listening in native and foreign speakers

7/30/2019 Listening in Native and Foreign Speakers

1/27

TESOLQUARTERLY, ol.25, No.3, Autumn1991

Listening in the Native andSecond/Foreign Language: Toward anIntegration of Research and PracticePATRICIA DUNKELThePennsylvaniaStateUniversity

After reviewing research on native language (NL) listening, thearticle discusses (a) the importance of listening in second languageacquisition, (b) factors that influence success or failure ofcomprehension of first or second language messages, (c) the roleof listening in the L2 curriculum, (d) posited models of NL and L2listening comprehension, and (e) proposed taxonomies of listeningskills and pedagogical activities. The essay argues that researchersand practitioners working together can foster greater understand-ing of L2 listening comprehension; it is hoped that suchcollaborations will lead to better preparation of nonnativespeakers of English who must function effectively in acontemporary industrialized society that appears to be shiftingincreasingly toward the use of English, and simultaneously to beshifting away from literacy toward orality.

LISTENING IN THE NATIVE LANGUAGE: PROBLEMS OFDEFINITION AND OPERATIONALIZATIONTo make Words serviceable to the end of Communication, it isnecessary ... that they excite in the Hearer, exactly the same Idea, theystand for in the mind of the Speaker. Without this, Men fill one another'sHeads with noise and sounds; but convey not thereby their Thoughts,and lay not before one another their Ideas, which is the end of Discourseand Language (Locke, 1689/1988, p. 478).John Locke's conception of the nature of verbal communicationand listening comprehension may seem both perceptive andcontemporary to today's second language acquisition (SLA)researchers and teachers, but such a view of human understandingwas neither original to Locke nor novel to his time. As Taylor (1986)notes, the telementational conception of human understanding canbe found "lurking in the linguistic reflections of Aristotle,St. Augustine, and the Modistae, the Port Royal grammarians,

431


2/27

Hobbes, and many others"(p. 17). Thus, the endeavor of today'scommunication scholars and SLA researchers to penetrate andilluminate the mental processes involved in comprehendingdiscourse spoken in one's native language (NL) or second/foreignlanguage (L2) is a quest that has engrossed philosophers sinceancient times, has absorbed psychologistsand speech communica-tion scholars since the early part of the 20th century, and, morerecently, has captured the attention of SLA researchers andpractitionersof Englishas a second languageas well as Englishas aforeignlanguage.The study of listeningcomprehensionhas, in fact,become a polestarof second languageacquisitiontheory building,research,and pedagogy (see Anderson& Lynch, 1988;Bernhardt&James, 1987; Brown, 1987; Byrnes, 1984; Dunkel, Chaudron &Henning, 1990; Galvin, 1985; Joiner, 1986; Krashen, 1977, 1981;Lund, 1990;Morley, 1991;Nagle & Sanders, 1986;Richards,1983,1985,1990;Rost, 1990;Underwood, 1989;Ur, 1984).Although epistemologists such as Locke and Aristotlelong agoattempted to fathom the origin, modes, and scope of "humanunderstanding,"conduct of empirical investigations of native-language listening processes by speech communication scholars,speech scientists,and psychologistsbegan to burgeon in the latterhalf of the 20th century, and a number of bibliographies andreviews of NL listening research give evidence of an increasinginterest in listening (see Carroll, 1971; Coakley & Wolvin, 1986;Devine, 1967,1978;Duker,1964, 1968,1969;Keller, 1960;Wilkinson,1970;Witkin,1990).In his synthesis of NL reading and listening comprehensionresearch, Carroll (1971) noted the increase in the quantity ofempiricalresearchon nativelanguagelisteningduringthe 1950sand1960s, although he found few of the investigations to be"sufficiently penetratingand analytical" p. 130).He observed thatmuch of the researchconducted in the 1950s and 1960s seemedfocused on establishing"listeningabilityas a valid objective for theeducational program, without determining its nature andparametersin a precise manner"(p. 130) and bemoaned the factthat even in the seventh decade of the 20th century,"there did notseem to exist any comprehensive theory of listening behavior inrelation to language behavior in general or to other modes oflanguage reception"(e.g., readingcomprehension) (p. 130).Twenty years after Carrollpresentedhis synthesisof the centralfoci and basic qualityof the NL listeningresearchconductedduringthe firstseven decades of this century,Witkin(1990)examined thestateof the artof NL listeningtheoryand researchandpronounced

TESOL QUARTERLY32


3/27

it to be in a perilousstate. According to Witkin,one of the chiefproblems facing the field of NL listeningresearchis the lack of agenerally agreed upon definition of listening. She notes that thevocabularyused to discuss NL listening s diffuse, with "sometermsbeing on a highly abstract evel, and some describingquite specificphysiological or neurological processes" (p. 9).1 Wolvin andCoakley (1988) have also expressed their concern about thedisaccord concerning definitions and operationalizationsof theconstructof listening comprehension n the native language.2In an extension of Wolvin and Coakley's examinationof thelistening definitionsgiven by 16 communication scholarsbetween1925and 1985,Glenn(1989)analyzedanadditional34 definitionsoflistening appearingin speech communicationscholarlybooks andinstructional exts.Sheconcurredthatthereindeed appearsto be nouniversallyaccepted definition of the constructof native languagelistening. Glen contends that the problem of definition limitscommunication research in listening and lessens the chance offinding effective methods of trainingindividuals to be effectivelisteners (and speakers) of their native language (English). It alsohighlights the difficulty of generating "a universal conceptualdefinition of listening from which operationalguidelines may beestablished" Glen,1989,p. 29).3In additionto pointingout the "definitionand operationalization"problem, Witkin(1990)identified severalotherproblems endemicin theory building and research on NL listening comprehension:Most research on listening is not based on theory; the extant

Barber and Fitch Hauser (cited in Witkin, 1990) identified 315 variables used in studyingNL listening comprehension, some of which were defined in broad terms (e.g., listening,memory, perception, and attention); some in more precise terms (e.g., selectivity, channel,feedback, and decoding), and others in highly specific terms (e.g., electrochemicalimpulses, auditory discrimination, and dichotic/diotic listening).2 Wolvin and Coakley (1988) found the following numerous and varied differences in themeaning of the term listening. Researchers perceive NL listening to involve the hearer's"analyzing, concentrating, understanding, registering, converting meaning to the mind,engaging in further mental activity, responding, reacting, interpreting, relating to pastexperiences and future expectancies, assimilating, acting upon, selecting, receiving,apprehending, hearing, remembering, identifying, recognizing, comprehending, sensing,evaluating, emphasizing, and organizing" (p. 57). Many of the terms used by someresearchers to describe listening are synonyms for expressions used by others. There ismuch verbal confusion and overlap of meaning as well as general disagreement concerningthe psycholinguistic process of listening, according to Wolvin and Coakley.

3 A similar assertion could be made with respect to the construct of second/foreign languagelistening. Definitions range from the simple and reductive (e.g., "listening is the activity ofpaying attention to and trying to get meaning from something we hear" [Underwood, 1989,p. 1]), to the more expansive and encompassing notion that listening needs to be defined interms of the various types of listening: critical, global, intensive, interactional, transactional,recreational, and selective listening (Rost, 1990).LISTENING IN A SECOND LANGUAGE 433


4/27

research is often contradictory;and almost no studies have beendone to replicateorverify previousresearch.The problematicstateof research may partially be due to the fact that there exists "aserious question among scholars as to whether there is an 'art' tolistening research, and whether indeed the processes can beobserved andstudied"(Witkin,1990,p. 7). Thisperceptionneeds tobe altered if we are to increase the quantity and quality of theempirical research base on listening, as well as the quality oflisteningtraining.Although there is a growing interest in and concern for NLlisteningresearchand trainingdue to the centralrole listening playsin languagedevelopment, humanrelations(as well as internationalrelations), and academic and business success, there seems to bevery little genuineagreementabout what listeningentails,and howit operates. It is remarkable hatthereis so little understandingof aprocess that is so vitally importantfor an individual'ssurvivalandprosperity in interpersonalrelationships,and in the academic andcorporateenvironments.4Even as NL communicationscholarshave begun to recognize thecritical role listening skills play in the effective functioningof anindividual in academic environmentsand business organizations,second language acquisitionscholarshave begun to apprehendthecritical role listening plays in second language acquisition andlearning. As a result, today's SLA researchers and L2 classroomteachers are endeavoring to (a) understand the causative roleparticipatory and nonparticipatory listening plays in secondlanguage acquisition (both in naturalistic environments and informalcontextssuchas classrooms;5b) determinetherole listeningcomprehension skill development does or should play in the L24 Wolvin and Coakley's (1991) review of some Fortune 500 corporations' perceptions of theimportance of listening in corporate settings indicates that listening is the most necessaryand important communication skill for the following: entry-level employment; job success(DiSalvo, 1980; Larsen, & Seiler, 1976; Murphy & Jenks, 1982); general career competence(Muchmore & Galvin, 1983; Painter, 1985) and managerial competency ("The 20%Activities," 1978); and the effectiveness of subordinates (Downs & Conrad, 1982) andsupervisors or middle management personnel (Harris & Thomlison, 1983). Citations arefrom Wolvin and Coakley, 1991, p. 153.5 Phillips and Omaggio (cited in Dunkel, 1991a) make a distinction between participatoryand nonparticipatory listening. Participatory listening is characterized by the listener havingthe opportunity to seek clarification or modification of the discourse from the speaker.(Pica, Young, & Doughty, 1987, have investigated the impact of participatory or interactivelistening on comprehension and intake of the input.) Nonparticipatory listeningcomprehension, on the other hand, does not allow for aural-oral interaction during input(e.g., when a learner listens to a conversation played via audiotape, or when listening to alecture in a large lecture hall, or to a computerized test of L2 listening comprehension; see,for example, Dunkel, 1991a).

TESOL QUARTERLY34


5/27

curriculum, especially in the beginning stages of learning; (c)pinpoint the factors "inside and outside the head" that enhance ordepress comprehension of L2 input; (d) identify the components(subskills) of listening and to deduce the dynamic process(es)involved in L2 listening comprehension; and (e) deduce specificinstructional tasks and classroom activities that enhance listeningskill development for L2 learners. The remainder of this articlediscusses these five issues in the context of pedagogical theory,research, and instruction in both native language and L2 lis-tening comprehension, and it raises issues that researchers and prac-titioners need to consider in the coming years when designinglistening studies as well as instructional materials and classroomactivities.THE ROLE OF LISTENING N SECONDLANGUAGEACQUISITIONAND ITS PLACEIN THE L2 CURRICULUM: F THE INFLUENCEOF RESEARCHON PRACTICE

A major catalyst for the relatively recent and intense interest inlistening comprehension research has been the realization andaccumulating evidence that input plays a critical role in secondlanguage acquisition. M. Long (1985) points out that currenttheories of second language acquisition, such as the informationprocessing model (McLaughlin, Rossman, & McLeod, 1983),monitor model (Krashen, 1977), the intake model (Chaudron, 1985),the interaction model (Hatch, 1983), all emphasize the key rolelistening plays in the development of a learner's second/foreignlanguage, particularly at the beginning stages of languagedevelopment. Byrnes (1984) and Dunkel (1986) have alsohighlighted the valuable insights gained from studies of childlanguage acquisition that suggest the pivotal role listeningcomprehension plays in native language development.As a result of current theory that proposes and empirical researchthat indicates the importance of prespeaking in languagedevelopment, it has become increasingly commonplace for L2teachers to deemphasize speaking and to emphasize listening in theearly stages of L2 instruction. Synthesizing findings of recent andnot so recent research on second language acquisition andpedagogical theory that tend to support the beneficial aspects ofproviding beginning-level learners with a "silent" or "prespeaking"period of L2 instruction, Daniels, Pringle, and Wood (1986)articulate the theoretical rationale and obtained evidence for thebenefits of delayed oral practice in early-stage learning:LISTENING IN A SECOND LANGUAGE 435


6/27

(1) A tendency toward better all-roundperformancehas been noted inlearners who have experienceda silentperiod than in those who havenot (Asheret al., 1974;Postovsky, 1974;Thiele and Scheibner-Herzig,1983).6(2) Learnerswho arerequiredat too earlya stage to speakarelikely tosuffer from a phenomenonknown as "taskoverload" which probablyinhibits language acquisition and the exercise and development ofdiscriminatory kills,creates anxiety and encouragesinterferencefromL1 (Ingramet al., 1975;Nord, 1975;Krakowian,1981).Understandingormisunderstanding oes on in the intimacyof our own heads.If not calledupon to perform, learnerscan come to grips with the new foreignlanguage, under cover, without having to expose their sometimesvulnerable"languageego"to the censureof teachersor peers (GaryandGary,1981;Marton,1983;Danielsand Wood, 1984).(3) In natural circumstancesboth child and adult acquirersof foreignlanguagestypically go througha "silentperiod"(Hakuta,1974;Huangand Hatch, 1978;Dulay et al., 1982,pp. 22-24).(4) The audio-lingual approach has laid great emphasis on theimportanceof speakingas a foreignlanguage earninggoal, to the extentthat many languagelearners are able to "vocalize"(which presumablydoes not have the same status or manifest the same complexity ofcreativeness as "speaking"while remaining,in the words of Belasco[1981] cited in Nord [1981]), "virtually ncompetent in understandingthe spoken language."Understandingcompetence is very possibly ofmore use to most learners of foreign languages than is speakingcompetence. It would therefore seem logical, given the impossibilityofdoing everything at once, to give priority to training in listeningcomprehension(Nord, 1974;Davies, 1980). (pp. 47-48)Gary and Gary (1981) stress the cognitive, affective, andutilitarian advantages of delaying oral exercise and increasing

listening practice for L2 learning: (a) The cognitive advantage: AsPostovsky (1974; cited in Gary & Gary, 1981) argues, "requiringlearners to produce material that they have not yet stored in theirmemory will lead to language interference and overload of short-term memory" (p. 4); (b) The affective advantage: Forcing learnersto produce language before they are cognitively, emotionally, andlinguistically ready is traumatic. "Both first and second languagelearners generally prefer not to speak a language which they only6 In an experiment in which two fifth form classes of beginning level students of English asa foreign language were taught for 6 weeks with an emphasis on early or delayed oralproduction plus total physical response approaches, Thiele and Scheibner-Herzig (1983)found that those receiving training in listening comprehension combined with an initialdelay of oral practice surpassed those taught by conventional methods both in their listeningand their overall command of English. The delayed production method was also found tohave a positive effect on subjects' attitudes toward studying English, and it created aclassroom atmosphere "devoid of anxiety" (p. 285).

TESOL QUARTERLY36


7/27

imperfectly perceive (see, e.g., Ervin-Tripp, 1974; Sorensen, 1967;Asher, 1979)" (p. 5); and (c) The utilitarian advantage: Comprehen-sion-oriented instruction uses classroom time more efficiently thanproduction-oriented instruction since all the students can belistening and responding individually rather than in unison in choraldrill. According to Gary and Gary (1981), "language learners whohave been taught to capitalize on the advantages of a receptiveapproach to language learning are more likely to be inclined tocontinue their language study alone, independently of a particularlanguage program. This can be carried out, for example, by theirlistening to the radio, watching TV, or going to foreign languagefilms" (p. 6-7).

Although it has become generally accepted practice to providebeginning-level learners with a considerable amount of compre-hensible input (Krashen, 1981), Rickerson (1984) stresses the need toprovide foreign/second language students with opportunity toproduce the language to enhance the motivation during languagelearning. He reports that when the Defense Language Institute,following Postovsky's lead,tried to become more cost-effective and efficient by limitingcoursessolely to learninglistening comprehension, t was discovered that theabsence of speaking was detrimental to learning to listen. Learnermotivation was probably the reason. For instance, students wantedenough Germanto travelto the country,to order a Bier in a Gasthaus,and to converse with the population. Eliminating speaking wascounterproductive.As a result,speakinghasbeen reinstatedas a partofall basic coursesregardlessof the student's utureassignment.It seemsthat for acquisition to take place fully, a balance in both skills isrequired.(p. 214)Not only is listening comprehension important at the beginningstages of SLA, it appears to be crucially important for advanced-level learners (e.g., those with TOEFL scores > 500) as well(Powers, 1985). When asked to indicate the relative importance oflistening, reading, speaking and writing for international students'success in their academic departments, U.S. and Canadianprofessors of engineering, psychology, chemistry, computer

science, English and business, for example, gave the receptive skillsof listening and reading the highest ratings. (Reading comprehen-sion was seen as the most important of the four abilities in alldisciplines surveyed except English.) Listening was rated thesecond most important in four of the six disciplines (engineering,psychology, chemistry, and computer science).LISTENING IN A SECOND LANGUAGE 437


8/27

Issues for L2 Researchers and PractitionersUntil the 1980s, much of the language teaching field took listeningfor granted, according to Morley (1991), who attributes the trivialtreatment listening has received from L2 practitioners to the"elusiveness" (p. 82) of our listening awareness. As Weaver (cited inMorley, 1991) remarks, "after all, listening is neither so dramatic norso noisy as talking. The talker is the center of attention for alllisteners. His [sic] behavior is overt and vocal, and he hears andnotices his own behavior, whereas listening activity often seems likemerely being there-doing nothing" (p. 82). Morley (1991)maintains that we need to realize that listening is anything but apassive activity, and she urges practitioners not to dismiss listeningin a cavalier manner. "The importance of listening cannot beunderestimated; it is imperative that it not be treated trivially insecond and foreign language curricula" (p. 82). Neither should itreceive cavalier treatment from SLA researchers. Listening researchshould be fostered to advance the state of SLA theory building, andto expand the knowledge base about the process of L2 comprehen-sion and the effective methods of teaching L2 listening comprehen-sion to beginning-, intermediate-, and advanced-level learners.Some of the investigations should be directed toward probing theimpact that specific factors, internal and external to the listener,have on the success or failure of L2 comprehension in order toprovide guidance to L2 curriculum designers and classroomteachers as well as to L2 listening materials writers.

FACTORSAFFECTINGNL AND L2 LISTENINGCOMPREHENSION:OF FUNDAMENTALNFLUENCESINSIDEAND OUTSIDETHE HEAD" OF THE LISTENERNL researchers have sought to identify the factors "inside thehead" and "outside the head" that influence comprehension of oralcommunication in positive and negative ways. Communicationscholars Watson and Smeltzer (1984), for example, highlight severalinternal or "inside the head" (i.e., receiver) factors that can hinderNL listening comprehension: (a) personal internal distractions (e.g.,hunger, headaches, emotional disturbance); (b) personal disinterestin the topic of the message; (c) inattentiveness (e.g., daydreaming);(d) positive and/or negative emotional responses toward thespeakers, topic, or occasion; (e) detouring (what the speaker saysmakes you think of something else which is off the topic); (f) jump-ing to conclusions about what a person is going to say before it issaid; (g) over-reacting to the language of the speaker (e.g., her/his

TESOL QUARTERLY38


9/27

use of slang, cursing); (h) over-reacting to the message of thespeaker (reactingto the political implicationsof the message); (i)tendingtoward rebuttal(developinga counterargumentbefore thespeaker is finished);and (j) rehearsinga response (thinkingaboutwhat you have to say rather than what is being said). (It isinteresting to note that none of these learner traits has beenexamined in an L2 empirical investigation,to my knowledge. Anyone would prove of interest,particularly o teachersof advanced-level learnersof ESL/EFL.)Samuels (1984)discusses the impact of several additionalfactorsinternalto NL listeners,two of which are intelligenceand languagefacility. Some questions to be considered with respect to thesefactors are the following:(a) Intelligence:Does the listenerhave therequisite intelligence to comprehend the discourse? and (b)Languagefacility:

Isthe istener ccurate ndautomaticntheability osegment ndparsethe speechstream ntomorphemeandsyntacticunits? . . Does thelistenerhave an extensivevocabulary?Does the listenerknow thevarietyof waysin whicha word canbe used? .. Canthe listenerakeembedded entences ndparse hem ntounderstandablenits?.. Canthelistenerdentify hereferentor theanaphoricermsused? .. Is thelistenerableto make nferences ecessaryo comprehendheellipticalsentences ommonly sed ncasual onversation?p. 184)

(While the questionsraised are directed toward NL listeners,theyseem equally appropriate or L2 listenersas well.)With respect to the inferentialprocess, Rost (1990) claims that"understandingpokenlanguageis essentiallyan inferentialprocessbased on a perceptionof cues rather hanstraightforwardmatchingof soundto meaning" p. 33). Rostsuggeststhatthe L2listenermustperformthe following inferentialprocesseswhile listening:(1) estimatinghesenseof lexical eferences;(2) constructingpropositionalmeaning through supplying case-relationalinks;(3) assigning "base conceptual)meaning"nthediscourse;(4) assigning nderlyinginks nthediscourse;(5) assuming plausiblentention orthespeaker's tterances.pp.62-

63)Carroll (1977) has identified several affective and cognitivevariables that affect NL listening comprehension, including thelistener's (a) degree of motivation to comprehend and learn theinformationcontainedin the messageand the amount of interestinthe topic of discussion; (b) ability to perceive relations amongLISTENING IN A SECOND LANGUAGE 439


10/27

elements of the discourse, and ability to focus attention on thediscourse and ignore distractions in the environment. Goss (1982)posits that essentially NL listening comprehension is a function ofthe receiver's basic information-processing ability and level ofcognitive complexity, the latter being operationalized as an abilityto hold in focus and compare alternative perceptions on an issue.Not only do internal factors affect NL comprehension, externalfactors also influence the success or failure of the comprehension orlearning process. Carroll (1977) relates the ability to learn frombeing told to factors external to the native language listener: the rateat which material is presented, and the conceptual difficulty andorganization of the information presented. He notes that althoughresearch studies have shown that presentation rates may vary ratherwidely without seriously affecting comprehension (Fairbanks,Guttman, & Miron, 1957; Foulke, Amster, Nolan, & Bixler, 1962;Goldstein, 1940), the listening materials for these studies involvedwell-organized, readily understood materials. As soon as thematerials become less well organized or conceptually moredifficult, native language comprehension suffers.Carroll also points out the inverse relationship betweencomprehension and length of the material; he claims that thepresentation of a long series of sentences (even for native speakers)becomes somewhat analogous to the presentation of a long series ofarbitrary associations:

To the extentthatsubject-predicateelationsn sentencesor variousbasestructurescontained in sentences can be regarded as arbitraryassoci-ations,the learningof a series of sentencesbecomes analogous o pairedassociate learning,and some of the same considerations hat apply topaired associate learning might apply to this case. . . . For example, inter-sentence similaritymighthave the same effect as inter-pair imilarity npairedassociate earningof nonsensepairs.(p. 507-508)Finally, Carroll (1977) suggests that learning from aurallyreceived input is enhanced by repetition of the material heard(repetition on the part of both the speaker and the listener). ToCarroll's thinking, just as a list of arbitrary associations becomesbetter learned by presenting them over a series of trials, continuousdiscourse is better learned by rehearing, repeating, or rereading it.Watson and Smeltzer (1984) cite three additional text, environ-mental, and speaker variables that can confound successful NLlistening comprehension: (a) ambiguity of the message; (b)environmental distractions (e.g., phones ringing, other voices); and(c) distracting mannerisms of the speaker (e.g., stuttering, nervousor incomprehensible gestures).

TESOL QUARTERLY40


11/27

Wolvin and Coakley (1988)mention the influence of cultureandself-concept on the listener'sparticipationin the communicationprocess. They note that a listener's culture "essentially serves todefine who he or she is and how he or she will communicatethroughhis or her perceptualfilter"(p. 121). In addition,they notethat for most of us, even our native-language isteningself-conceptis not always a positive one, due in part to sensitivitydeveloped asa result of parentalcommands and cajolesrelated to listeningthatwere administeredduring childhood (e.g., a parent'sor teacher'sbarb, "You'renot listeningto me!").L2 listenerscan also suffer theeffect of a negative listeningself-concept if they feel inadequatetothe task of understandingthe Englishspoken by native speakers,and this lack of confidence may influence their listeningcomprehension in adverse ways. "The fear of misinterpreting,inadequatelyprocessingand/or not being able to adjustpsycholog-ically to messages sent by others"(Preiss& Wheeless,1989,p. 72)plays a meaningfulrole in suppressingcomprehensionof a messagedelivered in the listener'snative languageand in his orher second/foreignlanguageas well.For L2 listeners, all of the internal and external barriersmentioned above undoubtedly serve also to confound comprehen-sion of L2 messages,and SLAresearchersarebeginningto theorizeabout and investigatemany of these factorsas well as a numberofadditionalfactors that serve either to detract from or to supportareceiver's L2 comprehension. Faerch and Kasper (1986), forexample, discuss severalinside-the-L2-head actorsof a psycholin-guistic/sociolinguistic and experiential nature that impactcomprehension, including L2 listeners' (a) knowledge of the L2linguisticcode; (b) degree of socioculturalcompetence (i.e., theirdegree of familiaritywith the socioculturalcontent of the messageconveyed by the speaker); (c) and strategiccompetence (i.e., theirability to guess meanings of unfamiliarterms heard and to useverbal and nonverbal strategies to compensate for gaps in theirknowledge of the linguisticcode).Oxford (1990) also speculates about the importance of the L2listener'sability to employ cognitive strategiesinvolvingdeductivereasoningand compensationstrategies(e.g., guessing intelligentlyabout the meaningof what is heard)as well as indirectstrategiesofa metacognitive nature(e.g., delaying speech productionto focuson listening),of anaffective type (e.g., getting the generalmeaningwithoutknowing everyword), and of a socialcharacter e.g., askingfor clarificationor repetition of what was heard). Many of thesecontentions, however, remain empirical questions and call forresearchthat will affirm or disconfirmthe hypothesesput forth (asLISTENING IN A SECOND LANGUAGE 441


12/27

well as all the hypothesesput forthconcerningthe interactiveeffectof the variousfactorsinternalto the listener).In a survey of 30 Chinese teachersand 60 students,Boyle (1984)identified the factors perceived to be most salient influences onEFL listening comprehension, n termsof (a) speakerfactors, suchas the languageabilityof the speaker(nativespeakervs. beginning-level speaker,etc.), the quality of the speech signal (the degree ofaccent, speed, etc.), and the prestigeand personalityof the speaker(a consideration not typically mentioned in the NL listeningliterature); b) factorsin the oraltext, such as the complexity of thelexis andsyntax,the amount of cohesionandorganizationevident inthe text;and (c) listenerfactors(e.g., intelligence;memory, gender,motivation, and background knowledge). In a discussion of theapplication of schema theory to L2 listening comprehensionresearch and practice, D. Long (1989) highlights the critical roleboth the inside-the-headfactor, backgroundknowledge (contentschemata)as well as the outside-the-head actor (textualschemata)play in L2 listeningcomprehension.7She notes that Mueller(1980)determined that listeners more proficient in Germanneeded lesshelp from visualcontextualcues to activateappropriatescripts(seeFootnote7), whereasthe less proficientlearners(who were not ableto rely on linguistic cues to activate appropriate schemata) hadgreaterneed of verbalcontextualorganizers.Weissenreider's1987)research on listening to Spanish-languagenewscasts also demon-strates that knowledge about the newscast process (textualschemata) and the specific themes of the news reports (contentschemata) augmentedcomprehensionof the news information.In astudy of the effect of speech modification, prior knowledge, andlisteningproficiencyon the lecturelearningof studentsof Englishasa foreign language,Chiang(1990)providesadditionalevidence thatknowledge of the content schemata enhances the comprehensionfor EFL listeners. The supportive effect of prior knowledge hasbeen well documentedin the readingcomprehension iteraturebutrarelyexamined in the listening comprehension iterature(see alsoChiang& Dunkel, in press).7 According to Anderson and his colleagues (cited in D. Long, 1989), textual schematainvolves knowledge of the discourse-level conventions of text. "For example, when makingan operator-assisted long distance telephone call, the caller expects to be asked for specific

types of information such as type of assistance required, billing number, and name. Contentschemata, on the other hand, are derived from the individual's life experiences: checkingout library books, purchasing license plates, going to the dentist's office" (p. 33).According to Schank and Abelson s definition (cited in Long, 1989, p. 33), scripts are"predetermined, stereotyped sequences of action that define well-known situations";scriptsaid the listener to comprehend "input relating to commonplace situations." Long notes, forexample, the script for ordering at a drive-through window of a fast-food restaurant wouldaid comprehension of spoken discourse about this particular activity at a McDonald's (orsimilar) restaurant.

TESOL QUARTERLY42


13/27

Sheils (1988)also considersfamiliaritywith the contentschemataof a talk to be vitally importantfor listeners and highlightsseveraladditional factors that are thought to affect the difficulty ofprocessingoraldiscourse(i.e., to makeit easierorharder).They arerelated to the content, structural,and linguisticfeaturesof the oraltext, and to the speaker's style of delivery and speech: (a) thedensityand degree of predictabilityandexplicitnessof informationcontainedin the speech; (b) the degree of linguistic complexity; (c)length and conceptual difficulty of the text; (d) amount of timeallowed to process the text; (e) the speed of delivery andcomprehensibility of the accent; (f) the transparency of theorganizationand the inclusion of evident discoursesignalsmarkingthe structure and organizationof the information. With regard tothe precise functional effect of discourse markers on L2 listeners'comprehension of academic discourse, Chaudron and Richards(1986) empiricallydemonstrated that a speaker'suse of discoursesignals facilitates comprehension of lecture information. Morespecifically, they found thatlecturerswho includedclearlysignaledmacromarkers(e.g., "What I'm going to talk about today; youprobably know something about already";This is how it cameabout"[p. 127]) made the task of understandinga lecture easierforthe L2 listener. (Ratherinterestingly,they found that inclusionofmicromarkers, or example,OK,all right,after this) did not aid thelearners'retentionof the lecturecontent.)Materialswriters Andersonand Lynch (1988) illustrate he ease-difficulty continuumof L2 comprehension.They note thatlisteningto a radio broadcast of a parliamentary debate is relativelydemandingof the listener,whereas listeningto a child read from abook of fairytales is much less demanding.The factorsinfluencingthe ease or difficultyof these tasksfor the L2listenerare a functionof (a) the type of languageheard;(b) the context in which listeningoccurs;and (c) the taskorpurposeof the listening.In AndersonandLynch'sestimation,the parliamentarydebate inputmay be hard tofollow because of the unpredictability,complexity, and possibleabstractnessof the content, the crosstalkand overlapof voices, andthe involved linguistic form and different accents. Anderson andLynch do, however, point out that the effect of the complexity ofinputinteractswiththe listener'spurpose n listening.They note thatif the listener

hasswitchedon theradiosimply o determinewhether heparliamen-tarydebatehasfinishedor whether oday'snstalment f ourfavoriteradioserialhasstartedyet, then the listening xperience-despite hatLISTENING IN A SECOND LANGUAGE 443


14/27

long list of difficult inputfeatures-is not a demandingone. For somelisteners,however, the broadcast debate from Westminsterwill involvea much more difficult task or set of tasks. A business executive, forexample, will be paying close attentionto what is said in the annualBudget debate because she needs to remember it, either to pass theinformationon to her colleagues straightaway, or to use it at a laterstage. (p. 46)Anderson and Lynch make the point that what makes theexecutive's task so difficult is the attempt to remember the details ofthe debate and the fact of trying to interpret what is implied in thedebate rather than what is simply and clearly stated. The listenerwas, in other words, required to synthesize, interpret, and analyzethe information heard.It is clear that internal and external factors may interact in avariety of ways to make the L2 listener's task easier or morecomplex, but what is not quite clear is exactly how each functions toaffect the comprehension of listeners from various culturalbackgrounds and of different levels of language proficiency andpossessing different learner traits.

Issues for L2 Researchers and PractitionersSince the 1950s, we have gained some important and potentiallyuseful insights about the numerous factors inside and outside thehead of the listener that impact comprehension of the message;however, the speculations concerning the influence of these factorshave rarely been derived from empirical investigations. More often,they have sprung from logico-deductive speculation, fueled byprofessional intuition garnered as a result of years of classroom

teaching. We are, as a result, in dire need of empirical investigationsthat assess the validity of our assumptions regarding the interactiveeffects certain factors have on L2 listening comprehension. SeveralL2 researchers have, indeed, conducted studies examining theeffects of factors internal to the listener (see Call's 1985 study onauditory short-term memory and listening comprehension, andDunkel, Mishra, & Berliner's 1989 study of the effects of memoryand language proficiency on NL and L2 lecture learning), factorsexternal to the listener (see Chaudron & Richards's 1986 study of theeffect of discourse markers on the comprehension of L2 lectures,and Pica, Doughty, & Young's 1987 examination of the impact ofcommunicative interaction on L2 comprehension), and listener strat-egies (see O'Malley, Chamot, & Kiipper's 1989 study of the mentalprocesses L2 listeners use to comprehend L2 information and Ben-son's 1989 case study of the note-taking habits of an EFL listener).TESOL QUARTERLY44


15/27

We need, however, to increase vastly the number of empiricalstudies thatinvestigatethe ways in which factors insideand outsidethe L2 head affect comprehensionof L2 discourse for beginning-,intermediate- and advanced-level L2 listeners from varioussocioculturalbackgrounds.We canlookto the NL listeningresearchliteraturefor help in identifying some of the factors that seem toinfluencecomprehensionof L2discourse,but we need to create ourown expansive corpusof research on the subject. The L2 researchbase is still in its infancy.Instructorswho teach L2 listeningneed towork hand in hand with researchers o ensure the quality,quantityand utilityof experimentaland ethnographic tudies of L2listening.Teacherscan, for example,help frame researchquestionsthatneedto be addressedby researchers. Joiner,1986,notes that"listening sa young field and, as such, one with not only many unansweredquestions, but also many questions that have yet to be raised"[p. 68]). Teacherscan also help the researcheffort by makingtheirstudents available as subjects for experimental or ethnographicresearch,and by conductingaction research n theirclassrooms.Inaddition, researcherswho conduct empirical investigationsof L2listening have the responsibilityof ensuringthat their findings aremade available and accessible to classroomlisteningteachers whomay not necessarilybe schooled in the interpretationof statisticalanalyses. Working hand in hand, teachers and researchers canexpandthe L2researchbase and guarantee hatresearch mpactsonpractice,and vice versa.THECOMPONENTSND DYNAMICS F LISTENINGCOMPREHENSIONND PEDAGOGY:F COMPREHENSIONMODELSAND TAXONOMIES F LISTENINGKILLSAND PEDAGOGICALXERCISES

As mentioned previously, communicationscholars and secondlanguage acquisition researchershave attempted to capture theessence of the construct of listening comprehension in succinctdefinitions (althoughthey have rarelysucceeded in theirattempts)as well as in simple-to-elaboratemodels of L1/L2 comprehension(Goss, 1982; Nagle & Sanders, 1986; Rost, 1990; Wolvin, 1990).Wolvin (cited in Witkin, 1990), for example, described 12 speechcommunicationmodels of NL listeningproposedbetween 1956 and1986thatranged from

simplediagramsor hierarchicalrderingof listeningcomponentsoBarker's 971complexmodel of listeningn the contextof the totalcommunication rocess, includingauditoryand visual elements ofLISTENING IN A SECOND LANGUAGE 445


16/27

reception, perception,discrimination, nd response,andboth cognitiveand affective elements;and Lundsteen's 1979)flow chart model of theprocesses takenby an effective listeners, ncorporatingrespondingandorganizing,gettingmeaning,and thinkingbeyond listening.(p. 11)Faerch and Kasper (1986) make reference to the Jarvella andNelson psycholinguistic model of NL comprehension whichassumes that "language understanding is usually a product ofseveral cognitive subsystems working together in a harmoniousway" (p. 264). Faerch and Kasper contend that Jarvella andNelson's model compartmentalizes study of the comprehension ofverbal input into speech perception,investigatingthe intake, segmentation,and identification of stringsofsounds (or letters);the understandingof individualsentences, with anemphasis on the parsing of syntactic structure, the construction ofpropositions or on elaborating implied (semantic and pragmatic)meaning; and finally the comprehension of spoken and writtendiscourse,e.g., reconstructing he recipients'"storygrammars." p. 264)

The emphasis in this NL model of verbal comprehension is on"higher-level processes" of meaning construction, according toFaerch and Kasper. Ill Nagle and Sanders' (1986) L2 comprehensionmodel, comprehension and learning are viewed as interrelated.interdependent. ibut distinctive cognitive phenomena. Tilhedistinguish between automatic and controlled decoding processesthat interact with and affect implicit and explicit linguisticknowledge as well as other types of nonlinguistic knowledge. Theresearchers posit that "comprehension becomes more efficient asknowledge increases, processes become automatic, and experienceconfirms the reliability of the learner's decoding, inferring, andpredicting" (p. 22).Rost (1990) points out that "although some models of verbalunderstanding have been attempted, they are for the most partbroad descriptions of linguistic and pragmatic competence ornarrow descriptions of verbal processes" (p. 7).8 Model building,however, forms the foundation of theory development and shouldbe vigorously pursued in the coming decades if we are to advancethe knowledge base about the process of listening comprehension,in general, and L2 comprehension in particular.8 The central aspects of Dunkel, Chaudron, and Henning's (1990) narrow model of L2listening comprehension, which was designed with computer-adaptive testing purposes inmind, involve the specification of a range of listening processes and performances, orcognitive operations, referred to as "tasks,"which are coupled with a range of general "texttypes" and specific "text elements" as well as several dimensions of response formats,combinations of all of which lead to a large (open-ended) set of "test task frames."

TESOL QUARTERLY46


17/27

Not only have various models of NL and L2 listening comprehen-sion been proposed, but researchers have also constructed a numberof taxonomies delineating the microskills needed for effectivelistening and the various listener tasks and functions related to thesemicroskills. In addition, manifold pedagogical exercises incorporat-ing many of the identified microskills have been designed bymaterials writers for use by ESL/EFL classroom teachers. Thetaxonomies serve to highlight some of the abilities that listenersneed to develop if they are to function as skillful listeners.Richards's 1985 taxonomy, for example, lists 33 individualmicroskills of L2 participatory or conversational listening (e.g., theability to recognize the communicative functions of utterances,according to situations, participants, and goals), and 18 specificmicroskills involved in nonparticipatory, academic listening (e.g.,the ability to identify relationships among units within discourse,such as major ideas, generalizations, hypotheses, supporting ideas,examples).Lund's 1990 taxonomy of "real-world listening behaviors" (p. 106)identifies six listener functions that define the part(s) of the text thatthe listener will attend to and process (pp. 107-109): (a)identification of some "aspect of the linguistic code or content ofthe message" (e.g., at the lowest level of proficiency, discriminatingbetween minimal phonemic pairs; or at the advanced level, writingdown all the adjectives used in a radio commercial); (b) orientation,which involves "determining essential facts about the text, includingthe roles of the participants, the general topic and genre of thediscourse" (e.g., "determining that one is hearing a news broadcastand that the news involves sports"); (c) main idea comprehension ofthe message (e.g., "understanding a lecture well enough tosummarize the main points or complete a basic outline"); (d) detailcomprehension (e.g., "getting the departure times and the platformnumbers for several trains to a destination"); (e) full comprehen-sion, which involves understanding the main idea plus the details(e.g., "understanding a lecture so that one can take detailed notes ormake a detailed outline").Lund (1990) also distinguishes several overt listener responses thatcan be used to check that one of the six functions has beenperformed successfully: (a) doing (the listener responds physicallyto a command); (b) choosing (the listener selects from alternativessuch as pictures, objects, texts); (c) transferring (the listener drawsa picture of what is heard); (d) answering (the listener answersquestions about the message); (e) condensing (the listener outlinesor takes notes on a lecture); (f) extending (the listener provides theending to a story heard); (g) duplicating (the listener translates theLISTENING IN A SECOND LANGUAGE 447


18/27

messages into the native language or repeats it verbatim); (h)modeling (the listener orders a meal after listening to a modelorder); (i) conversing (the listener engages in a conversation or"'talks back' to a particularly silly or offensive ad on the radio"(p. 111).Many of the activities suggested in Lund's function-responsematrix of listening activities build upon those identified by Ur(1984) in her pragmatic and useful work on teaching listeningcomprehension.Ur (1984)describesandillustrates heprocessof L2listening in terms of focused and task-based activitiesin which L2listenersparticipate(e.g., they listento the news, weather,orsports;hear a speech or lecture;obtainprofessionaladvice from a doctor),and she categorizes listening into two types: (a) listening forperception (they hearand groupsoundsat the phoneme, word, andsentence levels), and (b) listening for comprehension in whichlisteners make no response (e.g., they follow a familiar text), ashorterresponse(e.g., they detect mistakes n an auraldescription),or a longer response (e.g., they paraphrase, translate, answerquestionson a text, or summarize nformationheard).In discussingthe design of instructionalmaterialsand classroomactivities,Richards(1990)exhortsmaterialsand classroomteachersto incorporate(and model) the two main purposesof communica-tion-to convey factual or propositional information (a transac-tionalpurpose)and to furthersocialrelationshipsand/or to expresspersonal attitudes (an interactionalpurpose)-as well as the twodifferent types of information processes: "top-down" listening(learnersreadinformationabout a topic, then listento a minitalkonthe topic and check whetheror not the informationwas mentionedin the talk) and "bottom-up" listening (learners identify thereferentsof pronounsused in a conversation).Richardsdecries thefact that too often commerciallyproduced materialsset goals thatare incompatible with the communicative intent of the messageused as the stimulus, and he further also criticizes the fact thatpublishedlisteningtextsrequirestudentsto adopt a singleapproachto listening,one thatoften demandsa detailed understandingof thecontent of a discourse and the recognition of every word andstructure hat occurred n a text.He emphasizesthatstudentsshouldnot be required to respond to interactionaldiscourse as if it werebeing used for transactionalpurposes,nor shouldthey be expectedto use a bottom-up approach to an aural text if a top-downapproachwould be moreappropriate.Richardsalso makesthe casethat "indeveloping classroomactivitiesand materialsfor teachinglistening comprehension, a clear understanding s needed of thenatureof top-downandbottom-up approaches o listeningandhow

TESOL QUARTERLY48


19/27

these processes relate to different kinds of listening purposes"(p. 65).Peterson(1991)incorporatesRichards'snotion of bottom-upandtop-down processing into her proposals for various types oflistening exercises specifically geared toward developing the L2listening comprehension of beginning-, intermediate-, andadvanced-level listeners.Examplesof the exercisetypes includethefollowing: (a) bottom-up processing for beginning-level listeners(they discriminatebetween intonationcontoursin a message), forintermediate-level listeners (they recognize unstressed functionwords in the speech stream),and for advanced-levellisteners(theyuse the lecturer's volume and stress to identify importantinformation for note taking); top-down processing goals forbeginning-level listeners (they identify the emlotionalstate of thespeaker), for intermediate-level isteners(they id(entify egistersofspeech as formal/informlal,polite/iplll)lite),and for advanced-level listeners(they listen to a statementand indicatewhat furthermeaningcan be inferredfrom the statement).Petersonalso sets herexercise types within the framework of interactional andtransactional language (see Peterson, 1991).9Issues for L2 Researchers and PractitionersThe various models of listening comprehension, as well as thesundry taxonomies of listening skills and pedagogical activities,have largely been derived from insights gained as a result ofclassroom experience and perusal of the NL and L2 listeningliterature.10 Both the assumptions concerning the accuracy andutility of the models as well as claims of effectiveness for suggestedpedagogical activities are legion; the empirical evidence supportingthese contentions is scant, at best. It is, therefore, expedient thatresearchers and classroom teachers make every effort to ascertain towhat degree psychological reality and instructional value are indeedembodied and reflected in the various theoretical models oflistening comprehension (see, for example, Nagle & Sanders, 1986),the taxonomies of component subskills (see, for example, Richards,1990), the dynamic processes involved in L2 listening comprehen-sion (see, for example, Dunkel, 1986; Rost, 1990), the sundry9 Anderson and Lynch (1988), Rost (1990), Underwood (1989), and Ur (1984) identify aplethora of task-based activities, listening goals, and types of texts that can be used to helplearners develop L2 listening proficiency.10 D. Long (1989) expressed concern that most of our current knowledge aboutcomprehension has been borrowed from the NL cognitive psychological literature. "Somedanger of 'lack of fit' always exists when applying borrowed theories to second languageacquisition" (p. 33). Caution should be exercised when attempting to siphon NL-relatedfindings into L2 practices.LISTENING IN A SECOND LANGUAGE 449


20/27

enumerationsof pedagogicalactivitiesandinstructional pproaches(see, for example, Lund, 1990; Peterson, 1991). We also need todetermine which internaland external factors impact favorably ornegatively on L2 listening comprehension (as well as to whatdegree, and in which ways) given certain levels of languageproficiency and specific types of instructionalenvironments(ESLvs. EFL settings,for example).We need to achieve these researchgoals so that more valid andeffective instructionalapproaches and listening materialscan bedevised and used. Let us hope that by the year 2000, a moreexpansive and higher quality base of research will be availabletoguide and enlightensecond/foreign languageteachersand secondlanguageacquisitionresearchers.These goals will not be achieved,however, unless L2 researchersaggressivelysearch out sources offundingwithintheirhome institutions e.g., from thoseinterestedinthe retention of minority and internationalundergraduate andgraduate students), and outside (e.g., from the United StatesDepartmentof Education for U.S. researchers) hatwill allow themto conduct more empirical studies of the dynamic processesinvolved in L2 listening. A comprehensive understandingof L2listening comprehension will prove elusive unless classroomteachers work hand in hand with researchers o promote researchand to test the internal and external validity of researchers'speculations and empirical findings about the construct of L2listening comprehension.THE IMPORTANCEOF LISTENING N CONTEMPORARYPOSTLITERATE OCIETY

In reflectingon contemporary ife, and oralityand literacyfromantiquity to the present, the renowned classicist Eric Havelock(1986) concluded that as a result of the proliferationof electronicmedia, the presence of orality has become an accepted fact incontemporary society. Electronicmedia may even have effected ashift from literacy to orality in modern life; speaking of the U.S.,Freedman (1982) asserts that "we have slowly but emphaticallyshifted our ifelans of communication from the printed word toimages and souln(ds,rom books to television, movies, radio, andrecordings.Insteadl f readingtoday, most of us prefer to look andlisten" (p. A-15)." Wolviriand Coakley (1988) maintain that the11 The shift toward a postlitcraltcsociety iia;y )b having an especially profound impact on theyounger generation in the ilndustrializ/.e worldl. Based on statistics published in a 1985 A. C.Nielsen (ompany survey, Wolvin and (,oaklcy (1988) calculate that in the United States,young people, froml ages two to eighteen, spend more than 20,000 hours before televisionsets, which is over 7,000 hours more than they spend in school from kindergarten through12th grade.

TESOL QUARTERLY50


21/27

United States, like many othernationsin the industrialworld, hasbecome a nation of listeners,and those coming to live, work, andstudy in the English-speaking ndustrialnations of the world willneed to become highly proficientlistenersof English.As disturbing as the shift from literacy to orality in modernsociety may be to many, the electronic communicationrevolutionhas focused attentionon the need to gainmore detailedknowledgeof what promotes and hinders the understanding of messagescommunicated in the native and second/foreign language. Thechallenge has been with us from, and before, the time of JohnLocke and will, no doubt, accompany us into the next century.Inthe coming years, it is likely that the use of computer-mediatedtechnologies for foreign/second languageinstructionwill becomecommonplace, especially in the industrialized nations of the world,and their use in the service of second/foreign language instructionwill doubtlessly increase.In a discussion of trends and issues involving use of technology inL2 learning and instruction, Garrett (1991) describes the kinds oftechnological resources that are available to support languagelearning in the closing decade of the 20th century (e.g., traditionalaudiotape/videotape materials) and the various approaches to usingthem. She also describes the emerging technologies that willbecome more available in the not-too-distant future as a result ofadvances in speech digitization and synthesis. In the comingcentury, the use of computer-generated speech promises to makethe teaching of listening comprehension a more interactive,illustrative, and dynamic experience than it had been in theenvironment of the noninteractive, audiotape laboratory of the mid-to late 20th century (see Dunkel, 1991b for a discussion of the use ofcomputerized educational simulations and games for L2 instruc-tion). Garrett (1991), for example, notes that

learnersoften experiencea difficult transition romhearingpedagogicalaudio to understandingnatural spoken language; the computer andinteractive technologies will allow teachers to select materialsof allkinds,supportthemas learners'needs dictate,and use the visualoptionsof screenpresentationor the interactivecapabilitiesof computercontrolto help students develop good ... listening techniques. (p. 95)The use of speech technology also holds promise for advancingthe efficiency, reliability, and validity of assessing L2 listeningcomprehension proficiency (see Dunkel, 1991a, for a discussion ofthe advantages and prototype design of a computerized test oflistening comprehension in English as a second language). Formany, it may not be clear how technology will affect the teaching

LISTENING IN A SECOND LANGUAGE 451


22/27

of listening comprehensionin the coming decades, but it is quiteclear that it will play a greater role in the future as emergingtechnology becomes more available as well as less expensive anddifficult to use. It is not just visionary,but wise, to remainappraisedof developments in instructionaltechnology as they relate to theteachingof listeningcomprehensionto the generationsof ESL/EFLstudents who will be born into the postliteratesocieties of the 21stcentury.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSI would like to thank colleagues Dennis Gouran (The Pennsylvania StateUniversity), Joyce Neu (Emory University),J. D. Brown(Universityof Hawaii),and DonnaJohnson(Universityof Arizona) or helpful commentson earlydraftsof the essay.I would,however,especiallyliketo acknowledgethe criticalroleSan-draSilberstein,Editor of the TESOLQuarterly,played in helpingbringthe paperinto its finalform. Hermeticulouseditingof thepaperis appreciatedandadmired.

THE AUTHORPatricia Dunkel is Associate Professor of Speech Communication and Director ofthe MATESL Program at The Pennsylvania State University. Her publicationsinclude three listening comprehension textbooks (Advanced Listening Compre-hension [with F. Pialorsi], Newbury House, 1982; Intermediate ListeningComprehension [with P. Lim], Newbury House, 1986; and Start with Listening[with C. Gorder], Newbury House, 1987) as well as articles concerning instructionand research in L2 listening comprehension and computer-adaptive testing of L2listening proficiency.

REFERENCESAnderson,A., &Lynch,T. (1988).Listening.New York:OxfordUniversityPress.Asher, . (1979).Learningnotheranguagehrough ctions:Thecompleteteacher'sguidebook.Los Gatos,CA:SkyOaksProductions.Asher,J. J., Kusudo,J. A., & De La Torre,R. (1974). Learninga secondlanguagethroughcommands:The second field test. ModernLanguageJournal,58, 24-32.Beatty, M., & Payne, S. (1984). Listening comprehension as a function ofcognitive complexity: A research note. Communication Monographs, 51,85-89.

TESOL QUARTERLY52


23/27

Benson, M. (1989). The academic listening task: A case study. TESOLQuarterly, 23(3), 421-445.Bernhardt, E., & James, C. (1987). The teaching and testing ofcomprehension in foreign language learning. In D. W. Birckbichler(Ed.), Proficiency, policy, and professionalism in foreign languageeducation (pp. 65-81). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.Boyles, J. (1984). Factors affecting listening comprehension. ELT Journal,38, 34-38.Brown, G. (1987). Twenty-five years of teaching listening comprehension.English Teaching Forum, 25, 11-15.Byrnes, H. (1984). The role of listening comprehension: A theoretical base.Foreign Language Annals, 17, 317-329.Call, M. (1985). Auditory short-term memory, listening comprehension,and the input hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly, 19(4), 765-781.

Carroll, J. B. (1971). Learning from verbal discourse in educational media:A review of the literature (Contract No. 1-7-071069-4243).Princeton, NJ:Educational Testing Service.Carroll, J. B. (1977). On learning from being told. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),Learning and instruction (2nd ed., pp. 496-512). Berkeley, CA:McCutchan.Chaudron, C. (1985). Intake: On models and methods for discoveringlearners' processing of input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7,1-14.Chaudron, C., & Richards, J. C. (1986). The effect of discourse markers onthe comprehension of lectures. Applied Linguistics, 7, 113-127.Chiang, C. (1990). Effects of speech modification, prior knowledge, andlistening proficiency on the lecture listening comprehension of ChineseEFL (English as a foreign language) students. Unpublished doctoraldissertation. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.Chiang, C., & Dunkel, P. (in press). The effects of speech modification,prior knowledge, and listening proficiency on EFL lecture learning.TESOL Quarterly.Coakley, C., & Wolvin, A. (1986). Listening in the native language. InB. H. Wing (Ed.), Listening, reading, and writing: Analysis andapplication (pp. 11-42). Middlebury, VT: Northeast Conference on theTeaching of Foreign Languages.Daniels, H. R., Pringle, P., & Wood, D. (1986). Playing it by ear: Thingsthat happen inside a silent period. System, 14, 47-57.Daniels, H. R., & Wood, D. (1984). The silent period, or what to do withlanguage learners who are seen and not heard. TESOL France News, 4,25-30.Davies, N. F. (1980). Putting receptive skills first: An experiment insequencing. Canadian Modern Language Review, 36, 461-467.Devine, T. G. (1967). Listening. Review of Educational Research, 37, 152-158.Devine, T. G. (1978). Listening: What do we know about fifty years ofresearch and theorizing? Journal of Reading, 21, 296-304.LISTENING IN A SECOND LANGUAGE 453


24/27

DiSalvo, V. S. (1980). A summary of current research identifyingcommunication skills in various organizational contexts. CommunicationEducation, 29, 283-290.DiSalvo, V. S., Larsen, D., & Seiler, W. J. (1976). Communication skillsneeded by persons in business organizations. CommunicationEducation, 25, 269-275.Downs, C. W., & Conrad, C. (1982). Effective subordinancy. Journal ofBusiness Communication, 19, 27-37.Duker, S. (1964). Listening. Review of Educational Research, 34, 156-163.Duker, S. (1968). Listening bibliography (2nd ed.). Metuchen, NJ:Scarecrow Press.

Duker, S. (1969). Listening. In R. L. Ebel (Ed.), Encyclopedia ofeducational research (4th ed., pp. 747-753). New York: Macmillan.Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. New York:Oxford University Press.Dunkel, P. (1986). Developing listening fluency in L2: Theoreticalprinciples and pedagogical considerations. Modern Language Journal,70, 99-106.Dunkel, P. (1988). The content of L1 and L2 students' lecture notes and itsrelation to test performance. TESOL Quarterly, 22(2), 259-281.Dunkel, P. (1991a). Computerized testing of nonparticipatory L2 listeningcomprehension proficiency: An ESL prototype development effort.Modern Language Journal, 75, 64-73.Dunkel, P. (1991b). Noncomputerized and computerized simulations andgames in L2 learning. CAELL Journal, 2, 2-12.Dunkel, P., Chaudron, C., & Henning, G. (1990, January). A collaborativeresearch endeavor to design a tentative model of L2 developmentallistening proficiency compatible with technological testing applications(Final report, Collaborative Research Fellowship). Washington, DC:The Johns Hopkins University, National Foreign Language Center.Dunkel, P., Mishra, S., & Berliner, D. (1989). Effects of note taking,memory, and language proficiency on lecture learning for native andnonnative speakers of English. TESOL Quarterly, 23(3), 543-549.Ervin-Tripp, S. (1974). Is second language learning like the first? TESOLQuarterly, 8(1), 111-128.Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1986). The role of comprehension in secondlanguage learning. Applied Linguistics, 7, 257-274.Fairbanks, G., Guttman, N., & Miron, M. S. (1957). Auditory comprehen-sion: The relation to listening rate and selective verbal redundancy.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 22, 23-32.

Foulke, E., Amster, C. H., Nolan, C. Y., Bixler, R. H. (1962). Thecomprehension of rapid speech by the blind. Exceptional Children, 29,134-141.Freedman, M. (1982, 7 April). Not so; It's a communications revolution.The Evening Sun, p. A-15.Galvin, K. (1985). Listening by doing-Developing effective listeningskills. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Co.

TESOL QUARTERLY54


25/27

Garrett, N. (1991). Technology in the service of language learning: Trendsand issues. Modern Language Journal, 75, 74-101.Gary, J. O., & Gary, N. (1981). Caution: Talking may be dangerous to yourlinguistic health. IRAL, 19, 1-14.Glen, E. (1989). A content analysis of fifty definitions of listening. Journalof the International Listening Association, 3, 21-31.Goldstein, H. (1940). Reading and listening comprehension at variouscontrolled rates (College Contributions to Education, No. 821). NewYork: Teachers College, Columbia University, Bureau of Publications.Goss, B. (1982). Processing communication. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Hakuta, K. (1974). Prefabricated patterns and the emergence of structurein second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 287-297.Harris, T. E., & Thomlison, T. D. (1983). Career-bound communicationeducation: A needs analysis. Central States Speech Journal, 34, 260-267.

Hatch, E. (1983). Simplified input and second language acquisition. InRoger Andersen (Ed.), Pidginization and creolization as languageacquisition (pp. 64-86). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Havelock, E. (1986). The muse learns to write: Reflections on orality andliteracy from antiquity to the present. New Haven: Yale UniversityPress.Huang, J., & Hatch, E. (1978). A Chinese child's acquisition of English. InE. Hatch (Ed.), Second language acquisition (pp. 118-131). Rowley,MA: Newbury House.Ingram, F., Nord, J., & Draft, D. (1975). A program for listeningcomprehension. Slavic and East European Journal, 19, 1-10.Joiner, E. (1986). Listening in the foreign language. In B. H. Wing (Ed.)Listening, reading, writing: Analysis and application (pp. 43-70).Middlebury, VT: Northeast Conference on the Teaching of ForeignLanguages.Keller, P. (1960). Major findings in listening in the past ten years. Journalof Communication, 10, 29-38.Krakowian, B. (1981). Techniques of teaching in the "pre-speaking"period. System, 9, 133-139.Krashen, S. (1977). The monitor model for adult second languageperformance. In M. Burt, C. Dulay, & M. Finocchiari (Eds.), Viewpointson English as a second language (pp. 152-161). New York:Regents.Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second languagelearning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Locke, J. (1689/1988). An essay concerning human understanding. NewYork: Oxford University Press.Long, D. (1989). Second language listening comprehension: A schema-theoretic perspective. Modern Language Journal, 73, 32-40.Long, M. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass& C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 377-393).Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Lund, R. (1990). A taxonomy for teaching second language listening.Foreign Language Annals, 23, 105-115.LISTENING IN A SECOND LANGUAGE 455


26/27

Lundsteen, S. W. (1979). Listening: Its impact at all levels on reading andthe other language arts. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Readingand Communication Skills Arts.Marton, W. (1983). Second language acquisition tactics and languagepedagogy. System, 11, 313-323.McLaughlin, B., Rossman, T., & McLeod, B. (1983). Second languagelearning: An information processing perspective. Language Learning,33, 135-158.Morley, J. (1991). Listening comprehension in second/foreign languageinstruction. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second orforeign language (2nd ed., pp. 81-106). New York: Newbury House.Mueller, G. (1980). Visual contextual cues and listening comprehension: Anexperiment. Modern Language Journal, 64, 335-340.Muchmore, J., & Galvin, K. (1983). A report of the task force on careercompetencies in oral communication skills for community collegestudents seeking immediate entry into the work force. CommunicationEducation, 32, 207-220.Murphy, C., & Jenks, L. (1982). Getting a job after college-What skills areneeded? San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational Researchand Development. Journal of Career Education, 10, 80-93.Nagle, S., & Sanders, S. (1986). Comprehension theory and secondlanguage pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 9-26.Nord, J. R. (1974). Why can't I just learn to listen? American ForeignLanguage Teacher, 4, 4-6.Nord, J. R. (1975). The importance of listening. The English Teacher'sMagazine, 24, 34-39.Nord, J. R. (1980). Developing listening fluency before speaking: Analternative paradigm. System, 8, 1-22.Nord, J. R. (1981). Three steps leading to listening fluency: A beginning. InH. Winitz (Ed.), The comprehension approach to foreign languageinstruction. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.O'Malley, M., Chamot, A., & Kupper, L. (1989). Listening comprehensionstrategies in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 10, 418-437.Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teachershould know. New York: Newbury House.Painter, C. M. (1985). A survey of communication skills needed on-the-jobby technical students. Journal of Studies in Technical Careers, 7, 135-160.Peterson, P. (1991). A synthesis of methods for interactive listening. InM. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreignlanguage (2nd ed., pp. 106-122). New York: Newbury House.Pica, T., Doughty, C., & Young, R. (1986). Making input comprehensible:Do interactional modifications help? IRAL, 72, 1-25.Pica, T., Young, R., & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction oncomprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 737-758.Postovsky, V. A. (1974). Effects of delay in oral practice at the beginningof second language learning. Modern Language Journal, 58, 229-239.

TESOL QUARTERLY56


27/27

Powers, D. (1985, December). A survey of academic demands related tolistening skills (TOEFL Res. Rep. No. 20). Princeton, NJ: EducationalTesting Service.Preiss, R., & Wheeless, L. (1989). Affective responses in listening: A meta-analysis of receiver apprehension outcomes. Journal of the InternationalListening Association, 3, 72-102.Richards, J. C. (1983). Listening comprehension: Approach, design, andprocedure. TESOL Quarterly, 17(2), 219-240.Richards, J. C. (1985). Listening comprehension: Approach, design, andprocedure. In J. C. Richards, The context of language teaching (pp. 189-207). New York: Cambridge University Press.Richards, J. C. (1990). The language teaching matrix. New York:Cambridge University Press.Rickerson, E. (1984). Curriculum for proficiency: Concepts to build on.Die Unterrichtspraxis, 17, 207-224.Rost, M. (1990). Listening in language learning. New York: Longman.Samuels, S. (1984). Factors influencing listening: Inside and outside thehead. Theory into Practice, 23, 183-189.Sheils, J. (1988). Communication in the modern languages classroom.Strasbourg, France: The Council of Europe. (Available from ManhattanPublishing Company, 1 Croton Pt. Avenue, Box 650, Croton, NY 10520)Sorensen, A. (1967). Multilingualism in the northwest Amazon. AmericanAnthropologist, 69, 670-684.Taylor, T. (1986). Do you understand? Criteria of understanding in verbalinteraction. Language & Communication, 6, 171-180.Thiele, A., & Scheibner-Herzig, G. (1983). Listening comprehensiontraining in teaching English to beginners. System, 11, 277-286.The 20% ctivities that bring 80%payoff. (1978, June). Training, p. 6.Underwood, M. (1989). Teaching listening. New York:Longman.Ur, P. (1984). Teaching listening comprehension. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.Watson, K., & Smeltzer, L. (1984). Barriers to listening: Comparisonbetween students and practitioners. Communication Research Reports,1, 82-87.Weaver, C. (1972). Human listening: Process and behavior. New York:Bobbs-Merrill.

Weissenreider, M. (1987). Listening to the news in Spanish. ModernLanguage Journal, 71, 18-27.Wilkinson, A. (1970). Research in listening comprehension. EducationalResearch, 12, 140-144.Witkin, B. R. (1990). Listening theory and research: The state of the art.Journal of the International Listening Association, 4, 7-32.Wolvin, A. (1990). Listening pedagogy and andragogy: The state of the art.Journal of the International Listening Association, 4, 33-61.Wolvin, A., & Coakley, C. (1988). Listening (3rd ed.). Dubuque, IA:Wm. C. Brown.Wolvin, A., & Coakley, C. (1991). A survey of the status of listeningtraining in some Fortune 500 corporations. Communication Education,40, 152-164.

listening in native and foreign speakers

Documents