A consciousness-raising approach

to the teaching of conversational

storytelling skills
Robert E. Jones

Anecdotes and personal narratives are frequently heard in day-to-day human

interaction, and it would, therefore, seem reasonable to conclude that the
teaching of storytelling skills should feature as a component in second
language conversation courses. After outlining the generic features of one
frequently heard story type, this paper goes on to describe a consciousness-
raising activity involving a picture story and story transcript designed to raise
learner awareness of some of the linguistic realizations of these features. We
then consider how this activity may be supplemented by other activities which
encourage students to make use of this growing awareness, and generate the
type of language which will help them develop their own conversational
storytelling ability.

Introduction Arguing for the importance of storytelling as a classroom activity,

Andrew Wright remarks that if you go to any pub or party you will
hear a constant babble of stories. The whole world is full of storytellers!
(Wright 1995: 16). Most teachers, I believe, would nd themselves in
agreement with Wrights assertion, and would probably not be surprised
to hear that storytelling in one form or another was a particularly
prominent feature in Eggins and Slades (1997) study of coee-time
conversations among workfriends. Indeed, in an informal count which I
kept during a seven-day period of interacting with family, colleagues, and
friends, no less than 40 anecdotes and personal narratives cropped up in
our conversations. Storytelling would appear to play a signicant role in
day-to-day human interaction, and teachers of second-language
conversation might, therefore, be advised to devote part of their syllabus
to the teaching of storytelling skills. In doing so, it would be important
for teachers to emphasize that conversational storytelling involves more
than just a bald narrating of facts, and that it exhibits its own particular
generic features. In this article I will attempt to describe some of these
features, and then go on to propose a consciousness-raising activity
designed to help students become aware of them as a rst step towards
developing their own storytelling skills.

ELT Journal Volume 55/2 April 2001 Oxford University Press 155
Generic features of Eggins and Slade observe that one of the most frequently occurring
conversational storytelling genres in casual conversation involves the type of anecdote in
storytelling which some small crisis or misfortune results in embarrassment,
humiliation, or frustration for the protagonist, which the teller narrates
in order to elicit some sort of reaction from the audience. Based on a
modied version of Labov and Waletzkys (1967) long-established
framework for the description of oral narrative, they describe the generic
structure of this crisis anecdote thus:
Abstract
Orientation
Remarkable event
Reaction
Coda
These features, with illustrative examples, are described below. Unless
otherwise stated, examples are taken from my own data.
Abstract This is an optional feature often found at the beginning of the
anecdote. It is rarely more than one sentence in length, and has a
summarizing function, giving listeners some indication of the type of
story they are about to hear, as in:
the worst ight I was on was with Joan and Mickey going to New
Zealand
Orientation This feature also occurs near the beginning of the story, and
serves to orient the listener in respect to time place and behavioral
situation (Labov and Waletzky 1967: 32), as in:
Alan is this guy who lives about three doors away from my mothers
place in Liverpool and hes real Liverpool yknow, his way of
speaking
Remarkable event(s) This feature consists of temporally ordered actions,
outlining a remarkable event, which the narrator wants to share his/her
reaction to (Eggins and Slade 1997: 244):
and he followed me through the gates and the bells went o
Reaction This refers to how the characters in the story world, or in the
storytellers audience, react to the events related. Typical reactions may
include expressions of anger, fear, amusement, etc., as in the following
example, where the speaker is describing the end of a particularly rough
aeroplane descent:
when it actually landed and started cruising along suddenly everyone
just went waaay [clapping gesture] heh heh started cheering the pilot.
Coda Like the abstract, this is an optional feature. Its function is to round
o the story by building a bridge between the story world and the moment
of telling (McCarthy 1991: 138). It may focus on the progress of one of the
storyworld characters from the time depicted in the story to the present:
And you know that man who picked me out of the water? Hes a
detective in Union City and I see him every now and again.
(Labov and Waletzky 1967: 40).

156 Robert E. Jones

 or on the lasting eects of one of the storyworld incidents:
and ever since, Ive never been able to look at a mango without feeling
sick (McCarthy 1991: 138).
While the ve elements outlined above give the story its structure, there
is one further element which we need to consider. This is an element
which can occur throughout the story, and whose eective employment
gives the story, its interest and tellability(McCarthy 1998: 63). The
term originally coined by Labov and Waletzky to describe this feature is
evaluation.

Evaluation: external Labov (1972) remarks that a major fear among storytellers is a so what?
and internal reaction from their audience. In order to avoid this, and to ensure that
listeners can see the point of the story, narrators frequently make use of
evaluative devices to help their audience appreciate that something was
funny, frightening, embarrassing, humiliating, or unusual. Often, this
will involve the narrator momentarily stepping out of the storyworld and
explicitly telling listeners that something was embarrassing, wonderful,
funny, etc., as in the following examples from my own data:
but the worst of it is it was absolutely wonderful and hed set it up
a treat
the funniest thing was when she woke up next morning and saw
Labov refers to this feature as external evaluation but notes that there
are often other more implicit evaluative devices at work in the story.
These occur when the audience is made to see the point of the story not
through any explicit reference on the storytellers part but through
choices which the narrator makes at the phonological, lexical, sentential
and discourse level in deciding how to present his (sic) information
(Polanyi 1985: 195). These internal evaluative devices involve all the
elaborations and embellishments which tellers bring to bear on the story
in order to engage the listeners interest and involvementdevices such
as exaggeration, repetition, mimicry, changes in intonation, emotive
lexis, gurative language, and attention to small detail. McCarthy notes
that one of the major defects in stories told by second language learners
is that they are often unable to manipulate these devices, and therefore
give us the bare facts of stories with little evaluation (McCarthy 1991:
140). This evaluative feature of storytelling would appear to be the one
which represents the greatest challenge to both teacher and learner, and
is, therefore, one to which particular attention should be paid.

Consciousness- Having identied some of the main features of conversational

raising in the storytelling, the teacher now faces the challenge of conveying these to the
language classroom learners, and encouraging them to make use of them in their own
storytelling. Willis and Willis (1996) are among the many researchers
who have drawn attention to the limitations of discrete item approaches
to language teaching, such as the traditional PPP (presentation, practice,
production) approach, noting that language is so vast and varied that we
can never provide learners with a viable and comprehensive description
of the language as a whole (ibid.: 63). Citing recent research into
consciousness-raising and its relationship to second language

A consciousness-raising approach to the teaching of conversational storytelling skills 157

 acquisition, they suggest that what teachers can do is to raise
consciousness of particular language features by providing learners with
activities which encourage them to think about samples of language and
to draw their own conclusions about how language works (ibid.).
Willis and Willis go on to provide teachers with some practical examples
of how they might go about assisting learners in this consciousness-
raising process. In dealing with the teaching of conversational English,
they advocate the study of written transcripts of recorded conversation,
arguing that if the learner is being provided with the transcript, he or she
will be given the time necessary to notice and reect on linguistic
features which may not be noticed for a long time if only heard in the
ow of real time conversation (ibid.: 76). They also help the learner to
focus on selected key items by accompanying the tapescript with a set of
questions designed to encourage reection.
An approach which I have found eective when introducing some of the
features of conversational anecdote described above combines Willis and
Williss approach with the use of picture stories. One story which has
proved particularly fruitful is from Storylines (Fletcher and Birt 1983),
which appears in the Appendix. It concerns an overweight middle-aged
man who attempts to lose weight by jogging, only to meet with several
disasters. After doing some initial vocabulary work, I ask the learners to
imagine that the main character is their uncle, and relate the incident to a
partner. I monitor this and give some feedback on grammar and
vocabulary. Then I give out transcripts of two versions of the story.
Version 1 is simply a bald narrating of events with little elaboration, while
Version 2 contains many of the features of orientation and evaluation
described earlier. Version 2 also involves a main speaker (S1) and an
active listener (S2). I begin by reading Version 1 to the learners, and
follow this with a reading of Version 2 in which one learner takes the part
of S2. Normally, learners have no diculty in recognizing the second as a
more interesting and engaging rendition. After asking for their
comments on the two versions, I then give out a set of questions directed
towards consciousness-raising, following the Willis and Willis model
described above.

Transcript (Version 1)
My uncle was fat and he was worried about it, so he bought a keep-t
book and went jogging. He looked funny, and a lot of people laughed at
him. He turned a corner and there were two women with a dog, but he
didnt notice them. He tripped over the dogs lead and banged his knee.
The dog bit him. Then he started walking home, and it began to rain. By
the time he got home he was very wet. He threw the keep-t book into
the bin.

Transcript (Version 2)
Speaker 1: Oh, talking about losing weight, did I tell you about 1
my Uncle John?
Speaker 2: No, I dont think so.
Speaker 1: Well, you see, my Uncle Johns quite a bit overweight
and hes always been worried about it, so erm... the other 5

158 Robert E. Jones

 week he decided he was going to do something about it.
Speaker 2: Uh huh.
Speaker 1: So, anyway, he got himself a keep-t book and then one
morning he stood in front of the mirror and he put on his vest,
his shorts, his running shoes... you know all the er... gear 10
Speaker 2: [ all the gear, yeah
Speaker 1: and out he went. Now you can just imagine it, cant you?
This big fat guy whos never been jogging in his life before.
He goes running down the road and all the kids stand there
laughing at him but yknow, he doesnt take any notice, he 15
just keeps on running and then he comes to a corner, right?
Speaker 2: Uh huh.
Speaker 1: So, he jogs round the corner and there are these two
women standing there with a dog. Anyway, he was so busy
running that he didnt even notice them and he tripped, 20
right over the dogs lead and banged his knee.
Speaker 2: Hah.
Speaker 1: So the dog got angry, turned round and bit him on the
hand and the two women started shouting at him.
Speaker 2: Good grief! 25
Speaker 1: So, theres my Uncle John, blood coming out of his hand
and blood coming out of his knee. He starts limping home and
then, just to make matters worse, it starts pouring with rain.
Speaker 2: Hah hah oh no.
Speaker 1: So, by the time he got home he was absolutely drenched. 30
He walked straight over to the kitchen table, picked up the
keep-t book and tossed it straight into the bin.
Speaker 2: Hah hah. So I dont suppose hell be going jogging again
then, will he?
Speaker 1: Well, what do you think? 35

Questions on the transcript (Version 2)

These may be given in the form of a worksheet for discussion in pairs.
1 What topic were S1 and S2 discussing before they started talking about
Uncle John?
2 Why does S1 begin the story with a question (lines 12)?
3 What do we learn about Uncle John in lines 46?
4 In lines 912, S1 gives a detailed description of Uncle John getting
dressed. Does this add any interest to the story? Why/why not?
5 Would it be possible to replace you see (line 4) with you know?
Could you know (lines 1112) be replaced with you see?
6 Why does S1 say So, anyway (line 9)?
7 Does S1 try to make S2 feel sorry for Uncle John?
8 How many disasters occur in this story?
9 Underline the following words and phrases in Version 1: walking,
began to rain, very wet, threw. What are the equivalent words and
phrases in Version 2?
A consciousness-raising approach to the teaching of conversational storytelling skills 159
 10 Compare the end of the story in Version 1 with lines 3541 in
Version 2. What dierences do you notice?

Commentary Question 1 highlights the fact that stories seldom arise randomly in
conversation, but are locally occasioned (Jeerson 1978) by the ongoing
talk, and that the link with the preceding talk is often signalled
linguistically by phrases such as talking about or while were on that subject.
Question 2 draws attention to the abstract. It should be noted that this
particular abstract comes in the form of a question. As storytelling
involves a speaker taking a much longer turn than is usual in most casual
conversation, it is not uncommon for a narrator to seek permission (e.g.
Do you want to hear what happened to my uncle?) or, as in this case,
clearance to tell the story by means of a knowledge check. Orientation is
the focus in Question 3, which draws attention to the need to provide
essential points of background information for the listeners
benet.
Question 4 focuses on an aspect of internal evaluation. Rintell describes
how storytellers often make use of apparently insignicant detail in order
to get the listener to form a more vivid image (1990: 89). The detailed
description of Uncle John changing into his jogging gear could be seen
as helping the listeners to visualize the uncle in such a way that they are
more able to appreciate both the cruel humour and the sympathy which
he subsequently invokes. Also, the somewhat ritualistic aspect of the
dressing-up may serve as an indication of just how seriously Uncle John
intended to take the whole jogging business, and for that reason may also
serve to make his misfortunes seem all the more pitiable.
Questions 5 and 6 are concerned with discourse markers. McCarthy
suggests that there is indeed a dierence between you see and you
know, the former referring to knowledge imparted by the speaker, and
the latter to knowledge already shared with the listener (1998: 59). So,
anyway in Question 6 marks the boundary between the end of the
orientation and the beginning of the remarkable event section. The
teacher might also like to draw attention to several other discourse
markers: Now (line 14), marking an item of external evaluation, and
right? (line 19), to check that the listener is following the details.
There is at least one occasion where the narrator explicitly invokes pity
for the uncle (Question 7). This can be seen in the somewhat graphic
description of his injuries, and the subsequent downpour (lines 303).
Sympathy is also invoked by S1s observation that Uncle John has
suered not one but a series of disasters (Question 8), as signalled by the
phrase just to make matters worse and the lexical choices to which
Question 9 draws attention: limping, pouring with rain, absolutely
drenched, tossed, each of them more emotively-charged than their more
neutral counterparts in Version 1.
The nal question focuses on both the reaction and the coda. In
Version 1, the uncles reaction to his misfortune is expressed by a single
clause: He threw the keep-t book into the bin. In Version 2, however,
the reaction is fused with various evaluative elements, and we are told
that the uncle walked straight over to the table, picked up the keep-t

160 Robert E. Jones

 book and tossed it straight into the bin. This technique of building up
balanced phrases in threes (Ross 1998: 44) is one much loved by
comedians, politicians, and speechmakers, who often use it to gain a
comic or emotive eect. Here, the technique helps to bring S1s story to a
neat conclusion, and the lexical choices (the twice-used straight as well
as the verb tossed) give expression to the strength of the uncles feelings
as he performs the nal act. This reaction phase is followed by the coda
(lines 3940) and it is interesting to note that, in this case, the coda is
provided not by the main speaker but by the listener, who brings the
story into the present with a question concerning the long-term
consequences of the uncles unfortunate experience. Here, teachers
might also like to draw the learners attention to other ways in which the
listener contributes to the storytelling. In the story we examined above,
S2 makes supportive back-channel noises (uh huh), shows appreciation
of the uncles misfortune (Good grief!), and at one point engages in a
collaborative completion (Eggins and Slade 1997: 252) of S1s utterance
(all the gear, yeah).

Further activities Earlier, mention was made of Willis and Williss comment regarding the
vastness and variety of language forms. The activity described above has
proved helpful to me in introducing some of the generic features of
conversational storytelling to learners. However, no single story can be
expected to exemplify more than a small handful of the linguistic
realizations of these features. It is therefore necessary for teachers to
examine further transcripts of stories from real conversations, or of texts
carefully concocted on the basis of observations of real data (McCarthy
1998: 67) with their learners, thereby helping them to notice and reect
on key features as they occur. In doing this, learners will become
increasingly aware of the many devices available to conversational
storytellers. Equally important is the fact that they will have consolidated
previously encountered forms as they appear in new contexts.
It should be added, however, that these consciousness-raising activities
are not to be regarded as an end in themselves, but rather as an aid to
learners acquiring linguistic forms that will help them develop their own
storytelling ability. It follows that learners should be supplemented with
activities that can help them to generate suitable language for their
particular purposes. Such activities could involve:
1 Giving students the script of bare bones stories such as that recorded
in Version 1 above, and have them discuss in pairs how they could
make the story more tellable.
2 Asking students to examine newspaper stories of the strange but true
type, and discussing how they might retell the story to a friend in a pub
or coee shop.
3 Valuable work can also be done by asking pairs or small groups of
learners to record themselves telling each other stories. Learners can
then transcribe these stories, and with the teachers assistance, assess
them in the light of their growing awareness of storytelling devices,
and reect on how these stories might be improved and developed. As
they do this activity, students might also be encouraged to reect on

A consciousness-raising approach to the teaching of conversational storytelling skills 161

 the listeners role. Did the listener, for example, add any comments of
his or her own, or make supporting back-channel noises?

Conclusion In this article I have attempted to describe some of the features of

conversational storytelling, and to suggest how the teacher might set
about teaching them. I noted in the introduction that storytelling plays a
signicant role in everyday conversation, and that it should, therefore,
form a part of second language conversation courses. There is at least
one other reason why time might be devoted to the development of
learners storytelling skills. In his 1985 critique of the communicative
approach, Michael Swan notes that one of the most powerful resources at
the teachers disposal is what each learner can bring to the classroom in
the form of his or her vast private store of knowledge, opinions, and
experience (Swan 1985: 84). When they communicate something from
this store to others, Swan argues, there is a strong potential for
genuinely rich and productive language practice (ibid.). Training
learners in the skills of storytelling, and then encouraging them to apply
these skills to stories of their own life experience, may be one way in
which this potential can be tapped.
Received December 1999

Acknowledgement J. Helm (ed.). Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts.

The author and publisher would like to thank
Pearson Education for permission to reproduce
Jogging from Storylines by M. Fletcher and
D. Birt 1983.
Notes
1 Possible alternatives might include as if that
wasnt enough or on top of all that.
2 For a list of various ways in which listeners may
contribute to a story, see Eggins and Slade
(1997: 252).
References
Eggins, S. and D. Slade. 1997. Analyzing Casual
Conversation. London: Cassell.
Fletcher, M. and D. Birt. 1983. Storylines. Harlow:
Longman.
Jeerson, G. 1978. Sequential aspects of
storytelling in conversation in J. Schenkein (ed.).
Studies in the Organization of Conversational
Interaction. New York: Academic Press.
Labov, W. 1972. Language in the Inner City: Studies
in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia:
University of Philadelphia Press.
Labov, W. and J. Waltezky. 1967. Narrative
analysis: oral versions of personal experience in
Seattle: University of Washington Press.
McCarthy, M. 1991. Discourse Analysis for Language
Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, M. 1998. Spoken Language and Applied
Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Polanyi, L. 1985. Conversational storytelling in
T. van Dijk (ed.). Handbook of Discourse Analysis
Vol. 3. London: Academic Press.
Rintell, E. M. 1990. Thats incredible: stories of
emotions told by second language learners and
native speakers in R.C. Scarcella, E.S. Anderson,
and S.D. Krashen (eds.). Developing
Communicative Competence in a Second Language.
New York: Newbury House.
Ross, A. 1998. The Language of Humour. London:
Routledge.
Swan, M. 1985. A critical look at the
communicative approach (2). ELT Journal 39/2:
7687.
Willis, D. and J. Willis. 1996. Consciousness-
raising activities in the language classroom in
J. Willis and D. Willis (eds.). Challenge and Change
in Language Teaching. Oxford: Heinemann.
Wright, A. 1995. A travelling storyteller. The
Language Teacher 19/10: 1619, 26.

162 Robert E. Jones

The author
Robert E. Jones has an MSc in TESP from Aston
University and an RSA Dip TEFLA . He is currently
working as a freelance teacher of English in Japan,
and has also worked in Spain, Sweden, Malaysia,
and the UK. His main academic interest is in
conversational analysis, and its implications for
the language classroom.
Email: aribob@city.ena.gifu.jp

Appendix

M. Fletcher and D. Birt 1983. Storylines. Harlow: Longman

A consciousness-raising approach to the teaching of conversational storytelling skills 163