Classroom Researchby John FieldThe idea of teacher-led research developed in secondary education in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The term 'action research' was adopted to describe a small-scale investigation undertaken by a class teacher. Kemmis (1983) describes it as a form of self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social (including educational) situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own social and educational practices, their understanding of those practices, and the situations in which the practices are carried out.Action research is envisaged as conferring two important benefits. Firstly, it encourages teachers to reflect on their practice, and therefore leads to potential change. It plays an important part in reflective teaching, where personal and professional development occur when teachers review their experience in a systematic way (see Wallace 1991: 49 for a model). Secondly, it is said to empower teachers, releasing them from dependence upon precepts handed down by trainers and inspectors. By testing for themselves the methods and materials they use in the classroom, they can establish which are the most effective for them.The term 'action research' has often been used imprecisely, and would-be teacher-researchers have been deterred by suggestions that it has to follow a rigidly defined cycle (plan-act- observe-reflect). Many commentators now prefer to speak of 'classroom research' or 'teacher-led research'.Classroom research in ELT is not a hobby: it is a professional imperative. Only by undertaking discovery projects can we extend our knowledge of the impact of our teaching, and the process of learning which our students experience. Classroom research also enables us to evaluate techniques which are taken for granted but have never been put to the test. It may thus be general in aim, adding to our knowledge of language teaching and learning (in which case, it will be necessary to replicate any findings with a number of different classes); or it may be extremely specific:teachers investigating their own teaching, specific classes, or individuals.There are many areas in language teaching which need investigation. They include teacher talk; vocabulary load; processing in L2 reading and writing; learner factors; inductive versus deductive methods of grammar presentation; communi- cation strategies; visual versus auditory memory; attention span; error correction; and group dynamics. Equally various are the methods available. Even a progress test is a simple form of research which can be used not simply to check learning but also to monitor the interlanguage of class members, and to undertake error analysis. Other possible methods include: fieldnotes, in which the teacher keeps a reflective log after each lesson; controlled experiments, where one class is subjected to a change of technique or materials, and then compared to a control group which has not had the treatment; case studies, in which one follows the progress of a targeted student or students; learner diaries; surveys, questionnaires, and/or interviews; introspection, where a learner describes the experience of undertaking a task in L2; observation, where peers are observed in a targeted way; and recording lessons, in order to monitor learners' problems.For a general account of classroom research, see Hopkins, A Teacher's Guide to Classroom Research (Open University 1993), and for advice on methods see Bell, Doing Your Research Project (Open University 1993). A standard guide on methods is Cohen and Manion, Research Methods in Education (Routledge 1994). On teacher-led research in language teaching, Richards and Lockhart, Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms (Cambridge University Press 1994) provide a basic introduction. For more detailed discussion, see Allwright and Bailey, Focus on the Language Classroom (Cambridge University Press 1994); and for ideas on observation tasks, consult Allwright, Observation in the Language Classroom (Longman 1991) and Wallace (1991, Chapter 5). The IATEFL Research SIG will shortly be publishing a teacher-friendly Handbook of Classroom Research (for further details, contact IA TEFL, Kingsdown Chambers, Kingsdown Park, Whitstable, Kent CT5 2DJ, UK).ReferencesKemmis, S. 1983: 'Action research', in T. Husen and T. Postlethwaite (eds.) International Ency- clopaedia of Education: Research and Studies. Oxford: Pergamon.Wallace, M. J. 1991: Training Foreign LanguageTeachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.The authorJohn Field is currently doing PhD research on listening at the University of Cambridge. He is a materials writer and teacher trainer with experi- ence in Europe, the Middle East, the Far East, and Africa. He is currently co-ordinator of the IATEFL Research SIG.Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by azwar azwar paramma on February 12, 2013

ReviewJohn Field (1997) Classroom Research 192-3. John Field was currently doing PhD research on listening at the University of Cambridge. He was a materials writer and teacher trainer with experience in Europe, the Middle East, the Far East, and Africa. He was currently co-ordinator of the IATEFL Research SIG. The researcher used the idea of teacher-led research developed in secondary education in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The term 'action research' was adopted to describe a small-scale investigation undertaken by a class teacher. Action research is envisaged as conferring two important benefits. Firstly, it encourages teachers to reflect on their practice, and therefore leads to potential change. Secondly, it is said to empower teachers, releasing them from dependence upon precepts handed down by trainers and inspectors. By testing for themselves the methods and materials they use in the classroom, they can establish which are the most effective for them.Fields paper reported that classroom research in ELT isnt a hobby, but its a professional imperative. Only by undertaking discovery projects can we extend our knowledge of the impact of our teaching, and the process of learning which our students experience. Classroom research also enables us to evaluate techniques which are taken for granted but have never been put to the test. He suggested that we need investigation in many areas in language teaching with include teacher talk, vocabulary load, processing in L2 reading and writing, learner factors; inductive versus deductive methods of grammar presentation, communi- cation strategies, visual versus auditory memory, attention span, error correction, and group dynamics. Equally various are the methods available. Even a progress test is a simple form of research which can be used not simply to check learning but also to monitor the interlanguage of class members, and to undertake error analysis.

English as a Lingua Franca

by Barbara Seidlhofer

In recent years, the term English as a lingua franca (ELF) has emerged as a way of referring to communication in English between speakers with different first languages. Since roughly only one out of every four users of English in the world is a native speaker of the language (Crystal 2003), most ELF interactions take place among non-native speakers of English. Although this does not preclude the participation of English native speakers in ELF interaction, what is distinctive about ELF is that, in most cases, it is a contact language between persons who share neither a common native tongue nor a common (national) culture, and for whom English is the chosen foreign language of communication (Firth 1996:240).

Defined in this way, ELF is part of the more general phenomenon of English as an international language (EIL) or World Englishes. (For comprehensive overviews, see Jenkins 2003; McArthur 1998; Melchers and Shaw 2003.) EIL, along with English as a global language (e.g. Crystal 2003; Gnutzmann 1999), English as a world language (e.g. Mair 2003) and World English (Brutt-Griffler 2002) have for some time been used as general cover terms for uses of English spanning Inner Circle, Outer Circle, and Expanding Circle contexts (Kachru 1992). The traditional meaning of EIL thus comprises uses of English within and across Kachrus Circles, for intranational as well as international communication. However, when English is chosen as the means of communication among people from different first language backgrounds, across linguacultural boundaries, the preferred term is English as a lingua franca (House 1999; Seidlhofer 2001), although the terms English as a medium of intercultural communication (Meierkord 1996), and, in this more specific and more recent meaning, English as an international language (Jenkins 2000), are also used.

Despite being welcomed by some and deplored by others, it cannot be denied that English functions as a global lingua franca. However, what has so far tended to be denied is that, as a consequence of its international use, English is being shaped at least as much by its non- native speakers as by its native speakers. This has led to a somewhat paradoxical situation: on the one hand, for the majority of its users, English is a foreign language, and the vast majority of verbal exchanges in English do not involve any native speakers of the language at all. On the other hand, there is still a tendency for native speakers to be regarded as custodians over what is acceptable usage. Thus, in order for the concept of ELF to gain acceptance alongside English as native language, there have been calls for the systematic study of the nature of ELFwhat it looks and sounds like and how people actually use it and make it workand a consideration of the implications for the teaching and learning of the language.

Empirical work on the linguistic description of ELF at a number of levels has in fact been under way for several years now. Research has been carried out at the level of phonology (Jenkins 2000), pragmatics (Meierkord 1996), and lexicogrammar (Seidlhofer 2004, which also offers an overview of descriptive work to date). ELF corpora are now also being compiled and analysed, such as the English as a lingua franca in Academic settings (ELFA) corpus (Mauranen 2003) and the general Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE) (Seidlhofer 2004). While space prevents summarizing the findings of this research here, two illustrative examples can be mentioned. Thus, Jenkins (2000) found that being able to pronounce some sounds that are often regarded as particularly English but also particularly difficult, namely the th sounds /u/ and /D/ and the dark l allophone [], is not necessary for international intelligibility through ELF. Similarly, analyses of ELF interactions captured in the VOICE corpus clearly show that although ELF speakers often do not use the third person singular present tense -s marking in their verbs, this does not lead to any isunderstandings or communication problems.

This gradually accumulating body of work is leading to a better understanding of the nature of ELF, which in turn is a prerequisite for taking informed decisions, especially in language policy and language teaching (McKay 2002). Thus, the features of English which tend to be crucial for international intelligibility and therefore need to be taught for production and reception are being distinguished from the (non-native) features that tend not to cause misunderstandings and thus do not need to constitute a focus for production teaching for those learners who intend to use English mainly in international settings. Acting on these insights can free up valuable teaching time for more general language awareness and communication strategies; these may have more mileage for learners than striving for mastery of fine nuances of native- speaker language use that are communicatively redundant or even counter-productive in lingua franca settings, and which may anyway not be teachable in advance, but only learnable by subsequent experience of the language. It should be stressed, however, that linguistic descriptions alone cannot, of course, determine what needs to be taught and learnt for particular purposes and in particular settingsthey provide necessary but not sufficient guidance for what will always be pedagogical decisions (Widdowson 2003).ReferencesBrutt-Griffler, J. 2002. World English. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Firth, A. 1996. The discursive accomplishment of normality. On lingua franca English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics 26:237 59.Gnutzmann, C. (ed.). 1999. Teaching and Learning English as a Global Language. Tu bingen: Stauffenburg.House, J. 1999. Misunderstanding in intercultural communication: interactions in English as a lingua franca and the myth of mutual intelligibility in C. Gnutzmann (ed.). pp. 73 89. Jenkins, J. 2000. The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Jenkins, J. 2003. World Englishes. London: Routledge.Kachru, B. (ed.). 1992. The Other Tongue (Second edition). Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.McArthur, T. 1998. The English Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McKay, S. 2002. Teaching English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.Mair, C. (ed.). 2003. The Politics of English as a World Language. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Mauranen, A. 2003. Academic English as lingua francaa corpus approach. TESOL Quarterly 37: 513 27.Crystal, D. 2003. English as a Global Language (Second edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Meierkord, C. 1996. Englisch als Medium der interkulturellen Kommunikation. Untersuchungen zum non-native-/non-native speakerDiskurs. Frankfurt/Main: Lang.Melchers, G. and P. Shaw. 2003. World Englishes. London: Arnold.Seidlhofer, B. 2001. Closing a conceptual gap: the case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11:133 58.Seidlhofer, B. 2004. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, pp. 209 39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Widdowson, H. G. 2003. Defining Issues in English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

The author Barbara Seidlhofer is Professor of English and Applied Linguistics at the University of Vienna. She is the Director of the Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE) project, which aims to provide a basis for the linguistic description of ELF. Her most recent book is Controversies in Applied Linguistics (Oxford University Press).

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by azwar azwar paramma on February 12, 2013

ReviewBarbara Seidlhofer (2005) English as a Lingua Franca 339-41. Barbara Seidlhofer is Professor of English and Applied Linguistics at the University of Vienna. She is the Director of the Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE) project, which aims to provide a basis for the linguistic description of ELF. Her most recent book is Controversies in Applied Linguistics (Oxford University Press).The researcher got an empirical work on the linguistic description of ELF at a number of levels has in fact been under way for several years now. Research has been carried out at the level of phonology (Jenkins 2000), pragmatics (Meierkord 1996), and lexicogrammar (Seidlhofer 2004, which also offers an overview of descriptive work to date).Seidlhofers paper reported the finding of the research, two illustrative example can be mentioned. Jenkins (2000) found that being able to pronounce some sounds that are often regarded as particularly English but also particularly difficult, namely the th sounds /u/ and /D/ and the dark l allophone [], is not necessary for international intelligibility through ELF and McKay (2002) the features of English which tend to be crucial for international intelligibility and therefore need to be taught for production and reception are being distinguished from the (non-native) features that tend not to cause misunderstandings and thus do not need to constitute a focus for production teaching for those learners who intend to use English mainly in international settings.In this case, he argued that acting on these insights can free up valuable teaching time for more general language awareness and communication strategies; these may have more mileage for learners than striving for mastery of fine nuances of native- speaker language use that are communicatively redundant or even counter-productive in lingua franca settings, and which may anyway not be teachable in advance, but only learnable by subsequent experience of the language.

Universal Grammarby Dr Anjum P. SaleemiBy far the most popular current conception of Universal Grammar (UG) is the one due to the generative linguist Noam Chomsky, whose theory of UG is supposed to be a theory of the human language faculty, i.e. a module of the mind/brain involved in the basic design of language. More specifically, he employs the term UG to refer to a system of principles and parameters that underlie all human languages (see Chomsky ]988 for a simple exposition).A major claim is that there are some highly abstract universal linguistic principles, such as the binding principles (named A, B, and C, respec- tively) determining what can or cannot be the antecedent of an anaphoric, pronominal, or fully referential nominal element. Other currently well- known principles include: subjacency, the Head Movement Constraint, the Empty Category Principle (see Cook 1988 and Chomsky and Lasnik 1993 for definitions and examples). These principles are good examples of formal universals, i.e. linguistic constraints of an abstract nature, as opposed to substantive universals, or linguistic primitives, which are best exemplified by grammatical categories like N( oun), V( erb), P(reposition), etc.Closely related to the principles are the para- meters, parts of UG which are allowed to vary in a limited fashion and which therefore explain the linguistic variation that obviously exists. For example, the execution of binding principle A may vary from language to language, largely in terms of how far from an anaphor (a reflexive or reciprocal pronoun) its antecedent may be located, with some languages permitting long-distance antecedents (e.g. Mandarin), and others enforcing only strictly local anaphora (e.g. English); likewise, verb phrases in various languages may be head- first (i.e. verb object (YO) as in English) or head- final (i.e. object verb (OY), as in Hindi).An important aspect of Chomsky's theory is the argument that human beings are innately predis- posed to learn natural languages. Thus, any normal human child can learn any natural language he or she is exposed to, a process that occurs relatively effortlessly and rapidly. More- over, child language acquisition takes place in the absence of any negative data (i.e. ungrammatical examples), and as a result of exposure to evidence which is random, unsystematic, and devoid of the kind of abstract information that is crucial to the structure of human language. By extension, the UG hypothesis has had considerable impact on theoretical research in second language acquisi- tion, where a major issue in recent years has been whether, and to what extent, an adult language learner has access to UG (see White 1992 for a good introduction).Note that it is possible to speak of language universals without committing oneself to the concept of UG, as for example some typologists do, who simply take universals to mean character- istics that are found in all (absolute universals) or most (relative universals) languages (Croft 1990). However, the notion of UG may be held to be a possible logical extension of the idea of universals, and any efforts to account for (rather than just describe) whatever linguistic properties are uni- versally or widely attested are likely to yield some theory of UG. It is, therefore, not surprising that attempts have been made to explain linguistic universals, such as they are, in more than one way. For instance, in addition to the Chomskyan explanation, there are functional explanations that consider these universals to be a reflection of the systems of meaning and use (Siewierska 1991), and cognitive ones which emphasize the similarity linguistic structures supposedly bear with various other cognitive domains, such as the perceptual systems (Langacker 1987).ReferencesCook, V. J. 1988. Chomsky's Universal Grammar.Oxford: Blackwell.Chomsky, N. 1988. Language and Problems of Knowledge: The Managua Lectures. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Chomsky, N. and H. Lasnik. 1993. 'Principles and parameters theory' in J. Jacobs (ed.). Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Croft, W. 1990. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Langacker, R. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites.Stanford, CA.: Stanford University Press. Siewierska, A. 1991. Functional Grammar. London: Routledge.White, L. 1992. Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.The AuthorDr Anjum P. Saleemi, Department of English Language and Literature, National University of SingaporeDownloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by azwar azwar paramma on February 12, 2013

ReviewDr Anjum P. Saleemi (1995) Universal Grammar 196. Dr anjum P. Saleemi was a lecturer in Department of English Language and Literature, National University of Singapore. He used the popular current conception of Universal Grammar (UG) of the one due to the generative linguist Noam Chomsky, whose theory of UG is supposed to be a theory of the human language faculty, i.e. a module of the mind/brain involved in the basic design of language.The finding was an important aspect of Chomsky's theory is the argument that human beings are innately predis- posed to learn natural languages. Thus, any normal human child can learn any natural language he or she is exposed to, a process that occurs relatively effortlessly and rapidly. More- over, child language acquisition takes place in the absence of any negative data (i.e. ungrammatical examples), and as a result of exposure to evidence which is random, unsystematic, and devoid of the kind of abstract information that is crucial to the structure of human language.The author noted that it is possible to speak of language universals without committing oneself to the concept of UG, as for example some typologists do, who simply take universals to mean character- istics that are found in all (absolute universals) or most (relative universals) languages (Croft 1990).