 5 T :+ 9 2 . 81 9 3 T :

+9+.34 9 4 . 5 T+9s4 9 5 . 5 T :

+98

4 9 8 . 3 T :498 .54 9 8 . 8 T :+99499.5T.500 L500.5 T :

In the excerpt above, ttr..,.".tr.t a:ry+l],h i"t lh'storr about Sinbad sail ing in a boat.The teacher then asks the students where Slnbad ls salun:-----+---:i---'-:--- -6 lck to l last three l ines in turn [46911.

The teacher gir,es negatjve feedbacllo a student's answer in turn ItZ8.5] Some othe:

students i-rrildl"t.lu speak out their ansrvers from their seats (turn [478.8]).The teache:

signals to a bov to speak. The boy stands up from his seat and gives his answer (turn [479. i;

Bia-Gaak-Daaht).We see that in this rvav, the teacher maintains the practice of having :

r-accepts" ence to a student response.

This time th" rtnd"trEiiilEiis correct (turn [479J]:B-fr:GaIR:Daaht).The teache:

reDeats it and immediatelv initiates another question in the feedback-cum-initiation slt:= =

(tfi-1 [479.8 | l. TliS!-uestion is interesting. It seemq to be long to a ditterent tyPe ol questr, :

from the first question she asks (see last l ine in turn [469]: <B>Sinbad . . . sail ing bac.

D O I N G - E N G L I S H - L E S S O N S 2 8 1

to u,here?>). Instead of follou'ing the storvline and asking about r,vhat happens to Sinbadnext, the second question requires the students to give the spelling of the English version

of the name of the place, "Baa-Gaak-Daaht", rvhich has been offered bv a student as aresponse and acknorviedged and repeated bv the teacher (turns [479.51,[+79.81).lt seemsto be a question that requires the students to focus on the linguistic aspects of the storv.'fhev

have read the English text (pp. +0 +2 of their storvbook), and the Engiish text is no\,vlaid out on their desks before them. The question requires them to shift their focus from

,tnc content ot tne stor lJor a unr le to concentrate on tne tanguage ln \ \ 'nrcn t tus contenl ts

6iTE6T6icher as an acceptablfnal ansrr'er.The teacher's follow'-up question on the eliclted

ans\,'er would have the effect of getting the students to reformulate the answer into an

ormat - "in (the- woiiliTh-et-GacEer uses in her fbllor.v-up

in i t ia t ion; see l ine 2 in turn [479.8]) .We see in turns [481.5] and [483] that the teacher ult imately gets the L2 formulation

of the answer -"Baqhdad", and she lvrites it on the blackboard. Only L2 ans\,vers are w.ritten

on the blackboard. It seems that the teacher's act of lr.riting the student's resoonse on the

blackboard has the .ff".tiFI.,f"r.l.rg ;fi;l-anslver status on the response of the student

l He lman , I 9B 3 ; .

st IRF format. The secon ormat mav

.5f-""t"d to get the students to locus o" th. Ii"gffilipects of the final L2 answer. For

brmat immediatelv followed bv thv tne-----.....j

the teacher cah-set the students to reformulate their earlier L1o 5'4,fonseilhto tFaEnguapfihat ther"are supposed to be learning in the lesson: English.This

specral use of t Ftands in contrast wi use of

------.-tuUnlikeTeJcher C, r,vho often does her initiations in an L2 (Question) L1 (Annotation

of Ouestion ) seq uence. Teacher D often starts r'r'ith L 1 to initiate a question about the storv.| , " 'Teacher D seems to be using a couplet of IRF formats to do consecutivelv tr.l.o differentTeacher D seems to be usinq a couplet of IRF formats to do consecutivelv tr.l.o differentk/-'storl'1e.g., turns [469]-[479.8]).The {ocus5 on the.o.,i".rt of th.ffi

- -asked in the initiation slots follow natura-llv from the storl'linelThe silond IRF format (e.g.,turns [479.8]-t483]) is used to get the students to reformulat" i" EfrE-iE'-eriefitonese

I I?F

J0r

example, the second IRF format is repeated in turns [483], [483.8], [484] to get the students'ro sa\- t 'agnoao ln Engilsn

the IRF format inTeacher C's class.fFor instance,Teacher C alrvavs starts with L2 texts o. ' B^4"quesuons rn RF format. She then uses the L2-Ll Annotation formatin the same initiation slot to annotate the L2 text or cuestion. Students usuallv resoond irr

Ll.Then the teacher herself reformulates the students' L1 resoonse into L2 and confers on/ (<J/Ar5if2:

it thelinil-anslver st4iu!._rhis kind of @ effect of allowing the-,i.{ J"*=

; *ttudenG-t6lFt awav rvith [ 1 res ses onh'. The students are iot ."orri..d to - L

co an\. Aqi+<Ce)t _-stuoents to get awav wltn Ll resDonses onl\ '. lne stuoents are not reculred to do any

reformulation of their !Lry1."* LZ.The teacher does it all for the- in the feedback

represented as follorvs :

Teacher-lnit iation IL2-L 1 ]Student-Response IL1]Teacher-Feedback [ (L 1-)L2]

ofTeacher C in the reading lesson can be

In contrast,Teacher D uses t$'o different IRF formats in the follon'ing cvcle in the reading

lesson:

2 8 2 A N G E L M . Y . L I N

Teacher-lnitiation

Student-ResponseTeacher-Feedback

Student-Response

Teacher-Feedback

t tr@T"uc},.i 't"itiation I Ll /L2 ) (Ll /L2 = L1 or L2)

/ 1t r

L 1L 1L 1

L l /L2 lL2 l , or use (2) a

6*mF, interntined nlth a uage-tocus

W6GGnoted above-[6-at e alwavs starts i:

Ll.This stands in sharp contrasi rvith the discourse practices o i C r.ho always star'-

n'ith L2 texts or questions in her initiations' It ars to me that always starting in L -

Teacher D ahvavs starts from u'h lFilstudent can fui-

G-fr-ihut u'ith. Qn the other hand, br usin the bcus IRF form::

fficars IRF format, she can also ush t s to *ove f.c,t:-

what @xpressions) to u'ha1 e more famili::

with (e'g', L2 to@iottt)

5 Doing-English-tessons in the reproduction or transformation

of habitus?

You rvant to knorv rvhv I don't PaY attention in English lessons?You really want::

knou.? okav, here's the reason: NO INTEREST!! It 's so boring and diff icult and I c;:

never master it. But the societv wants You to learn Englishl If Vou're no good :-

English, -vou're no good in {inding a job!

Thls kind of discourse practice allou,s the teacher to interlock "

.to2fot"t :it\"

lutgtus'

focus in the reading l"iro.t. There can bt '

The above lvas said bv a 14-vear-old bov from Classroom B to the author in an intorm'

intervierv after class (originai in Cantonlse). In section 2 above w'e mentioned Bourdieu '

notion ofhabitus refe.rin"g to ianguage use, skills, and orientations/attitudes/disposition=

schemes of perception that a .trlta "

endow'ed rvith bv virtue o-f socialization in her l*o

familV and communit-y. The four classroom scenarios outl ined in section 4 above c-'

(3) Start (2) again to focus on another l inguistic asPect of the L2 resPonse elicitt:

in (2); or return to (1) to focus on the storr-again'

of the studentstural caPital

the schooi lesson: ther har,e both the right kind of attitudes/interest and lingui'::

skills/confidence to pu.ii.ipur" in high-ievel liscussions on the themes of the storv in EngL'':

rvith one another urrd rh" i"..h... Doing-English-iessons in Classroory!19p1glucg1' ": -. r . | - , - - ' ^ - - 1 . . . - - l ^ . ' - A f l o n s a n ( l O D l ( \

- - .

re inforces, the students 'cu l tura l capi ta l i

6 i l i r i . r o f succeeding in sc ;.tett E.-th teacher and students are nc''

r lemmas cau incomPatlbrutv oI naDltus,t f f and thus the atmosphere of re lar

dl Student-Response is in L2

6a..h.t never starts an initiation in

hu.*o.tt ' in her classroom.

D O I N G - E N G L I S H . L E S S O N S 2 8 3

In Classroom B, however, u'e r,vitness a situation of incompatibilitv betr,veen students'

habitus and what is required of them in the English lesson.The 14-r'ear-old schoolbov's

r oice quoted above expresses vividlv w.hat Bourdieu rvould call a rvorking class child's' ub j e cti v e e xp e ct at i o n s oJ ob j e ct i v e plgb ab i I t t i e s :

social class, understood as a svstem of ob jective determinations, must be brought into----i-- | rr I!relation not r'vith the individual or lvith the "class" as a populattonJ . but w'ith the

class habitus, the svstem of dispositions (partiallr') common to all products of the same<structures.Though-t isimpossible-Ior o1l members of the same class (or e\en tno of

them) to have had the same experiences) in the same order, r!_:: r:lt"g tb!=ggb

member of the sa is more likeh' than anv member of another class to

en conlronteo \\' freouentTSr the members of that class.The

objective structures rl,hich science apprehends in the form ofltalistrca

(e. g. emplovment rates , income curves , probabilities of access to secondarv education,

frequency of holidavs, etc.) inculcate, through the direct or indirect but always

con \e rqen t exoe r i ences uh i ch p i l e a soc ia l env i ronmen l i t s Dhvs ioonomr . w i t h i t so r o r . u

"closed doors". "dead ends". and limited "prosFrects", . . . in short, the sense of reality

or realit ies which is perhaps the best-concealed principle of their efficacv. (Bourdieu,

1977 , pp. 85-86; underlining added)

In Classroom B, rve lr. itness students rvho seem to find themselves confronted w'ith a

languag-e in which the)'have neither ihterest nor competence/confidenc9, and yelL l."g.r€"

| he t . re - cogn i ze ] thoughTr rg i l 1 i asake r toSuccess in the i r soc ie t f f i,

' 1 " " 1 1 " i

' '

theffielves seems to U

from anv chances of social success. Their behaviour in the classroom seems to stem fromr - | | l : | : l . r - l

tne l r con l radrc to rv lee l rnqs aDout Dotn tner rse l / - recognr l ron o I lnaDr l r t | to cnanqe. ano angrv

p@h Ju "t

gug.t- om practi ce s o pp o sitiiiill6TE-cur riculim

and the teacher. fully expectino themselves to be never able to master the "diff icult". foreisn-ianguage anyway (..g., b)' ignoring the lesson task or the teacher altogether and engaging

inTee-r dItrinTEeii mother tongue most of the time).Their resistance seems to resembie

that of marginalized ethnic -i.roiities in North American inner citv schools (e.g. , Solomon,

1992).

We also 'vr.itness a je.4cbslilllilgnma in Classroom B. The dilemma is one of having to

teach English in Engiish only, as this is her school's policv and, in qeneral, a methodological

F**rylfgl dominant in ELT rEnglish language teacherledrication in Hong Kong, and at---,-------iE-e same tim e hiiifrS@ her limited - English-profi ciencv and apparently uncooperative

students to understand her instructions and expianations as lvell as to complete the lesson

task within the time limit of the lesson.We ll ' i tness a teacher running u.ourri the classroom

to get her large class of 42 students on-task. She lvas exhausted and frustrated, and

apparentlv failing to get connected in anv meaningful rvav to her students despite her painfulefforts.

Let us turn to Classroom C, u.here u'e rvitness a slightly different picture.The lesson

is perceived as equallv "boring", a rvord used bv the students describing their iesson and

their view of English to the researcher in an informal after-class interview'. Holvever, the

teacher seems to be (partially) successful in getting her students to collaborate in extracting-

i n l o r m a t i o n t r o m t h e S t o r \ t e x t t o a n S \ \ . e r p . "

kind of quest-6-ns tvpicallv found in school tests and examinations in Hong Kong. She seems

to,bc.irlQpgli!&examination skills albeit in u'a) s that students might find unengaging. The

mother tongue is a tool she uses to get her l imited-English proficiencv students to

2 8 4 A N G E L M . Y . L I N

collaborate in this text-information extraction process. She seemqjlgbgjsnnggl:1lI'_---=--T-.r,:ars to be amusecl D\ tll

s t f f i teacher r "q . . i reso f themin theread ing lesson.Us jng th .oi, the teache

.o'.iiQ hEt ttud.nrr t n,o u;1'*,i fislthog! f orientations to text, albeit with van'in;

iloss her studentsr 'sef for ts , thestudentsmavbecomebet terverse

, tud.nt r r t to-" l " t ' . he smi les and appe

,t*EFil[ iun unr*J1,GoQh the also seems to be eager to socializ'ti" be eager t9i9g9]t" students into the tex:

infbrmation extraction min?ret. 1

in examination skills although_their basic habitus orientation towards English findinq

boring and irrelevant to their dailY life - rem

f f i . . g o : t o d e a } r v i t h h e r d i I e m m a : h o l v t o g e t h e r s t u d e n t s t .collaborate in a task perceived as unengaging bv her students'

Nol' Iet us turn to Classroom D.Th. students come from a similarlv disadvantage :

socioeconomic background as their counterParts in Classrooms B and C' Like the::

counterparts, their h;Litrrs does not equip them r.vith the right kind of attitudes and interesl

. ' " i 1 j , , h i l , u . ' d c o n f i d e n c e i n l e a r n i n g E n g l i s h . .i tus being transformed h the creative discursive

benefit more from their

i-Tor their students rather iELilutt ftom merelr' flollou'ing ELT prescription=

( instance, rvhile thrg ng onh'the target language I:.

teac

in learning u lun*rruge that is otherw'ise perceiied ai-tlifficult", "boring" and basicall"

i,."l.u".,t?ffi isco-ingfromaCantonese-dominantworkin;c lass habi tus.

Searching for the appropriate methodoiogl'fordifferent_kinds of students coming frorr.

different culirral "nd

roci"i backgrounds r'vith different habituses becomes an importan:

rask and possibilitv forTESoL pru.-.titio.r"rs w.orking r,vith students T:T

b."kqt:unds tha:

do not give them the right i.,"d .f ."1 i ta l . I t seems thatTESOL pract i t ioners r t r - -

- esc r l o t l on o I us l ng o I I l \ t l l c t d r xq t r 4 r r xudK \ - - '

i t becomes clear from observinq the above tou:

ms that it is 1 or L2 is used that matters,$ut rather, how Ll or l=2 ca:

be used to connect r,vith students and to h"lplE.ttt ttunsform their attitudes/

ce, unlike the self-defeating

s f a bov's voice above), students i:

Cturrroo-,-,' D are not pessimistic about their life chances:"1 rvant to further my studies.".-'

feel confident about leurni.rg English."- these are rvhat the students in Classroom C tol -

the research.r.l6eir school resulis confirm their nen-lY-found confidenqe and exPectatio-n'

---Thecuestion th6-i "ot

one of u,hether to use L 1 or not but one of searching for appropriat'

L."",it" discursive practices r'r-ith one's orvn students. In this resPect'-we confirm Coll in'

(.1993) observationthat individual creatiYe, discursive agencv can make translormation '-:

on"'r ro.,ul * 'o.11 porrl !outlined bv Bourdieu (1977).

D O I N G - E N G L I S H - L E S S O N S 2 8 5

6 Interrogating symbolic violence

Although 1\'e can see a glimpse of hope in creative, discursive agencv in transforming ourhabitus and life chances, ure cannot neglect the need for the continual interrogation ofpolver

andf ie ldsof va luat ioninthelargersociet . " ' (Pennvcook, 199' l ; Luke, 1996). For instance,

thei aie still in a race the rules of rrfiich arellicfZoi

alreadv wav ahead of them in the race (e . g. , Classroom A students) . T.frese rules are, however,. t t l t t , - . l l l #

o l ten taKen lo r g ran tec anc Percer \eo as legr i lma le D\ . a i l Parues : teacners , s tucents .

xe6sffifl-rh-dfrT-(s€€sec t ion 2 above) .

interrogation, together r,vith their students, of the role of English in their societ,v and in

their life chances to develop a critical social theorv ofpractice (Luke, 1996).As Pennycookpoints out,

students in Classropm-p_m.Qhlh;rr-e found I bit of the cultural capital that ther, need for'sch6ol and social success through their te t

In some senses, then, the English la1gytrlgg"m, along rvith other sites of culturalproduction and political opposition, could become a kev site for the renerval of bothlocal and global forms of knowledg-lFennvcooEJgg4-, p:'T}6, "-

Understanding existing practices and the sociocultural and institutional situatedness of

classroom practices is a first step tqrvards exploring the possibilitv of alternative creative,

discursive practices that might hold promise of contributing to the transformation of the

students'habitus. More of these stories aw'ait another opportunitv to be told. It is my hope

that through telling these lived stories of classroom participants, TESOL practitioners and

researchers can gain some insights into hou- our role as teachers of English in the w.orld can

be reassessed, reconceived, and ultimatelr', repractised.

Appendix: notes on transcription

The numeral preceding each turn is the transcribing machine counter no.; a speaking

turn is referred to as: turn [counter no.]

Simultaneous utterances:The point at rvhich another utterance joins an ongoing one

is indicated bv the insertion of tu-o slashes in the ongoing turn.The second speaker

and her/his utterance(s) are placed belorv the ongoing trri., u.rd are preceded Ly'two

slashes. The latching of a second speaking turn to a preceding one is indicated bv a

single equal sign, "=".

Contextual information: Significant contextual information is given in curly brackets:

e.g., { Ss laugh }Transcriptionist doubt: Unintell igible items or items in doubt are indicated bv

question marks in parentheses or the r'vords in doubt in parentheses.

References

Bourdieu, P. (i973)'Cultural reproduction and social reproduction', in Brotvn, R. (ed.)

Knowledge, education and culurcl change . London : Tavistock.

Bourdieu, P. (.1917) Outline of a theor,v oJ practice (translated bv Richard Nice). Cambridge:

Cambridge Universitv Press.

2 8 6 A N G E L I V I . Y . L I N

- (1984) Distinctjon:A social crit ique oJthe judgenen oJtusrc. London: Routledge and Keg::

Paul.- ( 1 9911 Language and s,vmbolic power. Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard Universitv Press.

Bourdieu, P., and Passeron, I. C. (1911) Reproduction in education, soctetSr and cuhure. London

Sage.Coll ins, (1993) 'Determination and contradiction: An appreciation and crit ique of the work o:

Pierre Bourdieu on language and education', in Calhoun, C., LiPuma, E., and Postone

M. (eds) Bourdieu: Crit ical perspectives, pp. 1 15-138. Cambridge: Politv Press.

Delpit, L. D. (1988)'The silenced dialogue: Pon-er and pedagogv in educating other people.children' . Harvard Educational Review, SE(3), 280-298.

Heap, J. L. (1985)'Discourse in the production of classroom knorviedge: Reading lessons'

Curr icu lum lnqui r l , l j t 3 t , 24j 219.

Heyman, R. D. (1983)'Clarif ing meaning through classroom talk. Curriculum lnquiry,l3(.1 t.

2342 ' , .Hollidav, A. (199+) Appropr)ated methodolog,v and social context. Cambridge: Cambridge

Universitv Press.

Jenkins, R. (1992) Pierre Bourdieu. London: Routledge.

Lin, A. M. Y. (1996) 'Bii ingualism or l inguistic segregation? Svmbolic domination, resistance

and code-srvitching in Hong Kong schools' . Linguistics and Education, 8(l), 49-84.- (1997) Hong Kong children's rights to a culturallv compatible English education. Hon;

Kong Journal oJApplied Linguisrtcs, 2t21, 2148.

Luke, A. (1996) 'Genres of pou.er? Literacv education and the production of capital ', in Hasan.

R., andWill iams, G. (eds) Literacl' in societ)', pp. 308 338. London: Longman.

Mart-vn-Jones, M., and Heller, M. (1995)'Education in multi l ingual settings: Discourse.

identit ies and porver' . Linguistics and Education, 8(1), 3-15.

Mehan, H. (1979) Learning lessons: Social organizati 'on in the classroom. Cambridge, Mass.

Harvard Universitv Press.Penn-vcook, A. (199+) The cuhural poliilcs of Engltsh as an international language. London

Longman.Sinclair, J. M., and Coulthard, R.M. (1975) Tbwards an analysis oJdiscourse:The English usedb.;

teachers and puptls. London: Oxford Universitv Press.

StngTao Jih Poo, Niur: 21 , 1998. English important for job promotion: blow' to mother-tongue

education [in Chinese].Solomon, R. P. (1992'S Black resistance in hi7h scfroo1. Neu.York: State University of NewYork

Press.

Lb+

C h a p t e r 1 8

Assia Slimani

EVALUATION OF CLASSROOM

INTERACTION

N T I L R E L A T M L Y R E C E N T L Y , T H E T R A D I T I O N i n t h e f i e i d o f

language teaching and learning has been to expect a better understanding of the

teaching/learning phenomenon bv making a broad comparison betr'veen the learnin

ffiAhrrsrrg-ation ,hoJS- oi I qutcomes. What happened during theimplementation of the method u-as largelv ignored r,vhen it came to the evaluation of the

Wertheimer (196+\ and Smith (1970\. u-ho focus-ed on outcomes and oaid- . - t - |FNBhrw

and evalu6te r ' rhAt isJc la imed to be learn.l r t t le at tentron to process. \ X f VD lO f N t ee\chapter proposes to anal rse and evalu6te nhf t isJc la imed to be learned f rom

teacners ano learners contrlDuuons. Learnrng oulcomes are not necessarllv tne rellecuon

ofih--e teacher's plan since, in the prfess of accdnpfishing instructional objectives,

ticipants and leads to the creation of a '"vho

range or rea nv of which are perhaps unexpected

The observation of language classes tvpicallv shou's t s not something

prepared beforehand bv the teacher and simplv implemented with the students. Instead, it

does, it might nevertheless include or exclude aspects that neither the teacher nor the- - - . -

l e a r n e r s h a \ e a n t l c r p a t e d . r r o D l e m s , q u e r r e s s and

classroorn interaction. The method, u'hich rvill be described later, allor.r's a detailed studl

of the classroom interactive processes in attempting to un and evaluate the oualit

interaction u'hi defined as lrhat learners

claim to have learned from a particular lesson. 'rro*tImportance of the study of classroom interaction

Allrwight ( 1 984a) suggests that a high proportion of apparent mismatches between teaching

and learning could be explained i

teachers' and learners' contributions. Learning outcomes are not necessarily the refl n

is iointlv constructed bv contributions from both parties so that learners are not iustpassively fed from the instructor's nlan.Thev can have preoccupations or goals on their

p-ersonal agendas that the) attempt to claritv during i

exper lence tnat a resson ooes not o l ten taKe rne c l recuon n * 'as DJEnned to take. or , i f i t

ils comrnents. influenced bv the teacher's as u'ell as the learners cholo an

I \ ' ^ 'r - . a O , v

) t 7 + 2 8 8 A S S I A S L I I M A N I

f,\^ I \\-/ \.emorronal dispositions, arise in the course of the'planned'lesson and create the learnir,.

gJ,PO't.i; i la.fto rrom rrus pornr or r. ieu, lessons are'co-productions'and'sociall) 'construci=:

er ents ' brought to . * i r t . . ,c" ,h.ough

pfitidTh6 learners' role in the creation of the co'production is not to be underestimate l-rn compaTlson rvith the role plaved bv the instructor. \g **5. how- powerful the latter .

in f luence, .noteachert"u.h" ,wi thoutconsent , (Cordeer"'- dimension r'vhi;:.

ties the teacher, in his/her attempts to make instruction reler,ant and comprehensible, rlir,

the Iearners, in their attempts tounderstand instruction and manage theii olvn learninfJf

the classroom ss is disregarded then r,r'hat learners get mjg!

'But I taught them that last rveek! ' , are onlr'' too common in staff rooms. They bear w.itne .'

to the faci that much more than the investigation of the teacher's plan is needed to proviri.

t u l l e r exp lana t i ons o f t he l ea rne rs reac t i ons .

Seen from this point of vieu-, it a ict which linguistr

items u'i l l be 'uptaken' bv learners even before the lesson has taken . As argued b-

[198+a; , eac ! different Iesson for each individual earner as differer---

ngs are likell to bldralvn b)' different learners from the sqme gYent'

.---*A;fr4;Gshtb-tb.*'n, 1983;Ellis 1984;Ellis and Rathbone 1987) make pri,

assumptions about u'hat leJ.ners might see as optimal in the input. Hence, choosinq t-

examine the teaching effect on the learners' accuracv of use of the -s morphemt.

(Lightbou'n 1 98 3), ofWH-questions (Ellis 1984), and German rvord order and verb endin-;.

(Ellis and Rathbone 1987) might provide the investigators rvith the advantage of having:

rich description of the developmental stages of such features in frrst and second langua..

development. Horvever, brv predicting the subjects' learning outcomes, such investigatc'r:

mlght te missing out on lvhat has actuall) 'attracted the learners'attention in discourse.

Therefore. Allrr '. i =

investigation ofrvhat individuai learn6rs claim to have lear nteractrve classroc,i:

ffist preceded. What fol]owi is a discussion I uptake, and of r::

ffi616,tti". t" a better understanding and evaluation of rvhat ge claimed to be learnt:

fr6-*-."r, since u'e are concerned rl.ith relating learning outcomes to their immec..-.

r e r h a d i n t e n d e d ( s e e a l s o A l I w r i g h t 1 9 8 4 b , 1 9 E :exclamations of iurPrise, such a'

Uptake

Learning a languqqe is defined bv some proponents of communicative curricula 'as learnir- t: j

' " ' : ^ ' r ^ " r t - " : ' - " " " . - . - " - .

- _ - - - :

ho[ to ."r.rr r"icate as a member of a socio-cultural group' (Breen and Candlin 1980:9 -

F{il-*, it is amplv acknon-ledged -hat learning a linguage is not merely a matter of recal}r:-;

beads of items but rather of coming to grips u'ith the ideational, interPersonal and texr-'

knowledge rvhich is realised through effectiue con6ffi6i-ln ttte target langua;.

T6. one might argue that attemPri

r t language learn ing involves. In th is chapter . i :

. )nell as performan,. '

(9-

during classroom interaction

and potent ial l l determini t f f I rr lgn-ent. i t appears rather 9jbl l lo think of r .a. '. r ; i -

gettifra-aJ-lE-ar;i-rg aTld."." ,hr."eh ,"r,i s traditior

E V A L U A T I O N O F C L A S S R O O M I N T E R A C T I O N 2 8 9

understood. The interactive process lends itseif to the creation of an infinite set of learning

opportunities w-hich are not pre-established bv the teacher's plan. In such circumstances,

it appears to be practicalh'impossible to undertake the complicated task of designing a test

to assess the effects of interaction as it occurs, especiaiiv since the test has to be administered

at the end of the lesson. How'ever, the major problem encountered when attempt!4gtc)- 'ountered when attempting to---1. . r : : ; : : : :

ub lec ts c la lms ls tha t o l hndrng I

ffid. ILich might subsequentll'explain Iffi"q--,1rts emergence. lo do thrs, uptake has to be capture

f f i . - - - 1 - | ' . _ - - - - T - - } -' t look olace.,trut betore too much could happen to

research the of the direct impaCt of rnteracr l-claims is that of finding

i rvay to identifv and collect the learners' performance data or 'u ce identihed,

ilptake needs to be related to the classroom enr ironment u'hich might subsequentlv explain

its-emergerrce.

t65k-Elf,ie.,but before too m[ch cou[dFlbpen 16 th-e-ln6imants that w'ould obscure the,

dlrect rmpact ot the ..lFnt on th. l..tn".i claims. ',.-e-

6^-4 -|ga, ...--TEe ;;;blemlia-ot ffiest-based evaluation procedures. SLA

elicitation techniques rvould also fail to meet the objectives of getting unmediated learner

data. Elicitation procedures, similar to those used bv Lightbown (1983), provide the

informants with an obligatorv context of use; this enables the researcher to evaluate, under

experimental conditions, the informants' accuracy r,r-hen using the features which are being

investigated. Bv their nature, these procedures assume that one is looking for particularfeatures w-hich are predicted from the teacher's plan. Horvever, .uvhat is needed is a rvay ofidentifvinq r'vhat learners have go,lrfrcm '+eir experience of being in a particular class session.

*---9-;-----The solution eventuallv adopted to the problem of 'uptake'identi l ication must seem

somewhat naive at first sight: simpil' asking the informants to tell the researcher rvhat thev

believed thev had leu..r.d"in ttr" t"S5o

dl-ThF procedure outweighed its obvious shortcomings.

The great advantage of this approach is that it offers an oa9.1g11onglu'ar of getting at

u .ha t l ea rne rspe rce i ve thevhave lea rned . I tmakes i t po , , i b l "@

thle immediate environment lrom lvhich thev emerged in order to see if i t is possible to

estabI isharelat ionship.Theideaofrequi r inglearnerstote l lus@

difference between ' l ist ' and ' least', the investigator could trace th

nd studv the opportunities rvhere'i ist ' and'least'arose and scrutinise also the

learned n'ould supplv the researcher u'ith manageable amounts of data, directly referable

tg the c lassroom data. For instanc e

anscrl

clrcumstI t r l sLar lucs \ ! r I IL r r r r r r t r rL l rd !c l r lduc L l rusc rLcr l l s Pdr L rLurdr l \ uuLSLdr lu r r rE LU urc PUur r o r / - - \

npting learners to claim them as learned. ( - )

Ii should be acknowledged at this stage that I am dealing here w'ith the]earn€f/\--/

eotions of what thev believed thev har.e uptaken rather than lvith 'facts'.,:Flon'ever. in e r a r

prompting learners to claim them as learned.

potentialll' determining environment, a qualitative approach based on the study of uptake

seems to be an interesting phenomenon to guide investigation into a possible relationship

between interaction and learning outcomes.

Prior to moving to the description of the method, it is relevant to provide brief

information about the participants in the studl'. Thev rvere thirteen Algerian male 6rst yearuniversitv students at l ' lnstitut National d'Electricite et d'Eiectronique (INELEC).They

were aged betw'een eighteen and tu'entv. Thev all spoke Arabic as theii mother tongue and

French as a second or foreign language.Thev u,'ere on a six-month intensive language

programme (24 hours per rveek) to prepare them to undertake their engineering studies

in English. To benefit from their language training, the students rvere put in small groups

(in this case thirteen) according to the results of a placement test.Their exposure to Englisn

outside their classes r,vas limited to their classroom rvork and occasionally to listening to

folk music. Their instructor was a trained Aigerian male teacher.

;hch-ffi-gflt Eave made those items particularlv outstanding to the point of

P f u i l r P r r u t l r d l l l r r 5 ( u ( r d i l r r , L r r r r r r d ) f r d r r r q u . , - - (

-

i q xIt should be acknowledged at this stage that I am dealing here w'ith the ]earn€if

\--lcfi.-

perceptions of nhat the) believed the) have uptaken rather than rvith'facts'., 'Flon'ever, 'n qf

lr6al__the absence o l a sat is tactorv means of get t ing at learn ing in such a \ \ 'a) as to re late i t to i ts ' /

2 9 0 A S S I A S L I I V I A N I

Method

Uptake

The procedure developed to collect the learners'claims about uptake rvas to distribute a

questionnai.e or 'Uptake Recall Chart' at the end of "u".r '

obr".u"d ldilotr-l i iEii

rnl or mants to r.tut., i.r-iEii-i ofFiil..,"@ronun ciation an cspelling, 6nd in as much d.,ut!_g in the evenGTh-atTacjdst preceded {seeAppendix 1 in this chapter for the original lavout of the Uptake Recalj

€heTt.Tfterepproximatelr three hours (before too much had happened to them, but after

enough had happened to counter immediate recenctTfr-dTiimacv e@€56h-le5iiE{ u'as

p reFn ted r v i t h h i s oun up take reca l l cha r t accompan ied th i s t ime w i th an 'Up tak .

Identi{ication Probe'(seeAppendix 2 in this chapter for the Uptake Identif ication Prober.

This is another questionnaire asking the participants to annotate their uptake recall chart

by clearlv dissociating the items thev believed thev had actuall-v legl.gdj.lbef_pg4Uglu.- ' -lesson from those ther hacl alreaclv seen \\ ltn other teachers or the same teacher on previouileSSOn IIOm tnOse tne\: naC alreadY Seen lvltn Otner teacners Or tne Same teacner On prevlOU:

ocEisionslh tFis u'ar', I gave the data the strongest possible chance of b,q_ing lelatable tc

||,p+memteractionsinthIlessonb'u,ki.'gffilvestothethingsthe.l lb ,\ l , ' , uu'

above ali, it ro'ur .rti-ut"d thut th. d

thought thev had learned fro.m todav's Iesson.-EIh

instruments, m-e UFFatre Re?iII Charts and the Uptake Identification Probes, r.r-err

presented in French, a language r.vith r,r-hich the researcher and all the learners were familiar

Learning opportunities

Once uptaken items have been identif ied, it is necessarv to locate them in the relevant

interactive events of t}le lesson in r,vhich thev occurred. Learners lvere observed two hour=

a w'eek during the first six lveeks of the term. To carrv out the classroom observation

procedure a high qualitv audio-recording of class sessions rvas crucial to allow the tracing

of uptake in the learning opportunities r'r.hich arose in the lessons.The latter needed to have

aqoodnumberof j r rs tanceso| in teract i r .e l r .orkrr .h ichcouldbeclof f io t

t o u n d e r s t a n d u ' h a t m a d e l e a r n e r s c l a i m u p t a k e i n t h o .rfh-ere the teacher u'oulifbFFolding the floor during the entire lesson would not have suited

the needs of the studr'. Holvever. a relative lack of interaction seems to be a characteristic

r' *6 of lectures rather than language classes n'here a fair amount of interactive rvork generallr

|O ( - ,

takes p lace.

project, it '"vas assumed that the teaching of grammar to lor,v intermediate or advanced

beginners u'ould offer the most suitable atmosphere. A rveak as opposed to a strong group

, 1;of students might tend to seek more learning opportunities and pav extra attention to u'hat

/ lgo.r on in the classroom in order to improve their language command. It is noted that the/ subjects of this study rvere particularlr.motivated to master the second language.They were

expected to take their technical subjects in English at the end of an intensive language

programme rvhich served as the setting for this data collection.

Grammar lessons u'ere chosen because discrete points are frequently dealt with in sucn

lessons and it is relati leiv easv to find out u-hat has become of items in the learners' uptak.l ist. Moreover, it r,r 'as assumed that it u'as simpler for the learner to pick up discrete point..

- ' o ( A . I t u ' a s f e l t t h a t t h e a m o u n t o f i n t e r a c t i o n o c C u rD . n i t - - ) s ,Y\U \ f the learners'abil itv level and the "uhj'ct studied_.To produce the right conditions for the

J / : - - : r - - - - - - - - - - - - - ^ r - r - - - - r - - - - - - r - : - - - - r - - , - , - , - - - - - - t - : L - , 1 : - , r , 1

E V A L U A T I O N O F C L A S S R O O M I N T E R A C T I O N 2 9 1

such as one might expect to occur during grammar lessons, remember them, and afterr,vardslist them on the charts r.r'hich r'r'ould be distributed at the end of the recording.

To investigate the learnrn ortunities fullv. I exhaustir

text aids. I also took notes of w-hat went on theblackboard to help account later for the ciaims of uptaken items.

fr; s e6 pro.1 ( c/%Interview

To provide the studv r.vith corroborative data, it',vas felt necessarv to intervier,r, the subiects ). , ' : l :

- /tr,vice over the six-lveek period: once in the middle and once at the end of the data gathering. /

possible reasons r'vhich made them claim the particular items thev reported on their uptakecharts. The intervie\(. \{'as also believed to allolv learners to express other ideas thev feltrvere missing from their uptake charts. As the number of learners u,as rather ,-"i1,

"l lthirteen could be intervie.,ved in about one hour, the same day, after the third lessonrecording.The subjects w'ere individuailv asked to answer the researcher's queries n'hile theother learners were outside the room, u.aiting for their turn to be intervielved.

The intervieu., conducted in French or in Arabic according to the learners' wishes, wasan adaptive structured intervierv u'here respondents rvere free to gir.e details on the fiveissues which were follow'ed up u'ith all learners during the intervieu. session. The issuescould be summarised as follolvs:

1 Clarifications (ifnecessarv) of self-reported data on the charts distributed at the endof everv observed lesson.

2 Rationale for claiming those specific items on todav's uptake chart or, if possible, onthe uptake charts distributed at the end ofthe tvvo previous observed lessons.

3 PossiLil i t ies for the learners to extend their percepiion, of those items.+ Reactions to the benefits or otherwise of completing the charts at the end of everv

taped grammar lesson.

5 Feelings about the researcher's presence and the tape-recorder in the back of theclassroom during the lesson.

The second question, about the reasons for claiming certain items instead of others,was found to be most problematic to the respondents as some remained evasive rvhile others

r r iproduced overgeneralised statements as to r,r'hat made them claim those items.They w'ereunable to tell the researcher the reasons which made anv oarticular item outstandinq in

;iat- \ r . rdisco-uragdd the researcher from intervielving a second time as this question was the focus

of the interview'.

The respondents produced responses that rvere insufficientlv precise to be interpretedin relation to *'hat might account for their claims. Because I u'as observing the same groupfor the period of six weeks I could have trained the informants by asking perhaps moredetailed and specific questions about lr 'hat most attracted their attention in classroomdiscourse. However, as I had never even conducted an intervielv b"fo.gJ.uargfu{to lglwords in the learners' mouths. Moreover, being miles arvay fiom anv professional consultant,Idiff iprocedureandruntheriskofunderminingthedatagathering'

The intervier,v had to be given r,r'ithin the six observational',veeks as the learners'responseshad to relate to these oreciselv observed events.

-!?ri"Tl-iffi. I u.as hou'ever, onlv thinking of observing tr,r.o hours a week during six weeksof the informants' timetable, rvhich amounted to trventv-four (24) hours of intensive English

lessons per rveek. It seemed rather unlikelv that the methodological procedure would have

anv maior effect on the subiects'behaviour.

How.ever, to confirm this supposition, the results of the MichiganTest were used.This

test w.as already being used, at the beginning of the programme, as a placement test to

determine the learners' abil itv levels. This procedure produced four groups, one of which

rvas the group under st"d,".T ,i jJbg_lhlgg-ge, for the purpose of the project, considered

as control groups. All four groups r'vere folloui -

6r,-vn pace. Without telling the learners in advance, the same test was again administered to

I am avr-are of the fact tlrat the methodological procedure used to collect the data can strod

f-!{h._j!bjects'consciousness of the learning process and might, by the same token,t

pOl lute the Clata. I tus \ , \OUICI nave Deen tne CaSe l I tne CIaSS ODSer\-at lOn nac lastecl OVer a long

the experimentai group, as',vell as to the three control groups, after the six observational

periods. The pre- and post-test results u'ere inspected to see whether the study qroupsI

progress nad Deen s lgn lncan i l \ ' l n l luenceo Dv tne e t tec ts o I tne oes lgn ..f,f l t

---^+

Thbte l8 . l summarises the resul ts of the pre- and post-MichiganTests resul ts (T l and

T2 on the table).The table shou's the average score obtained bv the participants in the studr

to be slightlv higher (7+.76) than the one achieved bv group 2 (72.66).In comparison, the

average score ofgroup 2 dois not overtake that ofgroup 1, and neither does group 4 over

group 3. It seems rather unreasonable horver.er to attribute this slight improvement whollv

to the procedure itselfas it rvas applied on onlv trvo hours ofinstruction out of 24 hours a

2 9 2 A S S I A S L I I V I A N I

Method effect

week.The merit I can see the dure objectiveiv deriving from this

it did

the m to have negativelv affecte grouP.The total percentage increase for each group FTrepFeFei'tation, within the whole

programme, of the students' language training development in the {irst six weeks. It appears

to happen in an expected *'av: the low'er groups shorv more progress than group 1 (20 .65% t

and 2 (37.53%). This increase in language development is quite comprehensible since

knou ing much l ess a t t he ou tse t o f t he p rog ramme. s rouDs J t 57 .880o land 4 (103 .1200 rJ . - - -

huyg-lqq."-tegfn fodrnprovement. The total percentage increase therefore does not displarI O

anv convincing sign in favour of an interfering methodological design. The learners in group3 , in spite of my demands on them at the end of each of the observed sessions, do not achiele

in any markedil' different manner than what rvould be expected from them if one thought

that the procedure could have influenced the quantitv of their learning.

In summarl., t$'o tvpes of data r.vere gathered for the investigation of the issu@gli

specific claims collected through uptake charts and detailed accounts of thE learning

tunrtres obtalned through systematlc r v a t l o n o l a u d l o - r e c o r natura l l \

occurnng c m data.These w'ere supp ted wrth held notes taken bv the author.--- r-

The intervielr- 'r,r 'hich u'as intended to protide corroborative data didnot produce responser

tha t uere su thc len t lv p rec lse to De ln te rpre ted ln re la t lon to u 'ha t m e l r

claims.- ln the end, the bulk of nhat migtr i us find out abouTTfi€ + - 1 - , .rs se lecu \ -e

ffiiTiiln rnechanism would have to arise from a consideration of classlgom_tranlglipls in

relation to uptake charts ".

directed th"i.-

Both the teacher and the iearners under studl' rvere informed in general terms of the

goals of the research. Both parties u'ere told thai the project *-ur r.-.ki.,g a relationship'

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3* Group 4

SS T1 T2 SS T 1 T2 SS T1 T' ) SS T1 T2

1 8 0 8 82 7 5 8 33 7 + 8 4+ 67 83

5 6 2 7 66 6 1 7 87 60 75

8 5 0 6 49 5 8 7 5

1 0 5 8 7 5

1 1 5 1 7 81 l1 2

i

23+56789

1 01 l505 0

5 3a'7

)+

5 3q l

485 25 2. 1) l

l 1f l

501+- /

707 3797858

63767058781 2t 21 3

1 5 02 5 03 4 8++75 4 56++l+38+29+1

10 +111 +139 723 9 1 238 70

8 572588 38 2

6684771 158

/ o

3 63 53+2 ' , )

302 91 1

738 16 37 1l83 75 3)+

Auerage Scores For Each Group

T 1 T2 T 1 T2 T 1 T2 T 1 T2

6+.7 2 78 .09 52.82 12 .66 ++ 53 7+.76 l 2 5 5

Percentage oJ Increase For Each Group

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

20.650k 37 .53% 61.88% 1 0 3l 20A

E V A L U A T I O N O F C L A S S R O O M I N T E R A C T I O N 2 9 3

Table 1 E. I Average scores and Percentage lncrease for each group

xgroup under studr'

between what the informants report as'uptake' and the interactive process in which the

class part Hou'ever, I did "@ail

rvith them, not rvanting t

Gache ue emphasis to l inguistic items in order for learners to remem

manv as possible. It rn'as ImEThFGuaf ttaching and learning situati

inflilA&fb.r_aFfii; participan-ffi i i5n-ioth-rresearcher'sf ocusof interest.

frTatT5'hen fi ll i nEGTTFF-up-ln tact, lvhen hlling out the

'uptake charts at the end ot the hm-t-ODSeTTaUORaI lesson,

i t was noticed that some learners tr ied to peep at their peers' charts to enable them to

report more items than thev actualiv could. At this point it rvas emphasised to the subjects

that they should look upon the author as an outsider, a researcher rather tltan as a teacher,

and that rvhatever reports and comments thev made u'ould be entirelv confidential.Their

reports olr.. th"ir,

grades.----A;t

ttas planned to observe the same teacher rvith the same group for tu'o hours a

u.eek for six rveeks, the procedure became routine and mv presence r,vas accepted rvith ease

2 9 4 A S S I A S L I M A N I

bv the learners. The instructor also appeared much more relaxed after the first hour ot

otretuation. erl e

r-ies-istan-e6d avoidance on the part of the staff members u.ho alluded to the fact that 'realh',

not much is going on in our classes right nor'v' . The procedure discussed in this chapter n-as

part of u doftorJ project and this made the teachers particularlv apprehensive at having

iheir lesso.rs 'dissected' and looked at through'magnifving' lenses for research PurPoses.

How-ever, I persisted in spite of their anxietv as their refusal could mean the end of mv plans

Therefore, i re-ain indetted to the'chosen' teacher lvho, knowing that he could not openlv

refuse me u,ithout losing face, gracefullv adjusted to mv persistent Presence in the back oi

his classes.

The rest of the chapter rnill describe some of the tentative findings (see Slimani 1987

for a fuller report) *.tri.n might help us understand the relationship betrveen the classroom

interactive processes and uptake, and their consequences for evaluation studies. Tu'o

interesting characteristi., of ,tpt"k" emerged in the investigation of the learners' uptake

charts.Th"e first characteristic is that most of the learners' .l"i-t *.t" topi.ulit"d

instruction.ThesecondisthatleaInerJ;@othaspeiG.frl l

EeTrscuis-ed in detail belolr'.

Importance of topicalisation on uptake

A thorough studv of the inforinants' Uptake Charts and Uptake Identification Probes shouec

that a total of 126items w-ere claimed to har,e been learned.These items w-ere verbs, nouns.

adjectives, adverbs, connectors, auxil iaries, models and some set phrases. Almost all (11i

Ite-r €FgnFJfitrof what rhe respondents claimed to have seen and learned for the firs:

t i-" i., th*i* observed lessons, s

instruction. 1 12 out of 126 were-glvsrl-sorqe sort of promin being the topic c,:i ns t ruc t i on . 1 12 ou t o f 126 ' t "

{orN-rsffi-n nrhiG-iEEleilaining fourteen items or 11 per cent happened as part o:

c lassroom ln te rac t lon \ \ - l tn no [i upon tEern. The follorvin;

"iZdptr-ill"strate the various means used to focus upon o- ose items claimec

to have been learned: ' least ' , ' l is t ' , ' l ike ' , ' look af ter ' ,

' look l ike ' , 'match ' , ' in order to '

1 T: What's the dtference between least and |ist?

[pointing at both items r'vritten on the board] '

2 T: The mother looks after her son at home. Can vou use another word or expression insr;-:

oJ look aJter?

L1: Don't rt 'orrv.

L2: Not rvorried but uh the same uh.

L3: Uh, take care.

3 T: OK. When I sat' uh this car is like that one, w'hat does'like' mean?

L4: Similar.L5: Almost the same.

T: OK. Norv, John's nerv car looks almost the same. What is' looks'?

L 6 : T o s e e . . .

T: To see, uhuh. So, can vou replace'to look' here by'to see' and say'John's new car sees alm::

the same?

4 T: Let's see the instructions given here and see if thev match. To match, that's a n:"

word, I think [writes it on board].To match. [,] long explanation with atrcmPts to Ji-:

rynonvmsJollows.l5 T: OK, in order to. What does that mean?

E V A L U A T I O N O F C L A S S R O O I V I I N T E R A C T I O N 2 9 5

In the above cases the upta become the ostensible, - - - - a r - , : - . , G

toprc ot tne con\ersauon ratner man Derng srmPt\ a Part ot ctassroom drscourse. I ne eplsoclesdeat lng \4- l th these par t rcu lar lea lures are a lso seen to be lermrnated b\ . some feedback l rom

the teacher r,vhich might be expected to be interpreted bv learners as indicating that an item

is worth paying attention to.

The difference between the fourteen (11 per cent) and 112 (89 per cent) items claimedto have been learned during the sessions under studv is that the latter had, to a greater orlesser extent , been the speci f ic topic o[ inst ruct ion br har ing thei r meaning, thei r spel l inq,

thei r pronun. iut ion und' - -

b) ff i s'here learners

ofTEe?treersJhe teacher is seen to interl'ene bv approving the provision of information,It must be emphasised horver,er that this does not imed

items were intended to be taught prior {-o the iessons. Manv of them, as the followingelamples sho'w', arose incidentallv in the qourse of events and becamq topics in discourse

t=:-

6: L: . . . Bob/bought/five books and George did too.T: Bob?What did he do? [Teacher interrupts]L: Five booksT: What did he do?L: /bought/LL: Bought Icorrect pronunciation]T: Bought. Which r.erb is that?L: To buv.T: To buv, bought bought

7 T: . . . OK. Did vou like it?L: Yes. r 'es. I l ike i t .T : Yes , I?L : Yes , I l i ked i t .T: Yes, I l iked it or I did.

It appears, then, that within the limits of the analysis so far of the uptaken items, instructionhas exercised a rather positive impact on the subjects since 1 12 out of the 125 items claimedto have been learned for the first time during those observed lessons have become, howevermomentaril), teaching points. How-ever, a close examination of the data suggests that theabove statement alone is far from establishins the instructor s suDremacv as a learningfacilitator. A further investigation *tua rt

it6ffiFTEai-are claimed as ne\\' acquisitions in relation to those rvhich have apparently beenthe subject of similar intentions and treatment but rvhich failed to lead to anv claims on the

part of the subjects.

To evaluate the proportion of u'hat has been claimed to be learned from rvhat has been

pedagogicallv focused upon in some \\rav during those six instructional sessions, the sumtotal of the topicalised items rvas counted independentlv of rvhether thev had been claimedas ne\\ 'or otherlvise on the iearners'uptake charts.The results are summarised inTable18.2 where column 1 indicates the total number of items tooicalised in each lesson. Column2 presents the total number of items which are both focused upon and also claimed by atleast one learner to have been learned. Column 3 introduces those which have not led to

any positive assertion on the part of the subjects despite the attention paid to them, and

column 4 dispiavs the total number of items u'hich have been claimed to be partlv or

completelv familiar alreadv and therefore'ineligible' for learning claims in the context of

,'('fs',,"#

\ ( o \

2 9 6 A S S I A S L I M A N I

Table I E.2 Effect of topicaiisation

this stud\'. The data of the last coiumn lvere derived from the answ.ers to questions b, c, and

d on Upiake Identification Probes u-hich rvere distributed to help learners dissociate the

items thev believed thev had learned during the observed lessons from those thev had already

encountered in different circrimstances.The observed lessons in which these items occurred

again couid not fullv justifv their'uptakinf;@Lrave3 ed in situations which

f f i topical isedcasespror. idinglearningopportunit ies[orthe class, 92 failed to attract the learners' attention and 52 u.ere claimed to be somewhat

known as they had alread-v encountered them in earlier events unrelated to this study. In

other rvords, +3.75 per cent focused episodes have 'reached the target', while 35.93 per

cent went compietelv unnoticed and 20.31 per cent lr 'ere already to some extent familiar

to the subjects.

The above figures pror-ide us u-ith a picture of the'svllabus as reality'as opposed. s v l l a b u s u . p I u , ' i T h . r . . t h e m i d s t t l i n t e r a c t i v e

j!-:Tk-dffiST-the participants. The on-going interaction leads to the creation of a whole

range of learning opportunities, some of r'vhich are the results of the teacher's plan; others

arise as a br.-product of the plan, but some others arise independently of any intentions,

perhaps as a b-v-product of classroom interaction.

No precise comparison can be made u'ith th"'tr ' l l .b,tt u. pl. u. u

syllabus which attempts to predict rr-hat is l ikelr-to be learned from a planned learning

e , "65idc-t1ves. I w'as given the title of the structure to be taught and the series of exercises in

the textbook to practise the grammatical features to be introduced to the group.

Hence, the detailed stud-v of the classroom discourse has revealed that about 44 per

been pedasosicalh' Even

ough the teacher's objectives *.ere geared torvard the teaching of some particular

structural features, most of the 44 per cent $€re lexical items claimed to be seen and learned

for the first time in those observed e\.ents. Nevertheless it would be misleading to conclude

that the lessons w-ere not successful because learners did not claim many' of the structural

objectir,es the teacher had on his plan. Although it might be suggested that the shortage of

grammatical claims is due to the possibil i tv that it is much easier to report lexis because

2 J I

IESSONS Total No of

topicalised ttems

Topicaltsed and

claimed

Topicalised but

not claimed

Topicalised but

known

123A

56

+055J I

603 1) 1

1 72 11 63 11 11 5

I 6

l )

1 21 51 907

0l1 2031 +0l09

TOTAL ) 5 6 t t2 92 52

100% +3.15% 3 5 . 9 3 0 o 20.310k

E V A L U A T I O N O F C L A S S R O O M I N T E R A C T I O N 2 9 7

this does not require the use of metalanguage, in fact, a close perusal of the learners' uptakecharts demonstrates that the informants were perfectlv capable of reporting n'hat ,,vent onduring the course of the iessons in terms of grammar. Bv and large, learners succeeded inaccounting for the teacher's structural intentions bv reporting the title if not w-riting themain points of the sessions. Some er.en i l iustrated the teacher's focus of instruction bv

providing examples of sentences to shou. their comprehension or at least familiaritv witlwhat naJtaugtrf.firi. suggests that the informants did not lack the means of expressing thestructural obj ectives.

It is believed that one of the reasons r.vhv learners did not report as manv structural

features as lexical ones is that se\-eral of these features u'ere aireadv familiar to the class. Irr

fact, it is not surprising that most of the structural features emphasised during instruction

were not reported as nelvlv learned because most of them, if not all of them, 'i'r.'ere part of

the svllabus in high school. For instance, onlv one informant claimed to have seen and

learned the passii and active voices for the fi ist t ime during the observed events. In fact,

these affirmations are confirmed bv the 20 per cent of topicalised episodes in the lesson

which rvere claimed to be part of the learners' prior knorvledge. One could add that after

a few hours of teaching, second language instruction becomes verv much remedial as

structural features are p"resented u.rd iepi"rented for a review'.

It looks as if the learners' claims are somer'r-hat different from n.hat the teacher has

planned for them. His intentions might have helped learners to rehearse already encountered

(if not mastered) structural features. How'ever, in the process of carrying out the plan, the

interactive work has lent itself to 'tLe

creation of a r,vhole range of perhaps unexpected and

beneficial events (at least, to some learners if not to all).The learners'claims (44 per cent

on Table 1 8.2) remain a combination of the teacher's objecti ' l 'es but also their bv-product

as lvell as the bv-product of the classroom interaction. For these reasons, therefore, attempts

to evaluate the learning outcomes against the teacher's plan can be misleading if one does

not take into account the mediating interacti\.e processes rvhich characterise classroom

interaction.

In vielr' of the data expressed in the table. therefore. the teacher's influence over the

subjects'learning did not reveal itselfto be as strong as suggested earlier since approximatelv

55 per cent of w-hat has been focused upon did not apparentlv bear anv immediate fruit: 20

per cent lvere claimed to be alreadv familiar and 35 per cent rvere not, in anv w'av, mentioned

bv the learners.

It should be pointed out that about 77.45 per cent of the topicalisation was effected bv

the teacher. This is not particularlv surprising in vierv of the fact that the discourse rvas

unidirectionallv controlied bv the teacher, u-ho did 45 per cent of the talking.What appears

to be strikinglv interesting though is that a further analvsis of the effect of the teacher's

versus the learners' scarce opportunities (22.54 per cent) for topicalisation showed that the

latter offered much higher chances for items to be uptaken. Learners benefited much more

from their peers'rare instances oftopicalisation than from the teacher's.

A close scrutinv of the theme of topicalisation reveals that topics initiated bv learners

attracted more claims from the learners than the ones initiated bv the teacher. The analvsis

shorvs that out of 46 items init iated bv the iearners, 34 (73.9 per cent) $'ere claimed,

whereas onl,v 78 (49 .4 per cent) out of 158 u-ere claimed *'hen topicalised bl'the instructor.

Thus, the chances for claims are much higher ."vhen items are triggered by classmates. A

further emphasis on the profitabil itv of the learners' init iation is that it attracts more

reporters than rvhen topics are brought up bv the teacher.

Bv limiting to himself the initiative of topicalising most items for instruction, the teacher

does not give the learners much opportunitv to distinguish betrveen items which are

2 9 8 A S S I A S L I M A N I

important and those lvhich are not.To this particular teacher evervthing lvas relevant. It is

therefore possible that the reason r'r'hv the participants of this studl were not affected

by the teacher's efforts is that in his attempts to focus their attention on everything, no

specific aspect appeared as particularlv prominent in his discourse. Having little opportunitv

to raise topics for instruction, learners might have made some features outstanding to their

peers if only for the reason that, coming from learners, topicalisation appeared as a

memorabie event rather than the routine procedure of the teacher (see Slimani 1989 for

further details).

Finallv, in this discussion it is u.orth mentioning that the majoritv of the unnoticed or' lost' i tems (36 per cent) are instances of error treatment provided most often by the

teacher. Their analvsis has allon-ed the identi{rcation of a limited number of features which

differentiate their treatment from that allocated to the topicalised and claimed items ( 1 1 2,

or 44 per cent). As the illustrations belou' show-, it appears that absence of metalanguage in

the teacher's talk and straight pror.ision, most often bv the teacher, of the correct form of

the item under focus, w-ithout further involvement from the teacher or the learners,

characterise the strategies used to deai'uvith these items (see examples 8, 9, 10 below).

Cueing br-the teacher is another common corrective strategy sometimes followed by the

immediate pror,ision of the expected forms bv the speaker himself, if he sw'iftlv manages to

spot the error (example 1 1 ), bv his peers (example 1 2) but less often by the instructor.8 L: . . . and uh sometimes uh onWednesdav.

T: And sometimes on\Arednesdays. Whv onWednesdays?

9 L: . . . I looking for mv pen.T: You are looking for vour pen.

10 L1: . . . [Reading from the book] Bob drink a glass.L2: Drinks flnterrupts the speaker] .L2: Bob drinks a glass of milk everv dav and George does too.

1 1 L: Pencils have been sharpT: Sharo?L: SnarDened

T: Sharpened, ves.

12 L: . . . The simplest method is bv srvimming on one side. The rescuer pulls the victimbv the /hair,/LS: Hair , hai r [correct pronunciat ion]T: Yes, hair, br the hair. All r ight , . .

Nearlv a third of the lost items consists of corrections of tenses and -s morphemes.

Informants can, holvever, be assumed to be alreadv familiar with these features as they have

been the explicit content of instruction in other l.r.orr. or in high school. Despite preloiousexposure to explicit explanation ofthe rules and recurrent repetitions ofthe correct forms

of these features, the subjects of this studv persisted in misusing them when using the target

language. It is possible that the informants are not ready to learn these structures as part of

their interlanguage svstem and consequentlv their continued treatment remains pointless.at least, at this stage of their training. It is rvidelv accepted that features such as the use of

articles bv Arab speakers and some of the -s morphemes, for many English as a second

language speakers, remain unmastered in oral production tili an extremely advanced stage

of their training even if these features are explicitlv known to the trainees. This situation

makes us question the necessitv or otheru'ise of attempting to keep on correcting features

E V A L U A T I O N O F C L A S S R O O M I N T E R A C T I O N 2 9 9

w.hich have been persistentlv dealt rvith but still remain largelv ignored by some learners

during verbal interaction (see Slimani 1987 for further quantitative and qualitative analysis

of error treatment in this setting).

Learnerst idiosvncraciesJ

C",kt :'t^/LI \r ]L ̂'A'

The second characteristic which emerged fromlhe investigation of the learners'claims is

that uptake is highl,v idios,vncratic The}4rcl:hglfularlv revealing for evaluation whichqenerallv assumes the effect of instruction is somehorv uniT6iilI6r most

ffiss. Such evaluation takes aslts starting point the teacher's plan u.-hic-FIFGxp-eEI&ITd---#

control what learners r,vould see as optimal in the teaching. Even though the teaching in thrs

particular setting was not differentiated in anv obvious w'ay, i.e., in the sense that different

learners w'ere given different tasks, it appears that tvpicaliv only very ferv learners at any

one time happened to take the information in. Table 18.3 i l lustrates the extreme

individualitv w.ith which learners react to instruction. It presents the total number (N) of

items or linguistic features ( 1 25) reported to have been learned during the observed sessions

as well as the percentage of claims associated rvith them and the number of reporters that

each case has attracted.

Table 18.3 Percentage of claims made bv reporters on each linguistic feature, l

N of i tems ( i 26) %o of claims N ofreporters

2027

37.30%- t ) . d /

21.+2

l 523

Total 14.59ok

75

1 033

5 .s53 . 9 61 . 9 32 . 3 82 . 3 8

45678

Total 22.20o/o

121

0 .791 . 5 80 .79

9l 011

Total 3.16%

The results point to the fact that as manv as 74.59 per cent of the total number of claims

are reported bv no more than three learners at a time, and no felver than 37. 30 per cent of the

total are reported b1'onlv one person at anv one time. A negligible percentage (3. 15 per cent)

of claims is simultaneouslv made bv nine, ten or eleven subjects.These figures express the high

level of individualitv' and'autonomr,' u.-ith u.hich some subjects might face instruction.The

3 O O A S S I A S L I M A N I

frgures are particularlv striking as the teaching stvle was not individualised in anv sense' It

w"as unidirectionallv addresseJ to the class as a u'hole. One, therefore' might expect the

samei temsor l inguist ic featurestobecla imedbvmanvl"u. . ' " . 'W

is that individual learners reacted individuall-v despite the centrality ol'the teaching style- .Further evidence that learners s lvhen underqoirlg-mstructions is a

clearly illustrated in the 1 1 per cent o. fo,rrGEi-uptuken_items that w'ere mentioned earlier

,r.de. th. heading of the importance of topicalisation. While 1 1 2 linguistic features claimed

to be learned *"*." the focus of instruction, fourteen happened as a part of the classroom

discourse lvithout anv specific attention drau.n to them. Despite a teaching situation where

the classroom discourse is highly controlled bv the teacher and does not involve anv grouP

w.ork activity, learners hur,. ,ho*rl considerable individual reaction bv claiming items which

did not ,"."iu" anv kind of attention in terms of topicalisation, as defined earlier. The above

proportion might have been even higher if the teacher had allow-ed more room for learners

to exDress themselves.

Wt lt" some of the 1 1 per cent of t}e claims rvere traced back as part of the discourse

to deal u.ith classroom routlnes, some \'vere not found at ali in the transcripts.To explain

their presence on the learners' uptake charts, one can only assume t}at what'"vent on during

the lessons possiblv reinforced some previous learning and brought those particular words

back to the iearners' minds.The r,vord'slippers', for instance, remained a complete myster\

as I did not even recail the teacher having dealt, horvever remotely, with a situation which

might have led to such a claim on the part of the learner. Moreover, the examination of tht

l."i.r..r' charts revealed aiso'the presence of a felr. examples of appropriate generalisation.

For instance, n'hen the lvords'thick', ' thickness', and'thin' w'ere explained, one of the most

able learners reported having learned the w-ord'thinness' even though the latter_was not

uttered in class. The rvord '.rurrou" r,vas also claimed to have been learned b-v the sam.

learner in relation to 'thick' and 'thin'.

It is interesting to notice here this learner's tendencv to generalise so successfully fron:

a lesson event that he can believe the generalisation rvas taught. In this respeclr iI has been.

suqqested that one of the good Ianguage learner's attributes is to be able to organise tht

d

or-

Conclusion

The problem of making sense of instruction seems to l ie in the diff icultt ' of f indin.

appropriate research techniques capable of evaluating learning outcomes in relation to inpu:

f"iflr paper, input is seen as a co-production bl the participants in an instructional setnn;

und ther.fore renders the task of using traditional testing measures rather diff icult. \\.

attempted to find a rvav of relating the learners'claims to their immediate interactir.

environment.The technique used proved to be a useful means of shedding light on rvhat is ciaim.:

to be learned from the on-going interactive w.ork rvhich takes place in the classroom. B'

asking }earners to reflect on theii perceptions ofrvhat thev have uptaken, one could see. :'

examlning the interactive lvork, some of the factors lvhich characterise the emergenct -

these particular uptaken features.

Mort of the learners ' c la ims rvere topical ised. In th is sense, Whi te 's (19:-

recommendations seem to broadlv match the present teacher's behaviour in this particu---

context. She suggests that

We should not be afraid occasionallv to provide input udich is ex. . . the fo rm o f g rammat ica l teach ing , o f cor rec t ion , o r o ther

E V A L U A T I O N O F C L A S S R O O M I N T E R A c T I O N 3 O }

p ar ticu] ar str u ctur es frnl sisl ; at \\'orst, it u-ill!9_1 it mav trie 1 9 8 7 : 1 0 8 )

Bringing particular linguistic featurer to th. .lurt'r utt""t s to be a rather valuableCnu.uCterrStt tOn. \1Flne lact tnat most ot the'lost' i tems lr 'ere error correction does not necessarilv contracli-ctthe effect of topicalisation. Learners mal not be readv to internalise particular structuralfeatures despite their persistent explanation and correction. Correction is often seen, inthis studv, to be provided in an erratic and confusing manner. The studv revealed that r,vhilesome uptaken features r,vere products of the teacher's plan, others rvere bv-products of the

plan or perhaps ofthe classroom interaction.

These uptaken items, u'hich represent 44 per cent of the participants' interactiveefforts, are revealed to be highlv idiosvncratic. The detailed analvsis of the interactive

processes has shou'n that different features of the same event have h"". ,,pt'Lo' h..lifferent

Iearners.Very ft" ' l tems *ere claime Moreover,.w.hile manvf f i f , t . r

of the claihs could be traced in the transcripts as having received some kind of emphasison the part of the participants, mostlv of the teacher, others merelv occurred as part of theclassroom interaction or did not feature at all in the text, suggesting that learners reactedwith some autonomv to u.hat $'ent on during the interactive event.

Viewing input as co-produceih bv the p'articipants has highlighted idiosyncrasy andtopicalisation as particularlv relevant to evaluation studies which generallv tend to assesslearning outcomes on the basis of the teacher's objectives: these objectives are subsequentlrassumed to be learned bv most learners in the class. A test based on the teacher's objectiveswould have taken into consideration the features rvhich the teacher planned to treat. Sucha test would, bl- its nature, ignore the verv manv other features u-hich incidentalll aroseduring the actual classroom interaction, some of rvhich learners claimed to have benefited ( " \

--BEfuse of the finding that r,vhat actualh' gets topicalised during the classroom

interactive r,vork is different from the teacher's plan, and because uptake is stronglyidiosyncratic, it is therelore not helpfu] to use the teacher's plan as a measuring rod lor whathas been uptakef i l rom the lesson. In fact . a considerat ion of the actual c lassroom interact ivewo?F wEch charicterises second language instruction and a studv of learner idiosyncrasvmight help us gain a better understanding of the complexities of second language teachingand learning. This understanding might subsequentlt' inform the improvement of evaluationsof what actually gets learned from language programmes.

References

Allwright, R.L. (ed.) (1975a) '\ lbrking papers: Ianguage teaching classroom research'.

Department of Language and Linguistics, Universit\. of Essex, England.Allw-right, R.L. (1975b)'Problems in the studv of the teacher's treatment of learner error', in

Burt and Dulav: 96-109.- (1983)'The nature and function ofthe svllabus in ianguage teaching and learning'.

Unpubhshed mimeograph. Department of Linguistics and Modern English Language,Lancaster Universitv.

- (1984a)'Wh)-don't learners learn r,r 'hat teachers teach?The interaction hvpothesis', in

3 0 2 A S S I A S L I M A N I

D. M. Singleton and D. G. Little (eds) Language leaming inJormal and t{ormal contexts,pp.

3-18 . Dub l i n : IRAAL .- (19S4b) 'The importance of interaction in classroom language learning'. Applied

Linguistics, 52 : 1 56-1 1 .- 1 1 984c) 'The analvsis of discourse in interlanguage studies: the pedagogical evidence' , in

Davies, Criper and Horvatt.- (1988)'Autonomv and individualisation in rvhoie-class instruction', inA. Brookes and P

Grundv (eds) lndil idualizatrcn and autonomf in language learning, pp. 35-44. ELT

Documents 131 . London: N{odern English Publications, Brit ish Council.

Breen, M.P. and Candlin, C.N. (1980)'The essentials of a communicative curriculum in

language teaching' , Applied Linguistics 1(.2): 89-112.

Burt , M. and Dulav, H.C. (19751 OnTESOL'75. | tew di rect ions in second language, learn ing,

teaching and bil ingual education.Washington, D.C. : TESOL.

Corder, S.P. (1977)'Teaching and learning English as a second language:Trends in research and

practice', in H.D. Brown, C.A.Yorio, and R.H. Crvmes (eds) On TESOL'77.Teaching and

learning English as a second language: trends in research and practice. Washington, D.C.:

TESOL.Davies, A., Criper, C. and Howatt, A.P.R. (eds) (198a) hterlanguage. Edinburgh: Edinburgn

Universitv Press.

Ell is, R. (1984)'Can svntax be taught?: a studv of the effects of formal instruction on the

acquisit ion ofWH questions bv children' . Applied Linguistics 5(2): 138-55.

El l is , R. and Rathbone, M.. (1987) 'The acquis i t ion of German in a c lassroom context ' .

Unpublished report. Ealing College of Higher Education.

Fanselow, l. (1971)'The treatment of learner error in oral work' . Foreign Language Annals I0

s83 93 .Krashen, S.D. (1980)'The theoretical and practical relevance of simple codes in second

Ianguage acquisition', in R. Scarcella and S.D. Krashen (eds) Researcfr in second language

acqusition,pp. 7-1 8. Rou'le1, Mass. : Nen'bury House.- ( 1981) Second language acquisit ion and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.- ( 1982) Principles and practice jn second language acquisit ion. NewYork: Pergamon.

Lightbown, P.M. (1983) 'Exploratorv relationships betu'een developmental and instructionai

sequences in L2 acquisit ion', in H.W Seliger and M.H. Long (eds) Classroom orienteri

research in second language acquisition, pp. 21745. Rorvlel', Mass.: Newbury House.

MacFarlane, J.M. (1975) 'Some tvpes of psvchological discussion that help to establish the

teacher's treatment of error as a fruitful variable for investigation', inAlhvright (1975ar

pp. 4-63.Morray', M. (1916)'INELEC:Team'vvork in an EST program' , in Brit ish Council Tbam teaching ir

ESP'. ELT Document 106. ETIC Publications.

Rubin, J. (.197 5) 'What the "good language learner" can teach us' . IESOI @rarterly 9( 1): 41-5 1

Scherer, A. andWertheimer, M. (196+) A psvcholinguistic experiment inJoreign language teaching

NervYork: McGraw' Hill.

Slimani, A. (1987) 'The teaching-learning relationships: Learning opportunities and learnin-g

outcomes. An Algerian case studv'. Unpubhshed doctoral dissertation, Lancaster

Universitv, England.- ( 1 989) The role of topicalisation in classroom language learning. System 77 : 223 34.

Smith, P.D. (1970) A comparison oJ the cognittve and audiolingual approaches toforeign langua;:

instruction: The Pennyslvania Fordgn Language Prolect. Philadelphia, Penn.: The Center fo:

Curriculum Development.

Spada, N.M. (1987)'Relationships betrveen instructional differences and learning outcomes: '

process-product studv of communicative Ianguage teaching' . Applied Linguistics 8(2

131-61.

E V A L U A T I O N O F C L A S S R O O M I N T E R A C T I O N 3 0 3

Stern, H.H. (1975) 'What can rve learn from the good language learner?' Canadian Modern

LanguageReview 31: 304 18;a iso in K. Crof t (ed.) (1980) Readings on Engl ish as a second

language:for teachers and teacher tainees (2nd edition). Cambridge, Mass.:Winthrop.

White, L. (1987)'Against comprehensible input: the input hvpothesis and the der,eiopment of

second language competence' . Applted Linguistics 8(2): 95-110.

c.96q)o-

-

=o

Ic

c

2

Ez:)z(rTL

o1=I.JJna

;-=O

o-@C)

d

U)(EUJ-F.

u)uJa(E-o_ozU)occ=C\i

I2F

lccFazI.IJ

trOuj

ilLIJrI

Ff

o

azr)trauJr i la 5

fat-

t-ll1 [

l

zJ

uJIF( ( l

zalLL

a

=

z

F

lf-

z:)(L

rt

x

cc( \

r j i t U

o z

C'z-F

(IuJ

o' iz :o 6o 4( / ' bllJ c)J E

!r, I> oo -o FF jz =- to i r rJ O

1 ! -= :O F( J ( gluJ >> --.1

- J

o -F q )z =o -d GL O

K HI a i= o -

2IF6uj

a

F

UFlF l

t.)t4

r r l

Mf

:X

zEI

APPENDIX 2: UPTAKE IDENTIFICATION PROBE

READ CAREFULLY THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS, MARKYOUR ANSWERS

AS INDICATED ON THE 'UPTAKE RECALL CHART' .

1. Of all the things vou n-rote on vour'Uptake Recall Chart', lr 'hich do you think

rou learned todar i

(u) Did vou learn anything that rvas reallv neu. to vou? If ves, circle it.

(b) Did ,vou learn anr,'thing that was not reallv completely new, that vou knen'

partlv alreadv? Ifves, underline it.

(.) Was there anvthing that -vou did not learn at all because vou knew it already?

If ves, mark it u.ith a zigzag line.

2. Of all the things -vou \,vrote, w.hich do vou think the teacher most wanted you to

learn? Mark them rvith aT. .-

Thank vou for lour cooperat ion.

C h a p t e r 1 9

Michael P. Breen

NAVIGATING

ON WHAT IS

LANGUAGE C

iilll l

qF

|frllll'

illTHE DISCOURSE:

LEARNED IN THE

LASSROOM

I r -r t roduct ion

C E \ T R A L C O N C E R N F N G U A G E teachers is w'hat learners can learn

t rom lanquape Io o

in a somervhat startl ing paper some years ago

,l.dr-rce d that. regardless of i I-Teacher taught in a lesson, the learners w'ill inevitablr- .

l c a r n d l t l e r e n t t h l n q s l r o m t h e s a m

fiTreTictable trend u ith referenceEI

t takes place betrveen

th.-t.*h.., teii-h ^ "input" and riLt learners actualiv "u " from the lesson. In other

n g r n t particular context of L l 1 (

class ensures variation outcomes.

Yl i lw61t** t(tut()

ish to explore this phenomenon further by focusing upon the

s revealed bv current research. I want to suggest that one oi

ear-ners learn in the classroom is hor,v to navigate the opportunitie:

br c lassroom discourse. . { centra l argurnent wi l l be that re lat i i t -

reference to hou'learners choose or are obliged to undertake such navigation. Ofcourse.

the particular features of the classroom context u'hich I describe can not provide a full',

adequate explanation of variation in language teaching. The influences of the context c:

learning are onlv one set of variables in the broader picture. Hor,vever, I wish to assert tha:

an account of such influences can enrich Second Language Acquisition research and theor.

and usefullv inform the practicai concerns of ianguage pedagogv.

Explaining Second Language Acquisition

Anv adequate theorv of Second Language Acquisit ion (SLr

fu.to., and, crucialiv, their interre[tio'nshlp. These are,(

' f 212.

[eachers and learners and the covert interaction that takes place betu'een t]glear:Ler-aldtherar iousSourceSo|ryutdg4qg-g} isan, includingth"-!s@''9"andother,r-rittilGG;m5i;1;the learners. Such interaction, he aig.,"d, mediatei between what

se of la

has to account for

the learner

three kt

activation

brin

t AJ i,,"bS*s

N A V I G A T I N G T H E D I S c O U R S E 3 0 7

unthreateninq: nature ofthe actual lanquaqe learning process; a the outcomesthe proce

v __-i__teffis of lingui-tic or, more broadlv, communicatir.'e co-mpeGrrce in the

tarset lanpuaqe.o o o

In exploring this relationship, SLA research to date has primarilv focused upon theinteraction betw'een lvhat learners contribute, particularlv their innate template for I tz.<

ofSLA resear

and, therebl', constructs the learner in oarticu

rs. ano tne language cata made aval iable to theryL-+n-a-recent revle\\

ihat the ,"."u.-.h u"pp"u., to ta'.,,o,11.pa.frCilffiaradigms of learning,ot.rl.*tL

ano, tnereDl" construcls tne tearner rn part lcurar wal 's (Dreen, l>>6).-br ief ly, SLA rFsearg\tel ls us a great deal about the learner as bei

to @ to be the catalvsts for language learningJhe accommodation bvthe learner of language data is tvpified bv the learner's creativ n ofinterlanguages u'hich sent sradual approximations to the

ies and communicative strategies are ed bv learners in order to maketheir interpretative and acco

co-nstructs of the learner lvhich we can deduce from the researcffiibute significantlyto an explanation of hovl' language is iearned.

iri *uv, that appear t'o ou..look the social ,"utitu i.,"rri"J ,h...r.u..h i, ".i""rir. "i"d".;.d

/ I ̂ - - ̂ I

Uvacllc enco- r f ' 0 -_ _ _ t ? _ u

\oung rearners o r Det \ \ 'een na t l \e speaker , '_g_-..r"r..h.., and non-native speaking informants, eiperimental situations using elicitationtechniques, quasi-experimentai negotiation tasks undertaken bv non-natir.e speakers, orobserved interactions during lessons are never sociallv neutrai activit ies.To reduce the data

s to d is locate themfrom their intersubjective nature. The evidence '"ve obtain from anv learning event, even ina quasi-experimental setting, is significantlv shaped bv the social situation and the socialrelations within that event.

If lr 'e used Ell is's recent verv comprehensive revieu- of SLA resear@ Ellis, t 99+\ anindicator of the major focus of SiR ."."u..hers to the present ti-., *'.1--iTTmrno--i-tiruntwo thirds of the chapters in his account refer to x'ork u.hich assumes that the interactionbetw'een the learner's mental resources and features of l inguistic input wil l provide asufficientlv adequate explanation for language learning. Eliis fairlv reflects current SLAresearch in devoting just over a quarter of his revieu- to more recent studies which locatethe interaction betrveen learner and lansu,it been delined o. f.u..r"d i.r particular lvays

ffir.urch. It is addressed in a fragmentarv ro'-ay as a diversitv of"socialiactors"- fromidentification by the learner rvith the target language group to the possible effects ofdifferenttypes of language programs or as the specific features of classroom interaction, or as the

possible impact of formal instruction. Ellis himself concludes that"the relationship betweensocial factors and L2 achievement is an indirect rather than a direct one" (1994:239). Inreferring to classroom interaction studies, he concludes that thev have "contributed little

to our ""a@&"f

hovr' interaction affects acquisit ion" Ug;+:607). And he deduces

that formal ins cihtating natural language

development" in terms of increased accuracv and accelerated progress (1994: 659).

r isinq verv- ,

L U 4 t r s ^ p r 4 r r 4 l t v r r v r l r u v ! r d r r 5 u 4 5 E 1 ) l E 4 l l l c u . a A

However, this explanati.on rvil l remain partial if much of plnl-."r"urch persists indecontextual is ing Iearner contr ibut ions. the learn inq Drocess. anlMrnins outcomes f ron,the location in which these tnree ractors are realised. Mainstream SL,t rer"ur.n- rn locusrnqthe location in which these three fadtors are realised. Mainstream SLATEseirch, in locusing x .-l A.: i l ^'upon

the relationship betu een the learnErn-n-d1ii$rage data. is conducted and reported on y::

The apparent assumption in these deductions is that ' 'Ll achievement", "acquisit ion" or

,,natural lu.rgrrug" d".,,. lop-".t" can somehou- occur almost regardless of contextual

variables. In"thif chapter,'horu"r-"., I rvant to suggest that, i iu-e look more closely atthe

classroom as context, such a focus u'ill reveal that the interaction be

, and the differential outcomes from this tntetuctio" t oulded and

. ^ / . ; ;a r y t f f i w e m a \ . d e d u c e f r o m c u r r e n t S L A r e s e a r c h a s o p t i m a I f o r- r - - : l l ^ . : l l l : f f ^ - ^ - + : ^ 1 1 , . ^ ^ L ; ^ , ' ^ T l " - . . . . ' i l l n n n f i n r r e t o l e e r n r n o s t l v

TryM ffi-o diu".titr- in the contributions of the learners to

7"**. the process. But variation rvill also have to be explained rvith reference to the particular

"fy' "on,"*, in r,vhich the learning occurred so that input, Process, and outcomes are seen as

func t i onso fho l v the iea rne i sva r i ous l vd . f i "@I fwea re

of the context of learning.

undertaking betrveen those in societv lvho have mastered knolvle

ffi'.--ffi;rins such kno*'ledqe or derel i l i t ies. Leont'ev identif ied

There is little doubt that th6 historv of SLA not onlv gre\\' out of the roots put dow'n by

studies offirst language acquisition and has, over the last tlventv years or so, sent up its own

shoots and bra.rche, in the shadorv of this area of research. Building on the influences of

sociolinguistics, discourse analvsis and the *,o.koffig@ (1986t there is a signilicant

bodv oifirst Ianguage acquisit ion research rvhich e"plicit lY.ecogni l

coniext og 1.u.rrin, u, ,h. .rrr. ibl" of ,h. *'hol".Uro..r. of l.tttrrut" d"*loPmeht

f ck 1980 , Sc 1

and 1985, Foster 1990, tnter a/ia). Evelvn Hatch brought this kind of perspectir"e into SLA

research in revealing holv learners extend their grammatical repertoires on the basis of the

"scaffolding" p.otid-ed for them by profrcient speakers dttt"g .o""'..i3!q!L(H{ch 1978

arr ce uPon those in SLA

research r,vho claim n "56gi6l interactionist" perspectir,e in se eing sPeech modifications durin8

communicatio'b"to achers a@

P-ffi:\€rv recentlv have a number of SLA researchers returned t(fygotskf complex

ideas r,vhich insist on i"^. ial activitr"

pleoiVra^These ttit-'

.',^,40,- "ro.io.tltrrrul" p".rp..tit" (Lffipel 1994)' Such a perspective isu1l ^6;lo'*;.."ni.d

br: Leont'ev rvho, likevvgotskr', sar".lgerli?g a. a" iT:3-yth'jogtd

languagelearning,Iearnerslr ' i l lsti l Idifferentia1lvu.hie""@{

,itq "?h:"*::::$

ersocia lact iv i t ies inthew. id i rwor ldsuchaswork,or

familv lif", o. participation in various evervdav situations and institutional settings. For

3 O B M I C H A E L P . B R E E N

L"o.ri'.t, ,r-h"r, or.. ,"ud "

text, Iisten to music, or paint a picture, even when not in the

presence of others, we are participating in a process that is sociallv constructed:

if rve removed human activitv from the svstem of social relationships and social life,

it w.ould not exist and lvould har.e no structure. With all its varied forms, the human

of itt i ttss in language learning in the

classroom, ther't ove ne-ed to take a sociulWn the interaction betrveen

learner and data. In order to lustifi---uch- claim, I $ ill begin bv offering mv interpretation

Second Language Acquisition in context

N A V I G A T I N G T H E D I S C O U R S E 3 0 9

individual's activitv is a svstem in the svstem of social relations. It does not existu'ithout these relations.The specific form in u'hich it exists is determined bv the formsand means of material and mental social interaction.

(Leont 'ev 1981 471

is, bv its nature. a and i-ul tural construct.@uppo., ru. [a c la im i -n reveal ins that socia l s t ructur m may be seen to eate the rvholetexture of alaiTia-anguage (Hall i*r, 1978)Jhis perspective implies that the interpretative,@)

b -4@"t"2-"TL€-nd strategidSlork of learners as revealed bv mainstream ItR reiEii6Fisno@ t that i t is si tultaneor.l.Ful*-,iil.

lessons. The data made available to iearners are sociallv filtered through the particular ,' . - .olscourse oI tne ClaSsrOOm ano. InereD\. renoereo OlSt lnct lve t rom \ -hat \ve mlght descr tbe2-s narura lmadeava r l ab le to lea rne rs tnac lass roomareaJ@ct r , r . i t h l vh i ch teache rand3 .

learners interact activelv as both creators and interpreters. because u'hat Iearners actuallolearnTrom the c lassroom is socia l l r rather than indiv idual lv constructed. anv explanat ionol now language ls learnec nguage lessons.

This implies that language iearners need not onlv be interpretative, accommodating,and strategic as SLA research suggests, but also active practitioners r,vithin the discourse ofthe learning contexlrn wblqh tfr."y}"a *"-i t w i l l p ro r i de ve r ) ' pa r t i cu la r oppo r tun i t i es f o r and spec i f i c cons t ra in t s upon l anguaqec { .learning.These oppdlrrnities and constraints can be identified in the discourse of languagelessons and a crucial variable which can contribute to our understanding of the relativesuccess or failure of learners is holv thev themselves are obliged to navigate within it.

We can express this central irsue i.r terms of a questioi: Does a l3ur.r.r ', success in

tf r,6learn a h;-g""g" i" fie companv of others ln u 6llffiL-en the nature of thissocial action is not merelv a superficial frame for our '"vork on language data. Social t.relationships in the classroom orchestrate lr'hat is made available for learning, how'learningis-tlone, anilwhat we achieve, l'hese relationships and the purposelul social action of teachingand learning are directlv realised through the discourse in rvhich r,r 'e participate during

learning language in a classr d upon the learner's successful nar is;i i6n-;TT6-e Qj'

prevailing features of classroom discourse. I rvill address the question r,vith reference to anumber of findings from SLA research.

Dimensions of discourse

Discourse is a diffrcult concept because, l ike SLA research, discourse analysis is a relativelyvoung d isc ip l ine and there are several conf l ic t ing and over lapping def in i t ions der iv ing f roma ranse of theoretical and anah'tical positions (van Diik 1 98 5 . Macdonneil 1 98CI:E;alt worka range of th.o..ti.ul und u."lt' van Dijk 1985,,-rn drscourse analvsls sought to uncover pattern and system iystem at a highegher level of organisationthan the sentence and

ught to uncover pattern and systeies of dialo

). Larly

acts, turn taking,

topicalisation, and so on. Descriptir.'e discourse analvsis rvas also undertaken in relation=16

f f ied iscoursessuchasmediadiscourse 'medicald iscourse,or legal

3 I O M I C H A E L P . B R E E N

discourse. More recentiv, the ideas of social theorists such asrf-ouffirt11972 and 1984) and

.B'di?fEIh( 1991 t har-e led to an extension of such '"vork to refer to how human knowledge\ - { . r . . . I r r . . - t r - - = ) - : ) - : = - -a n o C a P a D r l I u e S a n o e v e r v d a r . s o c i a l p r a c t i c e s e d

throuqh discourse.F=-g__-<--Tn-relating

social theorv directh- to earlier and more conventional approaches to

discourse analysis rvith a vielr. to developing a critical approach to analysisiFa-ilretotEh{ 1989

and 1992) has provided a frameu'ork of discourse '"vhich is made up of three related levels

o r c o m P o n e n t s . F o r h i - , @ e c a n b e S e e n a s b e i n g s i m u l t a n e o u s I y apiece of text, an instance oldiscursive practice, and an instag i lresb]-Placl$e. Applying

- this framew'ork to the lariguage classroom, th<fe?>'f lessons is all the available language or

communicative data, be thev spoken, lvritten, or in other visual media from pictures and

diagrams to facial expressions. The are hou'texts are oroduced and

interpreted and hor,v different tvpes of textf are combined. Clearly, teachers and learners_-_-:-in the classroom produ&, interpret, and combine texts.The teaching materials, in whatever

medium, are aiso produced and combined bv people not present in the classroom and

teacher and learners interpret such materials in ',vavs that serve their immediate purposes.,, -z--\

Frnal\c6al praciNefers to the org'anisatfqlql-?ndjsdtulioxakircrrmstances that generatg

and delimjt both the specific text and discursive practices oflessons. Social practices include

not-only those broader cultural and situational factors r,vhich locate classrooms as having a

p a r t i c u i a r i , , n . g l v t r i v i a l b u t n e v e r t h e 1 e s s i m p o r t J n t

practices r".h li1l=d*' ttrEJfi-rniture is organised in the room or horv long a lesson should

iast. More cruciallv, perhairs, bo,h,"*h.r and learners are actuall ipositioned and

c o n s t r u c t e d a s r c a c h e r s a n d a s ] e a r n e r s b i . t h e s o s

urr o work together in

a relativelv harmonious rva1., r'r'hich I have described elsewhere as expressing the underlying

culture of the language class (Breen 1985), are also highlv significant social practices that

are Dart of the discourse of lessons.

s m a v e or limit certain discursive practices and these, in turn, may

The text of language lessons

Apptying this three-dimensional vie'"v of discourse to the findings of SLA research which

has focused particularlv upon classroom language learning, r,ve find that the text of language

lessons, like lessons in other subjects, appears to have a consistent pattern in which teachers

I D r init iate, learners respond, and teachers follou, up their responses by-repetit ion,

l | ( t - r e f o r m u l a t i o n o r e v a l u a t i o , , i S i , ' . l ( 1 9 7 5 ) i d e n t i _ 6 } a

-- , '@ernlvhichappearedtobespeci f ic to languagelessonswhereE-r',r a teacher's reformulation is often repcated verbatim bv a learner or the lvhole class because\,-' ,4. ,

1/\l(9 t*lxl,l;#"::*a;ffi':;this book; points out that a good proportion ofth"e teachers' utterances in a language lesson

ffii]-ltate or constrain alternativeloEfEractices. It is time to step inside the classroom and

nrng or rh@1g,..,@-explore tne posslDle lmpacr upon ranguage learnlnq or rne(rexr oj lerc!9, mwrslx

@iq .,'J th;i,@"ri[i"gh *iiof th. .,oiIJ".t ' l

provide{ to us by classrroomrresearch.

E^a"A "v Tavdo'$L

X

N A V I G A T I N G T H E D I S C O U R S E 3 1 1

are not directed al-particular individuals but serve as a kind of communal monolosue-directed bv the teacher at the lvhole class lr.herein learner contributions are w-oven bv theteacher rnto lus or hcr ou 'n text .

r esea rchon teache r ta I k i n the languagec lass fu r the r\-+--------l

r

rer ealiThTT]5od proportion of teacher input made available to learners has verv specificcharacteristics. Teachers appear to har-e tu'o-thirds more Dractice in the tarset lanquaqe thatra l l t he l ea rne rs pu t t oge the r . The r a l so mod i f r t he i r speech i n r ravs s im i l a r t o t hecElaracteristrcs olcaretaker spEech to voung children or native speaker speech to non-nativespeakers. Interestinglv, such teacher modification appears more emphatic when addressinglearners ryhgq,lLl"-"..g. u.t

9SS, fVorrg-p i lmore 1982). In otherwords, the degree of modification in a teacher's direct interaction w'ith an individual learnermav stqna

J - -is or her caoabil it ies.

A crucial feature of the text of lessons is teacher feedback on learner utterances. Becauseofthe fast f low'oflessons. teachers are understandablv inconsistent in their reactions tolearner errors u,'ith the result that different learners mav either fail to distinguish a teacher'scorrection from other kird. of :scorrection from other kinds of teacher utterance or assume that almost all teacher resDonses

<--:i-To-FFat they sav are some form of judgement or correction (Allwright and Bailey 1991 ,

I O / Sp6

I'olt'rt4rua+

0w"^Ir,,tSt

,!owl.lVu^-

ngVan Lier's observations aboutthe teacher's discursive control of the text of lessons, research reveals that a remarkablyhigh proportion of teacher utterances are interrogatives (Johnston 1 990, Long and Sato

a verv nt rt ion oi these are cl ions in r,vhich learnersare required to provide i.fo.*utior *'hi.h th" t. dv knou's rather than openreferenffil[estions r'vhich genuinel]' seek information from the learners llong andTaiboP. clt . ) .

Allwright and Baile,88). UnderliningVan Lier's observatior

Although acknorvledging the centralitv of the teacher in the orchestration of classroom-P--:

discourse@!$)988) suggests that the text of language lessons constantlv shifts dueto its being generated bv four tvpes ofinteraction: teacher instructions, teacher's highlrs t ructured e l ic i ta t ions of s tudent res , and procedurtTF strlmFd learner activitiessuchf,l - , r -

roup or dradic tasks. a l l o f u 'h ich arF occasional lv ounctuated bv smal l ta lk

of learners.

There appear to be features of the text of language lessons that ma)' be distincticompared with other tvpes of lessonl We might describe this as ature oflanguage input in classroom talk

samDles or lnstances tarqet lan idance' rvhere communication occurs about[he tarpet lanquaqe- a

o o oanagement \1 'here ln p rocedura l ta tk tac l l l ta tes the oDt rmal

--occur rence o I samDles a idance. It seems, therefore, that the data made available to theearner in the-classroom is an on-going amalgam of three dominant and inter-weavlng

discursive oractices : communicati target lan . metacommunrcatron

earners have to nav iga te-tion from one

U."a .f t"ru t" "".tn4t

is verv likelv that different learners will be more or less skilled insuch navisat ion.*'

We might conclude from these general patterns in the contributions of teachers to theinteractive text oflanguage lessons that learners are not actuallv required to do much overt

I2J

r-textua

3 I 2 M I C H A E L P . B R E E N

or explicit discursive * orfi*n,t" d.t ott.,g th"i. dir.t.ri Pr,rr€.-trepli of the

tea@rt to the moments uhen ther have to cont r ihu l . . to i t ind to t -he

,"AE;t.*ctions to tlh"i. .o.t

So far, on the basis of language classroom research, I have suggested that the discourse ol

lessons is significantlv shaped bv the teacher, that learners are positioned in particular lr'als

by this, that the discourse manifests a shifting inter-textualitv, and that learners are obliged

to undertake pragmatic navigation r,vithin this inter-textualitv if thev are to find their r,r-ar

-through it in order to make sense of it. For a fuller picture, holvever, lve need to focus upon

variations in the overtpgllgprltion gllglners in the discourse rvhich may be seen as further

. on t. iSrr t o--f". t "

t - tom the bodY ol work

on controversiai modifications during group or dvad lvork on tasks, some of which having

been undertaken in classroom settings. Perhaps this is not surprising when, if we examine

the research on learner participation and, bv implication, their contributions to the text oi

l e s s o n s a s d i s c u r s i v e p r a c t i t i o n e r S , * ' t r y t h e

dir.oq5g_iSg..sporlilgJgl. lPolitzer et al. 1981). Generally, it seems that, through their

control ofthe their use of question S .

ural instructions, and, crucialh,-TE-er-r]eva]uition ofEuch of the la ucec

\,,,

*)"S-

e

f f i r i t i s u t t e r e d . t e a c h e r s c o n S t r u c t I e a r n e r s a s p r i m a r i 1 r

nsive a i irlr passive participants in th" 4igg"1;t,_ln ollering an. . . . - f f - -

expi ln_at lor f6r the fa i lure of French jmmersion students to fu l l r a t ta in nat i re-speaker l ik t

lelrls in their olvn speech despite vears of exposure to content-based and comprehensible

language input resulting in verv high levels ofreceptive understanding, Su'ain (1985

suggests that this failure mav be partiallv due to the telative lack of oPP.,t et

urse h their ow'n speech uctron.to particrrticipglgaveJ.lryjHon'ever, even rer ive discursive practices appear to to variation in learning

\i lo \ \ 'ever, even resPonslve olscursrve PracLrces aPPear L(J rcdu Lo vdrraLrurt l r r - rcdt turr :

In investigating u-hether greater learner participation had an effect upon learning, Stron;

(1983 and 1984) discoue.ed_thut-a hig ain learners correlatec

with their achievement in tests based upon the grammar, proffit c,r

classroo,i ip. st

inpurSaneffi performed better on an aural comprehension task than did le..

participating learners. In their ciassic studv of the good language learner, Naiman er c.

(1978) found t their hands more and more often re

teacher eliei

Studies bv Larsen-Freeman (1976a and 1975b), Hamavan and Tucker (198t)

Lightbon'n (1 983), and Long (1980), all suggest that the frequencv ofoccurrence ofcertai:

linguistic forms in classroom text is likelv to correiate w'ith the accurate production of thes=

forms bv learners. More signil icanth', studies bv Lightbor,vn (1980 and 199 1), Snou-an:

Hoefnagel-Hohle (1982), andWhite et al. (1991) not onl-v confirm this but also sho*'hi1:

retention rates of question forms. Given the regular occurrence of questions in the text ,-:

are directed to them individuallv.a l L U I I L U L U U u r u r l r u q q r r l . L r r q l , r r v !

-"kincl--f:frlTerances directed speiihcallr at indir idual learners correlated rvith hi

rners' discursive practices in the clas

-----+

treouent occurrenc?;T?6il; i l iTF;tu;:6Fin the text ot lessons render them more accessib.I

N A V I G A T I N G T H E D I S C O U R S E 3 I 3

types of teacher utterancqs rvhich place u_hat we m-a)' desgribe 4 urslve uPon

li larners, such as questioning or nominated terms, demand overt discursive r,vork on the

part of learners that may, in turn, influence their learning outcomes.

The recent research on the kinds of classroom tasks u.hich most facilitate interaction

among learners confirms the significance of discursive pressure. A task that entails an

-in&r-mafjp-ry:p betnveen interlocutors, that is unlamiliar to them, that engages learners in

social exchanges about shared goals and problems, that is undertaken bv learners ofdifferent

levels of profi".i.rr.u, and that demands a single, closed solution for successful completion

tr/'10/t

is found to encouraqe leqrners to have longer turns, pr_oduce more complex language, and

devote more time to explicit nesotiation for meanins than anv other kinds of task (Berw'ickd",rot..tro.. ti-" to .*pli.i Berw'ic

l9W---C-ons 1989 and 1995. Ploush and Gass. 1993). Fur thermore.Tanaka (1991) anl9W-,-C-ong 1989 and 1995. Plough and Gass, 1993). Fur thermore,Tanaka (1991) and

Yamazaki (1991) have suggested that learner rvork on modif,ving linguistic data throughat learner rvork on modif,vinq linguistic data through

ffihur p.o.idi.tslh;;il .it6;t

and 1995) confirm that feedback is most l ikelv to have an impact on the learner's (brrcc.(to^

interlanguage if it occurs at times rvhen the learner is w.orking hard to convev a particular

..r...us.lT]n sum. the strugtfe to negotiateT6r meaning thror:sh-ouert discurJiveFoiFmessage. In sum, uggle to neg gth l@

tft

i-nders relativelv compiex text comprehensible and, consistent rvith a major assumption

in SLA research, t}ereb-v facilitates learninq.

However, differe.rtieurners uill na.-igJte through the discourse of lessons in differeni-l DiWou-ways depending upon their ou'n dEfinitions of the situation, their previous experiences

"{ f UL*

However, different learners rvill navigate through the discourse of lessons in differeni-l Dl'ft o*tways depending upon their ou'n dEfinitions of the situation, their previous experiences of f UL*classrooms, and their particular understanding of the dvnamic social practices or culture of

I h pclassrooms, and therr partrcular unclerstandlng ot the dvnamrc socral pracilces or culture ot \ h p,

the classroom group (Breen op. ci t .) . Learners u' i l l therefore place dif ferent values and- J/

significance upon their role as a participant in the class. Oue.t discursi"e p. e upon.

particular learners or even spontaneous participation do not alone account for differences

inwhat learners l "u ' . ' f 'o f f i ) repI icat ionofS. I ig . . ' 's tudyof . .h ig}r. - r r linput generatord[Seliger op.?iL1 and Elv's (1986) inr.estigation of learner init iated

-ut terances lound no re lat lonshlp bet \ l 'een over t learner par t lc lpat lon and later test

,z.ftttainment.lnlfacingiearners' immediate "uptake" from lessons of previouslv unknown/ / /

( ' r L t q - 5 7 , ^ o ^ - - J l o o i a r - - - - - - , - r o , f - r i - r r \ r r ^ r r : r - ,uo""b,rlury,61Iffi(1989 and 1992; Chapter 18 of this book; conflrmed Allwright's

A hypothesis that different learners rvill learn different things even from the same lesson

(Alhvright op. cir.)*lirnani-made+hri erv that lo\\ -DartrcrDatr

recalled as much from lessons as di rtrcrPatlng----\ recalled more i iems from lessons if they were

- ) _ r ' o 4F. - - - : - - r . r r , llcal lsec| or rntroouceo lnto tne text ol tne lesson D\' learners ratner tnan tnose toDlcal lseotoDrcalrsed or rntroduced rnto the--text ot the lesson lx' learners rather than those toprcalf€cl

t r t grom their hi ticipating colleagriE. Allrvright interpreted these findings as suggesti*ng

that-ih? -:r. pl@:g".* in a class rvho appeared to be those more willing toparticipate;e.e teklg o" ahe bd&;;T discursive rvork but without seemingly gaining

f IrOm lt. ln O.n"l. \, 'oro .n..

-6-an participation leading to gains in proficiency. Slimani's stqdl i]!e_gg!!_d*qgbl in th"

claims of mainstream SLA researchers that conversationai modifications lead to greater

comorehensib i l i t r " and. f i . t, . - , , i - , , ,

re la t i on3h - iP -b -FT_$een thenu f f i j us tmen tsoccu r r i ng in the tex to t

lessons around specific linguistic items and tfrdpft.f.")of these items by leur.r..s.

A recent r.pli."tio.r Jf Sh.nuni', ,trdv bvlt6i(on tl996l largelv confirmed these

findings and suggested that differences bet'w.een learne\ in u'hat thev recalled from lessons

weredue toan -ho le rangeo f fac to rsand tha tsomeo f \P re ' i ous I r ' unkno ' , r '@

(-t 4^,x vA;cahe tou-^

A olertlv topicalised in the lesson, rvhilst 56%o ofretained vocabular)'could be traced to the

f f indi.idual learner's personal r,r 'ork upon items occurring in the spoken or r,vritten texts ofr r _ l r :

ff tti-t"rron r,'hi.h t.igg..ed "ffo.t.

to seek ite

l / \ \ha t lhe \ kne \ , \ 'a l reac l \ , to \ \ ' r l te tne \ \ 'o ro co \ \ 'n to nnc ou t l t s mean lng la te r , ano so on .

r / rf' \\'as the relati\-e incompr and this resulted

(^ in co\er t ind i r idual r tork touards understanding and, therebr ' . remember ing i t . In fact ,

uobrnson drscovered that there u.us a conterse relationship betw'ffiiEdzfrbirnt of overt

3 T 4 M I C H A E L P . B R E E N

which thev not onlv recalled but also retained over a longer period \r 'ere never overtly

negotiated about in the text of the lesson. Onir' 270/o of retained vocabulary items had been

neqotiation about new vocabuiarv items and their retention bv learners. The more an itemo .

*u--, fo.rr.ed upon in the text of the lesson, the less likelv it \l'as to be retuine-ElSEii6i-dlftlEdthat there must be an optimal desree of overt nesotiat

focusing upon learner participation, Dobinson aiso discovered that learners n'ho did not

participate at all recalled equal or greater numbers of previouslv unknow'n words from the

lessons as did higher participating learners.

From Slimani's and Dobinson's research it appears that u'e can deduce that individual

learners appear to be capable of navigating the discourse in u.avs that reflect iffiifiiilfr[-

and agendas. ln certain circumstances, discursive pressure to re

@erorother1earnersfac i1 i ta tesacquis i t ionor i |y forsomelearners.However, as w'ith all deductions from classroom language learning research, these findings

have to be seen in the light 6f the context from which the data w'ere obtained. Siimani andl x '

Ipobinson located their studies in classrooms that r,vere conventionall-v teacher-fronted with

Jfr.o"g teacher control over the text ofthe lessons. It appears, therefore, that there may ber , -- --------i=--l la difference in learning outcomes based upon overt negotiation for meaninq in this kindol

. .classroom context as compared u l th dvads or smal l groups ot learners negot lat ]ng tor

m e a n i n g r r i t h o u t t h e i n t e r r ] e n t i o n o f t h e t e a c h e r . T o r t-the arqument that context makes a difference. Overt participation in classroom discourse

o l l

appears to serve other purposes in addition to the purpose of learning. In these

circumstances, so an

der-ote their attention to their orvn learning aqendas. And the Slimani and Dobinson studies

confirm that it is likelv that learners will differentiallv gain from such practices.

Social practices in the classroom

Learners selectivelv r,vork through the discourse of the classroom not onlv as discursive

practitioners r,vithin the immediate lesson but also on the basis of horv they judge which

social practices are appropriate in the particular classroom group.Jbei._se]gcti lgoarticipation and the iudsements on u'hich thev base it are derived from their definit ion oft

f6e par t icu lar teaching- learn ing s i tuat ion and f rom thei r exper ience wi th other realms o l '

dlscourse bevondJhe classroom. Learners therefore nar-igate the discourse in n.r-o constantlr

idG\veavlirg \\ryx (or learning purposes and for social purposes. Differential outcomes

fro m l e s s o n s "m

av' r e fl e c t th--.Eith;iE r n e r s *' i l l al ft iffi ar ab i li ti e s t o b a l an c e th e s e

two priorities and, cruciallv, in their relative allocation of attention to them.

Classroom discourse is, for the learner, a vovage of discovery in the close company ot

others r,vith a teacher who leads the expedition or, at least, carries the map. On the one

hand, learners navigate classroom discourse in order to discover here and notv what count

as vali d i nterbre tation . r,vhat coun ts-TIRn6w uortfr accommodating, and lvhat counts

N A V I G A T I N G T H E D I S C O U R S E 3 L 5

as appropriate strategic behaviour for learning be it overt or co\,'ert. On the other hand,

tfr t ti. ,o.il[i-.ti.EiEl.r the classroom will

construct knovgledge and the role identit ies of, and relationships betw'een teacher and

learners invervspeci f icu.avs.Thevaretherefore

l Uul

psvchological and social cosiif ieir selectire rvork therefore reflects their undeii ia-fr?ing- -

. r . r l

of, and c6A-ffiutions to, the emerging culture of the particular classroom group and their

own location u-ithin it. In an earlier paper, I suggested that this culture is not only

asvmmetrical in terms of u.ho controls the discourse, or normative in terms of the teacher's

j"G--Ttr correctness or appropriao', but .n., f "..il.titF.noryl

lth,"..nTi"creating and maintaining a manageable r.vorking harmonv through the particular routines

and prJcedures of the.*fu.. texl of lessons (Breen op.ctt.). From SLA research, *'e kttoo,-f

that different types of classroom-based actilities and tasks u'ill permit different outcomes Ifor different learners (Larsen-Freeman 1975a,Tirone 1988, Schmidt 1980, Bahns andWode '

1980, Hl . l tenstam 1984, L ightbou'n 1991). But .uve a lso knorv that d i f ferent types of 1classrooms in terms of their overt routines and procedures or) more broadh', their social Ipractices r,vill generate different learning outcomes as rvell (\\bng Filmore 1982, Enrightl

1 984, Spada 1 987, Al len et a | . 1990) .

Allw.right (1989) has suggested that data from classroom interaction often reveal teacher

". 'dl"",.,"i,havingto,ol"e"a1ec,,. ' '@hedilemmaconfrontingbothteacher and learners is that of maintaining social harmonv or avoiding lvhat he calls "social

problems" rvhilst, at the same tiFipreservingl;E;TE?egards as "pedagogic possibilities"

or dominating or highlv reluctant learners, or procedural confusions that appear to detract

"social trouble" is an inevitable part of classroom discourse a , paradoxically', "

upon approaches to language teaching u'hich encourage on'".t ]""ry.

i c i pa t i onn f f i gsoc ia lp rob lems .Ho lveve r , t hecu l t u reo tmos t

.16#o-o-. is oft"n buift up"" and prese.oed bv a shared and unspoken assumption that

cooperation to maintain relative harmonv on the surface of iessons between competing

agendas is ultimatelv easier for both teacher and learners. The costs of social trouble are

constantly in balance u'ith the benefits of fairlv predictable and stable routines and

p.o."drrl, and the teacher and most learners rvork hard in order to resolve or avoid such

troubles. At different times. it is verv likelv th

troubles as learning rtunities iust as thev mav interpret lv

P"d p6$l611iffi;Aailr threatgyngHorvever, the verv salience of social trouble in

thedffintiontoitrt.hiIepossibivinvolr' ingteacherandlearners

in exactl,v the kind of resolution w'ork that mav be directlv beneficial to ianguage learning.

However. learners also navigate through classroom discourse in rvavs that ll'ill enable

them to avoid individual trouble for themselves, in particular avoiding to

public. The interesting studies of Beebe and Zuengler (1983) and ofYoung (1988 and 1991) reveal that the iearners rvil l actually varv the s0'le of

their production depending upon u'hom thev are addressing and, in particular their

perception of the relative status and linguistic competence of their interlocutors. Of direct

relevance to the classroom,Takahashi's research suggests that learners w-ill be more hesitant

and briefer in their rrtt.ru-

compe ten t i n t he t a rqe t l anquage such as t he l r t eache r ( l akahash r l ydy ) . Anc l KamPton

1T98T revealslhat learners, u[ile actuallv capable of more complex language, may revert

l{/

l

3 T 6 M I C H A E L P . B R E E N

*.

to earlier features oftheir interlanguage preciselv in order to signal that thev cre learners.

Learners mav undertake a kind of impression management in their discursive practices, , i i : ; i : , : , i i i t r

$htch Dub l lc l \ . expresses tne l r o \1 -n cons t ruc t ton o t tnemse lves as learners ano tne l rwhtch publlclY exPresses tneir O\\ 'n Constructlon ot tnemselves aS learnels ano rnelr-----E-

construction ot r e

in the text ofJeGis--Filf-also be aiell-ection of their self assessment and their assessment

of both the teacher's language and the teacher's likelv reactions to their orvn production. It

seems that some learners' perceptions of the established social relationships in some

classrooms mav actuallv encourage them to underachieve.

What learners learn from the discourse of lessons

The foregoing revie',v of classroom language learning research has illustrated some of the

lvays in which fl.e interaction hetrv... th^ le"ne. and the target lenguage data iq qitrrated

, w-ithin social action. In order to summarise lvhat lve knorv of the discursive practices of-Tedne-rffi€Tngriage

classroom, rve can see that learners are obliged to participate overtly

and covertlv in the discourse oflessons in the follorving lvavs:

Adopt a.Iry![s]y9--Ecle-in relation to the teacher's management of the discourse

through his/her control over the text of lessons.

Be alert to and uduot to th. uutftg itt.t of lessons.. . . t . l l

Act indil. iduall) ' in response 16 discurqi.e nressure within teacher-learner interaction

and u'ithin tasks and activities during lessons.

Covertly."Cg!@'Pu.ti.iPutio" i as opportunities to serve

o\r'n purposes and lcarning agenda.

Navigate the discourse of the classroom itp.Spgific text. discu's

and particular social practices u'ith direct ref^ -Difine the situation on the b?sis of past efperience.and presenesent understanding of the

ucemerqinq iulture of the classroom groupand act in u'avs that are seen as appropriate

to that culture...#---

?articipate rvith the teacher and other learners in the ongoing:glltruction of lessons

andthemaintenanceof fa i r Ivpredictablec lassroom'f f i

In general, therefore, a learner *-ho is a successful discursive practit ioner in the/ ' - - ' :

/ classroom appears to be someone u-ho aloidsYKkl-I6-SElFldentitv in the group and

( @approp.iut"@loitingffiursal\ opportunitie-s for their orrn leaininE. IGSGstion I raised at the beginning of tFis i@-e?

\ r r l r r - r t r\ was: Does a learner's success in language learning in the classroom depend upon the learner's

Manage the p?esentat ion of se]T- through the d iscourse according to one's own

definition ofboth self identitv and the demands of the situation.

successful navigation of the opportunities and constraints inherent in the discourse of

lessons? Clearlv learners rvill differ in their responses to the kinds of demands that are placed

upon them bv such discourse and thev u-il l differ in terms of their own priorit ies and

capabilities as discursive practitioners in the specific context of a classroom. I have suggested

that learners in classrooms r.vill differentiallv interpret, accommodate, and adopt strategies

largel)' on the bas,s ol * hat classroorn dtscou s

of teacher and learners, and hou- it constructs both the knorvledge to be learned and the

unfoldi earning process throuqh s

u'i-thin the prevailing discourse through rvhich earn and there is good evidence that

N A V I G A T I N G T H E D I S C O U R S E 3 L 7

learners navigate tlat discourse in different ways. It is inevitable that different learners will

differentiallv achieve in such circumstances. In fact, the variables to rvhich I have referred

in review.ing second language classroom research are an important explanation for such

differentiation.

Implications for classroom pedagogy

We misht deduce from the evidence that there is oniv a very tenuous relationshi tween

successful participation bv learners in t]re'discourse of lessons and their actual ress ln

, At ieast it seems lm

on actual learni tion for and

rs as pivotai for learning. But a crucial issue is that overt pditi-

Gffit-s to be relativelv rare T5lindiiffiTJ#ners in the kinds of lessons from rvhich most

data for second language classroom research are obtained. Navigating the discourse in manv

language classrooms, rvhilst resulting in different learning outcomes for most learners, is

not a diff icult thing for most of them to do. Since their earlv years at school, language

learners have graduallv discor"ered rvhat is expected of them as discursive practitioners in

a classroom. In manv cases, they have had vears of practice at interpreting the texts of

lessons, learning and adopting appropriate discursive practices, and understanding and

contributing to the social practices of classrooms. As rve have seen, the data from second

language classroom research prima?ilv reveals thallqachers orchestrate the discourse rvhile

learners nlav their narts as a kind ofcounterDoint to their individual learning agendas.Thelearners play their parts as a kind of counterpoint to their individual learning agendas. T

discourse mav momentarr lY harmonlse \ \ ' l tn tnese agenoas \ \n l le at otner t lmes, rnere

discordance between the discourse and genuine learning. To be provocative, we might

conclude that some learners'highlv attentive efforts to avoid trouble bv successfulh'

navigating the prevailing discourse of language lessons might actuallv distract their attention

from actuallv learning something.

There is a grou'ing bodv of evidence rvhich suggests that the discourse ofthe language

classroom is distinctive. And it is distinctive in manv rvavs from the discourse in lvhich u'e

participate in other contexts (Riler' 1977, Gremmo et a\.7978, Edmondson 1985, Kramsch

1985, Glahn and Holman 1985, Kasper 1986, El l is 1992). I f , for most learners perhaps,

language learning is embedded in the discourse of the classroom, if thel learn how' to become

-.itrbt"., of a ne-,,r, langr,rg" ".,--r,.;.-r throuqh the discursi.e@t\,\ 6)

i'* tt > r ' -

t in the .l1srrog themJoor ar

ftt&

frr. ws lo'*t lc sroom? In other rvords. horiiFT&r-nEi

transcend what thev have learned ssroom discourse in order to

ifi-other realms of di

A paradoxicai but central iisue for language pedagogv is horv it mav faciiitate the gradual

disembedding of language learning from rvhat appears to be the prevailing discourse of lessons .

In raising this issue I am not intending to implv that all the features of such discourse inhibit

the learner's capacitv to participate in other kinds of discourse. Hor,vever, I believe it does

imply that rve need to consider horv u'e might identifv and mobilise rsive work of

d reducing those mu

4I I a learner

1

constraints rvitirin the current discursive and social practices oflanguage c

mav inhibit it.)a largelr nsive role rvithin the discourse, the resea,,n/12

Expecting learners to'adopt an active and creative role in constructing the text ol"r----:-

lessons so that at least two-thirds of it is er.c . L A f r r L t r r t Y l q d r l t q r ) t v d u u P L a l l d L r l r L a l r u L l L a L l \ L l v r L l l , r v l r J ( r u \ r r r r v

Y lessons so that at least t\l'o-thirds ofit is gen er.

4 \,.n , r:-. -niliaL'g

o., th. l.@ilit\:to th" i.,t"r]I[Jity Jl!*-o.,(--t- ' | \- and familiarit l . u' ith inter-textualitv in the first language by encouraging the

3 1 8 M I C H A E L P . B R E E N

output and directlv fo.*",ro'"&"dbgck are significantiy curtaiied (Slimani; Dobinson; Sw'ain

, nds of participation which

SLA research identifies as genuine negotiation for meaning, in rvhat wavs can "ve

vary the

text, discursive practices and social practices of the classroom so that genuine negotiation

tb, If there is a joint conspiracv U"-t*-i l ,Gfl". *a

learners that predictable and trouble free discourse is preferable to having to work harder

within it, in he

ungedictable and to participate directl) ' in resolving both learning and social confusionsl

TFe indir-idual effort to confront and reduce compiexitv in text through discursive

negotiation *' ith and about that text is the catalvst for understanding and, thereby, an

opportunitv for further learning (Long 1996).

All these considerations directh' implv that rve sh

discourse in a language class u'hich is more challeriging to its particjFgll!! :than it often is.

SuchAlliscourse r,r ' i l l positively support the kind of risk-taking among learners that can

contribute to deeper and more resil ient levels of learning. This means focusing upon the

potential inherent in those discursive practices rvhich learners are currentl)l obliged to adopt

Given that teachers have the major responsibil i tv in managing the discourse of lessons, hor.

can \\'e manage it in r'r'avs that mav maximise such opportunities? Recalling the discursive

practices of learners that I summarised earlier, alternative w.ays of managing the discourse

mav inc lude the fo l lou ing:

Building on the learners'alertness and adaptabil itv to the inter-textualitv oflessons

understanding and creation of i.rr,..rtio'., and diverse combinations of written a.rd1 - - , - - , . - - i - - - r - ^ - - ^ - - - l - - - - - - ^ - ^ t , { , l o t ' ( , r

learners as genuine opportunities for creative use of eme knowledpe and skills

rathert@ ma\

Enabli

rng waYS.

rners to make overt and to thei r ou n on-going learn ing agendas

so that these mav be personal]n n and refined and a

collective u'av.4-

Enabling learners to recognise that-the inevi ng

throuqh a more chal lenq- inq d iscourse of lessons are outu 'e ished bv both immediate_ _ _ = a

Accepting,h.. i"..o TgIggtler, seekwavs of ,o-diilrr.e, u..chosen and adapted on the basis of overt teacher-iearner and learne.-t""cherneggtiation about such things.Appreciating the social risk of doing ail these things, facil i tate cooperative and

suooortive u'avs of uorkinq as a classroom qrouo that resDects the identitv. dif lf icult ies., ' , _

and relative autonomv of the individual includinp tiiose of the teacher.

Each of these ' lvays of rvorking is, of course, related to one another and, therefore,

complementarv. The effort to implement one makes it more possible to implement any ot

and long term benefits.. ' - - + . i ; -trxDlorlnp \\ ' lrn rearners \ avs in u-hich the emerging culture of the classroom group

can be adapted and constructed in an on-going lvav in order to facilitate their own

N A V I G A T I N G T H E D I S C O U R S E 3 L 9

the others. Of course, learners in such a context rvil l be confronted bv the chalienge of

having to navigate a discourse that mav be different from the kind of classroom discourse

with r,vhich thev are more at ease. How'ever, if u.e accept the implications of current SLA

research, it is possible that a more positive relationship betrveen success in navigating such

discourse and success in language learning u-il1 emerge.

References

Al len, P. , S l r 'a in, M. , Har ler ' , B. , and Cummins, J . (1990) 'Aspects of c lassroom t reatment

torvard a more comprehensive vielr. of second language education' ,inThe development oJ

second language projciencv, B. Harlev er ai. (eds). Cambridge: Cambridge Universitv Press.

Alirvright, R. (1980)'Turns, topics and tasks:patterns of participation in language teaching and

learning ' . in Discourse anal)s is tn second Ianguoge reJedr(h, D. Larsen-Freeman (ed. )Rou4ev Mass: Nervburv House.

- (1984)'Why do.r't leu.ners learn u'hat teachers teach?The interaction hvpothesis', in

Language ledrning inJormal and inJormal contexts, D. Singleton and D. Little (eds). Dublin.

IRAL.- (1989) lnteraction.in the language classroom: social problems and pedagogic possibilities. Paper

presented at Les Etats Generaux des Langues, Paris, April 1989.

Allw-right, R. and Bailer', K. (1991) Focus on the language classroom: an introduction to classroom

re se arch for langudge teachers. Calnbridge : Cambridge Universitv Press.

Bahns, J. and Wode, H. (1980) 'Form and function in L2 acquisit ion', in Second language

development:trends and issues, S. Feiix (ed.;.Tiibingen: Gunter Narr.

Beebe, L. (1911) 'The influence of the l istener on code-su.itching' . Language Learning 27 ,331 9 .

Beebe, L. and Zuengler, J. ( 1983) 'Accommodation theorv: an explanation lor style shift ing in

second language dialects' , in Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition, N.Wolfson and

E. Judd (eds). Rorvlev Mass: Neu'burv House.

Berrvick, R. (1990) Task varjatjon and repdr tn Engltsh as aJoreign language. Kobe Universitv of

Commerce: Institute of Economic Research.

Bourdieu, P. (1991) Language and slmbolic power. Cambridge: Politv Press.

Breen, M.P. (1985)'The social context for language learning: a neglected situation?' Studies in

second language acquisit ion 7. 1 35-58.- (1996)'Constructions of the teacher in SLA research', in Georgetown University Round

Table on Languages and Linguistics 1996, J.E. Alatis, C.A. Straehle, M. Ronkin, and B.

Geilenberger (eds;. Washington D. C. : Georgetorvn Universitv Press.

Bruner, l. (1981) 'The pragmatics of acquisit ion', in The child's construction of language,W

Deutsch (ed.). Ner,r-York: Academic Press.

Chaudron, C. (1988) Second language classrooms: research on rcaching and learning. Cambridge:

Cambridge Universit l Press.

Dahl, D. ( 1981) 'The role of experience in speech modiGcations for second language learners'

Minnesota Papers in Linguistics and Philosoph,v oJ Language 1 . 7 8-93 .

Da.y, R. (1984)'student participation in the ESL classroom, or some imperfections in

pract ice . Language Learntng 3+.69-102.

Dobinson, T. (1996) The recall and rercntion oJ new vocabularl'Jrom second language classrooms.

Unpublished M . A. dissertation, Edith Corvan University, Western Australia.

Donaldson, M. (1978) Children's minds. London: Fontana.

Edmondson,W (1985)'Discourse rvorlds in the classroom and in foreign language learning',

Studies in Second Language Acquisit ionJ . 159-68.

3 2 0 I V I I C H A E L P . B R E E N

Ellis, R. (1985)'Teacher-pupil interaction in second language development'. lnput in second

language acquisit ion, S. Gass and C. Madden (eds). Rou'lev Mass.: NervburY House.- (1992) 'Learning to communicate in the classroom'. Studies in Second Language Acquisit ion

1+ .1 -23 .- (199+) The study oJ second language acquisit ion. Oxford: Oxford Universitv Press.

Enright, D. ( 1984) 'The organisation of interaction in elementarv classrooms' , in OnTESOL'8 3:

the question oJcontrol , J. Handscombe et dl . (eds).Washington D.C.:TESOL.

Elv, C. (1985)'An analvsis of discomfort, risktaking, sociabil itv and motiration in the L2^ f . . . - ^ ^ - ' L ^ , , t n n a I a n r n i n n l 6 l - ) ;L l d ) s l u u l l l L u t I H u u [ l E I c u I t t t t r a

Fairclough, N. (1989) Language andpower. London: Longman.- (1992) Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Politv Press.

Foster, S. (1990) The communicative competence oJloung chjldren. London: Longman'

Foucault, \[. (1912) The archeology oJknowledge. London:Tavistock Publications.- ( 1984) 'The order of discourse' , in Language and polit ics, M. Shapiro (ed). Oxford: Basil

Blacku'ell.Glahn. E. and Holman, A. (eds) (1985) 'Angl ica et Amer icana 22 ' . Learner d iscourse.

Copenhaqen : Universitv of Copenhagen

Grcmnro. .\1. . Holec, H. , and Riler', P ( 1978) Melanges Pedagogiques. hking the init iative: some

rrj;gogrcal applications oJ discourse anal,vsis. Universitv of Nancv: CRAPEL'

cntnths. R. r1991)'Pausological research in an L2 context: a rationale and review of selected

studies ' . , lpphed L inguist ics 12.276 9+.

Hall idar, .\1..\.K. (.1978) Lang,uage as socjal semiotic. London: Edw'ardArnold.

Hamalan, E. andTucker, R. (19801'Language input in the bil ingual classroom and its relations

to second language achievement' . TESOL @tarrerlv l+. +53-58.

Hatch, E. (1978) 'Discourse analysis and second language acquisit ion', in Second language

acqutsit ion, E. Hatch (ed.). Rou lev Mass: Ne."vburv house.- (1992) Discourse and language educatton. Cambridge: Cambridge Universitv Press.

Hatch, E., Shirai,Y., and Fantuzzi, C. (1990)'The need for an integrated theory: connecting

modules ' . TESOL Qtar ter l ; 2+.697-1 16.

Henzel,V (1979) 'Foreigner talk in the classroom' . International Review oJApplied Linguistics 17 .

1 59 -55 .Hyltenstam, K. (1984)'The use of tvpological markedness conditions as predictors in second

language acquisition: the case ofpronominal copies in relative clauses' ,rn Second language:

a crosslingutstic perspective, R. Anderson (ed.). Rorvlet' Mass: Nervburv House.

Hyltenstam, K. and Pienemann, N't. (eds) (1985) Modell ing and assessing second language

acquisit ion. Clevedon: Multi i ingual Matters.

Johnston, S. (i990) Teacher questions in the academ)c language-content classrcom. Unpublished

paper. Tok-vo : Tempie Universitv Japan.

Johnston, M. and Pienemann, M. (1985) Second language acquisit ion: a classroom perspective.New

South Wales Migrant Education Service.

Kasper, G. (ed.) (1985) Learning, teach)ng and communjcatjon in theJodgn language classroom.

Aarhus: Aarhus Universitv Press.

Kl ie fgen,J (1985) 'sk i l ledvar iat ioninakindergar tenteacher 'suseof fore igner ta lk ' . lnput tn

second language acquisit ion, S. Gass and C. Madden (eds). Rou'lev Mass.: Neu'bury

House.Kramsch, C. (1985)'Classroom interaction and discourse options'. Srudres in Second Language

,4cquisit ion 7 . 159-83.Lantolf, J.099+)

'sociocultural theorv and second language learning: an introduction to the

special issue' . , l lodern Language Journal 78. +18-4'20.

Lantolf, J. and Appel, G. (199+) (eds) lTgorsiyan approaches to second language rcsearch.

Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

N A V I G A T I N G T H E D I S C O U R S E 3 2 I

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1976a.1 'Teacher speech as input to the

C al rJor ni a't l'orki n g Pap er s in T E S L | 0 . + 5 -+9 .- (1976b) 'An exploration of the morpheme acquisit ion

learners ' . Language Learning )6.12; I l4

ESL learner' . IJniversity oJ

order of second language

- (1983) 'The importance of input in second language acquisit ion', in Pidginization and

creol izat ion and language acquisit ion, R. Anderson (ed.). Rolr ' le), Mass: Newbury House.

Leont'er-, A.N. (1981) 'The

problem of act ivi tv in psvcholog.t: , in l ' ,vgotsk1' and the social

Jormarion oJmind,J.Wertsch (ed.). Cambridge, N{ass.: Harr-ard Universitv Press.

Lightbonn, P. (1980)'The acquisit ion and use of questions bv French L2 learners of English',

in Second language development:trends and issues, S. Fel ix (ed.).Tt ibingen: Gunter Narr.

- (1983) 'Exploring

relat ionships betr,r-een developmental and instruct ional sequences in

L2 acquisition', in Classroom oriented research jn second language acquisition, H. Seliger and

M. Long (eds). Ror'vlev Mass: Neu.burv House.- ( 1985) Can language acquisition be ahered b,r' instruction?, Hvltenstam and Pienemann (eds).

- (1991)'What have rve here? Some observations on the effect of instruct ion on L2

learning', in Foreign/second language Pedagogv Research, R. Phi l l ipson er 41. (eds)

Clevedon : Muitilinguai Matters.- (1992)

'Gett ing quali tv input in the second,/foreign language ciassroom', in Text and

context: cross-discipl inaw perspectives on language studv, C. Kramsch and S. McConnel-Ginet

(eds). Lexington N{ass: D.C. Heath and Co.

Lock, A. ( 1980) The gutded rcinvention oJ language. Neu'York: Academic Press.

Long, M. (1980) Input, intercct ion and second language acquisit ion. Unpublished Ph.D'

dissertation. Universitv of California at Los Angeles.- (1981)' lnput, interaction and second language acquisit ion'. ' \ ior ire language andJoreign

language acquisition , H . Winitz (ed) . Annals of the Neu'York Academv of Sciences , 3 79 .

- (1985)'A role for instruct ion in second language acquisit ion: task-based language

teaching'. Modelltng and assessing second language acquisition, K. Hvltenstam and 11

Pienemann (eds). Clevedon: Muli t l ingual Matters.- ( 1 98 9)

' Task, group, and task-group interactions' . Uni rers ity oJ Hawai'i ltrlorking Papers in

E S r 8 . 2 5 1 - 8 6 .- (1996)'The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition', in

Handbook oJ second language acquisition,W. Ritchie andT. Bhatia (eds). Neu'York:Academic

Press.Long, M. and Sato, C. (1983)'Classroom foreigner talk discourse: forms and functions of

teachers' questions', in Classroom orjented research in second language acqutsit ion, H. Seliger

and M. Long (eds). Ror'r ' lev Mass: Nervburt'house.Macdonnel, D. (1985) Theories oJdiscourse. Oxford: Basil Blackrvell.

McTear, M. (1975)'structure and categories of foreign language teaching sequences', in

Working Papers: LanguageTeachtng Cldssroom Aesearch, R. Allu.right (ed.). Universitv of

Essex, Department of Language and Linguistics.

Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H. , and Todesco. A. ( 1978) The good language learner. Research

in Education Series 7 .Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Nystrom, N. (1983)'Teacher-student interaction in bil ingual classrooms: four approaches to

error feedback', in Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition> H. Seliger and

M. Long (eds). Rou'lev Mass: Neu'burv House.

Pica, T. (1933) 'Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditions of

exPosure . Language Learntng )1. +65-91 .

Pica,T., Doughtv, C., andYoung, D. (1985)'Making input comprehensible: do interactional

modifications help? International Revtew oJ Applied LinBuistics '7

2 . | 25 .

Pica,T.,Young, R., and Doughtr-, C. (1987)'The impact of interaction on comPrehension'

TESOL Qgarterlv' 21. 1 3l-58.

3 2 2 M I C H A E L P . B R E E N

Piough, I. and Gass, S. (1993)'lnterlocutor and task familiaritv: effects on interactiona

structure', in Iasfrs andlanguagelearning:integratingtheory andpractice, G. Crookes and S.

Gass (eds). Clevedon: N{ulti l ingual Matters.politzer, R., Ramirez, A., and Leu'is, S. (1981)'Teaching standard English in the third grade

classroom lunct ions o l language' . Language Learning I l . l7 l q l .

Rampton, B. (1987)'stvlistic variabil itv and not speaking "normal" English: some Post-Labovian approaches and their implications for the studv of interlanguage', in Secon:

language acqujsit ion in context, R. Eli is (ed ). London: Prentice Hall Internationai.

Rilev, P. (1911) Discourse networks in classroom interaction: some problems in communicative languagi.

rcachinB. Melanges Pedagogiques. Universitv of Nanc-v: CRAPEL.

Schiefelbusch, R. and Pickar, J. (eds) (1984t The acquisit ion yf communicative comPetencc

Baltimore MD.: Universitv Park Press.

Schmidt, M. (1980)'Coordinate structures and language universals in interlanguage' . LanguaS:

Learning 30. 397--+16.

Seliger, H. (1917)'Does practice make perfect? A studv of interaction Patterns and Ll

competence' . Language Learning 21.263-18.

Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, N,I. ( 1975) Towards an anal,vsis oJ discourse. Oxford: Oxford Universitr

Press.

Slimani. .\. (1989) 'The role of topicalisation in classroom language learning'. System 1,

223 3+.- ( 1992y 'Evaluation of classroom interaction' , in Evaluating second language acquisittor,-

J. Alderson and A. Beretta (eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Snoll., C. and Hoefnagel-Hciirle, M. (1982)'school age second language learners'access t '-

simplif ied l inguistic input'. Language Learning 32. +11 30.

Spada, N. (1987)'Relationships betu-een instructional differences and iearning outcomes: "process-product studv of communicative language teaching' . Applied Linguistics >

1 8 1 -99 .Strong, M. (1983) 'social styles and second language acquisit ion of spanish-speakir:.

kindergarteners'. IESOI Qgarteil l ' 1l . 2+1-\8.

Strong, M. (19S+)'lntegrative motivation: cause or result of successful language acquisit ion

Language Learnlng 3+. 1-1+.

Su,ain, M. (1985)'Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input anc

comprehensible output in its development', in lnput in second language acquisit ion, S. Ga-'.

and C. Madden (eds). Rou'lev Mass: Nel'burv House.

Swain, M. (1995)'Three functions of output in second language learning', in For H.e

Widdowson: principles and practice in the studv oJ language, G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer (eds

Oxford: Oxford Universitl' Press.

Takahashi, T. (1989) 'The influence of l istener on L2 speech', rn Variation in second langua:':

acquisit ion, vol II:Ps,vcholinguistic issues, S. Gass., C. Madden, D. Preston, and L. Selinke:

(eds). Clevedon: Multi l ingual Matters.

Tanaka, N. ( 1 99 1 ) 'Politeness: some problems for Japanese learners of Engiish' . JALT Journal "

8 1 - 1 0 2 .Tarone, E. ( 1 98 8) Var iation in interlanguage. London: Edward Arnold.

Van Dijk,T. (1935) Handbook oJ discourse analysis,lbls 1 '1. London: Academic Press.

Van Lier, L. (1988) The clasvoom and the language learner. London: Longman.

Vygotskv, L. (1986) Thought and language (nerv edition, A. Kozulin (ed)). Cambridge, Mass

MIT Press.Wells, G. (1981) Learning tfuough interaction:the study oJlanguage development. Language at hor.:

and school:1. Cambridge: Cambridge Universitv Press.- I 9 8 5 . Language development in the preschool l ears. Language at home and school:2. Cambridg.

Cambridge Universitv Press.

C h a p t e r 2 0

Joan Swann

RECORDING AND TRANSCRIBING TALI(

IN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS

Introduction

r f . l H I S C H A P T E R P R o v I D E S G U I D A N C E F o R t h o s e u ' h o w i s h t o c a r r y o u tI an investigation into aspects of spoken language. It is designed mainlv for use in

educational settings, and u'ill probablv be particularlv appropri.t" fo. teacheis and othereducationists engaged on small-sbale research projects. Manv of the techniques andprinciples it discusses, however, applv equallv well to investigations of spoken language innon-educational contexts.

I shall discuss factors to take into account r,vhen making audio and video recordings ofspoken language, then look at different r,l-ays of making a rvritten transcript fro- tteserecordings.The article does not pror, ' ide deiailed guidan"ce on analysis, but i shall refer toother chapters in this volume that serve as examples of different ways of analvsing talk.

Preliminaries: deciding what information you need and how tocollect this

I am assuming that, as a reader of this chapter, vou rvill alreadt'har.e in mind a clear purposefor recording and analvsing spoken language - that vou w-ill have identified certain issuesto focus on, perhaps specified, in a formal project, as a set of research questions. Thesequestions w'ill affect the setting in rvhich vou carrv out your research, the people and eventsyou decide to observe and record, the stance vou adopt tolvards others involved in _vourresearch, the particular types of recording vou make and holr. -vou transcribe and u.rilyr"these.

Selecting a sample oJ people and events

Since you cannot, and u-ill not rvish to record er.ervthing that is going on you will need toselect people and events to focus on. If vour interest is in aspects of claisroom talk, 1.ou mavwish to focus on talk between the teacher (vourself or u .olleug.r"; and pupiis, or ietoueendifferent pupils, or both.You mav be interested in u.hole-class discussionor small-grouptalk.You ma1'rvish to compare contributions from a small number of pupils in dif lerentcontexts, or to monitor one child closelv in a range of activit ies.

but vou cannot *-uk" b.oud qeneralizations on the basis of a sma]l-nunqLer of

# obr.ffi.t utio", of p.opies' behaviour in one set of contexts

fffi oip-todA;evid en ce of hor'r- thev' ge n erallv' b ehave .

A related point is that there ar:!Igbkl[-1! inferences about people's abilities

o. undersianding on the basis of $ hat thev happen toFo u hen . 'ou are re

rtheitln-T . students mav derelop ioping strategies that

a e.'r do.

Adopting a reseatcher stance

3 2 4 J O A N S W A N N

you r,vill also need to think about the representativeness of the tvpes of talk you wish

to examine. For instance, holv are vou seiecting the tvpes of activitv that vou wish to record

and analvse? Do these cor,er the full range of activities normalh' encountered? Or are you

contrasting contexts you think are distinctive in some r'vay?

If you'are carrying out a small-scale investigation focusing on talk in one or tw'o

conte*is, there are trvJ important points to bear in mind about the samples of talk vou

eventuallv come up rvith:

your observations mav provide great insights into peoples' conversational strategies.

the wav thev manaqe certain activities or their understanding of certain concePts

A distinction is commonl,v made in research be.tween Pg:lN, *d ""-!""1'!t=

observation. A participant observer is someone lvho takes part in the evenishe or he .:

observing; a non-participant observer does not take part.There are practical dif{icultrt '

with this distinction: for instance, bv virtue of being in a classroom (or meeting' etc-)' ::

br setting up recordinq equipment, )ou are to some e .*d tjy:--Ut:- '

tq have an effect on people's language behaviour. The linguist Labov identit ied what l ' .'-4:--_'.-

' identi t ied what l ,=

i 1970) - that the mere act of observing peopl . '

l".rg,rug" b&-,ri.;-(;f; thatiratter, other aspects of their behaviour) tt4.h:9,.*-

thaibJhavlour. Different effects are likeh'to be produced bv differenf observers (it m:'

rffi*tretter an observer is female or male, or perceived as relativel)' senior or junior

Man' l inguistic researchers (such as Labov himself) have attemPted, in various wavs'::

minimiselhe intrusion of their observations in order to obtain more'authentic' data' Oth.:'

har.e argued that such detachment is not a reasonable research goal:

We inevitablv bring our biographies and our subjectivit ies to every stage -:

the research process, and this influences the questions lve ask and the lvays in lr-hi;:-

we try to fini ans\irrrs.

b" ,".r, as a regrettable disturbance but as one element in the human interactio:-i

that comprise our obiect o fJimiliifv, research subjects themselves are actli:

Ff f i i " beings- ;ho hu,= ins ights in to thei r s i tuat ions and exper ienc. '

They cannot be observed as if thel' rvere asteroids, inanimate lumps of matter:.th.

har,e to be interacted rvith. (Cameron, Frazer, Hart'ev, Rampton and Richardsc:-

1 9 9 2 , p . 5 )

For educationists researching in their ow'n institutions, or institutions r,vith which ther-ha'-

a close association, it rvil l probably be impossible to act as a completely detached obserr ':

It will be impossible, for instance, to maintain a strict separation between your role a' -:

observer u.i "orr.

usual role as a teacher or a colleague. When interpreting the talk -' -

R E C O R D I N G A N D T R A N S C R I B I N G T A L I < 3 2 5

.r' i l l need to take t of the effect vour o\\ 'n presence. and the lvav vou

.: rhe obserr,ations. mav have had on vour data.

tionship 'ou have, or that vouu ith those r,vho participate in vour research and allou' vou to observe their

. chaviour. I have used the term @t@ to refer to this more general. .^l the *'av a researcher behaves tow'ards the people and events she or he is' r dn1€roh, Frazer , Har\ .er ' . Rampton and Richardson t19921dist inguish betu 'een- I re lat ronsnrD. or researcner s tance:

: , f eSea fC r,vhich a researcher bears in mind the interests of resear-ch

rants - e.g. minimising anv inconvenience caused, protectingprivac,! '- but sti l l- - i :< { lu t fe esearcher who sets the

- 1) .. not other research participants;-:. ir, in lvhich researchers carrv out research on andJor participants - e.g.

-. :-n_g themselves as accountable to participants and being r,vil l ing to use their

: . lnou-ledge on participants'behalf (rvhen required b1'participants to do so);- '.\ !.rinq research' , in r'vhich researchers carrv out research on,Jor and ra'ith other

, - - :ants e.g. being completelv open about the aims and methods of the research,

::..!rng the importance of participants' orvn agendas, empor,r.ering participants

- .r-.< them direct access to expert knou'ledge.

: :!.searcher stance vou fbel able to adopt rvill affect the overall conduct ofyour'.r 'hat \rou research, the specific methods 1'ou adopt, how you interpret

, :.. rhe iorms i., r,r 'hich vou disseminate research findings. Points to consider

' . :: of talk ts it reasonable to record? Onlv'public' talk or also casual, or'private'- :!.rt ion?

- :-;,s_1 5 need permission to record toli? Researchers wouid usually gain permission_ -:-\: , cLUr u'rgo 1y€rhdps from parents in the case of voung children), whereas talk

-: rr-corded by teachers as a part of 'normal'teaching activitv that does not. ,,-:: permission. But rvhat if the teacher is aiso a researcher, or if s/he wishes to' - . : ,S i of ' rout ine ' recordings for research purposes?

::-,hould you be about the purposes of l our recordings? Bound up-ryrlh rthis ,ilSsde!-.' : ' r ion of the observFis paradox: i t is l ike l r that the more \ou te l l people about

---vr-

: r>tdrCh the more thEir bthaviour u- i l l be af lected. Some researchers

yets

r o feel that, if 1'ou are

:'. rnq as a colleague or a teacher, it is important to retain an atmosphere of trusl . J' . n \oursell ancl tnose vou \4orK \\ ' l tn.

= : 1 " i ; i f f i r,,v-,- ),)u discuss your recordings with research pafiicipants? This has to do

,'- u-ith the researcher stance vou adopt. Discussing recordings with others also, ,u check 'r 'our interpretations against theirs,

"Id -uu giie vou a different

: - tanding of r our data.- . . . / . 1 . , ^ . . : ) ^ - . ; . / 1 , ',, L)tu ) uu lwertL!) ;Aose lou have recorded? In writrng reports, researchers often give

- :'rnvms to institutions in rvhich they har-e carried out research, or people r.l'hose

ecollaborati ieli:ff i-paniciprntr,holr'erer,

:'.1' .rvish to be identified bv name. If vou do rvish to maintain confidentialitv it

3 2 6 J O A N S W A N I \

mav be hard to do this'nvhere vou are obserr-ing in-r'our ou'n institution - the idenu:

;;;;; .;;;,.r". ,o ma1.be apparent to other'coileagu,es. one solution is to discu''

r,vith colleagues or students hoor' -rr.h confidentialitrlthev feel is necessary and h'- ''

th is mar be mainta ined'. ln what wavs should vou consult those,vou have recorded about the dissemination and'furt:::

use oJyourworft? People ma,v gi1 permission to be recorded for a certain purpose' b--'

rvhat i fvourpr , .po*"hu"g-" iEg 1 'oumavrv ishtodisseminateyour* :1kt :a$ ' id ' :

audience, .r,";* "-rid"o-obtuii"d

fo, o-or* research in a professional developm':':

session u ' id l local tcachers '

For those interested in the relationships betlveen researchers and'the researched" camer'-:

et al . (19921 tsa usefLl source. Professional orgalisl l ions aiso provide research guidelir '"

_ see for instance the British Association for Rp"phed Linguistics (199+) Recommendation: ':

Good Practice in Applted Linguistics'

The sections that follou' provide practical guidance. on

recordings, making fieldnotes to supplement these recordings'

detailed analvsis.

Making aud.io and video recordings

When planning to record tdlk in classrooms or other educational settings' it is importar-:

to allow adequate time for this' Unless recording equipment is,routinelv lsed' 1ou

will n'et:

to allow. time to collect, set up and check equifment.You will aiso need to pilot your da::'

collection methods to ..r.rrr"'that it is porritl" to record clearlv the kinds of data )ou a::

interested in' When vou have mud" vo,,I- recordings vou will need time to play and repl:.

these to become fu-iii". rvith vour data and to make transcriptions'

An init ial decision .o.t."rt. u'hether to make audio or video recordings' Videos ar=

pu.tlorlurlt useful for those u'ith an interest in rjon--r--ei6sfBehaviour; theY are also uset--

for shotving holv certain activities are carried out, or certain equipment used' On the othe :

hand, video cameras are likelv to be more intrusive then audio recorders, and,vou maY al'-

find it harder to obtain a clear recording oi speech'

I have set out belonu some practi."ul poi.r,, to bear in mind w'hen making a choic'

between audio and v ideo recordings '

A f te ryouhavemadereco rd i r r "gs , - i t i suse fu ] t omake" ' #

and context o[ each sequence. anJ then summarize the content (use the casset te Pla\ i :

."r.ffi,r, tup"a,,dTJp yo' lo*re extracts again).

Aud.io or video recordings?

Audio-recotdings

. A n a u d i o - c a s s e t t e r e c o r d e r c a n b e i n t r u s i v e - . h o @ d -

case in classrooms rr-her" l, 'P;1. "." used to bffiE7ecorded, or recordin-g

;ffiusiveness is more or"@orders are used

in contexts lvhere talk is not normallr:re.ord.d, and u'here there is not tht

opportunit\ for recording to become routine (e ' g' staff or other meetings) '

making audio and vidt

and t ranscr ib ing ta lk :

R E C O R D I N G A N D T R A N S C R I B I N G T A L I ( 3 2 7

Intrus iveness can be lessened bv keeping the technoloql s imole and unobtrus i r e-a l

for example bv using a small, batterv-operated cassette recorder w-ith a built, in.

T5jgph.* . - Ih is a lso aro ids the danger of ' t ra i l ing u i res. and the problem of

finding appropriate sockets.

It is also better to use a fairlv simple cassette recorder if pupils are recordingthemselves. In this case, go for a machine *-ith a small number of controls, andcheck that voung pupils can operate the buttons easilr'.

There is a trade-off betu'een lack of intrusireness/ease of use and cualitv ofrecording: more sophisticated machines, used lvith separate microphones,will produce a better qualitv recording. This is a consideration if l.ou intend touse the recordings r'r ' i th others, for example in a professionai deveiopmentsession.

A s ingle casset te recorder is not su i table for recording u-hole-c lass d iscussion,-:---_r..l".r t or fo.rr o. th . The recorder rvill pick up loud voices, orvoices that are near to it, and probablv lose the rest behind background noise(scraping chairs and so on). Even lr 'hen recording a small group, backgroundnoise is a problem. It is rvorth checking this br. piloting vour recordingarrangements: speakers mav need to be located in a quieter area outside theclassroom.

With audio-recordings you lose important nonverbal and contextuai information.Unless vou are familiar uath the speakers \-ou mav also find it difficult todistinguish betrveen different voices. Wherever possible, supplement audio-distinguish betrveen different voices. Wherer.'er possible, supplement audio-r . . .o . i ing, * i th f ie ld-notes or a d iarr pr -

Video-recording s

' Video cameras are more intrusive than audio-cassette recorders. In contexts suchas classrooms, intrusiveness can be lessened bv leaving the recorder around fora w.hile (su'itched ofl).

o ,A video camera is highlv selective - it cannot pick up evervthing that is going onin a large room such as a classroom. If vou move it around the classroom vou w.ill

get an impression of u'hat is going on, but rvill not pick up much data you canactuallv use for analvsis. A video camera may be used to focus on the teacher'sbehaviour.Wh"r, ,rr"d to record pupils, it is best to select a small group, carryingout an activitl'in rvhich they don't need to move around too much.

' As r'vith audio-recordings, it is best to have the group in a quiet area vv'here theirwork u'ill not be disrupted bv onlookers.

' The recording wiii be more useable if vou check that the camera has all that -vouwant in view- and then lear.e it running. If vou move the camera around you maylose important information, and you mav introduce bias (bv focusing selectivelyon certain pupils or actions).

' Video cameras w'ith built- in microphones don't ahvays produce good soundrecordings.You w-ill need to check this. A common problem is that you may needto locate a camera a long r,vav from the group you are observing both to obtaina suitable angle of vien., and to keep the apparatus unobtrusive. If it is importantthat you hear preciselv lvhat each person sal's, you mav need to make a separateaudio-recording or use an external microphone plugged into the video camera.

R E C O R D I N G A N D T R A N S C R I B I N G T A L I ( 3 2 7

Intrus iveness can be lessened br keepins the technoloqv s imole and unobtrus ive.-for example br us ing a sma[ l . bat terr operated casset te recorder n i th a bui l t - in

microphone.This a lso aro ids the danger of t ra i l ing n ' i res, and the problem of--finding appropriate sockets.

It is also better to use a fairlv simple cassette recorder if pupils are recordingthemselves. In this case, go for a machine u'ith a small number of controls, andcheck that voung pupils can operate the buttons easilv.

There is a trade-off betu-een lack of intrusiveness/ease of use and cualitv ofrecording: more sophisticated machines, used rvith separate microphones,

u.ill produce a better qualitr'' recording. This is a consideration if l-ou intend touse the recordings r,r-ith others, for example in a professionai development

session.

A siaglg_ge$ette recorder is not suitable for recording u'hole-class discussion,rur"_lest i.ot fo.r, ot th .The recorder u-i l l pick up loud voices, orvoices that are near to it, and probablv lose the rest behind background noise

(scraping chairs and so on). Even w-hen recording a small group, background

noise is a problem. It is rvorth checking this br. piloting vour recording

arrangements: speakers mav need to be located in a quieter area outside the

classroom.

With audio-recordings vou lose important nonverbal and contextuai information.

Unless vou are familiar with the speakers \rou mav also find it diff icult to

distinguish betrveen different voices. Wherer-'er possible, supplement audio-distinguish betrveen dil lerent voices. Wherever possible, supplement audio-

. " .o.J ing, u i th held-notes or a d iar . pr . ,

Video-recording s

' Video cameras are more intrusir-e than audio-cassette recorders. In contexts suchas classrooms, intrusiveness can be lessened bv leaving the recorder around for

a w.hile (sw'itched oft).o ,\ video camera is highlv seiective - it cannot pick up everything that is going on

in a large room such as a classroom. If vou move it around the classroom vou wil l

get an impression of r,vhat is going on, but rvill not pick up much data you canactuailv use for analysis. A video camera mav be used to focus on the teacher's

behaviour.When used to record pupils, it is best to select a small group, carrying

out an activitv in n'hich thel' don't need to move around too much.' As u.ith audio-recordings, it is best to have the group in a quiet area rvhere their

rvork will not be disrupted bv onlookers.' The recording u'ill be more useable if vou check that the camera has all that vou

want in vieu' and then leave it running. If vou move the camera around you maylose important information, and vou mav introduce bias (bv focusing selectivelvon certain pupils or actions).

. Video cameras lvith built- in microphones don't alu.a_vs produce good soundrecordings.You wiil need to check this. A common problem is that you may needto locate a camera a long u'a\. from the group you are observing both to obtain

a suitable angle of vieu,-, and to keep the apparatus unobtrusive. If it is importantthat you hear preciselv lr.hat each person savs, vou mav need to make a separate

audio-recording or use an external microphone plugged into the video camera.

3 2 8 J O A N S W A N N

Making field-notes

Field-notes allorv vou to jot dorvn, in a svstematic u'ar', vour observations on activit ie.

and events. Thev provide useful contextual support for audio and video recordings, anc

mav also be an important source of information in their ou'n right. For instance, if vour

focus is on students in a particular iesson, vou mav lvish to make notes on a (related

discussion betlveen teachers; on other lessons vou are unable to record; or on the lessor'

vou are focusing on, to supplement \-our audio/r'ideo recordings.You ma1'also lvish to make

notes on the audlo/vidio recordings themseh'es, as a prelude to (and a context for'

transcriPtion.If uou a.e taking notes of a discussion or lesson on the spot, you w'ill find that the taik

flo*,, ,.".t rapidlv. ihi, i, likelv to be the case particularlv in informal talk, such as talk

betq,een stnde"tr in a group. More formal talk is often easier to observe on the spot. Ir:

rvhole-class discussion t.a Ui u teacher, or in formal meetings, usually onh' one person talk

at a time, and participants may lvait to talk unti l nominated bv the teacher_or.chair.The

teacher or- chuir mav rephrase or summarize u.hat others speakers have said. The slighth

more ordered nut.,r" of such talk gives an observer more breathing space to take notes.

, ,r' It is usual to date notes and to Ptotid. b.i"f .o"tt 'The format adoptec\- / is h ighlv rar iable depending on par t icu lar research in terests and Personal Preterences

Figu-re i0.1 ,ho*-, extiacts from field-notes made b.-t -,-o Open Universitl' colleague Janer

Mlvbin rvhile watching an assemblv in a school in the south-east of England. Janet Mavbin''

obJervations forrn pa.iofu l"rg", studt of 10 1 2 vear old children's collaborative language

practices in school. In this extract, she rvas interested in identifving the values laid down rr:

s.hool assemblies. She u,anted to see u'hether, and how, these might resurface later ir:

chiidren's talk in other contexts.

Janet Mavbin \\-as not taking an active part in the assembll" so she could jot dou-r:

observations and brief comments at the time. She also audio-recorded the assembly for later

analysis (she occasionallv jots dou-n counter numbers in her field-notes). After school' sht

*.oi" up her field-notes, separating observations (u'hat actuallv happened) from a

commenta.v (her questions, reflectiontGterp6T;-tions, ideas for things to follow up later r.

,--Tii,utuirng'observation' from'commentarv' is useful in that itencourages the obserl'er

to thinl.u."frllv about rvhat thev have observed, and to try out different interpretations

Bear in mind, however, that no observati

focus on and hou' vou d-escribe events

i enttrelY tl

alreadv de nd on an im licit inter

framefork.

notes to

Making a transcript Ih, = 15 Q,, lra',.st foa !

In order to anal-vse spoken language at anv level of detail, vou will need to make a written

transcript.tanscription is, horvever, velv time-consuming. Edwards andWestgate (199+

suggest ihat "u.rv

hou.', recording mav require 1 5 hours for transcription. I find that I can

-u1I" . rough transcript more quicklv than this, but a detailed transcript may take far longer.

particularli if a lot of nonverbal or contextual information is included.

In ,-i l l-s.al. research, rr2nscripts mav b For instance, you coulc

transcribe tti*_SoSlg nutes from a longer interaction.You could use field

iftinn; or you could make a rough transcript o:

an ii-teraction to identifv general

extracts.

of interest, then more detailed transcripts of relevan:

R E C O R D I N G A N D T R A N S C R I B I N G T A L I ( 3 2 9

Nd"t 6otot lo^-&{*,-,wt3+

1L s6,r, R'l hd.'tc".t*' b Li 'i.4. 'qa1 5.iteble fua utar.,ttl

3ffiT# n"t'+nu*

3 ol^i//..^ i.l. ;, nt,*, L rreaar-t pen-i

abo.t 0,6"1 ,jLi iltrha^)t kt",{h 5..J.1 d,-

?*i,b od alf.qd,r.z.

I clilA arL' {€-fr{ bbr^L 6nJ. rrb o^ ilr ra.rs q.cl4 d&.f a&Mll.{ af CLI*,t .' trai,,sqlr., S h."rAt*, ott;y t ,j r.t

"t*t[ saa& 4 . 'oL ar ' ) .

l+z^ lutlr- rwg Aa.t, pd'€"/.4I p".* oe.r d,u, Fu hdl,

fp dstr d,. LUJ'tu)*;Sta.ri, i La'C {oir,i"r cn -

baarars4 .S.fnf ,fJl^^la+rl o.a r*z a\aotu;^A(e'ilrr!

I\L A]ua* fi. l'at ,i.PRtu.lri? S trq o^f" red-€aAs L hL'4a-ir'.

4k e&d' &:J.J.'^Dd ^re no, *eJt {.

di€\,ill.at" 1L "^*,;! 4tL 'izerler- at fiu

ftoit dif s*tt sqlt+

ij *J a, t\ ^o{nIo*l rur:.

Fir. Br-r qh;t*\ s+.a'0,4+ 4L a;+

"iV$pff, a.A.qive, A- .railn;cll;f&u ^"ifu+rfqcir to'(or ha s3, 'sh'.

t9o 5o.c 4.Jar.' 44. (U\ sk,, o.l AU Ul qu.ictght4q, cl**,.ItzUA*/*

dt ,a"t bhP ',^t r\' "ld*/6{A qd p"ittttl'; &.40""* ,".i,,k; ,rglna g( td.Ai-d S. L-.r{bfl. , Q"Unb*rt4"4 ,tt^ 3 tif,L P.i,l S"edUp'aa

"*.r s:rt l.

"tU*.a.^.it dl. s*g .

t Ct^h ,t 9r otu\ +dl"r-trriltuTs,.!baf,a. il6lt o0". d.;iXrtari fi" o-e.re.r^th. l^lAot,;

b"ri c*,* A-.tr L,. t

A 6*ldd+ RAL +@tl,t4.. t.-t osd b pry.lt4l Ebt P?&,6.d u. arilr "ur L'fii,,t.Arr.R; g pqst/ arJ}L-f 4te c-aq g-tc/

-rjrj{rq

}"tt fu oL+f*i.;.,rrr{h1p ku.{ +

. nL rc,;apl'sk ft4 t

&.*/ a/.Lc^ l*ts-.^ot ezot-iilth 4L! sr-"r*a+l d4niit dfr k* Ao', irIt .t lrt^o' u.qn- i n&lU^tq, r*t! lr-,.t^,t,,adry d;b + p,;il t+o1nrrls etqEuoltA-'tb ,"tr b ^'t.t?

ttL-*iU.'+t .lt' n ort *o*t L& rola ii rte<.qg $-rcau.{ ceepatg^l I hi

t-'. J^ry 'P+X""', t" lui rc l!

ar$t +'.b'rd; s**ttaneauoire.i"r ".e f.-Lj;

---*l

t7r 44zJt F. dt :"hrttcHl'L<a |" toz i* {t^tt'

tt-,*+t^$|r'sqsfinrr -iedr =

{.^h + a-fir.$* v. tet)^*,t*a3q p'1ir' t. s."+.tna1a,f4r4. "

tbftJuf A^la{{a s<c,qclo^oet l-l^ir.,d tl.tdutA -i-t,*"t p,1:',.,., rel4trr., d{ta'rri*<Ai(l.. s.{L d6^ht""+1 ?^nJ.b:

F)gure 20.1 Fieid-notes of an assembl-v in a school in south-east Engiand

3 3 0 J O A N S W A N N

While transcripts allor,v a relativelv detailed examination of spoken language, they only

provide a partial.".o.d, theY cannot faithfullv reproduce everv asPect oftalk'Transcribers

r,vill tend io pav attention to different aspects depending upon.their interests' w'hich means

that a transcriit i, "l.e"dv

an interpretuiio., of the event it seeks to record' Elinor Ochs, in

a norv classic account of 'Transcription as theorv' , suggests th"t

't,".-sttiPtifrilTIT"ttiu'

Proc9; n"' Q979,f-l+l This point is il lustrated

tv t6ilu-pl" Iuio.,t, and tran-scription conventions discussed belo*'.

Tran scr iption conventions

Manv published transcripts, such as those cited elselvhere in this volume, use conventions

of rt.iit"., language ,rr.h u, punctuation in representing speech. But because u'ritten down

speech is not the same as writing it can be quite hard to punctuate'

If _vou do u.ish to punctuate a transcript bear in mind that in so doing you are giving

the speech a particular interpretation. Compare the follorving trvo methods of punctuating

a teacher 's quest ion(s) :

Nou-, think ven' carefullv. What rvould happen if rve cut one of those hollow balls in

half?What u'ould we frnd inside?

Nou., think verv carefullv u.hat rvouid happen if we cut one of those hollor'v balls in

half.What would w-e Hnd inside?

Use of punctuation represents a trade-off betr,veen iegibility and accessibilitv of the transcript

and *.hat might be a premature and impressionistic anal,vsis of the data. It is Prob3bl)' besl

f f i onsa reava i l ab1e to i "d i . i t . f . " t . , . " ' o f , poken language .Someo fth"r"

".. highlv detailed, allor.ving transcribers to record intakes of breath, increased volume,

stress, ,vltu"ut" lengthening "t.. 1r"", for instance, Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson, 1974;

Ochs, 1979). Such-conueniions are designed to produce accurate transcriptions, but there

is a danger that thev rvill lend a misleading sense of scientific objectivity to the exercise.

Rather ihun belng'objectivelv identified' sirch features of speech are likely to correspond

to the transcriber's initial interpretations of their data'

Bearinq in mind this caveat, Figure 20.2 i l lustrates a simple set of conventions for

R E C O R D I N G A N D T R A N S C R I B I N G T A L I ( 3 3 7

Teacher begins by telling class the lesson is to be about to,v animals. She arranges some stulfedtoy animals on her desk, then asks the cla.ss 'Have

,vou Bot anv tov animals at home?' Studentsare selected tndividually to respond.Teacherfrst asks a girl, and makes her repeat carefully'lhave got manJ toJ animals at home.'Then turns to a bov, Sl .

Figure 20.2 Transcription of teacher-student talk

the next n ord in his sentence (a, two, or thrce presumablv tov animals). This may be whatleads to the student's error (.a maryr toy antmals) rvhich is subsequentlv corrected by theteacher.

Laying out a transcript

The most commonlv used lavout, rvhich I shall call a'standard' lavout, is set out rather like

a diaiogue in a plar., ivith speaking turns follor.r ing one another in seque.rce. This is the layout

Transcription Notes

1 T: You [student 's name] have vou got

2 manv tov animals at home

3 51 : Yes I have { ( . ) I have a go t

4 T ; { m m h5 51: manv tov animals at home

6 T: That's good that's right rvhat tov

7 animals hate vou got at home (.)

8 what name for animals (. )

9 lstudent's namel rvhat tov anima]s low voice

l 0 have rou go t a t home r . r I m l i ke a t i ge r

1 1 Ss: < laughter>

12 T: What -ves

13 52: I have { I have got { ( . ) I T nods; lowers S2's

1+ T: { mmh {mmh a 1 , ) hand and places on

15 or mavbe tx'o or { mavbe three desk

16 52: { I have got a manv

11 tov animals ,y18 T: mmh I have got { manv tov animals

19 52; { manv tov animals

K"y

I - I e a c n e r

S = Student (S1 = Student l , etc)

student's name underlining indrcates anr' feature vou u-ish to comment on

( ) br iefpause

( l sec) timed pause

{ mavbe brackets indicate the start of or,erlapping speech

{ I have got

<laughter) transcription of a sound etc that forms part ofthe utterance

7h, s

3 3 2 J O A N S W A N N

adopted in Figure 20.2, and in several chapters in this volume. one of the better known

alteinatives tJthis lavout is a'column' l"uor.,t, in rvhich each speaker is allocated a seParate

column for their sPeaking turns'

Figures 20.3 and 20.1 i l lustrate respectivelv'standard' and'.column' layouts applied to

the same briel extract of talk. This comes from one of a series of English lessons in_a

secondarv school in Denmark, near Copenhagen (Dam Td

L"1:' 1998)'The class of 15-

y"". "la

mi*ed-abllltv students r.vere carrvin[ o,'r, u project on 'England and the English''

The extract shorvs a group of students, two g"ir1s und toto l:yt,,b"gt":ing

to plan what to

do for their homes.o.k.T^he students "..

,.ri'"d round a table, the girls opposite the boys'

In group talkit's often interesting to look at-the role taken bv different students' In this case'

th"-grolp seemed to collaborat"-fui.lv rvell and to be generally_supportir'e of ^one

another'

Glrft ,""*"d to plav an organising or chairing role - e-g' b,v alkrng for ideas from the,rest

of the group; bv'correcti.,g?Bou llteminding"him that Tt_:"..0

is for the gt1"P as a whole

(line 8 of the stand".d l"r:o.,t; i and bv .o*il.tl.tg Girl 2's turn (line 17 of the standard

Transcription

1 G1: What are rve going to do at home

2 ( ) anl ideas

3 81: Yes ( . ) I take th is ( ) I take

4 thi5 (general laughter) ves ves

5 I take it mmh and I see and I

5 see if there's something I can

Notes

addresses group

directly

refers to book which

he holds up

I9

l 0l 11 21 3l +

use ( . )

G 1 ?: We can use

81 : We can use

82: So w.hat (*'ould) rve do (

read rt at home (l; the

questionnaire

question towards

girls?

B ]{ ( . ) read i t at home

{r )t . l

1 51 61 71 81 9202 1

G2: Mavbe I can get some materials

for this

Gl: From ( mother)

G2 : Yes

B1?: f rom rvhere

G2 from mv mother ( ) from the

travel agencl

K.y

As in Figure 20,2 *'ith, in addition:

G , B - G i r l , B o v

(u.ould) transcription uncertaln: a guess

( ) unclear speech impossible to transcribe

t. 1 excision some data excluded

Figure 20.3 Transcription of small group talk: standard lavout

G I

I What are rve going

2 to do at home ( . )

3 anv ideas

+56789

1 0l 1I 2l3 We can use (?)t +1 51 61 71 81 920

t . l21 Mavbe I can get22 some materials,,

23 for this

2+ From ( mother )

G 2 B I

Yes

from mv mother

( . ) f rom the

travel agencv

Yes ( . ) I take

this ( . ) I take

this <general

laughter> ves ves

I take it mmh and

I see and I see

i f there 's

something I can

u s e ( . )

We can use

82 Notes

addresses group

directh

refers to book

r.hich he holds

uP

So t'hat (w.ould) questionrve do ( ) read towards grrls?i t at home ( . )the que: l ionnaire

( ) ( . ) read i t at

home

f i om nhe re 1?1

2 S2 62 l2 82 9

K"y

As in Figure 20.3 u.ith, in addition:

(?) Guess at speaker

R E C O R D I N G A N D T R A N S C R I B I N G T A L I ( 3 3 3

Figure 20.1 Transcription of small group talk: column lavout

layout). I would be interested in looking further at this group's w.ork to see if Girl 1maintained this role or if it was also taken on bv other students.

The wav transcription is laid out mav highlight certain features of the talk, for instance:

' The standard layout suggests a connected sequence, in r.r,.hich one turn follows onfrom the preceding one.lYhis does seem to happen in the extract transcribed in Figures20.3 and 20.4 but it is not ahvals the case. In voung children's speech, for instance,sPeaking turns mav not follou' on directlv from a pr'eceding turn. I shall also give anexample of more informal talk belou' in rvhich it is harder to distinguish a series ofsequent ia l turns.

' Column transcripts allorv vou to track one speaker's contributions: vou can look atthe number and tvpes of contribution made bv a speaker (e.g. Girl I

's 'organising'

contributions), or track the topics thel'focus on - or lvhatever else is ofinterest.

3 3 4 J O A N S W A N I \

. In a column transcript, it's important to bear in mind lvhich column you allocate to

each speaker. Because offactors such as the left-right orientation in European scripts'

and associated conventions of page lavout, we mav give prioritY to information located

on the left hand side. Ochs (1979) points out that, in column transcripts of adult-child

talk, the adult is nearlv ahr-avs allocated the left-hand column, suggesting they are the

init iator of the conversation. In Figure 20.4 I began lr ' i th Girl 1, probably because she

spoke 6rst, but I also grouped the girls and then the bovs together.This may be useful

i ivon1. interest is, sa1 in gender issues, but it 's important to consider why vou are

adopting a particular order and not to regard this as, somehor,v, 'natural'.

Accounts of conversational turn-taking har,e often assumed that one Person talks at a time

(e.g. Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson, 197+).As I suggested above, hor,r 'ever, this is not alwavs

,h"-.ur., particJarlr in voung children's t.lk, :t i" trro,t" i"fotlul di"

"is lots of overlapping talk andwhe.e speakersliJq-ilen-lv complete one another's turns' In

s of intormal talk amongst women lrlef f . l lenn i te r Loates de \e loPec l a metnoo

of transcription in u,hich she used a'stave' lavout (bv analogv r", ' i th musical staves) to

represent t ihe joint construction of speaking turns (see, for instance, Coates, 1996). Stave

transcription has not been used frequentlv in educational contexts but ma1'be adopted to

il lustrate highh.collaborative talk in small groups. Figure 20.5 comes from a study made

bv Julia Dar--res (2000) of English lessons in three secondarv schools in Sheffield, in the norttr

oiL.rglu.d. Davies oo-". purti.rrlariv interested in gender issue,s in ho'lr 'girls and bovs

*-orkJd together in singfe-sbx and mixed-sex groups. Figure 20.5 shows a grouP of four

teenage giils reflectingtn their earlier experiences of school. Davies found (like Coates)

that tie g'irls' talk rvas particularlv collaborative (e.g' it contained overlapping speech, joint

construclion ofturns and several indicators of conversational support).

Ir

The lavout vou choose for a transcript rvill depend on what you are transcribing and

rvhy. Here I hur,. t.i"d to shou, horv different lavouts highlight certain aspects of talk and

pluj do* n others.You rvil l need to trv out. and probablv adapt, la)'outs ti l l )"ou find one that

..ri i , . 'ou, purposes U. ulttudl' Ituditg you

towards a particular interpretation of vour data'

I ncludin g nonverb aI and cont extual inJo rmation

Transcriptions tend to highlight verbal information, though I have indicated above hou'

.ro.rlr"rbul information can be sholvn in a'notes' column' or bY tyPographical conventions

such as capitai letters for emphasis or loudness. In some chapters of this book authors use

different conventions. Pauline Gibbons andAngel Lin, for instance (Chapters 16 and 17

respectively) include some nonverbal information within brackets in the dialogue. If you

are particularlv interested in nonverbai information vou maY w'ish to adopt transcription

conventions that highlight this in some \vav. As examples, Figure 20.6 shorvs how a storv

teller uses a number of nonr.erbal features in her perfor of a Niger ian ston ( 'A man

amongst men'); and Figure 20.7 shorvs h:- .,*.b ate female or male

students to respond to her quest ions

Representin g dffirent lan guage vatieties

The transcripts of classroom talk I have il iustrated so far come from contexts in which

English is being used as a medium of instruction. In many contexts, however, even where

f"llith is used ", "

cl"r.roo* Ianguage, teachers and students mav also use another language,

R E C O R D I N G A N D T R A N S C R I B I N G T A L I < 3 3 5

Bel Right/anvthing else? / evervone

Ju.Lou

Rosa

{have a th inkrr ight /

{elervone have a think

Bel

J". about their important memories ,/

Lou

Rosa

Belr . ^

Lou

Rosa

I . e go t one , . ' r i gh r I r emember r . ,

Belr ^ -

Lou

Rosa

{<laughs> Jan AGAINiI 'r ,e got this important {memorv of schooi s'as-/ l got

BelT - ^

Lou

Rosa

{this ef'fort trophv at middle school i.; /

{Jan again/ r'eah?/

Bel

J". and I

Lou

Rosa

/oh and t * ' " r " -Z"nd I rvas dead chut led/ l thought i t $ere grear/

K"y

As above with, in addition:

Yeah/ A slash represents the end of a tone group, or chunk oftalk

\eah? / A question mark indicates the end of a chunk analvsed as a question

AGAIN Capital letters indicate a rvord uttered rvith emphasis

Staves are numbered and separated bv horizontal lines; all the talk rvithin a sta\.e is to be read together,

sequentiallv from left to right.

Bel

Ju. an effort trophr'?/ it $ ere great u'eren't it?/

Lou I got one of them/ veah/

Rosa

Bel

I : n

Lou

Rosa

{it w'ere great/

iar the fourth r ear of iunior :

Figure 20.5 Transcription of group talk: sta'r-e Ialout

Source: adapted from Davies (2000): 290

Nlote: Davies follolvs Coates in representing, u.ithin a stave, onlv those students rvho are speaking. Here I have

included all students throughout the transcription rvhich illustrates, for instance, that one student, Rosa, does

not speak at all in this sequence. Rosa mav have been contributrng in other rvavs e.g. nonverballv - and she

does speak later in the discussion.

3 3 6 J O A N S W A N N

TranscriPt

I [Once upon a time] a j long

I l o n g , l o n g r l o n g I l o n g t i m e

ago there was a hunter a [r'en'

ue l l . kno rvn and respec ted hun te r l

*everv dav he u-ould go out Into the

I bush he w'ould catch rvhatever

meat he needed for the village, he

w'ould carry it on his back he u'ould

bring it into the village he u'ould

throrv it down on the floor the people

they rvould see him *thev u'ould start

clapping their hands <claPs,

A. c laps>

K.y

fOnce upon a time]

long

*everv da)

catch whatever meat

<claps>

Notes

spreading gesture to start storv; downward

gestures used for rhvthm;

*facing A, or orlenting torvards A

even lvhen embodvrng actrons

xhands out to A; A also invited bv direct

gaze, head movement, general

bodv orientation.

Square brackets indicate beginning and end

of large spreading gesture

Vertical slash indicates downrvard gesture

accompanl'ing a u'ord

Asterisk indicates something that is

commented on in the 'Notes' column

Underlined speech indicates that the

storvteller also mimes the actions she

describes

As in transcripts above, indicates

sound/ action that forms part of the

utterance

Audience

Figure 20.6 Representation ofnonverbal features in an oral narrati\e

such as the students'f irst or main language, for certain PurPoses. In this case, it ma\ ::

interesting to see lvhen a teacher or student uses each language'

TherJ are man\" different wavs of rePresenting the alternation between differe:-:

language varieties. I" Chupr,1] I fotl"t,"".. I Lin indicates''bets-e.*

C"nto.r.r" and EnglisffiEpGsen,i"E C "".o""t"

i" o""tlitionand

. 9 researchers ha|e rePresented languages ln r

also offering an English translation. Figure 20.8, from research carried outbyAntoine::=

Camilleri iribilingu'-ui classrooms in Malta, shou-s a teacher alternating between English r i

Maltese, $,here N{-ult.r" is used to amplifv or explain (rather than simply translate) an EngL':

sentence read from a textbook. In this case, an English translation of the Maltese utteran.::

is given in a separate coiumn. Figure 20.9, from research carried out by G.D. JayaiaksL*'u

i.riih"., in northern India, shoivs hou, a teacher uses Sanskrit partlv to demonstrate :--.r5

knowledge and also'because he believes that his function is to instruct students not onj" 'r

lu.rgrrug.irrt also, more generallr', in life' (Javalakshmi , 1996,p. 145). In this case' an En;.-'n

translation is given in brackets beneath the Sanskrit'

In Figure 20.9, Javalakshmi represents Sanskrit in Devanagari script. It would:-::

have been-possible to represent it in transliteration, in Roman script. It is, how'ever' r1 -:

difficult to decide how- to represent language yarieties closelv related to English, or difft:- -r:

varieties of English, that do not have a conventional orthograph,v' Figure 20.5 represe::-:

Teacher: i1,"" h"* "

p""drt,r- (.) otl-ti.h n- .rt"blirhed last week uas a u-eight ".tr"rr 1.; suspended

from a string.:ltgl_

I t :d: :r! :': !g*"g n n+_ri h1q"'d'; ;;;;; ;;tr :1,_(:,_:It,i. i i *",makes the pendulum su.ing in a dou'nnard directron for instance till it gets to there? [1]?

f 1. r jusr *atchl l1

Matheu': I gravin'

Teacher; wr'rlt i i .rn.ir '""i: l

Mather,: G.;;;

Teacher: JYes 1.1 f norv rve ment ioned gravi tv when we s 'ere\ /

B o l : I t ) l

reacher: ::,:1'1,_1 fi;;;;i;;;;;ff;;;;;.;;;;;h()oK:;lJ;g.";;;d*;;h;F;11;; d;;; il rvhat causes it to go up

"g"i;;;[" ;ihJ.

"+z 1:1- r 7 - - - - , - - : ' - - :Bor : ] l -o rce the Io rce' 1_ . iBoy: LThe string MissJ

R E C O R D I N G A N D T R A N S C R I B I N G T A L I < 3 3 7

means gaze to bovs

means qaze to qirls

{ } overlap

(. ) pause

( ) unclear

Figure 20.7 Representation of teacher's gaze towards female and male studentsSource, Swann and Graddol (1989/ 1994): 157-9

Nore: The full transcript from u.hich Figure 20.7 is extracted shou's that the teacher's gaze is morelrequentlv directed towards the bovs at critical points in the interaction, such as when a question isto be answered.

F)gure 20.8 Transcript illustrating alternation betr,veen Engiish and Maltese

Source: Camilleri (1994) cited in Mercer (.1996):134, and Chapter 15 of this volume

nonstandard grammar (' i t rvere great') but did not attempt to represent the girls'accent.Some transcribers resort to 'eve dialect' (as in we wuz jus' goin'

'ome1 to give an indication of

pronunciation but there is a danger here of representing certain speakers (rvorking class

speakers, children, non-native speakers) as somehow deviant or incompetent.

England Australia New Zealand and

Argentina are the best producers of

wool dawA l-aktar li ghandhom larms

It jrcbbu n-nagfiog ghas-suJ

O.K. England

tghtduh minn ljcma poa England

gflandh on Scotiand * o ghtuf "

tant gtlall-wool u gersijtct

tagllhom O.K.

thev have the largest number of farms and

the largest number of sheep for rvool O . K.

England where in England we reallv mean

Scotland thev are very rvell-known for

their w'oollen products

3 3 8 J O A N S W A N N

Dr Keval: ryTI eisT'iIGood companv produces bad qualities]

(src)

You might have come across this verv saving in Sanskrit

vE) W frvr,lIGood companv produces bad qualities]

There I mean, 1\'e cultivate qualities bY virtue of what (?) companv lf we

are in good companvr rve'll cultivate good things, good habits. If we are rr

bad companv u.e'll be cultivating bad habits. So this rvill be our attemPt t'

be in good companv. Alrvar:s have control over vourself. Trv vour best

al',vavs for keeping good companv.

(Lesson

Figure 20.9 Transcript illustrating alternation betr,veen Sanskrit and English

Source: Javalakshmi r I 9q6 r : 145

Nore: In this case there is an error in Dr Keval's Sanskrit. Javalakshmi comments that he mav have learnt

quotations such as this bl rote.

Mark Sebba used a mixed svstem in his transcription of the speech of voung Blac.

speakers in London, rvho alternate betrveen Creole (derived from Jamaican Creolel arr

io.rdo. English. Creole utterances u'ere underlined, London English utterances ll'ere n.:,:

Under l ineJut terances rvere, then, to be 'pronounced as i f Creole ' (1993, p. 163) . Sebt

also used some 'e-ve dialect' features to indicate the pronunciation of specific words ,

sounds; and certain 'one-off ' conventions, such as the use of 'oh' to rePresent a glottal stt ' :

(the sound used as a variant of /t/ in certain linguistic contexts, and in certain varieties ,

Eng l i sh -somet imes rep resen tedasanapos t rophe as inbu 'e r fo rbu t te r ) . F igu re20 '1

illu-strates this. One point of interest is that the giottal stop, a feature of London English bL.

not (usually) of Jamaican Creole, is here used u-ithin a Creole utterance (invt%oe,line 4t,

Sets of svmbols such as the International Phonetic Alphabet (lPA) are used l '

phoneticians to give a svstematic representation of the sounds of English and other language'-Such

alphabets are hard for the non-expert to read and are not usually suitable lr .

transcribing long conversational sequences. Hor,r-ever if -vou are interested in learner.

pronunciations of English, and 1'ou are familiar u'ith the IPA or a similar alphabet, vou couL

use phonetic svmbols selectivelv for certain w-ords, or to rePresent certain sounds.

Figure 20.1 1 belou.illustrates the use of phonetic s,vmbols to represent a young Russia:

studenl's pronunciation of the lr.ord 6ush,r, (this is taken from the same lesson as th;

t ranscr ibed in F igure 20.2 abor e l .

R E C O R D I N G A N D T R A N S C R I B I N G T A L I ( 3 3 9

1 J, did vou go to Jackie's paro/ov?( 1 . 0 )

C: rvho Jackie Lomax

J: veah

C: no one never invi%oe me

5 J' I heard that she had a reallv nice paro4r'an' Chervl said there was a lo%o ofbovs there (0.6)vou know and thev (rvere) plavin' pass the parcel an, that

C: is i t?

l : veah

10 C: she invite vou?

J : no

c: ,he.r.u.. i.rtit. -"."ith.. ur Leo^i. 'uu" or" ur *-.11 .r.u". i.rvit..r.u.. t.llme not ' in ' (0.4) me no business tool

Ftgure 20.10 Transcription of a conversation using creole and London EnglishSource: Sebba (1 993) : 19-20

Figure 20.11 Representation of pronunciation using phonetic symbols

Towards an analysis: quantitative and qualitative approaches

Discussions of research methodologv often make a distinction betrveen quantitative andqualitative approaches to research. Broadl-v, quantitative approaches allow you to identifl'and count the distribution of .q.tai.r linguisti@es ofutterance.youcan then draw'a numerical comparison betu.een, for irxtance, the tvpes of talk produGE-il--dltterent contexts or t students, or qroups of students. Some T6ffis o

I = + . _ - - - i - - i F _lon can be carr recfout 'on the spot ' . For instance. rvh i ving a lesson voucould count the number of t imes each student responded to a teacher's question. Morecomplex Patterns can be identif ied from scrutinv of audio or video.eco.dings, or from atranscript. G.D. Javalakshmi, for instance, r,vhose research in Indian.lu..roo-s I referredto above, noticed that students participated less in'traditional'teacher-directed lessons(drawing on textbooks) than in lessons based on videos n'hich she had introduced.To checkher impressions, she analvsed recordings of a random sample of lessons, counting up thenumber of times a student initiated talk; and rvhat tvpes of talk this involved lwhether thestudent was seeking clarification, asking about the meaning of a u'ord, making a single wordcontribution, or making a longer contribution to discussion). She displaved her."irrlt, i.r ,table (cited as Table 20. 1 belou'). Table 20. 1 shorvs that, in the contexts analvsed. studentsinitiated more talk in video than traditional lessons, and they also made u 1".g. number oflonger contributions.

Transcription

1 S: Its tail is short and 1brjt12 T: Bushy ( tbujil )3 S: Bushy ( tbuJil )

Notes

pionor.rced to rhvme w'ithfshy

more conventional pronunciation

more conventional pronunciation

3 4 0 J O A N S W A N N

Table 20./ Number and tlpe of student-initiated moves in two tlpes of lesson

Type ofclass Number of Clarification Meaning of Single word Longer

student-initiated seeking rvords contributions contributions

moves

Traditional

Video Led

1 1

3 8

2

3

5

0

03 3

Source, Javalakshmi (1993): 287

Chapter 1B in this volume provides a more formal and detailed example of quantification

Assia Slimani r,vas interested in the relationship between students' claims about what

linguistic features thev had learnt, and the direct teaching ofsuch features.Table 18.2

tp. 296) illustrates this, show'ing the number of linguistic features that had been explicitlv

dealt u' ith in iessons (identif ied from audio recordings), and the proportion of these that

..., 'ere recalled br-students, those that were not recalled, and those that w'ere said to hat'e

bccn l r a rned on a p re r i ous occas ion .

dfrifrg-t rneetingl ffiE.rTi-."orked together in certain learning situations; hou'

relatio=nships were establish'ed and maintained; or horv students achieved an understffifrg

this volume that look at classroom language

adopt a qualitative approach to the analvsis of talk. In Chapter 15, for instance, Neil Mercer

discusses hor",' teachers use language to guide students' Iearning. While Mercer identifies

certain teaching techniques, these are not svstematicallv coded and quantified. Mercer is

more concerned lr-ith analysing the function of the techniques teachers use than with

counting the frequencv rvith which techniques are used, and il lustrates this by quoting

extracts from transcripts. In Chapter 15 Pauline Gibbons examines children's progression

from'everyday'language to the use of scientif ic discourse, focusing on the experiences of

one student. The language used at different points in a series of lessons is i l lustrated bv

transcripts along *itf, "

!lor. linguistic comrte.rtarv. Angel Lin, in Chapter 17, also uses

extracts from transcripts of classroom talk to illustrate the extent to which different

students' 'habitus' is compatible rvith vuhat is required of them in school English lessons.

There have been several debates u'ithin educational research about the relative merits

ofquantitative and qualitative approaches. Features ofeach approach, and some advantages

and disadvantages that have traditionallv been associated w-ith them, are summarised in the

box opposite.

While some researchers argue for an integration of quantitative and qualitative

approaches, it has also been suggested that thev embodv fundamentally different views of

the meaning of spoken language (coding lan into discrete catesories. for instance

suggests that meanings are relativelv s, whereas qualitative

asrse ambrgurtv rn 6 and arsue that utterances to be interpreted in

context). For an oiervtelv i debate see, for instance, Edwards andWestgate (1994).-Wdg-erif

and Mercer (1997) suggest that it is possible to progress beyond this apparent

divide by drau-ing on corpus, or computer-based forms of analysis. Corpus-based analyses

allorv researchers to process huge amounts of spoken or rvritten Ianguage and establish

quantitative patterns of language use. Thev have frequently been used to identify meanings

of words and phrases and to aid the compilation of dictionan'entries.Thev may also be used

R E C O R D I N G A N D T R A N S C R I B I N G T A L I < 3 4 I

to identify stylistic differences betn'een different (literarv) authors or different tvpes oftext.Wegerif and Mercer illustrate how corpus-based methods mav be used w.ith smaller amountsof data, and in combination w.ith a qualitative exploration oi lu.rgrrug..

- Wegerif and Mercer dreu- on this combination of methods as part of an ongoing studv

of exploratory talk in the classroom.Thev found that primarv school chlldren perflrmedbetter on a standardised test of reasoninq after thev had been 'coached'

in the use ofexploratory talk. Thev also looked at transcript evidence of the quality of children's talkduring problem solving activities carried out before and after the coaching intervention.Extracts from transcripts are used to shou' that, after the intervention childien sDent moretime discussi.rg problems, considered alternative solutions and

"o-".rt.rullv reached

Quantitative and qualitative approaches to the analysis of spokenlanguage

A quantitative aPproach allows )'ou to r ent vour data in terms of numbers.You can- - ' ,make a numer ical compar ison betu 'een ta lk produced b l d i fFreni peoFF or dur ingdifferent events.

When representing data that has been analysed using quantitative methods it is usualto displav this in 1taLb].. Alternative forms of representation such ur hi.togrurfiIiEil

t -'---"----i---- -

charts may be used to point up comparisons betr,veen people or events.Data may be u.taivsed ,rri.rg p."rpecified .u,"goii., of talk. Alternativel), as in

Jayalakshmi's research, categories mav emerge from close scrutinr. of data, e.g. fromplaying, and replafing, an audio or video recording, or rvorking slorvlv through atranscript. Such categories are not'naturallv'present in the data, but lvi l l depend uponyour own research inlerests.

4rg4qbers has th@sadtantlEe-yhat it is necessarilv areduct ire exercise: talk is reduced to a set ofcategories; i t is abstracted from i ts or iginal- - -context i r t rs unambrg!9ql) ' j tg lg lgied. masking the rather f lu id, uncertain and-r i-egotrated meaninss that are eri

!- !-

rn a more oPen-e rv aiFe sEi?6her s ad op tinga qualitative a explore anv interestiof their data. What count as intoresting aspects rvil l depend upon the questions the6eaTcE6; concerned to investiga,.,"U.ri sometimes points emerge that are quiteunexpected.

Aspects of the data may onlv begin to make sense r,r'hen mulled over and comwith other information, or perhaps discussed with speakers. Sometimes interpretationsmay change, or You mav 'want to allolv for a number of different interpretations.

.When presenting and discussing data that has been recorded and analysed using a

qualitative approach, researchers frequently quote selectivelv from field-notes ort ranscr ipts to support pdeTaTled commentar\-, as in Chapters 18 and 19. -

S-uiE *ays oTanilysing and presenting data allow- the researcher to preserveimportant contextual information that affects t

Preser \ .e tne amDlgur tv ano r lu ldr tv ot these meanlngs. lhe approach is se lect ive in thattn'o researchers mav (legitimatell') notice different thinE-trout a stretprovi rent rnterpretatlons arso a oanger oI unrnte.ln that researchers mav notice features ol tal lv notice teatures of talk that support a point thev wish to make

: ,

Qu4^,f

€) "-

Q-"

Qurt c-

@*

/t\

[ / *

3 4 2 J O A N S W A N N

Focal Group 1 pre- intervent ion task use of "cos 'or tbecause'

Elaine: It isn't 'cos look that's a square

Graham: No 'cos look .lvatch there all dorvn there and ther are all at the side and they are

all up there

Elaine: Wait u-ait rvait its that one 'cos look it's them ts'o and them trvo ( ) and them

two

John: 'Cos look that goes out like that -

Elaine: 'Cos

look that goes in

John: 'Cos

look that goes too far out

Graham: Look 'cos that's got 4

Elaine: No . . . not that one not that one because it's got a little bit iike that it's that one

look it goes in and then it goes out

John: No it 's isn'tbecause it 's there

Elaine: No because it u-iil come along like that

Elaine: Could be that one because look stops at the bottom and look

Elaine: It isn't it isn't becauselook

(12)

Focal Group 1 post-intervention task use of ('cos'or 6because'

Graham: Number 6 'cos 6 stops in there 'cos look if vou

Elaine: It can't be there 'cos look if lou done that

Elaine: It is look if that goes like that and then it has another one 'cos those tw'o make

Elaine: He doesn't sav rvhat thev are 'cos he might be wrong

Graham: Yeh 'cos look

Elaine: 'Cos it vl'ould go round

John: It is 'cos it goes arvav 'cos look that one goes like that

Elaine: No it can't be 'cos look . . . rvith the square with the triangle you take away the

triangle so vou're left rvith the square so if vou do just this and then again take

that arvav it's going to end up, Iike that isn't it?

Graham: Actuallv 'cos that's got a square and a circie round it

John: Yeh 'cos it goes like that and then it takes that one awav and does that

Elaine: No 'cos look

Elaine: Probablv one in the circle 'cos there are onlv trvo circles

Graham: 'Cos if thev are lines and then thev are going like that it is because they are

w'onkv isn't it

Graham: No actuallv it ain't 'cos then

Elaine: Yeh it's number 8 because those ones - those two came that those tlr'o make that

J o h n : N o b e c a u s e 7 , 2 , 3 7 , 2 ' 3

John: No because that goes that n'av and that goes that lvar'

Graham: No because it's that one(21.)

Figure 20.12 Incidence of 'cos and because in priman' school children's talk

R E C O R D I N G A N D T R A N S C R I B I N G T A L I ( 3 4 3

agreement on the correct ans\r'er. Wegerif and Mercer point out, how'ever, that such

evidence may not be seen as convincing because it consists onlv of one or t$'o brief extracts

from transcripts.

As a way of complementing their init ial qualitative approach,Wegerif and Mercer used

a computerised concordancing program. This identifies all instances of a word or expression

used in a particular set of data, and displavs these in their immediate l inguistic context. In

Figure 20.12 above, for instance, the rvords 'cos and because are displal 'ed in each speaking

turn in rvhich thev occurred in one group's interaction before and after the intervention.

Wegerif and Mercer suggest that'cos andbecause are used differentlv in the pre- and post

intervention interaction: in the post-intervention interactions t}ey are more frequentlv used

to l ink reasons to claims.Wegerif and Mercer carried out similar analyses of other terms

that might be seen as indicatir,e of reasoning (" g tJ and so used to l ink a reason to an

assertion).This form of anah'sis provides quantif iable data (i.e. it is possible to calculate the

frequencv lvith rvhich'cos and because are used in different contexts). It is also possible to

see each instance of 'cos and because in a limited linguistic context, r'vhich provides further

information about their use in each case (as in Figure 20.12). And it is possible, for anv one

instance, to displav further l inguistic context (anv number of preceding and follou.ing

speaking turns) to allow a qualitative exploration ofthe data.

If this form of analvsis interests vou, it is possible to purchase concordancing software

(or, rn some cases, to dolr.nload this from the Internet;. i You rvil l need, however, to be

prepared to spend time exploringt the softu'are to see holv it can be made to w-ork most

effectively for vour own purposes. For further discussion and examples of corpus-based

analysis see, for instance, Stubbs (1996).

Conclusion

In this chapter I have discussed various techniques vou can use to record and transcribe

spoken language.There is no'ideal' rvav to do this, and I have tried to indicate the strengths

and weaknesses of different approaches so that you can select the most appropriate method,

or combination of methods, for l-our o\\.n purposes. It is bevond the scope of this chapter

to consider, at anv level ofdetail, u'avs ofanalysing spoken language, though I have suggested

some initial considerations to bear in mind. Other chapters in this volume include examples

of research on spoken language, and illustrations of different forms of analysis:these mav

provide ideas for vour o\lrn research.

Acknowledgement

I am grateful to RupertWegerif for suggestions on computer-based methods of analysing

spoken language.

3 4 4 J O A N S W A N N

Note

1 See, for instance, the examples of softr 'vare i isted at http: // info.ox.ac.uk/ctitext/

resguide/resources/index.html#tat It is often possible to obtain demo versions of text

analvsis tools - see, for instance, 'Wordsmith', available from http://w-wwl.oup.

co. uk/cite/oup/ elt/ softr 'vare / u'smith/

References

British Association for Applied Linguistics (BAAL) (199+) Recommendations on Good Practice in

Applied Linguistics. BAAL.

Cameron, D., Fraser, E., Harvev, P., Rampton, M.B.H. and Richardson, K. (1992) Researching

Language: Issues oJPower and J'lethod. London: Routledge.

Camilleri, A. (1994)'Talking bil inguallv, u'rit ing monolinguallv'. Paper presented at the

Sociolinguistics Svmposium, Universitv of Lancaster, March.

Coates. l. (1995) lNbmenTalk. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Dam. L. andLentz,J (1998) I t 'supto,voursel f {yuwant to learn:autonomouslanguagelearningatrnrermedtare 1e'e1 (\t ideo and print). Copenhagen: Danmarks Laererhogskole.

Davies, J.A. (2000) Expressions oJGender:An Enquiry into the.av Gender Impacts on the Discourse

StS'les oJ Pupils )nvolved in Small Group Talk during a GCSE English lesson, with particular

reference to the under,achiBvement oJboys. Unpublished PhDThesis. Sheffield: University of

Steffield.Edwards, A.D. andWestgate, D.P.G. (199+) lnvestigating Clasvoom la1ft. London: Falmer Press

(2nd edn).

Jayalakshmi, G.D. (1993)'Video in the English curriculum of an Indian secondary school'.

Unpublished PhD thesis. Milton Kevnes:The Open Universitv.- (1996)'One cup of ne\4'spaper and one cup of tea', in N. Mercer and J. Swann (eds)

Learning English:Development andDiversit l ' . London,The Open University/Routledge.

Labor',W (i970) 'The studv of language in its social context', inW. Labov (1972) Sociolinguistic

Patterns. Oxford: Basil Blacku'eil.

Mercer, N.M. (u.ith contributions from Douglas Barnes) (1996) 'English as a classroom

language', in N. Mercer and J. Slvann (eds) learning English: Development and Diversity.

London : The Open Universitv/Routledge.

Ochs, E. (1979) 'Transcription as theory', in E. Ochs and B.B. Schieffelin (edsS Developmental

Pragmatics. London: Academic Press.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. and Jefferson, G. (1971)'A simplest svstematics for the organization of

turn-taking for conversation. Language 50 (+), pp. 696-735.

Sebba, M (1993) LondonJamaican: Language Svstems in lnteraction. London: Longman.

Stubbs, M. (1995) Text and Corpus Analysis: Computer-assjsted Studies oJ Language and Cuhure.

Oxford: Blacku-ell.

Swann, J. and Graddol, D. (1994)'Gender Inequalit ies in ClassroomTalk', in D. Graddol., J.Mavbin and B. Stierer (eds) Researching Language and Literacy in Social Context. Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters/The Open Unir ersitr'.

Wegerif, R. and Mercer, N. ( 1997) 'Using computer-based text analvsis to integrate qualitativeand quantitative methods in research on collaborative learning' , Language and Educatiort,

Vo l . i 1 , No .4 , pp .271 -86 .

Index

absolute innovation 61

academic competence 1 71-2

academic register 258 70

acquis i t ion see second language acquisr t ion

action research 57 -60, 137

active exploration of language 1 95-5

adolescent learners 40-1

adopters 61 'l

adul t learners +0 1, 17+ 5; genre-based

approaches 5 5,200-1

Adult Migrant Education Program (AMEP)

I i f e r : c w P r n i e c t ) 0 0 - 7" . - J ' - _ - ' "

advocacv 325affective factors 24-5Affective Filter Hvpothesis 159age 23, 3642agency: creative, discursive 273,278 82,284Al lwr igh t , R 287, 288, 306, 31 I , 315alternation, transcribing 335, 3 37, 338Amencan Kernel Lessons (AKL): Intermediate 213-14: m n l i f i o t i n n s ) 4 R*..-r" ' - .- . .- ' -"" - -Anderson, A. 77-8Anderson, J.R. 17anti grammar stance 148anxiety 24-5apartheid 22740; macro context of schooling

for biack people 235 7Aphek, E . 173application 55, 65apphed linguistics 64 8applied science, education as 54 5appraisal 55, 65apprenticeship 1 1 3; into a culture 250apt i tude 2+,31 . 2Arens , K . 158Armv Specialized Training Program (ASTP) 149Ar thur , J .249 50Asher , J . 154Aston , G. 82asymmetrv 1 3 1-2

att i tudes: to English as a language 215-15,2 2 2 l : r o l e i n l a n g u a g e l e a r n i n g 2 + , 1 3 4

audio-lingualism 14, 1 19-5 2audio recordings 326 7auditorv discrimination test 39Auer , P . I 17authenticitv 1 29; using authentic data 194-5automaticitv 80 1autonomy: learner 97, 299-300; school's

relative autonomt 209

Bahns, J. 52balanced divergent factor 54Bangalore / Nladras Communicational Teaching

Project (CTP) 63-4, 160Beckerman, T.I, l . 171behaviourist psvchologv 1 49-5 1beliefs, learner 35 6belonging 1 i 8-19Beretta, A. 25, 50, 53 -4

Berl i tz, M. 149bilingual classrooms 1 7l -2

bilingual code-switching 250 2black South Alricans 22740Blev-Vroman, R. 75Bloomfield, L. 149B l u m , R . E . 1 6 9Bot , M. 227Bourdieu, P. 93, 272 3, 283B r e e n , M . P . 1 5 8 , 1 5 0Brindlev, G. 65Brumfit , C. 59-60, 58B r u n e r , J . 9 6 , 2 5 4bureaucra t ic s t ruc tu res 235 I , )17 8

C a m e r o n , D . 3 2 + , 3 2 5Camil ler i , A. 251Cana le , M. 83 , 84Cand l in , C .N. 158, 150Car r , W. 54 , 55

3 4 6 I N D E X

C a z d e n , C . 2 3 3Chaudron, C. 31 I

child learners 40 1

choices, set of 1 93-4Chomskv, N. 14 , 15 , 16 , 11 , +5 , 152

chorusing 231, 23)-3

Clark, E. 75-7Clark , H.H. 75 7

classroom: as coral gardens see classroom as

culture metaphor; as discourse 1 25-8; as

experimentai laboratorv 1 23-5

classroom context 1; motivation 34; strategies

and goals in 4 5

classroom as culture metaphor 1 28 34; learning

s i t h i n 1 3 7 - 8 : r e s e a r c h i n g $ i t h i n l l ) 6 :

rer'leu.ing 1 34-5; teaching u'ithin 1 36-7

classroom interaction see interaction

classroom management I 70

classroom research 51-), 51, 125-8

Claude, M. 229-30Clifford, R. 84-5Coates , J . 334COBUILD team 15

coconstruction 9 5-7, 1 33-1

code-srvitching 250-2

cognition 94-5c n o n i t i r r c f r c t n r q 7 4' " 5 " " . ' -

C o h e n , A . D . 1 7 3 , 1 7 +

collective culture 1 30

Col l ins , l . 237 , 238, 273, 284

co l lus ion 6 ,22140column transcript lavouts 332 -4

communication strategies 82 -4; problems u'ith

8 + 7Communicational Teaching Project (CTP)

6 3 4 , 1 6 0communicative competence 83, 84, 155

communicative language teaching (CLT) 155-8,

2 0 0 , 2 2 7 8communitv language learning (CLL) 15 3

compatible habitus 274-5, 282

competence: communicatiYe 83, 84, 1 55;

participative, interactional and academic

1 71-2; and performance 14-1 5 ; strategic

824comprehensible input 2 1, 7 5-6, '79, 1 59

comprehensible output 21, 19, 260-1

comprehension 3, 75 89; place of in languagelearning 75-5; strategies 75-8

computer-based analvsis 340 2

conceptual evaluation 55, 66concordancing 3+2,3+3concurrentresources 101 2

confidentialitv 325-5confirmations 247confirmatorv research tradition 53-6

Conrad, J. 35conservatism I 32 3

constra ints 921,103

consultants, researchers as 52-3

contextual knou-ledge 78

contextualisation 1 16-1 9

con l i ngencs q8 102 . 102 : nego t i a t i on . l anguage

learning and i00 2

continuit\' 248

control 98

conversat ion analvsis (CA) 1 16 17,119

conversational inference 1 17

conYersational interaction 99-1 00

co-operative learning activities 34

Cope, \ \ r . 200c n - n r n d r r r t i n n ) R R. - . - r ' " - - - - ' " ' - - - -coral gardens, classroom as 128-34 see also

classroom as culture metaphor

Corder , S .P. 48 ,49C o r n e l i u s , E . T . 2 1 3corpus l inguist ics 15, 340-2correction of errors 1 80, 298-9

creativitv i9; creative, discursive agencv 273,

278 82 ,28+critical action research 59critical ethnographv 21 1Critical Period H,vpothesis 36, 37 9Crookes , G. 34 , 58 , 59 ,50 ,160-2cross-linguistic infl uences 20Csikszentmihalvi, M. 1 03cued elicitation s 246-7cultural c pital 272, 21+-5, 282culturally-specrllc interaction styles 227 40 ;

barr iers to innoration and learning 229 34:limitations of explanations of school failure23+-5

culture 252-3, 254; classroom as see classroom

as culture metaphor; and student opposition2 1 5 - 1 8 , 2 2 1 2 , 2 2 3 4

Cur ran , C. 153

D a v , R . 1 1 3decision-driven model of research use 47deference pol i teness 228determination 21+-15developmental sequences 1 8, I 82d ia logue 97 ,25+differences betrveen learners 23 5, 299-300,

3 0 1differentiation 1 29-30direct elicitations 246direct method 149discourse 59; classroom as 125 8; dimensions of

309 15; grammar and 196-7; language

acquisition or language socialisation 4,

108-21 ; managing 318; navigating 8,305-22; posit ioning in and through 1 13-15:what learners learn from the discourse oflessons 3 1 6-1 7; see also interaction

discourse skills 8 I

discursive practices 3 i 0, 3 1 2-14displav 94-5Dob inson, T . 31 3-14domination 208 25Driver, R. 265

ecological approach see organic approacheducational perspectives 53 50Edn.ards, A.D. 245effective teaching 159-i 6elaborations 247elici tat ion 2+6-1,289elliptical conversation 86E l l i s , R . 1 8 , 3 0 7E l y , C . 3 1 3Emeneau, M.B. 223empirical evaluation 65, 66empiricist approaches I 58empowering research 325English: global influence 271; as medium for

instruct ion 219, 235-7; number of speakers2 3

equalitv 97 8Eraut, M. 47error correction 1 80, 298-9ethical research 325ethnicitY 1 15-16ethnographic methods 1 I 9; Sri Lankan

classroom studv 6, 208-26er.aluation of classroom interaction 8,

281-305experiential learning 113, 261-2, 26+ 5, 267experimental laboratorv, classroom as 1 23-5explanations 248exploration, act ive 195 6extroversion 32'eve dialect ' 337, 338

lace-saving strategies 233 -4

Ferch, C. 83F a i r c l o u g h , N . 1 1 5 , 3 1 0lalsification of theories 50Feez, S . 162field independence/dependence 35field-notes 328,329F i r th , J .R. 14 , 15lbcus on form 5, 180 90; in language teaching

1 81-3; psvcholinguist ic rat ionale I 83-6;research issues 186-7

Foreign Service Institute (FSI) 84 5form, focus on see focus on formfbrm/function relationships 1 95Ibrms, focus on 5, 183 5fossilization 1 9-20Frazer , E . 324,325Freidson, E. 46Freire, P. 97F r i e s , C . l + 9 , 1 5 1

I N D E X 3 4 7

G a r d n e r , R . C . 2 3 - 5 , 3 3u a r n n K e l , t 1 . l J )

Gass, S . 53Gat tengo, C. 152general model of second language learning

13-1+

genre-based approaches 5-,6, 162 3, 164,200 7

Giroux, H. 209 , 22+. -5

global influence of English 27 1g l o s s e s 2 1 5 1 8glottal stop 338goals 4-6G o o d , T . L . 1 7 1'good language learner', characteristics of 28-9Goonet i l leke , D.C.R.A. 210, 22+grammar i . l9 l 9 l language in contexr

192-3; metaphors for second languageacqu is i t ion la l l ; o rgan icapproach193-7; Tamil students' orientat ion to2 2 0 1 , 2 2 3 4

grammar translation method 4+, 1+8m r m m r t i n ' l i t ' ' 1 Q

Greek 148Gr ice , H.P. 85'g roundru les ' 252 3 , 255group learning: collective culture ofthe

classroom 1 30; small group learning and neu.academic registers 261-2, 26+ 5

grouping 171Guiora, A. 32 3guided construction of know.ledge 254-5G u m p e r z , J . 1 1 6 - 1 8

habitus 272; compatible 274-5, 282;incompatible 272, 275-8, 2834;reproduction or transformation of 282-4;I r a n s t o r m i n o r 7 R R r 2 8 4

" " " f J - ' v v 4 '

H a l l , S . 1 1 5Hal l idav , M.A.K. 153Halser , - , A .H.234Hammond, l . 200,20)handover 95Hanson-Smith, E. 210, 22+Harler., B. 76Har tshorne, K .235H a r r , e v , P . 3 2 + , 3 2 5Hatch , E .48-9 , 308Havelock, R. 52Har.vkins, R. 18Herv i t t , R . 115Higgs, T. 84-5Hi rs t , P . 57Hoefnagel Hohle, M. 39-- l lH o n g K o n g 7 , 2 1 3 8 5Hopk ins , D. 59H o s e n l e l d , L . l / ) - 6

Horvat t , A .P R. 1+8, 157

3 4 8 I N D E X

humanistic methodologies 1 52-4

H v m e s , D . 1 2 5 , 1 5 5

hrpothesis testing 80

ice-breaker tasks 1 94

ident i tv 219; socia l i 10

ideologv: ianguage practice and 1 1 5-1 6; macro

context of learning and 235-7, 237 E

idiosvncracies, learners '23 5, 299-300, 301

immersion 76, 1 18; programmes 158-9

incompatible habitus 272, 27 5 8, 2834

incomplete success 1 9-20

independent construction 202

inequal i t ies, socia lT, 271 86

inhibition 32-3

initiation-response-feedback (lRF) exchange

9+ 6, 1014, 2+S 6, 251-3, 281innovation: conservatism of culture of the

classroom 1 32 ; culturallv-specilic

interactional stvles as barriers to 229-34

SLA and 50-'l

i npu t 45 ; comprehens ib l e 21 ,15 6 ,79 ,159 ;

generating better inPut 79-80

input-outPut model 102

insider/outsider problem 52 3

institutional constraints andresources 92 4

inst i tut ional ideologies 23J 7, 231-B

instrumental motivation 33

integrative motivation 33

intelligence 24, 31

interaction 4,7-8; in bilingual and multilinguai

settings 249-52; constraints, resourcesr

equalitv and svmmetrv 4, 90-107; culture ol

the c lassroom 129; evaluat ion of8,

287-305 ; importance of studv of 287-8;

importance of talk in learning 250-1 ;

language learning Process 2 1 -2 ; learning

a ne*' register 258-70; and pragmatics

in SLA 109 10; recording and

transcribing 8, 323 -14; reproduction/

transformation of social w'orlds 271 85;

use of language as a medium 243-57;

see also discourse

interactional comPetence 1 71-2

interactional sr,rnmetrv 9 8

interactive model of research use 47-8

International Phonetic Alphabet (lPA) 338

interpretat ion 55,65

interpretative research tradition 53 6

intersubjective experience 1 26-7, 2+8, 25+-5

intertextual relationshiPs 268

intervieu's 291

intrinsic motivation 97

J a r v i s , G , 5 1

Jaya lakshm i , G .D . 335 , 338 , 339 , 340

job appl icat ions genre 201-7

Johnson, J. 39

Johnson, R.K. 250-1j o h n s t o n , M . 5 1

ioint construction 95-7, 1 33 4

joint negotiation of text 202, 205-1

journa ls 2634,266- l

Kand iah , T . 210-11,22+Karabel, J. 234

K a s p e r , G . 8 3 , 1 0 9

Kellerman, E. 191-2

Kemmis , S . 54 , 55

Kennedr' , G. 61

Kingburv, R. 213

knorvledge: guided construction of 254-5;

personal 56; sources of and comprehension

77-8; technical and practical 46-8

knou'ledge-driven model ofresearch use 47

Krashen, S . 12 , 17 , 61 , 158-9 ; comprehens ib le

input 2 1 ,7 5 -6 ,79 , 1 59 ; theorY 49-50

Kuper, A. 234KrvaZulu schools 227 40

La Forge, P .G. 153laboratorv: experimental 123 5; language 152

Labov, W. 324Lamber t , W.E. 33language: carrving the historv of classroom

acti\,itv into its future 254-5; and context 7;

cultural and cognitive tool 6-7; imPortant

pedagogic tool 254; levels of 14; medium for

teaching and learning 2+3 57; and teaching

243-6; vieu's on the nature of 14-15

language acquisition see second language

acquisitionlanguage anxietv 24 5

language aptitude 2+, 31 -2

language-focus-lRF 2 8 1 -2

language laboratorv 1 52language learning 24,11 27; contingency,

negotiation and 100 2; factors affecting

28-43; and language use 21-2; l inks with

social practice 25; process 16 22; theory and

1 2 14; views of the language learner 2 2 5;

viervs on the nature of language 14-1 5

language medium policv 235; see also medium of

instructionIanguage processing 23

language socialisation see second language

socialisationianguage transfer 20

language r,arieties 334 9

Latin 1 48lavouts, transcript 331-4, 335

iearner-learner interaction 91-2, 98-102,

103-4learners: active explorers oflanguage 195 6;

autonomv 97, 299-300; characteristics of'good language learner' 28-9; collusion r'vith

teachers 6, 22740; constructs of 307;

difficulties with 'ground

rules' for classroom

language use 252-3; discursive practices in

the c lassroom I I 2 14: explorat ion of '

relationships betrveen grammar and

discourse I 96-7; id iosvncracies 23 5,r qq 100 . 301 ; as l anguage p rocesso rs 2 l l

learning f rom discourse of lessons 316 17;

motivation see motivation; research on

learner characteristics 30-42; resistance 6.

208-26,283; as socia l beings 25; socia l

p rac t i ces 310 , 314 15 ; s t r a teg ies 173 5 ;

t ac i t u rn i t r ' 2 l | ) : up take seeup take : r ' i eus

o r t ! t

learning 5-8; and acquisition 12; i,r.ithin

classroom as culture 1 37 8;

culturallv-specific interactional stvles as

barr iers to 229 34; exper ient ia l 1 1 3,

261,2, 264-5, 267 ; ro le of ta lk in 260-1 ;SLA theorv and 305-9

learning opportunities 290-1, 29)

l ca rn i ng s t v l es l i : Tam i l s t uden t s and 218 .

2 2 3L e e , P . L . M . 2 5 0 - 1Leont 'ev , A .N. 308-9levels of language 14 ''l

I ev inson, S . 1 16 , 1 17-18Lewin, K. 57-8Lightbown, P. 49L i i , J .H. 93linear model of language acquisition 1 9l 2l i t o . ' . . , n r r r t i e e c 1 I (

Iocal multiracial vernaculars 1 16L o n g , M . 5 0 , 5 1 , 7 9 , 1 6 0 )'long conversation' 255, 261Lozanov, G. 153 -4

Lvnch, T. 77-8

MacDona ld , C. 227,236 7Nlaclntvre, P.D. 23-5macro factors 234 7magisterial discourse 93Malinowski, B. 128masterl' 37-8NlcDermott, R. 237McTear , I v I .310mean ing 125; loss o f237; negot ia t ion o f21-2 ,

7 9 8 0 , 8 2medical practitioners 46medium for instruction: English as 219, 236-7;

use oflanguage as 243-57Mercer, N. 255, 340-2Merrow, J. 93metaphors 4: lor second language acquisit ion

191 2methodologv 4-5, 147-66; audio-lingualism

149 52; communicative language teaching155 8; historical/pre-World \ , \ 'ar I I 148-9;

I N D E X 3 4 9

humanistic methodologies 1 5 2-4; immersion

programmes and the natural approach

1 58 9; task-based learning 159*62;

text-based teaching 162 3,164; see also

focus on form

m e t h o d s + ; , l b ; - 1 9 . 1 8 0 l : a p p r o a c h i n g

teaching in terms of 167-9; learner strategies

1 73 6; nature of elfective teaching 169-761

teacher strategies 169-7 2

Michigan Test 292

mrnor i tv ethnic groups I 15 15

misrecogni t ion 21 2-3, 21 3 4

Mitchel l , R. 59-50

mooe l 5v

mode continuum 259-60

model of second language learning 1 3- I 4

model l ing 202, 203 5

Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT) 24,

3 1 2modularitv 1 5 I 7; and second language iearning

1 1Moerman, M. 101Moore , A . 253Morgan, M. 158morphologv 39motivation 2+,30 1; and att i tudes 33 4; in the

classroom sett ing 34; Tamil students 215

Naiman, N. 312National Centre for English Language Teaching

and Research TNCELTR r Lireracv Project200 7

natural approach 51, 1 58-9natural method 149Natural Order Hlpothesis 159nature and nurture 15navigation of discourse 8, 306--22needs analvsis 1 58negat ion 18 , 182negative evidence 22negotrat ion 98, 100 2; joint negotiat ion oftext

202, 205 7 ; o fmean ing 21-2 ,79 80 ,82'new.e thn ic l t ies '115

Newport, E. 39non-participant observation 324 5non.erba l in fo rmat ion 134. 315, l l7normatir.e culture 1 30-1noun phrase accessibilitv hierarchv I 85Nunan, D. 59nurture and nature 15

Obler , L . 31observable data I 26observation 324-5observer's paradox 324Ogbu, J . 235O'Mal le i ' , J . 175O ' N e i l l , R . 2 1 3

3 5 0 I N D E X

ope ra t i on 65 ,66

;;;,;;;;",,t,'d"'t 6, 208-26 ; contextualizins

oral aPProach 149

: ; : ; i : . ; ; ' ""ch ro2. rer '3; pedagosical ^" ' t l"or ' . i i ' " . t for grammar teaching lq l- 8

" ' r ; I , . ; ;p ' .h 'n l ib l ' 21 ' 7e ' 2b0 -1 .ee a lso

Derformance, Productlonoutsider/insider Problem 5 2-3

particiPant observation 324-5

particiPation 3 1 3-14'particiPatite

comPetence 1 7 1 -2

iasseron, J.C 93

Patkorvski, M 37-8

Paves i , M. 185-6

P"ubodv Picture Vocabularv Test 40

pedagog\ see teaching'Pe i rce ,

B .N 208-10

PennYcook, A ' 208-10 ' 285

p"rc"iu"d innovations 61to" r fo r .unat

127: competence and l4 -15 : u :e

and learning 2l-2

personal knou.ledge 56

o..ronul voice 8 1

i..ronulitv 32-3

PhilliPs, J 175

phon.t i . srrnbols 338' 339

Piaget, J. 17

P i c a , T . 5 2 , 1 0 0 , 1 0 1

Pierce, B 1 10

Pimsleur Language Aptitude Batterv (PLAB)

3 1 7

plan, svllabus as 296

Polanvi, N{ 56

posit ioning 1 1l-15

.os'er 34. 98' P . u b h u ,

N S 6 l ' 6 l ' l b 0 ' l b l - 2

Practical action research 58

oractica] knorvledge 45-8

iractice see social Practices

Prugmutits 109-10'p.uii,

i,tt"otu of action) 5l ' 66-1

nrecision 94-5

!t"f.,""t" 228; Iearner preferences 35

PrescriPtions 168

private instruction 220

Proactive resources 1 01-2

oroblem-solving model 62

froau.t ion l ' 7"5 89: importance o[outputt

8, o, problemt rt i th communication

strategies 84-7; roles for output 79-81

Professional context i

Proficiencv testing 30

Progressiue aPProach 200

Pronunciat ion 39'219

P.osodit cues 232

Prot'isional sPeciiications 60

proximal development' zone of 96' 266

pure research 5 1

qualitative analvsis 339-42

quantitatit'e analvsis 3 39 -4)

raclical resistan ce 224-5

Raheem, R. 223

RamPton, B 25

R a m P t o n . \ t B H J 2 + ' 1 1 5

Rathunde, K' 103

rationalist aPProach 1 58

reactive resources 1 01-2

reading 1 7 5-6

realitr: svllabus as 296

recal l , learner 313-14

recaps 2'18

recitation 94-5

recording sPoken language 326-7

Reforn-r Movement 148

reformulations 247

register 7, 258-70

Reid , J . 3s

reiect ions 247

relative autonomr 209

relative ciause formation 185-6

repair 100-2

rePeti t ions.24T ^- ^";. led 26r,262-1,265 6

rePorting, teacher-gulo

, " 'p .oduf t ion o [ 'oc ia l ' ro r lds 7 ' I t l - t9^ , , -

."r"ur.h 1, \+ 14: act ion research 5 / t tu' I ) ' :

upplied linguists P""P::l:t"::1 ,t -o , ,,. iurroorn as culture metaPhor L)-o' I r / '

c la "s room research \ l ) ' 61 ' 125 -81 cu t tu t '

of 53-6; educational perspectives 53-60;

innovationist perspective 60 -4; on learner

characrerist ics l0 I l SLA researchers ,

perspec t i \e 48-5 l l techn ica l and prac t tca t

Lno.dedge 45-8

research, deielopment and diffusion model 62

researcher stance 324-6

resistance: conservative culture of classroom

and resistance to change 1 32; iearners' 6'

208-26,283; oPPosit ion and 224-5

resources: constraints and924' 103; culture

of classroom as resource 1 36-7

retention 3 1 3-14

Richards , J .C. 155

Richardson, K' 324'

Rogers, R. 61

Rogers , T .S . 1 55

role piav 219-20

routines 1 9

rules: 'ground rules'

u s e 2 5 2 3 ' 2 5 5 ;

924

safe-talk 22140

for classroom language

institutional contraints

375

sampling 32 3--+S a p i r , E . 1 2 5 , 1 3 Escaffolding 95, 103, 25+, 265, 267, 308schematic knorvledge 77 8schematic structure 204 5Schlemmer, L. 227Schmidt, R. 34, 84, 109Schon, D. 56school failure 234 5Schumann, J. 50S e b b a , M . 3 3 8 , 3 3 9second language acquisition (SLA) 1 2; applied

l inguists' perspective 64 8; classroom asexperimental laboratorv 1 2 3-5 ; in context308-9; educational perspectii'es 53-50;explaining 306-8; innovationist perspective60--4; and language socialisation 4, 108 2l Il imits to a social perspective 109 10;metaphors for 191 2; research and language

pedagogv 44-74; researchers' perspective, . . 1 . e , l r ono r ' 4R i l snc i o l i no r r i s t i c' " " r ' * * 5 "5_ ' " - - ' " ' " " " 6 - ' " " 'perspect ive on I l0

.econd language learning see language learning

.ei:ond language socialisation (SLS) 4,

1 08 2 1 ; contextualisation and rvrder social

processes 115 19; methodological . r

implications 1 19; problems rvith the model

l r 3 1 6.egregated education 235-5; see also apartheid\ . l iger , H . 312- - m : n f i r c t r r t e c i a c 7 7' * ' - . * 6 ' , - " "

-entence judgement 40.equencing 257'hared experience 1 26-7, 2+8, 25+ 5'iqnifrcance I 34:ignifrcant Bilingual Instructional Features (SBIF)

s tudv I / l

, i lent r .vav 152-3

i i nc l a i r , J . 15

-.ituational language teaching 149, 1 50

: k i nne r , B .F . 16 , 151

\ l i m a n i , A . 3 1 3 , 3 1 4

.rnal l group learning 251-2,26+ 5

Sno*. , C. 39 -41

.ocia l being, learner as 25

rocral context 1 , 4, 122 /.4; classroom as coral

gardens see classroom as culture metaphor;

classroom as discourse 1 25-8; classroom as

experimental laboraton' 123 5

'ocial identitv 1 10

socia l inequal i t ies 7, 271 E6

social interaction model of innovation 52

social practices: language practice and ideologr'

1 1 5-1 5; naligating discourse in the

classroom 310, 314 15; second language

learning theorv and 25'socia l

t rouble ' 315

socralisation see second language socialisation

I N D E X 3 5 I

socio-cultural context 1 -2

socio-cultural perspective 25+ 5, 250sociol inguist ic perspective 1 10socio-pragmatic failure 1 I 2solidaritv politeness 2 2 8South Africa )2740; macro context of

schooling for black people 235-7specifrcations 60spoken language see di.cour.e. interactionSpo lskv , B . 13 1 .1Sri Lankan classroom 6,208 26standard lavouttranscripts 331 3stave lavout transcripts 334, 335S t e n h o u s e , L . 5 1 2 , 6 0S t e r n , H . 5 7Stol ler, F. 54strategic competence 82 4strategies +-6, 2+, 75 89; classroom as

experimental laboratorv 1 24-5 ;comprehension strategies 75 8; learner173 5; problems * ' i th communicationstrategies 84 7; teacher 169 72

Strong, 11. 31 2structural linguistics 1 49structures, bureaucratic 235-7, 237 8structuring 1 70Stubbs , M. 14 , 15students see learnerssubjective experience 1 26-7Suggestopedia 153 -4

summaries of research lindings 66Srvalfar, J.K. i 58Swain ,M, 76 , 80 , 83 , 84 , 312; comprehens ib le

o u t p u t 2 1 , 7 9 , 2 6 0Su.eet, H. 14Esvl labus: as real i tv and as plan 295svmbolic violence 272-3, 2134; interrogating

2 8 5sYmmetrv 97 8svnchronr '233svntactic processing 80svntactic strategies 75 7svstematic kno*-ledge 78svstematici tv 18 I9svstemic-{'unctional grammar 152 3

taciturnltv 228; student 231-2talk see discourse, interactionTamil students 208 26; midcourse

resistance 216 20 postcoursecontradiction 220 2; precoursedetermination 21+ 15

Tarone, E .48 9task-based language teaching (TBLT) 152task based learning (TBL) I 59-62tasks I /u-lteacher educatlon 57teacher-guided report ing 261, 262 3, )65-6

3 5 2 I N D E X

teacher- learner interact ions 91, 93-8, 103 -{ ;

see also interaction

teacher research (practical action research) 5E

teachers: collaboration rvith researchers 52-3;

collusion rvith students in apartheid South

Africa 6, 22740; qualifications in apartheid

South Afr ica 235; as researchers 57-50,

57-8; responding to what learners sat 247;

ro le 103-4, 177; st rategies 169 72; ta lkand

text of language lessons 3 i 0-1 2; volubilitv

231-2teaching 5-8; classroom as culture metaphor and

1 35 7; conceptions of 55; culture of 55 50;language and 243-6; methodologr seemethodologv; methods see methods; nature

of effect ive teaching 1 69 7o: re5earch and

pedagogr' 3, 44-7 4; techniques 2'16-8

teaching-learning cvcle 202technical action research 58technical knowledge 45-8, 50-l

technologv of teaching 5 1Ter re l l , T . 51 , 158-9testing 288 9t e x t 3 1 0 , 3 1 0 - 1 2text-based (genre-based; teaching 5-5, 1 62-3,

t 6 + , 2 0 0 - 1theatrical monologue 93Thembela, A. 227theorl ' : of language learning 12 14; SLA

research and pedagogv +9-51, 66-7Tikunoff, W.J. 170, 171-2topicalisation 29+ 9, 300-1total phvsical response (TPR) 1 54Tou'el l , R. 18transcriptrons of spoken language 32344;

conventions 330 1; lavout 331 -t, 335;nonverbal and contextual-information 334;representinq dif ferenr language rariet ies

334 9transfer, language 20transformation 97; of social rvorlds 7, 271 86transforming habitus 278 82, 284Tvlbor, H. 237

u-shaped behaviour 184, 191-2United States 237Universal Grammar 16, 17uptake 287*305; and evaluation of learning

288-9; importance of topical isat ion 294 9;learners' idiosyncracies 299 300; uptakeidentification probe 290, 305; uptake recall

chart 290, 304

\ran Dijk, T. 1 15\ ran L ie r , L . 25 , 55-5 , 310-1 1variabi l i tv 18-19varieties, language 3 34-9video recordings 326 7volubi l i tv 228; teacher 231-2V v g o t s k v , L . 6 7 , 9 6 , 2 5 + , 2 6 5 - 6 , 3 0 8

rvait time 266'we' statements 248Webbe, 148Wegerif , R. 265, 340-2W e i s s , C . 4 7Wenden, A . 17+-5 , 116Wesche, M.B. 32Westgate, D. 245Whalen , S . 103white, L. 300-1Widdor 'vson, H. 54 ,65 6 ,67-8W i l l i n g , K . 1 7 3 , 1 1 + , 1 7 6Wi l l i s , P . 211Wright, T. 5lrvriting 176; genre-based approaches 5-6,

200-7; learning a new register 251,263:2 6 6 7

Wundt , W.NI . 125

Y e a d o n , T . 2 1 3Yor io , C . 35

Zahorik, J. 55Z e n t e l l a , A . C . 2 5 1 - 2zone of proximal development 96, 266Zulu-English interactional stvles 227-40