.=-.

8
 in its socialGontext
Teaching
EnglishLanguage

s o c i o l i n g u i s tei ct h, n o g r a p h iacn, d
_ - r l l i s hL a n g u a gTee a c h i ni gn i t s s o c i a lc o n t e x t o f f e r s
, , , a l - p s y c h o l o g i cpaelr s p e c t i v e o sn T E S 0 L t e a c h i n ga n d l e a r n i n ga n d i n t r o d u c etsh e
o n s e c o n dl a n g u a gaec q u i s i t i o nI t. p r e s e n tEs n g l i s hl a n g u a gtee a c h i n g
. . = . a n tl i t e r a t u r e
. . a r i e t yo f s p e c i fc i n s t i t u t i o n agl e
, ographa i cn dc u l t u r acl o n t e x t s '

- p i e c e -s h a v eb e e n
. : . : i c l e s- w h i c hi n c l u d eb o t hc l a s s i ca n d s p e c i a l lcyo m m i s s i o n e d
teaching'
- _ .. . , y c h o s e n a n o e d i t e dt o p r e s e ntth e m a i np r i n c i p l eosf E n g l i s hl a n g u a g e
- r e c o g n i steh e i n d i v i d u a l i toyf
: , 3 c u so n t h e r o l e sp l a y e db y t e a c h e r a snd learners,
g u i d a n c ef o r s t u d e n t s '
j . a g e l e a r n e r ss, u p p o r t e a c h e r si n t h e p r o v i s i o no f a c t i v e
interaction betweenlearners
=-.- r1g, and examinebothpositiveand negativepatternsof
:-,rteacherS.

- -ls of
R e a d eor f f e r sp e o p l eu n f a m i l i awr i t h r e s e a r cihn t h i sf i e l da n o v e r a lul n d e r s t a n d i n g
. = . ui s s u eisn c o n t e m p o r a E r yn g l i s hl a n g u a gtee a c h i nw g h i l ea l l o w i n tgh em o r ee x p e r i e n c e d
presented'
.=aderthe o p p o r t u n i ttyo r e l a t eh i so r h e re x p e r i e n c teost h et h e o r i e s

l . B r e e nA; n n eB u r n s ;A . S u r e s hc a n a g a r a j a hJ '; l ( e i t hc h i c l < R

; od
A r t i c l e sb y : M i c h a e P
illls; Pauline ; a t s yM . L i g h t b o w nA;n g e lM . Y ' L i n ; M i c h a eH
G i b b o n sP; a u ll ( n i g h t P
l '

L o n g ;N e i lM e r c e r ;R o s a m o nM d i t c h e l lF e y l e s ;D a v i dN u n a nJ; a c l <c ' R i c h a r d s ;

; l o r e n cM
J o a ns w a n n ;L e ov a n L i e r
c e l i a R o b e r t sP; e t e rS k e h a nA; s s i aS l i m a n i ;N i n aS p a d a ;

L i n g u i s t i casn d D i r e c t o ro f t h e
C h r i s t o p h eNr . C a n d l i ni s C h a i r P r o f e s s oor f A p p l i e d
Researca ht the city
c e n t r e f o r E n g l i s hL a n g u a g eE d u c a t i o na n d c o m m u n i c a t i o n
L a n g u a gaen dc o m m u n i c a t i o a nnsd
U n i v e r s i toyf H o n gl ( o n g .N e i lM e r c e ri s P r o f e s s oorf
a t t h e 0 p e nU n i v e r s i t yU' l ( '
D i r e c t oor f t h e C e n t r ef o r L a n g u a gaen dC o m m u n i c a t i o n s
 volumes
Companion
T h ec o m p a n i ovno l u m e isn t h i ss e r i e sa r e :
by AnneBurnsand CarolineCoffin
AnalysingEnglishin a GtobalContextedited
editedby DavidR. Hall and Ann Hewings
Innovationin EnglishLanguageTeaching

T h e s et h r e e r e a d e r sa r e p a r t o f a s c h e m eo f s t u d yj o i n t l y d e v e l o p ebdy M a c q u a r i e
U n i v e r s i t yS, y d n e yA, u s t r a l i aa, n d t h e 0 p e n U n i v e r s i t yU, n i t e dl ( i n g d o mA ' t the Qpen
the threereadersare part of a single course, Teaching English to Speakers of
University,
Worldilde whichforms part of the OpenUniversity MA in Education
1ther Languages
( A p p l i e dL i n g u i s t i c sa)n d A d v a n c e d D i p l o m ai n T e a c h i n gE n g l i s ht o s p e a k e r o s f Other
L a n g u a g eA s .t M a c q u a r i e a
U n i v e r s i t yt h, e t h r e er e a d e r s r e e a c ha t t a c h e t
d o s i n g l es t u d y
u n i t s ,w h i c hf o r m p a r t o f t h e P o s t g r a d u a D t ei p l o m aa n d M a s t e ro f A p p l i e d g u i s t i c s
L i n
p r 0 gr a m m e s .
postgraduate
T h e0 p e nU n i v e r s i tM y A i n E d u c a t i oins n o we s t a b l i s h ea dst h em o s tp o p u l a r
d e g r e ef o r U l ( e d u c a t i o p n r o f e s s i o n awl si,t h o v e r3 , 5 0 0 s t u d e n t sr e g i s t e r i nega c hy e a r '
From 2001 it will alsobe availablw e o r l d w i d eT. h e M A i n E d u c a t i o ins d e s i g n e d
p a r t i c u l a r lfyo r t h o s ew i t h e x p e r i e n cien t e a c h i n ge, d u c a t i o n a ld m i n i s t r a t i oonr a l l i e d
. h eM A i s a m o d u l adr e g r e a
f i e l d sT e n ds t u d e n tasr ef r e et o s e l e c tf ,r o m a r a n g eo f o p t i o n s ,
in
t h e p r o g r a m m teh a t b e s tf i t s i n w i t h t h e i r i n t e r e s tasn d p r o f e s s i o ngaol a l s .T h e M A
s t u d y a t t h e i r o w n p a c ea n d in
E d u c a t i opnr o g r a m m pe r o v i d egs r e a tf l e x i b i l i t yS. t u d e n t s
s t u d ym a t e r i a l sa, n d a r e s u p p o r t e d y
t h e i r o w n t i m e . T h e y r e c e i v es p e c i a l l py r e p a r e d b
( A p p l i e dL i n g u i s t i c s )
a p e r s o n at lu t o r . ( S u c c e s s f cuol m p l e t i o on f t h e M A i n E d u c a t i o n
e n t i l e ss t u d e n ttso a p p l yf o r e n t r yt o t h e O p e nU n i v e r s i t y D o c t o r a t ien E d u c a t i o (nE d D )
programme.)

Theprofessiona Dle v e l o p m einnt E d u c a t i opnr o s p e c t ucso n t a i nfsu r t h e ri n f o r m a t i oann d

a p p l i c a t i ofno r m s .T o f i n d o u t m o r ea b o u tt h e Q p e nU n i v e r s i tay n d r e q u e syt o u r c 6 p y
olease w r i t et o t h e C o u r s eR e s e r v a t i oanns d S a l e sC e n t r eT, h e O p e nU n i v e r s i t yP, O B o x
724,W altonHall, M ilton l(eynesMl<76ZW, or e-mailces-gen@open.ac.ul<, or telephone
g
+44 (0)1g0 65323I or visitthe website,www.open.ac.uk. For more information on the
MA in Education(AppliedLinguistics) uisitwww.open.ac.uk/applied-linguistics.

MacquarieUniversityintroduced distance versions of its influentialon-campus degrees in

]994 and now has studentsin over thirty countries.Both the Postgraduate Diploma
a n d t h e M a s t e r sa r e o f f e r e di n t h r e ev e r s i o n sA: p p l i e dL i n g u i s t i c s , A p p l i e dL i n guistics
( T E S O L )a n d A p p l i e dL i n g u i s t i c(sL i t e r a c y )C. r e d i t sa r e f r e e l yt r a n s f e r a b lbee t w e etnh e
Diplomaand the Mastersand betweenthe three versions,and studentsmay change
b e t w e e dn i s t a n c a e n d o n - c a m p um s o 0 e so r m i x m o d e si f d e s i r e dS. t u d e n tsst u d ya t t h e i r
o w n p a c e ,w i t h s p e c i a l l d y e v e l o p em d a t e r i a l sa n d w i t h s u p p o r at ndfeedbacp k rovided
t
d i r e c t l yf r o m l e c t u r e risn t h e L i n g u i s t i cDs e p a r t m e n th r o u g e
h - m a i l w
, e b f
, a x , p h o n ea n d
p o s t .A s p e c i a l i s el idb r a r ys e r v i c ep r o v i d e tdh r o u g ht h e R e s o u r c eCse n t r eo f t h e N a t i o n a l
C e n t r ef o r E n g l i s hL a n g u a g e a c h i n ga n d R e s e a r c (hN ' C E L T R ) E
T e . x t e r n a ld o c t o r a l
p r o g r a m m easr e a l s oa v a i l a b l e '
on
p r o g r a m m easn d a p p l i c a t i ofno r m sa r e a v a i l a b l e
I n f o r m a t i o na b o u tt h e M a c q u a r i e
www.ling.mq.edu.au or by writing to the LinguisticsPostgraduate Office,Macquarie
U n i v e r s i tN (
y ,S W2 1 0 9 ,A u s t r a l i at e l : + 6 1298509243;fax: + 6 1 2 9 8 5 0 9 3 5 2 ;e - m a i l :
i nl g . m q . e d u . a u ) .
lingdl@
 EnglishLanguage
Teaching
in its SocialContext
'Candlin's
and N{ercer'sReader provides kev insightsinto contemporarv knon.ledge
of second languagelearning, the exploitation of this knorvledgein classroomaction,
and subsequentassessmentand analvsis.Bv emphasizingthe social context of these
three processes,and the relationship betu-eentirem, thJ book provides a rew.ardirrg
introduction to the interaction betu,een theorv, research and professional practice
u'hich lies at the heart of applied linguistics.' Guv Cook,IJniversitlioJ Readtng,iK

'This
volume links the teaching of English to the development of autonomous
individuals rvho prize debate, negotiation and interaction, and rvho will ultimatelv be
able to build giobal communications of like-minded English speakersaround the
rvorld. Readersu'ill find in this collection of excellent papeis some of the classicmile-
stonesinthefieldofELT.'ClaireKramsch,Universitl,oJCalfornta,Berkeley,Cal{ornia

Teaching
EnglishLanguage
Worldwide
A selection of readers' comments on the series:

'This
three-part series olfers a map to ELT research and practice . . . it represents the best
that ELT, as an Anglo-Saxon institution, has developed over the last thirtl. vears lbr the
teaching of English around the rl-orld . . . Readers will find in this series the Who's Who
guide to this dvnamic and expanding communitv.' Clairc Kramsch,[JniversityoJ CattJornia,
Berkeley,CaltJornia

'Experienced
English language instructors seeking to deepen their knor.r,.ledgeand abilitres
lvill find this series forms a coherent basis to develop their understanding of iurrent trends,
sociocultural diversitv, and topical interests in teaching English as a second or foreign
language around the u.orld. All three volumes pror.ide ample flexibilitv for discussion,
interPretation, and adaptation in local settings.' Aljster Cumming,Ontario lrrtirut,
for S:udiesin
Educati on, Un i versitv oJTor onto

'This
series provides a collection of essential readings r,r'hich r,r'ili not only provide the
TEFL/TESOL student and teacher rvith access to the most up,to-date thinking and
approaches to the subject but u'ill gir.e anv person interested in the subject an overvi,ew of

I the phenomenon of the use and usage of English in the modern '"vorid. Perhaps more
I importantly, this series r'r'ill be crucial to those students w.ho do not have available to thern
articles that provide both a w'ide spectrum of information and the necessary analytical tools
rl
to investigate the language further.' Joseph A. Fole1, SoutheastAsia lLinisten of Education
Organisation,RegionolLanguageCentre,Singapore

'The
strong representation of the seminal Angio-Australian development of the European
functional tradition in the'studv oflanguage and language education makes this a refreshinglv
bracing series, r.vhich should be u'idelr. used in teacher education for English langua=g.
teaching.'Euan Rejd,lnsttrute IJn)versitt'
oJ Educatton, oJ London
'ln
a principled and accessibiemanner, these three volumes bring together major."vritings on
essential topics in the studv of English language teaching. Ther.provide broad coverage of
current thinking and debate on major issues, providing an invaluable resource foi the
contemporarv postgraduate student.' Gu1 Cook,(Jniverst*,oJ Reading
F i r s tp u b l i s h e2d0 0 1
by Routledge
1 1 N e wF e t t e rL a n e ,L o n d o nE C 4 P4 E E

S i m u l t a n e o up
s luyb l i s h ei d
n t h e US A a n dC a n a d a
by Routledge
2 9 W e s t3 5 t h S t r e e tN , e wY o r k ,N Y 1 0 0 0 1

Routledgeis an imprint of the Taylor & FrancisGroup

@ 2 0 0 1 C o m p i l a t i oonr, i g i n aal n de d i t o r i am l a t e r i aM e n i v e r s i tayn d

l a c q u a r iU
T h e0 p e nU n l v e r s i t yi n; d i v i d u aalr t i c l e @
s t h e i ra u t h o r s

L o d g eW
T y p e s eitn P e r p e t u a n d B e l l G o t h l cb y l ( e y s t r o l <Jea, c a r a n d a , olverhampton
P r i n t e da n d b o u n di n G r e a tB r i t a i nb y T J I n t e r n a t i o n aLlt d , P a d s t o wC, o r n w a l l

A l l r i g h t sr e s e r v e dN. o p a r t o f t h i s b o o km a y b e r e p r i n t e d o r r e p r o d u c eodr
u t i l i z e dl n a n yf o r m o r b y a n ye l e c t r o n i m c , e c h a n l c oa rl o t h e rm e a n s /
n o w k n o w no r h e r e a f t eirn v e n t e di n , c l u d i n gp h o t o c o p y i nagn d r e c o r d i n g ,
o r i n a n y i n f o r m a t i o sn t o r a g eo r r e t r i e v asl y s t e mw/ i t h o u tp e r m i s s i o n
i n w r i t i n gf r o mt h e p u b l i s h e r s .

British Library Cataloguing in PublicationData

A c a t a l o g uree c o r df o r t h i sb o o ki s a v a i l a b lfer o mt h e B r i t i s hL i b r a r y

Libraryof Congress Catalogingin PublicationData

English Nr. C a n d l i n
l a n g u a gtee a c h i n ign i t s s o c i acl o n t e x/t e d i t e db y C h r i s t o p h e
a n d N e i lM e r c e r .
p . c m .- ( T e a c h i nE gn g l i s h l a n g u a gweo r l d w i d e )
Includes b i b l i o g r a p h e lf e r e n c ea sn di n d e x .
i cr a
1. English l a n g u a g e - S t uadnydt e a c h i n g - F o r e isgpne a k e r s2.. E n g l i s h
language-Stud a yn dt e a c h i n g - S o c i a sl p e c t s I. . C a n d l i nC
, hristopher.
I I . M e r c e rN, e i i .I I I . S e r i e s
P E 7 I 2 8 . A 2E 4 9 2 0 0 0
428'.0071-dc2l 00-059195

I SBN 0 - 4 1 5 - 2 4 t 2 r - 9 ( h b k )
IS B N 0-415-24122-7 $bk)
 ---:
\LUa/*.-_?--P' dz'? o do
,Ar-ln
I I i-22.,
-= .
t
trt,
v-'
/,
GOntentStttttt 2 i
v'2d,i"
6./l
-4 " 4 tt:
€P
C/t.
=
5/6 '.g8d
Uzt-t ro: r'h
=
" /;

@)
Listof illustrations X

Acknowledgements xii

Christopher N. Candlin and Neil Mercer

INTRODUCTION

PART ONE
I o w i s l a n g u a g el e a r n i n g e x p l a i n e d ?

RosamondMitchell and Florence Myles

SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING: I(EY CONCEPTS
AND ISSUES 11

Patsy M. Lightbown and Nina Spada

FACTORS AFFECTING SECOND LANGUAGE TEARNING 28

Rod Ellis
SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION: RESEARCH AND
LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 44

Peter Sl<ehan
COMPREHENSION AND PRODUCTION STRATEGIES IN
LANGUAGE LEARNING 7q

Leo van Lier

C O N S T R A I N T S A N D R E S O U R C E S I N C L A S S R O O N 4T A L I ( :
ISSUES OF EQUALITY AND SYMIVE
I TRT 90
 Viii CONTENTS

Celia Roberts
LANGUAGE ACQUISITION OR LANGUAGE SOC]ALISATiON
IN AND THROUGH DlSCOURSE? TOWARDS A REDEFINITION
OF THE DOMAIN OF SLA lOB

Michael P. Breen
THE SOCIAL CONTEXT FOR LANGUAGE TEARNING:
A NEGLECTED SITUATION? r22

P A R TT W O
S t r a t e g i e sa n d g o a l si n t h e c l a s s r o o mc o n t e x t

Paul l(night
THE DEVELOP[,iENT OF EFL METHODOLOGY t47

Jack C. Richards
BEYOND METHODS 167

Michael H. Long
10 FOCUS ON FORf\4:A DESIGN FEATURE IN LANGUAGE
T E A C H I N G I \ 1E T H O D O L O G Y 180

David Nunan
11 TEACHING GRAMMAR IN CONTEXT 191

200

. - : , : 'A . S u r e s h C a n a g a r a j a h
13 CRITICAL ETHNOGRAPHY OF A SRI LANI<AN CLASSROOM:
A I VB
I IGUITIES IN STUDENT OPPOSITION TO
REPRODUCTION THROUGH ESOL 208

J. l(eith Chick
T4 SAFE-TALI(: COLLUSION IN APARTHEID EDUCATION 227
I

PART THREE
A n a l y s i n gt e a c h i n g a n d l e a r n i n g

Mercer
Tq,Neil 243
, I15 /LANGUAGE FOR TEACHING A LANGUAGE
"\/
Pauline Gibbons
16 LEARNING A NEW REGISTER IN A SECOND LANGUAGE 258
 CONTENTS IX

Anget M.Y. Lin

T1 DOING.ENGLiSH-LESSONS IN THE REPRODUCTION OR
TRANSFORIMATION OF SOCIAL WORLDS? 27t

Assia Slimani
EVALUATION OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION 287

Michael P. Breen
T9 NAV]GATING THE DISCOURSE: ON WHAT IS LEARNE
IN THE LANGUAGE CLASSROOI!1 306

Joan Swann
20 RECORDING AND TRANSCRIBING TALI< IN EDUCATIONAL
-1 SETTINGS tzJ

.l /

IUC 345
 Illustrations

Figures

1.1 S p o l s l < yg' es n e r am l o d eo l f second l a n g u a glee a r n i n g I3

2.r B a r c h a r t ss h o w i n tgh e l a n g u a glee v e l so f p r e -a n dp o s t - p u b e r t y
l e a r n e rosf En gIi s h 3B
3.r ' M o m e n t so' f a c t i o nr e s e a r c h 5B
3.2 R e l a t i nd y e o r ya n d l a n g u a gpee d a g o g y
g i s c i p l i n a rt h 65
5.1 IRFcontinuum 94
8.1 S i t u a t i o n al al n g u a gtee a c h i n m g aterial 150
8.2 A t y p i c aal u d i o - l i n g udar li l l 151
8.3 C L T m a t e r i a lw s h i c he n c o u r a gger o u p w o rak n dp a r t i c i p a t i o n 156
8.4 A t y p i c a lP r a b h ut a s k t62
8.5 An example o f u n i to b j e c t i v ewsi t h i na t e x t - b a s eadp p r o a c h 164
10.1 N o u np h r a s ea c c e s s iIbi tiy h i e r a r c h y l85
12.I T h et e a c h i n g - l e a r n icnygc l e 202
20.r F i e l d - n o t eosf a n a s s e m b liyn a s c h o oiln s o u t h - e a sEtn g l a n d 329
20.2 Transcription of teacher-student talk 33r
20.3 T r a n s c r i p t i oonf s m a l lg r o u pt a l k : s t a n d a r d layout 332
20.4 T r a n s c r i p t i oonf s m a l lg r o u pt a l l < c: o l u m nl a y o u t 333
20.5 T r a n s c r i p t i oonf g r o u pt a l k :s t a v el a y o u t ??q

20.6 Representation of nonverbal featuresin an oral narrative 336

20.7 Representation of teacher'sgazetowardsfemaleand malestudents
20.8 T r a n s c r i pi tl l u s t r a t i nagl t e r n a t i obne t w e e En n g l i s ha n d M a l t e s e 337
20.9 T r a n s c r i pi tl l u s t r a t i nagl t e r n a t i obne t w e e Sn a n s l < rai tn d E n g l i s h 338
2 0 . 10 T r a n s c r i p t i oonf a c o n v e r s a t i ouns i n gC r e o l ea n d L o n d o nE n g l i s h 339
20 . 1 1 R e p r e s e n t a t ioofnp r o n u n c i a t i ouns i n gp h o n e t iscy m b o l s 339
20.12 I n c i d e n coel ' c o sa n db e c a u sien p r i m a r vs c h o ocl h i l d r e n 'tsa l k 342
 ILLUSTRATIONS Xi

-ables

I C o m p a r i s oonf l a n g u a glee a r n i n a g t d i f f e r e nat g e s 4t

I Attributesof innovation 62
I S o m et e c h n i q u et hs a t t e a c h e rus s e
I Average s c o r e sa n dp e r c e n t a gi n e c r e a sfeo r e a c hg r o u p 293
2 Effectof topicalisation 296
3 P e r c e n t a goef c l a i m sm a d eb y r e p o r t e rosn e a c hl i n g u i s t ifce a t u r e 299
I Numberandtypeof student-initiated movesin two typesof lesson 340
 Acknowledgements

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

'The
Michael P. Breen and Cambridge Unir,ersitt' Press for social context of language
Language
in Second
learning: a neglected situation' in Studres Acquisition,7, 1985.
Michael P. Bte.n a.rd SEAMEO Regional Language Centre for'Navigating the discourse:
on what is learned in the language classroom' in Proceedings of the 1997 RELC
Seminar.
Anne Burns for'Genre-based approachesto r'r'riting and beginning adult ESL learners',
reprinted from Prospecr Vol. 5, No. 3, Mav 1990 rvith permission from the National
Centre for English LanguageTeachingand Research(NCELTR), Australia. (Macquarie
Universitv). Includes material in Fig. 2 adapted from Learning Stylesin Adult Migrant
EducationbyWilling K., also rvith permission from the National Centre for Engiish
LanguageTeachingand Research(N CELTR), Australia (Macquarie Universitv).
'Evaiuation
Cumbridge University Pressfor Assia Slimani of classroominteraction' in J.C.
Alderson and A. Beretta (eds) EvaluatingSecond Language Education,1992.
A. Suresh Cangarajaand TESOL for'Critical ethnographv of a Sri Lankan classroom:
ambiguities in student opposition to reproduction through ESOL' in TESOL@Lartetly,
Y o l . 2 1. N o . 4 , ( T E S O L 1 9 9 3 ) .
'Safe-talk:
Press for collusion in apartheid
J. Keith Chick and Cambridge Universitv
e d u c a t i o n ' i n H . c o l e m a n ( e d . ) S o c t e tay n d t h eL a n g u a gcel a s s r o o m , 7 9 9 6 .
Rod Ellis for'second ianguage acquisition research and languagepedagogy' in Sl,4 Research
and LanguageTeachingbv Rod Ellis ( Rod Ellis 1997). Reproduced by permission of
Oxford Universitv Press.
Patsv M. Lightborvn and Nina Spadafor'Factors affecting second language learning' in How
1anguogi,are Learned(Second Edition) bv Patsv M. Lightbou'n and Nina Spada(Patsv M.
Lightbown and Nina Spada 1999.) Reproduced bv permission of Oxford University
Press.
'Doing-English-lessons in the reproduction or
Angel M.Y. Lin and TESOL for
transformation of social rvorlds?'in fESOI @Larterly,Yol.33, No. 3, (TESOL 1999).
Michael Long and John Benjamin's Publishing Co. for'Focus on form: a design feature in
languageteaching methodolog ,-' in FotetgnLanguageResearch Perspective.
in a Cross-cultural
Ediiedbv K. de Bot, R.B. Ginsberg and C. Krausch. John Benjamin's Publishing Co.,
1991.
 ACI(NOWLEDGEMENTS Xiii

Rosamond Mitchell and Florence Mvles for'Second languagelearning: kev concepts and
Language
issues'in Second LearningTheories,7999.
David Nunan andELTJournal for'Teachinggrammar in context' in ELTJournal,Vol. 5 2, N o.
2, 1998. Reproduced bv permission of ELTJournal and Oxford University Press.
'Bevond
jack Richards and Cambridge Universitv Press for methods' in The Language
T
I . u) Ln' t, th
L ri yn n V n r r i v 199Q.

Celia Roberts for'Language through acquisition or languagesocialisationin and through

discourse'in WorkingPapers 4, ThamesVallev Universitv, I 998.
in AppltedL)nguistics,Vol.
Peter Skehan for'Comprehension and production strategiesin language iearning'in.4
Approachto Language
Cognitive Learntngbv Peter Skehan( Oxford Universitv Press 1998.;
Reproduced bv permission of Oxford Unir-ersitv Press.
iconrtruirrt,
Leo r,an Lier foi and resources in classroom talk: issues of equalitv and
svmmetrv' in LearningForetgnand Second Languages. Reprinted bv permission of the
Modern LanguageAssociationof'America.

\\-hile the publishers and editors ha.,-emade everv effort to contact authors and copyright
i-roldersof works reprinted tn EngltshLanguageTbaching in its SocialContext,this has not
lreen possible in everv case.Thev u-ould lr.elcome correspondence from individuals or
.ompanies thev havebeen unable to trace.

\\'e n'ould like to thank the authors u'ho contributed their chapters, as rvell as colleagues
s'ithin and outsideThe Open Universitv and Macquarie Universitv rvho gave advice on the
lontents. Special thanks are due to the follorving people for their assistance in the
production of this book.

Helen Boyce (course manager)

Pam Burns and Libbl'Brill (course secretaries)
Lrz Freeman (Copublishing)
\anette Re-vnolds,FrancesWilson and the staff of the Resource Centre of the National
Centre for English LanguageTeachingand Research, Macquarie Universitv.

Critical readers

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

Geoff Thompson (Applied English LanguageStudiesUnit, Liverpool Universitv, UK)
ProfessorLeo van Lier (EducationalLinguistics,Universitv of Monterev, USA).

External assessor

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

Developmental testers

Ilona Czirakl'(ltalv)
Eladyr Maria Norberto da Silva (Brazil)
Chitrita Mukerjee (Australia)
Dorien Gonzales(UK)
Patricia Williams (Denmark).
XiV ACI(NOWLEDGEMENTS

r,ve have been able,

We have reproduced all original papers and chapters as faithfuilv as
to produce a coherent and readable
given the iner.itable restrictilns of rp"." and the need
material
lollection for readers rvorldrvide. Where w-e have had to shorten original
brackets mark
substantially, these chapters are marked as adapted. Ellipses rvithin square
Individual referencing styles have been
text that has been omitted from the original.
r e t a i n e da : i n t h e o r i g i n a l t e x t s .
 N. Gandlin
Christopher
andNeilMercer

INTRODUCTION

. :..n Macquarie Universitr'-,in Svdnev,Australia, and The Open University, in Milton

' :: Des, England,decided to collaborateon the developmentof neu' curriculum materiais
: study at Master's level, the partnership brought together The Open University's
.:'-rience in open learning in the lield of education,and Macquarie'sexperiencein applied
: .uistics and languageeducation, backedbv its or,vnexisting distancelearning programme.
'...
collection of articlesin this book and its trl-o companion volumes are one result of that
..aboration.While the edited coliections har.ebeen designedasone part of an overall study
: {ramme, complementedb1'other learning and studv materialscomprising study guides
, .i accompanving video and audio recordings, the-vstand alone as extensive vet focused
liections of articles rvhich addressket. contemporarv issuesin English languageteaching
I a p p l i e dl i n g u i s t i c s .
.{ major concern in editing these three volumes has been t}re desire to present English
rrguage teaching (ELT) in a varietv ofspecihc institutional, geographicand cultural contexts.
:{ence, as far as possible acrossthe three r,olumes, we have attempted to highllght debate,
.cussionand illustration ofcurrent issuesfrom different parts ofthe English-speakingand
:rqlish-using world, including those rvhere Englishis not learned asa first language.In doing
.'ris rve recognize that English languageteaching comprises a
global communitv of teachers
.rd learnersin a range ofsocial contexts.
Itis EngltshLanguageTeaching in jts SocialContextrvhich is the title of this second volume
:.rthe series, and it lvill be useful to decide earlv on lvhat lve mean bv this term.We have
. number of interpretations and perspectivesin mind. One that is central is that of the
.tssroomcontextin w'hich interactions betrveen teachers and learners have an effect on the
:,ature and qualitv of languageiearning. No languageteaching and learning takes place
:rowever,in a classroom lvhich is isolated from the rvorld of experiences and personal
..ngagementsand investmentsof learners outside the classroomitself. In that sensethe w.ider
,acialcontextof life outside the classroomhasan important effect on lvhat takesolace in thesc
interactionsbetrveen learners and teachers,and among learners. For manv j""rn"rs, the
rontexts outside the classroom are not onlv r,vherethey make use of the English they have
learned in class,but tiev can aiso constitute a por,verfulincentive (or disincentive) for further
learning. Moreover, it is not onlv the contexts of learning and using English that are
rmportant. We need also to understand the proJessional contextof teachers' practices
themselvesrvitlin this interactive process of classroom teaching-and-learning. Finall1.,w.e
need to take account of the socio-culturalcontextbv rt.hich communicating partners in this
2 INTRODUCTION

process evoke and create shared knou'ledge and use it for making sensetogether, in a sense
constructing the overarching context for successfullanguageiearning.
No col[ction of papers about E.rglishLanguageTeachingcan hope to be comprehensive.
The rvorld ofELT in its diversitv,oflearners, teachers,ofschools and institutions, cultures,
countries,contents,and pedagogiescannotbe capturedevenin a seriesof three books'What
and fill
a structured coilection oi r.t.".tJa papers like this can do is to map out the territory,
in enough of the topographical f""i..i", so that the beginning reader can obtain an overall
rich
i-pr.rri"io., of it, .urt{tiphr,, r,vhilethe experienced reader can bring her or his own
of ttauelii.r! und-rn"p-.nuking to fill in the details of those territories of which
"*p..i..r." is
thev have special .*'u...r"., and knorvledge. We need to be cautious, how'ever' No map
.r".,trul. Th. first maps lvere products of the cartographers of Europe, so their world was a
in their ou.n Sino-centric lval', those devisedbv the Chinese were just
Euro-centric o.r",
"rd,
as biased. Readershave been alerted, therefore, to a natural tendencv tow-ardsa particular
on
projection. Our ELT map in this book of{'ersa social and socio-cultural perspective
and it would
iu.rgrrug"learning. At the same time, maps have to be true to their territories,
U" JU.,i.a to igno"rea psvchological perspective on languagelearning, one which highlighted
the cognitiv{ro."rr., of the individual learner, engagingwith the intricacies of a new
served
comminicatile code. Maps are not onlv to be follolved, horvever.Thev have ahvays
asincentives for further -o.. relined map-making. In the sameway, teachers do not just
".td
follow a set ofpresented instructions, thev activelv create and chart their own Progress
through the teriitories of learning in their orvn ciassrooms'Accordinglv, it isimportant that
,,rch Jfo.rrr"d collection asthis gii-esa major placeto classroom-basedresearch,in particular,
researchw-hichexamines the processesof teaching-and-learning,using that evidence which
is most to hand in classrooms,namelv the productive talk of teachersand learners.
What a collection of papers needsto have,is an argument, one'i""'hichcarries the reader
ju-st
towards engagementu,ith particular issuesand questions,offering through its structure
that amount Jf guidunce r-r"."..rtt'. Ultimatelv, though, r,vhether we have gauged the right
degree of that giidu.r.. required, or simplv led readers bv the nose, only vou can say'What
orrJh"u. dorr. a guiding itructure is to take three main perspectives on English language
",
teaching: an explanatio.t of ,orr-r.hvpothesesabout language learning and its Processes;an
interprJtatio.r ofl"...r"rr' and teachers' strategiesand goalsin the classroom context, their
learners'
prr.ptr.. and their beliefs; and, finallr', a description and analvsis.ofteachers' and
t"huuiotr., and practices, rvho thev are, rvhat thev do, what thev think about language
learning and rvhat their attitudes are'

How is language learning explained?

The argument begins rvith a focus on the explanationoJ languagelearning with a paper by
Rosamind Mitch;ll and Florence Mvles. The authors outline a model of second language
learning and identifv its kev factors.Three kev questions underpin all these factors:What is
the natirre of language?What is the nature of the language learning process?What are
the characterlsticsof the second ianguagelearner? In addressingthese questions the paper
identifies the complementaritv of natureand nurture in languageiearning, and relates what
research has to say about language learning rvith u.hat r,veknolv about learning more
teaching
generallv.At the sametime, the paper highlights one of the abidlng questions about
Ind leaining, the tension betrveen svstematjcitf and creativityin learners' performance.
Languagelearning is clearl,vnot just about processes.It involveslearners. So, askingquestions
riho theselearners are and rvhat learner characteristics and factors affect language
"boit
 :NTRODUCTION 3

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

lnd Nina Spada take up this necessarvdualism in their account of the cognitive and
'rehavioural 'good
characteristicsof rvhat some researchershavereferred to asthe language
rearner'. As we u.ill see later in the argument of this book, there has to be a third aspect to
:nv such account, namelv the influence of the social conditions of language learning on the
:l-fectiveness of languagelearning.Manl learnersdon't learn languagesin classrooms.Ther'
iearn them more or lessr,vellor badlr',on the street, in the communitv, and in the u'orkplace
Certainly,Lightborvn'sand Spada'sterritorv abutsthat of Mitchell and Mvles. Factorssuch
r, -otiuution-, aptitude, p.rro.rulitu, intelligence, learner preferencesand learner beliefs, rvill
:e high on any teacher's list, but so rvili factors of age, social background, gender and
d u c a t i o n aal t t a i n m e n t .
Researchingsecondlanguagelearning, and exploring the relationship between research-
rnq and teaching is a kev element in lvhat some have referred to as the teacher as'reflective'
practitioner. Rod Ellis' paper on research and pedagogv in the context of second language
:cquisition squarelv addressesthis relationship. Questions of decision-driven research
..manatingfrom practical classroom problems, or knowledge-driven researchstarting from
theoretical hypotleses, are but trvo sides of the same coin. At the heart are the practices of
rhe classroom, or encounters rvith the target languagein other contexts. That these worlds
:,iteaching and research have often been at odds is an issuefor this paper, and for this book
as a r,vholeto explore.What Ellis identifies, how-ever,is the importance of mapping the
rultures ofteaching and researchingand achievingat Ieastmutual understanding,ifnot active
collaboration.Whatis clear after reading Ellis is that it isn't going to be enough for teachers
'Here
r:o u.rite be dragons' and steer the teaching ship alvav from the rockv coastline of
re search. One useful and productive ground for such collaboration is that of researching
.earners'styles and strategiesin languagelearning, looking at what learners do asaspectsof their
personality, or in response to problems and tasks that teaching, or just life itself, confronts
them. Peter Skehan'spaper has this dual focus and he locates his discussionin the kev area
of learners' comprehensionof foreign languagetexts, u-ritten or spoken, examining the
relationship between input to the learner, lr'hat the learner confronts, and u,'hatthe learner
produceshlrself, the ouiput oflearning. Important for Skehan,and for our general argument
in this book, are the \4-aysin which learners neBotjatemeaning,guided bv teachers, in their
road towards understanding the foreign language.
If negotiation of meaning smacksof the marketplace, then perhapsthat is no bad image
ior the exchange of language goods rvhich characterizesboth classrooms and social
interactions more generallv. Estimating the values to be placed on these goods is, after all,
u'hat a good deal of teaching (and learning) is all about. Leo van Lier's, Celia Roberts'
and Michael Breen'spapers are all sited in the marketplace of learning and teaching.It is time,
then, to begin to look at the contexts oJlearning.Nou-a nelv set of questions arise. How
learners interact rvith eachother and other speakers,lvhat do thev do r,vhenthey are learning
a language,what effect their attitudes, beliefs and feelings have on languagelearning, what
kinds of personalinvestment thev are prepared to make, holv far thev can draw on the support
ofothers, what effects teaching has on learning, and to rvhat extent the social conditions and
priorities of the social rvorld outside the classroom, and the learners' piaces in that world,
affect what learners do in classroomsand hou' effectivelv thev can learn'
Addressing these questions suggestsa need for some redrauing of the dimensions of the
second language learning map. In fact, as u'e rvill see in the papers rvhich follor,v in the
collection, such questionsmake us redrau'our projection in a number of important ways:
to take account of the Iearning of strategic competence not merelv of languagecomPetence;
of the appraisalof learning sites,contexts and modes askev variabiesin languageacquisition;
 INTRODUCTION

of the variably positive and negative effects of learners' social and personal commitment to
Ianguagelearning; of the need to take into account the multiple identities of learners, affected
as they are by issuesofgender, class,race and po!\€r; and, especially,ofthe need to engage .,il1
in micro-exploration of the interactions of learners rvitl learners and learners with teachers, ili1
or other target languagespeakers.
iltm
In his paper, Leo van Lier drau.s on exactlv this shift of perspective towards the social
contextualisation and construction ofsecond languagelearning. He also takesup in practice
di'
many of the issuesraised earlier in the Ellis paper, particuiarlv his account of interpretative
n
research.What he adds,however, in his account of the possiblett.pes of interaction and types
,tr
of discourse to be found in the second languageclassroom, is the importance of the effect
nm
ofpower and control on rvhat kinds oftalk are encouraged, discouragedor even forbidden.
rD
Such issuesare also central to Celia Roberts' paper w'ith its critical evaluation of more
traditional and cognitive approaches rvhich see second language learning as essentially a
matter of personal endeavour and accomplishment. Her focus on learner identities and the
effects of learning contexts on languagelearning r'r'ithin an overall sociolinguistic and social
constructionist model, links learning to living in an original way, and, in so doing, addresses
some of the questions w.eidentified earlier as important to the argument of this collection
of papers.It is important to note, though, that this shift of emphasisis not one u,hich abandons
the necessaryinclusion of the personal and cognitive development of the learner's language
learning capacity.Thepoint is to forge a connection betrveen both paradigms.This is in large
measure achievedin Michael Breen's paper on the social context of languagelearning. In his
anthropological metaphor ofthe classroom as coralgarden,teacher-researchersare directed
at the importance of the multiple discoursesof the classroom, where w.hatis said and how
it is expressed among the participants of this cuitural rvorld takes on a key significancefor
the explanation of the processesof languagelearning, and in particular for our understanding
of the essentialdifferences among languagelearners. His defining characteristicsof the
classroom as a specialsocio-cultural r.vorld,together r,vithhis emphasison the analysisof the
discoursesof teaching and learning, offer the teacher-researchera means by which he or she
can stand outside the realitl', much like a cartographer, and chart more dispassionatelythis
now newly-imagined and newlv-perspectivized setting.

Strategies and goals in the classroom context

As active participants in teaching and learnin$, teachers and learners do not simply
Possessand display inherent or sociallv acquired characteristicsin some vacuum; like the
inhabitants of Malinow'ki's coralgarden(adopted and adapted bv Breen), they draw on them
to Pursue their orn-nstrategic goals.Thus, in order to advance the argument of this active
participation, all the papers in this second major section of the book target the realization
of t}ese strategic goals in classroom action, and the unique role played bv teachers in the
facilitation and structuring of that action. The way in rvhich teachers carry out this charac-
teristic work hastraditionalh' been captured bv the metaphors of methodan'dmethodology.We
refer to them as metaphors, in that thev stand for particular, ideologically invested systemsof
belief, about language,about learning, and about teaching.Like all metaphors they are to be
approached r,varily and treated rvith caution. Lakoff and Johnson's critical account of the
'metaphors
rve live by'gives a senseof their porverful inf'luence.We make no apology for
being critical in this book of such languagelearning and languageteaching metaphors. In our
experience, and tlat of the authors of some of the papers in this section, methodoloqies
are frequentlv theorized rvithout a close grounding in teaching experience, and mau be
 INTRODUCTION

.:rsensitiveto particular local and cultural conditions. Methods, on the other hand, mav shift
.,ildlv from one theoretical position about languageand learning to another.Whether they
.:e form-focused,function-focused,or learning-focused,methodologiesand methods often
i-rve to concealthe rich varietv of classroomlanguagelearning and teachingr'r.orkbv offering
.:n-rplelabelsfor what are ahvavscomplex and contingentProcesses.
It is important, therefore, to stand back and take a conceptual and historical perspective
:: n'e lvant to understand horv such methods and methodologies came to be popular and
.,,r u'idel)'adopted. Such a perspective is provided bv Paul Knight's paper, surveving
:cvelopmentsin ELT methodologv and illustrating some of their characteristicfeatures-
From this paper \rrecome to seethat despite their individualizing labels, manv methods and
nethodologies sharefeaturesin common, that thev are rarelv except in some extreme cases
rursued in some'pure' form, and that, in the end, thev remain profoundlv unexplanatorv
,i some of the ket-factors affecting languagelearning, both cognitive and social, that we have
lentified earlier. It is from this starting point that Jack Richards' paper begins. Questioning
:he dominance of methods and methodologies,Richards'perspectiveis that we should be
.rss concerned n-ith stipulating u-hat methods to follo*' and much more concerned with
,liscoveringwhat effective teachersactuallv do. Resistingthe deproJesstonalizlng effect of some
.lar.ishadherenceto methods frees us and teachersmore generallv to examine what the
cractices of reflective and effective languageteaching might be.What these practices are is
a matter of teachers'strategic choices in relation to some particular content, and taken
together with teachers' beliefs and theories about teaching and learning, these constitute a
rationale for teaching.
The three papers that follow', bv Michael Long, David Nunan, andAnne Burns illustrate
rhesepracticesin different contexts and rvith different subject-matter,and involve distinctive
{enres and modes of communication. Implicitlr' (or explicitlv in the caseof Michael Long)
rhev all resist the concept of method, and focus instead on hor,v teachers' varied and
.:ontingent procedures and productsof languagelearning
are the means bv u.hich the processes
are made to interact. Long's paper has as its central tenet the important distinction to be
drawn betrveen a focus onJorm (i.e. the development of arvarenessbv the learner of the
sr-stematicnature of language) and a focus onJorms (that is, the teaching of isolated and
unconnected sentence structures). What is important for the reader of Long's paper is his
reliance for his argument on experimentallv obtained evidence about learner behaviour.To
return, if onll' briefly, to our map-making metaphor, Long displavsthe indispensablevalue
of grounding conclusions about the shape of the second languagelearning territory in
carefully observed and recorded data from learner performance.
The issue of form and forms naturallv evokes a central area of content in language
teaching and learning, the approach that teacherstake to the teaching of grammar, itself the
topic of David Nunan's paper.With grammar asits focus, lvhat is notable in Nunan's argument
is how the lvav w-edefine grammar is contingent on ho'iv lve go about teaching it to learners.
Many might not easilv associatethe formal character of grammar u'ith an interactive and
participatory, task-basedapproach to pedagogv,so strong has been the focus in ELT on the
didactic instruction of grammatical forms.Yet this paper makes such a connection, and in so
doing redefinesgrammar lessassome asocialand technicist form than asa functional resource
for making meaning, a meansbv rvhich speakersand uriters can get things done. How writers
get things done is the topic of Anne Burns'paPel; focusing in particular, though, on how
teachers can assistlearners to get things done in *'riting. Drawing on work in systemic
functional grammar and the concept of genre, she reports on a national project conducted
by the National Centre for English LanguageTeachingand Research(NCELfR) at Macquarie
University, Svdnev,involving teachers in studving hor,va genre-basedapproach to w'riting
 INTRODUCTION

could be used bv adult secondlanguagelearners at the beginning stagesoflearning a second

language.Of particular interest in the paper is her exposition of what she and her colleagues
refer to as the'teaching-learningcvcle'.
We have emphasizedthe importance to our understanding of second languagelearning
of exploring the socio-culturalcontexts of learning inside and outside the ciassroom.This
hasbeen and is a core theme of manv papersin this book. There has,however,been a tacit
assumption, though perhaps not so much in the paper bl Roberts earlier, that such contexts
learners.That this mav not be so, and often
called up differentiated, but essentiallt cooperatirz
i.r not so, is the theme of the two final papers in this second section of the book, those by
Suresh Canagarajahand Keith Chick. Both papers focus on the degree to which external
socio-culturalfactors,and learners'self-perceptionsoftheir identitiesaslearnersofEnglish,
affect what thev do in class, and rvhat they are preparedto do in class, and thus ultimately
impinge on their second ianguagelearning performance. In particular, the papers identify'
processesoflearners'reistance,inthecaseofCanagarajah,andinthecaseofChick,learners'
and teachers' collusiontofrustrate the successfulimplementation of particular methodologies
consideredas imported and as culturallv alien. Such issueshave recently taken on consid-
erable importance in discussionsof the cultural appropriatenessof some English language
teaching. Both these papers have another significance,hor,vever,one r.r'hichrelates to Ellis'
earlier accounts ofresearching ianguagelearning.The papers are valuable not only for their
innovative re-examination of the goals and practices of languageteaching, but also for their
clear and detailed accounting of a critical ethnographic research methodology intended to
be revelatorv not onlv of the goings-on of classroomsbut more deeplv explanatory of the
wav in which t}e learning and teaching of English in particular is deeply embedded in the
poiiti.ul, social and educational fabric of post-colonial societies. Once again they reinforce
our vierv that the beliefs and ideologies of teachers about all aspectsof their subject-matter
and their practice have a profound effect on the planning and the moment-by-moment
decisions thev take in class.Torefer to these latter as intuitive, or personal, downplays both
their effect and our capacityto explore their underpinnings.Thattheseare deepiy engendered
by the social contexualization of learning and teaching, and the educational, social and
political contexts ofclassroom practice can, after reading these latter papers,hardly be in
doubt.

Analysing teaching and learning

The importance of the anallsis of the interactions among learners and betlveen learners
and teachers to an understanding of the processesof ianguagelearning has been a central
part of the argument of this book. Exploring these relationships hasbeen both the province
ofresearchers as w'ell as ofteachers, and severalpapers in this collection have argued for
a closer link between them, given the tendencv for both'cultures' to be separate.Part of
this distancing hasbeen due to the dif{icultv of making the results of researchnecessarilyand
directlv applicable to changesin classroom practice, or to the design and delivery of inno-
vative teaching and learning materials. Nonetheless,there are studiesof classroombehaviour
w.hich can help teachers conceptualize those factors lvhich influence life in classrooms,
directed at exploring the dual nature ofclassroom lessons,aspedagogic and associal events.
The paper by Michael Breen, cited above, emphasizesthis social and interactional nature of
lanquaqe
DOO
Iearninq.
Influential in this context is the u'ork of the Russian sociocultural psvchologist Lev
Vygotsk,v.Central toVvgotskv's theories about learning is the piace accorded to languageas
 INTRODUCTION

: onl\- a medium for exchanging and constructing information but also as a tool for
' ..rking. Languageis seenbvVvgotskv both as a cultural and a cognitivetool, heiping us to
:.:nize our thoughts but also used for reasoning, planning and revierving. Of greatest
...:ihcance for the argument and the map of this book, then, isVygotskv'sinsistencethat
,::ninq is interactive and social. Such a position resonatesu.ell lr'ith the earlier papers in
-. .. eollection, notablv those br.r,an Lier and Breen, especiallvr'vith their highlighting of the
::.rortance of studving teacher and learner discourses.Neil Mercer's paper provides an
r.rmple of an in-depth studv of these discoursesof classroomlife, as the data from u.dich
:'.::.rences mav be dralvn about the processesof languagelearning.Mercer's socio-cultural
.: nroach to the analvsisof classroom behaviour sits u'ell r'r-ithearlier papers in Part II of this
: ,,,k, and pavesthe u'av for a detailed discursive and linguistic analvsisof such classroom
:.:traction provided bv Pauline Gibbons' exhaustive example in her paper. She draws on
-:llidavan systemicfunctional grammaticalanalvsisto provide her description,incidentally
, -:;qesting a link betr,veenthe u'ork of Michael Hailidav and that of LevVygotskv, one which
...^t oth"". contemporarv researchersof classroominteraction have also mad". Gibbons'
- rper is also noter,vorthvfor her careful anaivsisof the immediate contexts of that meaning
:.-.lotiation u'hich w-ehave earlier identified as central to languagelearning.
It may be useful to recall here our comment at the outset of this Introduction that the
. rpers in this collection are all in different \\'avsintimateiv concerned w'ith the definition of
.::itext,in its various interpretations.The relationshipbetween languageand context is neither
rlrect nor unitarv. We can see in the papers bv Gibbons and Mercer two possible
.rterpretationsof this relationship.On the one hand, context is a featureof texts, somethinq
.nduring that belongs to the text-as-entitv that linguists seek to describe. In this sense,
:crhaps that found more in Pauline Gibbons' paper, context mav be the texts that learners
:inclteachersproduce, or the ph-vsicalsettings rvithin r,vhichtheir texts are produced. On the
,,therhand, perhapsmore along the lines suggestedbv Mercer, context is dvnamic, a product
,f people's thinking, more the configuration of information that people use for making sense
,ilanguage in particular situations.In this sense,conrextis more of a mental rather than a
ohvsicai phenomenon, something dvnamic and momentarv, but dependent for its creation
jn the classroom on the careful constructing bv the teacher of a continuity and a community
, l s h a r e du n d e r s t a n d i n gu i t h l e a r n e r s .
Such aVvgotskian vierv of context placesa premium on the exploration of the emotional
and affective engagement of learners in the acts and processesof learning. Such an
engagementis not explicable, hor,vever,onlv from an analvsisin terms of the activities of the
classroom.As in earlier papersin this collection, rvider socialfactors play a role. In her paper,
.\ngel Lin's experienceasa teacher-researcher into secondlanguagelearning in Hong Kong
is linked to the work of the French sociologist Bourdieu in an attempt to explain the nature
of these factors. Are classroomsreplicative of learners' social worlds or do thev have the
power to challenge and transform them? In reading horv Lin addressesthis question there is
a clear resonancervith the papers bv Canagarajahand Chick in the secondpart ofthis book.
One kev exampie of a site for such a transformation is that of the cultural perspectives and
ideologies present in tvpical textbooks and the degree to rvhich classroompracticesmaintain
a conformist, or can exercise a challenging stancein relation to them.
The papersbv Mercer, Gibbonsand Lin all presentanalvsesof the interactiveprocesses
ofteaching and learning. Although rather different, the research described in each ofthem
encourages the vieu' that the qualitv of the interaction betlveen teachers and learners in
the languageclassroom, and betlveen learners if thev rvork together, is a strong determining
factor on rn'hat,and horv much, is learned and understood bv learners.The issue of hou'
classroominteraction can be related to assessmentof the outcomes of student learning is the
 B INTRODUCTION

key theme in the paper bv Assia Slimani r,r.hichfollorvs. From a teacher-researcher

perspective, w'hat is significant about her paper is the rvav in tvhich she matches learners'
olvn statements about rvhat they believed thev had learned, rvith the evidence offered by
analysesof the recorded talk of the ]essonsconcerned. This provided Slimani rvith a means
of evaluatingwhat themes, topics and learning items suggestedb-vlearners had actually
figured in their classroom interactions. Closelv connected rvith this comparative mode of
aialysis is Michael Breen's secondpaper in this ;ollection rr-hereh. .o.r.".rtrutes on w-hathe
refers to asthe different discoursesofthe classroomthat learnersneed to'navigate'. Again,
our cartographic metaphor offers perhapssome explanatorr value. For Breen, the classroom
is full of distinctive discourses,in part pedagogicallvoriented, in part socialiy,in part
individually.These discoursesinvoke a range of different meanings and contexts. Learners
are faced with the considerablechallengeof finding their rvaysthrough this obscured terrain,
drawing on their natural language instincts and analytical capacit-vto make sense of a
semantically and pragmaticallv complex environment.
Mapping the territory of second languagelearning and teaching has been the guiding
metaphor for this collection of papers.The cartographv of this territorv may be left as the
province ofresearchers,or it mav be also colonizedbv reflectiveteacherseagerto explore
and understand more of second language learning in action in their o*.i clu.rroo.nr.
Indispensableto such a project, horvever,is the capacitv to describe classroom interaction.
This is the theme of the final paper in the collection, by Joan Swann, in which she sets
out some procedures that English languageteachers can usefullv follow if they wish to
describe,interpret and explain the interactiveprocessesof their own classroomsor those of
colleagues.We think that Swann's paper is an admirable wav of closing a theoretical and a
practical collection of papers.

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

o ,\ need to focus on the distinct roles, activitiesand purposesfor teachersand learners

that are constructed through classroom practice;
o ,\ need to recognize language learners as individuals, working together in the
classroom,but lvhose learning is shapedbv the context of their wider experience of
living and learning outside the classroom;
' The requirement on teachersto take an active,guiding role in'scaffolding' the learning
of their students, remembering that this is not to dor,vngradein any lvav the need for
learners to become actively and increasingivengagedin the processesof classroom
languagelearning and their direction;
' An appreciation that the patterns ofinteraction between learners and teachers,and the
use ofcertain procedures bv teachers, can have both positive and negative effects on
Ianguagelearners.
rART ONE

learning
How is language
explained?
 i cte r 1

Rosamond
MitchellandFlorence
Myles

SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING:

I<EY CONCEPTSAND ISSUES

lntroduction

H I S C H A P T E R P R O V I D E S A N O V E R V I E W o f k e v c o n c e o t sa n d i s s u e s
i n o u r d i s c u s s i o no
s f i n d i r i d u a l p e r s p e c t i r e so n s e c o n dl u n g r u g . l e a r n i n g W
. e olfer
:-.:roductorvdefinitions of a range of kev terms, and trv to equip the reader u'ith the
:r'--ansto compare the goals and claims of particular theories '"vith one another. \\re also
-.mmarize key issues,and indicate w'herethev rvill be explored in more detail later.
The main themes to be dealt lvith in follouing sections are:

1 What makesfor a'good' explanationor theorv

2 Views on the nature of language
3 Views of the languagelearning process
,f Views of the ianguagelearner
5 Links betrveen languagelearning theorv and social practice.

'second
First, however, \\.'emust offer a preliminarv definition of our most basic concept,
languagelearning'. We de6ne this broadlv to include the learning of any language to any
1evel,provided onlv that the learning of the'second' languagetakesplace sometime later than
the acquisition of the first language. (Simultaneous infant bilingualism is a specialist topic,
u'ith its ow-n literature. See for example relevant sections in Hamers and Blanc 1989;
R o m a i n e1 9 9 5 . )
'second
For us, therefore, ianguages'are anv languagesother than the learner's'native
'mother
language'or tongue'. Thev encompassboth languagesof r,vidercommunication
encountered within the local region or communit)' (..g. at the u.orkplace, or in the media),
and truly foreign languages,rvhichhave no immediatelv local usesor speakers.Thevmay
indeed be the second languagethe learner is rvorking rvith, in a literal sense,or they may be
their third, fourth, fifth language . . . We believe it is sensibleto include'foreign' languages
'second'
under our more general term of languages,becauselve believe that the underlving
learning processesare essentiallvthe same for more local and for more remote target
languages,despite differing learning purposes and circumstances.
We are also interested in all kinds of learning, rvhether formal, planned and systematic
(as in classroom-basedlearning), or informal and unstructured (as r'vhena nelv language
12 ROSAMONDMITCHELL AND FLORENCE NIYLES

i s ' p i c k e du p ' the communitv). Some second ianguageresearchershave proposed a

brmal, conscious learning and informal, unconscio-us

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

What makes for a good theory?

Secondlanguagelearning is an immenselv complex phenomenon. Millions of human beings

have experience of second languagelearning, and mav have a good practical understanding
of the activities w-hich helped them to iearn (or perhaps blocked them from learning). But
tiis practical experience, and the common-senseknou-ledger'r'hichit leadsto, are clearlv not
enough to help us understand fullv hor,vthe processhappens.Weknow-,for a start, that people
cannot reliablv describe the languagerules u-hich thev ha'l'esomehorv internalized, nor the
inner mechanismslvhich process, store and retrieve many aspectsof that new language.
We need to understand second lanquagelearning better than we do, for two basic
reasons.

1 Improved knorvledge in this particular domain is interesting in itself, and can also
contribute to more general understanding about the nature of language,of human learning,
and of intercultural communication, and thus about the human mind itself, as well as how
all these are interrelated and affect each other.

2 The know.ledge will be useful. If w-ebecome better at explaining the learning process,
and are better able to account for both successand failure in L2 learning, there will be a pay-
off for millions of teachers, and tens of millions of students and other learners, r,vho are
struggling r,viththe task.

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

wav if our efforts are guided bv some form of theorv. For our purposes, a theoryis a more or
less abstract set of claims about the units that are significant within the phenomenon under
stud1.,the relationships that exist betr.veenthem, and the processesthat bring about change.
Thus a theorv aims not just at description, but at explanation.Jheories may be embryonic
and iestricted in scope,b?rnore elaborate,explicit and comprehensive.(A theory of L2
learning mav deal onlv r,vith a particular stage or phase o[ learning, or with the learning of
some particular sub-aspectof language; or it mav propose learning mechanisms u'hich are
much more general in scope.)Worthrvhile theories are collaborative affairs, which evolve
through a processof systematic enquiry,in lvhich the ciaims of the theorv are assessedagainst
some kind of evidence or data. This mav take place through a process of hypothesis testing
through formal experiment, or through more ecological procedures, r,vherenaturally
occurring data is analysedand interpreted. (See Brumfit and Mitchell 1990 for fuller
discussionand exemplification of methods.) Finallv, the process of theory building is a
reflexive one; nelv deveiopments in t}re theorv lead to the need to collect nerv information
and explore different phenomena and different patterns in tIe potentiallv infinite w'orld of
'facts'
and data. Puzzling'facts', and patterns rvhich fail to fit in, lead to new theoretical
insights.
 SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING: CONCEPTSAND ISSUES 13

'model
To make these ideas more concrete, an example of a particuiar theorl' or
ofsecondlanguage1earningisshorvninFiguret.1,takenr..sp@
'general
represents a model of second language learning', as the propose-TffifiE3
it (Spolskv 1989, p. 14).The model encapsulates this researcher'stheoreticalviews on the
overall relationship betr,veencontextual factors, individual learner differences, learning
opportunities, and learning outcomes. It is thus an ambitious model, in the breadth of
phenomena it is trving to explain. The rectangular boxes shou' the factors (or variables)
lvhich the researcherbelieves are most significant for learning, i .e. r""-herevariation can lead
to differencesin successor failure.The arrolvs connecting the various boxes shor,l'directions
ofinfluence.The contents ofthe r.ariousboxes are defined at great length, as consistingof
c l u s t e r so f i n t e r a c t i n g ' C o n d i t i o n s ' ( 7 4 i n a l l : 1 9 8 9 , p p . 1 6 - 2 5 ) , I v h i c h m a k e l a n g u a g e

Attitudes
(ofvariouskinds)

which appear in the

learneras

whichjoins with other personal

characteristicssuch as

all of whichexplainthe usethe

learnermakesof theavailable

Learningopportunities(formalor informal)

betweenlearner
the interplay
andsituationdetermining

Linguisticand non-linguistic
outcomesfor the learner

Figure 1.1 Spolsky'sgeneral model of secondlanguageiearning

Source:Spolskv1989: 28
14 ROSAMONDMITCHELL AND FLORENCE MYLES

learning successmore or lesslikelv.Thesesummarize the results of a great varietv of empirical

languagelearning research, as Spolskv interprets them.
How would we begin to'evaluate'this or anv other model, or even more modestly,to
decide that this rvasa vier,vof the languagelearning processrvith which rve felt comfortable
and within which w'e wanted to r'r''ork? This u-ould depend partlv on broader philosophical
positions: e.g. are we satisfiedrvith an account of human learning which seesindividual
differences as both relativelv fixed, and also highlv influential for learning? It would also
depend on the particular focus of our o\r-n interests, w'ithin second languagelearning; this
particular model seemswell adapted for the studv of the individual learner, but hasrelatively
little to sa1'about the social relationships in rvhich thel'engage, for example.
But whatever the particular focus of a given theory, w'e would expect to find the
follou'ing:

I clear and explicit statements of the ground the theorv is supposed to cover, and the
claims which it is making;
2 systematic procedures for confirming/disconfirming the theorl', through data
gatheringand interpretationI
3 not onlv descriptions of L2 phenomena, but attempts to explain whv thev are so, and
to propose mechanismsfor change;
+ last but not least, engagementrvith other theories in the field, and serious attempts to
'common
account for at least some of the phenomena rvhich are ground' in ongoing
public discussion (Long 1990a). The remaining sections of this chapter offer a
preliminarv overvierv of numbers of these.

Views on the nature of language

Levelsof language
Linguists have traditionally vielved language as a complex communication svstem, which
must be analysedon a number of levels: phonology,,/ntax, morphology,semanticsand 1exis,
pragmatics, discourse.The,v havediffered about the degree of separateness/integrationof these
levels;e.g.while Chomskv argued at one time that'grammar is autonomous and independent
of meaning' (1951,p.17),another tradition initiated by the British linguist Firth claimsthat
'there
is no boundary between lexis and grammar: lexis and grammar are interdependent'
(Stubbs 1996, p. 36). In examining different perspectiveson secondlanguagelearning, we
will first of all be looking at the levels of languageu.hich thev attempt to take into account,
and the relative degree of prioritv they attribute to the different levels. (Does language
Iearning start n ith words, or w-ithdiscourse?)Wewill alsoexamine the degree of integration/
separationthat the-vassume,acrossthe various levels.We will {ind that the control of syntax
is commonly seen as somehow'central' to languagelearning, and that most general SLL
theories try to account for development in this area. Other levels of languagereceive much
more variable attention, and some areasare commonly treated in a semi-autonomous way,
as specialist fields; this is often true for Sll-oriented studies of pragmatics and of lexical
development (seee.g. Kasper 1995 on pragmatics;Meara1996a, 1995b on vocabulary).

Competenceand perJormance

Throughout the trventieth century, linguists have also disagreed in other lvays over their
main focus of interest and of studr'.Should this be the collection and anah'sisof actual attested
samplesof languagein use, for example bv recording and analvsingpeople's speech?Or
 SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING: CONCEPTSAND ISSUES 15

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

.:. potentiallv infinite varietv?The linguist Noam Chomskv has famouslv argued that it is
r lLrsinessof theoretical linguistics to studv and model underlving language competence,
',:rer than the perJormance data of actual utterances rvhich people have produced (Chomskv
--oj i. By competence,Chomsky is referring to the abstractand hidden representationof
.:.juage rnorvieogeheror6!rceouinexis. y--
thisvie*'hasbeenffi
-- : . r u a q el e a r n l n qr e s e a r c n .
-
HJru.u.., foilinguists committed to this dualist position, there are difficulties in studying
npetence. Languageperformance data are believed to be an imperfect reflection of
rnpetence,partly'becauseof the processingcomplicationsrvhich are involved in speaking
: 'rther forms of languageproduction, and rvhich lead to errors and slips.More importanth',
' , believed that, in principle, the infrnite creativitv of the underlying svstem can never
, , : q u a t e l v b e r e f l e c t e d i n a f i n i t e d a t a s a m p l e( s e e e . g . C h o m s k y 1 9 6 5 , p . 1 8 ) . S t r i c t l v
. - =aking,many students of languagecompetence believe it can be accessedonly indirectlv,
,. i under controlled conditions, e.g. through Brammaticahty ludgementtests(roughly, when
:,rple are offered sample sentences, rvhich are in (dis)agreement with the rules proposed
: the underlving competence, and invited to savrvhether thev think they are grammatical
. r.rot:Sorace1996).
This split betr€en competence and performance hasnever been acceptedby all linguists,
'. \\.ever,with linguists in the British t of Flrth and Halliday arguing for radically
istincticin betn nce cloes not
.:,pear.
_l:
In a recent review ofthis tradition, Stubbs quotes Firth as describing suc
+
a quiTeunnecessari-nuisance'(Firth1957, p. 2n, quoted in Stubbs 1996,p.44). In the
r-thianview the on istsis to studv e in use,and there is no oppo-
as svstem,and obserr-edinstancesof lanluage our; the onli
iterenceis one ol l rperspective.
'read'
Of course, the abstract languagesvstem cannot be directly off smail samples
: actual text, anY more than the underlving climate of some geographical region of the
'.orld can be modelled from todav's r"''eather(a metaphor of Halliday's: Stubbs 1996, pp.
-:--5).The arrival of corpushnguisrics,in u'hich verv large corpora comprising millions
i rvords of running text can be stored electronicalh' and analvsedr,vitha growing range of
'observation-based
,,rtirvaretools, hasrevitalizedthe u.riting of grammars' (Aarts 1991,'), ol
:he integrated kind favoured bv Firthian linguistics.'Work u'ith corpora provides new'wavs
,i considering the relation betlveen data and theorrv,bv show'inghou' theorv can be grounded
.n publicly accessiblecorpus data' (Stubbs 1996, p +6) For example, the English corpus-
'quite
rased work of the COBUILD team directed bv John Sinclair has claimed to reveal
unsuspectedpatterns of language' (Sinclair 1991, p. xvii), offering new insights into the
:nterconnectednessof lexis and grammar.
In making senseof contemporarv perspectives on SLL, then, we will also need to take
account of the extent to u'hich a competence/performance distinction is assumed.Thiswili
have significant consequencesfor the research methodologies associatedwith various
positions, e.g. the extent to u'hich these pav attention to naturalistic corpora of learner
languagesamples,or rely on more controlled and focused - but more indirect - testing of
learners'underlying knorvledge. For obvious reasons,theorists' view-son the relationship
between competence and performance are also closeiv linked to their vierv of the language
1earningProcessitseIf,andinparticuiar,tote
ti.e. speakingof rv.ritjnga language)cancontribute to languarelearnint (i.e. developing
l r l e x i c a lc o m p e t e n c ei n t h e l a n g u a g e ) .
q r a m m a t i c ao
"
16 ROSAMONDMITCHELL AND FLORENCE MYLES

The language learning process

l{ature and nurture

Discussions about processesof second language learning have ah,vavsbeen coloured

by debateson fundamental issuesin human learning more generallrr.One of these is th.
nature-nurturedebate. Hor,r'much of human learning derives from innate predispositions.
i.e. some form of genetic pre-programming, and how' much of it derives from social and
cultural experiences rvhich influence us as we grorv up? In the tlventieth centurv. the best-
knolvn controversv on this issue as lar as first language learning \\'as concerned involved
the behaviourist psvchologist B. F. Skinner and the linguist Noam Chomsky. Skinner
attempted to argue that languagein all its essentialscouid be and r,r'astaught to the young
chiid b_vthe same mechanisms rvhich he believed accounted for other types of learning.
(ln Skinner's case,the mechanisms rvere those envisagedbv general behaviourist learning
theorv - essentially,copying and memorizing behaviours encountered in the surrounding
environment. From this point of vien', language could be learned primarily by imitating
caretakers'speech.)
Chomsk-y,on the other hand, has argued consistentlv for the viern'that human language
is too complex to be learned, in its entiretl', from the performance data actually availableto
the child; \ ,e must therefore have some innate predisposition to expect natural languagesto
be organized in particular rvavsand not others. For example, all natural languageshaveword
classessuch as Noun andVerb, and grammar rules w.hich applv to these word classes.It is
this type of information r,vhichChomskv doubts children could discover from scratch, in the
speech they hear around them. Instead, he argues that there must be some innate core of
abstract knon'ledge about language form, rvhich pre-specifies a framework for all natural
human languages.Thiscore of know'ledge is currentlv knor,vnas UniversalGrammar.
For our purposes, it is enough to note that child languagespecialistsnow generally
accept the basic notion ofan innate predisposition to language,though this cannot account
for all aspectsof languagedevelopment, rvhich results from an interaction between innate
and environmental factors. That is, complementarv mechanisms, including active
involvement in languageuse, are equallv essentialfor the development of communicative
competence(seee.g. Foster 1990).
How. does the nature-nurture debate impact on theories of second languagelearning?
If humans are endorved w-ith an innate predisposition for language, then perhaps they
should be able to learn as manv languagesas thev need or want to, provided (important
provisos!) that the time, circumstances, and motivation are available.On the other hand,
the environmental circumst
'Eiceot
u'here infants are reared in multili I surroundingq. Should rve be aiming to
stances earnins as far as possffi
rnt , but one which dow'nplayedsome very real socia
and psychological obstacles.In the last trt'ent-vvearsthere hasbeen a closer and more critical
examination of environmental factors rvhich seem to influence L2 learning; some of these
are detailed brieflv under'The relationshipbetlveen secondlanguageuse and secondlanguage
learning', on page 2 1 .

Modularity

A further issueof controversy for students of the human brain hasbeen the extent to which
the brain should be view'ed as modularor unitary.That is, should \\'e seethe brain as a single,
flexible organism, lr'ith one general set of procedures for learning and storing different kinds
 S E C O N D L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G : C O N C E P T SA N D I S S U E S } 7

of knowledge and skills? Or, is it more helpfuilv understood as a bundle of modules,w-ith

distinctivemechanismsrelevant to different tvpes of knorvledge(e.g.Fodor 1983)?
The modular vierv hasconsistentlvfound support from rvithin linguistics,most famously
in the further debatebetu'een Chomskv and the chlld deo-elopmentpsi.chologist,JeanPiagei.
This debateis reported in Piatelli-Palmarini( 1980), and hasbeen re-examinedmany times;
a helpful recent summary is offered bv Johnson(1996, pp. 5-30). Briefl1.,Piagetarguedthat
languagewas simpll'one manifestation of the more general skill of svmbolic representation,
acquired as a stagein general cognitive development; no speciai mechanism was therefore
required to account for hrst languageacquisition. Chomskl"s general vierv is that not onh'
rs languagetoo complex to be iearned from environmentai exposure (his criticism of
Skinner), it is also too distinctive in its structure to be learnable bv general cognitive means.
Universal Grammar is thus endorved rvith its olvn distinctive mechanismsfor learning.
There are manv linguiststoday u-ho support the concept of a distinctive languagemodule
in the mind.There are also those n-ho argue that languagecompetence itself is modular, with
different aspectsof languageknow'ledge being stored and accessedin distinctive wavs.
However,there is no generalagreementon the number and nature of suchmodules, nor on
how thel'relate to other aspectsof cognition.

.Vodularity and secondlanguage learning

The possible role of an innate, specialist languagemodule in second Ianguagelearning has

been much discussedin recent years.If suchinnate mechanismsindeed exist, there are four
logical possibilities:

1 that the-vcontinue to operate during second languagelearning, and make kev aspects
of second languagelearning possible, in the same rvav that thev make {irst language
l e a r n i n gp o s s i b l e ;
2 that after the acquisition of the first language in earlv childhood, these mechanisms
ceaseto be operable,and secondlanguagesmust be learned bv other means;
3 that the mechanisms themselves are no longer operable, but that the first language
provides a model of a natural language and how' it rvorks, rvhich can be
'copied'
in 11*
4
some way when learning a second ianguage;
that distinctive learning mechanisms for languageremain available,but onlv in part,
and must be supplemented bv other means.
if.
The first position rvaspopularized in the second languagelearning Iield bv Stephen Krashen
in the 1970s,in a basicform.While Krashen'stheoreticalviervshavebeen criticized, this has
by no means led to the disappearanceof modular proposalsto account for SLL. Instead, this
particular perspective has been rer-italized bv the continuing development of Chomsky's
Universal Grammar proposals (Cook and Neu.son 1996).
On the other hand, thinking about those general learning mechanisms which may
be operating at least for adult learners ofsecond languageshas also developed further, since
e.g. the original proposalsof Mclaughlin (1987, pp. 133-53). Most obviously,the work of
the cognitive psychologistJ. R. Anderson on human learning, from an information processing
perspective, has been applied to various aspectsof second language learning b,v different
researchers(Johnson1995; O'Mallev and Chamot 1990;Toweliand Hawkins 19945.
 I V I I T C H E L LA N D F L O R E N C E M Y L E S
1B ROSAIVIOND

Systematicity and variability in L2 learning

When the utterances produced bv L2 learners are examined and compared with target
languagenorms, thev are often condemned as full of errors or mistakes.Traditionally,
languageteachershave often vier,vedthese errors as the result of carelessness or lack of
concentration on the part of learners. If onlv learners w.ould trv harder, surelv their
productions could accuratelvreflect theTL rules u'hich thel-had been taught! In tlre mid-
twentieth centur\, under the influence of behaviourist learning theorl', were often
'bad ".io.,
vierved as the result of habits', rvhich could be eradicated if onl-vlearners did enough
rote learning and pattern drilling using target languagemodels.
One of the big lessonsu.hich has been learned from the researchof recent decadesis
that though learners' L2 utterancesmav be deviant bv comparison w.ith target language
norms , they are bv no meanslacking in svstem . Errors and mis akesare patterned, and though
some e. this is bv no meanstrue of
all of the l- of them. Instead, there is a good deaTiT-ev-idencethat
lefrners r'vork their r'vavthrough a number of developmental stages,from very primitive and
deviantversionsof the L2, to progressivelvmore elaborateand target-likeversions.Just like
fullv prolicient users of a language,their ianguageproductions can be described by a set of
underlving rules; these interim rules have their orvn integrity and are notjust inadequatelv
applied versionsof theTL rules.
A clear example, rvhich has been studied for a range of target languages,has to do with
the formation of negative sentences.It has commonit been found that learners start off br
tacking a negative particle of some kind on to the end of an utterance (no you are playing
here); next, thev learn to insert a basic negative particle into the verb phrase (Mariana
not comingtoday); and finalir', thet' learn to manipulate modifications to auxiliaries and
other details of negation morphologr., in line with the full TL rules for negation (l can't plar
that one)(examplesfrom Ellis 1994, p. 100) .This kind of datahascommonly been interpreted
to show'that, at leastas far as kev parts of the L2 grammar are concerned, learners'devel-
opment follorvs a common route,even if the rate at which learners actually travel along this
common route mav be verv different.
TLis systematicitv in the ianguageproduced bv L2 learners is of course paralleled in the
early stagesthrough which first languageiearners also passin a highlv regular manner.Towell
and Hawkins identifv it as one of the key features rvhich L2 learning theories are required
t o e x p l a i n( 1 9 9 4 , p . 5 ) .
H o r t ' e v e r ,l e a r n e r l a n g u a g e( o r i n t e r l a n g u a g e
a ,s i t i s c o m m o n l v c a l l e d l i s n o t o n l r '
I
chafEacterized bv sr stematicit\'.Learner Ianguagesystemsare presumabll'- indeed, hopefullr'
- un-Sfa5leand rn course-dfdrangd; certainl-v,thev are characterized also by'high degrees of
variability(Torvelland Hau-kins 1994,p.5). Most obviousll',Iearners'utterances seem to var\
'errors'
from moment to moment, in the types of rvhich are made, and learners,."* li"bl.
to su,'itchbetu'een a range of correct and incorrect forms over lengthy periods of time. .\
well-knon'n example offered bv Ellis invoivesa child learner of Englishas L2 who seemed
to produce the utteranc es no look mv'card, don't lookmy cardinterchangeablvover an extended
period (1985). M-vleset al. (.1998)have produced similar data from a classroomlearner's
French as L2 , who l-ariablv produced forms such as non animal,je n'ai pas de animal rvithin
the same 20 minutes or so (to savthat he did not have a pet; the correctTL form should be
1en'ai pasd' animal). Here, in contrast to the underlving svstematicity earlier claimed for the
development of rules of negation, we see performance varying quite substantialll from
moment to moment.
Like svste-miIii-it1', r,ariabilitv is alsofound in child languagedevelopment. However, the
variability found among L2 learners is undoubtedh' more 'extreme' than that found lbr
 SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING:cONCEPTS AND ISSUEs 19

children; again,variabilitv is describedbvTolvell et al. (19961asa central feature of learner

interlanguage r,vhichL2 theories u-ill har-eto explain.

Creativity and routines in L2 learning

In the last section, we referred to evidence r,vhichshor,vsthat learners'interlanguage

productions can be described as svstematic, at least in part. This svstematicitv ls linked
toanotherkevconcept'thatofCf-eot1|'1t'|..LearnerS,,,,*u."ffidto
I r'_--- 11-:
underl1'ingrulesl'ste@imitiveanddeviantcomparedlr.iththetarget
languagesyStem'Itlogicallvfollolr-sthut1nces,i.e.ttat
their rule slstem cangenerateu u giue.rcontext,*.hiE-tlElEl?ier
: ,:
n a sn e v e r n e a r oD e l o r e .
@lentvofCommon_senseer-idencethatlearnersCanPuttheirL2
klowledge to creative use, even at the verl' earliest stagesof L2 learning. It becomes most
obvious that this is happening, r'r'henlearners produce utterances like the highly deviant non
'l
animal (no animal = haven't got anv pet'), w.hich r'vecited before. This is not an utterance
n'hich anv native speakerof French rvould produce (other than, perhaps,a very young child)
;
rr-r,rch
the most likelv rvavthat the learnerhasproducedit i, rhio"gh:;ottt"*;;
primitiveinterlanguage ";?;i,
rule for negation,in combinationr,r,ith,"-? u.'ri. ,..i"u"r".,
But how did this same learner manageto produce the near-target n'ai pasde animai,
1e
s ith its negative particles correctlv inserted w'ithin the verb phrase,and corresponding
almost-periect modification to tle morphologv of the .ro.r.rphrur", rvithin a fer,, minutes oi
the other form? For us, the most likelv expianation is that at this point he w-asreproduci
Proouclng
an utterance u,hich he has indeed heard before (and blv rehearsedlu . h i c h h a sb e e n tl
memorized as an unanalysedr,vhole.a formula #tFril.--\ n-s
D 4T-l<-,r
Work in corpus hnguistics has led us to theh -+eee#ntat formulas ancl/
routlnes
U!Sb'native speakers;when we talk,
our everydavL1 utterancesare a complex mix of ..""tiiiliild-frE6b.iiation
lSinclair
1991).In L1 acquisiti children
hasbeen commonlv obserr.ed.For L1 learners,the contribution of chunk, ,..-rli-it"d bu
processingconstraints; for older L2 learners, however, memorization of lengthl', unanalysed
languageroutines is much more possible. (Think of those opera singers who successiully
memorize and deliver entire parts, in languagesthev do not otheru.isecontroll)
Analvsis of L2 data produced bv classroom learners in particuiar, seems to shou,
extensive and svstematic use of chunks to fulfil communicative needs in the early staqes
r, l
tMl'les et al. 19981.Studiesof informal learners also provide some evidenceof chunk uie.
This phenomenon has attracted relativeh- little attention in recent times, compared with
that given to learner creativitr-and svstematicitv(\ ,/einert1995). How.ever,rve believeit is
common enough in L2 spontaneousproduction (and not onh'in the opera house),to need
s o m e m o r e s u s t a i n e da t t e n t i o nf r o m L 2 l e a r n i n gt h e o r r . .

In complete successan d Jo s sili z ati on

Young children learning their first language embark on the enterprise in rvidelv varving
situations around the lvorld, sometimes in conditions of extreme poverty and deprivation,
n'hether physical or social.Yet vrith remarkable uniformit.,', at the end of fir,e v.ur. or ro,
thev have achieveda very substantialmeasure of success.Teachersand studentsknow to
their cost that this is bv no means the caselvith second languages,embarked on after these
critical earlv vears. Feir';if anr',aclult learners ever come toll".ra indistinguishably with the
 20 ROSAMONDMITCHELL AND FLORENCE [/IYLES

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

pronunciation, and manv continue to make grammar mistakesand to searchfor lvords, even
r.vhenrvell motivated to learn, after r.earsof studr',residence and,/or w'ork in contact r'vith
the target ianguage.
Second languagelearning, then, is tvpified bv tncompletesuccess; the claimed svstematic
evolution of our underlVing interlanguage rules tor,vardsthe target languagesystem seems
doomed, most often, never to integrate completelv lvith its goal. Indeed, w-hilesome learners
go on learning, others seem to ceaseto make anv visible progress, no matter how mant.
iu.rg.rug".l"rrl thev attend, or how activelv thev continu. io ,ri" their second languagefor
communicative purposes.The termylossi]izationiscommonlv used to describe this phenom-
'freeze',
enon, lvhen a learner'sL2 s-vstemseemsto or become stuck, at some more or less
deviant stage.
Thesephenomena of incomplete successand fossilizationare also significant'facts' about
the process of L2 learning, r,r'hichan\. serious theorv must eventuall,vexplain. As we will
see,explanations of two basictvpes havein fact been offered.The 6rst group of explanations
the language-specificlearning mechanisms availableto the young child
are psycholtnguistic:
simpl,v ceaseto rvork for older learners, at least partll', and no amount of study and effort
can recreatethem.The secondgroup of explanationsaresociolinguisrr'c: older L2 learnersdo
I
not have the social opportunities, or the motivation, to identifv completely rvith the native
I
speaker communitv, but mav instead value their distinctive identity as learners or as
I
foreigners.
I

Cross-linguistic infuences in L2 learning

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

by the Ianguage,or languages,that thev alreadvknou,.Thisis routinelv obvious from learners'
'foreign
accent', i.e. pronunciation u'hich bears traces ofthe phonology oftheir first
Ianguage.It is also obr.iousu.hen learnersmake certain characteristicmistakes,e.g. when a
native speakerof Engiish savssomething in French like 7esu;sdouze,an utterance parallel tc
the English'l am trvelve'. (The correct French expressionrvould ofcourse be j'ai douzean'
- I have trvelve vears.)
This kind of phenomenon in learner productions is often called b1' the term lanBuage
re*LButhorv important is the phenomenon, and what exacth'is be-inflr1n-rffil7Siond
'srvings
languageresearchershave been through several of the pendulum' on this question.
asGass+ulsj t (.1996). Behaviourist theorists vierved language transfer asan important source
'habits'were
of error and interference in L2 learning, becauseL1 so tenaciousand deeplr
Lt i., Ll
-Gemln-g",aowever, becauseof their
preoccupation rvith identifving creative processesat r.l'ork
in L2 development; thev pointed out that manv L2 errors could not be traced to L-linflucnle,
and *'ere primarilv .o
this creative front.
Theorists todar, as rve shall see,lvould generallv accept once more that cross-linguistic
influences play an important role in L2 learning. Horver.er,rve u'ill still find rvidely differing
views on the extent and nature of these influences. Some researchershave in fact claimed
that learners r,r.ith different L1s progress at somervhat different rates, and even follou'
different acquisitionalroutes, at leastin some areasof the target grammar (e.g. Keller-Cohen
1979,Zobl 1982, quoted in Gass 1996, pp. 322-3).
s!''
 SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING: CONcEPTS AND ISSUES 2I

The relationship between secondlanguage use and secondlanguage learning

In an earlier section rve considered the distinction betn-een language competence and
perJormance, which manv linguists have found useful. Here, lve look more closely at the
concePtof performance, and in particular, look at the possiblerelationshipbetr,veenusing
{i.e. performing in) an L2, and learning (i.e. developing one's competence in) that same
language.
We should note first of all, of course,that 'performing' in a languagenot onlv involves
speakingit. Making senseof the languagedata that lve hear around us is an equallv essential
aspectof performance. Indeed, it is basiccommon ground among all theorists of language
learning, of lvhater.erdescription, that it is necessar,\'tointerpret and to processincoming
ianguagedata in some form, for normal languageder,elopment to take place.There is thus
.i consensusthat languageinpur of some kind is essentialfor normal languagelearning. In fact,
during the late 1970s and earlr' 1980s, the vier,r'r,vasargued bv Stephen Krashen and others
rhat input (at the right level of difficultr'; rvasall that u.asnecessaryfor L2 acquisition to take
p l a c e ( K r a s h e n 1 9 8 2 , 1 9 S 5 ) . T h i sp o s i t i o n h a s b e e n r - i e u ' e db r l - o r " r e c e n t t h e o r i s t s a s
rnadequate,but a modified and refined version hasbeen der.eloped.
Krashen u'as unusual in not seeingany central role for languageproduction in his theorv
, ir )second
E L U r r u rlanguage acquisition.
drrtudtc d L q u r s r L r u t t . lMost other
vlusL u u l e r theoretical
L r l c o r c L l c a l vieu'points
\ t e \ \ ' P o l n t s support
s u p p o r t in
l n ssome
o m e form
lolm
:he common-senser-iervthat speakinga languageis helpful for iearning it, though they offer
, u-ide varietv of explanations as to x'hv this should be the case.For example, behaviourist
rarning theorv sarv lar (oral) practice ashelpful in forming correct language'habits'.
ls vlew nas ar ln recen
ifl-bEhaviouri st thinki n r'.
owever, various contemporarv theorists still lav stress on the 'practice' function of
rnguageproduction, especiallvin building up fluencv and control of an emergent L2 system.
lor example,information processingtheorists commonlv argue that languagecompetence
'.,nsistsof both a knowledgecomponent ('knou'ing that') and a sfri11 component ('knowing
..'rr\'').While they mav accept a r.arietv of possibie sources for the first component,
:.-searchersin this perspectiveagree in seeinga vital role forL2 use/L2 performance in
:,'velopingthe secondskill component.
An even more stronglv contrasting vieu'to Krashen'sis the so-called comprehensible output
.i pothesis,arguedfor bv Merrill Srvainand colleagues(e.g.Su'ain 1985; Srvainand Lapkin
c95). Sw-ainpoints out that much incoming L2 input is comprehensible,w.ithout anv need
,r a full grammatical analvsis.If u'e don't need to pav attention to the grammar, in order to
.:rderstandthe message,w'hv should u'e be compelled to learn it? On the other hand, r,vhen
'.e try to savsomething in our chosen second language,\\-eare forced to
make grammatical
:roicesand hvpotheses,in order to put our utterances together. The act of speakingforces
.) to try our ideas about horv the target grammar actuallv ."r.orks,and of course gives us the
rance of getting some feedback from interlocutors lr-ho mar-fail to understand our efforts.
So fai in this section, n-e have seen that theorists .u.r hold different vieu.s on the
.'ntribution both of language input and language output to language learning. However,
.nother w'av of distinguishing among current theories of L2 learning from a'performance'
!.rsPectivehas to do u'ith their view'of L2 tnteraction- u'hen the speaking and listening
i n'hich the learner is engagedare vieu'ed asan integral and mutuallv influential r.vhole,e.g.
' everyday conversation. T*-o major perspectives on interaction are apparent, one
. r'cholinguistig,jngjgcrolinguistic.
Fro _-+--=4t
oint of vieu.',L2 interaction is mainlv interesting because of
r. I
, - o p p o r r u n i t i e si t o I T F F S T S i n di di ru a l L 2 l e a r n e r st o f i n e - t u n er h e Ianguageinput ther are
22 ROSAMONDMITCHELL AND FLORENCE IVlYLES

receiving.This ensuresthat the input is rvell adapted to their orvn internal needs (i . e. to the
present state of development of their L2 knorvledge).What this means is that learners
need the chanceto talk rvith native speakersin a fairlv open-ended way, to ask questions,and
to clarifv meanings rvhen thev do not immediatelv understand. Under these conditions, it
is believed that the utterances that result rvill be at the right level of difficult-v to promote
learning;in Krashen'sterms, thev r'r'illprovide true'comprehensibleinput'. Conversational I

"pi,od"-sfi'-ol@6,n,go,,o,ionoJmeaninghu""b"",,intensiveI1.studiedb,vmany
,:,fthe Krashen-influencedresearchers.
Interaction is also interesting to iinguistic theorists, becauseofrecent controversiesover
rvhc-therthe provision of negativeevtdence is necessarvor helpful for L2 development _4'
'neqati\-e
evidence' is meant some kind of input rvhich iets the learner know that a particular
t o t a r g e tl a n g u a g en o r m s . l n L l l n l e r a c t l o nt n l s m l g n l t a K e
: . . r n ll s n o ra c c e p t a D laec c o r c l l n g
a more informal rePhrasing of
: learner's L2 utterance, offered bv a native-speakingconversationalpartner.
Whv is there a controversv about negative evidence in L2 Iearning?The problem is that
:,,rrection often seemsineffective and not onlv becauseL2 learners are laz,v.I!:eglg!-lthgt
^.arners often cannot benefit from correction, but continue to make the shme mistakes
:lrl\\'ever mucn lee is otlered. For some current rsts,any na
one' irrelevant.
.:i---:-^-./----,-.-f\----
rl-inuetosee1.aluF-lncoIrecI1onsanone@it]s}Ffia;ilyatcepted
::--lrthesew'ill be useful +
onlv u-henthev relate to'hot spots' currentlv being restructured in
: : r ql e a r n e r ' se m e r g i n gL 2 s v s t e m .
iervs haveone thing in common, holvever; they view
--n.learner asoperatiQand der.elopinga relativelv autonomous L2 system,angjgs intelgction
r. a \vay of feeding that s,ystemlvith more or less fine-tuned input data. whether positive_or
. Sociolinouistic view's teractton are verv dl
)rocess i]-r-iewed as essentiallvsocial: both the identitv- . of
: the learner
. are collaboiativelvt6nstmcted a trucTedin thc courseof interaction.
S6metheoriiiiiTGE7Foad vieu'of the secondlanguagelearningprocessasanjpllgnti:gshp
into a range of new' d,t.."t." pt..,l."t ; others are more concerned with
analvsingthe det1ililinteraction betvr.eenmore expert and lessexpgrt speakels,to determine
I
how the learner is scffilded into using {and presumabh learning)neu L2 forms.

Views of the language learner

Who is the second language learner, and horv are thev introduced to us, in current SLL
research?'second language'research generallv deals ll'ith learners lvho embark on the
learning ofan additional language,at least some vears after they havestarted to acquire their
first language.Thislearning may take place formallv and svstematicallJ',
in a classroomsetting;
or it may take place through informal social contact, through work, through migration, or
other social forces r,vhichbring speakersof different languagesinto contact, and make
c o m m u n i c a t i o na n e c e s s i t r ' .
So, second languagelearners mav be children, or thev mav be adults; thev may be
learning the target languageformally in school or college, or'picking it up' in the play-
ground or the w'orkplace.Thev may be learning a highlv localized language,which will help
them to become insiders in a local speechcommunitv; or the target languagemay be a
languageof wider communication relevant to their region, u'hich gives accessto economic
development and public life.
 S E C O N D L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G : C O N C E P T SA N D I S S U E S 2 3

Indeed, in the late trventieth centurv, the target languageis highl-vlikelv to be English;
.r recent estimate suggeststhat r.vhilearound 300 million people speak English as their first
ianguage,another 700 million or so are using it as a second language,or learning to do so
Crystal 1987,p.358). Certainlv it is true that much researchon secondlanguagelearning,
rvhether rvith children or adults, is concerned r'vith the learning of English, or w-ith a verv
.mall number of other languages,mostlv Europeanones (French, German, Spanish).There
are manv multilingual communities todav (e.g. tow'nshipsaround manv fast-growing cities)
n-here L2 learning involves a much wider range of ianguages.Holvever, these have been
comparativelv little studied.

The learner as language processor

It is possible to distinguish three main points of vierv, or sets of priorities, among SLL
researchersas far as the learner is concerned. Linguists a15ljsysbolinguists have typically
beenconcernedprimariIl.lvithanalr'singandmo@,"uiilubl"
to the individual learner,for processing,le e. As
tir as languagelea.r-ring h"
developmental route along rvhich learners travel. Researchersfor w'hom this is the prime
qoal are less concerned rvith the speed or rate of development, or indeed with the degree
of ultimate L2 success.Thusthev tend to minimize or disregard social and contextual
differencesamong learners; their aim is to
t o a l l n o r m a l h u m a nb e i n g s .
As we shall see, hou'ever, there is some controversv among researchers in this
psvcholinguistictradition on the question of age.Do child und udrfL2 learners learn in
essentiallysimilar rvavs?Or, is there a criricalare w-hichdivides l'ounger and older learners.
u *o-.nt *hen earlv lear.ring.rG.tilirr*iFop}rr.and are replacedoi at leastsuoolemented
bv other compensatorv wavs of learning?The balance of evidence has been interpreted br
ch a cut-off point, and many other researchers
'vounger -
agree with some version of a r-ieu' that better in the long run' (Singleton 1995,
p. 3). However, explanationsof whv this should be are still provisional.

Dffirences between individual learners

Real-life observation quicklv tells us, how-ever,that er,enif L2 learners can be sho',vnto be
following a common ievelopmental route, thev differ greatlv in the degree of ultimate
successwhich the-v achieve. Sociai psvchologists have argued consistentlv that these
differences in learning outcomes must be due to individual diferencesbetween learners, and
many proposalshavebeen made concerning the characteristicslvhich supposedlvcausethese
differences.
In a recent two-part revie*' (199), 1993), Gardner and MaclntFe divide what they see
asthemostimportanilearnertraitsintotwogrou@cr;l,e(emotional).
-
Herewefollort.theiraccount,andsummu..i,.'",.
most significant influence on L2 learning success.For fuller treatment of this social
psychological perspective on learner difference, lve would refer the reader to sources such
a s G a r d n e r ( 1 9 8 5 ) , S k e h a n( 1 9 8 9 ) , a n d E l l i s ( 1 9 9 + , p p . + 6 7 - 5 6 0 ) .
24 ROSAMONDMITCHELL AND FLORENCE MYLES

CognitiveJactors

lntelligence:Not verv surprisinglv perhaps, there is clear evidence that L2 students lvho are
.bfi;;;G" o., fo.*ul *".r,i.., of i.ttelligence and/or general academicattainment tend
to do well in L2 learning, at leastin formal classroomsettings.
' r , .aButude:
Language L
Is there realh' such a thing asa'gift' for languagelearning, distinct from
'Y
general intelligence, as folk rvisdom often holds?The most famous formal test of language
iptitude was designedin the 1950s,bv Carroll and Sapon(1959, in Gardner and Maclnt,vre
l-992,p.214). This'Modern LanguageAptitudeTest' assesses a number of subskillsbelieved
to be predictive of L2 learning success: (a) phonetic coding abilitv, (b) grammatical sensitivitr,
(c) memorv abilities,and (d) inductive languagelearning abilitv. general,iearners' scores
In
'correiate
on this and other similar tests do indeed r,vith . . . achievement in a second
language'(Gardner and Maclntvre 1992, p. 215), and in a range of contexts measuresof
aptitude have been show'nto be one of the strongest availabiepredictors of success(Harler
and Hart 1997).
Do more successfullanguagelearners set about the task in
Languagelearning strcteflies:
,orn" ditii.tna;fr-Dffiev t-"" .p".iul repertoireof wavsof
har,cat their disposal
learning, or strat"gtei?[f this ulere true, could these even be taught to other, hitherto less
successfullearners? Much research has been done to describe and categorize the strategies
used by learners at different levels, and to link strategv use to iearning outcomes; it is clear
that more proficient learners do indeed emplov strategiesthat are different from those used
bv the lessproficient (Oxford and Crookall 1989, quoted in Gardner and Maclntvre 1992,
p.217).Whether the strategiescausethe learning, or the learning itself enablesdifferent
strategiesto be used, has not been fullv clarified, horvever.

Afectivefactors

LanguageaI!l!!&!;ocial psvchologistshaveiong been interested in the idea that the attitudes

of ti. i"G?I*rds tire target language,itJspeakers, and the learning context, may all
plav some part in explaining successor lack of it. Researchon L2 languageattitudes has
largely been conducted lvithin the framervork of broader research on motivation, of which
attitudes form one part.
'is
Motivatjon:For Gardner and Maclnt,vre, the motivated individual one who lvants to
a
achieve particular goal, devotes considerable effort to achieve this goal, and experiences
satisfactionin the activitiesassociatedw'ith achieving this goal' (1993, p. 2). So, motivation
'desire
is a complex construct, defined b-vthree main components: to achieve a goal,
effortexiendedinthi'rdirectio.',u.'dsatisfactionlviththetask'ffil,
Cafiffin.ill..g.,.r have carried out a long programme of rvork on motivation rvith Engllsh
Canadianschool students learning French as a second language,and have developed a range
of formal instruments to measure motivation. Over the vears consistent relationships have
been demonstrated betw.eenlanguageattitudes, motivation, and L2 achievement; Gardner
acceptsthat these relationships are complex, holvever, as the factors interact, and influence
eachother ( 1985, cited in Gardner and Maclntvre 1993, p. 2).
Lanquaee anxietv:Thefinal learner characteristiclvhich Gardner and Maclntyre consider
, <-',--l_---1- r r .. r. .-r r
has clearlv been shoun to have a relationship rvith learning successis languageanxiety (and
'is
its obverse, .:]i.gq&rrg) . For these authors, languageanxietv seen as a stable Person-
alitv trait re6rring to the propensitv for an individual to react in a nervous manner lvhen
speaking. . . in the secondlanguage'(1993,p. 5).ltis tvpifiedbv self-belittling,feelingsof
apprehension,and even bodilv responsessuch as a faster heartbeatlThe anxious learner ts
 S E C O N D L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G : C O N C E P T SA N D I S S U E S 2 5

also less w'illing to speak in class,or to engagetarget ianguagespeakersin informal inter-

action. Gardner and Maclntvre cite manv studies rvhich suggestthat languageanxietv has a
negativerelationship'ivith learning success,and some others lvhich suggestthe opposite, for
learner self-confidence.

The learner as social being

The tw.o perspectives on the learner rvhich rve have highlighted so far have concentrated
first, on universal characteristics,and second, on individual characteristics.But it is also
possibleto vier'vthe L2 learner as essentiallva socialbeing, and such an interest rvill lead to
concern u'ith learners' relationship u-ith the social context, and the structuring of the
learning opportunities r,r,hichit makes available.The learning process itself mav be vieu'ed
as essentiallvsocial, and inextricablr- entangiedin L2 use and L2 interaction. Trvo major
differences appear, u'hich distinguish this vie'nr-of the learner from the last (for the social
psychological vier,vof the learner rvhich rve have just dipped into is also clearly concerned
'socio-cultural
with the individual learners' relationship r,r.iththe milieu' in rvhich learning
is taking place).
First, interest in the learner as a social being leads to concern r,vith a range of sociaily
constructed elements in the learner's identitv, and their relationship *'ith learning so c1asr,
ethnicitlt,andgenderrnaketheir appearanceaspotentiallv significantfor L2 learning research.
Second,the relationshipbetu'eenthe individual learner and the socialcontext of learning is
view.edas dynamlc,reflexive and constantlv changing.The'individual differences' tradition
sau'that relationship as being governed br a bundle oflearner traits or characteristics(such
as aptitude, anxiety, etc.), ll.hich rvere relativelv fixed and slou'to change.More sociallv
oriented researchersview motivation, learner anxietr, etc. asbeing constan-tlvreconstructed
through ongoing L2 experience and L2 interaction.

Links with social practice

oesit haveanl' immediate practical applications

the rea , rnost obr-iousll in the L2 classroom?In our field, theoristshavebeen and
remain divided on this point. Beretta and his colieagueshaveargued for'pure' theorv-building
i n S L L , u n c l u t t e r e d b v r e q u i r e m e n t sf o r p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n( 1 9 9 3 ) . V a n L i e r ( 1 9 9 + ) ,
Rampton (1995b) and others have argued for a sociallv engaged perspective, where
theoretical development is rooted in, and responsive to, social practice, and language
education in particular.Yetothers haveargued that L2 teaching in particular should be guided
systematicallvbv SLL researchfindings (e.g.Krashen 1985).
This tension has partlv been addressedbv the emergence of instructed language
learning' as a distinct sub-areaofresearch (seerecent reviervsbv Ellis 1994, pp. 561 563;
Spada1997).We think that languageteachers, rvho w-ill form an important segment of our
readership, will themselvesn'ant to take stock of the relations between the theories w'e
survey, and their or,vnbeliefs and experiences in the classroom.Thev r,vill, in other lvords,
want to make somejudgement on the'usefulness'of theorisingin making senseof their orvn
experience and their practice, w'hile not necessarilvchanging it.
26 ROSAMONDMITCHELL AND FLORENCE MYLES

References
'lntuition-based
Aarts, J. (991) and obserr-ation-based grammars', in Aijmer, K. ar.-
Altenberg, B. (eds), Engltshcorpuslinguisrics.Harlo'rr':Longman' ++-62.
'Theorv Linguistics,14
Beretta,A. (ed.) (1993) constructionin SLA'. Specialissueof ,4pp1ied
2214.
Brumfit, C.J. and Mitchell, R. (1990)'The languageclassroomas a focus for research,'ir-
Brumfit, C. J. and Mitchell, R. (eds),Research in thelanguage ELT Document
classroom.
133. Modern EnglishPubiications/The British Council, 3-15.
Chomskl',N. (1957) Syntacticstructures.TheHague:Mouton.
- oJthe theoryoJ syntax.Cambridge, MA : NIIT Press.
( 196 5) Aspects
Cook, V and Nervson, M. (1995) Chomskl''s [Jniversa] Grammar:an introduction.Oxforci
Blackrvell.
Crystai, D. (1987) The Cambridge encyclopediaoJlanguage.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversit.
Press.
Ellis, R. (1985)'sourcesof variabilitvin interlanguage'AppliedLinguistics 5, 118-3 1.
- (1 994) The stud,voJsecondlanguageacquisition.Oxford: Oxford Universitv Press.
Fodor,J.A. (1983) ThemodularitvoJnind. Cambridge,MA: NIIT Press
Foster,S. (1990) Thecommunicative competenceoJloungchildren.Harlor,v:Longman.
Gardner, R.C. (1985) Socialpsvchology and secondlanguagelearning:the role oJ attitudesan:
motivation. London: EdrvardArnold.
Gardner, R.C. and Macintvre, P.D. (1992)'A student'scontributions to second languag.
Iearning.Part I: cognitivevariables',LanguageTeaching 25, 21 1 20.
- 'A
(1993) student's contributions to second languagelearning. Part II: affectirt
variables', LanguageTeachtng 26, I-11.
Gass,S.M. (1996)'second languageacquisitionand linguistic theorv: the role of languagt
transfer',in Ritchie,WC. and Bhatia,T.K.(eds),Handbook oJsecond language acquisitior.
SanDiego:AcademicPress,311 -+5.
'(Re)creating perspectiveof face-to-
Hall, J.K. (1995) our worlds rvith rvords:a sociohistorical
faceinteraction', AppltedLinguistics15,205 32.
Hamers, J. and Blanc, N{. (1989) Bt}tngualttvand bilingualism.Cambridge: Cambridg.
UniversitvPress.
'Language
Harley, B. and Hart, D. (1991) aptitude and second language proficiency ir-
classroomlearnersof different starting ages',Srudies in Second Acquisiilon19.
Language
379400.
Johnson,K. (1996) Language teachingandsktlllearning.Oxford: Blackrvell.
'The r:
Kasper,G. (ed.) (1996) developmentof pragmaticcompetence'.Specialissueof Studies
Second LanguageAcquisition,18, 2 .
Krashen, S. (1981) Secondlanguage acquisitionand secondlanguagelearning. Oxford,
Pergamon.
- 119821Principlesandprccticein secondlanguage Oxford: Pergamon.
acquisition.
- Harlo'w':Longman.
and implications.
issues
(1 985) Theinput hlpothesis:
Long, M.H. (1990a)'The leasta secondlanguageacquisitiontheorv needsto explain'. TESOL
@tarterly24, 6+9-66.
- 'N{aturationalconstraintson languagedevelopment', Srudiesin Second Languagt
(1990b)
Acquisition12, 25 1-85.
- (1993) 'Assessment 14,225 -+9.
strategiesfor SLA theories'. AppliedLinguistics
- (1996)'The role of the linguistic environment in second languageacquisition', in
Ritchie,\A'.C.and Bhatia,T.K. (eds),Handbook oJsecond language SanDiego:
acquisition.
A c a d e m i cP r e s s4, 1 3 5 8 .
Mclaughlin, B. ( 1987) Theories learning.London: EdrvardArnold.
oJsecond,language
 SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING; CONCEPTSAND ISSUES 27

'The
Meara,P. (1996a.1 classicalresearchin L2 acquisition',inAnderman, G.N{. and Rogers,
M.A. (eds), Words,words,words:the translatorand the languagelearner. Clevedon:
Multilingual N1atters,2l -40.
- (1996b)'The dimensionsof lexical comPetence',in Brorvn, G., N{aimkjaer,K. and
Williams, J. (eds), ?erJormance and competence in second language acquisition. Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversitv Press,35-5 3.
Mrvles,F., Hooper,J. and Mitchell, R. (1998)'Rote or rule? Exploring the role of formulaic
l a n g u a g e i n c l a s s r o o m f o r e i g n l a n g u al eg ae r n i n g ' , L a n g u a g e L e a r n i n g14180, - 1 3 5 .
O'Malley,J. and Chamot,A . ( 1990) Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversitv Press.
M. (ed.) (1980) Language
Piatelli-Palmarini, andlearning:the debatebetweenJeanPiagetandNoam
Chomsky. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Rampton,B. (1995a)Crossing:language andethnicitl'among Harlow-:Longman.
adolescenrs.
- 16,
(1995b)'Politics and changein researchin applied linguistics',AppliedLinguistics
233-s6.
Rcrbinson,P. (1991)'lndividual differencesand the lundamentalsimilaritv of implicit and
explicit adult secondlanguagelearning', Language Learilng47, +5-99.
, . ( 1 9 9 5 )B i l i n g u a l i s m . 2 nedd n , O x f o r d : B l a c k r v e l l .
R o m a i n eS
Sinclair,J. ( 1991) Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford UniversitvPress.
Singleton, D. (1995i'A critical look at the critical period hvpothesisin secondlanguage
acquisition research', in Singleton, D. and Lengvel, Z. (eds), The ageJactorin second
language acquisition . Clevedon: Nlultilingual Matters, 1-2 9.
Skehan,R ( 19S9) lndividualdfferences inJoreignlanguagelearning.London: Edw'ardArnold.
'The
Sorace,A. (.1996) useof acceptabilitvjudgementsin secondlanguageacquisitionresearch,
in Ritchie,W and Bhatia,T. (eds), HandbookoJ second San Diego:
languageacquisition.
AcademicPress,375-409.
Spada,N. (t997)'Form-focussed instruction and secondlanguageacquisition:a review of
classroomand laboratoryresearch', LanguageTeaching 30, 73 87.
Spolsky,B. (1989) CondittonsJorsecond learning.Oxford: Oxford UniversitvPress.
language
Stubbs,M. (1996) Tbxtandcorpusanal1sis. Oxford: Blacku'ell.
Swain, M. (1985)'Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensibleinput and
comprehensible output in its , Gass, S.M . and Madden,C. G. (eds), lnput
der.eiopment'in
in secondlanguageacquisition. NIA:
Rorvlev, Newburt'House, 235-53.
Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1995)'Problems in output and the cognitive processesthev
generate:a steptorvardssecondlanguagelearning', ,lppliedLinguistics16,371-91.
R. and Harvkins, R. (1994) Approaches
Tor,ve1l, languageacqujsition.Clevedon: N'lulti-
to second
lingual Matters.
Tou,ell,R., Hu*.ki.tr, R. and Bazergui,N. (1995)'The der.elopmentof fluencv in advanced
learnersof French', AppltedLinguistics I 7, 84 1 15.
'Forks
Van Lier, L. (199+) and hope, pursuing understandingin different rvdys', Applted
15, 32846.
Lingutstics
'The
Weinert, R. (1995) role of formulaic languagein secondlanguageacquisition:a revier'r'',
AppliedLinguistics 15, 180-205.
'Converging 'acquisition-learning'distinction', Applied
ZobI, H. (1995) evidence for the
L i n g u i s t i c1s6 , 3 5 - 5 6 .
 Chapter 2

andNinaSpada
PatsyM. Lightbown

FACTORS AFFECTING SECOND

LANGUAGE LEARNING

LL NORMAL CHILDREN, GMN a n o r m a l u p b r i n g i n ga, r e s u c c e s s f ui nl t h e

acquisition of their first language.ThirJg419l$1]!b-9!rl-9lpg{ience of second lalguage
learners, u'-hoses,uccess_varies greatlv.
--
nf u",nof .rJU"ti.r." ilutlEu-:*-. have certain characteristicswhich lead to more or less
successlul language learning. Such beliefs are usua-llr'-b3se-d-oq'@@Elgrl&;A}ftett.g.tt
lve have known. For example, manv teachers
,^i\ owAexpc;leru;€-or that of indil.idual people
$.' ur" .o.rvi.r..d that extror,e,rtcd]c-af.rgls wfio interact rt-i[hout inhibition in their second
langgaggaqd-_fiqd manv opportunities to praciiselinguage iki'lls-w;ill6e tlti -ort successful
to be
_ l"ui".i.. In additioq 1o p..ro.t"lito'characteristics, other fictors generally considered
,,9 ..l"uu.rt,o tung.rug. i""."i"g are intelligence,-aptitude, motivation attitudes' Another
-and
v at learning begins.
important factor is the age yhigh
ane{-d_otal
In this chapter, rve u.ill seer,r'[e,tllre-t evidence is su,pported bl research findings.
To what extent can lve predict differences in the successof second language acquisition in
trvo individuals if ne have information about theirperson{lqq, their general and specific
intellectual abilities, their motivation, or their age?-

Activity

'good
Characterjstics oJ the language \earner'

It seems that some people har,e a much easier time of learning than others. Rate of
development variesr,videlvamong first languagelearners. Some children can string together
five-, six-, and seven-rvordsentencesat an agervhen other children are just beginning to label
items in their immediate environment. Nevertheless, all normal children eventually master
their first language.
In second languagelearning, it has been observed countlesstimes that, in the same
classroom setting, some students progress rapidlv through the initial stagesof learning a
new languageu-hile others struggle along making verv slou. progress. Some learners never
achieve native-likecommand of a second language.Are there personal ch?Iacteristics that
make one learner more successfulthan another, and if so, u-hat are they?
The follou.ing is a iist of some of the characteristics commoniy thought to contribute
to successfullanguagelearning. In your experience - as a second languagelearner and as a
 FACTORSAFFECTING SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING 29

teacher - which characteristicsseem to vou most likelv to be associatedw'ith successin

'econd languageacquisition in the classroom?Which ones r,vouldvou be less inclined to
r \ p e c t i n a s u c c e s s f ul el a r n e r i
In eachcaserate the characteristicasfollolvs:

1= Verv important
I = Quite important
3= Important
{ = Not verv important
5= Not at all important

\ good languagelearner:

I
r'\
a is a willing and accurate guesser 1 2 i3 + 5
/
b tries to get a messageacrosseven if
specihc languageknor,vledgeis lacking I2 3 + 5

C is willing to make mistakes t2 3 + 5

-..
d constantly looks for patterns in the language 1 ,',) 3 + 5

e practises as often as possible T2 3 + 5

f analvseshis or her ou'n speech and the

speechof others 2 3 + 5

o
b
attends to whether his or her performance
meets the standardshe or she has learned l) + 5

h enjoys grammar exercises l1 + 5

.:..
i begins learning in childhood l1 + 5

j has an above-averageIQ + q

k has good academic skills l1 + q

I has a good self-imageand lots of confidence 23 + 5

listedabovecanbe classihed
All of the characteristics i",l@;[I 1;iqsigg!ll3ji9f ,€' v
aptitude,personalitr'. andlearne-r3.*flSgr. Houerer,manr o[the charac(
intelligence.
Gristts .ur-o,-U. ..siFA;;Gi.el. to ile categor\'.For example,the characteristic'i)-
willing to makemistakes'canbe consiieredu p.r.oiulitv and/or a motivationalfactorif the
Iearneris w'iliingto makemistakesin order to get the messaqe across.
 3 0 P A T S Y M . L I G H T B O W NA N D N I N A S P A D A

r' ' "rl

Research on learner characteristics Pr,it{'tt" - "' i , :'t
i

Perhapsthe best rvav to begin our discussionis to describe \gwlqse-4qctt ql th" influence of
learner characteristicson secondlanguagelearninghasbeen carried out.When researchers
are interested in findlng out u-hether an individual factor suchas motlvation affects second
languagelearning, thev usuallv seiect a group of learners and give thgm a questionnaire to
,rr"".rri" qh"_typg-4!-d--dggrg.e of their motivatt-qn.The learners utJth".t given iieit to m-eaiure
,,,,.thef
._, - second language pro{iciencr-.Thetest and the questionnaireare both scored and the
tesearcher
' ' " - - ' - . ' - ' nerforms
r-'^ a correlationon the two measures,to see lr'hether learners w'ith high
scores on the f-fi.i.rr." teif are also more likelv to have high scores on the motivation
questionnaire. If this is the case,the researcher concludes that high levels of motivation are
correlated rvith successin languagelearning. A similar procedure can be used to assessthe
relationship betr,veenintelligence and secondlanguageacquisitionthrough the use of IQ tests.
Although this procedure seems straightforu.ard, there are several dilliculties with it.
\\ -=*-.-The first pr6blem is that it is no-tpossiblelo directlr, observe and-ineasurequaTitiessuChis
motir,,ation, extroversion, or even intelligence.Th"re u." lgtt I.b.]! for an en[ire range oT
-b"luo.iorr^-lnd-iharaiGrlstici.
Further*o.", becausech.Ft..Gilis such as these are not
independent, it r,vill come asno surprise that different researchers have often used the same
,
labels to,-describedifferent sets of behavioural traits.
For example, in motir?tion questionnaires,learners are often asked whether thev
willingly seek out opportunities to use their second languagewith native speakersand if so,
how often thev do this. The assumption behind such a question is that learners who report
that they often seek out opportunities to interact rvith speakers of the second language
are highiy motivated to learn. Although this assumption seemsreasonable,it is problematic
' '
becauseif a learner respondsbv saving ves to this question, lve mav assumethat the learner
has more opportunities for languagepractice in informal contexts. Becauseit is usuallv
impossible to separatethese trvo factors (i.e. r,villingnessto interact and opportunities to
lnteracr,),some researchershavebeen criticized for concluding that it is the motivation rather
than the opportunitv lvhich makes the greater contribution to success.
Another factor u.hich makesit difficult to reach conclusionsabout relationshipsbetween
individual learner characteristicsand second languageiearning is -ho-r1 langyageproficiencv
t
ttdt[*-O andiug4!_q{ed.Toillustrate this point ]e1,r, ."f.r once aguinto'motivation'-. ln the
r,vitha higher level of
fr".o"d languagelearning literature, some studies report that learners
learners than those lvith lolver motivation, while
/imotivation are more successfullanguage
j,othe. studiesreport that highlv motivated learners do not perform anr,better on a proficiencv
litest than learnersrvith much lessmotivation to learn the secondlanguage.One explanation
\ '". rvhich hasbeen offered for these conflicting findings is that tLe iqq€Uegqproficiency't_ests used
. i. di&rent studiesdo not measurethe sameklnd of k"rou-ledge.Thati., ;.t itriot-il lu.tgn"g"
vrhen the proficiency
flearning setfings, highly motivated learners mar'be-iiiofe successful
1/, / t"rtr measureoral communication skills. In other studies, hou-et'er, highly motivated learners
d/ qf
[ -." not be more successful because the tests.are primarilr. 5gg4!qrg! -r4etalinguistic
vknowledge.
Results such as these implv that motivation to learn a second languagemay be
mor€T€Ete4to pAI !,rqUL4_{ .qspegt! o f I anguaqe p r o fi ci en cv than to o ther s.
Finally, there is the problem of interpreting the correlation of tw'o factors as being
\
due 1-o_a qaqfa_l_relationshipbetweenthem.That is, the fact that two thig. tqld to occur
t"gSthg4o_es not necessarilvmean that one causedthe other.While it ma,vbe that that one
" factor influengest-he.1h% ii;;;ro b. tir" casethat both ar6influenced by something else
entirelv. Researchon motivation is perhaps the best context in w'hich to illustrate this.
Learners lvho are successfulmav indeed be hiqhlv motivated. But can vl'econclude that they
 FACTORSAFFECTING SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING 3'-

b;Sanfe r!99_"1{gl bJ!au1e_o{ their motivation? It is aiso plausible that _earl,vlqqlgss

heightenedtheir motivation or that both successand motivation are due to their special
aputude f&-langu"g-elA-."-g or the-Favouri6le context in whlchThev aaete-arrrrrg.--

- ---:.-\
_>
''
IntelliB,ence.

The term'intelligence' hastraditionallv been used to refer to performance on certain kinds

of tests.Thesetestsare often associalqd-uitLsucqessi.n-school, and a link betueen intelligence
and secondlanguagelearning has sometimesbeen reported. Over the vears,manv studies
different methods of assessing
using a varietv of intelljgglC_e(1q,-)_tes19-.gnd languagelearning
have found that Ie scores \\'ere a good means of predicting holv successful a learner r,vould
_- " . ) ,'-
s-!-LA!glJ '"I ,lj
be. Some recent studies have shorvn that these measures of intelligence-:11-q)ifu1-rrr-qJ.e ou'l
related to certain kinds of secoqd langy4g-e-abilities than to others. For example, in a study
r,vithFrench immersionstuJents in Canada,it rvasfound that, w'hile intelligence w'asrelated
to the development of French second language reading, grammar, and vocabulary, it w'as
unrelated to oral productive skills (Genesee 1976). Similar findingshavebeen reported in
other studies.What this suggestsis that, rvhile intelligence, especiallvasmeasured by verbal
re tests, may be a strong factor rvhen it comes tq le4rqing u'h!g,hiayglygSlanguageanalysis
and rule learning, intelligence mav plar, a less important role in classroomsr,vherethe
in<frftffihfo cuses-m-ore on communi cati on 3-q{ -interaction .
It is important to keep in mind that'i4-1-el]g-gncs that individuals have
_rj_9.qqlp-l-e4_4nd
many kinds of abilities and strengths, not all of r'vhichare m€asured bv traditiona! lq 1e1ts.
In our experience, man students w'hose academic performance has been u'eak have
experiencedconsiderablesuccessin secondlanguagelearning.

Aptitude
'is
Tliete evidence in the research literature that,some indir.iduals har.'ean exceptional
'aptitude'
for languageiearning.Lorraine Obler ( 1989) reports that a man, w-homshe calls
Cj, has suc-ha specializedabilitv. CJ is a native speakerof English rvho grerv up in an English
home. His first true experience u.ith a second languagecame at the age of 15 when he began
learning French in school. CJ also studied German, Spanish,and Latin w'hilein high school.
At age 20, he made a brief visit to Germanv. CJ reported that just hearing German spoken
for a short time rvasenough for him to'recover' the German he had learned in school. Later,
CJ worked in Morocco u.-herehe reported learning Moroccan Arabic through both formal
instruction and informal immersion. He also spent some time in Spain and Itall', where he
-
.r-, r--i -
apparentlv'picked up'loth Spanishand Italian in a'matter of w'eeks'.A remarkable talent
indeej-l a
factor hasbeen
ol_ggrl4ggrickllis the distinguishing feature of aptitude.The'aptitude'
inveitigated most indnsive]i bv reseaich-eis'interested in developing tests rn'hichcan be used
to predict whether individuals rvill be efficient learners of a foreign languagein a classroom
setting.The most widelv used aptitude tests are the Modern LanguageAptitudeTest (ML4T)
and the Pimsleur LanguageAptitude Battery 1er-ae).Boih tesislrelasedonih" rriew that
aptitude is composed of different t-vpesof abilities:

(1) the ability to identifv and memorize new sougds;

ir.l the abilitvtoi[J"lra;a-tnaE.,ctio., ofpqtic"iarlp;dr-Ln--s-,en!e-n-qqq;
iules from lgnSrage
(3) the abilitvto figuls ollt-g,ummatTCii samPles;and
6l memorv for neu' rnords.
 32 PATSY M. LIGHTBOWN AND NINA SPADA

While earlier researchrer-ealeda substantialrelationship betlveen performance on the uLRt

or pLABand performance in foreign languagelearning, these studies'"v'ere conducted at a time
i
*h..r ,..o.ri languageteaching was based on Brammartranslatton-^or audiolingual methods- -
'.
\t: With the a more bommunicafive appi'oJ.chtb teaching, manY teachers and
"A.Fd""-;T
researchersiirye to see aptitude as irrelevant to-the Proce-s:of languagl acquisition.
Unfortunatelv, [hi, meansthat relativelr. little ,esearchhas actui]lv explored u'hether having
'abilitv
a skill such as the to identifv and memorize neu' sounds' is advantageouswhen
instructiof,ir!r""1'1"*-;a*,"d:q,IJiil""6*lon'dil::Tql"hlg:l_tlq
classroom
' explanations.
Succesri-,rllu.rgtrug. learners mav not be strong in all of the goqp-olents o[ aPtitu-de.
Some individuals mar, have strong memories bul onll' average abilities in the other
components of aptitude. Ideallv, one could determine learners' profiles of strengthsand
weaknessesand use this information to place students in appropriate teaching programs. An
example of how this can be done is describedblMaiorieWes.Ell2ql;' In a Canadian
lurrgrrug"program for adult iearners of French_, it4lents-were-placed*in-a.n instructionai
p.rt.u-;ni.n was cdmpatible with tfieir aptitude profile and information about their
i.ut"i"g experiences. Students who u,.er-e [gh on an3-[9c abilitg but a'"'erageo1-T-Tot),
i,eg!*:fllgll
,' l*.." uitgn.d to teachiig ihut fogg..J t"g-.t"l.t.tl5{;quctures,_while
u"rtn'u. rkill. ;te p,!q.id- class *-here th. 19..h5;;-_
iir, ..r.rrr,;ii.'biit average &r
,organized iro*.d theTunctional use of the second language in specific situations. Wesche
. reiorted a high level of student and teacher satisfactionwhen stutrents\\,'erematched with
compatible teaching environments. In addition, some evidence indicated that matched
students were able tt attain significantlv higher levels of achievement than those who were
unmatched.
While feu' second language teaching contexts are able to offer such choices to their
students,teachers..rav{i.rdihut knorving the aptitude pro{rle of their students will help them
in selecting appropriate classroom actir,itiesfor particular grouPs of students. Or, if they do
not have snch information, the-v mav u'ish to ensure that their teaching activities are
suf{icientlv varied to accommodate learners rvith different aPtitude profiles.

', "bersonality

,i-.ro*b.. of personalitv characteristicshavebeen proposed aslikely to affect secondlanguage

learning, but it hus nof been e1s1:tg dem.o-qstJate As with
lheir-e-ffectsin empiricq! stqdies_.
other research investigatingthe effects of individual characteristicson second language
learning, different studiesmeasuring a similar personalitv trait produce different results. For
it is oftelr.argued-that-an-exlrgr.ertedperson is well suited to languagelearnilg
"*u1np|.,
Howelrer, ....ur.h does not ahvavs support this conclusion. Although some studies have
found that successin languagelearning is correlated u'ith learners' scoreson characteristics
often associatedw.ith extroversion such as assertivenessand adventurousness,others have
found that man,vqqgge!!!{ lg"grragSlearners do not get high scores on measuresof extro-
l'ersion.
Another aspectof personalitr'rvhich hasbeen studied is inhibition. It hasbeen suggested
that inhibition discouragesrisk-takinq u hiih is necessarvfor progress in languagelearning.
This is often consid.rJ to be a particular problem for adolescents,w'ho are more self:
consciousthan vounger learners.In a seriesoi studies,Alexander Guiora and his colleagues
found support for the elaim that-inhjbition is a negative_forc"_,..tl.uf! for sercondl1gulgg=
p.onr.r.iution performance. One studr. inr.olr-edan analvsisof the effects of small dosesof
alcohol on pronunciation (Guiora er al. 1971i.Thev found that subjectswho received small
 FACTORSAFFECTING SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING 33

p4-p1q4u4ql4qo! te$Lth3l those u'ho dr-d-aqld11nk4y3lcohol.

dorer.slqlqq\ll did_better
While results rrl.h-ir these are interesting, as u'ell as amusing, the',' are not completeTv
conl.incing, sincethe experiments are far removed from the realitv of the ciassroomsituation.
Furthermore, thev mav have more to do r.vithperformance than u'ith learning.We mav also
note, in passing,that lvhen larger dosesof alcohol rvere administered, pronunciation rapidlv
deteriorated !
Severalother personalitv characteristicssuch as self-esteem,empath,v,domi444q9,,
talkatir,-eness-, .L.po.rsivenesshar.e.alsob.."1tt-,di.d.'Fioro-.u.r, in general, the available
".rd
T-esearchdoes not shorv a clearlv defined relationship betu'een personalitv and second
Ianguageacquisition. And, as indicated earlier, the major at{fi.q&1:".investigating Person-
alitv characteristicsis that of identification and measurement.Another explanation rvhich has
been offered for the mixed 6-d;gr .IF.rs*r.lito' ri"di"t ts that personalitv variables may
be a major factor onh. in the acquisition of conversational skills, not in the lcqgisitign-of
\ite"ffiflctureoftheresearihonpersona[ifffbctorsmavbedueinpart/^:
./
io-fi" fi.t fhit comparison, ur" -ud" betrveen stu_drg;that 1neap1r19-cp4q4qqqlqA-ti,v€-?brli!y-
and studies that measure grammatical accuracv or metalinguistic knolvledge. Personality
variabl€3-ie?im[o t'e cohiiStent'h reld,tedio the former, but not to thei]atterr
Despite the contradictorv results and the problems involved in carrving out research in
the area of personalitv characteristics,manv researchersbelieve that personalitv will be
shown to have an important influence on successin languagelearning.This relationship is a
complex one, holvever, in that it is probablv not personalitv alone, but the lvav in lvhich it
combines with other factors, that contributes to second languagelearning.
v
t.'
{
Motivation ond ottitid",

fh"r. hu, been a great deal of research on the role, of attitudes and motivation in second
language learning.lhe overall findings r!'1:1he, pos,itire attjlude-san{ mqtra-t-iqLarc,rela[ed-
to succeqs_insecond languagelearning?Glrdner 1985.;'.. Unfortunatelv, the research cannot
indicate precisely hor motivation is relaied to learningiAs indicated above,we do not know- .f-
ol successful]gitlil-gj!.,
whether it is the motivation ihat produces succ_essful_learning _ _r,
enhancesmotivation o;itRahtsolli=ar"c",ffited br other factors. As not6dE)'P.i&31;8"""2
or'
(i9q, tIe questffiEl-are iearnersmore highl)'motivatedbecausethey are successful, /n,
/t
arethev successful becausethev arehighlvmotivated? l
/r
-Motiaafiirninsecondlanguage rvhichcanbe defined {
lEaintng-isa-compiexp.henomenon -\
rl
/ ) ).r
in terms of t.r",.o factors: learners' communicative needsand their attitudestowards the second
- - : a : : b : - - ; - : -communit\.lfm.d
^Ianquase -.:- -,
l.nguuq.;;;d.
^
*ng-" of* ,to.iul
.' , - r o, :- ' ," --i'i-
situiuonso. io-frlEl profe5ionalambitions.fier .il-LpSfSSit.,h"
e secondla and oti roficiency in it. Likewise, if

il -, r'
E tr

Kir S;oi.n tfi'tf-ttdre tvpes of motivation are related to successin second language learning.
On the other hand, lve should keep in mind that an individual's identity is closely linked
with the wav he or she speaks.lt follou's that u'hen spsaking a n9Ll4g998r glgrydgPtiqg ):
s9rye-9llh-9jde$rlyrnarkers olnother cukg:1g.":p. Depending on the learner's attitudes,
liarning a second language."tr-b. i source of_eniiZFment or a sourceof resentment. If the
speaker-s onli-rearo-n-for-l.utning the second language it internal
"lt.Irql3t_essure, a"
m o ti vati on 4qay-b-em-iuim-al-aqd.g e;e r al attitu d es t onla. di 1 u. ffi -.1'Tii ;-g"tfi . .
"
 34 PATSY M. LIGHTBOWN AND NINA SPADA

One factor rvhich often affects motivatio,n is th-esocial d):IlaEriq gr,pp,!:ef re-lationship
f pe_tryee-46e-lafrgUug"s.That is, members of a minoritv group learning the language of a
and motivation from those o[ majority group
if majorit_vgroup ma-vhave different attitudes
ii*e.nb.ts learning a minoritv language.Even though it is impossibleto predict the exact
'reffect
of such societal factors on second languagelearning, the fact that ianguagesexist in
social contexts cannot be overlooked lvhen u'e seekto understand the variablesw'hich affect
successin learning. Children as r'vell as adults are sensitive to social dvnamics and power
relationships.

-
. l 4 o t i v a t i o nt n t i" ,toru*.tirirroo

In a teacher's mind, motivated students are usuallv those-w_!9 participate actively in

'nl
+-'
, class,expressinterest in ihe subject-matter,and study a great deal.Gachert .utt .util)'..iog-
7t'+?t nize characteristicssuch as these.The,valso_havemore_opportunity to influ:"gg_lhry -_
t
qlraractslistics than students'reasons for studvinglhe r".orrd language or tneiiattit,rd".
toward the linguage and its speakers.If r'vecan_makeour classroomsplaces where students
enjov coming b".urlr. the content is interesting and relevant to their age and ievel of abiliq',
ovliere the learning goals are challen$ing yet manageableand clear, and where the atmoslher_e
I' : :
is supportir.e and irijn-thieatening, \ve can make a positive contribution to students'
motivation to learn.
;lo, Although little research has been done to investig,atg_h_ow- pedagogJ' interacts with
- frlotir arion in .".ond languageclassrooms,considerable.r ork hasbeen donelLthi.qlhg ficl{
of educatio-nalps,l-chologv. In a revierv of some of this rvofk, Graham_Crgokesand Richard-
Gchmiatl 991)fioint to several areasrvhere educational research has reported increased
levels oTmotivation for students in relation to pedagogicalpractices. Included among these
are:

:, At the opening stagesqf lessons(and w'ithin transitions), it

lLotjvating studentsinto the.lesson
hasbeen observedthat remarks teachersmaFe a6out forthcoming actirities can lead to higher
levelsofinterest on the part ofthe students.

and materialsStudentsare reassuredbv the existenceofclassroom

Varyingthe activities,tasks,
routines rvhich thev can depend on. Hou,ever, lessonsrvhich alwavs consist of the same
routines, patterns, and formats have been shou'n to lead to a decrease.in attention and an
increase in boredom.Varying the activities, tasks, and materials can help to avoid this and
increasestudents'interest levels.

IJsingco-operative rat.herthan competitivegoals Co-operative learning activities are those in

which ituiletrts must rvork together in order to complete a task or solve a problem. These
techniques have been found to increase the self-confrdenceof students, including weaker
o n e r , b " . u r r r ee v e r l p a r t i c i p a n t i na c o - o p e r a t i v et a s kh a sa n i - p o t t a n t r o i e t o p l a r .K n o w i n g
that their team-mates are counting on them can increasestudents' motivation.
'-1
',}l
!,. Clearlv,cultural u.d 1S diff.tglces u'ill deterrninethf molt appropriate*'uy fot teachers
to moiivatertudentr.G soileiLssrooms, studentsmav thrive on competitivelnteraction,
rvliilain o1hei5,do-irperativeactivitiesu-ill be more successful.
 FACTORSAFFECTING SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING 35

Learner preferences

tearnershard clbar preferences for hou- thev go about learning new material. The term
Iearning,sl/ei .!a1begn used to describe an indjvidual's natural, habituai, andpreferred way
of absorbing, p{ocessing, and retaining nerv information and skills (Reid 1995). We have ail
heardpeople savthat thev cannotlearn somethi_ng until thev haveseenit. Suchlearners
',ould lall into tlle group culledfi"*l-f*tn.rr)dth.r. p"opl". u'ho ma1'b"cull"dfiilJ- u'"

il};)r, seemro n.".do.rl, to h"Fro*.t6ilg-o=ile or tu'ice beforether knou'it, Fo, oth.r,

,,.h-oute..f.rred to is.anqedto add aphy.sical aclionto the lrl
"r$"q99a{j:.ld.there lf alniqg-qt1'lgs, research
L.a.|-clr
lear!ingprggess. In conEasilotheseperceptuallr,bqsed considerable
hur io.,-,r"d on a cognitive learning str-ie distinction betrveenjeld. t4dgpgnlen_iagAJi,eld ' r-
i; al:r '
l

Jependent learners.This refers to rvhether an individuai tends to separatedetails from the \

qeneralbackground or to seethings more holisticallv..{.noth,ercateqorv of learning st1les is
- t)'rF t c ; .'';'
basedon the irr-divjdqal'steppelament orf,er-s-on4litr.
While recent vears have seen the development of manv learning stvle assessmenl
little research has examined the interaction,lbetlyegq dlfle1gnt learning ' : J
instruments, r,erv-i.t
stvlesand su.c6-ss secondlanguJgeacquiJit'ibn.At present, the onlv learning stvle that has
been extensirelv inr-esli$ut-edftih.i"ld independence/ dependencedistinction.The results
from this research have shou-n that while field indeperrdence_isrelated to some degree to
performance on certain.kj4dlgf tasks,it is not a good predictor of performance on others,
Although theie li'a need-Ior'*considerablr, more research on learning stvles, when
learners
rvhich u'e
"*pr"r,
feel
a preference for seeing something w'ritten gr for memorizilg qaterfa.f
should be learned in a lessformal wa\i, \\-e should not assume.that their w-avs
of uorking are \\-rong. Instead, tt::\g49:lcourage them to q$-elhrqqXnsavailableto-them
{lr
as thel'rvork to learn another language,At a minimum, research on lqhrning stvles should
make us sceptical of claims that a particular teaching method or textbook w'ill suit the needs
of all learners.
J;,

Learner beliefs

Second language learners are not alu-al'sconscious of their individual learning str-les,
about I
opinio_ns
bujry_rually"l_L!e{L"l!rp"lll.ylllllol_d.rls.us].!r.1lg0:._q!ry_ag_b_qlieq."d
how tAeir instruction s,houlille delivered.Thesebeliefs are usuallvbat:d_ql pfgfifsqs learning I

--- _- -.;- _
assuinid-o_nG€It or u.rong) that a particul_11,,rp. of instruction is the
,4a-- . t_1T-
df@iqFEsenffthe )!

bEst u'av for them to Iearn.This is inoiher area u-here little rvork has been done. How'ever,
the auuiiableresearih inilicates that learner beliefs can be strong mediating factors in their
experience in the classroom.For example, in a survev of international students learning
e sl in a highlv communicative program at an English-speakinguniversit,v,Carlos Yorio
- ":1 - -
1t9Se; found high ler-elsof dissatisfactionamong the students.The tvpe of communicative
instruction th-evTeieiveJfocused on meaning and spontaneouscommunication
"*tlusileh'
in group-lr.ork interaction. In their responsesto a questlonnaire,the majoritv of students
expressedconcernsabout ser.eralaspectsof their instruction, most notabiiJhe ableqcggf
attention tg lan_g_uagelorm,-co1r_qS11f9{C9d!q._L,Ql_!94gtret cs11_t1ed inqtrq.ction. Althougn
fhis studv did not directlv examine learners' progress in relation to their opinions about the
instruction thev received, severalof them u-ere convinced that their progress u.asnegativel,v
affected bv an instructional approach rvhich r'r'asnot consistent w'ith their beliefs about the
best w-aysfor them to learn.
Learners' preferencesfor learning, u'hether due to their learning st1'leor to their beliefs
about how-languagesare learned, rvill influence the kinds ofstrategies thev choose in order
 36 PATSY M. LIGHTBOWN AND NINA SPADA

the-:
to learn neu, material.Teachers can use this information to help Iearners expand
strategies and thus develop greater flexibilitv in their \\'av L:
repertoire of learning
approaching languagelcarning'

z'-==---R--
a cqui s ition-",.
,.-'A g e of
We nou'turn to a learner characteristic of a different type: age.This characteristic is easier
to define and measure than personalitr',aptitude, or motivation. Nevertheless,the rela-
tionship betw.eena learner's age and his or her potential for successin second language
acquisition is the subject of much liveh' debate.
It hasbeen u'idelv observed that children from rry11gg1_1!11_llleseventuallv speakthe
languageof their .r"* .o--trnit) ;th nati'"-lik" flE...:,-ir.,i ilrii. p4...,t, .arely achieve
such high levels of masten' of the spoken language.To be sure, there are caseswhere adult
second languagelearners have distinguished themselvesbv their exceptional performance.
For example, one often seesreference to Joseph Conrad, a native speakerof Polish who
became a major writer in the English language.Many'adult secondlanguagelearners become
capable of communicating ver-v successfullyin the language but, for most, differences of
accent, word choice, or grammatical features distinguish them from native speakers and
from secondlanguagespeakerswho beganlearning the languagewhile they were very young.
r1 One explanation for this difference is thalas in first langu4ggagqui-sltion, $ery,19 a_g11ical
'l tlat there is
pe.iod for secondlanguageacquisition.TheiCriticalPeriod Hrpothesis gtLggests
' r,m*-fmui"*iaeGiopti-"ni *'h.n thebraii-islre@oGdfo-sileeE<inlunguug" learning.
O.:{:tlggt changes in the brain,it is argued_,a{ee!Jh-e-qtqre of language*4-cq-r11s-i1ion.
ilhi-.ho...r., aftertheendof the..iti"ul p.ilod -uy
n."oiding 6-this,01"frlu.rg,rug.l-"*"-r.,g
not be based on the innate biological structures believed to contribute to first language
acquisition or second languageacquisition in earlv childhood. Rather, older-learners depend
orr'-o." general learning"abiities- the ,u..r. o.r., thev might use to l"u.r, oth"r-kin-dsofilllls
orhTo.-"tlon.Itli arguetl-thatthese general learning abilities are not as successfulfor
languagelearning u, th. iroa" spec1fic,in*teapa.iti"s-v'ii"har-" *uir.-Fl. tq th" y"r4;qhfa
Ir-ii most olten Jlalmed that the"crig!fuj.tqdejdbj9ls9ub9lg_e!, -LLt rgmg
researcherssuggestit could be even earlier.
=.-6liou.r;tisafn.uTt
lo .o-p... JhiTdt".r and adults as second languagelearners. In
addition to the possibie biological differences suggestedbv the Critical Period Hypothesis,
the conditions for languagelearning are often verv different.Younger learners in informal
languagelearning environments usuallv havemore time to devote to learning language.They
-enviioRments
often have more opportunities to hear and use the language-in where they do
not experiense strong=ple!r,rt"=lo_:p:"k fluentll' an{ frgm
-4-qqq,ratg\' fhe very beginning.
FurthFimor.,1h"";l-mpgftc! effo.ti often praisedor, ut l.url, u...1rt.d. On the
"r.
other hand, oldei learner-s-?-re,often-in s-itqqtig$-,ryhich demand-mu-Chm6re complex
languageand theGipression of much mo-r9ggUr-p-!!,c=4-tgd ideas.Adults are often embarrassed
Uy ttr.lr lack of the and thet' may d;velo-p r"ir. oT l.tadEQuacy after
,mast.Ll "f llguag_e " ts
expericnces oTfrustration in trfin-g to sal' exactly rvhaffiey mean.
The Critical Period Hvpothesishasbeen challengedin recent rvearsfrom severaldifferent
points of vierv. Some studies of the second languagedevelopment of older and younger
learners w.ho are learning in similar circumstanceshaveshown that, at leastin the early stages
of secondlanguagedevelopment, older learners are more ef{icient than vounger learners.
In educationalresearch,it has been ."poit.d ihat leaineis riEoT-.gu" Iearning a second
languageat the primarv school level did not fare better in the long run than those who began
in early adolescence.Furthermore, there are countless anecdotesabout older learners
 FACTORSAFFECTING SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING 37

(adolescentsand adults) rvho have reachedhigh leveisofproficiencv in a secondlanguage.

Does this mean that there is no critical period for secondlanguageacquisition?

CriticalPeriodHypothesis:
,llorethanjustaccent?

Most studiesof the relationship betu'een ageof acquisitionand secondlanguagedevelopment

6tr fc.i;id on learners' phonologicai (pronunciation) achievement. Irrgeneral, these
stridieshate concl-udE-d
that olileileJ"e.silmosfiner.itabh'have a noticeable'foreisn accent'.
ButrvhatofotherIinguisticf";mo,=Jt,.,,."n.",ti.,.t.,iguJ
dependenton ageof acquisitionasphonologicaldevelopment?Whatabout morphology (for
example, grammatical morphemes n'hich mark such things asr.erb tense or the number and
ggDder=olqof4tlOne studv that attempted to ansu-erthese questions'!vasdone bv Mark
Patkor,r-ski
r 1980r.\

Mastervof the spokenlanguage

Mark Patkorvskistudied the effect of age on the acquisition of features of a second language
other than accent. He hvpothesized that, e1eq1i_4g_c.ggt 11qr.qignored, oniv those w'ho had
begun learning their second languagebefore the age of 15 could ever achieve full, native-
liki masten oithut linguage.Pitloii striexamin"d t-fi..pok"n Englilh of"5?l-rig"hlt educated
immigranTsio the UniGd Stut.r.Thev had started to learn fnglish at variouiages, but all
had lived in the United Statesfor more than fir'e vears.The spoken English of 15 native-born
American English speakersfrom a similarlv high level of education served asa sort of baseline
of rvhat the secondlanguagelearners might be tn'ing to attain asthe target language.Inclusion
of the-native speakersalso provided evidence concerning the validity of the research
Droceoures.
A lengthv intervierv rvith each ofthe subjectsin the studv rvas tape recorded. Because
Patkou'ski r.vantedto remove the possibilitv that the results w'ould be affected by accent,
he did not ask the ratJis to judge the tape-recorded intervie*'s themseh,es.I.rsteud,he
transcribed five-minute sampies from the interviervs. These samples (from rvhich anv
identifving or rer.ealing information about immigration historv had been removed) were
rated by trained native-speakerjudges. The judges rvere asked to place each speaker on a
rating scalefrom 0, representing no knorvledge ofthe language,to 5, representing a level of
English expected from an educated native speaker.
'Will
The main question in Patkon'skiA-reqearchrvas: there be a difference between
l944nersu"ho began to iearn English h_Sl. tt
t!gi{ How-ever, in the light of some of the issuesdiscussed above,he also compared learners
on the basisof other characteristicsand experiencesrvhich some people have suggested
might be as good as age in predicting or explaining a learner's eventual successin mastering
a second language. For example, he looked at the relationship betr,veeneventual mastery
and the total amount of time ajppakqr had_bgq.UL!tr_.-_United Statesas rvell as the amount o
of formal ESL instruction each speakerhad had. 6
The findings r,verequite dramatic.Thirtr'-tuoggo{J3lubjects who had begun learning
Englishbefore the age of 15 scored at the 4* or the 5 level.The homogeneitv of t}e pre- u,/ Ar-^t
I
pubertv iearners seemedto suggestthat, for this grorrp, trr-&.rr in learning a secondlanguage
was almost inevitable (see Figure 2. 1). On the other hand, there *'as much more variety in
the levels achieved bv the post-pubertv group. The m{o{11 o{ t!e- pOt-tpg_b-grtylearners
centred around the 3 f level, but there rvasa rvide distribution oflevels achieved.Thisvariety
made the performance of thir group look il"."-f,f." tfr" -rl Jp.rf..-u.,.. range one *otli
expect if one u.ere measuring successin learning almost anv kind of skill or knou'ledge.
 38 PATSY M. LIGHTBOWN AND NINA SPADA

20

Q .^ ,,u
6't
9) ,ll|ll

'l$ll

|I|lili

iilb
r[n
th
*
\
Q .^
d't
q)

2+33+
learners
Post-puberty

levelsof pre- andpost-pubertvlearnersof English

Figure2.1 Bar chartsshou:ingthe language
1980
Source:Patkorvski

Patkow'ski's{irst question,'Will there be a difference betrveen learners who began to

Iearn Englishbefore pubertv and those rvho beganlearning Englishlater?', was ansu'eredw'ith
'ves'.
a very resounding When he examined the othg1'faqgptl rvhich might be thought to
affect successin second language acquisition, thelicturerl-as much less clear.There was,
naturally, some relationship betlveen these other factors and learning success.However, it
often turned out that age was so closeiv related to the other factors that it rvas not really
possible to separatethem completelv. For example, length of residence in the United States
sometimes seemed to be a fairlv good predictor. Holvever, r,vhileit was true that a person
*'ho had lived in the countrv for 15 vears might speakbetter than one who had been there
for onlv 10 vears, it rvas often the casethat the one lr-ith longer residence had also arrived
at an earlier age. Horvever, a person rvho had arrived in the United Statesat the age of 18
and had lived there for 20 vears did not score significantlv better than someone w'ho had
arrived at the age of 18 but had onlv iived there for 10 vears.Similarly,amoun! o{iry[9c-ti9$r
when,_se_paratgd prgdict successto the extent that age of immig-ratio_1did
ft_o,p-'1ge,--did-4qt
Thus, Patkorvskifound that age of acquisition is a terv important factor in setting limits
on the development of native-like masterv of a secondlanguageand that this limitation does
-,-not apph'onh'to
tt .
accent.Theseresultlqave addedsupport to the Cliqcal Period Hypothesis
tl'
./1
second languageacquisition.
..-for

Experience and research have shou'n that natir-e-likemasterv of the spoken languageis
difficult to attain bv older learners. Surprisinglr, even the abilitv to distinguish between
 FACTORSAFFECTING SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING 39

qrammatical and ungrammatical sentencesin a secondlanguageappearsto be affectedby the

agefactor, as rve rvill seein the next studl'bv Johnsonand Newport.

l n t u i t i o n so f g r a m m a t i c a l i t l

Jacq\te-EtrqlOliagqryunrd X"*aof .onducted a studv of 45 Chinese and Korean speakers

5!st"
w:hohad begun to learn English at different ages.All subjectsr,r.erestudents or facultv at an
.\merican universitv and all had been in the United Statesfor at leastthree vears.Thestudv
alsoincluded 23 native speakersof Engiish(Johnsonand Ne."vport 1989).
The participants in the studv rvere given a judgement of grammaticalitv task u.hich
tested 12 rul_gq_qf E1g]ish morphol-gg"tand svntax.Thev heard sentenceson a tape and
had to indicate rvhether or not each sentence\\'as correct. Half of the sentencesrvere
grammatical, half N'ere not.
When thev scored the tests,Johnsonand Neu-portlound that ageof arrival in the United
Stateswas a significant predictor ofluccess o" ih. test. When thei:group"d the Ieainers in
the same\\-ayas Patko..-ski,comparing those u'ho began their intensive exposure to English
between the agesof 3 and 15 rvith those n-ho arrived in the United Statesbetween the ages
of 17 and 39, once again thev found that there w'as_a.strong rylationship bqtwee-nan early
start to lang,uag-e lea-rning and better performance in the.second language..Johnson and
Newport.rot"d ihut-for those u-ho began before ihe uge of 1'5,and especiallvbefore the agc
of 10, there were ferv individual differencesin secondlanguageabilitv.Those rvho beganlater
did not have native-like language abilities and rvere more likeh' to differ greatlv from one
another in ultimate attainment.
This studr', then, further supports the hvpothesis that there is a critical period for
attaining full native-like maEterv of a second language.Nevertheless, there i,ss-o,!ne research
which ltgggstslb?t older learners mav have
--'-- .. at least in ttr" Jffifr"s olseconT
"Jvu.,1ug.,
lu,rg,r"!Su.tti"i.
==_-\
-''1-'7-"''^ -o'
\
,i L yourgu really better?
j
.\
ln 1978, QEtherile Sn-or.v and-MarianlloefnageLHohlegublished an article based on a
research project thev had carried out in Holland. Thev had studied the progress of a group
of English speakerswho rvere learning Dutch asa secondlanguage. What madl their research
especialivvaluable r,vasthat the learners thev rvere follou.ing included children as voung as
three vearsold asrl,ell asolder children, adolescents,and adults.Furtlermore, a large number
of taskswas used, to measure different tvpes of languageuse and languageknowledge.
Pronunciationr'vastested bv having learners pronounce 80 Dutchl,vords twice: the first
time immediately after hearing a native speakersavthe rvord; the secondtime, a fer,vminutes
later, thev w'ere askedto savthe u.ord represented in a picture, lvithout a model to imitate.
Tape recordings of the iearners lvere rated bv a native speakerof Dutch on a six-point scale.
ln an ouditorSdiscrimination test, learners salv pictures of four objects. In each group
of four there $'ere two rvhosenamesformed a minimal pair, that is, alike except for one sound
(an example in Englishrvould b9'shp' and'sheep'). Learnersheard one of the rvords and
were askedto indicate r.'-hichpicture *as namedbv the word thev heard.
Morphologs,was tested using a procedure like the'rvug test', r'vhich required learners
to complete sentencesbv adding the correct grammatical markers to w'ords which
were supplied by the researchers.Again, to take an example from English, Iearners rn'ere
askedto complete sentencessuch as'Here is one bor'.Nolv there are two of them.There are
two
40 PATSY M. LIGHTBOWN AND NINA SPADA

length
Ihe sentencerepetition task required learners to repeat 37 sentencesofincreasing
and grammatical comPlexitv'
English to
\o, ,"nrrn1- translation,i"u..t.., u'ere given 60 sentencesto translate from
into the correct
Dutch. A point lvasgir.enfor eachgrammaticai structure rvhich lr-asrendered
Dutch equivalent.
ejudgemenncsfr,learners \vere to judge lvhich of trvo sentenceswas better.
In the sentenc
The same content \\'as exPressedin both sentences,but one sentence l\''asgrammatically
correct r,r'hilethe other containederrors.
ln the peabodyPicturelbcabulary 7Zsr,learners sarvfour pictures and heard one isolated
'"vord spoken bv the tester'
r,vord.Their task rvas to indicate r'vhichpicture matched the
For the storycomprehension task,learnersheard a storv in Dutch and r'verethen askedto
retell the story in Englishor Dutch (accordingto their preference).
Finallv,rh'estorytJlltnrrasftrequired learners to tell a ston'in Dutch, using a set of pictures
content
thev were given. Rate oi d.liu"- of speech mattered more than the expression of
or formal accurac\'.
The learners rvere divided into severalage groups, but for our discussionwe will divide
adults
them into just three groups: children (aged31o 1O), adolescents( 12 to 15 vears),_and
( 1B to 60 vears).The chilire.r and adoleicents ail attended Dutch schools. Some of the adults
spoke English
,uo.k.d ln Dutch lvork environments, but most of their Dutch colleagues
had
well. Other adults were Parents u'ho did not u'ork outside their homes and thus
somewhat less contact rvith Dutch than most of the other subjects.
The learners lvere tested three times, at four- to five-month intervals' They u'ere first
starting
tested within six months of their arrival in Holland and rvithin six weeks of their
school or work in a Dutch-lanquaqe environment.

Activity

Comparing chjld, adolescent,and adult language leatners

Which group do vou think did best on the {irst test (that is, u'ho learned fastest)?Whichgroup
do -uo,,ihi.rk rvasbest bv the end of the vear?Do vou think some grouPs would do better on
."ri"i., tasksthan others?For example, rvho do vou think would do best on the pronunciation
tasks,and lvho lvould do best on the tasksrequiring more metalinguistic awareness?Compare
vour predictions u,ith the results for the different tasksu'hich are presented inTable 2. 1 . An
iX'
indi.u,". that the group was the best on the test at the beginning of the vear (an indication
of the rate of learning), r'Y'indicates the group that did best at the end of the year (an
".,d
indication of eventual attainment) '
In the Snorvand Hoefnagel-Hohle studr',the adolescents',verebv far the most successful
learners.They \\'ere aheadoflvervone on all but one of the tests (pronunciation) on the {irst
test session.That is, rvithin the Iirst ferv months the adolescentshad already made the most
the
progress in learning Dutch. As the table indicates, it rvasthe adults who were better than
and adoleicents on pronunciation in the first test session.Surprisingly, it was also
"niid.".r
the adults, not the children , ll'hose scoresn'ere secondbest on the other tests at the first test
session.In other rvords, adolescentsand adults learned faster than children in the first fern'
months of exposure to Dutch.
Bv the of the vear, the children u'ere catchinS rPl o. had surpassed,the adults on
"r,d of
,..ro".ulmeasures.Nerertheless,it rvas the adolescentsw-horetained the highest levels
performance overall.
 FACTORSAFFECTING SECONDLANGUAGE LEARNING 47

Table2.1 Comparisonof languagelearningat differentages

child Adolescent Adult

Pronunciation Y
Auditory discrimination XY
Morphologv XY
Sentence repetition XY
Sentence translation XY
Sentence judgement XY
Peabody picture vocabularv test XY
Storv comprehension Y X
Storvtelling T X

* These tests are too difficult for child learners

Snow'andHoef
no critical Deriod for lan
l-Hohle concl heir results orovide evidence that there is
can De lnterDreted ln some i)
other rvavsas well:

1 Some of the tasks (for example, sentencejudgement or translation) u'ere too hard for
young learners. Even in their native language,these tasks u-ould have been unfamiliar and
difficult. In fact, young Dutch native speakersto u.hom the second languagelearners rvere
compared also had trouble rvith these tasks.

2 Aclubr and-adolgsggr,tsruaulearn-farterin the e:q\'stges qf second lang9ag9-der.etop-"nf

(especiallv if thev are learning a language r'r'hichis similar to their first languageLlgllg I
children eveqtuallv catch-u,p 1n4_etqg surpass-lhsm,rf their exp-q-s-ufg to_theJa4girgg" 1*"t
i
pft th")'ir" ,t..o,r.,dedbv the-]grtguage a"lry'U"sii
" 14r-.-nte$1^,][gf" "" " \
3 Adults and adolesc-entscan make considerable and rapid progress tow'ards mastery of a I
se"ond 1i-.r$ia!e 1n contexts rvhere thev can make use of the language on a dailv basis in
social, p".iggl-plgfessional, or academicinteraction.

At what age should secondlanguage instruction begin?':

Even people r,vhoknou'nothing about the critical period researchare certain that, in school
'vounger
programs for second or foreign languageteaching, is better'. Horvever, both
experience and researchshorv that older learners can attain high, ifnot'native', levels of
proficiency in their secondlanguage.Furthermore, it is essentialto think carefully'about the
goals of an instructional program and the context in r'vhich it occurs before we jump to
conclusions about the necessitv- or even the desirabilitv - ofthe earliest possible start.
The role of the critical period in second languageacquisition is still much debated.
For ever-v researcher vrho holds that there are maturational constraints on language
acquisition, there is another rvho considers that the 1ge factor cannot be sepal?ted from
factors such as motivation, social identitr', and the conditions for learning, T!*e:y argug -
that oldei lear'riers mav r'r,'ellipeak u'ith an accenl'be..r.tr" th"t' want to continue being
identified u'ith their first language cultural group, and adu!!qlel9!I€S!qgeTs 11tLe_sylme
quantity and qualitt' of languageinput that children receir.-ein_plavsettings.
 \/
--:J-=>
42 PATSY M. LIGHTB0WN AND \i',.1 SDADA
/'"
Manv people conclude on the basis oisrudi-s such as those br'Pl4o*tki or Neu'port
and Johnsonthat it is better to begin secondlan;uag.-in.truction a/earlv as possible.Yetit
--:-:-- :-:.\: : ::^tst studies.Thet'deal u'ith the highest
is ven'important tc,L.earlr' nr:. 1
. , - - . . : : - = - . ' . . , a r . r h i c h 4 s e c o n { l a n g u a g e s p e a k e ri s
p o s s i b l el e r e l o i s . . , - , n c, . t : ^ _ . - : . 1. <
i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b ll.r . ' n r . . . . =-.: b..: .-:-. ':r.r .rnlti, e-likemaiten' of the second
",,.
language - ' _ "a- :g,--,alt",r al, ... "r,: ,r:-.3:.-
' * " s " _ * sis' "not ':.:r:;l. "- in-il'fcan
-''fr'h"n the oF;ectiveof =econd lanluagrT-.arnin;i. nati\e-likemastervof the target
language,it is usualll desirableior th. lcarncr Io L,ccumpletelv surroundedbv the language
asearly aspossible.Hos'ever.earh rntensi\ r c\posurc to the secondlanguagemay entail the
Iossor incomplete development oi the child's nrst lanquaqe.
When the goal is basic communicative abilitv tor all studentsin a school setting, and
w-henit is assumedthatlhe child's nati\e languaqcu'lll remain the primarv language,it
may be more efficient to begin second or,ioretgnlanguageteaching later. When learners
receive only a few hours of instruction per l'eek, learners u'ho start later (for example, at
age 10, 1 1 , or 12) often catch up w'ith those u'ho began earlier.We have often seen second
or foreign languageprograms which begin u'ith ver\-\'oung iearners but offer onlv minimal
contact r,vith the language. Even rvhen students do make progress in these early-start
programs, thev sometimeslind themselvesplacedin secondarvschool classeswith students
rvho have had no previous instruction. After vears ofclasses, learners feel frustrated by the
lack of progress, and their motivation to continue mav be diminished. School programs
should be basedon realistic estimatesof how long it takesto learn a secondlanguage.One or
f; t*o hours a rveek will not produce verv advancedsecoqd languageqpeakers,no maiter how
I I L_.

\ young tlierir'lnere u:hen thev began.

Summary )

The learner's ageis one of the characteristicswhich determine the w-ayin which an individual
approachessecond language learning. But the opportunities for learninS (both inside and
outside the classroom), the motivation to learn, and individual differences in aptitude for
Ianguagelearning are alsoimportant determining factors in both rate of learning and eventual
successin learning.
In this chapter, rve have looked at the rvavsin which intelligence, aptitude, personality
l, and motivational characteristics,learngr preferences, and age have been found to influence
second ianguage _!93141,tg,%have leained that the stud)- .!l!!itt1"al learner variables is
t, , \,
I+. not eniire\:i^iirf".tofrThis is partlybecause
, not easvandthe$herelri&cc{t:qlearc}rare
, of lhe*Jackof clear definitions and methods for the individuai characteristics.It is also due
't\r,\'
! ,to the fact thafLhggg-learner-gharacteristicsare,no,t-independentof one another: learner -
i So far, researchersknou'very little about the nature of
,-- rariables interact in complex \\-at's-.
/ i.rt"r".Tio.rr.Th,rr, it remains difficult to make precise predictions about how
A . th-ese compG*
a particular individual's characteristics influence his or her successas a languagelearner.
l :y"
i' \ii Nonetheless,in a classroom,a sensitiveteacher,u'ho takeslearners'indiv_idual personalities ,
1-
and learning stvles iirto account, can create a learning environment in *'hich virtually all
learners can be successftilin lbarning a s-econdlanguage.
l

t2_ ,
/\
 FACTORSAFFECTING SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING 43

References

'N'lotivation:"Reopeningthe research
Crookes,G. and Schmidt,R. (1991) agenda"', Language
Learning41 / 4: 469-512.
Gardner, R. ( 198 5) SocialPsvchology and Second Learning:The RoleoJAttttudesand
Language
Motivation.London: EdrvardArnold.
Gardner,R.C. and Lambert,\,\.E. (1972) ,4ttitudes in Second-LanBuaBe
and,Motivation Learning.
Rou'ley,Mass.:NervburvHouse.
'The
Genesee,F. (1976) role of intelligencein secondlanguagelearning', Language Learning
26/ 2: 267-80.
'The
G u i o r a , A . , B e i t - H a l l a h a m iB, . , B r a n n o n ,R . , D u l l , C . a n d S c o v e l , T .( 1 9 1 2 ) e f f e c t so f
experimentallvinducedchangesin ego stateson pronunciationabilitv in a secondlanguage:
An exploratory studv' , Comprehenive Psychiatr,t' 13/ 5: 421-8 .
Johnson,J. and Newport, E. (1989)'Critical period effectsin secondlanguagelearning:The
influence of maturational state on the acquisition of Englishasa secondlanguage.'Cognitive
Psychology 21 60 99 .
, . , M a d d e n ,C . , P r e s t o n D
O b l e r ,L . ( 1 9 8 9 ) ' E x c e p t i o n asle c o n dl a n g u a g lee a r n e r s ' i,n G a s s S , .
and Selinker,L. (eds.) lariationin Second Language Acquisition,Vol. II: Psycholinguistic Issues.
Clevedon,UK/Philadeiphia,Pa.:N{ultilingualN{atters,pp. 141-9.
Patkow-ski, M. (1980)'The sensitiveperiod for the acquisitionof svntaxin a secondlanguage',
L a n g u a gLee a r n i n 3 g0 / 2 : 4 4 9 1 2 .
Skehan,P.(1989) lndividualD{ferences in Second Language Learning.London: EdwardArnold.
Reid, J. (ed.) (1995) LearningStviesin the ESL/EFL Classroom.NervYork:Heinie & Heinle.
Snow,C. andHoefnagel-Hohle, M. (1978)'Thecriticalperiodfor languageacquisition:evidence
from secondlanguagelearning',ChildDevelopment 49 / 4: 1 11+-28.
Wesche, M . B . ( 1 9 8 1 ) ' L a n g u a g ea p t i t u d e m e a s u r e i
s n streamingm , a t c h i n gs t u d e n t sw i t h
methods,and diagnosisof learningproblems', in Diller, K. (ed.) lndividualD{fercnces and
(Jniversals in Language Learning Aptitude.Roulev, N{ass. : NewburYHouse.pp. 1 19-39.
Yorio, C. (1986)'Consumerism in secondlanguagelearningand teaching',CanadianModern
Language Review 42 / 3: 668 81 .
 Chapter 3

RodEllis

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION:

RESEARCHAND LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY

Introduction

lists and expiicit srammar rules. The audiolinquist one

dreu' on behaviourist

Starting from the 1960s, two approachesto addressingthis lacuna have been evident.
The {irst, a continuation of the approach adopted in earlier research, consistsof attempts to
i n v e s t i q a t et h e r e l a t i v ee f f e c t i v e n e sosf d i f f e r e n t u a v s o f t e a c h i n gl a n g u a g ei n t e r m s o f t h e
products of lea.rniqg.Experimental studiesbv SchererandWertheimer (1964) and Smith
(1970), for exarygle_,_lemp4rgdlhe_,1_.gf1q13s.o"tcomes of the grammar-translationand
audioLingual
a u d i o l i n g u a -"doar.
l e t h o d s .ffl"
m T h e r*ft., h o v r e r e r ). r*t.
r e s u l t s .d'ay:"rr e r e i";"".f,*ii".
i n c o n c l u s i r eThe
T. h e studierlfliTE*.,,o
studics/failit\to
'---.=-7 -]---:-- \.
demonstrate the superioritv of one mettr6d over the other
lh-e second appro_achinvolved the empirical stud)' of hou' learner: acquired an_L2.In
f i r s t p l a c e ot h i s t o o k t h e f o r m o f s t u d i e suor f lr Lea ra rr rnt r e rJ s w' JJ . r r s r s\1L .eX .. g UD
.Uu
J \ vs k o v a\1/ 9
v@ \ ) /6
, , 9 ;4
ar tnu d LcOaJ Cs e
l---...'....t'r.
t I
-
s t u d i e so J i n d i v i d u a ll e a r n e r sl e a r n i n ga s e c o n d l a n g u a g n e o t i n t h e c l a s s r o o mb u t t h r o - u s h
g
expii'iii6lo-Tt-ft n-aturalsettings1e.g.Karqm 1968).Thesestudiesi"uglfed&I-! ol!.rgggh
ffir..-ri

Wto which teaqherscould easilvrelate it onlv becausethe constructs on'which thevraie-rclased

- errors and individual learners- \\,ereonesw.ith r,r,hichthev r,verefamiliat.Also, these
.
bI
sludies proved lq-gls fey@g than the global method comparisons,ploviding clear

f1
evidence that L2 learners, like children acquiring their lirst language(L1), accumulated
F"*l.G-Fin"-t""gil.gethev.@!g!iysyrtrryttcfashion.
o
Thus,{lrereas global method studiessoon fell out of fashion,istudies of L2 learningtook
off;,,6n\u.bJr.'.
Much of this earlv rvork in SLA u'as pedagogicallvmotivated.That is, researchers
pedadoffi-ssues.
c o n d u c t e ds t u d i e so f L 2 l e a. r n i ni . gn i t h t h e e r p| r e_s si n t e n t i o n o f a d d r e s s i n g
_ ..-......_-_-,---!__b__....-:_:>
 SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION 45

\ianv of these researchers*'ere, in fact, originallr'teachersthemselves.2Thepapers they

r r. t I
rvrote and published about their researchtvpicall)' concluded u'ith a secjion in w'hi"h th"
applic4iopaldimpligggqns for ianguagepedagogr-u'erespeiled out.The studies of learner
t rrors,?or herl' attitudeio erro.i, r.[x
"*u-p - - rrr i l:i i ..
t - r F O f S h o u l db e c o r r e c t e da n d n o \ l - l e a r n e p
r r o g r e s s
c o u l o D ee v a l u a t e oI. n e C a s eS t u d l e so f
i",lit; chers should desist
'intervene'
from trying to directlv in the processof L2 acquisition and, instead, develop
approachesthat rvould aliorv learners to learn'naturallr'' (Ne*'mark 1955 and Dulav and Burt
1973).
SLA has grown exponentiall'n'since its beginning in the 1960s. One of the outcomes of
growtn
its growth
ItS dt\ersrncatron ls tnat
and dirersiAcation
u.,-d ihat mucn oI tne researcn ls no longer olrecflv concerne( V-
o.-

@. According to a theorv advancedbl' Chomsk

Iearn their mother tongue because
r task rs to est orv the abstract principles that
tonstitute ttusln6wlilige are minifest in the particular grammar thev are learning. One of
the main goals of UG based SLA is to investigatervhether and hou' these principles operate
inf) .
l6"oryJfuFTh* to th. pru.ti..l p.obl r_.
"dd..r,
lhgrist-ics.
Other sub-fields of SL-{ hlre continued the tradition of strong links with language
pedagogv.Tivoin particular stand out.The flrst is the studv ofthe role ofinput and interaction
iql-iucquisitio.t ie.g. Lone 198r .',d P
l.'P@i'Pot"ntialho[considerabIere]eiancetoteachers.indeed,o-''"l
rr tunitieQ-hian l
and usfE-e L2. The-theorieslnd findings 'ihi. to
\i
1I
ciJssr-oo-mieieirch, as,for example, in studiesu'hich haveinvestigatedthe kinds of input and
interaction afforded b;'different l'pes_ollanguage ta_sks(see Crookes and Gass 1993) and
IV
b-vdifferent modes of .lurrro* pnEiclpition (eg Pica and Doughtv 1985).The second*2
sub held ot SLA u'ith clear links to lanquagepedaqoq! rs the studv ot tglrn:lesu:ed]nstlyj- I
\-
tion. SLA researchershave investigated l.hether teaching learners particular grammatical ]
\
ffi.,,r.", actuallv results in theirieing learnt (e.g. Spad"aand Lighibou,n 199"3)and, also, I
what metlodological options for teaching grammatical structures are most effective (e.g. \
VanPattenand Cadierno 1993). )
Hou'ever, irrespective of *'hether SLA addressesissuesof likelv t"i".gttglolg4gbSlt,
there is the problem o-TT-dp-Eet$e€nSLA- - - = . - ; i and langua
-a
#r
not so much a ouestlon ol \\'hat lssues )L.\ addresseE.

.;"a".mkethatofa11academl.di'.ip-Ii"ei,xto.1o.ntributetotechnica1,]
k n o w l 1 d g 9 . t h , i s r e f l e c i e di n t h e f a c t t h a t S L . \ i s . b r a n d l u . g e .G e p i e s e r v eo f u n i r e r s i t l -
basedresearchers,rvhoseprimarv allegianceis to the conduct of n-ell-designedstudiesand
theorv development in their lield.This is astrue of t}ose researchersrvho are concerned'r'vith
areasof potential relevance to languagepedagogr'(e.g. igpgLlntglagllgn qn-dt\"_11g._-,'.hf
form-focusgd instructiolr) as it is of researcherslvho see SLA as a means of contributing to
other disciplines such as linguistics or cognitive psvchologv.In contrast, Ianguagepedag,ogy
is concerned with plggqg?i.lqqftlqlge. Textbook u.riters drarv on their experience of the
kinds of activities that rvork in classrooms and, of course, on their familiaritv t'ith other
published materials. Teachersdrau' on their hands-on knou'ledge to perform the myriad of
tasks that comprise teaching.
Given that a gap exists betrveen SLA and languagepedagogv and assumingthat SLA is,
at least, of some potential relevance,the question arisesas to horv the gap can be bridged.
 46 ROD ELLIS

Mv perspectiveis that of the.outsider;iqid".i fo. ._of

"
D
I
(r'

Technical and practical knowledge

V t,
it exists in a declarative form that has been ecrU thesereasonsi ilxamined
u@ t l l l . l

r@sr'"g
l . # , .

deeplyaboutthe objectof g"q"iry o. b)'i"u. nglt empiifcilli:The latter i"g]y:-$e

G-t of orocedures desi to ensure the validitv and reliabilitv of the
lvledgeisgeneralized;thatis,ittakestheformofstate.
......"..".#
r. i-----^^--:---llE?lft--.t-^^.^-t:^-r
ments that earl DcaDDlled to manv oartlcular cases.f or lnrs reason. lt cannot easrlv De aDDlg,o
neededto dealu'ith pry!]"-r ur tg.L rg9y.
rapiddecision-makinq
I ln cla\'-to-cla)tr\.'tg.
l'
-
o'er the vears,SQlHerspro'ided a substantiai
P5[o.[t"1h'd99w^led_g:lbo,uthow
people learn a second language.This is reflected in the evFg?oTinfset of tec6nJcalterms
usedlo laliel this knowledge: overgeneralizationand transfer errors, order and sequenceof
acquisition,foreigner talk, input and intake, noticing, learning and communication strategies,
the teachability hypothesis (seethgglgssarv in Ellis I 994 t.This technical knowled€e and the
terms bel it constitute the's( irefullv suardedb,r'practitioners oI SLA.
In contrast.oracticallnorr 'ledge is,.implicit and intuitive.IMe are generally ng! awale of
what u'e o.u.ti.r**horr-. For e x a m o l e .I k n o u h o u t o t i e m v s h o e l a c e sb u t I h a v el i t t l e
u*ffin.". aT-oillF$Gn6ce of actions I must perform to do this and could certainly not
describe them verv w'ell. In colllqst t-ateeh[ica] knou-ie-dge,pqgf*icalknon led]gbgcquired
'}1
al experiehg: in the context of performing actionsEE;-n:;f
iI are only Poorlv unders i?nilarl\apractical knolrledgeis Fulh e ible only in
I
I
PI a
d

q!-anagqof practical knowledge is that it is groceduralized and t}us can be drawn on rapidly
....w

and eihcrentlv to handle partlcular cases.

-
PractisinqoroGsslonalsr lalr vers. doctors. and teacherst are orimarilv concerned with
actioninvoIvingparticularcasesandforthisreasondql
b"oul9@rk.Freidson(1977,citedinEraut1994:53)describes
how medical practitioners operate :

1 One w-hosework requires practical application to concrete casessimply cannot

f maintain the same flrame of mind as the scholar or scientist: he cannot suspendaction
i ln th" absenceof incontrovertible evidence or be skeptical of himseif, his experience,
: his work and its fruit. In emergencies he cannot rvait for discoveries of the future.
\ Dealing rvith individoul ..r"r,-h" cannot relv solely on probabilities or on general
, concepts or principles: he must also relv on his ou'n senses.By the nature of his work
j the clinician must assumeresponsibilitr' for practical action, and in so doing he must
rely on his concrete, clinical experience.

Teachers,facedu'ith the need to make countlessdecisionsto accomplisha lesson,must also

 SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION 47

necessarilvrelv primarilv on the practical knou.ledge thev have acquired through teaching
or, perhaps, through their experiences of having been taught. Ho-uvever, it may b_eposs-i-bJe
for other practitioners of languagepedlgog,v(e.g.svllabusdesigners,test constructors,and
mareilalsn riters t to attempt some integrationof tec.hnicaland practicalkrlqgledge, astheir
actir itjes are more amenable_ to ca.relulplanning and de]ibelglsllecrqlsn:n0aking.
The crucial issue is the nature of the relationship betu'een technical and practical
knowledge.To rvhat extent and in r,vhatwavs can the technical knolvledge derived from deep
reflection and research influence actual practice? Holv can technical know-ledgebe utilized
in the creation of the kind of practical knou.ledge u'ith u-hich teachersmust necessarilv
u'ork? Weiss ( 1977) provides a \\.avof addressingthese questions.He describesthree models
ofresearch use.

modelAccordingto this model,tesea.chis aimedat i

Decision-driven
--- or a reviqgs
of L2 acqrtisition
decisionJhus,
- ---------;- the.startingpointfol research
is not a theor,y*
oieiE]lresearch but rather somepracticalissueof direct concernto teachers.There is a
con C DOCI\ appearsto ht rnto th-ismodel. Horveler, for this
researchto be trulv decision-drivenit needsto be formulatedin a mannqrthat leachcrr--wjlL
C;aily understani.This is often not their articles
^--'re
for publl-ati6fr'Tn journals and books that rvili be read bv other researchers even if they
addressissuesofdirect concern to teachers.In fact. then, much ofthe SLA researchthat
apparentlvbelongsto the decision-driven model is more trulv representativeofWeiss' second
model the know'ledge-drivenmodel.

. Knowledge driven model Knorv chi -to contribute to a specific

cnSdiDIInE.lts prlmar
t
y I is to advancethe knou'led baseof the disciolinebrt6i-struct
'- . r.--:---i
and testtnge4Phctt th o g i . A s * e h a ' e s e e n ,o n e
wav of characterizing the development of SLA as a field of study is in terms of a gradual
movement torvardsknow'ledge-drivenresearch.Much of the earlier researct-r rval descriptive
in nature (e.g. the studies of l"u..r.. errors and t6? cile;t,rd*, .f- *d"nd""l 1."rn1;t,
motivated quite explicitlv bv a desire to inform pedagogv and published in a form that was
relativelv accessibleto teachers.Later research,although certainlv not all, hasbeen designed
to test specific SLA theories, has been incr_eg1ngry_gr(lerimentalrnnaru-e;nfrhafbe-en-
written ;bout \\.ith;il; rese;r.h.rr * tlr. i"t""a.a audience. Researchersmav feel theii
r t often see little need to consider its
applications directlr'.

lnteractjvemodel Here tec-hnr:gllne\\ ledge and practical knon'ledge are inte_r-L+tgd in the
perfor-unce of some proft . The ',vav in which this is achieved is highly
complex. Weiss(1977 : 87-8) comments:

the process is not of linear order from research to decision but a disorderly r"l---l
of i.rt"..orr.rections and back-and-forthnessthat defies neat diagrams.All kinds of
people involved in an issue area pool their talents, beliefs, and understandings in a n r
effort to make senseof a problem.

Not surprisinglv,then, the interactive model is problematic. As Eraut (1994) points out
there_4re.variousfactors that constrain the professional's ability_llqnlqke_u;e_ofthe knorvledge
qgetr$blo"gh. g. Fervresourcesare available
for effectingin interaction. Funding for research, for example, is tvpicallv au'arded to
48 ROD ELLIS

universit_v-basedresearchers concerned u'ith knou'ledge-creation rather than to teams oi

researchersand teachers concerned rvith solving practical teaching problems through a
pooling of expertise.Teachers rarelv havethe time to familiarizethemselvesrvith publishec
research. Also, the verv nature of technical and practical knorvledge makes it difficult tc
inter-relate.Considerableeffort and probablv prolonged interactionare neededto combin.
the analvtical skills of the researcher u'ith the holistic and highlv contextualized skills of the
teacher.
Similar problems exist regarding the utilization of practical knowledge in the creation ot
technicalknou'ledge.P.1gl$]-\Irow is Iarselr tacit and difficult to codify.Conse
.-
quently, its rel i l v a s s e s s eGd i.r e nt h e r e q
t
u i r e m e nt h
t at
technical knou.ledge is demog.strabll'reliabie and valid, researchers generall@,refer-
knor,t'ledgeSHou'eler,\ Eraut ((1994)
ence to practical knox-iedqeSHou.ever,-4s 1994) notes, researchers'own o\\'n practical
practica
- - - 1

Fiperiences mar ot'Lenlnlluencetherr \\'ork rn subtleand unstatedil-vs.To a certain extent

ihen. the interactionmodel mar woil-ili6lltilK
ow'ledge helps us to understand whr
SLA, as it has evolved since its inception, cannot automaticalh'be assumedto be of use
in Ianguagepedagogv and, particularlv, to classroom teachers.The gap between SLA and
language pedagogv is a product of both the tvpes of knon'ledge these trvo fields tvpicallv
emplov and the lack of opportunitr- to bridge the gap.

The SLA researchers' perspective

The nature of the relationship betw'een SLA and language pedagogv has attracted the
attention ofa number ofresearchers over the vears.A useful starting point in our exploration
ofhow SLA might inform pedagogv is to take a look at rvhat these SLA researchershavehad
to sav.
The application of SLA can take place in tw-o rather different r,r.ays. As Corder (1977)
has pointed out, the starting point can be the researchitself w.ith the applied linguist cast in
the role ofinnovator or initiator, advancingpedagogicalproposalson the basisofhis/her
knor,r.ledgeof SLA. This corresponds to Weiss'sknon'ledge driven model of research use.
Alternatively, the starting point can be unsolved practical problems in languagepedagogy,
in rvhich case the SLA researcher takes on the role of a consultant n'ho is approached b-v
practitioners for possiblesolutions.This correspondsto Weiss'sdecision-drivenmodel of
research use.We find both tvpes of application discussedin the literature but it is probabl,v
the first that is paramount, reflecting, perhaps,the dominance of the researcher'sperspective
over that ofthe teacher's.
In general, SLA researchers a strong interest in pedagogyhavebeen cautious about
"vith
applying SLA. Earlv articles bvThrone et a|. (1976) and Hatch (1978) emphasizedthe need
to be careful. Hatch lamented that researchers have often been over-ready to make
applicationsto pedagogv,pointing out'. . our field must be knorvn for the incredible leaps
of logic w.e make in applving our researchfindings to classroom teaching'.Tarone et al.
(1976) advanceda number of reasonsu'hv SLA could not serve as an adequatebasisfor
advisingteachers.Among other points, thei' argued that the researchto date was too limited
in scope, that the methodologl'for collecting and anal-vsingdata was unproven and that too
few studies had been replicated.Thev also noted that the practices ofresearch and teaching
were verv different in nature. Whereas researchers adoplg-d-aslow, bit-by-bit app1q4ch,
teachershad immediate needsto ,rt
--
difference in terms of the distinction betu'een technical and practical kno'ivledge.
 SEcOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION 49

The concernsvoiced bvTarone et aL.(1976) and Hatch (1978) are verv real ones.They
reflect the understandable reticence of researchersto plunge in before thev are certain of
their results.This uncertaintl'about the quality of the researchbein ced mav havebeen
one of the reasons r.vh"-
some researcherss adding sectionson the applications of their
..r""..fio-tf,Eil-published aiti.lof m.etrorp".t, horr;er;ei,
I amnot sosurethatresearchers
need to be so cauuous.As Corder ( 1980) noted, teacherscannot '"vaituntil researchersare
r - ! . \ . - .

completelysatisfiedthat their resultsare robust u"Tg.""-=lilBl.. Sh;ila t...h"iliotE"

:;ii:!:r|" -
per-itted to basetheir pedagogicalde<rs-ffiiG ontnemft inlormation arailableeven if this
is still inadequatein the el'es of researchers?More importanth', the applv-w.ith-caution
approach makes certain assumptions about the relationship betlveen research,/theorv and
practice which are themselveschallengeable.It appearsto vieu-the practitioner asa consumer
of rqe_gg.h.FryT r"gb u .t3llTj.99rse, it is essentialto make sure tbal the product being
--
marketed is a sound o,r". BG * i* itill ,.. ffi-elffi;;tEerpos,ltutt ]t;"*';Tti. relations1rifi-
| +--'--l-r---
Derw.eenresearcn
-_'-_*"-.lei-*-
ano practicesis not acceptableto manv educators and mav not serve asthe
rifiTTTppropr i atg modgjg itlgusling L,9I_!! 4 S"" aid teachilLg
--ni#;i.
t. t-heinstrumentalview of SLA im!"hcit in the earlyarticlesbv
"f,".".ril'.,
Throneetal. (1976) andHatch(1978).One is that SLAshouldnot somuchbe usedto tell
practitioners u'hat to do, as to mform their under
so tnat will knorv better rvhat it is possibleto achievein a ciassroom.This is the position
adopteil b1-Lightbown i1t85;. Shearguesdut SlA htrsnorthingt{"ll teachersabout w'hat
to reacn Dur serves as fguide about hou' to teach. Lightbolvn recognizes that teachers lvill
l l

w.hich do not but she sussests amrharttr \\'lth the results 11ea1chrvill help
teacher im ate r.,ptheii..rinFFoili ghtbor,r'n,tIS ies not in identiflinq
.<1
lnnovattve tecnn or ne\\' teacrunqaDDroacnes Dut rat ins expectanc-iElendin
Iending support to particular a ches, su-chas tanguage From
ffitedrelevancetolanguagepedagogy,forasLightbown
( t b t d . : 1 8 2 c) o m m e n t s :

Second-language acquisitionresearchdoesnot teli teacherswhat to teach, and lvhat it

saysabout howto teach thev have alreadr' figured out.

If this is all SLA can do for teachers, one might rvell ask w'hether it is w-orth their rvhi le
)
making the effort to become familiar rvith it.
Not all researchers/theorists have felt the need to plav dor.vnthe contribution that SLA
can make to languagepedagogr'.Sorne have looked for navs of bridging the gap between
researchand classroompractice. One u'ar'|s to construct a theon'of L2 acquisitionthat is
compatible n'ith the ar ailable researth-Efr-n hiiilIio-C tuned]oThej-neeAsoftr-actreiiTh-it-
ls w the ..s"u..hG"lT *tut
should be used to addresspedagogical issudsbut rather the tteorr-ilerirgqd-lrenlTEeresdtrch.
-EvEnTpplied
p;;-.II
LeS4 tt-ltK3qJ! d I l,tl l3llgd t for-!a-.lh odoJogy i n, gener aI'
(Krashen1983:261)andthus " "€
basisfor evaluatingnervpedagogicalideas.@he131g"b that the theptlnquglbsglheo5
o f L l a c s l l l s l t l q n a s o p p o s e d t o a l r n g u r s t r ct h e o r ! o r a t h e o r v o l g e n e r a l l e a r n l n g . l n o e e o ,
'theon''
he claims thatGacher\have grolvn suspiciousqf
and
',
"*
es to solve dTlle
becau he failure of linsuistic
believesthat SLA theory, because
lf:f9q51Fl"-ance Krashen
7
alsoarguesthut(i.e.basedonactuaIL2research,;
rather than on armchair speculation.
 5 0 R O D:

- \ l u c h r i l i : : . : - . : ' . . : - r - r . n e d u . o r k h a s b e e n c o n c e r n e du ' i t h t h e a p p l i c a t i o n so f h i s
o*-n forcetuli., pr,-,n-,,,rejiheort ti.e. the Monitor Model and, more recentl,v,the Input
Hr-pothesisr. asin KrashenandTerrell ( 1983). It should be noted, horvever,that contrary to
some cntrcrsn'rsle.e ll.-d at him (seeWiddorvson 1990: 34) Kr{'hgLIg! ng"t5:ougbl t9
preclude teachers erploring pra_gmatic optionsterived from ideT 9]rtrid" httjleoretical
-+-*---
trame\,vo rvork.aSE (rashe}l{g}lg! js{rlis -
theorr. A I s o ., he
t h e o r \ ' . Also, h ee eelplicitlv
n xxD
plllicct iut-vl- rir:.e-r-ceocgonqr znei sztten- sa t ht eaatct e
n earcsh\ \e' l rl lsa@
n ossannoduiln
q tDuriltni o
gnl csl e a sa n o l n t u l u o n s
T:og"i15 €
basedon their owi-practiFalTiperrglgllo dffi" -al""g. As Krashenr l98 l: 261I says
LC

There tions of theon-based as opposed to research-base_d applica-

d on it cannot be
dismissedTipointing out the limitations of specific research studies.A theory is general in
#;-.-
nafuie and, thus, ullggpolgls derjl'g-dfrom it are potentially yalid iq a hing
gqntlxls. In contrasqiqdifl_dual researihsPd necessaril)'loSglgd qip::fc contexts,
makinq it difficult-- to advance salsof g.n.4uFF1i.f,5i.]Iv. Also, p.gl"rul: basedon a
-i-_:_-
tlggy-ar" Ii\g!_94orscss a -ca-heryrlgq
bckqg rn 1le_geceTreal
applicationof inqgd3al
studies. One of the attractions
studies. attractions of Krashen's
Krashen's theorv theorv is thatt it off"r, tei?EEilTn6ueraiihins
oiters teacherran overarching
r.ien'of u'hat and how-tqieach.
Hou'ever, there are obvious dangersoftheorv-based applications.As Beretta ( 199 1) and
L o ncpI r l 9 9 l r h a r e o o i n t e do u t . S L A t h e o r i e sd o n o t t e n d t o e o a \ \ ' a \ 'e. v e n n h e n t h e v a r e i n
opposition to each other In a thoughtful discussion of u'h)' this is so, Schumann
9-bllp".
l (1993) points out that it is extremelv dif6cult to falsify a theorr'. One reason is that whefe.*as
U hvoothesesare tvpicallv testedin isolationthev exist in'a netlvork of auxiliarv assumptions'
(ibid.:259) with the result that even if a particular hvpothesisis not supported ilclnnot be
iismissed b"."r.r..i-t-L-irnp m lies. Thus. theorists
usually eip-eii eni e lliil- affi Affi ,r*.t*t * *i.* counte;;;aG; s:
- " "
s
I they simplv adjustan underlvingassumptionor reconceivethe constructon which the
---==-- ------T---
ffiothesis is based. Krash?n has pror-en adept a@ despite
concerted criticism from prominent researchersand applied linguists. But if theories cannot
be falsifiedand, therefore, are able to survir.emore or iessindefinitelv hoq then, can teachers
evaluatethe legitimacv of proposalsbasedon them? In the caseof Krashen, for example, how
can teachers evaluate his principal propo_s_al, namelv that teachers-should_!e primarily
concerned u'ith providingl plentiful comprehensibleinpub so that acquisition (i.e.
-|*.*_ - r r | -r--i- ------T-l---------==;-i
-ql
languagelearnlng)can taKe+Bq3j ln snort. aDDllcatlons Dasedon an )LA tneorv
_suD_consclous
are riskt- -becausether haveto be taken on taith.Thismight not mJtteisb-hucfiTThe-orvwerc
d used to advancesuggestionsfor teachers to test out in their own practice but, more often
than not. theorr'-derir-edapplicationsare vestedu-ith an authoritv that r.r'orksaqainstsuch
p{ugggi. experimentation. For example, Krashen's claim that learningliG. the conscious
study of linguistic forms) has a relativelv minor role to piav in L2 acquisition w'orks against
teachers'investigating, in the context of their olvn teachin$, how'form-focused instruction
can complement and perhapsenhanceacquisition.
There isjr more serious o-b+ettp4-to Krashen's p]_qlgsalt ojrld guide
lanquage pedagogr'- one that has alreadY h""''-hinted at in the discussionof technical
-+*
know4edgeand practicalknor'vledgeS+-es9!gd, such as Krashen's,are tvpically the
product
r
of t]le contemplativeapproachto enquirvthat characterizes
much modernscierr-
tific thinkirrg(seeLantolf 1995).S".h ,h"orl.r hut. b.
'technical lpglutf"g
and svstematicall-v testinqhvpotheses
basedon them.The resultis knou'ledge'.
=
Ho*"u.t, s not readily
accessiblet.@1o-duy*o.k, t<ilGffi;a.". asgoodajob
-_.--'_.'-. "l$oiF
 SEcOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION 51

as any to make it so. For a theory-Lo-bfe! rlgximum use to teachers it has to take t}e form 7
offiiis
' y a theorv of action.Thi, i, poinithut ro'lllGiiE;upl"te. rn this chapter. t
--r1-
- o t h e r u a v o t b r i d g i n g t h e g a p "b e t u e e n S L . \ a n d l a n g u a g e p e d a g o g v i s t h r o u g h u h a t
,\ - - f f i*J
','''
i,h, lru'(
loh" J;h;i.; &u*'Jui'"nulog'blt*-e"n 't*
,',
', *
.
9ngin."llrl;;d lgslring.Heargues r*
tnut n..EiiFifi""ring hassuccesslullv
deti"ned
itsou'n .'o
problem spaceasindependent from that of supporting disciplines, such asphvsics,language t <<,Jr.e,'o-t,
teaching has not I'et done r". ge ),*u-1 ,-t .i-J..,
developed through experimentation in the classroom itself. Johnston distinguish{s pure L
- : : - ./
r e s e a r c h( r . e . t h e r e s e a r c hc a r r i e d o u t b v S L A r e s e a r c h e r s d : c ha s h i m s e l f ; u n - d . l u r . . o o -
*Yuf
research.He recognizesthat prr." ..r.ur.h can onlv provide guidelines and suggestiorrr, .' ; -
-'
r'vhichhar,eto be put to the test. For Johnston, then, the gap betr.veenSLA and language F- LzU-<-
'1 e
pedagogvneedsto be fiiled bv conducting experimental studiesin actualclassrooms.He is ; ,.
optimistic that such researchw'ill ensure that'the languageteaching of 10 to 15 vears hence y,o--.*tc"r
rvill be rather different from the hit and miss methods of todav' (ibid. : 3 8). C; b t',J-4f,
There is gio$cai objection 1p Johnston's position. If ${1n_d of classroom research
+ t& .
Johnston has iti-iid-iiiontrolled exp..i-."tution (rvhJe tfrereatiiieiafthe classroijin 6aue )^-r*^rl
tto
o bbe t o ccontrol
m a n i p u l a t e d1o
e manipulated o n t l o l tor u n . t a n t e d -variables
f o r unrvanted t a r i i b l e s that
t h a t mav
m a r intluence
i n f - l u e n c ethe
the e ffiectd-,0* p
ellect
"I ;, ' [*
pL*
a given treatment), there mav not, in fact, be anv difference betrve:1jg11g15!clgggot" "'1
::
,.i"q..h. In this..rp Jcb
"d |t
[r"ur.h on classroog*i.?irunt-To derelop th" t..hiologr of t"u.hinftn-ili"n.rton
-u,FguEr ,"-,-, ;"*
-:-:ll::
consltler3-hece-sa-arvfEaffiattet
,.r---.larir-I:::'_rh\:-t-,-r-|
n a t l S required.
e c e s s a r rvt l s t n e l a t t e t tth;ns r e q u l r e d .lbr assr\:right
lora t D I d . 'l.v l ) a r q u e s 'un
w r l g n t (tina.TgZi an_ _
lJ, ' ",*-*
.. *l.a-'
ng oT-theL2 clasM-mg-trt-Eest proceed . . , lrom its inr estigationa$a culture
. : -........-.-.......-
r--fi
ln lts o\\ n rlqnt . no\\'ever, ed experimentation mav not be the best u'ar --
1 ) __rl ^ r'u r€
reseaich on Classrooms. V ..-l | /- lt" J \/'
'i
The casefor basing pedagogical decisionson L2 classroor4-r"r#.iluS.SiFur-r..a
'
by a number of other researchersand languageeducatorl:larris$983: 238), for example, :'- li'r:

"ig.,".that.ourt""lamentsthe|actthatitL--,
ha*stvpically ods Cou.ses
in Masters prograffiei*TeSOl in the United Statesand Canada.Onlr' l8ozoincluded
reference to classroom-centredresearch (CCR). Long(ibid.: 284) suggeststhat this may
reflect the practical orlentatlon
e Dractlcal orientation oI methods cours
of metnoos courses butt he argues that classroom-centred
cla
'eminentlv 'concerned
research is practical' becauseit is lvith u.hat actualh' qoes on in the
classrooms,ur opposed-toovhatissupposedto go o"@olcou.qelf
r+ff
t h e r e s e a r c h e r a c c e D t st h e r e a l r t l e so l c l a s s r o o m b e h a v l o u r a n d m a k e s n o a t t e m p t t o m a n r p u -
lut. lt foi."r"-.;;hTr4llr.r d research
shouldbe included in methods courses:it hasalreadvproduced some practicalinformation;
teachers can use the research toois that har.ebeen emploved to investigate their own
classrooms;classroom-centredresearchu'ill help teachersbecome sceptical -*i
about relying
'
-^ Ar"
o n s i n g l e i e a c h - i r gm e t h o d s . I n a s u b i e q u e n t p a p e r . - t o n g ( 1 9 9 0 ) a r g u e st h e n e e d f o r a
-"--_-....t---41.. -
/ I Ir lr. | | , l- | . | -l
common Dooy or r<nolr,'ledfue wliich can be transmitted to teachers in rnuch the same way as
u c; t" A;.t"".J6t"gg.rtr itrui
.T'.=_--..r..__--/::-
althougfL2 classroom research is Imited in arumber of respectsit constitutes'agrou-irg
bodyoftangible@"chi.'g'(ibld.:1i51.ro'Long,thisconstitutes
hard evidencen'hich is bettFi tEanThe preludicesand suppositions u.hich he believes
characterizemost pedagogicaldecision-making. Like Johnston,then, Lglg
"lo'Ugeq_slass-
room research as the means bv rvhich researchers can most effectively influence language
pedagogv.
-
There are seriousreasonsfor disputingthe optimism that both Johnston,Long, and
others shareregarding the effect such researchr,villhave on languagepedagogv.As Stenhouse
 52 ROD ELLIS

(1979:71-7)hasso amusinglvdemonstratedin his fictionai account of how a teacher grapples

with the attempt to applv the results of research concerning strategies for teaching about
race relationr, .l'4rr.oor,. researchis un_likelvto produce.cle,aranswersto teachers' questions
____
becauseitonlvdemonStrateslvhatn.orksbrgl-dlargeorfoj@qh.l'

" "*"p"@.Sitttho"s"
tmore formallv else',vhere:

f,h. crucial point is that the proposal (from research) is not to be regarded as an
,' ,rnqrr"li6ed recommendation but rather asa provisional specificationclaiming nornore
than to be u,orth putting to the test ofpractice. Such proposals claim to be intelligent
rather than correct.

In other r,vords,classroomrese"t"h although p_otentiallvcloser to the realities teachers_have

I r a p p l e w-ith
to grapple n a n non-classroof-resealgb,
! \ ' l t n tthan non-classroolIl Iescdl(I\ r s 5 t r I r .9*orq!i@
rs.Jlill rcrrruj!rr_w_llll!!!!!l!$!rl\'-!r\ gap
bqt,-
ffirro*-ed idcannotbe 6lledb1glrssroom
somervha(but
--- q!tq!!+s.
6;;;h,".'..,"'h"qlhist91,iiEu-Fo.,I"th..thu^
*ffir*:ff;;id"r"d
r,r,hatvariourF....".chers have had to say regarding the
application of research/theorv to languagepedagogv.The vier,vof change implicitin all of
the positions r,r.ehave examined is a top-down one. Appiied linguists draw on information
from SLA to initiate tentativelv or conlidentlv - various pedagogicproposals.Theproposals
mav be based on pure research, on a theorv of L2 acquisition, or on classroom-centred
,.re"r.h but in each casethe presumed originator of the proposal is the SLA researcher/
theorist. It is time now. to brieflv consider an alternative wav in rvhich SLA can be used to
inform languagepedagogr'.
Wb." thr helPing
teachers solr,ethe p;t.J;;Et"qlth.i have identifi"d.@touch
-can
be for@p.mi-ifi"iSlA itself but rather the questions
'both
that teachers have askedher in the privacv of their classroomsand in the more public
domain of professional meetings' (ibid. : 50) . Pica offers a list of ten guestions dealing with
such matteis asthe relative impqlgnggpleslqpr.+ension --:.-rs---
and production, the role of explicit
- ----: ' .l
g1ggrmqrUltruction, and the u ." l'lca Provldesanswersto tnese
q".rtlo"i b"sed on her understanding ofthe SLA research literature.
The obvious advantage of such an approach to applving SLA is that the information
provided is more likelv to be heeded bv teachers becauseit addressesissuesthev have
identified as important. Bahns(1990: 115) goes so far as to claim:

field of practice
1 -Tl. iniriative for applving research results of anv kind to anv
\'(
rvhatsoeverghould come from the practitioners themselves.
\_ _-
./'\
Such a statement ignores, holvever, some obvious limitations in this insider approaJ:
Teacherscan onlv ask questions based on their olr'n experience. They cannot ask questi,:,:
aboutissues dictum n ere to be religiouslvadhered: :
thevhare no knou ledgeof. If Bahns's
<1 manvol the derelopmentsin language
i
p[dagog)ouerthelaiinrein*FfrFould plobar .
, . , _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ l n - _

\/notha@ple,teachersrvouldhar.ebeenunlikeIvtoask.Whatistheh..:
Vru
C *uy to organize a svllabus- in terms of structures, notions, or tasks?'becausethey l'ou- -
'tasks'
not haveknolvn what'notions' or (in its technical sense)lvere.These conceptsha'..
been derived from the w.ork of linguistsor applied linguists,but havenot arisenspontaneou:,
through the practice of teaching.Thus, although much can be said in favour of an insic-
approach, there is also a casefor the outsider application ofSLA
 SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION 53

A number of more recent discussionsof the relationshipbetlr-eenSLA and language

pedagogvhavegrappledrvith this issue.Gass(.1995:16), for example,suggeststhat one vl.ay
round the insider,/outsiderproblem is for researchersand teachersto lvork'in tandem to
determine holr' SLA findings can be evaluated and be made applicable to a classroom
situation,and to determine r,vhichSLA findingsto use'.The kind of collaborativeendeavour
Gasshasin mind is one rvhere researchersand teachersseekto understand each other's goais
and needsand she suggestsa number of areasr,r-herethe concerns of the t"r'o groups coirrcide
(e.g.the issueof correction). Hou-ever,true collaborationinvolvesnot just agreementabout
u'hat to investigatebut also how. Gasspartlv addressesthis bv quoting from Schachter( 1993:
181):

We need to createa mindset in u'hich both teachersand researchersvieu' classrooms

aslaboratories u'here theorv and practice can interact to make bot} better practice and
better theorv.

The problem here is that r.vhereasresearchersmav feel comfortable in vier,vingclassrooms

u..luiorgtori"r. t"u.h.., Schachterseemsto do
tlallgseayghelr engagein theor)'and teadhErsinFiaEice. SLA and languagepedagogy are /
b.ffi*J
-
i
--
)'
'
r
- 1-
, {

reiearchers and teachers can effectivelv collaborate is complex. It is one that has been I
addr
researchershave paid scant attention to this literature.
-Frorn
this inifa-I eTploration of u-hat it means to applv SLA researchit is clear that
there is no easv ans\\:er.For some, the immaturitv of SLA as a field of enquirr- precludes
applications.For others, SLA can onh'hope to shapeteachers'expectationsofu'hat is possible
in the classroom.Others havedeveiopedspecificproposalson the basisof generaltheories
of L2 acquisition. Others have suggestedthat the gap betrveen SLA and teaching can be filled ,
by conducting research in and on L2 classrooms.Finallv, some researchershave argued for
an approach u'here thev act asconsultants addressingissuesraised bv teachers or where thev
t
participate in coilaborativeresearchwith teacher.. Ar ',,r-.haveseen,eachof these approaches
has something in its favour but none of them is entirelv successfulin closing the gap between
SLA researchand languagepedagogv.In the next section rve consider the iiews of a number
ofeducators on how'researchcan be made relevantto teachers.

Educational perspectives

Earlier we noted that the once close connection rvhich SLA researchersinitiallv envisaged
between SLA and languagepedagogvhasnot continued.Tounderstandthe gulf that-frequentlv
divides the theorv a@ onlqqrp-haryl, and the th-eor)'andpr&Iic--f.
n'e need to examine thegurding principies and assumptionsof each.We
teaching on the oth-e-r,
ru-_
need to conslder the culture ol research and the culture ol teacfung.
Let us begin with research. It is customarv to distinguish tr,vo broad traditions in empirical
enquirv - the confirmatorvand the interpretatiue.The co.,ffiilii6il' t*iliiiA li interven'-
..-.! .L
tio'nisL'lt is )' designedexperiments,suchasthe agriculturalexperiments
of R. A. Fischer
--1
(1935) in the United Stjrtes,rvhichlr.eiE
^r
---"----'-
ti6atment produced the best crop rields.Th" _t1gd_$on
@(i.e'subjectsarerandomlvdistributedintoanexperimental
and a control group) and the careful controlofextraLeous variables(i.e. those variablesthat
 54 ROD ELLIS

might L I U U r 4 l variable
t o9 . confound the studv of the particular ralr4urL Thg,ialqggstative
ion ) '.Thgi
under investigation
Pdr

tradition is ryflgggg{inWeber's((1961)
1-961 faqious&){initionof sociologv:'Sociology ' ' ' is a
l.ilative ,,.'d"."tun6oT rocialaction.'It is maniGstin
ttrli.. tEtt seekto developan u-iiltlFiS socialrules thEt-
"ffiffintionitt - . 1

t the socral actors tnvolvec In tne

""d"Ji.oput@i[emeani n Ller ;F."t. .nuto.r ."t"ttch
actir itrtlhimFdlr "I"*-cottFi
seet#au seTlinGip reTatir-"r"6[h Ioo ks for
Bot e have alreadvnoted, SLA began with
.u,"esestudiesfocusedonindividuallearners,
occurring
collecting samples of spoke., Ianguagebv observing the learners in naturallv
These .ure ,trrdie, investigated naturalistic learning by examining the
"rr,riro.#".rts.! t[e-p1ote."i ind tli*
b1 l"art'ets,
Iangu3ggg-rodu99d
;d;ffiJi;lloi. ufi".t.d theirp.ogiess.Oneof theoutco6esoffiitradition of research
ffitf,waS descnptir.e lnformition about the order in r,vhichlearners acquired different
mastering particular
grammatical struciures and the sequence of stagesthev follou'ed in
,"t.r1.trrr., such as negatives, interrogativ.r, relative clauses.Another branch of the
".tJ studies.of L2
interpretative traditiJn of research - SI-n can be found in ethnograP-hic
the
.l"rrroom. (e.g.Van Lier 1988, Markee 1994a).Thesestudieshave sought_todescribe
L2
kinds of discourse in r,vhich classroom learners engage and how these influence their
development.
Th,e-qo4firqutoti'-ltiqiti9"]l:I!9ryI--uch of the w'orkbasedon UniversalGrammar
(e.s.Flynnand Martohar-djdtl9ttJ"@+E9tg.d{-#i1s of suchinsinrmentsas
grr---.ti.ulitv ludg"-.nit"rt, huu"b".., ,,ridJoE"-ilL-"fi.iF-.. learnerswith different
ErstIanguag".*""@iplesoflanguug".tti."l.oeiiFentinstudies.
of for*]fo.-rrseilin ,VlfiPattenand Cadierno 1993).
Where applicationsto t.u.hl"g are concerned,the con{irmator-v tradition frequentlv
entailsu patticularview of u.hatit meansfor a teacherto be professionallv competent.
Accordinito thisrier,r,education do researslrrdiscov9ring
is anaPpliedscienT'..Researchers
rh; b"ffi.lJ hGse aE-then passedon.to
t t""r1"r,;*i'; f" tEEu19}tt",+rcscr+dons'This
f) preSuppoSeSu*"".,,-t),lvher9.!h9curriculumisviewed
ffi;r;h p;tidt.gT"iormation about the most effecti\e me,ans
ffiEih--e curri with r4eans--tst4g than
*gllr:d
ina,,',t'i.r'u-i"tuk"nasgiven'T@t\\eenreSearchandeducation
ffiohnston(1987)and,inpart,ofLong(1983a,1990)discussed
in the previous se.tio.t.
Th"." ur. manv problems u'ith the applied science vievr of the relationship between
research and practice. A, .t" have alreadv note_d,theinformation provided b1' even the best
designed explrimental studv mav not be applicablelo otJrg.!:jc.bing cglle&t' AEo, it is
doubtfulrvhethertheffiexperimentaI'.,""'.hhastheobjective
statusoften claimed for it, assubjectiveand socialfactors piav a crucial role in the production
of anv kind of knorvledge, including that obtained experimentallv (see Kuhn 1970) . As Carr
and Kemmis (1936) pJint out, the separationof ends (or values) and means is notreallr'
possible.Also, ends iould not be taken as given but should themselves be the subject of
critical scrutiny, as protagonists of critical pedagogv have argued (see Pennycook 1989). A
.good example of tie need to consider ends u: *'"lbcqt94lt@igations
if t.".h"rr; qrr"riio.rJ,ru*be. of L2 studies have investigated the effect of display and
..GG.tiuGi"rtlo"r o., l"ur.". output te. g. Brock 1985). In thesestudiesit is assumedthat
teachers will and should ask questions and the onlv issueis what kind of questions work best
 SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION 55

for languagelearning. One might legitimatelv challengethis assumptionhorvever.It hasbeen

suggestedthat classroom L2 acquisition is likelv to smoothl-vif learners enjol
9d_lr.1,st
su-e p u . t i c i p a t t i
r i g h t sa st h e i r t e a c h e r
tPica 1 9 8 7 veverr,Teacners quesllons,
t-
In an\'

p r o b l e m i s t h a t t h e a p p l r e d s c l e n c e v l e \ \ ' o t t e a c n l n g a l l o c a t e sP a r t l c u l a r r o l e s t o r e s e a r c n e r s
and to teachers, lr.hich are nece \alue laoen ln nalure. t(e ers are tn
I
o\l-leoge \\
LJ

rela t\\'een-Tesearc
kind *[iEft;ists and studentsin traditional classroomsand,
"F.{iitJid
aiguaSffi

Bv adheringto what van Lier t 1990t callsthe emic principle (i.e. tr.v to understandh.
s o c i a lc o n t e x t \ v o r k st h r o u g h t h e p e r s p e c t l \ e so t t h e p a r t l c l P a n t sa) n c lt n e n o l l s t l cP r l n c
sornsthi.lg jln lerms of its_n4_!_U4l slllroundings). it mar ma

clearlv \ \ ' n e t n e rer Itherr own

nelr o w I I te
LcacIuIIg d l c the
c o l l L c x L 5 are
ffixts same
Llrc 5 as.
drlrtr d orl different
5, u r r w l r r , the
u l r l c l E l r L from, L r r c contexts
uvrrLl !r
'-- aim to provide objective
studiedin the reseat.n.Fo i.tt"tp..tutiu" ....
@kesavirtueofseekingoutsubjectiveknou'ledge.
interpretative researchmav havetheorl construction asits ultimate goal, it can be considered
practical in nature. Carr and Kemmis ( 1986) expiain horv interpretative accounts facilitate
dialoguebetu.eeninterestedparties (i.e. researchersand teachers).Thevcan lead to changes
'practices
in the way actors comprehend themselvesand their situations; are understood bv
changingthe rvavsin rvhich thev are understood' (ibid.:91). In fact, interpretative research
achievesvaliditv r,r'henit passesthe test of participant confirmation.Thus, the beliefs, values,
and perceptionsofteachers are not ignored (or controlled) asin educationalresearchin the
confirmatorv tradition, but are given a constitutive place in the research.The traffic of ideas
between researcher and teacher is, potentiallv at least, trl.o lva\'.
Again, though, there are problems. is that because interpretative research
.One
insiststn e*planutionst-Flt-a?econsistentu ith the participlnts' orvri percepiionsit runs the
r i s k o f u . . . p t t . r g i c c o T n G - f f i f a r e i l l u * o r r l O b r i o u s l r . a c t o r s c a n b e m i s t a k e n .s o t h e i r
interpre ned criticalli'. In oth., words, aclherenc€-tothq
emic principlq can lead to faultv understandings.The hoJiStlcprincipleis also problemati-c.
f{unresult in information that is too rich, so detailed that the rvood cannot be seen for the
,r""rJh-rn@withc-onfr rmato;i;;;-E;Gi"th.i"latlonshlp,
b.t*=.i-th. ..r"u..h"r an thg teachqr. For, althorrghthe gap h., b..ttiu.rowed, they stiil
inhabit different worlds. Carr and Kemmis (1986: 99) put it this u'av:

Despite their differences . both the'interpretative'and the positivist [i.e. con--".

firmutor-vl approach convey a similar understanding of educational researchersand of ,'
the relationship to the research act. In both approaches,the researcher standsoutside /
the researcheJ situation adopting a disinterested stancein w-hichan-vexplicit concern ]
w.ith critically evaluating and changing the educational realities being analysedis (
rejected. l

The truth ofthis is evident in rvhat is perhapsthe best piece ofinterpretative researchin SLA
to date -van Lier's (1988) studv of aspectsof classroomdiscourse(i.e. turn-taking, topic
and activitri and repair rvork). Although van Lier offers a fen' comments on hou' teachers
56 ROD ELLIS

might profitablv engagein interpretative researchthemselves(ibtd.: 230 onw'ards),the bulk

of his book is rvritten from the standgoint of the researcher fuqcLiA4llgl1s a gatherer of
knowledge and concJrne-f,iirith truth t.th". thu.r from the standpoint '- of the practitioner
c o n c e r n e d\ 4 ' l t ha c t l o n .
-
Researchers,then, follon' agendasthat are set bl'the requirements of the research
traditions to which thev adhere.Thev also have their orvn social agendas.As members of
universit'i' departments, researcher! qe er.pected to be pr earch and_are
rewarded accordins to th" qn.ntit)'n"J u-b1ish-they
-.,-t--k
*61r.,"1-:b:l-pSSf:_ti.e. other researchers),'"ho fnn.tiiiiii.iGG&iFotthe journals
i,r *lri;h tfi;;;;f;;b.;ublished.Their researchnilsiE[ibGTiate ttratlTmeetsestablified
-- #. =-,.= J=, - - - - - - lr',-, l-;T.-
.r-i!.i-i. t.liubilio' diaf (i.e. that it is rvell designedand that the results warrant the
"f
conclusionsmade).Researchellqg ngl gbligedto rya\e tberr-L.1.{* T::@e!o,-teq-chers
or---ito demonstrate that ltls reievant to them. Still lessare thev required to rvork w'ith teachers
to 6nd r,vavsin u-hich research can be converted into action. Indeed, it mav rvell be that in
the depariments r,vherethe researchers rvork practical research receives less recognition
than oure research.
As we have seen, teachers have verv different agendasand operate from a different
kno*'ledge base.Whereas researchersare concerned in establishingthe truth, teachers are
interested in linding out rvhat rvorks, Teachersselect tasks that thev believe will contribute
to their students' learning but thev are rarelv able to investigate whether their predictions
are borne out. Thev determine the successof the tasks in other ways (".g. by impres-
sionisticallvevaluating*-hether the task stimulates active participation bv the learners).
Teachersw-ork from practical knorvledge.They use their experience of teaching (and
of learning) in classroomsto develop a bodv of knowledge as habit and custom, as skill
know-ledge (e.g. how-to deal rvith a student who dominates classroom discussion),as
common-sense know-ledgeabout practice, as contextual knor,vledge(i.e. regarding the
particular classthev are teaching) and, over time, asa set of beliefs about holr,'learnerslearn
anL2. Polanvi (1958) refers to this kind of knowledge as personal knowledge.As Schon
( 1983) has obser.r,ed,and as w'e noted earlier, much of this knorvledge is onlv evident in use
(i.e. it is revealed in actual teaching but the teacher cannot articulate it) although some of it
mav become espousedthrough reflection (i.e. the teacher can provide an explicit account
of it).
Given these differences in goals and in u'hat counts as know'ledge, the gap between
research and pedagogv and the gulf betr'r'eenresearchersand teachers is not surprising.
Zahorik (1985), cited in Freemanand Richards(1993), hasidentified anumber of different
w'aysin w.hich teaching can be conceptualized. Scientificallv based conceptions emphasize
the development of models of effective classroom practice basedon the results of empirical
research.This is the kind of conception we are likelv to find in researchers.Alternative
conceptions are r.alues-based1i.e. effective practice is that w'hich takes into account the
identitv and indiridualitv of learners) and art-craft (i .e . effectivepractice is built up gradually
through experience and reflection). It is these conceptions that 1r'eare more likely to find in
teachers.As a consequence,some teachersmav feel that researchis of little value to them,
not just becauseit is d'ifficult to access(a familiai complaint ) , but becauseit doesnot conform
lvith their olvn ideas of lvhat teaching is and, therefore, does not addresstheir concerns.
Other teachers, horn'ever,mav feel that their own conceptions of teaching lack value and
statusin comparison to the scientificallv-basedconceptionsof researchers.As Bolitho (1991:
'teachers
25) notes, often take up extreme positions,often deferring blindly to theory or
rejecting it out of hand as irrelevant to classroomissues'.In either case,the outcome is
unsatisfactorv' .
 SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION 57

What then can be done about ali this? Clearlv, something is needed to bring the w-orlds
-*_l
of the researcher/theorist and the teacher cioser together. One lr a1 mighl_b9 to lfrdrryays
of familiarizing
.o
teachersu-ith the technicalknou'iedgeobtainedfrom researchand, also,of
I
in theii o*1n-4@t.Weu-ill brieflr'examinebothTl'TEese, C
A., .r.n-f,tion of manv educators, is that both pre-service and in-service teacher
education courses should provide students r'r'ith an understanding of a range of academic
issues considered relevant to their lvork as teachers.Teacher preparation and further
educationprogrammes, therefore, tvpicallv offer courses,designed to familiarize teachers
with these basic elements. In the case o.f progr.+mmes fuLLLlqaching there is a broad
consensusregarding u-hat t}reseelements consistof: r.vhatlanguageisl horv it is used inlpgsgh
w'language
L
\r
and er,aluatedand hor,vlanguge is learnt. '' OnE6
curricula can be developed, taught,
#
qrou rinq this kind of educall4is to d".= an a\\'aren
- l<', u<.
to teach a lanqua er ootions from rvhich teachers must select
with the Darticular contexts in r.vhichthel'lvork 1-?h"cls ' ,
ow'1 1pP'ta^L
need for a foundation in t}ese basic elements has been stronqlv argued by Stern
( 1983). In t}re introduction to his book Fundamental Conceptsin LanguageTeaching, Stern argues
the need for guides to help the student teacher'pick his rvavthrough the massof accumulated
information, opinion, and conflicting advice; to make senseof the vast literature, and to
distinguishbetu'eensolidtruthandephemeralfadsorplainmisinformation'(ibrd.:1-2).He
seessuchguides asnot telling teachersu.hat to think but rather helping them to sharpentheir
own judgements. He w-orks on the common-sense premise that judgements that are
informed, basedon sound theoretical foundations, u.ill produce better results than those that
are not. Stern's ou.n guide is comprehensive,involving sections dealing r,vithhistorical
perspectives,conceptsof language,conceptsof societv,conceptsof languagelearning and
concepts of languageteaching. Other guides have focused on specific areas,including SLA
(e.g. Larsen-Freemanand Long 1991, Lightbou-nand Spada1993, Ellis 199+).
The aim of these guides is to make technical knorvledge availableto teachers in a
digestible form.There is still the question of horv teachers are to integrate this knowledge
i n t o t h e i r o n ' n p r a c t i c e-.\ s H i r s t t 1 9 o 6 : 4 0 t h a sp o i n t e do u t :

To trv to understand the nature and pattern of some practical discourse in terms of
the nature and patterns of some pr,."lr: theoreticai dir.o,l.r. can onlv result in its beins
radicallv misconceived.

Often enough, teachersin training, particularlv pre-service, complain about the lack of
relevance of the foundation courses thev har,etaken to the actuai task of teaching (see for
example Schuvler and Sitterlev 1995).This has led to the suggestionthat teachqra sh_-o"ld
become more than consumers of theories anffreseiich: thev should become researchers
. ----
and theorlsts ln thelr o\\'n rlght.
The caii-I6F teaChEiconducting research in their ou'n classrooms is norv w-ell
establishedin education, largelv as a product of the pioneering r,vork of such educators as
S t e n h o u s e( 1 9 7 5 ) , E l l i o t t a n d E b u t t ( 1 9 8 5 ) a n d K e m m i s a n d M c T a g g e r t ( 1 9 8 1 ) a m o n g
others. More recentlv,educatorsof languageteachers(e.g.Nunan 1990 and Crookes 1993)
havealso argued the need for teachersto researchtheir ow'n ciassrooms.One form of teacher
research that is commonlv advocatedis action research.
Action researgh orlqlnates ln the \\olt(_pl-Kql.]LLsfllj) ln the Unlted Stalel (see
Ad"lffi,,o.k,,-'.]itscontribution).Lew.inwasconcernedwith
centredaroundchanges
decision-making in theu ork plfA H. tilsi"i...""a
in practice it
 58 ROD ELLIS

(tE_r::.-utt.d factorl'
r,vhateffect involving rvorkers in the decision-making Process ""
@entin t h e H a rr,rood
ed on workers bv

ment, substantiallv,that qfuq representativesof the

5
u'ere iniolved In researcnlnqtne cn tion initiailv d b"t lut"t recoo'eiEd
-:- * -----:-.
+

and that $ hen all the \lorKers parllcll inlFe-decision-makin ion rose markedl
a th" practical benefits of involvin€ actors in
"d
d e c i s i o n - m a I 0 n g . ' . 1 V I o r eimportantlv
ffiMore L c w . t I l 't-d
I O rL.oui.,
1 m P o r t a n I r vfor rLuclr'1Ul]!]1:5,r-
Ler'vin'swork is of interest becauseit reflects th.
-<'----------?"1 -r --,t-*l^^^ t^.,-:-.'-..,^*1,;-^ti-+aractl-^-'".^itrptlertcthe
advantagesor oemocracv in the ,torkpl".*
tw--gllC;i".t-" r.t.ut.h, asit hasbeenappliedsubsequentlyto education:a@J9!93=L
is intlded both to improveclassroom practiceandalsoto serveasa meansfor emancipating
u teachers.lt nasDotnan instrumerrt"lfrr.t.tio '
Caseof the latter, it mav be politicallv charged and, for that reason, potentialll'-risky'
It is customarv to identifv three kinds of ugtio.rI"rgg.h.8.tq there ij"-technicalactiln
outside researchers
u'here outside r.r"ut.h co- d
research,u'here
research,
-..----
l r o m t n e o r v o r p r e v l o u sr e s e a r c nL. r o o K e s1 r e e l ; i h u t u c t e r i z e st h i s k i n d o F a c t i o nr e s e a r c h
'---'1--:--1-: I

5.s refaTl\-.ATydserl'atGlfr-e,
a reEtiie-It
ts a noting that
conservative li.te, ttottttg i! is
that tt ls likelv
Il{9 worKlg9trsneu by
to result in-worklgblished L y scholars

i;, it fgltgf9glr]igliT
ecause
" .tundlrdrli-Elffiott"1
tffi;
-
m""l r.rr..r,*ntl" -.ii.i.,;.,g tih.values
".,d
researcn.
Second-rthereis research undertaken bv teachers in their ow'n classroomswith a view
to im-proving local prl11-."t Carf tndKcmrnis=cfer-tothis kind ol'reiearCh ;t fi.t.i
i.tio" ..r"uih brrt Hopkins ( 1985) prefersthe term teacher research. As Long ( 1983a:-268)
pointsout,theaiTo'|teqch",."1.u'.hisnotto@se-archers,
tut to provid" Jil.*, bv rttri.ti thev can monitor their orvn practice. It involves a cvcle of
-i.tluitiesa.-*O*.,-r;T,grr.eT ).The starting point is
planning (i.e. the identification of some problem that needssolving).This results in action
behaviour r,vill arise). Observation of
ii... thi"u.hing of a lessonin rvhich the problematic
the action protid., material for reflection,',vhich mav then lead to further planning. Each
step or moment in the cl.cle looks back to the previous step and forward to the next step'
The cvcle servesto link the pa,stuith th9 futulg thrgggtdte Dlocessssqf l-e-c-g1ffuc_tion and
co,-,struitio.r- F"r-thEmo.e-iGir gtiryq(i.e. talking about the action) with,actual
practi-eli}. the action in contexf,.Th" tturtl"g point of the cvcle, planning, is generally seen
-ilthelnost
problematic. Ideallv, teachers should form plans for action based on an analysis
of their o'uvnexperience,but in realitv they are likel-vto pick out issuesfrom the educational
or applied linguistlcsliterature (see,for example, McDonough and McDonough's (1990)
studl:of langul.geteachers' r.ien s about research). Carr and Kemmis acknor,t'ledgea role for
a n o u t s i d ef i c i l i t u t o r i n h e l p i n gt e a c h e r sf o r m u l a t e a p p r o p r i a t ep l a n so f a c t i o n .

Reconstructive Constructi\

4 Reflect -------------> 1 Plan

Discour/se
/
amodgParticiPants
\\I
I
t II
Praci\e I ,],
intheso'eQl-context3 Observe <-- 2 Act

'Moments' of action research

Figure 3. 1
Source:Carr and Kemmis 1986: 185
 SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION 59

The,thir_d*typeof action research is critlc_ql_ gctrg319s1ar9h- research that is_n_ot onlv

directedatimpro\.inqpracticebutatemanci@"init.Itisthiskind
t h a t m o s t c- -l#o s e l rr e f l e c r sL e \ \ ' l ns o r l g l n a lt o r m u l a t i o n .C r o o k e sc o n s i d e r si t m o r e D r o o r e s -
iive.Teachers are required not onlv to understand local problems and identify soluqrgryb_r$ ;7
:i- '\',
to exarilinethe underlling;sgial causes ofg'oblems andu-hatneedsto be doneaboutthem v
r;ffime for reflectio" (*.J.tiuip;ii;f
awarethat their cQga-cities ;h" 6)
actionresearchcvcle)are influencedbv socialfactols.Thev needto recognizethat their
understandino, of- ;clur.ro6Er6uiEEil-iriorted.The
-,1..-_,_._-i_
-Jhunlr* for achievinsL, i, dir.oi.r.
. _€_
in the senseintended br.Habermas (1979) liee communicaTion?6ong participantsu-ho
sharcecuaIdiscourscriqhts.IncriticalaCtionrsibilG.
ffid|ordiscoursingonit.TheDreSenceol.anoutsideresearcher
ilhile not outlawed, is seenasdangerousb_ecauseit is Likeivto undermine the social$'r4lSgtry
neededto ensure collaborative discourse.
,q"ti."i.*"..hJh"", triJt;,h+ulf betrveenthe researcherand the teacher.Crookes
(1993) suggeststhat it overcomes the limitations of traditional researchbv ensuring that its
results are relevant to the needsofteachers; bv encouragingand supporting teacherreflection
and through this professionaldevelopment; bv encouragingteachersto engagein other kinds
ofresearch and use the results ofsuch research;and, in the caseofcritical action research,
bv prompting teachers to address the unquestioned values embodied in educational
institutions. According to Carr and Kemmis (1985) action research provides a basis for
developing truiv educational theories through theorizing about practice.
Action researchis not r'r-ithoutits critics, horvever.Hopkins ( 1985) arguesthat the action
researchpractisedin education has departed from Leu'in's original concept of externallv
initiated intervention for assistinga ciient system. He also suggeststhat the models of action
research such as that shor,vnin Figure 3. 1 mav strait-jacket teachers making them reluctant
to engagein independent action.These criticisms, horvever,do not seem to be especiallv
damagingasthere is no reasonw-hveducationalistsshould adhereto Ler,vin'sinitial conception
ofaction researchnor is there any reasonrvhr-teachersshouldnot depart from the proposed
cvcle whenever thev feel the need to do so. More serious are criticisms concerning the
impracticalitv of asking teachers to engagein research and the qualitv of the research they
Proouce.
Teachersdo not alu'avsfind it easvto undertake research.Nunan (1990), drawing on
his experience of rvorking u.ith teachers in Australia, lists a number of difficulties they
experienced.Becausethe teachersu'ere not usedto observingeachother teach, thev found
collaborationdifficuit.Thev tended torvardsexcessiveself-criticismu'hen thev hrst engaged
in analvsinq their on-n .Iur.?oornr.T ;-;;;q"
.-_,,- :----=---=-=T- -,- +_ __- -Q
able rn nature DecausetneY clrclnot lrnd rt eisr to idenEfi:Geciffc reseurch cuestions. a
p D""*,g"h
and McDonough 1990). It proved extremelv time-consuming to designproperly formulated
projects.The teachers u'ere unclear as to horv the researchshould be reported becausethel'
were uncertain lvho their audience \r'as.Finallr.,there u'as a host of problems to do lvith the
range and scopeof the research.Or,er time, of course, such problems can be overcome as
teachersaccumulateexperience of hou- to do research,but initiallv the task thet'face can
appear daunting.
Another objection to action researchconcerns doubts about the qualitv of research
carried out bv i"".h.rr. Brumfit and Mitcheli (1990a:9) arguethat'there is no good
argument for action researchproducing lesscare and rigour (than other modes of research,;
unlessit is lessconcerned rvith clear understanding,*.hich it is not' . Implicit in this statement
is a beliefthat manv teachersrvill not be ableto achievethe standardsprofessionalresearchers
 6O ROD ELLIS

deem necessary.Crookes (1993), horvever,argues that n'hen research is entirelrvlocal and

no attempt to generalizeis made it is less necessarvto conform to the requirements of
reliability, validitv, and trust*-orthiness. He also suggeststhat action researchreports do not
need to be academicin styie.Thev can take the form of'teacher-oriented reports' and thus
be more discursive, subjective, and anecdotal.The difference betrveen the positions of
Brumfit and Mitchell and Crookes are indicative of the iack of clear criteria for determining
u'hat constitutes good qualitv action research.
From the educational perspective described above, the gap between the researcher/
theorist on the one hand and the practitioner on the other is seen as the inevitable product
of the social (and, one might add, political) lr-orlds'"vhichthev inhabit.As Kramsch (1995)
has pointed out the behaviours that these tu'o social groups tvpicallv manifest are s,vmbolic
of the value svstemsto u.hich thev adhere.The move to involve teachersin researchcan
be seen,in part, as a move to reshapethe sl'mbolic capital of teachers'behaviourbv inves-
tigating it rvith the authoritv to be derived from research.Thisis one reasonwhy the rationale
for action research so frequentlv makes reference to its contribution to professionalism in
the teachingfraternitr.
One lvav of viewing action researchis as a meansbl'rvhich teachers can test'provisional
specifications'(Stenhouse19751inthe context of their or'vnclassrooms.These specifications
can be dralvn from the teacher'sown practical knolvledge, in rvhich caseaction research can
help to make explicit the principles, assumptions,and proceduresfor action that comprise
this kind of knorvledge. Alternativelv, the specificationscan be drau'n from the technical
knowledge provided bv research.Action research servesas an empirical test of whether the
generalizationsprovided bv confirmatorv researchor the understandingsprovided by inter-
pretative research are applicabie to specifrcclassroom settings.When teachers consistently
find the results of their own research do not support the findings of confirmatory or
interpretative research thev need to be prepared to reject these as inapplicable to their
own contexts. Action research,then, functions as a u'av of implementing the third of Weiss'
models of research use the interactive model - bv bridging the gap between technical
knowledge and practical knovuledge.
The question arisesas to r,r'hetherthe applicabilitv of proposalsbasedon researchmust
necessarilv be submitted to an empirical test bv requiring teachers to take on the role of
researcher(asStenhouseadvocates)or rvhether it might be possibleto predict r,vhichproposals
are likeiy to be acted on through an examination of the proposalsthemselves.It seems
reasonableto supposethat some proposals are inherentiv more practical than ot}ers.What
makes them so?Toaddressthis cuestion w'e turn to the studv of the uptake of innovations.

Innovationist perspective

A number of applied linguists have recentlv turned to u'ork on innovation to help them
f-
*\7 I understand the variable successther,have observed in both large-scalelanguageprojects in
Y , the developing world and the variabieresponseto nel\'ideas among teachersin the developed
c w o r l d . K e n n e d v ( 1 9 8 8 ) , W h i t e ( 1 9 8 8 a n d 1 9 9 3 ) a n d N { a r k e e( 1 9 9 3 ) h a v e a l l d r a w n o n
\-innovation
researchin a varietv of disciplines(e.g. Rogers (1983) in sociologt',Lambright
and Flvnn ( 1980) in urban planning,Cooper ( 1989t in languageplanning and Fullan (198)1
a a d ( 1 9 9 3 ) i n e d u c a t i o n ) .H e n r i c h s e n( 1 9 8 9 . r ,B e r e t t a( 1 9 9 0 ) , S t o l l e r ( 1 9 9 + ) a n d M a r k e e
(199+b) havereported actualstudiesofinnovation in languageteaching.It should be noted,
however,that to date there hasbeen no studv of innovationsstemming from proposalsbased
on SLA.12
 SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION 61

Innovation can be conceived of in tu-o different wavs - a distinction that is important

whereSL.\isconce.ned.(irSt.J\\.e@o].aIlo!-Ln.lheSensethata
proposal representsa t e l l n e u i d e a .n o t p r e r i o u s l r e v i d e n t i n p r a c t i c ea n v u h e r e .
Th@n cesoi absolute i nnoration i ;T;EuagFGachfig, althou$,
arguabll'Wilkins' (1976) proposal for constructing sl'liabusesaround notions constituted
such an innovation. Secondi.the-reare perceir_edr11g_rg!!ggs.Thatis, the changeis perceived
asinnovatorvbvthepractitionersrr.hoadoptit.@probablvof-this
kind-a4rd, indeed, most definitions of innovation mSFe par-tftufrffi.."." ioldo@rr'
perceptions.
As Lightbown (1985) has observed, SLA has not produced much in the rvav of ner,v
pe!4ggg1-c-propasaHJhus.prop osals d er i r e
absoluteinnovations.For example,KrashenandTerreil (1983) vielv their NaturalApproach
usTGGitiiiltiorZf the principles and techniques of earlier methods rather than as original.
Hou'ever, the-vclearly believe that their proposals rvill be new to manv practitioners. SLA
may also serve to provide a rationale for innovations that have originated elsew'here.For
examplElTh?JdFao{ the inlormation-gap task tJohnson I982toriginaiedTiohT-thFb'F\ of
communicative languageteaching, but it has undoubtediv received support and, arguablv,
been refined through SLA research (see,for example, Long 198 1 and Skehan 1996).
llnnovation i,sinherentlr threatening, as Prabhu (1987:105) has pointed out in the
context ofdiscussinghis proposal for a procedural svllabusin India:

A neu'perception in pedagogr',implving a different pattern of classroom activitv, is an

'l intruder into teachers' mental frames an unsettling one, becausethere is a conflict
rl of mismatch betrveen old and new perceptions and, more seriouslv, a threat to
I
A
prevailingroutines and to the senseof securitv dependenton them.
U

What then determines lvhether and to uhat extent teachers cope r,vith these threats?The
answ-erto this questioninvolvesa considerationoffour setsoffactors:

' the sociocultural context of the innor-ation

. the personalitv and skills of indir.idual teachers
' the method of implementation ti(
"/t
' a t t r i b u t e so f t h e p r o p o s a l st h e m s e l r e s .

First, as Kennedv ( 1988) notes, there is aa nrerarcnv

hierarchv ol intglleb.cingllrb-svstems
of rnterrelatrng rvhich any
in \\'nlcn
suD-svstems ln any
' :
'essor an\ DroDosalemanating
.
.Thus,the succEss6TTfriproposal
;
emanaung from
Irom SLA
.:
)Ld (oianf ot
ror anr'-oth-er
l,

ssource)."g
ortrce)reqardinoclaSSroomDIactice"d,,."iio'
'the 19"u1,
administrative.political.
administrative.nolitical.or iultural
culturalfactors. Kennedvcomments:
factors.Kennedv comments:'thecultural svstemis
cum;fsvitem
l
a.silmed qq be the -ffiooo".lul as it rvill influ-e4*cg._[gtll_pljgggl-]l$ldminlitra6rc
stn4tulgtgqdbq!3vlour'(ibtd.:332).ThisisapointthatWiddowson(1993)alsoemphasizes.
He cites an unpublished paper bv Scollon and Scollon to the effect that'gonversational
-
methods' ma.y q!19 take root in China b"
"
Confucian emphasison benevolence and respect betrveen teacher and.students.
p*a on the p..ro.r"litv and quaiities
of indi.,id-uat t-".tr" Itr{dlrcatgd ur,d uidty
"p*
moblle) may be -o." i^.lirEd1o?

*ujo-ryudgpt*r,g$gp$t. factorsarelikelvto plava majorpart in determining

Personal
!\ hichcategorra teacherbelongs
to.
 62 ROD ELLIS

Third, the method of implementation is likelv to influence to what extent an innovation

takesroot. Havelock (1971) distinguishesthree basicmodels of innovation.The research,
development and diffusion model vier,vsthe researcherasthe originator of proposals and the
teachersasconsumersand implementors of them. It is iikelv to be usedin conjunction with
a power-coercive strateg), lvhere some authoritv takes a decision to adopt an innovation
(e.g. a new- svllabus) and then devisesr,vavsof providing teachers vl'ith the knowledge and
skills thev need to implement it. Innovationin this model, then, takesplace top-down. The
problem-solving model involves engagingteachersin identifving problems, researching
possible solutions and then trr-ing them out in their teaching. Innovation in this model,
then, originates r,viththe teachers.A social interaction model emphasizesthe importance of
social relationships in determining adoption and emphasizesthe role of communication in
determining uptake of an innovatorv idea.To a large extent, these three models parallel the
three approachesto relating research and pedagogy discussedin tlre previous section.That
is, the research development and diffusion model reflects the positivist, technical view; the
problem-solving model reflects the call for teacher research, w-hile the importance placed
on communication in the socialinteraction model mirrors that olaced on discoursein critical
a c t i o nr e s e a r c h .
The fourth set of factors governing the uptake of innovatorv proposals concerns the
attributes of the proposalsthemseives.These are of particular interest to us becausethey
may provide the applied linguist r'vith a basisfor evaluatingproposals emanating from SLA.
The principal attributesdiscussedin the literature (seeKellv 1980, Rogers 1983, and Stoller
1994) are listed inTable 3.1, together w-ith brief de{initions.Some of these attributes are

Table3.1 Attributes of innovation

Attribute Definition

'
Initial dissatisJaction The level of dissatisfactronthat teachers experience r""'ithsome aspect
ol their existing teaching.

Feasibilttv The extent to which the innovation is seen as implementabie given

the conditions in rvhich teachers work.

Acceptabilitl The extent to \\.hich the innovation is seen as compatible with teachers'
existing teaching stvle and ideologv.

Relevance The extent to rvhich the innovation is vierved as matching the needs of
the teachers'students.

Complexitl' The extent to which the innovation is dilficult or easv to grasp.

Explicitness The extent to rl,hich the rationale for the rnnovation is clear and
convincing.

Triabihty The extent to \\'hich the innovation can be easilr.tried out in stages.

ObservabtlitS, The extent to \r'hich the results of innovation are visible to others.

Originaliq, The extent to u'hich the teachers are required to demonstrate a high
level of originalitv in order to implement the innovation (e.g. bv
preparing specialmaterials).

uwnefsnlP The extent to u'hich teacherscome to feel that ther.'possess'the

inno'r'ation.
 SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITlON 63

seenasincreasingthe likelihood of an innovation becoming adopted (e.g.feasibility,relevance

and explicitness).That is u'hv thev are to be vieu-ed positiveiv. Other attributes are likely
to inhibit innovation (e.g. complexitv). Still others ma\-promote or inhibit innovation
dependingupon the particular adopters.For example, in the caseof originality, some teachers
mav be more likelv to implement an innovation if it callsfor their own original contribution
(e.g.in developingneu. teachingmaterials)u.hereasothers mav be lesslikely to do so.The
attributes also varv in another lr.av.Some (e.g. initial dissatisfactionand relevance) seem to
be more relative than absolute in the sensethat their application depends on the Particular
context in which teachers are \\rorking, r'vhereasothers (i.e. complexitr', explicitness,
triabilitv, and obserr.abilitv) seem more concerned lvith the inherent characteristics of the
innovation. Applied linguists interested in evaluating proposals dra'uvnfrom SLA are likely
to benefit from paving close attention to the inherent rather than the relative attributes of
proposais.
In addition to these setsoffactors that influence the uptake ofinnovatorv ideas,there is
also the question of ectsoflan pedagogvare involved in the change.This,too,
can influence the likelihood of the innovation es5fuf.Markee(.199+b),drar,ving in
particular on the rvork of Fullan ( 1982 and 1993) in education,suggeststhat innovationsin
the form of the development and use of nerv teaching materials constitute the easiestkind
of change. Innovations requiring change in methodological practices and, even more so in
the teachers'underlving pedagogicaivalues,are lesslikelv to prove successful.
There haveb""" ..1q!r:"b_&Legg4p!r_!g tppllq11-tfrryf qtionist perspective to language
--
pedug6ly. Beretra 11990) sought to evaluate the extent to rvhich the methodologicai
1n".t.tion;proposed bv Prabhu as part of the CommunicationalTeaching Project (CTP) in
India (Prabhu 1987) u.ere actuallv implemented bv the teachersinvolved.This project is
basedon the assumption that learners acquire grammar subconsciouslvw'hen their attention
is focused on communicating in meaning-focusedtasks.Although Prabhu did not draw
directlv on SLA research/theorv, his proposal is verv similar to that advancedbl' Krashen
and for this reasonis of considerableinterest here. Beretta collected historical narrativesfrom
15 teachers involved in the project and then rated these according to three levels of imple-
mentation:

1 orientation (i.e. the teacher demonstrateshe/she does not really understand the
innovation and is unable to implement it)
2 routine (i.e. the teacher understandsthe rationale of the CTP and is able to implement
it in a relativelv stable fashion), and
3 renewal (i.e. the teacher has adopted a critical perspective on the innovation,
demonstrating awarenessof its strengths and lveaknesses).

Fortv per cent of the teachers rvere rated at Level 1 , 47 per cent of teachers at Let'el 2
and 13 per cent at Level 3. Beretta considered Levels 2 and 3 demonstrated an adequateler,'el
of adoption. However, u.hen he distinguished betrveen regular and non-regular classroom
teachersinvolved in the project, he found that three out offour ofthe regular teachers were
at Level 1 . He concludedthat:

. . . it seemsreasonableto infer that CTP u'ould not be readil-vassimilablebv tvpical

teachers in South Indian schools (or, bv extension, in other schoois elselvhere where
'
similar antecedentconditionspertain) (ibid.: 333).

to rea4_st lgggplgb-Je-1s19-f
He points out that the fajJyrs.of the--regular-teachers -of
implementationref]ectstf,-eirlackofowt@obIemsregarding-
 64 ROD ELLIS

the innovation's feasibilitv because, for example, the teachers lacked the command
teaching.Therea@iudy for
Eample, we cannot be sule-uhether the regular teachersreallr.failed to adopt the innovation
or w'hether thev simplv lacked the English needed to produce narrative accounts of their
experience- but, nevertheless,it demonstratesthe potential of an innovationistperspective
for evaluatingpedagogicproposalsderived from SLA theor-vand research.
Probablv the most comprehensive studv of innovation in language pedagogy is to be
found in Stoller's (199+) studv of innovation in intensive English languageprogrammes
in the United States.Stoller obtained completed questionnairesfrom 43 such programmes
and also conducted in-depth intervier'vs u-ith fir-e programme administrators. She found
that the most frequentlv cited innovations related to the development of nerv curricula or
f th. r.rtr@s"r"*." p.-;;;a.r rn.* t*fitant tha.rot-6irs
foj successfuLinnoration. Attributes rated as particrrlii\rimporrant-were usefulness
(relevance), feasibilitr', improvement ol'er past placticeq_(r,vhichrvould seem to relate to
+
initial dissatisfaction)and p_racticlltv (which relates to acceptabilitv). Stoller was able to
identifv three major factors in the questionnaire responses.One factor lvas w'hat she termed
a'balanced divergent factor'. The attributes involved here rvere explicitness,complexity,
compatibilitv with past experiences, visibilitr', flexibilitv, and originalitv. In the caseof this
factor, however,the attributes operatedin a zone ofinnovation in the sensethat they facilitated
innovation'w.hen thev \\-erepresent to a moderate degree but not when they were strongly
or weakh.present.The second factor rvasdissatisfactionand the third factor viability. Stoller
a l s o d e m o n s t r a t e st h a t t h e r e a p p e a rt o b e d i l f e r e n t p a t h st o i n n o v a t i o nd e o e n d i n so n t h c
nature of the inno'ation6tG5 tl-r.*r.?.r. .
f"ffRiBt dir..tirfaction and finallv the balanced din'..g..rt factor. The
"6-rtGp".t*,
emphasisthat Stoller placeson viabiiitv in this type of innovation reflects the importance that
Beretta attachesto feasibilitv in the communicational teaching project.

1,_,rw An innor,
evaldating t
ir,e, then, r.vould seem to afford applied iinguists a way of
like.bto succsgdiGili-"oi be possible,
Eourse, to make very precise predictions about rvhich proposalswill be taken up and
f*.
t/ rvhich ones u.ill not, but, arguablr',the verv act of evaluating their potential will help
researchersto make them more practical. One might also add that an innovationist analvsis,
using the kinds of categoriesdiscussedin this section,ma\.provide teacherswith an explicit
and relativelv svstematic u'ay of determining whether specific proposals derived from SLA
are of useto them.The studl of innovations,therefore, offers another possiblervay of bridging
the gap betrveen SLA and languagepedagogr'.

.tr-t--,n^^^^roJ+t,_rr.zrrS-uN -.*.lJ L-wn<-t".-<.'<r1

i'<'- a.*r.-il-? D rsl ,,ra.r-u"nn^1 ..=a"
Applied lingriist's *11,-"-.1
perspective ; - Jrs,,lA, .-,,..."_L+LiftJ+
--/ |
I
rhare
dehned l-g-:,,,*r:,." ,*;*1.J. ,ffG&i1.?*6*:.Ift'T*i.f*'
anapptiSd
psvcholinguistics.
psvcholinguistics,sociolinggrsrqlcs,
sociolinguistics.education. anio[Fer area of potentiallv
education, and arn'oTher potentially relevant
relevir
\J
I l r . r..
e n o u l r \ t o l a n g u a p eD e o a g o g \ . l t l s l m D o r t a n t t o m a K e a c l e a r c l r s t l n c t l o nD e t w e e n a n n l l (
LJ
Ii-rguistics'and,'linguisticsapplied' . One obviousTEii6iliTiffip inquistics
--.1"".. utilizes
"l inf;rmation-sfrrceFoTEer
--------' linsuistics.as the abovedefiniti&n-ak.. Ttt.t. it
lor,vever,a deeperreason.Widdow.son( 1984) arguesthat 'it is the responsibilit,v of applied
: linguists to consider the criteria for an educationallv relevant approach to language' (ibid.:
17) and that this cannot be achier,edbl simplv applving linguistic theorv. This is becausethe
of their task is inherentlv different from the rvav teachers conceive
irvaylinguists conceive
[f t t " i . . . L i n q u i s t sa r e c o n c e r n e d u - i t h t h e p r e c i s ed e s c r i p t i o no l , ] C ! g . u € r 3 l d u ' i t h i 1 s
i
 SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION 65

explanatior. Teachers are concerned \\'ith the e-ffective use of language and_r,vithjts
,p-ropagatiqq
'=fuSfi''r
in-ecan distinguish betrveen applied linguistics and linguistics applied so we can

"l'o.InthecaseoftheIatter,anattemPtismadeto
applv SLA researchand theon'to languagepedagogv.Thisis u-hat man,vSLA researchershave
expresseddoubt about doing, adr,isingcaution. In the caseof applied SLA, horvever,an
attempt is made to examine the relevanceof SLA in educationalterms; it requires the SLA
..r.u.th.. to haveknor,vledgeofthe theorv and practice ofboth SLA and langrragepedagogy.
Onlv w.henSLA researchersengagein appiied SLA do thev function as applied linguists.13
A good example of applied SLA is to be found in Brindlev's ( 1990) account of a course
he taught as part of a postgraduate dipioma in adultTESOL. Brindlev dismisseswhat
'we
he seesasthe traditional approach of SLA coursesrvhich he characterizesas give you the
-
theorv vou apply it' (the approach implicit in Stern's 198 3 advocacvof foundation studies)
in favour of a.r upp.ou.h thai pror.idesopportunities for the participants to analysedata.This
encouragesthem to reformulate broad SLA research questions in terms of classroom
implicationsand includesa strong problem-posing/problem-soh'ingelement bv inviting the
participants to addressspecific classroom situations in the light of insights drawn from their
stud-vof SLA and to discussoptions for classroom applications. Brindler'-did include a
knowledge component of the iourse (i.e. he provideJ an introduction tokev topics and
terminologv) but in accordance w-ith his applied SLA stance,he invited the participants to
identifv those SLA topics the-vfound most relevant to their concerns. Interestingll', he found
that psvcholinguisticstudiesof developmentalsequences(generallvconsideredof central
importance bv SLA researchers)came bottom of the list, possiblvbecausethe teachers'
primarv concern rvaslr-ith teaching rather than learning.
ied SLA, then, asa branch of applied linguistics,must necessarilvconcern itself with
relevance.SLAIsc-n
ofa seco cannot be a that thesemode f anl
lndeed, in manv casesthev probablv are not. It is no more correct to assumethat a theorv
oflanguage learning is ofrelevance to teachers than it is to assumethat a theorv oflanguage
is. Relevancemust necessarilvbe determined not from u.ithin SLA but from without bv
demonstrating hou' the findings of SL.\ address the needs and concerns of practitioners.
Hou' then can SLA be made reievant to pedagogv?An answ'erto this question can be
found inWiddorvson's(1990) discussionof the roles of the appliedlinguist (seeFigure 3.2).

Practice

Figure 3.2 Relating disciplinarr theorv and languagepedagogr

Source:Widdorvson 1990: 32
 66 ROD ELLIS

ForWiddorvson, the applied linguist's task is to mediate between disciplinarv theory/

researchand languagepedagogr'.He suggeststhat this mediation inr,'oh'estwo interdependent
processes. The first is appratsal,u.hich involves interpretation (i.e. the explication of ideas
within their orvn terms of reference),follorved bv conceptualevaluation(i.e.'the process
of specifvingr,vhatmight be caliedthe transfervalueof ideas' (ibtd.:3 1)).The secondprocess
is appltcation,rvhich also involves tlvo phases.In the caseof operation,specific techniques are
proposed based on the conclusions of the conceptual evaluation.Alternatively, specific
techniques taken from teachers' customarv practices can be subjected to scrutiny, a process
that both drarvs on the results ofprior conceptual evaluation and potentiallv contributes to
it.The result of this processis a rationale for proposed action.The secondphaseof application
is whatWiddowson calls'empiricalevaluation'.Thisis undertakenb-vteachers,possiblyw'ith
the assistanceof applied linguists, and involves monitoring the effects of their actions by
examining the relationship betu'een teaching and learning. It cails for teacher research.
Widdowson's frameu-ork provides a basisfor applving SLA in the follow'ing ways:

f\aking SLA accessible

V-Hs function involves interoretation. Becausethe bulk of SLA oublications were written for
r e s e a r c h e r sa n d n o t D r a c t i t i o n e r s .t h e r e i s a n o b r i o u s n e e d f o r s u m m a r i e so f t h e m a r n
findings. Such summariesu'ill hale four major purposes:to make a principled selectionof
those findings that are likely to be ofinterest to teachers; to provide surveys ofthe findings
of a rvide range ofresearch r,vhichhas addressedthese issues; to evaluatethe findings in their
o\\-n terms 1i.e. to establishrvhich ones are valid, reliable and trustr'vorthv);to present the
survevs in a language that makes them accessibleto practitioners and rvhich provide the
means by which teachers can receive a foundation in SLA.
The organization of these summaries bears some thought. One possibility is to structure
them around the issuesidentified in the rgsear-eh-Thislvould lead to survevs of such issues
as learner errors, input and interactioryi-i35ili3ggirrL,the role of formal instruction, etc. An
alternative, however, is to base the sufvevs-on pedagogical concepts. This would lead to
surveys ofresearch findings that are relevant to such issuesas error treatment, the use ofthe
learner's L1 in the classroom,and options in grammar teaching.Thislatter approachis clearlv
more demanding but is likelv to increase the perceived reievance. It provides a bridge
betw'eeninterpretation and conceptual evaluation.

2 Theorv development and its application

One wav of conducting conceptual evaluation is through theory construction. As Krashen
( 198 3) hasnoted there are dangersin ,r)'irg !o uppl)' th9j ."r"
-rTHr "t
r--
i a n d a m o r e p r r n c r p l e da p p r o a c J \ i st o u s e r e s e a r c ht o c o n s t r u c ta t h e o r v n h i c h c a n t h e n b e
#-
applied. One advan-age of such an approTch'EErrceptuaiization is that it provides an
opportunitv for developinga pedagogicallvrelevant theorr'.As Brumfit (1983) has noted,
t e a c h e r sn e c e s s a r i l or p e r a t eu - i t h c a t e g o r vs r s t e m s A
. t h e o r v o f i n s t r u c t e dl a n g u a g ea c c u i -
sition
}:-i-'_' can assist them in creating appropriate categoriEiWFnGd earlier, however, that
there are aiso dangers in such an approach. In particular, so much investment mav be made
in a theor-v that it becomes petrified, resistant to modification in the iight of counter
. arguments and ner'vresearchfindings. If this happens,of course conceptual evaluation gives
rvay to persuasion.
The application of the hvpothesesthat comprise a theory is one rvay of operationalizing
SLA for pedagogv.Thisoperationalizationtakesthe form of specificproposalsfor the practice
of teaching.The proposals mav concern overall approaches,the aims of the language
curriculum, the content and organization of a s"'llabus,teaching activities, methodological
 SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION 67

procedures, and methods of testing learners and evaluating curricula - in other words anv
aspectof languagepedagogv.Theseproposals,mav take the form of original ideas,but as I
have alreadv pointed out, it is more likelv that thev rvill identifv options alread_v to be found
u,'ithin pedagogv.Irrespective of their form, these proposals cannot hr". th. status of
prescriptions. Rather thev serve as illuminative ideas.The',' are suggestions'"vhich practi-
tioners, if thev seefit, mav or mal not chooseto experiment rvith.The provisionalnature of
proposalsis determined not bv doubts about the r,aliditvof the theorv/researchupon which
lh.v u." based(even though such doubts mav u'ell exist ) but bv the recognition thaino theorv
and no research can claim to be applicable to the mvriad contexts in r,vhichpractitioners
operate. The applied SLA researcher,hou.ever, has a dutr. to ensure that anl I has
P o t e n t l l l r e r a p P l ' c a t t o na n d , ct. the attributes ol dilterent
examined from the innor,ationist oe ir-e described in the previous section. InJhii-war,,
it mav be possible to identifv u'hich proposals have a good chance of being adopted b1
teachers

3 Researchingthe L2 classroom
As rt'ehaveseen,another rvav of operationalizingconstructs,lvhether thesehavebeen derived
from pure researchor from teachers'personal knorvledge,is to carrv out investigations
ofclass.r-qqrnlegI!.e\sQIo55-9,thisshouldinvo1veresearchonclass@
r ! , : I

in classrooms 1Wr-ght 1rn). Suc ie3r.h ptotid.i-u@g

pedagogicpiopo,ul.]Long199O;.tt'..p"*r.,"*.'.""a.
:rhelps-6-lv-aTd ofi-attacks that proposals derived from teachers' own experience or from
methodologists'r'vritings are nothing more than hunchesor unproven prescriptions. Further
more, Practitioners are likelv to attend to classroom research more seriousiv than to pure
researchbecauseit directlv addresses issuesthat thev are concernedu.ith.
Classroom-centredr.r.u..h conductedbo'res"urchers, hou'ever,doesnot suppl-va bodr
of information about effective pedagogv rvhich can be transmitted to teachers as solutions
to their problems anv more than does pure research.The most that can be said is that
proposals that are tested through classroom research mav become more fully illuminated.
In accordancervith the vie,"'n'sof Stenhouse,verma,Wili, and Nixon (1982i, the external
validit,vof anv research,including classroomresearch,can onlv be establishedbv individual
teachers in the contexts of their or'vn classrooms.It follolr-s, then, that w.hatWiddolr,'son
(1990) refers to as'outsiderresearch'needsto be complementedbr,'insiderresearch,w.hich
is researchconductedb"' teachersthemselves.

4 The teacher as researcher

We saw'eariier
in our discussion
of the educational that thereis_a-compellingcase
perspective
IorlnvoI\'lnqteacnerSin.esearchiJo..,,"io.,
lt.!tt--.- -

ProDlems loenllnec Dv teacners. lt Pro\ldes means ol enabhng teachers to reflect on thelr

theoriesofian learnins and teachinslEat-Ire
reler.anttotheirorr-nclassroomcontextS'Theadr.ocac'ofteacheffi
1
r 990)
) )v ) in
rrrrecGnt
r cLclrLiearFrEllects
vedrs fellecLsmaiftreasilg
urc lncreasrngall'areness
all-areness
thai languageteacrung
mat teachingists an ed"ucational
educatlona^
enterprise and, thus, needsto be informed bv mainstream educational thinking.Widdowson
(1990) seesthe need for teachersto be engagedin the active processof exp'erimentingin
their classroomsas a r,vavof determining the practical effect of ideas in action.
There is still a role for SLA in teacher'ledresearch,hou.er,'er. AsWiddorvson ( 1993) has
pointed out, action research,like anr-other kind of research,cannot take place w.ithout
theorizing. Teachersneed to engagein the process of conceptual evaluation in order to
identifv research problems. A familiaritv rvith SLA, then, can help teachers shapeproblems
5B ROD ELLiS

in a wav that makes them researchabie.In so doing, holvever, it must not impose issuesor.r
teachersbut rather act asa resourcebv which teacherscan refine questionsderived from their
o\vn experience.AsWiddo\\'son (1993) puts it, theorizing must be client-centred.
SLA can help in another u'ar'.It can provide teachers w'ith information about the kinds
of instruments and procedures thev rvili need to usein order to collect and analysedata. Some
thirty vearsof researchingL2 acquisitionhaveled to the development of a number of research
tools (seeLarsen-Freemanand Long 1991 , Alhvright and Baile-v1991), manl' of which can
be used bv teachersin their ou,n classrooms.
As lve noted earlier, the idea of the teacher as researcher r,vill not always be lvelcomed
bv teachers. For some teachers, at least, horvever, SLA can be made real through the
discoveriesthev make about holv their olvn learners learn a second language.

From an applied linguist's perspecti"'e,then, SLA is relevant to language pedagogy in

a number of lva-vs.It can contribute to the appraisal of pedagogic issues.To this end, the
applied SLA u,orker can assistbv making research accessibleto teachers,bv developing
theories ofinstructed L2 acquisitionand bv advancingpedagogicproposalsbasedon t}ese
theories. SLA also has a role in application.The appiied SLA researchercan seekto illumi-
nate pedagogic problems and their possible solutions through conducting experimental and
interpretative studies in and, particularlv on L2 classrooms.Finalh', the SLA worker can act
as a facilitator of teachers' o$,-nresearchbv helping them formulate research questions and
choose appropriate research methods. These functions can be seen as strung out on a
continuum with'outsider activitv' at one pole and'insider-activitv'at the other.While it can
be argued that the relevanceof SI-A increasesas one moves ulong the continuum, outsider
activity should not be disparaged,ashasbecome fashionablein some quarters.Teacherscan
and do benefit from an understanding of the issuesdiscussedin SLA. How.ever,the deter-
mination of reievance is ultimatelv the dutv of the teacher, not the applied SLA worker,
although the latter can aid the process and, doubtlesslv,should try to do so.
Finally, it must be clearlv acknou.ledgedthat SLA does not constitute a body of
knowledge that is necessarvfor the development of effective teaching skills. As Brumfit
( 1983: 61) hasobserved,'learningto perform competentlvis never the sameaslearninghow
to understand the processofperformance and to explain it'. SLA can contribute to teachers'
'there
understanding; it cannot ensure competent practice and, to quote Brumfit again, is
alw'aysthe possibiiitv that practice u'ill run aheadof theorl', aslvell asthe reverse' (rbid.: 68 ) .

Notes

1 The failure of the comoarativemethod studiesto demonstratethe suoerioritv of one

method over another did not lead to the abandonmentof classroo- ."r"u..h bur.d o.t
pedagogicalconstructs,hor'vever.Ratherit led to a focuson particular aspectsofteaching,
suchaserror treatment or learner participation.Alhvright ( 198 8) describeshow the global
method studiesgave\^-avto the detailed studv of classroomprocesses.
2 SLA researchersw'ho begantheir careersas teachersinciudeVivian Cook, Pit Corder,
Mike Long, John Schumann,ElaineTaroneand mvself.
3 Preciseh'ivhat counts as a relevant freld of..qri.. in SLA u'here languagepedagogyis
concernedis, ofcourse, debatable.In Ellis (1995), I arguethe casefor the irrelevanceof
UG-basedresearchand theon'. Another areain rvhich I haveoersonallvbeen able to find
littlereleranceislanguagetransfer.ThecompetitionmodeirBatesandMa 1 c9 W
8 2hyi n n e v
hasproved productive in promoting researchbut to date hashad little to sayto teachers.
However,this faiiure to find relevanceshouldnot be perceivedasa criticism ofthese areas
 SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION 69

of enquirv.Thestudv of languagetransfer,for example,is obviouslvof centrai importance

fbr understandingL2 acquisition,the goal of SLA.
Other factors to do rvith the relative statusof pure research(i.e. researchdirected
exclusivelvat the creationoftechnical knor,r-ledge) as opposedto appliedresearch(i.e.
researchdirected at addressingpractical iss.re"s; i" th. universitt settingsin r,vhich
researcherstvpicallv'rvorkmav alsohavecontributed to the diminishinginterest in adding
application s e c t i o n st o p u b l i s h e dp a p e r : .
According to the positivist vierv of the relationshipbetu-eenresearchand language
pedagogr',researchpror.idestechnicaiknou-ledgeu'hich teachersusein making decisions
about vl-hatand hor,r-to teach. Researchprescribesand proscribesw.hatteachersshould
do.
Pica(1994) doesnot indicatehou'her teachersarrived at the questionsthev asked.One
possibilitv is that their questionsrvere influenced,in part at least, bv their knon'ledge of
the SLA literature and their perceptionof u-hatthis literature claimsis important and
relevant. It r.vouidbe interesting to knorv u-hat kinds of questionsare askedbv teachers
u'ho are not familiar lr'ith SL-A.. I am grateful for Jim Lantolf for raisingthis point.
It should be noted that some researchersseea positive disadvantage in trying to establish
links w'ith languagepedagog'"'. Neu.meverand Steinberg( 1988),for example,considerthat
one of the reasonsfor the immaturitv of SLA is preciselvthe felt needto make applications.
Sometimes,horvever,thesenatural samplesof spokenlanguage'r,vere supplementedwith
samplesof elicited language.For example,Cazden,Cancino,Rosansky,and Schumann
(1915) usedexperimentalelicitationsbv askingtheir subjectsto imitate or transform a
modei utterance.
The interpretativetradition of research,r'i'eddedto ideasborrowed from critical sociologv,
hasmore recentlv been usedto examinea third tl'pe of knou.ledge sociallvconstructed
knolvledge.Thispost-modern approachhas,.r.rtil .ecentlv, not b"eenstrongiv reflected in
SLA.
10 Richards(1991),in a survevof 50 MATESOL programmeslistedin theTESOLdirector,v,
found that 29 ofthem includedrequiredcourseson SLA.
lt There is, of course,a dual applicationof Leu'in'smodel of actionresearchto teaching.One
is that researchersinterestedin changingclassroompracticesneed to work rvith teachers
rvith a simiiar interest in researchingchange.Theother is that teachersneed to work with
learnersin negotiatingthe activitiesthel' will engagein. The latter appiicationis reflected
in the idea of a processsvllabus(Breen 1984),accordingto'"vhichthe content,method-
ologv, and methods of evaluationfor a languagecourse are establishedjointlt.bv teacher
and studentsasthe coursetakesplace.Tothe best of mr.knor",-ledge, however,proponents
of the processsvilabushavenot made direct links betrveentheir ideasand thoseof Le'"r-in.
12 Markee's(199+b) studv examinedtask-basedlanguageteaching,w'hich,asMarkee points
out, hasbeen influencedbv psvcholinguistictheories of L2 learning.
It should be clear from this that the SLA researcherand the appliedlinguist canbe one and
the same person. Indeed, manv SLA researchers(mvself included) would consider
themselvesapplied linguists. It should be equallv clear that the two roles need not
be related;there are manv SLA researchers u'ho are not appliedlinguists.Thereare also
some SLA researchersorlith ,ro foundation in languagep"augogt ,:uho 'SLA
in
"ngug.
applied'.

References

Adelman, C. (1993)'Kurt Lervin and the origins of actions research', EducationalActionResearch

1 :7 - 2 4 .
7O ROD ELLIS

Boston, Mass.:
Agard, p. and Dunkel, H. (1948) An lnvestigationoJ SecondLanguageTeaching.
Ginn.
Agnevl.,J ("d ) (1980) Innovatton,Research andPublicPolicr,'. Svracuse,N.Y.:Svracuse Universitr.
Al-atis,J.(ed.)(1991) ( J n i v e r s i t v o J G e o r g e t o w n R o u n d T d bleonLanguageandLinguistics.Washington
D.C. : Georgetor,vn Universitl Press.
Alatis, J., Stern, H. and Stevens,P. (eds) (1933) AppltedLinguisticsand the PreparationoJTeachers,
hward a Rationale. Wishington D. C. : Georgeton'n Unil'ersitv Press.
Alhvright, R. ( 1988) Observation in the LanguageClassroom. London: Longman.
Allu,'right, D. and Bailev, K. ( 1991) Focuson the Language An Introduction rc Classroom
Classroom:
ResearchJorTbachers.Cambridge: Cambridge Universitv Press.
'Consultant
Bahns, J. ( 1990) not initiator: the role of the applied SLA researcher' . ELTJournal
44:110-16.
Bates,E. and MacWhinner',B. (1982)'Functionalistapproaches to grammar', inWanner and
Gleitman ( e d s )( 1 9 8 2 ) .
Beebe, L. (ed.) (1988) lssuesin SecondLanguage
,i'cquisition: New'York:
,MulfiplePerspectives,
Ner,vburl'House.
'lmplementationof the BangaloreProject' AppltedLinguistics 11 321-40.
Beretta,A. (1990) ,
- 'Theor-v in Second
(1991) constructionin SLA: complementaritvand opposition', Studies
Language Acquisition 73 493 511.
Bolitho, R. (1991)'A place for secondianguageacquisitionsin teacherdevelopmentand in
t e a c h e re d u c a t i o np r o g r a m m e s 'i,n S a d t o n o( e d . ) ( 1 9 91 ) .
'Process for the languageclassroom'in Brumfit (ed.) (19Sab).
Breen,M. (1984) svllabuses
Breen,M. (1985)'Authenticitr.in the languageil"sr.oorn' , AppliedLinguistics 6:60_70.
B r e e n ,M . a n d C a n d l i n ,C . ( 1 9 8 7 ) ' W h i c h m a t e r i a l s ? a c o n s u m e r ' sa n d d e s i g n e r ' g
suide'in
Sheldon ( e d . ) ( 1 9 8 7 ) .
Bright, J. and McGregor, G. (1910). Teaching Englishasa Second Language, London: Longman.
Brindiev,G. (1990)'lnquirv-basedteachereducation:a casestudy'. Paperpresentedat24tn
AnnualTESOL Convention,SanFranciscoMarch 6-10,1990'
'The
Brock, C. (1985) effectsof referentialquestionson ESL classroomdiscourse'. TESOL
@rarterly2O: 4148.
Brooks,N. (1950) LanguageandLanguageLearning.NervYork:Harcourt BraceandWorld.
Language
Brown, H. (ed.) (1915) Papersin Second Ann Arbor, Mich.: Language
Acquisition.
Learning, Universitv of Michigan.
' T T . W a s h i n g t oD
n.C.:TESOL.
B r o u , n ,H . , Y o r i o ,C . a n d C r v m e s ,R . ( e d s )( 1 9 7 7 )O n T E S O L
'The
Brumfit, C. (1983) integrationof theorv and practice',in Alatis er a1.(eds)(1983).
- (ed.) (1984) General EngltshSvllabus Design.ELT Documents 1 18. Oxford: Pergamon.
'The
Brumfit, C. and Mitchell, R. (1990a) languageclassroomas a focus for research',in
Brumlit and Mitchell (eds)(1990b).
Brumfit, c. and Nlitchell, R. (eds) (1990b)'Research in the Languageclassroom'. EIr
Documents 13 3. London: Modern EnglishPublications.
Calderhead,J ("d ) (1938) Teachers'Professional Learninq.London: Falmer.
Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming Crjtical:Education, Knowledge and ActionResearch.
London: Falmer.
Cazden,C., Cancino,E., Rosanskr', E. and Schumann,l. (1915) SecondLanguageAcquisitionin
Children,Adolescents and Aduhs. Final Report. \{'ashington D.C.: National Institute of
Education.
C l a r k e ,M . a n d H a n d s c o m b eJ,. ( e d s )( 1 9 8 3 ) O n T E S O L ' E 2 : P a c t f c P e r s p e cotni vLeasn g u a gaen d
Teachtng.Washington, D. C. : TESOL.
Cook. G. and Seidlhofer,B. (eds) (199;) Principleand Practice in AppliedLinguistics: Studiesin
HonouroJH. G.Widdouson. Oxlbrd: Oxford UniversitvPress.
Cooper,R. (1989)LanguagePlanning andSocialChange. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversitvPress.
 SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION 7T

Corder, S. P. (1973) Introducing AppliedLinguistrcs.

Harmondsworth:Penguin.
- (1977)'Language teaching and learning: a social encounter', in Brown er a1. (eds)
(1917).
- 'Second
(1980) languageacquisitionresearchand the teaching of grammar', BAAL
Newslette 1 r0 : 1 - 1 2 .
'Action
Crookes, G. (1993) researchand secondlanguageteachers:going bevond teacher
research'. AppltedLinguistics l4: 130-44.
Crookes,G. and Gass,S. (eds)( i 993) Tasks andLanguage Learning:
integratinBTheor)t
andPractjce.
Cle'r,edon,North Somerset:N{ultilingual N{atters.
Dahl, H. (ed.) (1979) Spotlighton Educational Research.
Oslo: Oslo UniversitvPress.
Dulav, H. and Burt, M. (i973)'should rve teach children svntax?'Lonjuog, Learning)3:
2 4 5 - s8 .
'On
Duskova,L. (.1969) sourcesof errors in foreign languagelearning',|KAL'7:11 36.
Eckman, F., Highland, D., Lee, P., N{ileham,J. andWeber, J. (eds) (1995) Second Language
AcquisitionTheorv and Pedagogl . N{ahrva,N.J.: LalvrenceErlbaum.
Elliott, J. and Ebutt, D. (1985) FacilitatingEducational AcilonResearch in Schools.
NewYork:
Longman.
Ellis, R. (199+) The Stud), oJ Second Language Acquisirion.Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
- (.1995)'Appraisingsecondlanguageacquisitiontheorv in reiatronto pedagogv',in Cook
a n d S e i d l h o f e(re d s )( 1 9 9 5 ) .
Eraut, NI. (199+) Developing ProJessional Knowledge and Competence. London: Falmer.
Fischer,R. (1935) TheDesignoJExperiments. Edinburgh: Oliver and Bovd.
Flow.erde'ur,',J., Brooks, M. and Hsia, S. (eds) (1992) Perspectives on SecondLanguage Teacher
Education. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Citl'Polvtechnic.
Flynn, S. and Nlartohardjono,G. (1995)'Ton'ards theon'-driven languagepedagogr'. in
E c k m a ne ra 1 .( e d s )( 1 9 9 5 ) .
Freeman,D. and Richards,J. (1993)'Conceptionsof teachingand the educationof second
languageteachers'. TESOL@tarterlr' 27: 193-211.
Freidson, E. (1977) ProJesionoJMedicine:ASmdvoJ Sociolog,v of AppliedKnowledge.Nes']brk:
Dodd, N{eadand Co.
Fullan,M. (1982) The,Meaning oJEducational Change. NervYork:Teachers CollegePress.
Fullan,M. (1993) Change Forces:Probing theDepthsoJEducational ReJorn.London: Falmer.
Galton,M. (ed.) (1980) Curriculum Change. Leicester:LeicesterUniversitvPress.
Gass,S. (1989)'Languageuniversalsand secondlanguageacquisition'.Language Learning)9:
+91-53+.
Gass.S. (1995)'Learning and teaching:the necessarvintersection',in Eckman er a1. (eds)
(1ees).
Gass,S. and Schachter,J. (eds) (199+) lssues in Constructing Second LanguageClassroomResearch.
Hillsdale, N.J.: Larvrence Erlbaum.
Habermas,I. (.1979)Communication andtheEvolution of Society (tr.T. Mccarthl'). Boston:Beacon
Press.
Harlev,B, Allen, P., Cummins,J. and Su.ain,M. (eds)( 1990) TheDevelopment of Second
Language
Profciency.Cambridge: Cambridge Unir-ersitv Press.
'Appll'
Hatch, E. (1978) rvith caution'. kudiesin Second Language Acquisition
2: 123-43.
Haveiock,R. (1971)'The utilizationof educationalresearchand development'.BritishJournal
oJEducationalTechnologv 2: 81-9'7.
'
Henrichsen,L. (1989) Dffision o;fInnovations ;n EnglishTeaching:The Ner,v
ELECffirt in_.ilcpan.
York: Greenu-oodPress.
'Educational
H i r s t , P .( 1 9 6 6 ) t h e o r r ' 'i n T i b b l e s( e d . ) ( 1 9 5 5 ) .
Hopkins, D. (1985) Akacher's Guideto Classroom Research. Milton Keynes:Open University
Press.
72 ROD ELLIS

knorvledgefor the secondlanguageteacher',inAlatis et c1.(eds)

Jarr.is,G. (1983)'Pedagogical
( 1e 8 3 ) .
'Five
Johnson,K. ( 1982) principlesin a "communicative"exercisetYPe',in Johnson,K. (19821
Communicative SvIl abus D esign and,ll ethodo1og;', Oxford : Pergamon.
' Numan(ed.)(1987).
e a r n e rl a n g u a g ei n
, . ( 1 9 8 7 ) ' U n d e r s t a n d i nl g
J o h n s t o nM
'From to adaptabilitr'', in Galton (ed.) (1980).
Kelly, P. (1980) innovation
Kemmis, S. and N1cTiggert, R. (1981) The Action Research Planner.Victoria, Australia:Deakin
UniversitvPress.
'Er-aluation
Kenned1.,G. (1988) and the managementof changein ELT projects'. Applted
9: 329-42.
Linguistics
'The lecture,Annual Conferenceof
Kramsch,C. ( 1995) politicsof appliedlinguistics'. Plenar.,'
the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Long Beach, California'
Kramsch, C. and McConnell-Ginet, S. (eds) (1992) Text and Context:Cross-Disciplinary
on Language
Perspectives Srud,r.Lexington, N{ass.:D.C. Heath and Companv.
Krashen,S. (1983)'second languageacquisitiontheon'and the preparationofteachers', in
A l a t i se t a 1 .( e d s )( 19 83 ) .
Krashen,S. and Terrell, T. (1983) The NaturalApproach: Language in the Classroom.
Acquisition
Oxford: Pergamon.
Kuhn, T. (1910) The Structure (2nd edn.). Chicago: Chicago University
of ScienttfcRevolutions
Press.
'The coalitionsin
Lambright,W and Flvnn, P (1980) role of local bureaucracv-centered
technologvtransferto the citv' in Agnerv(ed.) (1980).
'second
Lantolf, J. (1995) languageacquisitiontheorr''. Plenarvaddress,1995Annual BAAL
Conference,Southampton,UK.
L a r s e n - F r e e m a n , D . a n d L o n g , N( 1
l .9 9 1 ) A n l n t r o d u c t i o n t o S e c o n d L a n g u a g e A c q u i s i t i o n R e s e a r c h .
London: Longman.
Lightbown,P. (1985)'Great expectation:secondlanguageacquisitionresearchand classroom
t e a c h i n g. '. 4 p p l r eLdi n g u r s t t6c :s l 7 l - 8 9 .
Lightbow.n, P. and Spada,N. (1993) How Languages are Learned Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
a c q u i s i t i o n ' i n W i n i t z( e d . ) ( 1 9 8 1 b )
L o n g ,N I . ( 1 9 8 1 ) ' l n p u t ,i n t e r a c t i o na n d s e c o n dl a n g u a g e
- 'Training language teacher as classroom researcher'in Alatis et a1.
11983a.y the second
( e d s )( 1 9 8 3 ) .
- 'Natil'e
(1983b) speaker/non-nativespeaker conversationin the second language
classroom',in Clarke and Handscombe(eds)(1983).
- (1990)'second languageclassroomresearchand teacher education',in Brumfit and
M i t c h e l l ( e d s )( 1 9 9 0 b ) .
- ( 1 9 9 3 , ; ' . { s s e s s m esnt rt a t e g i efso r S L A t h e o r i e s.' A p p l i e d L t n g u i s t1i c4s: 2 2 5 4 9 .
'The
Markee,N. (1993) differenceof innovationin languageteaching'. AnnualReview oJApplied
13: 229-43.
Linguistics
'Tor,vards
Markee, N. (1994a) an ethnomethodological respectification of second-language
acquisitionstudies',in Gassand Schachter(eds)(199+).
- (1994b)'Curricularinnovation:issuesand problems'. AppliedLanguage Learning5: 1-30.
McDonough, J. and McDonough, S. (i990)'What's the use of research?' ELTJournal44:
t02-9.
'Hou
Ne',r'mark, L. (.1966) not to interfere in language learning' , InternationalJournal of
A m e r i c aLni n g u i s t i c3s2 : 1 1 - 8 1 .
Nervmeyer,F. and Steinberg(1988)'The ontogenesisof the field of secondlanguagelearning
r e s e a r c h ' i nF l v n na n d O ' N e i l l ( e d s )( 1 9 8 8 1 .
Noffke, S. and Stevenson,R. (eds) (1995) Educattonal .lction Research: Practtcally
Becoming
Critical.Neu'York:Teachers'CollegePress.
 SEcOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION 73

Nunan, D. (ed.) (1987) .4pptvingSecond LanguaBe Acquisition Research. National Curriculum

ResearchCentre,Adelaide,Australia:Adult Migrant EducationProgram.
, B r u m f i t a n d M i t c h e l l ( e d s )( 1 9 9 0 b ) .
N u n a n .D . ( 1 9 9 0 ) ' T h et e a c h e ra sr e s e a r c h e r i' n
pennycook,A. (1989) 'The concept of method, interestedknorvledge,and the politics of
languageteaching'. TESOL@Ldrterl1 25: 589-6i8.
pica, T. (1987) 'second languageacquisition:soclal interaction in the classroom'.Applied
L t n g u i s r i c s|T :2 ' t .
- 'The sPeakernegotiation:what do
(1992) textual outcomesof nativespeaker-non-native
ther. reveal about second language learning' in Kramsch and McConnell-Ginet (eds)
(1ee2).
- 'Questionsfrom the languageclassroom:researchperspectives' . TESOLQtarterlv
(199+)
28:49-19.
pica, T. and Doughtr., C. (1985) 'The role of group rvork in classroomsecond language
acquisition'. Studies jn Second Language Acqujsition J 233 48.
"
Polanvi,M. (1958) Personal Knowledge:Towards a Post-Critical Philosop\.London: Routledge.
Prabhu,N. S. ( 1987) Second Language Pedagog,v. Oxford: Oxford UniversitvPress.
R a v e m ,R . ( 1 9 6 8 ) ' L a n g u a gaec q u i s i t i o inn a s e c o n dl a n g u a g e n v i r o n m e n t.'l K 4 L 5 : 1 6 5 8 5 .
Richards,J. (1991)'Co.rt"nt knou'ledgeand instructionalpracticein secondlanguageteacher
e d u c a t i o n 'i,n A i a t i s( e d . ) ( 19 9 1) '
Rogers,R. (1983) TheD{fustonoJlnnovations (3rd ed.1.London and Ner'vYork:Nlacmilianand
Free Press.
Sadtono, E. (ed.) (1991) LanguageAcquisition and the Second/Foreign LanguageClassroom.
Singapore:SEAMFO RegionalEngiishLanguageCentre.
'secondlanguageacquisition:perceptionandpossibilities'.Second Language
Schachter, J. ( 1993)
Research 9: 113-81 .
Scherer,A. andWertheimer, N,l.(.196+:) .4 Psvcholinguistic Experiment in FordgnLanguageTeaching .
Neu'York: NIcGrau-Hill.
Schon,D. (1983) The Ref.ectivePrcojtioner. Nelr'York:BasicBooks'
'Some
Schumann,J. 119931 problems u.ith falsification:an illustration from SLA research'.
AppliedLinguistics 14 : 29 5-306.
SchuvleaP.and Sitterle)',D. (1995)'Pre-serviceteachersupervisionandreflectivepractice',in
Nol{ke and Stevenson(eds)(1995).
Skehan,P. (1996)'second languageacquisitionresearchand task-based instruction', inWillis
a n d W i l l i s( e d s )( 19 9 5 ) .
Smith, P. (1970)'A comparisonof the Audiolingualand Cognitive Approachesto Foreign
LanguageInstruction:The Pennsr'lr'ania Foreign LanguageProject.' Philadelphia:Center
for Curriculum DeveloPment.
Spada,N. and Lightbor.r-n, P (1993)'lnstruction and the developmento[ questionsin L2
classrooms' . Studies Language
in Second Acquisition75 205 21.
Stenhouse,L. (1975) "4n lntroductionto Curriculum Research and Development. London:
Heinemann.
- ' U s i n gr e s e a r c hm e a n sd o i n gr e s e a r c h 'i,n D a h ] ( e d . ) ( 1 9 7 9 ) .
(1919)
S t e n h o u s eL,. , V e r m a ,G . , W i l d , R . a n dN i x o n , l . ( 1 9 8 2 ) T e a c h i nagb o u rR a c eR e l a t i o nLso. n d o n :
Routledge.
Stern,H. (1983) Fundamental Concepts of LanguageTeachtng. Oxford: Oxford UniversitvPress.
'The
Stoller,F. (199+) diffusion of innovationsin intensiveESL programs'.ApphedLinguistics
15:300-27.
'Some
Tarone,E., Su,ain,M. and Fathman,A. (1915) limitationsto the classroomapplications
of current secondlanguageacquisitionresearch'. TESOLQyarteily10: 19-3 1.
London: Routledgeand KeganPaul.
Tibbles,I ("d ) (1966) The StudyoJ Educatton.
1,vler,R. (]9+9) Basic oJCurriculum
Principles Chicago:ChicagoUniversitvPress.
andInstruction.
74 ROD ELLIS

andtheLanguage
Van Lier, L. (1988) TheClassroom Learner.London: Longman.
- (1990)'Ethnographr':bandaid,handvragon,
or contraband'inBrumfit and Mitchell (eds)
( 1e e O b ) .
VanPatten,B. and Cadierno,T. (1993)'Explicit instruction and input processing'.Studiesin
SecondLanguage l5: 22541 .
Acquisition
Stateof the.4rt.Nen'York:
Wanner,E. and Gleitman, L. (eds) (1982) Language,Tcquisiilon:The
Cambridge Universitv Press.
Weber,M. (1951) TheTheorl'oJSoctal andEconomicOrganizatton.New'York:TheFree Press.
Weiss,C. (ed.) (.1911)using SocialResearch Lexington:D. C. Heath.
in PublicPolic,r'-making.
White, R. (1988) The ELT Currjculum:Design,Innovationand tVanagemenr. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
- 'lnnovation 73:
. Annual ReviewoJAppliedLinguistics
(1993) in program der,elopment'
2++-s9.
W i d d o w s o n ,H . ( 1 9 S 4 ) ' A p p l i e dl i n g u i s t i c st:h e p u r s u i t o f r e l e v a n c e ' i n W i d d o w s o n( 1 9 8 a )
Explorattons in AppliedLinguistics 2. Oxford: Oxford Universitv Press.
- (1990) Aspects oJLangrageTeaching. Oxford: Oxford UniversitvPress.
- (.1993) 'lnnovation in teacher development'. Annual Rev)ewoJ Applied Llnguistics13:
260 15.
Wilkins, D. (1916) NotionalSr'llabuses. Oxford: Oxford Universitl'Press.
Willis, J. and Willis, D. (eds) (1996) Challenge and Changein Language Teaching. Oxford:
Heinemann.
Winitz, H. (ed.) (1981)'Native Languageand ForeignLanguageAcquisition' . AnnalsoJtheNew
YorkAcademy 379.
of Sciences
'Classroom
Wright, T. (1992) research and teacher education: torvards a collaborative
approach', in Florverdel et al. (eds)( 1992).
'Acquiring Education27 : 21-25 .
Zahorik, J. ( 19 86) teaching skills' , rlourncI of Teacher
Chapter 4

PeterSkehan

COMPREHENSION AND PRODUCTION

STRA TEGiES IN LANGUAGE LEARNING

f N AN INFTUENTIAL PAPER WHICH d i s c u s s eds i f f e r e n c e sb e t w e e n f i r s t

|. und second languagelearning, Blev-Vroman (1989) drarvsattention to the extent'lq
*hi.h .".ord lung!3g9_( .lfirst ]qlguge '
l -tittr*.tt""-"nr.ttti"gt'ot. of;;;nffiA
:--"."-;1, - -
it is hardlv srlrpfrfinglEatlFelanguage teaching profession has explored manv alternatives
in the search to find more effective methods (Larsen-Freeman 1985). And it is equallv
unsurprisingthat one of the responsesthe professionhasmade is to seervhetherupprou.h",
to second languageteaching w.hich connect rvithfrsr languageacquisition hold out anv
promise.
This chapter u'ill review t$.o such instructional approaches.The first is broadlr'
concerned ouith .o.r.pr"hension-drir.en learning, regarding second language development
aslikelv to proceed,under the right conditions,simplv asa result of exposureto meaningful
input. The second, lvhich in some wavs arose out of dissatisfactionwith the {irst, proposes
that engagingin interaction and producing output w'ill be sufficient to drive secondlanguage
development forw-ard.In each case,clearlr',interlanguagedevelopment is seen to be the
bv-product of engagingin meaning-processing- in the first casethrough comprehension,
and in the secondthrough production. As a broader aim, the chapter developsthe claim that
instructionai activities that emphasizemeaning, whether comprehension or production
based, mav induce learners to reiv on strategiesfor communication rvhich result in a
bypassingofthe form oflanguage.

The place of comprehension in language learning

The clearest example of a comprehension-basedaccount of second languagedevelopment

derives from Krashen (1985). He proposed that comprehensibleinput is the driving force
for interlanguage der.elopment and change,and that the effects ofsuch change carrv over to
influence production - that is, one learns to speakbv listening, a claim which is interesting
becauseofits counter-intuitir.e nature. Krashen arguesthat the predictabilitv ofthe context
makes what is said function as a commentarv on u'hat is alreadv understood. The result is
that it is more likelr, that the interlanguage svstem rvill be extended bv the context-to-
languagemapping involved.
76 PETER SI(EHAN

Krashen articulatesa rationale for comprehension-basedinstruction. He draws attention

to the successthat various listening-basedmethodologies can claim, such asTotal Physical
Response(Asher 1977),asr,vellasmore experimental researchin its support (Winitz 1978;
Postovskv 1977). Most of all, though, he is enthusiasticabout the achievementsof immersion
education, in r.vhichcontent-basedlearning'drags' languagelearning $-ith it parasiticallv.The
featuresof immersion education, such as learning environment lvhich is supportive, and
w-herebilingual teachers provide ample content-basedinput while allorving learners to
produce language at their pace, are seen as consistent rvith Krashen's position. Manv
evaluationsofsuch an approachto foreign languageeducation (Sw'ainand Lapkin 1982) have
shou.n that immersion-educated children reach much higher levels of achievementthan
do children educatedbv traditional'core' methods, and in some areasperform at levels
comparableto those of native-speakerchildren. And this is achievedrvithout compromising
content-basedlearning in areassuch asgeographv,mathematics,science,and so on.
Krashen's vier,vshar,ebeen influential u'ithin second ianguage education and have had
considerableimpact on the nature of pedagogic provision. Not surprisingh', therefore, they
havebeen subjected to searchingcriticism, and it rvould no\\'seem that the claims that
"vere
made cannot be substantiated.General criticisms of the theoretical status of Krashen's
M o n i t o r M o d e l c a n b e f o u n d i n M c l a u g h i i n ( 1 9 8 7 ) , G r e g g ( 1 9 8 4 ) , S p o l s k v( 1 9 8 5 ) a n d
Skehan(1984).The present discussionrvill be confined to analysesofthe functioning of
comprehension, and the lvays that comprehension-driven learning mav (or may not) occur.
Perhaps, first of all, holver.er, it is u-orth returning to the Canadian immersion pro-
grammes. Earlier evaluationswere generallv favourable,and suggestedthat such an approach
to Ianguageprovision might be rvorth adapting in other contexts. Ho'"vever,more recently
the limitations of immersion approacheshave also become apparent. In particular, attention
is nou'increasinglv dralvn to the contrast in achievement betlveen receptive and productive
skills. Although the chiidren concerned perform at levels of comprehension close to native
speakers,the samecannot be saidof their production abiiities.Harler and Su'ain( 1984) and
Sw.ain(1985) report that immersion-educatedchildren, after manv vears of instruction,
still make persistent errors u'hen speakingand."r'riting,suggestingthat the automatic transfer
betu.een comprehension and production that Krashen argues for does not occur w-ith any
certaintv.
This sort of evaluation demonstrates that an unqualified interpretation of the benefits
of comprehension-basedmethodologies is not justi{ied. In retrospect, it is difficult to seehow
comprehension-basedapproachescould have been so readilv accepted, since thev offered
oniy rudimentary accounts of the mechanisms and processesbv which comprehension lvas
supposedto influence underlving interlanguageand generalizeto production. Consequently,
the next section r,vill examine comprehension processesin more detail to tn'to account for
the immersion evaluation hndings.

Comprehension strategies

The findings become much more understandable if one examines the relevance of native-
speaker comprehensionmodels for the process of second languagelearning. Looking at
comprehensionin more'micro'terms, Clark and Clark 11977)have argued that native-
speaker listeners t1-picallvdrarv upon a range of comprehension strategies when they are
listening.Thev focus on holv svntacticand semanticstrategiesmav be used to recover the
meaning of rvhat is heard in a rather impror-isatorvmanner (ibid.: 57-85). Examples of
s,vntacticstrategiesthat thev discussare:
 C O M P R E H E N S I O N A N D P R O D U C T I O NS T R A T E G I E S 7 7

Whenever r'ou find a determiner (a, an, the) or quantifrer(some, all, many, two, six,
etc.) begin a ne\\-noun phrase.
Whenever r,ou find a co-ordinating conjunction (and, or, but, nor) begin a ne\\.
constituent similar to the one tou-juit completed.
Trv to attacheachneu'u.ord to the constituentthat camejust before.
(ibid.:66\

Thev illustrate this last strategv through an advertising campaign run b"' a London
eveningpaper'"vith posters such as'Zoo keeper finds Jaguarqueuing for underground ticket',
and'Butler findsner'vstationbetr,veen Piccadillvand Oxford Street'.Thepaperwanted more
people to realizeholv useful its small adr,ertisementssection u'asand to attract their attention
to posters ther' rvould normallv glance at onlv brieflv u-hile passing.So thev exploited the
'double-take'
that readers \r'ere led into br- using the third of the abovemicro-strategies.
'qrr.rri.rg'
Readers then had to recognize the improbabilit\: of their first interpretatio. of
'nelr'
being attachedto'Jaguar' and station' to'betrveen Piccadiilvand Oxford Street', and
rnoo'I th" link to the first noun in each sentence.
Clark arid Clark (;bid.:72*79'1 also discusssemanticstrategies,such as:

4 Using content rvordsalone,build propositionsthat make senseand parsethe sentence

into constituents accordinglv.

Fillenbaum (1971) illustrates the operation of this strategvbv showing that rvhen people
w e r e a s k e dt o p a r a p h r a s e ' p e r v e r s es' e n t e n c e sl i k e ' J o h n d r e s s e da n d h a d a b a t h ' , t h e v
'not
normalized them, lvith more than half of his subjectseven assertingthere u'as a shred
ofdifference'betrveen the paraphraseand the original.
Clark and Clark are, in effect, arguing that native-speakercomprehensionis probabilistic
in nature, and does not follorv anv sort of deterministic model rvhich *'ould rely on an
exhaustiveparsing of the utterar." .o.r."..red. Instead,listenersuse a variety of meansto
maximize the chancesthat thel u'ill be able to recover the intended meaning of u,hat is being
saidto them.Thev are not, in other u'ords, using some linguistic model to retrieve meaning
comprehensivelv and unambiguouslr'.Instead, thev cope r'r.iththe problem of having to
process languagein real time bv emploving a varietv of strategiesnhich rvill probably
combine to be effectir,'e, even though there is no guarantee that this rvill be the case.
Presumablv if a comprehension difficultv arisesduring ongoing processing,the listener can
shift to a different mode of meaning extraction, asperhaps in the caseof the zoo keeper and
the Jaguar(asrvasintended bv the authorsofthe poster). But this is not done routinelv: the
primarv strategv is to achieveeffectir,enessin ver1,fast languageprocessing.Most listeners,
in their native language,prefer to make a best-guessand keep up, rather than be accusedof
being slorv-u.itted but accurate pedants (although \ve can all bring to mind some members
ofthis species).
'micro'
These issuesdiscussedbv Clark and Clark (1977) can be locatedr'vithina wider
model of comprehension,u'hich hasa more macro perspectir.e.Thefollou.ing table is adapted
f r o m A n d e r s o n a n d L v n c h 1 1 9 8 8 : 1 3 ; , n ' h o s u g g e s t h a t c o m p r e h e n s i o n( a g a i n ,f o r t h e
moment, native-speakercomprehension)is dependenton three main sourcesof knowledge:

knov,ledge
Schematic
background knou'ledge
- factual
- sociocultural
7B PETER SI(EHAN

procedural knorvledge
- how'knou'ledgeis used in discourse

Contextualknowledge
knou'ledge of situation
phvsicalsetting,participants,etc.
knol'ledge of co text
n'hat hasbeen, rvill be said

I e'lqe
-i:,:;:: ;n; kno.w-
:" r^taaiiC
>: il-,lil!i c
::t, ,rnh,_rlogical

Theseknowledge sourcesare drau'n on, interactiveh', to achievecomprehension. Micro

approaches(compare Clark and Clark 1977) are largelv concerned u'ith the operation of
siitematic knowledge r,vhichailow'seffective guessesto be made as to the meaning of what
is being said. ButAnderson and Lvnch are proposing that listeners build meaningsbv drawing
,n u.,.lide. ranqe of resources,including both schematicand contextual know'ledge.This
:,--:--:=. r:f,t \\'e are not exclusivelvdependent on the nature of the soundsaddressedto us
,, .,..--',. meaning.liu.e can relate u-hatis being saidto previous knorvledgethat we have,
i i : r . ' . , . . r : a , b e a b l e t o m a k e v e r l e f f e c t i v ei n f e r e n c e sa b o u t t h e m e s s a g e sc o n c e r n e d '
.-::...,: ... :: sr rtlare the messageto the probablethings that are likel,vto be said given the
:.::..:: .t ,-n. siruationalcontext, lor examplethe bus queue,or r'r'hathas been saidpreviously,
..',..::- .utting dou'n the range of possiblemeanings that u'e encounter, and making our

.--:!:t : ab,rut n'reaninqmore likelv to n'ork. In this respect,listenersare behavingin exactly

i--..:..::-.: r'.rl :: .krlled readersdo u'hen thev samplethe printed material in front of them,
::--:.:: ::-.::.l, ,ring o\ er everv letter. Comprehension,in other words, is a mixture of bottom-
,: ::'-: ' : i' ,..,n F)rocesses tEsker-1988),lvith the more effectiveuseof top-dolvn Processes
:: t..--n. rne e\tent oithe dependenceon the acousticor visual stimulus involved.
'.'.
:,,: :ll this implies is that the comprehensionprocesscan be partl-vdetachedfrom the
. .: . .r.. :',:rl.tic svstem and from production. If comprehension dralvs on effective
. ,: :i: .-. *.. and on a capacitvto relate input to context, then it mav partll, be an autonomous
-- :c development does not transfer automaticallvto other areas.A good compre-
:r t:r r-..r\ be an effective and appropriate strategv user, rather than someone who
:.: -,:r i trti., r-\trdCtSuseful svntactic inferences from the ianguagervhich is being processed
)-,,:.:. iy.r jr. Effective comprehension mav leave the underlving interlanguage sYstem
-:.: -rchedand unscathed.
Thcse arguments applv particuiarlv forcefuliv to the secondor foreign languagelearner.
.:- .uch .n."r, rt. are deali.rg r,vith people u'ho do not lack schematic knou'ledge, but w'ho
I n3\e limited svstemic knor,r.ledqe.Such learners, rvhen confronted bv comprehension
- and
:.r,,blems.are llkeli'to exploit *-hit thev are best at mobilizing relevant schematic
k roltleig" to or,ercome theii svstemic limitations. As a result, the need for the
.,-,,-,,.*,r-rul
i-sreduced'
interlanguagesystem to be engaged,and to have the chanceto changeand grow,
a second
To put ,ii. Ir directlv u. porribl-., it rvouid seem that, after all, learning to speak
Ianquaqe,at leastfor most people, is not accomplished simplv by listening to it.
 C O M P R E H E N S I O NA N D P R O D U C T I O NS T R A T E G I E S 7 9

From comprehension to production

Krashen'sproposal(1985), that comprehensibleinput drivesforlr'ardlanguagedevelopment

and generalizesto speakingrvas attractir-e.Claiming that u'e learn through exposure to
meaningful material mav not be verv startling \!-e are unlikelv to learn from material rve
do not understand, after all. But claiming that interlanguage change arises in a receptive
modalitv and later becomesar,aiiableto production rvasbv no means self-evident- hence
t h e a t t r a c t i o no f t h e a r g u m e n t .
We have seen, though, that the evidence reported from evaluationsof immersion w'as
supportive of the original claim and so rve haveto acceptthat speakingdoes not come'for
free' simpll. through listeningto comprehensibleinput. In this respect,Long ( 1985) makes
a three-level distinction betn'een conditions for second languagelearning. He suggeststhat
it is valuable to consider lvhether factors such as input are:

I necessarv
2 sufficient
3 eflicient

Logicallv, an influence might operate at a level 7, 2, or 3, u'ith 3 efliciencv constituting the

most searchingcriterion, that an influence is not just causative(necessar-v and sufficient), but
is likelv to produce successfullanguagelearning most quicklv. At the other extreme, ievel
1 , necessarv,an influence \\.ould have to be present, but u'ould not be enough, in itself to
produce successfullearning (let alone accomplish this rapidl-v) since it rvould act simplv as
a precondition. Krashen'sproposal \\'asthat input is necessary)sufficient, and efficient, while
the preceding pageshave argued againstthis.

Roles for output

S w a i n ( 1 9 8 5 ; S u - a i na n d L a p k i n 1 9 8 2 ) , a n i m p o r t a n t c o n t r i b u t o r o f i m m e r s i o n - b a s e d
evidence, was led to consider rvhether other factors besidesinput might take us further in
meeting the three levels of condition proposed bv Long, and account for horv language
development might be driven foru'ard. In particular, she proposed the Comprehensible
Output Hvpothesis, that to learn to speaku-ehaveto actuallv speak! Drau'ing on her specific
suggestions(Srvain 1985), as well as on other sources, several roles for outPut can be
identified that are relevant to languagelearning.The first tw'o of the proposed roles still have
a connection witl input, but rework this relationship in some !vav.The remaining roles for
output are more specificallvtargeted on the productive modalitv itself.

b generate better input

Paradoxically,one needs to start bv drawing attention to the u'av in rvhich one could onlv
get good q,rilt,o input bv using output ispeafng) to give one's interlocutor feedback, so that
the input directed to the listener is more finel-vtuned to the iistener's current comPetence
(Long 1985). In this vierl-,output is important asa signallingdevice to negotiate better input:
input rvould still be the major explanatorv construct, but output rvould be necessaryto
generateit most effectivelv.Simplv listening rvould not ensure that good quality input r,vould
be received, since one u.ould haveto reh'on good luck or the sensitivitv of one's interlocutor,
neither of rvhich is verv dependable.The strongest form of this account concerns the
 BO PETER SI(EHAN

'negotiation
for meaning'literature (Pica 1994).This proposesthat engagingin meaning
negotiation, as indexed bv the use of, for example, clarification requests, confirmation
checks,and comprehensionchecks,evidencese16cientsignallingof miscomprehensionand
the clear engagement of a malleable interlanguage system rvhich is more likely', as a result,
to develop productivelv.In such cases,better input should be received,but in addition the
attempt to engage in conversation lvill trigger support at verv important points for
interlanguage development.

- fOr,*raivt17
W"-::g) ,.)"' .J .''lo"n,-7
)
Sw'ain(1985) arguesthat knon'ing that one u'ill need to rpglk makes one more likely to
attend to syntax 'uvhenone is listening. She suggeststhat if l;iteners are aware that it is not
enoughsimplvtoextraCtmeanin gfrominput,butthatth"1,q@o'
-ur.
to thJ].r"urrc ty ,r'hi.h -.u.ri.rg, in ord==-..
to"*" @ri,
"*pr"rr"d
for their ow yntax
'.-a.-=.=-

fnderlving speech. It is similar to r,vatchinga top-classtennis plaver, say,and making a

distinction betrveen simplv obserr.ingand admiring a stroke, on the one hand, and observing
and analvsingthe stroke so that it can be emulated later, on the other. So once again, we are
dealing here rvith output having an indirect effect in that it causeSinput and listening to be
used more effectivelvfor interlanguagedevelopment.

W
To accept the input hvpothesis is to be dependent on w-hat is said by others. If this is
enlightening, given the learner's current state of interlanguagegrammar, then progress may
result. But one is extremeh'unlikeh.to be so fortunate as to receive relevant information
for specific points of interlanguage development relevant to the areaswhere one is framing
hvpothesesat exactlv the right time. Speaking,in contrast, allou.s the speakerto control the
agendaand to take risks and look for feedback on the points ofuncertainty in a developing
grammar (Swain 1985; 1995). This is unlikelv to make learning more efficient, since
t"h. ,p.uk., can control u'hat is going on and engineer feedback tlhut l, likely to be most
revealrng.

-
W
To be effective in the use of a language,one needs to be able to use the languagew'ith some
e a s ea n d s p e e d . E a r l i e r , i n t h e s e c t i o n o n c o m p r e h e n s i o n ,t h e ' r e a l t i m e ' p r o b l e m w a s
mentioned, according to rvhich it is important to posit mechanismsof comprehension which
havesome chanceof explaining listening in real time.The samebasicallyapplies to speaking,
the onll'lvav in r.vhichiearners can go bevond carefulll constructed utterances and achieve
some level of natural speedand rhythm.To obtain the automaticitl'that this involves requires
frecuent rtunrtv to components of utterances so that they can be
[roduced imoortant
speechruth". thu. th" .p"".h this respect, there is an aspectof
speaking which makes it an example of skilied behaviour, like driving a car, or, probably
more reler,antl-v,like plaving a musical instrument. O."lf by fr"q"."t d"
"r.
of spjechlikel) to he imn.or"d-
.
This applies to all speech,but it is likelv to appll even more forcefuliv to some aspects
than others. It mav affect morphologv vitalh', but hardlv affects rvord order. Hence the
 C O M P R E H E N S I O NA N D P R O D U C T I O N S T R A T E G I E S 8 1

opportunity to practise speechin ianguagesu.here morphologv plavs a more prominent role

may be all the more important.

The previous arguments for the importance of output have not challenged the view' that
languagelearning is essentiallvthe developmentof a sentence-based interlanguagesvstem.
BUt it has been claimed (Brorvn and Yule 198 3) that much ELT rvork focuses excessivel),on
'short Il
t u r n s ' . a n d t h a t a sa r e s u l tl e a r n e r s 'c a p a c i t i e tso t a k e D a r t i n e x t e n d e dd i s c o u r s ea r e I I
''
%
not stretched. Certainlv, current developmentsin discourseanalvsissuggestthat there is a
Iot to be learned if one is to become an effective communicator. Discourse management
(Bygate 1987), turn-taking skills, and a range of similar capacitiesrvhich underlie the
negotiationof meaning in ongoing discourse(Cook 1989), can onlv be achievedbv actuallv
participating in discourse. If meaning-making is a jointlv collaborative activity, then rn'e
cannot read about these skills, or even acquire them passivelv,but instead have to take part
in discourse and realize hou- our resources are put to vuork to build conr,'ersationsand
negotiatemeaning.Extensivespeakingpracticeis ihere fore unaloidable.

develop a oersonal vo

A learner w'ho is com letelv de ent on u'hat others sav.is unlikelv to be able to deve
a Dersonal manner ot s Such a learner rvill be dependent on the sorts of meanings
5ilhe hasbeen exposedto, and n'ill not b" ubjclp_q_Ig!-atj versauon
Es.TfiFlmpiies a strange,passivevieu-of w'hat languageis used for, and how personal
conoeifr'sare manifested bv it. It seems inevitable that if one $'ants to sav things that are
important, one must have,during languagelearning,the opportunitv to steer con-versations
along routes of interest to the speaker,and to find rvaysof expressing individual meanings.
A role for output here seemsunavoidable.

The importance of output

These six reasons for the importance of output provide yet another argument against the
sufficiencv of a comprehension-basedapproach. Thev detail the inadequacv of simpll'
listening, and sholv that output too is a necessarvcondition for successfullanguagelearning.
But the next question is to consider *'hether output, in turn, is sufficient and ef{icient as a
condition for language.
The six roles for output listed abovemight suggestthat it is.The first such use, obtaining
better input (seep.79), w-ill not be pursued here since it is only a more sensitiveform of
Krashen'svieu's.The iast trvo roles, acquiring discourseskills and developing a personal
voice (seeabove),are more concerned rvith the construct of communicativecompetence.
The centrai roles for output in promoting interlanguage development are forcing syntactic
processing, testing hypotheses,and der-elopingautomaticitl'. The first trvo of these central
roles focus on form u,hile the third is more concerned u.ith performance and fluency.
The contrast implied here betr".eenattention to form and attention to performance,
suggestsa question rvhich is susceptibleto empirical investigation.We need to devise studies
u'hich can establishlvhether actual output favoursform or emphasizesfluency at the expense
of form. Although output mav generallr' be a good thing, the roles it serves in specific
situationsmay not be so beneficial. It then becomesimportant to establish,through research,
the conditions and constraints under rvhich output promotes a focus on form.
 82 PETER SI(EHAN

In the literature. r\\'o ienerai ac.ounts of the role of communication in languagedevel-

opment hal'e been proposed: languagedevelopment through the negotiation of meaning
(Pica 1 994, for exampi. ,: an,l de..lopment through the operation of strategiccompetence
(such as Bialvstok 1990 r. \\ e s ill eramine eachof them in turn to assessr,vhetherthey can
clarifl.rvhether output and interaction havea positive influence, and if so, r,l'hatthat influence
might be.

Advocatesof the negotiation of meaning approach(GassandVaronis 1994 andPica 1994,

for example) suggestthat the ongoing identification of difficuities in interactive encounters
stimulates learners to overcome such difficulties. In so doing, it is hvpothesized that
modificationslvhich are made to speechin the serr.iceof repairing conversationalbreakdown
havebeneficialspin-offeffectsonunderIr.inginterlanguag".@
i d e a ls u p p o r t i v em e c h a n i s mt o :

1 identifv areasrvhere interlanguage is limited and needs extension;

2 prgl-l{e scaffo!!1gg e!{1 feedback at preciselv the point r,vhenit w-ill be most useful
s i n c c t h e l e a r n e r u ' i l l b e o a r t i c u l a r l vs c n s i t i v et o t h e c u e s o r o r i d e d t o e n a b l en e w
meanrngs to be encoded.

Conversationalmoves such as comprehensionchecks. clarifica

like u'ill reflect hon conversationleids to enqaqement\\ith an underlvinq interlaneuaqe
systemwhen it is made un v malleabie.To link back rvith the roles for output discussed
, suchnegotiationof meaning providesideal opportunities for hypothesesto be tested
and a syntactic mode of processing to be highhghted.
There are, holvever, problems h".SJ-L!gtr_{_L_2_E_6),for example, has questioned the
ir d.rirubilit.'of.. .

| | a n d l r h o s e . - u l @ w e ] l t h i s i s a c h i e v e. -d . t { e P r o P o S e s ' i n f a c t , t h a t
l l s u c h r n t e r a c t l o n sc a n b e r r r t t u t t n ql o s. and ryul
is The u'ider issue,essentiallv,is that it is one thing for successful
l 'J discourse concerned.
negotiation to take place, but quite another for this to have beneficial consequencesfor
interlanguage development. Far
"
sequencesmav distractthe learnersand overloadthe processingsvstemsthe]'are using,with
t h e r e z u k t h a t e v e n u ' h e n s u c c e s s f usl c a i t o l d e dn e g o t i a t i o n so c c u r u h i c h p r o d u c e m o r e
cO
no time to consolidatethem.
In an,vcase,there is also the possibilitv that such studies may have over-estimated the
empirical importance of negotiation for meaning. Foster ( 1998) demonstratesthat although
one can, indeed, point to differencesbetr,r..een interaction tvpes and participation patterns as
far as negotiation of meaning indices are concerned, global figures disguisethe true state of
affairs. In fact, unusuallv active students, lvhatever the task or participation pattern, engage
in the same amount of negotiation of meaning - nil. .A.sa result, we have to conclude that for
most students this aspectof output does not have a definite impact on interlanguage change
and development.

Strateqic comDete

The situation is not particulariv different u'ith respect to the operation of strategic
competence and communication strategies,the other more qeneral framew'ork which might
 C O M P R E H E N S I O N A N D P R O D U C T I O NS T R A T E G I E S 8 3

provide a rationalefor output-led interlanguagedevelopment.Thisliterature (Tarone 1981;

Ferch and Kasper 1983;Bialvstok 1990; has examined the r,vaysin r,r'hichthe strategies
that learners adopt when faced bv communication problems can be describedcl"arlv ?.rd
classified.Manv categorizationsvstemshar.ebeen proposed, such as Ferch and Kasper's
(1983) distinction betrveenachievementand avoidancestrategies,and Bialvstok's(1990)
contrast between linguistic and cognitive factors. One attraction of such systemsis that thev
account for the range of strategies lvhich are used as parsimoniouslv and vet as compre-
hensivelvas possible.In addition, it is useful if thev can be grounded in related fields, as is
the caservith Ferch and Kasper's(i983) appealto generalpsvcholinguisticmodels.
Hor,vever,a central issue is rvhether the operation of such strategiesof communication
at a particular time to soh'eparticular problems hasanv implications for interlanguagechange
and development over time.l C)ne could ask, for example, r,vhetherachievement strategies
(that is, retain the original intention of meaning, and use resourcescreativelv to solve a
communication problem) are more iikelv to lead to developmentthan avoidancest.ategies
(that is, do not extend one's linguistic repertoire, but instead changethe messageto be
communicated so that it comes rvithin availableresources). Similarlv, one could askwhether
there are different implications from the use of linguistic strategiescompared rvith cognitive
ones.
A different rvav of examining essentiallvthe same point is to consider the relationship
between communitation strategies and the Can"l" u.rd Srvain (1980) model of communi-
cative competence.This contains three (Canale and Sr.vain1980) or four (Canale 198:7
competences:linguistic, sociolinguistic,discourse,and strategic(discoursebeing the added
fourth competence: seethe discussionin McNamara 1995). Linguistic, sociolinguistic,and
discoursecompetencesare, in a sense,more basic, since thel represent areasof coherent
comPetencein relation to different aspectsof communication.Strategiccompetence,in thts
formulation, has a less integrated qualitv in that it is meant to function in an impro",isaron'
manner w'hen problems are encountered because other competences are lacking (see
Bachman 1990). Presumablvthe capacitvto negotiate meaning would be part of a more
generalstrategiccompetence.
A w'eakinterpretation ofrvhat is happening rvould be that such strategieshave no other
function than to solve some sort of communicative breakdor,vnin order that conversation
can proceed.With this interpretation, all that happensr,vhena problem is encountered is that
some degree of resourcefulnessis drarvn on, and the problem in question may or may not
be solved. In this t'i"t1.,it is not assumedthat there is much rracefrom the activity of solving
the problem in question. Although the'solution' mav enablefurther interaction to take place
(whichis, of course,not a bad thing), its detailsare regardedastransitorv and unimportant.
However, a stronger interpretation is that u'hen communication strategies are used,
thev haveimplications for longer-term languagedevelopment.There are three requirements
for this to happen. First, it is necessarvthat solving current communicative problems leaves
some sort of trace. In other w-ords,u-hat is initiallv an impro','isationto convev one's meanins
w'hen resourcesare limited is noticed and becomesmore than a,.u.,ria.tU,r;
";";"r.#
success;there must be something about the interaction *.hich is sufficientlv ,uli".rt, and,/or
the processing capacitv available allou's such attention. Second, the improvisation w.hich
has become a solution must be useful to future problems - it must have some transfer or
generalizing po\\rer. Such an outcome lvould reflect the u,'avthe interaction itself has led
to useful h,vpothesisgeneration or to svntactic processing (Su.ain 1985; 1995). Third,
the communicativesolution needsto become proceduralized,either becauseit is so striking
during one occurrence (Logan 1998), or becauseits strength is built up more graduallv
through repeated related solutions to essentiallv the same communicative problem
84 PETER SI(EHAN

repertoire
(Anderson 1992).ln anv case,it becomes availableaspart of one's communicative
one are encountered. If all
o.r..,br.qr.nt occasionsrvhen problems similar to the original
indeed have a
these conditions are met, and interlanguage deveiopment occurs, then lve do
case of learning to talk bv talking. In this case solving communicative problems engagesa
language l"ar.ring capacitv directlv, since solving problems is rvhat Puts Pressure on the
c o m m u n i c a t i v es v s t e mt o c h a n g e .

Problems with communication strategies

There are a number of problems rvith such an interpretation of holv communication

strategies function beneficiallv over time. Of course, w'hat rvould be ideal, in this regard,
1vouid be longitudinal studies of the impact of different patterns of communication strategy
use on interlanguagedevelopment, sincesuch studiesrvould chart the nature of interlanguage
change,fo.."l.uu.rt learners, relating interaction patterns and strategic languageuse to the
,r.rd"ilvi.rg svstemschangervhich occurs. Unfortunatelv, such studiesare in short supply and
isolated ca-sestudies huloeto be relied upon to an excessivedegree. (The thrust of most such
researchhasbeen to establishclassificationschemesor analvtic framervorks r,vhichhavelittie
to savabout longer-term change.)Even so, there is some information available.

Em p i r i caIIy- m ot ivat ed concer n s

Schmidt (19S3) reports the caseofWes, a Japaneselearner of English in Hawaii. Schmidt

studiedWesover an extended period, gathering dataon his languageperformance in informal
settings over t\,vo vears. Schmidt used as a guiding theoretical framervork the Canale and
Sr.ain (1980) model of communicative competence mentioned earlier. He also drew'
',vasquite clear that he
attention to Wes's attitude to learning and using English, sinceWes
was uninterested in instruction or correctness,and lvas more concerned with achieving
effective communication r,r.iththose people he rvanted to talk to. In this he was successful,
since in the period of the studv he rvent from being regarded as a minimal English speaker
to being taken as a worthw'hile interlocutor bv native speakersw'ho clearly reacted to him,
at the end ofthe period ofstudv, as a conversational equai.
The most interesting aspect of the studv, however, is that w'hen Wes's improvement
over the period r,vascharted in terms of the Canale and Su'ain framework, it was apparent
that nhiie his strategic and discourse competence changed markedly for the better,
his improvement in terms of linguistic competence r,vasminimal (and his s)/ntax \vas as
fractured at the end of the period asit rvasat the beginning) , while in the sociolinguistic area
the change w-asnot verv great. In this case,then,Wes's reliance on strategic capabilities to
achieve communication rvas spectacularlv successfullvhen judged in terms of conveying
meanings and being acceptableas a conversationalpartner, but ver-vunsuccessfulwhen
judged in terms of development in his underlling interlanguage system. Reliance.on
communication strategies,that is, seemed to be harmful to his linguistic health, a point that
evidently did not disturbWes, since he had achiei-edthe goalshe had set for himself as far as
c o m m u n i c a t i o nu ' a sc o n c e r n e d .
A similar conclusion arisesfrom s'ork done at the Foreign Service Institute (Higgs and
Clifford 1982), u.hich is also of a longitudinal nature.The Foreign Service Institute (FSI,
training programme emphasizesthe acquisition of oral skills, and is accompaniedby the
administrationof the FSI-lLR (lnteragencr LanquaqeRoundtable)oral interview test (Lou't
1982).Thistest enablesboth a globaland an anah'ticvieu'of the competenceof the personne-
 C O M P R E H E N S I O N A N D P R O D U C T I O NS T R A T E G I E S 8 5

being trained to be obtained. The former is based on a five step scale on w.hich
global
proficiencv can be estimated (supplementedby plus scoresfor eachnumeri."l
"ut"go.1:;.Th.
Iatter gives seParateratings for svntax, r.ocabuiarr',fiuencv, and other skill areas. Ii thi, *uy,
the longitudinal development of the learners can be monitored through an examination of
the profiles generated bv the analvtic markings scheme over ser.eralpoints in time.
Higgs and Clifford ( 1982) report that profiles of students at earlier points of instruction
can be used predictivelv to estimate the likelv later gain of the candidatesin question. Given
the basic five-step scale, candidates lr.hose grammar ratings u,ere abor.eor equal to their
ratings in vocabularvor fluencv tended to continue to progressand reach higher performance
levels as ther,'receivedmore instruction. In other lvords, balancedanalvticratings or higher
grammar predicted continued gain and capacitl' to profit from instruction. In contrast,
students lvhose earlier profiles shor'vedstrong fluencv and vocabularv skills did not manifest
the same degree of sustainedimprovement. Higgs and Clifford (1982) called these learners
'terminal
2's' (from the 6ve-step scale),suggestingthat the earlier profile rvasassociatedrvith
a probable plateaurngin achievementat around Level 2. It seemedasthough the earlier fluency
and vocabularv gains comprised continued development, and mav havebeen associatedwitir
fossilization.These learners corresponded,in some wavs, to Schmidt'sWes, since earlier
communicative effectiveness (and the higher fluencv and vocabularv scores earlier in
instruction might be connectedlvith a communicativeorientation on the part of suchlearners)
represented a short-term advantage proved expensive in the longer run since it was
"vhich
associatedwith an interlanguagesvstem u'hich became less permeable. Once again, the
suggestion is that unless there is direct involvement of the underlving languag" Jurt"- i.,
communication, it need not develop, even though communicative effectivenessdoes chanqe.

Th eoreti caIIy-b as ed con cern s

In addition to these empiricallv motivated concerns over the usefulnessof communication

strategies,there are some more theoreticalh.-basedworries. First of all, there are r,vhatmight
be termed logical criticisms of the vie'lr'point. For example, it is difficult to imagine
how such strategiescan leave a trace. It is likelv that interesting operations will occur"*u"'alu when
achievement strategiesare used to cope r,r'ithcommunicative problems whose solution will
require some adaptation of the underh'ing svstem. But in such casesthe need to solve
unforeseen problems lvill ensure that the lion's shareof cognitive resourceslvill be directed
to conveving meanings.As a result, it is not easv to see ho.rvmemory of u-hat exactly has
worked .u.t b" effectivelv retained for the next occasion rvhen the strategv may be .,..fr,rl,
since this outcome u,ould require the spare capacitv to fumble tow-ards,rrit solution and
simultaneously to monitor its nature and its effect. It seemsunlikelv that the conflicting "
calls
on limited resourcesrvill allou' this r,r'ithanl dependabilitr .VanPattent I 990 I makes a si"mila.
p o i n t i n r e l a t i o n t o c o m p r e h e n s i o n . , r h " . . h e d e m o n s i . a t e st h a t s r n t a c t i c a n d s e m a n t i c
processing seem to conf-lictas far as attentional resources are concerned, and that attention
spanis too limited to aliolv both to be emphasizedsimultaneoush,.One can only assumethat
speaking,as Part of the interaction, u-ill pose significantlv greater problems for l"a.ni.rg.
More generallv, for the use of communication strategies to lr.ork to foster p.ogi.r,
svstematicall-v, it r.vouldbe necessarvto shorvnot simplv that thev leave a trace, but also that
the use of such strategies has some cumulative brulding potential. For if SLA research has
demonstrated anvthing, it is that developmental sequenceshave considerabie importance.
It would be necessary,therefore, to shorv that the progressive improvisations which solve
communication problems build upon one another, and are not isolated chancemanipulations
of languageelementsin one restricted area,but havesvstem-der.eloping potential, and push
85 PETER SKEHAN

the interlanguage svstem in some consistent direction. Unfortunateir', this argument,seems

hard to dommunication strategiesseem much easier to imagine as unplanned
".o'"irug-.. rvould seem that
resourceful so-lutionsrather than as cumulative building blocks. It
to debating the relative merits of
researchers in this area have devoted much more effort
different classificationsYstemsfor strategiesthan to examining the developmental potential
the literature
of the different strategi. tvpes that have been classified.when one examines
First of all, a researchbias in this
on types of strategvuJJ, ihi.rg. are distinctlvunpromising.
subjects to
ur.u of,..r leads inr'estigatorsto p.o"oke the need for strategv use bv requiring.
least
focus on vocabularv ptJbl.*.. As a result, the arearve knorv most about is probably the
relevant for interlanguage development. Further, tl,hen one looks at exampies of strategies
(for example, upp.oii-ution, r.void coinage, circumlocution, literal translation, avoidance,
and so o.r lnlulurtok 1990)), one can hardlv seehorv thev can help make a sustainedcontri-
1994;
bution to language development. Similarlv, negotiation of meaning sequences(Pica
Lyster u.rd n.-ntu*t g97) shorv little evidence of useful modi{ications to interlanguage being
made, or of the incorporation of scaffolded supports for more complex language' So, once
again, a potential*'un il rvhich interaction could drive foru'ard interlanguage development
revealsitself to be implausible.
joint
Even more generailv there is the point that much of communication is elliptical,_a
creation bv the participants in conversationr,vhoeach spend their time working out what the
judge their
other knows. In other u,ords, if Grice's maxims are being follorved, speakersr'r'ill
contributions to conversationso that ther, are relevant and brief. Suchpeople, native speakers
or learners, are going to place great emphasis on communicating meanings, but^may
not necessarilvu,orrv ibout the exact form that the-vuse (Kess 1992).ln this respect, Grice
( 1975) hr, -"d. it ciear that maxims for conversation make for a considerable processing
burden because of rvhat is nor said.To spell evervt}ing out in comPlete and rt'ell-formed
sentenceswould soon emptv rooms, and get one classifiedas a boring pedant. Much adult
conversation is elliptical u.ri ir-r.o-plete in surface form, heavYin the assumptions that it
."vhich enables inferences about intended meaning,
makes about background knorvledge
speakerattitudes, ,o on (Widdo*'son 1989). It goes againstthe grain, in other words,
".rd
to do more than use form as one element or pressure in native-speaker communication,
w.herethe major emphasiswill be on the satisfactorinessof the florv of the conversation, not
the correctness, or completeness(or the usefulnessfor interlanguagedevelopment amongst
Iearners)of rvhat is said.
So speakersw.ill generally, or at ieast often, sav onlv w.hat needs to be said, confident
that their interlocutors rvill engagein w-hateverconversational implicature is necessarYto
recover the intended *"utring (oi rvill sav something that w-ill enable the {rrst speaker to
correct anv misinterpretation that r.r'illoccur). Learning to participate in such conversations
g,ill therefore not be learning to use complete and rvell-formed sentences'but instead
learning hou' to make r.r'ell-judgedinterventions s-hich one's conversational partners will
judge ai furthering the conversation. And just as rvith comprehension, the problem from a
l^.rgu"g" learner's point of vierv is that mature languagl users are just too good at grasping
thJfrli-""ning of utterances u.hich are elliptical.The knou'ledge sources covered earlier
fromAnderso. und Lvnch (1988) in relation to comprehension(schematic,contextual, and
systemic) are just as relevant in the caseof production, since the speakeris framing rvhat is
,uid *.i,h the comprehension abilities of the listener in mind. In this respect w'e have_aclear
difference betrveen the mature and the child languagelearner.The mature languagelearner
is able to drau'on vastlv greater storesof schematicand contextual knorvledge,and is not
(particularl,v) egocentric in orientation lalthough \\'e can all quicklv think of e-xceptions
amongst our acquaintances).Consequentlr he or she is abie to br"passsvntax for a great
 C O M P R E H E N S I O N A N D P R O D U C T I O NS T R A T E G I E S 8 7

deal of the time. Since it is meanings which are primarr', as long as the speaker feels that
communication is proceedingsatisfactorih-, the need for precisesvntax is diminished.This
contrasts verv clearlv lr.ith the vounger languagelearner rn'hohas much less schematic and
contextual knorvledge availablepersonallv, and u'ho is also much less able to imagine rvhat
his or her interlocutor has bv rvav of knou-ledge in each of these areas.As a result, the child
hasmuch lesssconeto take svntacticliberties and short cuts.
We are ,ror" fucirrg quite a changed picture regarding the usefulness(or lack of it) of
conversationfor languagedevelopment.Thereis Iessneed, for the older learner,to produce
complete and lvell-formed utterances, becausemost interactions require collaborative
construction of meaning rather than solipsisticpartv pieces.Further,."r-hen communicative
problems occur, the strategiessecond languagelearners adopt are not likelv to push for'"vard
underlying system change in anv cumulative lvar'.Finallv, there is the issue that, even if
conversationu'ere b\- means of complete, rvell-formed utterances,cnd attempts to cope
with communicative problems u.ere useful, there is stiil the likelihood that attempts to cope
with ongoing processingdemands w'ould not allou-the learner to capitalizeupon such a
temporary breakthrough, establisha memorv trace of it, and use it in the future.

Conclusion

The central theme of this chapter has been that syntax has fragile properties. Normal
communication is pervaded bv the pressures of processing language in real time. We
comprehend and produce languagenot bv exhaustivelv anah'singand computing (although
we can do these things if rve have to, for reasonsof creativitv or precision) but instead br'
drawing shamelesslr'-onprobabilistic strategies r.vhichrvork effeclively enough (given the
support and potential for retrieval of miscommunication that discourse provides) at
considerablespeed of processing.\\'e reiv on time-creating devices, context, prediction
skills, elliptical language,and a range of similar performance factors to reduce the processing
load that rve haveto deal rvith during conversation.And the older rve become (up to a point)
the more adept lve can be at exploiting these resources.
The central point is that languageuse, in itseif, does not lead to the development of an
analvtic knolvledge svstem since meaning distracts attention from form. But clearlv
communication does proceed, so one can infer that speakersdralv upon other non-analytic
knowledge svstemsu'hich, one assumes,havequalities reievant to real-time communication.

Note

In one sense,of course, this point is addressedthrough the distinction between

communication and iearning strategies.The former emphasizessolutions to immediate
communicationproblems,u.hile the latter areconcernedu'ith activitiesw'hichareintended
bv the learner to lead to longer-term development.In some casesthis distinction is clear,
asr,vhen,for example, a communication strategvdealsr,vith(sav)hou. to expressan idea
when a lexical item is missing (and hasno lasting effect) or w'hen a learner deliberatell
organizesa list of for memorization,not attemptingto usetheser,r.ords
immediately,
"r'ords
but insteadr,vorkingtowards the extension of an underlving vocabulary.But the central
issueis that one can also regard the operation of manv communication strategiesas
containingiearningpotential,for exampleu-hena usefulcommunicationstrategvbecomes
proceduralizedand so reusable.It is preciselvthis tvpe of communication strategythat is
relevant in this section.
BB PETERSI(EHAN

References

Anderson, Oxford:OxfordUniversitvPress.
A. andLvnch,T.(1988)Listening.
'Automaticitv 105:
Anderson,J.R.(1992) and the JournaloJPsychology
ACT theorr''. Amer)can
16 5 - 8 0 .
Asher,J.J.(.1977)LearningAnother
LanguageThrough Actions:The Los
Guidebook.
CompleteTeacher's
Gatos,Calif.: Skv Oaks Pubiications.
Aston, G. (1936)'Trouble-shooting in interaction rvith learners: the more the merrier?'
1: 128-43.
AppliedLinguistics
Bach-an, L. (1990) FundamentalConsideratrons Oxford: Oxford Universitv
in LanguageTbsting.
Press.
Bialvstok,E. (1990) Communjcation Analvsis
A Psvchologicdl
Strateg)es: LanguageUse.
oJ Second
Oxford: Blacku'ell.
Blev-Vroman,R. (1989)'The logicalproblem of secondlanguageacquisition',in Grass,S. and
on SecondLanguageAcquisition.Cambridge'
Schachter, J. (eds) LinguisticPerspectives
Cambridge Universitl Press.
Brow.n, G. and Yule, G. (1983) Teachingthe SpokenLanguage. Cambridge: Cambridge
Universitv Press.
Bvgate,M (1987) Speaktng. Oxford: Oxford UniversitvPress'
C a n a l eM
, . ( 1 9 8 3 ) ' O n sf languagp
s o m ed i m e n s i o n o e r o f i c i e n c v ' i nO l l e r ( e d . ) .
Canale,M. and Srvain,I,1. (1980)'Theoretical basesof communicativeapproachesto second
languageteachingand testing'. AppliedLinguistics 1: 1-17.
Clark, H.H. and Clark, E. (1911) Psvcholog,v and Language. Neu'York: Harcourt, Brace.
Jovanovitch.
Oxford: Oxford UniversitvPress.
Cook, G. (1989) Discourse.
Eskey,D. (1988)'Holding in the bottom', in Carrell, P., Devine, J. and Eskel',D. (edst
in SecondLanguageAeading.Cambridge: Cambridge Universitv
lnteractiveApproaches
Press.
Farch, C. and Kasper,G. (1983) Strategies in lnteilanguage London: Longman.
Communicatron,
'On . Journai
Fillenbaum,l. (1911) copingu'ith ordered and unorderedconjunctivesentences'
PsS
oJExperimental cholog-v
87: 9 l- 8 .
Foster,P. (1998)'A classroomperspecti\:eon the negotiationof meaning'.AppliedLinguistic:
19/1.
Gass,S. andVaronis,E.M. (1994)'lnput, interaction,and secondlanguageproduction'. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition 76:283-302
'Krashen'sMonitor and Occam'sRazor'. AppliedLinBuistics 5: 79-100.
Gregg, K. (1984)
Grice, H.P. (.1915)'Logic and conversation" in P. cole and Morgan, J. (eds) sJntaxani
Semantics NervYork: Academic Press.
3: Speech.4crs.
'The
Harlel', B. and Swain, M. ( 198+) interlanguageof immersion studentsand its implication:
for secondlanguageteaching', in Davies,A., Criper, C. and Horvatt, A. (eds) lnrer-
language.Edinburgh: Edinburgh Universitv Press.
'The
Higgs, T. and Clifford, R. (1982) push torvard communication', in Higgs, T. (ed.
Curriculum,Competence, and the ForeignLanguage Skokie, Ill.: National Textbook
Teacher.
Comoanv.
Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Kess,J.E. (19i2) Psvcholtngu)stLcs.
London: Longman'
Krashen,S. (1985) TheInputH,vpothesis.
Larsen-Freeman, D. ( 1985) and
Techdques Principles NervYork: Oxford.
in LanguageTeaching.
Review9>
Psychological
Logan, G.D. (1988)'Tou.ardsan instancetheorr-of automatisation'.
+92-s27.
Long, NI. (1985)'lnput and secondlanguageacquisitiontheorl", in Gass,S. and Madden.
Language
C. (eds) Input and Second Rorvlel',Mass.:Nelvburv House.
Acquisition.
 COMPREHENSION AND PRODUCTION STRATEGIES 89

Lowe, P.Jr. (1982) TLRHandbookon Oral Intervievt'Testinq.Washington,D.C.: Defense Language

Institute.
'Corrective
Lvster, R. and Ranta, L. (1997) feedback and learner uptake: negotiation of form
in communicatir.e classrooms'. Studresin Second
Language,lcquisition79: 3l-66.
N{claughlin, B. (1987) TheoriesoJSecondLanguageAcquisrtion.
London: Edw.ardArnold.
McNamara,T. (1995)'Modelling performance: opening Pandora's box' . Applied Linguisticsl6
159-79.
Oller, J.W (1983) (ed.). lssues in LanguageTbstingResearcA.Rorvler',.N{ass.:
Newburv House.
'Research
Pica,T. (199+) on negotiation:u'hat doesit rer-eaiabout second}anguagelearning,
conditions,processes, outcomes?'. Language Learning 44:491-521.
'Whv
Postovskl',Y. (1971) not start speakinglater?',in Burt, M., Dulal',H. and Finocchiaro,
M. (eds) Viewpoints on Englishasa Second Language. NervYork:Regents.
'lnteraction,
Schmidt, R. (1983) accuituration, and the acquisition of communicative
competence, in \fublfson,N. and Judd, E. (eds) Socrolinguistics and Second Language
A cquisition. Rorvlel',Mass.: Ne*-burv House.
'On
Skehan,P. ( 1984) the non-magicalnature of foreign languagelearning' . Polvgot5: FicheI .
'Formulating
Spolsky,B. (1985) a theorv of second languagelearning'. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 7 : 259-88.
Slvain, M. (1985)'Communicative competence:some roies of comprehensibleinput and
comprehensibleoutput in its de.,'elopment',in Gass,S. and Madden, C. (eds) lnput in
Second Language,lcquisition. Rou.lev,N{ass.
: Ner.vburvHouse.
Sw-ain,M. (1995)'Three functionsof output in secondlanguagelearning', in G. Cook and B.
Seidlhofer (eds) Principlesand Practicein AppliedLinguistlcs.Oxford: Oxford Universitv
Press.
Swain,M . and Lapkin, S. ( 19 82) EvaluatingBilingualEducation: A CanadianCaseStudv. Clevedon.
Avon: Multilingual N1atters.
'Some
Tarone, E. ( i 98 1) thoughts on the notion of communication strategy'. TESOL@rarterlt
15:2845-95.
VanPatten,B. (1990)'Attending to content and form in the input: an experiment in
consciousness'. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisltion72: 281 301.
Widdowson, H.G. (1989)'Knorvledgeof languageand abilitv for use'. AppltedLinguistics l0:
128 31.
Winitz, H. (1978)'A reconsiderationof comprehensionand productionin languagetraining'.
AppliedHealthandBehavioural 1: 212-315 .
Sciences
 Chapter 5

LeovanLier

CONSTRAINTS AND RESOURCES IN

CLASSROOM TALI(: ISSUES OF EQUALITY
AND SYMMETRY

quick
tion," "cooperative learning," "responsive teaching," and many other
terms likithem testifv to a fundamentuT-E-iftfro-. conclrtgiog, association, and other
laboratorv-basednotions of Iearning to human learning uiiiiilt*.E" theGydal'social
. t w o r l d o f t h e l ea r n e r .
\A}
This shift to the truction) o l e a r n i n gd o e sn o t m a k e
/N.'./]\
\\ .-.-
S- " rl tthe
h e iniestigation o f ' 1learning
i n v e s t i o : t i n n of , processes anv easier. On the contrarv. The security of isolating
/qOb" -tA , ,
)i variablesand defining them operationally,a securitv obtained bv laboratory-like experiment-.
U X-t'r. I
-l
. ,.9) \u"d statisticalinferences,is largelr-lost,asthe researcheris forced to look for determinants
)\ I iot learning in the fluid dv,lu-iL, of real-time learning contexts.
-k -r-^l:.:^-^ll--
r V
Lv Traditionallr- -rve --^ L^,,^ + L ^ , , ^ l ^ + of
have thought ^ f scientific
.^;^-+;C^ -research
^.^^*^l^ .c a
as . matter
'-rr+6r ^ f looking
of l^^Li-^ iinto
nrn n arrcer
causes
Q f\ and effects, and the benefits have been cast in the shapeof generalizationsfrom a sample to
\ a population and ofaccuratepredictionsoffuture occurrences.Thisresearchscenario,while
adequatefor simple phvsicalprocessesand laboratorv-controlledbehaviors,u'ill no longer
lr'ork once w'e venture forth into the real r,vorld of complexitv, in which manv people and
circumstancesact and interact. Here there are no simple causes,and predictability must
yield to contingencl'3::gelgb$Qe aimed at increasing our understanding, both
holisticalh' and in the smallest details, oflthe-social settinf as a cohp-ldada
-._
-t lt
lntreased u n c l e r s t a n d l n g alio\\-s
c r e a s e c lunderstandrnq u s not
a l l o \ \ s us t o generalrze-hrHo-DarnrCIIIAnze;TmrTs;TraoaPI
n o t to
ourskills,ideas,andstra?egiestoth.riousinfluence.
of the contexts in r'r'hichthe investigated processesoccur.
It is of the utmost importance to realize hor,r.different the job of researching languagt
learnins n qD If,o r
l n q becomes once we decide that the social context is central.To continue looking
o
gperatiinallv defined. discreteh'measured,statisticall-v -.niprrlut.dltnd .ausalll pred
-operaftonail\
-. -- r -r -.- -r L: - I . l Preorc
ti\.e $rublgs 1quld be to approach one job w-ith tools that belong to another. It rvould b.
like going to an archaeological site rvith a combine harr,ester oi like shining shoes with a
nail file.
In this essavI examine social interaction in language-learning settings from the poin:
of vieu. that such settings are complex svstemsin rvhich both attention to detail and globa.
 C O N S T R A I N T S A N D R E S O U R C E SI N C L A S S R O O MT A L I ( 9 1

understanding are necessar\'.There are manv different kinds of interaction that may occur
in these settings,but I group them into t',vo broad tvpes: teacher learner interaction and
learner-learner interaction. Both hare been-Thffib]Fct ol considerableresearch,and their
-x-
-" ^*-,- I ie arning
learnrnp nas-E)
- - - - _ - a >bq$,gss,sucl-deb
- ate_di-lobk
r",,^^",*-
franscribed examples of learning talk to trv to understand hor,vsocial interaction facilitates
learning.
The first example is an extract from a teacher learner interaction; the second, an
extract from a learner-learner interaction. (ln the transcriptions that follou'; x's in
parenthesesindicate an unintelligible, brief exclamation or r,vord;a left square bracket
indicatesoverlap; colons indicate lengthening of the previous sound;the equalssign indicates
that the turn continues belorv at the next equalssign; and three ellipsis dots indicate a pause
ofabout one second.

Teacher: Put the umbrella. . .

Student: Put the umbrellaon thef oor . . .
Teacher: On thefoor . . .
Student: . b e r w e e.n
Teacher: between
. . .
Student: . . . the bookshelf and theTl'.
Teacher: Vbrygood.

In this example of interaction in an ESL classroom,it is easvto distinguishteacher from

student.The teacher prompts and gives feedback,lvhile the student produces languageas
part ofa task (here, placing objectsin a picture as a wav ofpracticing prepositions).
That such classroom interaction is easilv recognizable is often taken as evidence of its
artificiality. The characteristic pattern has the teacher doing most of the talking while the
students act as rather passiveresponders and follou'ers of directions. As Anthonv Edwards
and DavidWestqate(1987) put it, classroomtalk seemsto run along" d
settings that aim to
clpate ln the la assroom,"asJohn Sinclairand David Brazil (1982) note. "I
v
R F,
assroom w.avit is? Hou it differ from interaction in other
settings, and hor,vcan it be brought in line u'ith present-dav critical and constructivist goals
for education?

Learner 1 : HereI - sometimes go to the beachlxxxxxx)

Learner 2: PebbleBeach?
Learner 1: llot PebbleBeach.My (xxxxxx)
L e a r n e r2 : l T h e . rn e a r- O h . .er a h .
Learner1: [Uhuh
Learner 2: Wow.ls it good?
Learner 1: Yeah, I thtnk so.
Learner 2: But I think herethe beachnot beautiJul
Learner 1 : O:h,re::allv?
Learner 2: Yes.It's not white.Thesandis not white.
Learner1: [Uhuh
L e a r n e r2 : A n d t h e v a t e r- l o u c a n n ost u i m .
Learner 1 : I seebecause yeah!lVecanswimbut-
-
L e a r n e r2 : [ T h i sv a t e ri s
Learner 1 : [-the wateris co]d.
 92 LEO VAN LIER

In this conversation betlveen tr,vo ESL learners, in contrast to the teacher-student

interaction above,no one dominates or is in control: both learners contribute fairly equallv
to the talk.Th" l"rr t
-----
arguments. Th=@g_at least not in this extract, infect each other vr.ijh
'"frffit-vance
Jl linguistic errors or create some form of interlinguai pidgin, as teachers sometimes fear
t,
// learners might do when left to their ou-n devices.
-T[t
tf = wtraTIinffi]5FFo=ilniries do learners har e to learn netl languagervhen thel talk
to each other in this rvav?Are the blind leading the blind here, or can such learner-learner
conversationbecome a sort of interactional bootstrapping, rvhere participants assemble
learning material or contribute learning material to each other in the natural course of their
talk?
- The effectivenessof teacher talk and of iearner talk as input for learning has been

.-,-.extensir.elvdiscussedand researched(Chaudron 1988; Pica 1987; Ellis 1994).Teachertalk

il | f;. bee.r iauded for being comprehensible and criticized fo. b"i.rg inuuthffilffiot
I I ffi-nea to student needs. Learner talk has been lauded for providing opportunities for

,tr;M
r, ! i
I n e g o t r a t r n g m e a n l n g a n d C r r t l c l z e d l o r b e l n g a c l e l e c t l v em o d e l , r l d d l e C \ \ l t n l n a c c u r a c l e s .
On the lvhole, research has been s tive of learner learner interaction more than of
</
t&cTer talk.Tu-t t-FTdffierlearner l o n a r ( e . 9 . ,a s
talk studiedhasusualh'be
i_-(-
_-f -

|
worK: see Lo 5),;ffi the teacher talk has tended to be-?ronologic
(e.g., in the form oflectures or instructions;seeParker an ron 1987). We therefore
cld noTTrou-TflfE-the nature of the talk or the nature ol the rnterlocutor or a comtllnaLlon
of both that makes
-jt

Constraints and resources

r . The British sociolopistAnthonv Giddens describesthe structure of social systemsin terms

,4t of rules that both enableand constraintfi-aracteristics. lust as in a game, and I include the
special ," "languageguri"," tlElq.tu!-9.1d1,
, governed by rules that allorv cerrlaT mov., l. -.d" *hi]g disallor'ving(or dlsfavo{ngr
!9

[l r.ql"gr the ruies are often tacit and ambiguous, and their precise interp.etiti6li.

/'/7ionamongparticipantstakespIaceagainst
{'/2 a backdrop of constraintsand resourcesthat are in some r.vavsdifferent, in some ways similar.
to those that characterizeother settings.The classroomthus can be seen to constitute a
{irro
sPeecnexcnanSes) jls-re1cKS, )cnegloll.
o fFurntaling r duties.The-classroom is the priqlar.
ch talk-for-la rning iiearnine qlk)__t!_g.rd --7.!--- and as such the
i, ff
classroom demonstrates tne norms lor r behavior(u-hatis cal@d"fuity".bv Giddens
, (le-a84);...'t.bi@E ieu (19
teachrng.
Gpl. reople in
rn language
language classrooms, engaged in the
engaged rn tne official
olnclal business
Dusrnessot language learni
of language learnlng.
, - i , - r ' i classrooms,
tend to behave and talk in lvays that ratifr,that business, in other rn'ords, they behave and
:-T|_:
taIK approprrately SIee Fairclough t 19921 r an tnctslve drscussron
t e r m ) . E l e m e n t so iffiness, most prominent inside the classroom, may remain
visible also outside the classroom,lvhenever learning talk is carried out in nondesignateri
placesand at nonscheduledtimes (in cafeterias,around picnic tables,and so on), as wher:
two students in the extract of learner learner interaction given above agree to engagein ;
 C O N S T R A I N T S A N D R E S O U R C E SI N C L A S S R O O M T A L I < 9 3

conversation at the req uest of a researcher.But time and place mar-make a difference in the
rvar.taIkisconductggi.ancilearningtalkinf,dei8
#
taik outdile lessons.Thispossibilitv needs to be taken into account when learners'and
teachers'interactionsare analvzed.
There are practical consequencesofthis constraints-resourcesvieu'oflanguage learning
* I L
contexts. In an article entitled "NoTalking in Class,"J.H. Lii (1994) depictsthe traditional I r&Sr Ir 5*q-
role ofteacher aso a n o t n a l o I s t u o e n t s a s m o s u \' l l s t e n l ncgt p a s s l v e' l vl n c l a s s . ek raeu^4
hiileed, a student is quoted as savingthat he used6
w-asso bored bv lectures."Theselectures."Th"r. comments .o-*..ts fit the
th knd@
-r-:r--------:-
e n o u g h .I h e l n t e r e s t r n' t\\G
t here is that in the innovative classdescribed (w'hich has tri'enty-
five students),the problem is solvednot bv the teacher'schanginghis wav of speakingand
interacting r,viththe students but bv the placing of a computer betu-eenthe teacher and the
taught. Thanks to the insertion of the computer, students "no$- have the opportunitv to
interact n'ith teachersand receive instant feedback."Askepticalperson might ask,Whv do
interaction and feedback recuire an artificial interface?Whv can't professors interact with
t h e i r s t u d e n t su i t h o u t a c o m p u t e r ?
Pierre Bourdieu and Jean-ClaudePassejon,in their u'ork on cultural reproduction,
_-..-;---:--1.--'|-.--------_--1--__
suggeslthat
sugfest rnar rne
the lnsuruuon
institution equrPSequipsfne the teacher
feacner rvith \\rtn certain
cerfarn distancing
olsrancrngre9nn]gugL_grq
techni nnosr t
efficient technique is "magistEilifdiscourse," \thich condemns th cher to "theatrical
onorogue. rnstitutionai control over the teacher's language use,
___--__i:_____K
r.
according to Bourdieu and Passeron(1977) that "efforts to set up dialogue immediately turn
intofictiLnorfarce,,'ThepossibiIit,.th.t,.
-ii-stitutional
constraintsis intriguing.:
This characterization of teacher- student interaction mav seem overdralvn and
unrepresentative of todav's classrooms,manv of r,r'hichare more d).namic and dem k
Butthereisnodoubtthatinvariouss,'bt]eoiovert\\.aYsth.i@,,-A
the tvpes of talk thut .u a\
teldhGTls free to ignore such constraints in the interests ofpedagogical action. Bourdieu
and Passeronare clearlv skeptical about the possibilitv of that freedom, though perhaps
transformation-minded educators may $-ant to seehorv far thev can go, and to what effect.
The institutional setting, of course, offers resourcesand facilitates their deployment in
,h.,u@materials Er r . - , ,I
palpabletfraush perhaps more lmportant, ot authorrty and po\\'er: the authorlty to set the vlbu,lq uv,
fg."C1_!bsg"=1,. judgerandgrade,test,pass.lailt; the authori!-Jo-spe;k;EaFo\lfr -
to control and evaluatethe speechof others.TffiI
defi
iTTand this pounerhavetraditionallv
e teacherand the uork oTr:-ffitr-ng.but ther are increasinglrr iewed as no longer
appropriatein todav'sIearning environments.John Merroll.reports the storv of a teacher's
1lt
not knor,vinghow' to continue rvith a multimedia project after a specializedinstructor was
laid off. It had not occurred to this teacher that she couid ask the students to teach her;
asking them did not fit her concept of the teacher's role. As Merror.v (1995) suggests,
"teachersu'on't survive, and school rvill become increasinglvirrelevant, if teachersdon't
change their stvle of teaching," a stvle he refers to as "the bank deposit approach".
It is lr'ithin the structure of institutional constraints and resources that the teacher's
interaction w'ith learners must take olace.When teacher talk and teacher learner interaction
are examined, particularlv rvhen ,".o--..rdations for changesare made, these structuring
forces must be kept in mind. If interaction is as important for ianguagelearning as current
theories claim it is, then the kinds of interaction the classroom permits and the changesthe
teacher can realisticallr-make to those kinds of interaction are of qreat importance to
research.
 initiation-response-feedback exchange

ll'hat ts this called?

Learner: PIastic.
Teacher: Y o u c a l ] e d t r p l a s L i c .G o o d ! l t ' s p l a s t t c . B u t j r s g o r a n o t h e r n a m e I o o
trcnsParencJ.

This exchange betu'een a teacher and a learner is unmistakablv classroom talk. It

contains the follou'ing steps:

Theteacher,holdingupanor.erheadtransparen.).,u,@'
alreadv knolvs the ansrver.
The teaiElr wishes to see if the learner has some particular piece of knowledge and
can displav this knorvledge.
The learner responds effectivelv and efficientlv, but also elliptically, using just one
woro.
The teacher evaluatesthe learner's response, approving of it, but then suggeststhat
there might be another, more felicitous, ans\\.er.

This particular form of classroom interaction, the teaching exchange,is considered amonq

/x the most frequentl,v occurring t.vpesof teacheesrudent talk in the classroom (Sinclair and
I 988:\r'ellsffialled an IRF
exchange,sinceit consistsof thesethree parts (or moves):initiation, response,feedback.
In the IRF format, a number of different things can be accomplished. !1!h= rnot,
C5mechanical, rote-lqarning end of IRF, the teacher's questions require the students merel.
to-recite prJviouslv learned items. IRF mav also be used bv the teacher to see if students
r I I -, 11, -1,- -,,-l-^-- -^ -^^ :f'^!--l^---

v a certain u'ord o item. IRF can demand more, challenginq studentsto think.
-i-------+4.

stlons. to clant\.

IRF therefore
continuum belw'een mechanical and demanding, as shou'n in the figure below
\o-itr-h"t the IRF tb-ril@-ns,
iren the .'arGE:6i-FdagoElFit it would be a
* mistaketo dismissit altogetherasbadpractice.Everl casemustbe examinedon its merits.
'^ is
As a rule of thumb,the precisenatureof the IRFbeingemplo)'edin a particularinstance
t.@-sinFthisi.*.h"..:&s_!gg.h.rt]'pialffi IF,h.pttp*t
question or seqqslse o:fuuestions..\[ter the follou"ing question-answerpair

Recitation Display Cognition Precision

F i g u r e5 . 1 l R F c o n t i n u u m
 CONSTRAINTS AND RESOURCES IN CLASSROOM TALI< 95

Teacher: betneen"wateris heattng"and"wateris heated'?

What's the dyfference
Learner: Whteris heatin7, tt it's the one v,'ho'sheattng.

a varietv of third turns are possible.In each case,a different tvpe of task is revealedto be
in progress: 'd''"tVt*1
Good. Sav the whole sentence:llateris heating the radiators.
t
Teacher:
-,t^..tL WI ,,
(recitation) -'
k^-o-t

Teacher: Good.l4hat do we call rhat construction?

(display)

Teacher: And can),ou think oJsomethlngsthat tt mtght be heattng?

{"Dirw\VT
(cognition)
, " *xu*i:"
Teacher: Aha, can 1ou explain that in a httle more
(precision)
Adapted from van Lier (1995a)

This example shorvsthat the IRF structure cannot be regarded asa single t,vpeof pedagogical
activitv.All four IRF t-vpesof teacher-learner interaction given abovecan be used to evaluate
or control or to invite participation. Knou-ing the purpose of a particular IRF exercise-
though this mav not alu'avsbe easr',is crucial in determining its pedagogicalr-alue.But there
++
are some things that all IRF sequenceshavein common, and these common featuresmust
as a pedagogicaltool.
be examined before IRF can be assessed

Learning as co-construction: the limits of IRF ( .- ) u<A

\_/
The central feature of IRF is that the teacher is r'.eouivocallv in charge.This being in charge
------
m a n i f E s t si t s e l fi n a n u m b e r o [ u ' a r s .
Everv IRF exchange is a step in an overall plan designed bv the teacher.The plan mav
be to check lr.hat the s"tudentsknorv (as in recitation or"displuj)rfro construct knowledge
.€
o r a n a r g u m e n t . D e r h a p sa l o n g S o c r a t l c l l n e s , o r t o p u s h t n e s t u c l e n t st o \ \ ' a r c lc l a r l t \ '
'
d f.--e _ x p r e s s i o nl t. i s i m p o r t a n t t o n o t e i::
"r"'--"' g n s t r u c t e d .l o- r a r r i n q
t h a t t h e 'p l a n -i s n o t € g c-:-:-;:; :-
degrees,stTdFntsmal be an are of the nature o[ th-eplan and au are of the direction in u hich
the discourse is moving, but usuallv these matters are revealed onl,v gradualh' and
incidentalh'.
The teacherdoesali the initiating and closinq_(inother u'ords,takesall the first and
.
thirdI turnr- u-orkis done
students'u-ork
turnslJftlThe students' doneexclusivelv
exclusivelvin the
the response
responseslot.The IRF format
slot.TheIRF format
dir.orr.ug"r,trd..!114@d.1, i.gd A, D",-ti:Tffi gh

ansrvers".It is extremelv hard, if qot impossible, in the IRF format, for the stu
stions Fffi self-correct, and so on. Indeed, I found that such student utterances
oteru'helm quences.or in other Iryd:+:lIF
format. Often thev are *'hispered comments to a fellou-learner or questions rvrit n
- - r .
j n a n o t e b o o k . l h e I K F t o r m a t d l s c o u r a q e sl n t e r r u p t t o n ( o r d l s r u p t l o n ) a n d c a n t n e r e l o r e
 96 LEO VAN LIER

be cailed'aclosedre491qh in that it structurallr,and functionally

l a c e .I t i i urslve gul bus tour, but the itinerary is olten
olvn to the studelts.
unities to exerciseinitiatire (see r.anLier 1988; Kinginger 1994:)or
-regulation (a senseof or,vnershipof the discourse,a
senseof being emPorl-ered)are extremelv restricted in the IRF format. Not only are student
uttt' g @mrne rapon*
l,r{
\-'
Jr\ s l o t , i a n d u i c h e db e t n e e n t \ \ o t e a c h e rt u r n s l r a n T G i 1 9 9 6 a 1t,h e r a l s op r e v e n tt h e s t u d e n r
!V''4 f, r^o m crl o l n gt u r n t a K t n g ,t o p r c d e v e l o p m e n ta, n d a c t i r i t v s t r u c t u r i n g+u:o- r k . T h e t d o n o t
h -z I
.' r '].*Jl\ alJovr,to anv signihcant extent, negotiation of the directioiTT'iiEuition]
\ | ,r-,

t4i''."tt'{Gil-enthesebasicfeatur.trecommendationsof
r*{ 1+J.+ I
Lv-LUrrrLruLLr",",_}Sjlljlatrrt\D(j\lcrsdIlQfllnoers
:H+lo"t Flinders
1ee0;
t > > V ; )Shul'
n u v l1ee1),
> > l ) r O f o't l l e l n s t r u c -
Ff-$I";
f'^o!tr61'\fr"
tional con\Ittlg! Hgf":T"$,1t-*:'^':j +1:'t'"'-
l.!)nrp and Gallimore 1988),especiallvif suchrecommendali6i-sare
,=..*- ' 1-#-
discusseflfr\r lhglperspectile of critical pedagogr-(Darder 1991; Shor 1992)?I explore
do** . )Or 'different
though related angles.

/-f\ t'ygotsky's 6J proximal developmentand the notion oJ pedagogical

)- \.f)' calfotding
\ rv

\_./ LevVygotsk discussesthe range of activitiesa learner can accomplishr,viththe assistance

LevVygotskv
of a more capableperson, such as . t"u.h.r.
activities(skills ations,etc.) are rvithin the learner'scompitence (this miqht be cali"d
areaofse|l-regulation),otherscanbeu..o-pl.i-'h"do''l''''itffiu.1
re entrrelv outs earner s scope.I he mrddle activit\.. which is naturdllr
-,---#-
the tocus o agoglcal acrton. ls relerred to b\. V\-gotskr as th.e zone of

and Cole), a teacher develops strategies fo. uGting th. l.o.-ffih. ,r*io* kinds of
affie-whichguidealearnerintoanactivitr.thatinitiallvistoocoffi
-
catlolding
scarrororng (Bruner
(Dru I 983;.
-i-J
-\ The inlT-iation- k exchan , at least rvhen it moves beyond mere
recitation and displav,can be re scaffolding
i".trygro",a w.ayof developing
cognitive structures in -- .:.--
l oe\elopment. o r a u ' a v o l a sslstrng
s s l s t t n qlearners to
-

a platform of shared knor,vledge that rvill facilitate the introduction and integration of
new know.ledge. IRF used in several steps in a iesson or during one activitl. am-ongother
activities(seeWelis|993),..al.onceithasserved
-
its purpose, it vields to other lvals of stiucturing
ucrurlng participation.
PartlclPatlon.
Scaffoldi be oftrue I benefit, must be temporarv. The scaffold must be
t--
allr dismantled as rner shorrs sjpil handling more of tl
task in question.
-t
This over,(BruneFT9S 3 I . and lr.ithout it scaffoldin,,
tt | | i =-- --
\4'OUlClSlmDh' breed ' l e s s n e s sl .t i s u n c l e a r u ' h e t h e r I R F h a s i n i t s
structure the flexibilitv to effect handover. I suspect that, for handover to be possible, IRF
must be a ned at some point to make place lor autonomour l.urn"rffirre. This
switch from IRF to more o scoursestructures mav be a crucia slon
point, and researchshouldTocuson ii cloiJr..
 tc '& tto"*e/V o
U..a-SVtd

C O N S T R A I N T S A N D R E S O U R C E SI N C L A S S R O O M T A L I ( 9 7

Intrinsic motivation and learner autonomv Co'^,*f!ffi,^r,, t*

-/'/'- ,,^^-o\vq,,tl
can be defined ast1rehuman response p.t64!9 needsforr competence,

@r'(DeciandRr'an1992;Deci,!u1G6d,R.II"ti".,u.'dRy""199D
It expressesitself as a here-and-nor,r'interest in col.dircting an activitv for its orvn sake,for
the pleasure,stimulation, o. challengethe acti,i lv
ated to the perceptlon

intil nft6ffi
ing able to chg/le and of being somehow in contrp4 of orre s
actionf.Acti6-nsthat are perceir-edasbei
rat-ibffAtdo extri nsic reu aiseor criticism (see
ieduce N+
Ju.Sutrg

ren'ards( in the form of teachera al or praisein the third turn) a extrinsic onged
u_s e o f t h e l R F f o r m a t m a v h a r e a n_e s a t i v e e f l e c t o n i n t r i n s i c m o t i v a t i o n a n d c a u s e a d e c rrl rtex,a, sne
in levels of attention and involr.ement. IRF exchangesare like discoursal traininq w
In bicycle riding the training rvheels must eventuallv come off, and liker,visein interaction v ^..
' Qi,
I R F m u s t b e , e p l a c e db r f r e e s o c i a li n t e r a c t i o n .
a t i o n ( s e e \ . a n L i e r 1 9 9 6 a ) ,p e C l g o e r c a . L .
A l
actionmustbeorie@ve]sofintrinsicmotivationu,'dffiffid/r\rl
iftreasingseIf-regulationandautonom\..IRFmustA\ \{
,, : :: :i:ii : i ---T--j--- , ,
FffiiFffi" patterns, ones that allou' student initiative and choice to develop.

Transformation; or, chang ing educational reality through inte raction

"ll
\(
C r i t i c a l p e d a g o g vs e e k st o t r a n s f o r m e x i s t i n gs t r u c t u r e so f c o n t r o l a n d i n e q u a l i t r ' ( Y o u n g
1992: Darder 1991) and to allorv studentsto frnd voicesof their ou-n and become critical
and autonomous learne.r o.".JEqili6l1iG
fialogu-, *hich, according to Paulo Freire ( 1972), can f-lourish only in a climate of equalit)'
among_pgrticipants.Freire maintains th"t di
dialosue there is no communication, and rvithout cqlnm

participation in its cons-ructio

t o b e r e a l i z e d ,d i s c o u r s em u s t m o \ 1 ef r o m t t t e r n sR ; S e r t T o n n s t 1 9 9 ) t a p t l r c a l l s
WDPK (What do pupilsknorv?)and 1G,.rs'rthat teacherthink;1fr more discursivi
patterns mar irauirr'. lt thus m@stigate hou IRF itself
can.---
be transformed and ho'"vtra\zuitions from IRFto other discourse forms can be

Equality and symmetrv 6.eTs

The IRF structure is clearlv a sisnificantadvanceoter the ritual m isterial rformances
ince at least it
@r&ss@
involves studentsand asks themTil"CixiTii6trt€-Iffiit-hillomeone else's agenda.
olvever, in terms of communicatio-, control-tnitiative, meaning areatlon anilIregotratlon,
messageelaboration, and a number of other features characteristic of social interaction, the
learner's side of the IRF interaction is seriouslvcurtailed.
 98 LEO VAN LIER

It is therefore useful to consider other forms of interaction, including conversational

(such as learner-learner interactions) and see n'hat characteristicsthel' have that might be
relevant to languagelearning. For a general examination ofinteraction, I suggestthat there
a r e t w o m a i n g r o u p so f i s s u e s :

thinks
tn anv
a less

Issuesof negotiation and the joint construction of talk. This relates to shared rights and
'r, duties of icipation, that is,
i interactional ,)'ory,.1
participation, Such svmmetr.)', most clearly visible
'inconr.ersationamonq"quul,,ffiu.hi.*].fbrIesspi.fi.ie'-tspeakErs.
,in conversationamong equ4-s,E-aF
ffBqI as the con€rsatfonEetu.een
as tle conversattonbetu-eent$-otu-o ESL
ESLstudents
studentscuoted abovedemonstrates,
quoted above demonstrates. it is by
bv no
no
-*"r impossible.\,r/1,r,ft ,o.- ,,eq,t{c" uLt c-rft<rtal"l<-
cstl<rta J'+-,<- f4*'?
L:^
,fry b'v Ul^ak a^-+ "eq,'Jc".).)'*"*
-_ -'{--_
-- The phenomena relating to, on the oneland, contiol, power, and equalill'and, on t!e'bt!q,
..f1
' conversationalsvmmetrv and negotiation of meaning are connected:unequal participants
tend to haveasvmmetrical interactions. But a distinction must be made between interactions
that are oriented tou'ard achieving symmetrv and those that are not (lRF, lectures,
iristructions,and other common teacher talk belong to the secondcategorvfl
<ffi;t.tio,.,-tffieces.sariIvinvolveu,'u.,,i-piionofequality
or some sort of abdication of authorit-v.A separationbetween svmmetry and equality is
crucial for the possibilitv of fruitful communication between teachers and learners and,
indeed, betu'een native speakersand nonnative speakers.If true communication were
possibie onlv betlveen equals, then teachers and learners (and even parents and their
children) would be forever condemnedto pseudo-communication.Thisis obviouslynot so.
Having postulated that communication, lvhether betw'eenequals or unequals, requires
an orientation tow-ard interactional symmetrv, I norv show',first, how' such an orientation
mav be visible and, second, what benefits it might have for languagelearning.
In w'hat wavs can utterances be oriented tolvard svmmetrv? Basicallv.the orientation
,I
. vservsrrrt
t

expressesitself irlrelations of contingencrtetween an utterance and other entities -

primarilv other utterangXiprece-ding and follorving), shared knowledge, and
lolrgurrentl
relevant features in t)/u'or-ldGbson Calisthem affqrdangeqsee further below).
llWtg)

/'
Contingency

efers to trvo distinct characteristicsofinte

€- -'--.r
ance) or through shared knon'ledge or shared affordancesin-fEe environmenti

]:xF?ETltigns:"d the craftingo so that futur

utte-ra4cescan find a conversational home 1sffi-Lier 1992,1994 and 1996a).The first
characterlstlc has weII studied under the heading of contextualization by John Gumperz
(1992).The rvaysin rvhich utterancq are linked to one another have also been studied
extensivelv bv ethnomethodologistsj,rvho have used related concepts such as conditional
relevance and reflexive tving (Garfintel 1957; Sacks,Schegloff, and Jefferson 1974) .
M-v preoccupation u'ith contingencv originates inthe belief that speakers,b1'using
lanquaqe'conrinqenrh, i" rffi-"y prrribr"
"^@
 C O N S T R A I N T S A N D R E S O U R C E SI N C L A S S R O O M T A L I ( 9 9

(unit" the gi""n and the e comment, the foregrounded anfu

gy'ounded).Contingent languageuse encourages, justifies, and motivates grammatical-
'ization. -
Noncontingent languageuse or, rather, less contingent, since Se qualit.v of
contingencv exists on a continuum - proceeds more staticallv and encouragesa treatment
of la;@ insteadof as an organic *'hole.
Contingent features are most visible in the kind of talk usualiv referred to as
-#-- | t Ia
conversati-667[3T-ITl
' forms of talk. conversationis perhapsthe hardestto dehne. It is. in a
sense,a catchallconceptthat can contain other kinds oftaik - such asinstructions.requests
srorres. Dusinessoears.A complication is that other kinds of talk can have conversation
ffirviervs.lessons,orsalestransactionsmavsuddenIvbecomechatty,
then after a r,vhiles',r-itchback to business.So neat boundaries cannot be drarvn around the
ph-nomenon of conr-ersation.Yetlve usuallv knon'rvhen a conversation is taking place.
I

In conversation,everv utterance is connected bv manv links some of them overt

manv more of them iovert - to previous utteiances and through them to the shared (or
woild of the partlcrpants. L.\,ervutterance setsuP ex s for what will
b e s a r c l n e x t .u t t e r a n c e s l n c o n \ e r s a t l o n a r e t n u s , a t t n e s a m e t l m e .
ffiants'mutua}engagement(lr.hatRommetr.eit('1974)ca
intersubjectivitr') is achieved and maintained.
-=.+Vlen.rzruls contingent, rather than planned in
_
advance.In addition, t n, at
least ideallv.a I sav "ideallv" since it often happens that one person monopolizes the
a\q[
conversation and does not let tle others get a word in edqer,vise.But the orientation tou-ard *
::: : i : r : : lir i i
svfrifrFtFstill holds. since the participantsu'ill note that the conrersatron* t-dSd-
cl<
To illustrate w"hatmakes an interaction conversational.I quote two extracts fron-t
nonnative speakerinteractions. In the first there is a high ievel ofcontingencv; in the second.
a m u c h l o r r - e rl e v e l :

'.Speaker1: From mv room I can seethe ocean view' -'f

I
Speaker2: W'ow
1: And- I
Speaker
Speaker2: I a^) L^,,. I t
l-1nd nt)n rrrdrr ruom do -rou have: I
I 1//-"t"-r''--n
.-<.l/c _,,)
Speaker1: Two bedroom twoJull bathroom
I
...' -'
--- I
Speaker2: Whar what what I aa , - w'?L-
Speaker1: Two bedroom- | Yww'
Speaker2: [Ti'o bedroom
I L
Speaker1: -and twoJullbathroom
____)

Speaker 1 : I neveraskedvou,what did,voudo in Japan beJqrgyu camehere?

Speaker 2: Uhn aJterfntsh high school
S p e a k e r1 : U h u h
Speaker2:lwo&-frr... ..three)'ears
Speaker 1 : H m m
Speaker2: And -
Speaker 1: fiIthercAdJes-wotk
Speaker 2: h - this is ver,v- dtfficultJor explain
Speaker 1: Tr),
Speaker2: I use. . .the computer
Speaker1: Uhuh
 lOO LEO VAN LIER

Speaker 2, an ESL learner, is the same person in both interactions, but in the first her
interlocutor is ofroughlv equal proficiencv and in the second her interlocutor is a nativelike
bilingual speaker.The first extract illustrates svmmetry, and all utterances exhibit a high
degree of contingencv.The second extract is more like an intervierv in which speaker 1
encouragesspeaker 2 to speak. Relations of contingencv are weaker, and symmetry is
reduced. If contingen_c1cofd be visgalized-asbundles of jtrilgs connecting utterances,
then the strings u.ould be thicker a"d moie nurmerousin the first conversation and more
se and sprndly rn tne seconcl.
o @ used to create contingencv: empatlr)'Irar\ers ("l/owl"),
6 repetitions
lr',!
of parts of each other's utterances ("two bedroom- two bedroom"),intonation
p-tterns, gestures, and so on. The devices come from a stock of resources similar to
Gu-m-p#s(Ig9Tf"contextuaiization cues" (indeed, as I suggestedabove, the creation of
contingencies overlaps significanth. r'r.iththe process of contextualization), though any
interactional marker that can be used to make a contingent link can also be used for other
purposes, and this makes tabulating and quantifving contingency impossible.

Contingency, negotiation, and language learning

The dynamics of interaction have been studied in most detaii by Teresa Pica and her
colieaguesiPica 1 987, 1992; Picaand Doughtv 1985; Pica,Young,and Doughty 1987). This
research,which focuseson opportunities for learners to carry out repair strategiesfollowing
communicative problems, has revealed various conditions that favor or disfavor such
interactional modification and hasshou'nt oilitbe;anG c-o'mpreherislon:freeo-rdinp-to Pica
-
(1987),"What
what enables learnersto
enableslearners movebevond
to move DeYond tnerr current rnterlanguage
their current receptive
in-erlafrFguageeceptrve and
re ancl
e*pr essiu6-cip ac-ti e@ stan d unfalq ili ar liqgui stic inpur! o1 when
fequfe?-to
reoulred to proouce
proiluce a comprehensible messagdare
messas(are dpportunities to modify and restructure
i-lt"i. i.rt..uction w'ith their interlocutor until-mutual com sion is reached".
----8,\--r€solvrn[cornmunic-atireproblems
-.-
tJ\ resol\ lng communlcatlve through the use of interactional modifications
(."q,'estsforcla]rificationorconfirmation,.o-p.".h..,sionchecks,ffi
re o??n.kEii*T"put
ehe-nsiSlFln'pfit available
f6r leirniilg. R-esearchhas shown horv learners activelv lr'ork on the language to increase
their knowledge and proficiencr'.
The follo.rving observations, based on these analvsesof repair in inter-language talk,
might help to place repairing in the overall context of interactional languageuse.
First, as Gul'Aston has pointed out, repair '"vork and adjustments of various kinds can
be used to€xpress convergenceof perspectivesamong participants or to "seek closure on
f,-r--<- ' --:;--=---__
a problem" iRudl_uck 1991), not necessarilvto make something comprehensible.George*
ffi11996'l found that more-proficient interlocutors sometimes simplv decide to give up
on certain problematic it o]he.
., .----. l- ..- -: -:----:-::=:::Tl-. r-- -..'-_-fJ
th'a.jlrncreasedcompre ot t.glg."
usits.ht-
----Seco;4,
the preponderance of repair (in the highlv visible form of interactional
modifications) ma,-vbe the result of the tvpe of discourse investigated. In much of the w'ork
of Pica and associates(Pica,Young, and Doughtr' 1987; Pica 1992), the activitv types in
question are communication tasks in rvhich participants (often a native speaker and a
nonnative speaker) need to exchange information. This need leads to interaction that
is usually both asvmmetrical and unequal, an environment in u-hich explicit repair.
rvith imbalances of the kind illustrated br,Yule. tends to be salient. A similar focus on
 C O N S T R A I N T S A N D R E S O U R C E S I N C L A S S R O O MT A L I ( 1 0 1

repair can be seenin the analvsisbv Michael Moerman (1988) of interaction among native
speakersofThai. He concludes that"repair is of central importance to the organization
of conversation". Moerman's discussionof repair, horvever, is based on transcripts of
testimonv inThai court cases,rvhere the status of overt repair is probablv different from
that in general conr.ersation.Indeed, ethnomethodologicalanalvsesof repair and related
matters in conversation(Schegloff,Jefferson,and Sacks1977;Heritage 1984; Pomerantz
19 84 ) indi cat=_s-t-19:gp_Iglgrylc e for seif- re p air an
t h a t i s . r e p a i r t h a t f o l l o r ,sr c o m m u n i c a t i o np r o b l e m s .
-Third,
and related to the secondobservation, the interactional activitl of repajringalust
be placed irti!-!9ed-q?g. Repairing, .n utt" g ir,
, -L;"------;-'7-
the face of p-oblems, is one set of actions among manv that manifest orientation toward
mutual (inter-subjecti\.itv) and svmmetrv. ilepairing occurs in responseto the
-.. ---------T-i--
".rgug.-".,a ,, ,
p e r c e p t l o no l t h o s et r o u b l e s .b u t s t n c et r o u D l e ss n o u l cD l ea \ - o l c e cl n t n e n r s t P l a c e r, t m a K e s
senseto focus attention aiso on other mechanisms for achier.ing mutual understanding and
intersubjectivitr'. It makes no sense,from a discourse-analvticalor a pedagogicalperspective,
to assign special status to an activitv that is undertaken onlv lvhen other, more-preferred
activities have been unsuccessful.To use an analog)',ice skaters are iudged more on hovl'

\
Successin interaction - thiiEtFe-aEhielementof mutual
-;: understandinq.
' continqencv, /
+. , , ' ',,,., ii i li---l-il-1 .
and lntersublectl\'ttJ - ts clependat-rtg! tne sKrlllul use oI all rele\.antsoclal ano lrngulslrc--
'r
es and those that
c i"-U" al"ial into ittree c*egories, asfloliou's(see
I
Atlti"ro" DuncanTgT2;Kasper1989;r'anLier and Matsuo1995fbr
""a:H"rltug!19S+;
additionalexamples):
/
fP#;lb Ianning,predictin-gltfy--)
V Opening sequences (By the wav;Do you know w'hat?)
Cataphora -) r \-^.,,.
l.
run
/ i^-^-
! llJaclr
.^
LU
+L;- |
LttrJ/

Grounders and preparers (OK, three potnts I wanna make)

Strategic moves (Let me give you an example)

,z----.=-S_
qE:"-:faking signalsduring one'sown or anotherperson'sturn)
Back channels (Uhuh;Hn)
Gaze (eve contact, Iooking ar,r'ar')
Turnover signals (Let mefnish; ltrhat doyou think?)
Empathy markers (Oh; l|bw;Really?1

up)
summarizing,rephrasing,'"vrapping
\{eaj}l
Repair and correction (Doyou meanx?;Acrualll'tt'sy)
Demonstrations of understanding (Oh;l see)
Gists and upshots (So;In a nutshell;lYhatyou're sayingis)

The relations betrveen interaction and learning are not explained bv this list or, indeed, bv
anv other that might be devised. But at the very least the analvsisshou'sthat the concept ot
v need to be expanded from Piclls-d_9.fin1{gp;W\en a listener signals to.a
-S aker'smessageis not clear,and lis and soeaer vrorkinteracti\e
to ve this impasse" (1992) . Negotiation includes the proactive and concurrent resources
 LOz LEO VAN LIER

for utterance design, as w'ell as reactive resources other than repair. Repair is thus only one
among many torms oi negotiation of meaning.
A fourth and final consideration goes to the very foundations oflearning and its relation
to the environment. Almost all the r'vork in applied Iinguisticsthat addressesthe role of
input and interaction (see Ellis (199+) for an overvieu') assumesan input-output model of
communication and learning. This model is basedon a vielr' of languageuse as the transfer
of linguistic matter from one person to another and largelv ignores issuesof reciprocity and
contingency. Being basicallv a transmission model (as rvords like inpur and output indicate),
it does not addresslearning as transformation and languagelearning as grammaticalization
(the development of grammatical complexitv in the organic sense, outlined, e.g., by
Rutherford (1987)). It is likelv that the true role of interaction in learning and the true
u,hatVvg.i@;.-"-rtrq4;;r'.1"p-.nt.unU-Jieveiledon\,
..-senseof
-]fL\@;;..l"pr;".i(r"Lciur*,igl-qlBo;,;-rtu.,dJlir,-ders1990-).
Z'_fi@qpgoath, no-ionrllk..o"tingencl'and,ur.r*.,.y rvili becentral,andovertacts
/)
/,
.llggqlqg
.
- _r=
.

ft IILL. gFiJEglgqrgrr4l1Ma'cuian?Z{onc-1985;Giaumann t990; Plattand

Brooks 199+1.Linguistic matter in the environment, to the extent that the learner has access
to it (seevan Lier (1996) for a detailed discussionof access),provides affordancesto the
active and perceptive learner (Gibson 1979;Deci and Rvan 1994.s Whether or not such
affbrdancesare packaged as repair sequencesis likelv to be a minor issue.

A theoretical conclusion

I have discussedtrvo different tvpes of interaction in language learning, teacher-learner

interaction in the IRF mode and iearner-learner interaction, to illustrate equality and
symmetry.I havesuggested that interactionis particularlvbeneficialfor learninswhen it is
----'
.)k contingent. Sl' _tya+s_
b_rrt
'
5sl'mmetricalinteractionis deficientin contingencl'.Unequaldiscoursepartnerstend to
ifficult to orient their interaction torvard svmmetrv: as a result-Their
iflteractions often look li uences or intervier,vsll-here one of the pafrners takesi

Two questionsremain:What are some \\.avsin r'vhichunequal discourse partners such

as teachers and learners or native speakers and nonnative speakers - can engage in
symmetrical and contingent interaction, and horv r,vouldthat engagementbenefit learning?
What are the pedagogicaibenefits of r-ariousforms of asymmetrical discourse, such as
lectures and IRF exchanges?
to relevant language material
LCt -

r i m e e x t e r n a l c o n d i t i o n t o e n s u r ea c c e s sa n d l e a r n e r s 'a c t i r " ee n g a q e m e n t .
Contingentinteractionprovidesan..intrinsitmotivationforlist@
a n d J e f f e r s o n1 9 7 + ) . L e a r n e r s ' n a t u r a l l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s e s , t h r o u g h t h e d e s i r e t o u n d e r s t a n d
and be understood, svnchronize rvith eflicient perception and focusing. Learners will be
vigilant tou-ard linguistic features and rvili *"k. an effort to b. p.ug-"utii;Ily-pi6AFJet
a m b i q u o u sr , r ' h e r ea
ol contingent interaction. To put this idea in the strongest possible (though of course
^bJ hypothetical) terms: the organic, self-regulating process of contingent interaction is a
necessarvand sufficient condition for languagedevelopment to occur. In the absenceof
appropriate research,this is ofcour ulative hvpothesis
t that is onlv one side of the coin. To the exGnt target of languagelearning
 C O N S T R A I N T S A N D R E S O U R C E SI N C L A S S R O O M T A L I ( I O 3

is a standardized,oflicial code (a set of cultural habits) to $'hich the learner has to or wants
to conform, linguistic affordancesmarked as appropriate and desirable must be presented
in the environment, and accessto these affordancesmust be facilitated. Here organic
languagedevelopment and external languagedemands (socioculturallv and institutionally
mandated) meet each other halft'av, and Vr
spacewherein internal and external realms (inner resources and outer constraints) of
langif, F-flFe-ffie-diarTd.
,,-ffimEAl-latlon takes place under the guidance of parents, teachers, and other
competent persons, and the different u'al-sthev do this can be captured bv terms such as
Bruner's scalfolding.(Teaching,didactics,instruction,training, drilhng, and so on are of course
also terms that havetraditionallr,beenused for such expert-novice activities.)
If this vierv of the reiations between languagelearning and social interaction has merit,
then the dl,namic connections betu'een more didactic (asvmmetrical, less contingent) and
more conversational(svmmetrical, more contingent) forms of interaction are of central
importance in the languagelearning enterprise.

A practical conclusion

In a book on talented teenagers,Mihah' Csikszentmihalyi,Kevin Rathunde, and Samuel

Whalen (1993) compare current teaching u.ith the traditional role of the master in an
apprentice system.Thev observe that theleacher, insteadof being a practitioner in a domain,
l l ) /

is now' a transmitter of information and thus di e s t h e d e v e l o p m e nt

n t of e x t e n d e d and
o [ extended and ; t /l^ ,^
transforffifiT--relationslips
- suctr--ll-TEosebetrt'een master and apprentjce. -
Relarion
r ----'-:-. rauJ^
_ :
and "kept highl) specialized. >wy. )'J
=
rffib.t*'.en-i.ucfi..t und ttudentsare depersonalized
I delilerr stsie-mlanJ
Programmatlc,
r@tructionalobjectivescorroboratethistendenc1..ihing'canon]r/=
t,
get worse when, as is currentlv happeningin manv parts of theWestern lvorld, class size{
------\ .'
t i
Ir"rdschool sizes keep increasing, u, io ,.J.h".r' *o.klo.d,
\ \r'' ,,,
Th-eTeareTF-usphrsical and instiiutional constraints that tend to minimize the possi-
_
bilitiesfor meaninplulinteractronbet\\'eenteachersand studentS.ln (Jlddenss structuratlon
tfi consrraints ideallv direct and guide, facilitating the deplovment of resources.But in
l:eor1
a defectiveinstitution (definableasone in rvhich constraintsand resourcesare out ofbalance),
constraints mav obstruct the r-en' purposes for rvhich thev rvere brought into being.Against
constraints of this second tvpe, the teacher must marshal all the resources,meager though
thev often appear to be, that are availableto proride learning opportunities to students.As
the historv of educational reform mo\,ements sholvs, lalge-scale reforms tend to achieve
littletra.'sformationofthestatusquo.ButgraSSroots,bot
onindividualinitiatiretatthe|ocaller.elonlr..
nd among
students must be the individual responsibilitt' of everv teacher. For teacher development
this responsibilit-vmeans the promotion of u-hat Max van Manen (1991) calls "pedagogical
. ^ I : - - - r,vith
- . . i + l ^ students
. + , , ' l ^ - + . and
^ ^ A -(r/q
I l- )
thoughtfulness"or "tac!] ful, understanding orientation in dealings 'VA'fl*t-
anv teacners na\e resDonoeo to calls tor more interactire and -+--

E@nsloiooiv. of teaching bv reducing their teacher-fronted activities and increasing

learner-learner interaction through cooperativelearning and task-basedlearning. In current
jargon, thev have become a "guide on the side" instead of a "sage on the stage".
However, before rve slving the pendulum from teacher-centered entirely to teacher-
peripheral, it *
 I04 LEO VAN LIER

.Y ,)
Learnersneed,inadditiontop""ii''t"'aition,directintera;tto@
it is quality interaction. If rve ask learners, manv rvill sa1.-that
thev *,ant-lecture-s,expla!g!g!!_
and ottr-erloims of explicit teacher guidance. And '"veshould never neglect the univ
po1&-erofstories(Effi
-Th€
answeftd a disproportionate amount of highlv controlling and depersonalized
teachertalk is not
teacher not to minimize teachertalk per
minimize ali teacher per sebut to find lr-ays
u-avsto modify
modifv itir in more-
more-
.*-
corgnge.nt dtr:S]lons. ln addltlon. teacher learner interaction, such as the IRF, that-ii
ej€! ed .forj! affo Id ing Iear ner s' Ia{ uage use GGn-iiii? atlY ) must contarn wlt

**l[
i[ the seeds er (Sruner ontinuallv be on-the
t fbr signs that learners are readv to be more auton uageusers.
classroorn nxlsl regularh' pror,ide learners lvith opportunities to engage in
s l m m e t r i c a l i n t e r a c t i o n s , s i n c es u c h i n t e r a c t i o n si m m e r s e I e a r n e r si n c o n t e x t u a l i z e da n d
Hud' con
rocusrng.I
-
ln stat gc-v,
inEqualit)'in clenc\ aker carn
the main bu
T bachers can also experiment u'ith r.r'avsof counterbalancing the inherent inequali
their talk rvith learners (though in most institutional and c be
for them to preteld differences betlr.eE-nthem and their learners do not exi-it).
In1 docum-entarl'r'ideo, classesin various British schools set up links with classesin
far-flung places like Finland, Greece, and Portugal (Trvitchin 1993).At one point, a fax
came in from a class in Greece; it contained drawings and descriptions of weaving
techniques,with labelsand expressionsin Greek.The teacher and learners were naturalll'
at the same level w'ith respect to this text, and interaction among them became symmetrical
and exploratorv. When a parent rvho knerv Greek *'as found and invited to classto explain
the text, the teacher and his students r,vereall learners.
Takiig guidancefro- tl6ffiI er e*amp he thoushtfulGacher-reseiriEF
looksforwaYstomakeclassroominteractionvariedandffi n the world of
language,we all embodv different voices on different occasions(Bakhtin 1981;Wertsch
1991; Mavbin 19947.It is usefui for learners to find that their teachershave
and that the learners the t
- :E=
such expemmenTatlon
is crucialif thev are to find th"ffi ts t true
purpose of languageeducation.

NOTES

I thank Kathi Bailev for insightful comments on an earlier draft.

1 I realize I gioss over the problems that are inherent in the concept of rule and that have
been highlighted in much of the u'ork of Wittgenstein, for example, Philosophical
tnvestlBatlons.
2 While the problem of poor teacher-studentcommunication cannot be solvedbv iust anr.
comPuter u-ork, there is certainlv evidencethat innovativeuseof computers can
interaction,for example,througirinteractiver,''ritingprogramsund .ollubo.utive".rhu.r""
project
u'ork (for extensivediscussion,see Crook 1994; van Lier 1996).
3 Wells distinguishesbetrveenthird turns that evaluateor provide follow-up (29-30). See
alsoBarnes(.1916).
4 Svmmetrl' and contingencv are closelv related but not svnonymous. Symmetry is a
 C O N S T R A I N T S A N D R E S O U R C E SI N C L A S S R O O MT A L I < 1 0 5

structural discourse term, the result of interactional '"vork bv participants. Contingencl'

'-iJuTognitite _
qualitilher
^
but thisdoesnot meanthatthepe
usualhoccurtogether.
. :": : i
J&itical. As an analogv,iight and heat often occur together, for example, in flames,
, n d l i g h t b u l b s ,b u t t h e r a r e n o t t h e 5 a m e.
s u n l i g h ta
GibsJn describ;6mU;;>, foilo','r, "The aflordancesof the environmentare r,rhatit
ollerstheuni-ulftftffir'ides or frt
reGi;To;E to tEe-environmentand the animal. . . . It im ementaritv of
animal and vironment" (127).The term ffirdance speciflcallvrelers to those
;p-t-t the linguistic environment that become perceivableby the iearner as a result
of meaningful activitv. Affordance is neither the external languagenor the learner's
internalizationofit.Itreferstotherelatio
signs,and rele'ant p."

References

Aston, G. (1986) "Trouble-shootingin Interactionu'ith Learners:The More the Merrier?"

7: 12343 .
AppliedLinguistics
Atkinson, J.M. and Heritage, oJ SoctalAction:Studies
J. (eds) (1984) Structures in Conversation
Analysu.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversitv Press.
Bakhtin,M.M. (19811TheDialogtcImag)nation. Austin: Universitvof TexasPress.
Birnei, D. (1976) FromCommunication to Curriculum.Harmondsr'vorth: Penguin.
Bourdieu,P.(1990) TheLogtcoJPractice. Stanford:StanfordUniversitvPress.
Bourdieu, P. and Passeron,J.C. (1971) Reproductionin Educatjon,Societyand Cuhure.London:
Sage.
Bor.r,ers, C.A., and Flinders,D.J. (1990) ResponsiveTeaching:An Ecological Approach to Classroom
Patterns oJLanguage, Cuhure, andThought. NervYork:Gachers Coll. Press.
Bruner,l. (1983) Child'sTalk: Learningto (JseLanguage. NervYork:Norton.
Chaudron,C. (i988) Second Language Classrooms: Research onTeaching andLearning.Cambridge:
Cambridge Universitv Press.
C r o o k , C . ( 1 9 9 + ) C o m p u t e r s a n d t h e C o l l a b o r a t i v e E x p e r ) e n c e o JLLoenadronni n:Rgo. u t l e d g e .
Csikszentmlhalvi, M., Rathunde,K. andWhalen,S. (1993) TalentedTeenagers:The Roots oJSuccess
andFailure.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversitvPress.
Darder,A. (1991) CultureandPower in the Classroom:A CriticalFoundationJor BiculturalEducatton.
N e r " Y o r k :B e r g i n .
Deci,8.L., and Rvan, R.M. (1992) "The Initiation and Regulationof IntrinsicallvMotivated
Learning and Achievement"in ,4chievement and ilotivation:A Social-Development Perspective,
Ann K. Boggiano andThane S. Pittman (eds) Cambridge: Cambridge Universitv Press.
- (1985) Intrjnsic;l4otivatjon and Sef-Determination in Human Behavior. NelvYork: Plenum.
, . J . ,P e l l e t i e rL, . G . a n d R v a n ,R . M . ( 1 9 9 1 )" M o t i v a t i o na n d E d u c a t i o n :
D e c i , E . L . , \ ' a l l e r a n dR
The Self-Determination Perspective."Educdtional Psvchologist )6 : 325-46.
Duncan, S. (1972) "Some Signalsand Rules forTaking SpeakingTurnsin Conversation."Journal
oJPersonalitv and Sodal Ps,vcholog,v 23: 283 9).
Edrv'ards, A.D., andWestgate, D.P.G. (1981) lnvestigating Classroom %1ft.London: Palmer.
Egan,K. (1986) Teaching asStorvtell)ng. Chicago: Universitv of Chicago Press.
Ellis, R. (199+) The Stu$'oJ Second Language Acquisjrjon. Oxford: Oxford UniversitvPress.
'The Awareness,
Fairclough,N. (1992) Appropriacv of "Appropriateness"',in CriticalLanguage
Norman Fairclough(ed.1.London: Longman:33-55.
Freire, P. (1972) Pedagog,v Neu-York: Herder.
oJtheOppressed.
Garflnkel,H. (1961) Studiesin Englervoodcliffs: Prentice.
Ethnomethodologv'.
jn
Gass,S.M., and N{adden,C.G. (1985) Input SecondLanguageAcquisirion. Rorvlev:Nervburv.
 106 LEO VAN LIER

Gibson,J.l. (1979) TheEcological Approach rcVisualPerception. Boston:Houghton.

Giddens,A . ( 1984) TheConstitution oJSociery' . Berkelel':Universityof Caiiforniapress.
Graumann,C.F. (1990) "PerspectivalStructureand Dvnamicsin Dialogue",inTheDynamics oJ
D i o l o g u eM, a r k o v j . I . a n d F o p p a ,K . r e d s t .N e n y o r k , H a r r . e s t e r .
Gumperz, l.l. (1992) "Contextualizationand Understanding" , in Rethinking Context:
LanBua7eas
an Interactive Phenomenon, Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C. (eds). Cambridge:Cambrldge
UniversitvPress.
Heritage, J. (1984) "A Change-of-state Token and Aspectsof Its SequentialPlacement",in
Atkinson and Heritage: 299-345
Kasper, G. (1984) "Variation in Speech Act Realization", in Variationin SecondLanguage
Acquisition,Gass,S., Madden, c., preston, D. and Selinker,L. (eds) clevedon, Lng".:
Multilingual Matters.
Kinginger, C' (199+) "Learner Initiative in ConversationManagement:An Appiication ofVan
Lier's Pilot Coding Scheme."ModernLanguage
JournalJ8:1g +0.
Lii, J.H. "NoTalking in Class."NewYorkTimes 10 Apr. 1994,educ. supp 7.
Long, M. and Porter, P; (1985) "Group wbrk, InterlanguageTalk, and Second Language
Acquisition." TESOLQuarterly19: 201-28 .
Marcus, H. and zajonc, R.B. (1985) "The Cognitive perspectivein Socialpsvchology',,in
Theor,v and lkthod, LindzeJ',G. and Aronson, E. (eds). Nelr,york: Random. 13J_n1.
\bl. 1 of HandbookoJ SocialPsychologl. 3rd ed.
^\lalbin, J. (199+S"Children'sVoices:Talk, Knowledge, and ldentit).", in Researching Language
andLiteracy in SocialContext, Graddoi,D., Mavbin,J. and Stierer,B. (eds).Cl.,r"don,"E.r!,
A,lultilingualMatters: 13 1-50.
Mehan, H. (.1979) Learning Lessons:Social organization in the Classroom.Cambridge: Harvard
Universitv Press.
Merrow,J. 0995) "FourN{illionComputersCanBeWrongl" EducationWeek
29 Mar. 1995:
52+.
Moerman, M. (1988) Talking Cuhure:Ethnographl'and Conversation Analysis.philadelphia:
Universitv of Pennsyh.aniaPress.
Newman, D., Griffin, P and Cole, M. r 1989; The Construction Zone:WorktngJorCognitiveChange
in School. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversitvpress.
Parker,K. and Chaudron,C. (1987);Th" Eff..t of LinguisticSimplificationsand Elaborative
Modifications on L2 Comprehenston."(JniversitliJ HawatiWorktngpapers in Englishas a
S e c o nLda n g u a g 6 e. 2 : 1 0 7 - 3 3 .
Pica,T. (1987) "SecondLanguageAcquisition,SocialInteraction,and the Classroo11,, Applied
L i n g u i s t i c: s1 f2 5 .
- (1992) "The Gxtual Outcomes of Native Speaker-Non-nativeSpeaker Negotiation:
What Do Thev Reveal about Second LanguageLearning?", rn Textand Context:Cross-
DisciplinaryPerspectives on Languagesrud,r,,Kramsch, c. and Mcconnell-Ginet, S. (eds).
Lexington:Heath: 198 237.
Pica,T, and Doughtr,;C. (1985) "Non-nativeSpeakerInteractionin the ESL Classroom,,,
in
Input in secondLanguaBeAcquisition, Gass,S. and Madden, C. (eds).Rowlev: Newburv,
1r- f 1

Pica,T.,Young, R. and Doughtr-,C. (1987) "The Impact of Interactionon Comprehension."

TESOL@tarterly21 : 7 37 -58.
Platt, E., and Brooks, F.B. (1994) "The 'Acquisition-RichEnr-ironment' Revisited." Modern
Language JournalJ8: +91 -51 1.
Pomerantz, A. ( 1984) "Pursuing a Response" in Atkinson and Heritage : 1 s2-63.
Rommetveit, R. (1974) On MessageSftucture.\en.\brk: \\-iler.
Rudduck, I (1997) Innovation and Change: Dereloptng lnrolrr^ent and [Jnderstanding.
Milton
Kevnes: Open Universitv Press.
 C O N S T R A I N T S A N D R E S O U R C E SI N C L A S S R O O MT A L I ( I O 7 \

Rutherford,W. (1987) Second Language Grammar:Learning andTeaching. London: Longman.

Sacks,H., Schegloff,E. and Jefferson,G. (1974)"A SimplestSr.stematics for the Organization
ofTirrnTakingin Conr.ersation." Language 50 696 135.
Schegloff,E.A., Jefferson,G. and Sacks,H. (1977l "The Preferencefor Seif-Correctionin the
Organizationof Repairin Conr-ersation." Language 53: 351 82.
Shor, L (1992) Emporvering Education:CriticalTbachingJor SocialChange.Chicago: University of
ChicagoPress.
Shuv,R. (1991) "SecretarvBennett'sTeaching: An Argument for ResponsiveTeaching", in IAe
Enlightened Eve:@rclintiveInquiry'andtheEnhancement of Educational
Practice,Elliott Eisner
(ed.). NervYork:N{acmillan.
Sinclair,J.M., and Brazil,D. (1982) Tbacher la1ft.Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
Sinclair,J.M., and Coulthard, N/t. (1975) Tbwards an Analysis oJ Discourse.Oxford: Oxford
UniversitvPress.
n | ^ l l .
Tharp, R. and Gallimore, R. (1988) Rousing tN[indsrc l1&. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversitv
Press.
T'"vitchin,J. 0993) EuropeanAwareness in Primary Schools. Mosaic Films. Central Bureau for
Educ.Visitsand Exchanges.
van Lier, L. (1988) The Classroom and the LanguageLearner:Ethnographyand Second-LanBua7e
Classroom Research. London: Longman.
- (1992) "Not the Nine O'clock LinguisticsCiass:InvestigatingContingencvGrammar."
L a n g u a gAew a r e n e7s.s2 : 9 1 - 1 0 8 .
- (1994) "LanguageArvareness,Contingencr,,and Interaction", in Conscjousness in Second
Language Learning,Hulstijn, J. and Schmidt,R. (eds).llLA Review' l1t 69-82.
- (1996a) Interactionin the LanguageCurriculum:Awareness, Autonom,tand .luthentictt,t.
London: Longman.
(1996b) "SocialInteraction and CooperativeLearning at, around, l'ith, and through
Computers."Eler-enthWorldCongressof Applied Linguistics(AILA 96). Unnersitv of
Jyviskr'ld,Finland.5 Aug. 1996.
van Lier, L., and Matsuo, N. (1995) "Varietiesof ConversationaiExperience."Unpublished
essav.Monterev Institute of International Studies.
van Manen, M. (1991) TheTactoflbaching:The ,MeafingoJPedagogicalThoughtJulness. Albany: State
Universit)' of Neu'York Press.
Vfggt.\fr!"v, S. ( 197 81 I'lind in Sociery' . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wells, G. (1993) "Reevaluatingthe IRF Sequence: A Proposalfor the Articulation of Theories
of Activitv and Discourse for the Analvsisof Teachingand Learning in the Classroom."
L i n g u i s t i cdsn dE d u c a t i o5n: 1 - 3 7 .
Wertsch,J.\a (1991) lbiceso;fthe;llind:A Sociocultural Approach to MediarcdAction.Cambridge:
Harvard UniversitvPress.
Wittgenstein, L. ( 195 8) Philosophical lnvestigations.Oxford: Blackrveil.
Young,R. (1992) CrjticalTheor,v and Classroom ?.c1ft.
Clevedon,Eng: Multilingual Matters.
Yule, G. (1990) "lnteractiveConflict Resolutionin English."WbrldEngltshes9: 53-62.
 Chapter 6

GeliaRoberts

LANGUAGE ACQUISITION OR LANGUAGE

SOCIALISATION IN AND THR OUGH
DISCOURSE?
Towards a Redefi nition of the Domain
of S LA

Introduction

v E R T H E L A S T T W E N T Y Y E A R S S L A s t u d i e sh a v en o t i g n o r e d i s s u e so f
discourse and the social context. But often the references to social or socio-cultural
context give it onlv a marginal role in the processesof languagedevelopment. Equally, there
is relati'"'eh'Iittle concern r'vith the socialimport of secondlanguagedevelopmenrjilggf4
.
t:t..,' {*gant}es&gt ol-'o.i"l id.nti
ll\ l
i n t e r c u l t u r a l i n t e r a c t i o n su - h i c h t a k e o l a c e e v e r v d a v ] a l s o i n c l u d e t h e e l f e c t o f t h e s e
,--'i
I inref6ultural errcounters on individuals - u'ho are. themselves. part of these u'ider social
forces.
So, tnls
)o, paper ls
this PaPer is concerneo
concerned wrtn rvith second ta
secondlanguage development and mmediate social
r'
\- I context in r,vhichindividuals succeed.or faii. t truct Iocal meani
Y
d
Processesare
coriiTitutedin iuih-iriteliefiofrsand-EiT66ebrocessesin turn feJdback ntercultura
..............p
d e ih e c o n d i ti o n s ( o r
ffio un te r s and-16-6 r or.'i for discour lon ano
, - - l

ifiterpr-ation.
L-ngfage socialisation rather than language acquisition better describes holv learners
ine to produce and interpret discourse and hou- such learning is supported (or not) bv
the assumptionsof societv at large about multilingualism and second languagelearners.
These issuesare particularlv saiient rvhen researching SLA u,ith minority group workers.
And here, Gumperz's notion of contextuaiisation illuminates the ways in w-hich local
understandings and misunderstandings have an eftect both on the immediate context for
learning and on the u'ider assumptionsand ideoloqies about linguistic minority groups
n'hich also enter into and have an effect on local interactions and conditions for discourse
develooment.
 LANGUAGE ACQUISiTION OR LANGUAGE SOCIALISATION? 109

The transformation of manv cities inWestern and Northern Europe from monolingual
to multilingual environments creates crucial sites for the studv of second language
development. Adult minoritv rvorkers lr-ho are struggling to make a nerv life for themselves
represent a particularlv significantgroup lvhen researchersare considering u'hat constitutes
the domain for second languageacquisition studies.For manv of them, contact w'ith the
majoritv group is in institutional settings at rvork or in bureaucratic encounters - and
th.r" b..9 .These
settingsprovide far from ideai conditions for languagelearning and vet they mav be the only
ones nhere the nerv languageis used at all. Charting the interactions and relative Progress
of this group in an indifferent and often hostile lvorld drives the researcherto conceptualise
individuals not simplv as languagelearners but as social beings struggling to manage often
conflicting goals.After all, the researcher mav be interested in their languagedevelop-
ment, but the minoritv u-orkers are concerned r.vithgetting things done. As Bourdieu
asserts:"What s
'rvhole
1977, p. G:1. Looklng at the sociaiperson' arguesfor a more holistic approachto
--_---_______ - - | |
J[ond language de nd
-----T----r--r--
methodologrcall\'.

Limits to a social perspective on SLA

Interaction and pragmatics in SLA

There is of course an extensive literature on interaction studiesin SLA u.hich examines t-

the conversational devices rvhich foster certaiq ljnguisti. a more dialogic
'.o-p..h".trib1" -in
vein, recent v,,.ge,!.i.i@6tiutio.t of i,-tpr., \
socialinteraction. But despitethe concentrationon collaborativedialogue,languageis still
conceived ofas a d ratEer than as a discouiiE---I is - into- -
'socialh
tf[:ch' r.r"mbe.-sof a communitr are socialised.Learnersare nori-Efiaif,iteii:ed as .
co ositions to think and act in certain u'aYs
r o o t e d i n t h e i r d i s c u r s i v e h i s t o r i e s " ( L a n t oal fn d P a r , l e n k o1, 9 9 5 , p . 1 1 5 ) b u t t h e g o a l o f
dialogic learning is still the abilit-vto deplo-vlinguistic phenomena. Methodologically,
the analvsistends to fo.nt o.t u Putti.,rl.. f..,.t. h
l o c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n sa n d r e a c t i o n s .U n s u r p r i s i n g h ,t h e r e l o r e ,t h e r e i s l i t t l e o r n o e t h n o - i
-:
to suppEtEiclusions drau.n. The relatively neu' field of interlanguage
?raph.-tie"ce
i.ug-uti.. *o.rld seem io b" u more promising areafor looking at the ih=oGTocia-lpEison.
But desniteits concern rvith contextual factors,it is the narro\l-concept of the learner and
sPge.glLlc-t! \l.hi_.h g"""tu," ,h" k. Th"
_]fg-gpsr+19l9g!s9_sp9-c{c
Ed".,,o,,,remainsu.'essentiui|'cognitir'e"""*thEu"tho'@ntio1
significanceof socioculturalissuesimplies:

It would be a mistaketo vieu'developmentalissuesin ILP (interlanguagepragmaticsf

i
in purelv cognitive terms becausethe strategiesfor linguullq 4glpn are so closelv tied
to self-identitv and socialidentitr'. (Kasper and Schmidt,1996l'p. 159'

To date, hou.ever, these issuesof social identitv and, indeed, other social issuesoutside the
immediate context of utterance, have not ligured to anv significant extent in interlanguage
pragmatics.
Finalll', the interaction and pragmatics studies in SLA literature continue the tendency
in SLA more generallv to reifv languageso that French, Enghsh and so on are treated
 1}O CELIA ROBERTS

'target
unproblematicallv as homogenised languages'.This essentialisingof a language
assumesthat there is onlv one variety to be learned and that the languageand communicative
style of the broker's vard or the baker'srs similar to that of the standardvarietv.

A sociolinguistic perspective on SLA

From a sociolinguisticpoint of vielv mainstream SLA studiesremain asociai- the social

rmpdFTTilearnrngto rnteractthrough languageremalnsfudden.A socrolrngulstrc perspectlve
shifts awav from the linguistic system and from ajgryjllth specific items of prag-
maticanddiscoursed.o:.lop*..'ttolookingutlu
^
lversrtY an les. )Pecrncall\',ttus m rned with interaction
as communicative piactice and hor,vsuch practice helps us to understand larger social forces
and, in turn, their impact on interactions. This connecting up the macro and the micro in
sociolinguistic theory gives due recognition to interactions as sitesr,r'hereminority workers
are not simplv exposqdto and able to negotiatecomprehensibleinput butlk?rll-ac-tors
r,
-
Recortstitutinglearners as socialactorsbrings into focus issuesofsocial identitv.There
is a derCloping literature on language-ifr-dsocial identitr- and its relation to SLA in which
applied and sociolinguisticsmeet.Within this literature, the iearner is understood asa person

fh with multiple identities, man.v of them contradictorv. Identity is dvnamic acrosstime and
plaE an-dlangUefuse, social identitv and ethnicitr-are inextricablv linked and understood
,41,0 within larger social processes.For example, Pierce ( 1995) ajgrsses*Ue+ersonal and so-eial
i".
how'these are observablein their interactions and the rvavsin r,r'hichcertain sociai identities
r b a c k g r o u n d e d . l O q c en o t i o n s o f s o c i a l i d e n t i t r a r e ? i T l E d u p , t h e
dominant tradition of SLA as an asocialphenomenon is put into question. I

Language socialisation

One responseto the critique of the relatively asocialcharacter of SLA is tg-sqggesthrg!3ge

iocialisation as an alternati\e p..erspectir-e.Theconcept w'asoriginallv developed within
-.r---T--r
inthropoiogl'to describe the processrr-herebva child becomes an emergent member of the
communitv in rvhich they are grou-ing up. More recentlv it has been extended to include

,StlDuff,1996).Itincludesboththesocialisationrequired
\,-i6uselanguageinspecihcinteractionalsequencesund@nth'o!gh
-
_language tne rnolrect meansot develoPrngsocro-culturatKno\\'leclge.
-----=--: w here 5LA hasused
modelli-ngand experimentation asthe dominant paradigm to researchhow-linguistic features
are attended to, stored and accessed,Ianguagesocialisationstudieshave used participant
observation. Studies of adult minoritv w'orkers based on naturallv occurring ianguageuse
- provide data that more nearly resembles child languagesocialisationstudies. Su"h d.tu ."n
/ offer insights into the SLS process provided that it is also supplemented by ethnographic
\ data on speech events and local histories and identities ofparticioants.
\- In the follor,r.ingexample (from Bremer et a|.,1996, pp 50-51) Marcello, an Italian
rvorker in Germany, is being intervierved bvl a counsellor in the Job Centre. Marcello was
one of the informants on the European Science Foundation project on natural second
languageacquisition. He had been in Heidelberg for about a year rvhen this interview was
taped, having come to Germanv as a real beqinner. He rvas still seeking work and the
interview with the counsellor u'as both an opportunitv to find out about rvork possibilitres
 LANGUAGE ACQUISITION OR LANGUAGE SOCIALISATION? 11;

and to use his developing German. As an example of languagesocialisation,Marcello needed

to be socialisedinto the specific genre of counselling intervieu's and use this interaction as
an opportunitv to develop his socio-cultural knorvledge of how bureaucraciesr,vork, how'
work is categorised, u,hat the goals of such an interl'ierv are likelv to be and so on:

Data Example 1

1 M: rvir muss vergessen<laughs>

we havetoforget
2 T: ja * gut * dann hatten r,vir die saachefur heut
ok goodso we'retfuoughJorrcda1'
3 und rvenn sie also in zukunft noch fragen haben kommen sie bei mir vorbei ja
and tJyou haveanv questionstnJutureyou'll \ookin ok
M: ja
TES
T: (rufen sie an ) ok (leans, back, speaksquietll', looks at door, standsup)
g i v em ea c a l l o k
M: so und jetzt muss ich gehen
so and now I mustgo
7 T: <ja>
8 M: < > <bothlaugh>
. l l

9 I : \4'teoersenen
bve
10 M: u'iedersehendanke
b,vethankyou

Transcr i ption Convention s

T short pause
additional comments on \,vavof speaking etc.
tl overlap
(xxx) inaudible or omitted rvord

At one level, this could be construed as a simple caseof pragmatic failure. Marcello
fails to understand the pre-closing signalsof T including'Ja", "gut" and "dann hatten rvir die
t /./
sachefiir heut" and advice for the future. It is onl-vu'ith the non-verbal cues that Marcello T_
realisesthat thel a.e in the mi is interpretive difficultv is not surprising
;ffi;;celia 11982) has argued conversational features such as greetings are acquired
before pre,closings. But this rJqr"n." is also an unusuailv explicit moment of language
socialisation*'hen at line 5 Marcello topicalisesthe act of departure. This is more than just
a matter of picking up on some pre-closing signals,and it is u'orth mentioning here that the
crucial nonuerbal rlgtruir r,vhichare part of the interactive environment are rarelv considered
in linguistic pragmatics.
Ii o.d"i foi Marcello to manage this tvpe of institutional discourse and understand
w.hen,holr;andrvhr'theencounterclosesataparticularPoi''t,@d i<
'gatekeeping'
i n t o t h e n o r m s , r o l e r e l a t i o n s h i p sa n d g o a l s o f e n c o u n t e r s .E t h n o g r a p h i c
;t rd;." f-- minoritv *.orkers' e*perieniE-f-outtTeTling tnterr.ieu's (Bremer et al., 7996;
G u m p e r z , 1 9 8 2 a ,t g 8 U b ; R o b e r t s e t a \ . , 1 9 9 2 1 s u g g e s t st h a t i s s u e so f s p e a k e rr i g h t s a n d
responsibilities,expectationsabout speci6cgoals and the boundaries of rvhat constitutes
 IT2 CELIA ROBERTS

the personal mav differ markedlv from that of the majoritv gatekeepers. In this instance.
one of the difficulties for Marcello is the relativelv inconclusive rvav in which the intervieu.
aPPearsto end.Whereascounsellorsseesuch interr.ie\^-s as an opportunity to discusswork
preferences, minoritY r'r'orkersare more likeh' to expect to b. giu.r, ,p".ifi. information
about particular jobs. Once this information has been given, ther expect the intervien- to
be terminated. But in this instance, the counsellor ends the encounrer once some
information has been elicited from the client and some advice given.
Another frequentlv occurring example of differenc" surrounds the issue of the
categorisation of u'ork experience around skiils and responsibilities and often, therefore.
around socialstatus.In the next example (from Bremer et a\.,1996,p.63), Ilhami, aTirrkish
lvorker from Germanv, is interviewed for an apprenticeship in a garage and is asked what
l o b h l s l a t h e rd o e s :

Data Example 2

I T: e r.l'asarbeit' denn dein vater lvas macht der von beruf

what workdoesyourJather do what ts hisiob
2 l: metallberuf [und]
metaljob
3 T. [ja] und
ok and
4 I: (r,vxxx) schnellpresse(names the tou.n)
(u'xxx) fiampinBpress
5 T : i n d e r s c h n e l l p r e s sien u .
in thetamping pressin u.
6 l: fialmhm
ves
T: [ja] und dort tut er metali
and he doesmetal there
8 metall [und]
metaland
9 T: Iaha]
10 I : die machen auch das macht auch papier
they alsomakeit makespapertoo
l1 T : mhm ah so ist das
mhmah itslike that

(For transcription conventionssee Data Example 1.)

This question and ansr,versequenceis unsatisfactorvbecauseIlhami is unaware of

the underlving question u'hich is about the social status of his father's job and so of hrs
father's classposition. The garage owner interrupts on several occasions to elicit a more
specific replv but never makes explicit rvhat he u.ants to know..These are examples of
'socio-pragmatic-failure'
in Thomas' terms (Thomas, 1Zg3), But this term tends to
agmaticdifficultiesrarhcr light the processof
this instance concerns the discourse a
 LANGUAGE ACQUISITION OR LANGUAGE SOCIALISATION? 113

Some problems with the model of SLS

an apprenticeshiPmodel
!)rts
SIS ."n be seenas an apprenticeship model.The learnerover time participatesin the
life
interactional of the ne\\:communitvandis graduallvinductedinto what aretakento be I
discourset
its pre-existing j5lamo-del.implies a'learninqbv doing'approach in whicfi )l,f_u,,
-)
tor example. the aclult mtn :e-tFarrffTrcTn-her rnteractlons wlth neT*sui€Efvlsor o r I1 '"' ,
5w to evaluate her rvith complaints about qualit) (Cl1'ne, 1995). Thi's--l
earnlng *.hat Rogoff ( 1984) calls ilstration of thinking through
cultural institutions and normative techniquesof problem solving" (p. 5). But socialisation
'belonging',
is more than cognitir.elearning in social contexts. It assumesa Processof of
'neu' runs into difficulties
beins oart of the
ol
communitr'' . And this is u'here the notion of SLS
since it "assumesthat groups ate soctoc..ltutal totali 6
.::::
a n e n d p o r n to t e x p e r t b e l o n g i n g ( R a m P t o n ,1 9 9 5 b ,p . 4 8 7 1 '
Th"rpfrffiJl!-.n"a.t thestor;.It doesnotfullyl
"tsl@ofthe discoursesto rvhich learners are exposed and
take account ofthe relationship betrveen I f-

/
the Iearners themselves. In other rvords it is an overlv functionalist model. It underplays tl
the total role and r.lf id" ourse and the
\ o
constructednatureofinterculturalcontactinpIuralandfragmentedsocieties
So, it is not possible to talk unproblematicallv of socialisationthrough languageas the
means of developing sociocultural knorvledge asif there is a stablebodv of such knou'ledge.
The idea of graduallv being inducted into a communitv's pre-existing discoursessuggestsa
simple, functional model lvhich does not accord rvith our data of naturailr. occurrinq
intercultural encounters. In other u'ords, such events are not simplr. opportunities lbr the
transmission, horvever indirectlv, of the necessarvsocio-cultural knou-ledge, but thel are
sites w-heresocial identities are constructed, r",'herethe interactants are positioned and
position themselves.People speakfrom rvithin a particular discursive formation. In the case
-
of minoritv workers, this inclu e s o l e t h n r c a n d c l a s sD o s l t l o n . t n e \ \ ' l c e r
oursesofracis tence and Dercell
positioningu'hich em

Positioning in and through discourse

the detail"d u'avs in rvhich interactants position themselvesand are positioned illuminates
some of the problems rvith an orthodox vieu- of languagesocialisation.Different minority
w-orkersinvest in interactions and in the process of languagesocialisationin different lvavs
\(- a.rd are themselves defined relativelv differenth'.
There are numerous examples of this positioning in the srr""a u"g""g" al aa*
lmmigrantsproiect (Bremer er a1., 1996; Perdue, 1993). A contrastivestudv of two ltalian
il-for*ants in Britain rtho are enquiring about buving propertv in an estateagents (Roberts
and Simonot, 1987) shorvshorv thev are positioned differentlr'. One of Santo's strategies
lvhich helps to maintain conversational involvement is to make general, evaluative
comments:

Data Example 3

1 N: then vou might get one for about fiftr- or sixtv * or sa)'fortv eight sixty something
like that
 114 CELIA ROBERTS

2 S: \'er\ e\pensir t arta an\ \\ j-'

3 \: uell tl-u. thisir c\pcr,ii',q'.:--.-. -- . r:. -

Bv contrast.\ndreas strategiesar. r.,l.ti\ q : , rc\ elop onl.,'those t}emes which

t h e e s t a t ea q e n th a si n r p l i c i t l r : d . r rtti u n c u :

1 N: blackstockroad er thats a onc b.dr{rc,m flat

2 A.: ,veah
3 ON: its not tlvo bedrooms
4 A: mhm
#
(Roberts and Simonot, 1987)

Santo'ssocialisationinto maintainingconversationalinvolvementin serviceencounters

means that he elicits more helpful and extended comments from the clerk. Andrea's
encounters are less successful,do not produce opportunities for learning hou' to do this
tvpe of conversationalinvolvement and, as ethnographic evidence show:s,cumulatively,
ionAndrea as marginaliseddiscursir-elvand socialh.(Robertsand Simonot, 198j).
Forotherinformantsi"thl@ofsocio-culturalknowledgeis
refracted through their experienceof living in a racist societv.For example,Abdelmalek, a

Data from multilingual British factories also shorvshor,vminority w.orkers position

themselvesstrategicallv in order to attempt to co-construct an argument in their favour. ln
this example (Roberts et al. , 7992, p.39), the minoritv lvorker, IA, is trving to negotiatea
job for his son in the same factorv ashe rvorks in. The problem is that his son is only sixteen
years old and is not allou.ed to rr-ork the regulation 5i hour w.eek:

Data Example 4

1 Mrs B: Can't help him.

2 IA: What forl;
3 Mrs B: All the men in this mill are on 55 hours
4 IA: 55hours?
5 Mrs B: All the men
6 IA: Old men?
7 Mrs B: All men
8 IA: Young men and just 8 hours er.erv dal
9 Mrs S: But Mrs B savsnot the oLD men..\li the men evervbodv- must work 55
hours
10 Mrs B: Ladiesrvork 40 hours
11 IA: This is voung bol.. the same like ladr rlaughterl
12 Thev are too voung. If not u'anted then too long time . . . just 40 hours per
\\.eeK

Despite the misunderstandingat line 5, I.\. at lines 8 and 11-12, begins to negotiate
his u'av around the companv rule. He does this hr cappinq \{rs B's asserti,onu.ith his ow.n
assertionsabout voung men and prelents this 1r,rn.rbecoming a distancing strategy by
claiming solidaritv through the joke that roun; nrin are similar to ladies.The condrtions
 LANGUAGE ACQUISITION OR LANGUAGE SOCIALISATION?
115

for furthering his socioculturalcompetenceare in place sincehis assertionsare responded

to bv Mrs B and the encounter ends rvith her agreeing to talk to the overlooke, ubout
he.
son.
The contingent nature of such interactional positioning means that conditions for the
production and interpretation ofdiscourse varv from interaction to interaction. But these
conditionsare alsoconstrainedbv rvider socio-politicalformations- suchasthe inequalities
that exist in a stratified multi-lingual societv.So a model of secondlanguage,o.i"ilruaio.,
needs to include an understanding of the ideologies w'hich feed into and aie constructed
out of interactions.

Language practice and ideologsi

@-eflanguageas.sociaIPractice,helpsustoseetl]9jideol9gicaLtninteractions.
-ffi--i,,,-----'-r---
I nere has been a lot oi dtscussionaroun-tftheterm 'practice' in u-hat has been called th-e
N e w L i t e r a c v S t u d i e si n B r i t a i n a n d t h e U S A . ' P r a c t i c e ' o r m o r e u s e f u l l v ' p r a c t i c e s ' a r e
more than action and events.In the caseof literacv practices for example, thev include both
the literacv event and the knou'ledge and assumptions about rvhat this event is and what
gives it meaning. For example, [b4!_qgg$-s as literacv in a subgroup is determined by th
a societr. Literao' pracTicesJE-rc-6T{are
rtthjderuity,"laa
!Il9!ru++)v fra{1err.J
-Jr;_e;_t
'practice'has
The notion of also been used and debated in critical and anthropological
*Le-L4r^r.
J-tLn^''
linguistics asboth action and the ideologies r'vhichsurround it. Eirthgh (1992) makei the
@tTF-atlanguagePracticeSareConStruCtednotonlr.outo@,
outoItnedrscourseSwfuchu'erepro@ucedintheinteractionandin
nt drscourses. r example, \1'l criticai perspective,questionshavebeer.r
raised aboui takenI-or granted notions of r.vhatconstitutes a speakerof a particular languaqe
rvhat is a non-native speaker, r,vhat*cert4n qroups count as 'target language,'and io or.t
However, this problematising rvork, although it has influenced applied linquistics, has had \-
litt|einfluencerr.ithinmainstreamSLA.For"ffiwillbe
positioned,br:thelinguisticideologiesthatcirculate'aSa.no@,,,-/
'poor
speaker'. communic@r' and so on. These feed into frilit-lnt..actlon itself and f".a off "
i, ajq.i.*ll .j.,hg ruid..T*orrrr.,
".orn
Within the British tradition there are two comp-Ei!-sets of discoursesaround ethnicity.
,/
/ The first has been u'idelv reflected in government policv and popular discourse.This tenis
to essentialiseethnic groups, equate land,-Ianguageand ethnicitv and cast minority ethnis
(
\r9gPi-aEj@(SeeGilro1.,1987,foradiscussion).IntheNe-t}re'Iu''ds,
van Dijk and his associates have traced simiiar processesin the discoursesof elite groups
which shor,v

horv ethnic beliefs are strategicallv expressed, acquired and distributed throughout
t}e dominant group, that is as part of managing ethnic affairs and reproducing elite
power and r,vhitegroup dominance. (Van Dijk et al., 1997, p. 165)

An extreme example of this first set of discoursesis from data gathered in multiethnic
British r,vorkplacesduring the Iate 1970s (Roberts et al., 1992).A supervisorwas running
through a routine list of questions in English as part of a simple recruiiment procedure.The
South Asian applicant had ansrveredseveral questions about himself and his previous u.ork
experience rvhen he w-asasked"Do vou speak English?"to rvhich he replied, "What do vou
think I'm talking to you in norv!"The current discoursethat r,vascirculating at the time
 1I6 CELIA ROBERTS

'assumed to speakEnglish and the

that someone of South ,\sian ba:k;:'-'und " as unlikelv
l dent the super\'isor'scertainty that here was
evidenceto the contrarv did not aPPearto
Il
I
another non-Engiish speaker.We.o,rid .p".,tlate
on tie outcomes of such an encounter and
n'orker rvho both needs to become
J the possible teniions set up for the individual minoritr
D by a member
u fulrl.ipu.ing member of rr"ot communitv but rr'ho is insultingh'positioned
"
as a non-English speaker'
' of th"t communitv in
Th" second set of discoursesstem from the British-based Cultural Studies and,
u'hat Hervitt (1985) has called'local
particular,Hall's (1988) notion of'ne',v ethnicities'and
multiracial vernaculars'. Recent research has sho*'n the destabilisation of inherited
the
ethnicities and the emergence of neu- ethnolinguistic identities which challenge
orthodox essentialistideas of language and race (Gilrov, 1987; Hervitt, 1986; Rampton,
1995a).This secondset of discouries suggestthat the processof secondlanguagesocialisa-
tion is not a straightfonvard caseof becoming communicativelv competent, within a fixed

a D a r t- o f h a r i n s s e r e r a ls o c i a li d e n t i t
i"atrlffi'idersocialformationsrvhichthemselvesdetermine
s'hat socialisationmeans.

Contextualisation and wider social Processes

The link betw.eenSLS and these u,ider social processesis r'vellillustrated in Gumperz's
studiesand their recent formulation in Eermans et a\. (1997). As Levinson (1997) in the
samevolume asserts:

it is the large-scale sociological effects of multitudes of small-scaleinteractions that

still partiall"yfuels his (Gumperz's) preoccupations r'vith conrersations, most evident
p"rhup, in his concern rvith the plight ofthe individual caught up in these large-scale
forces. (p. 24)

Levinson captures here manv of the elements central to a redefinition of second language
- the fine-grained detail of
acquisition as a social ph".rom.rron. The focus on the micro
conversations- is linked to the macro - the lvider social processesw'here social networks,
identities and relationships are structured and restructured. What is significant for_a
redefinition of SLA aspart of this is the fact, as Gumperz asserts,that individuals are'caught
up in these large-scaleforces'. So ever,vencounter n'here there are laqguagedifferences is
h n t h ean
both n oopportunjty
n n o r t t t n i t v f o r l alaqguagq r e i dalso
f f i a s i t e w h e b9!
n g u a q " , sgcialisation s a . lwhere
e n t i tai esit_e. 1d ide+trt}es. a-nd
{or
- ant discourses of language and ethnicitv,
albeit within a con\ allv respectful interpersonal framework. I |ls rn9yj:jy
Levinf6i-talksof ;affiia;ls sincethe kind of interculturalinteractionstlat
routinely occur i!
--6-p-.F.oncern
lvith the linguistic dlmension of social action shows how asPects
of linguisiic signalling and cultural and sociai background knowledge work together to
o.odui. communicati,,,einvolvement (or not) and outcomes at both individual and societal
\ Ievels. , therefore,in liner-i$4e41!cusslon aboveis on@
L4--

I,, o.d"ffii,'Gr,rnp"., 4ryryf:- eclecticbagof tools an{, as

Levinson( 1997) suggests, is nonefthFili.o.et[
can be found in Conversation .--
Analvsis. Gunrperz drau's on pragmatic notions in his
.-7---- :. ' ' I
i n t e r p r e t i t e p r o c e d u r e s E l u t a s P a r t o I a \ \ I o ( r : o \ ' l o l o g l c a l interest. Similarly, he has been
much influenced bv Conr.'ersation -\nallsi=. Likc C\ his analvsisfocuses on members'
 LANGUAGE ACQUISITION OR LANGUAGE SOCIALISATION? IL7

procedures,elucidatinghou-participants use their interactionalresourcesto maintain the

interaction and create a level of mutual interpretation. But Gumperz suggestsCA is limited
in as far as the participants'interpretations are seen as depending on sequentialordering
rather than on active involvement. And this invoh,'ement rests on tr,vo kev terms for
Gumoerz:'conversationalinference' and'contextualisation'.
The cupacitv to understand interactions and be socialisedinto ne'uvcommunities of
practice depends absolutelv on some level of shared inferential processes.This does not
mean that interlocutorc shuie interpretive conclusions about the meaning of th,].r-g,
, |
o..
bufdii
:-
a
'. V
t.
"rd"tttt "
."*" t. This is in no sense an absolute sharing since anv a
conclusions over meaning have to be accomplished, not taken for granted. And, as I have
s u g g e s t eadb o re , b e i n gc o m p e t e n ti s n o t a s i m p l ep r o c e s so f l e a r n i n gt o m a n a g ei n s t i t u t i g n a l
discoursesinceitisjusffiiscbursesrr.hichmal.positiontheminoritv

Nevertheless, the processof socialisation,horveverambiguous, must relv on negotiating

local meanings through conversational inference. The question is:What is the relationship
between the linguistic signs that participants must process and conversational inference?
'contextualisation
Gumperz has proposed the notion of cues' to account for how these signs
are taken up bv interactants.Contexfrralisationconsistsof:

all activities bv participants lvhich make reler.ant, maintain, revise, cancel, anv aspect
of context which in turn is responsible for the interpretation of an utterance in its 7
particular locus of occurrence. (Auer, 1992, p. 4)

Cpe1eqglsa:gcues are definedas:

constellations of surface features of messageform . . . The means bv rvhich speakers

signal and listeners interpret lvhat the actir-itv is, hou'semantic content is to be
understood and horv each sentence relates to rvhat precedes or follou.s. (Gumperz,
, . 13 1 )
1 9 8 2 ap

These cues serve to f"."gr.""d -"k" ,. ture in relation to

"r
oth..r und .o6ll ,p ..'r,'ot"d i.rt.rp."i.tlonr. So, lor e* u
'ok' 'good'
Example 1 signalsa preclosing sequencervith the rvords and both spoken with
falling intonation. These contextualisation cues routinelv mark the closing of a particular
toplc or'activity' (Gumperz, 1982a)in an interaction.
Contextualisation cues call up background knou'ledge u'hich not onl,v relates to
traditional linguistic and pragmatic knorvledge but to socialrelations, rights and obligations,
linguistic ideologies and so on. In Ilhami's case,mentioned above,the question abouthis
father's job u-ithin the speech event of an intervierv and occurring at that point in the
sequenceis expected to cue in information about social status. (SeealsoTr,'ler, 7995, on the
interactive negotiation of participant status.)
Not onlv are contextualisation cuesheavilv charged lr.ith social and cultural freight, the
g'ays in r,r'hichthev invoke context mark them as problematic for the minority speaker.
Levinson, in providing an analt'tic framelvork for contextualisation cues, makes the
important point that messageand context are not in opposition - the messagecan caI-Lf- t-7

n'ith it or project the context (Levinson, 1997).Thismakesthe processof coming to a level

of shared understanding, and learning from this experience, an_extrelffionplex_gg.
Levinson argues that contextualisation cues invoke context in particular r.l-avs. The cue is:
 118 CELIA ROBERTS

A conventionalreminder, like a knot in a handkerchief, u'here the content of the memo

'cue'
is inferentiallv determined.Thus the cannot be saidto encodeor directly'invoke
the interpretive background, it's simplv a nudge to the inferential process & -
\\l

tr illerpretive processma-vbe guided b)' general pragmatic principles of a -Griceanso4

and thus be in manv lvavs universal in character: but the
'ques'
are anvthing but
al different g ' \ P '2 9 t .
\
\-n... the)'haveto
u.. ,{=l-pr9}-leqs here for minoritv language,p""t"(@
identifv that thereis a cu,e(for examplea particularprosodic
'
conventional
featurehra+']rave
.# ., ,<-*---fh. ' rnn-
significance-ii-ne languageor rarien' and not in anothert(S"g!dE, as Ll'r inso*5r;1997)
suggestsrthgjgcio-culturalb-kg."' cular cqe..It sets
O f f t h e i n [ e r e n t i a lD r o c e s sb u t u n l e s si n t e r a c t a n t ss h a r ei n t e r p r e t a t i v e ls
po knowing what part s of background kno\\' mav be calleduui.Third
there is the fact that contextlalisation cues are reflexive es ntext'asmuch
a6ntext shapeslanguag{$glhe majoritv and minorit-v interlocutors may make di
situated iudsements both Ii uisticallv and contextua v m o m e n t b y m o m e n t i n t h e
-
irylerar:ion: a misread prosodicTne-ffidex a seti p.e-st ppositions about speaker
perspective,for example, rvhich createsa neu'interpretative.context ' and
, t- ,L , -.f1^rt,fr'J^
r-^' +. h'.-- (1 )
on a different footing. -'^q.A
7. :1""tF""
These issuesare central to an understanding of u'hat it might rr}l d lntor -,.1
li aLA v
-

language.The
secondlanguage.The
a second meaningof
meaning of contextuali.uiion
contextualisation cues cuescan;tfy
can only b6 U3leaigt
t-#11,k^9t nqulsuc
o

minority speakerif there is extended exposure to the communicatit'e practices o the group
or network from r,vhichthe majoritv languagespeaker comes.

It is long-term exposure to . . communicative experience in institutionalised

netlvorks of relationship and not language or communitl' membership as such
that lies at the root of sharedculture and sharedinferential practices. (Gumperz, 1997,
P .1 s )
The need for this long exposure or immersion is that, as I have said, t[e relationship
bStfy_."" c"e ""d co"te"t l Cffg! fualtiot r&!Ig!gliv, that is in coq!1q!t t!9 vr,\at
has not been said, just been said and so qp (Gumperz. 1922DAlso manv of the formal
P'"PffioncueSaredifficuittoProceSS,|orexampleaSPectsofprosodv.
FinalIr',ther.areaboutinrokingw'e-tthe'Iearnerisorientated
\L -5townrcls processrngLnemessaqelrn sum, contextualisationcuesare srrpperyt.utu.TT\'
! Equaliv important is the fact tha\.contextual cues are indexical markers ot membership
of a paiticgllqgloup Kno*'ing ho.u t
f-i ,l* int..uctionll-Eornerr to pick
\lri,i:1;'='=-
\ i u-p_pl I cue not onlr creatEffiTsunderstanding but sets the minoritl' linguistic speaker
-- apart.
\/" apart. She is rs not ln in that interactional
rnteractronal momentmoment an emergentemerfeniffier member oT-the ot the same same com-
) municative communitv. As a result, small interactive differences can contribute to large
to be allocated a house
:S!ra]g":
t orgetajoband,intermsofthesocia]order,feedingintothest@ns
Lr socret]'
o Contextualisation, therefore, functions at the micro level, both guiding (or not) minute
bv minute interpretative processesand also indexes "those implicit values of relational
i d e n t i t v a n d p o r v e r t h a t . . . g o b ) ' t h e n a m e o f c u l t u r e " ( S i l v e r s t e i n ,1 , 9 9 2 , p . 5 7 ) a t t h e
macro level. Local situated meaning and u'ider ideological concerns are caught up together
It is not simplr- a caseof pragmatic failure or even of sociaiisationinto some stable bodv of
 LANGUAGE ACQUISITION OR LANGUAGE SOCIALISATION? 1I9

socio-cuitural knolvledge. Rather, it is a question of the struggle or.er meaning at many

levels. Any item produced b1-either side mar' lack stabilitv and create ne.,o'u.rd confusing
contexts. But there is also the struggie over meaning at a more macro socio-politicallevel
Here it is a question of \a-hatcounts as meaning.W
o\4't vv na AS
"
-D e lu( What do?s'understanding' the other's inten?6e;nl;
uncertaintv that inhabits
i f lixed
judgements and positions after the event smce it is the gatek , as representatir-e
of a major social institution, controls the u'ar,in rvhich realitv is represented and contributes
,
Per;;;i;;;ducto[th"g"@,asIindicatedabovelnthecaseof
Abdelmalek,ar
orthodoxgggg.t socialisation.Abdelmalek mav be developing a competence in
.- "l
interpreting changeof topic cues and er,enin understandingthe goals of such counselling
intervieu's. But the developing competence that results from such socio-cultural knorvledge
ma), be matched h)' r- hi gJritTli-5infrEie
mav be sistance. Sffi
.,-ru
Delonglng ln a ne\\- communll\ a n o \ e t l n e l n s i l l u u o n s \ \ ' n e r e l a n g u a g e s o c r a l l s a t t o nc a n . . [
nt \\nat ls clllferent, otner , e\en e ano ol
-__---1helnstablllt\'otmeaningandthmplexsetof

social conditions rvithin lvhich there is the potential for communicative and material success
or not and the potential for language socialisationand the readinessfor it - or not. Given
the wider discoursesthat circulate about ethnic minorities, each intercultural interaction
can both produce relativeiv adverseconditions for ianguagelearning and can feed into these
rvider discourseseach time a misunderstandingremains unresolved.

Some methodological implications

The connection betvreen micro and macro-in redefining the domain of SLA has method-
ological as rvell as theoreqr_cal
imfliqqll-ons. As ser.eralexamples m ffi;Faper E;;-rho*:.n,

"@.il;dinteractionalsocioIingui.ti.upp.ou.h,isessentialin
understandingthe sequentialordering of interactionbut it needsto be complementedbv
Wh"..us CA is concernedotith th"ffi
"thqggfeptri-._*.qodr.
by membersin accomplishing interact/on,a methodlhat will help anall-sts
aboutonlineinferencingis alsoneeded.I
draw g.jg".r.!1,
ltrt
";a;
N,
ttin.esofaparticulargrouPinordertounderstand
conventionalised rvavsof interpretingmeaning.
Ethnografhic methods are also !reLdSd& uqderstand interactants' subjectivity (Bremer
,, oI,1996;G,r*p.rz,19B2b;
Pre;;lt95 irrl". pu.-
ticfe.tion in the liver oJq-pqq!!!a_rsub-groupconEiEGETe anah.sts'""derstanding
of p/
how minority lvorkersare position m'
effect of this on individual motivati al and social investment a ructron
of socialidentities lr'ithin ions of domination that characteiEET?iT

Conclusion

Bv looking at the enr-ironment rvithin r.vhicha particular group of people are expected to
develop communicative competence - minoritv rvorkers in a stratified multilingual society
 I2O CELIA ROBERTS

- a number of questionshave been raised about SLA and its relativelv asocialperspectir.
a socialactor in a new language
Languagesocialisationbetter describesthe processofbeing
butjn its orthodox form it does not fulll-account for the connection between micro
racism, indifference
interactionalprocessesand the macro socialissues.Widerdiscoursesof
and
and stratificaiion feed into and off local interactional differences, misunderstandings
created bv these socialforces, at micro and
covert or explicit opposition.The environments
understanding and
macro leuels, produce complex and often hostile conditions for the
production of iir.o,rrr" in a secondlanguage.Bl examining these conditions,it is possible
io begin to redefine the process of second language acquisition as second language
to
socialiation but in so doing, questions are also raised about anv orthodox SLS' Learning
an
belong to a neu..orn-rr.ritu *a1'also mean learning to resist,_orat the least take up
ambig"uousposition i., reiaiio., to the socio-cultural knowledge and discourse-s which
constitute it. As in manv other theoretical and practical areas,the transformation of Western
Europe into a multilingual societv illuminates the process of second languagedevelopment
and redefines its domain as centrallv concerned lvith the social.

Acknowledgements

Mv thanks are due to Mike Ba-vnham,Ben Rampton, Jo Arditty and MarieTh6rdseVasseur

for comments on earlier drafts of this PaPer.

References

'lntroduction: inAuer, P' & dr

Auer, P. (1992) John Gumperz'sapproachto contextualisation',
of
Luzio, A. (eds) Ifie contextualisatton language (pp. 1-37). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Bourdieu,p. (I9il) OutlineoJa theoryoJpractice. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press'
Bremer, K., Roberts, c., \'asseuf, M., Simonet, M. and Breeder, P. (.1996) Achievin;
in jntercuhuralencounter
: D tscourse
understanding s. London : Longman.
Clvne,M. (1994)lntercuhurdl communicatjon at work.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
p. 'Different languages,different practices:Socializationof discoursecomPetenci
Orrff, (1996)
in dual-anguageschoofclurr.oo-. in Hungarv', in Bailey',K. and Nunan, D. (eds) /oi';.
rcseart:
Jrom the longrog, classroom: @talitative researchin secondlanguageeducation
(pp. a07-a33). NervYork: CambridgeUniversitv Press'
E"r..ru.rr,S., Prer.ignano,C. andThibault,P. (eds) (1997) Discussing CommunicationAnalysts'

JohnJ.Gumperz (pp. 6-23). Lausanne:BetaPress.

Fairclough,N. ( 1992) Discourseand social change. Cambridge:Politv Press'
qiF6i\ 19 87) Thereain't no blackin the lJnion
Jack London: Hutchinson.
y/ Gurnp"rt). 1t laZu; Discourse Cambridge:CambridgeUniversitYPress.
stratelies.
\ --4<{ (1982b) Languageand socialidentttl'.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- 'Contextuali..tion u.rd understanding',in Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C. (eci.
(992)
Rethinkjn1Context:Language as an interactive
phenomenon (PP. 229-252). Cambridgt
Cambridge Universitv Press.
- (1997)',{dis.rlssio.rs'ith JohnJ. Gumperz' (discussants: C. PrevignanoandA' di Luzio
in Eerdmans,S., Prevignano,C. andThibault,P. (eds),pp' 6-23
H a l l . S . ( 1 9 8 8 ) ' N e r ve t h n i c i t i e s ' , 1 CD, 'o1c u m e n t s , 7 , 2 '371'
Hew-itt,R. (1985) l,Thttetalkblackdk,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
-
Kasper,G. and Schmidt,R. (1995)'Developingissuesin interlanguagepragmatics'.Studies
, I 8 , 1+9-1 63 '
LanguageAcquisition
Second
 LANGUAGE ACQUISITION OR LANGUAGE SOCIALISATION? LzI

Lantolf, J. and Pavlenko,A. (1995)'Socioculturaltheorv and secondlanguageacquisition'.

4 n n t t n l 'R
* "p' v" i p un' f ] r r l i o , l I i n n t t i r r i r s '/ ; '1"0 8 - l 2 4 .
YJ"r("'" '"'d"'"""' "
Levinson, S., (1997)'Contextualising"contextualisation cues"', in Eermans, S., Prevignano, C.
andThibault,P.(eds),pp. 2+-30.
Perdue,C. (ed.) (1993) Aduh languageacquisition. Cross-linguistic perspectives (Vols. 1 and 2).
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversitvPress
P i e r c e ,B . ( 1 9 9 5 ) ' S o c i a li d e n t i t v ,i n v e s t m e n ta n d l a n g u a g el e a r n i n g ' .T E S O LQ u a r t e r \ ; , 2 9 ,
o ?1

Rampton,B. (1995a)Crossing: Language andethnicityamongadolescents. Harlorr':Longman.

- (1995b)'Languagecrossingand the problematisationof ethnicitv and socialisation'
P r a g m a t i c s , 5 , 4 8551 5 .
Roberts,C., Davies,E. and Jupp,T.tl992l Language anddiscrimjnation.A studyo;fcommunication
in muhiethnicworkplaces. Harlou': Longman.
Roberts, C. and Simonot, M. (1987) "'This is mv life": Horv languageacquisition is
interactionallvaccomplished',in Ellis, R. ted. ) jecondlanguage (.pp.
in context
acquisition
13 3 - 1 4 8 ) . H e m e l H e m p s t e a dP: r e n t i c e - H a l l .
Rogoff, B. (1984)'lntroduction: Thinking and learning in socialcontext', in Rogoff, B. and
Lave,J. @ds)Ever,vdav Cognition:The development in socialcontext(pp. 1-8). Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Universitv Press.
Scarcella,R. (1982)'Discouise accent in secondlanguageproduction', in Selinker,L. and
Gass,S. (.eds)Languagetransfer inlanguage learning(pp. 306 326). Rou.lev,MA: Ner,r.burr'
House.
'The
Silverstein,M. (1992) indeterminacvof contextualisation:Whenis enoughenough?',in
Auer, P., and di Luzio,A. (eds) Iie contextualisation oJlanguage (pp. 5 5-76). Amsterdam.
Beniamins.
'Cross-cultural
Thomas,J. (1983) pragmaticfailure'. AppliedLinguistics,l,91-112.
Tyler,A. (1995)'The co-constructionof cross-culturalmiscommunication'.kudiesin Second
Language Acquisttion, 1 7, 129 152.
'Discourse,
van Dijk,T.,Ting-Toome-v, S., Smitherman,G. andTroutman,D. (.1991) ethnicit,r,
culture and racism', in van Dijk,T. (ed.) Discourse associalinteraction:Discourse
studies2
( p p . 1 4 1 8 0 ; . L o n d o n :S a g e .
Chapter 7

MichaelP. Breen

TH E SOCIAL CONTEXT FOR LANGUAGE

LEARNING: A NEGLECTEDSITUATION?

Introduction

P L O R E T H E B E L I E F that therlassroom will have certain effects

f W I SH T O EX
r@heassumptionrestingwithinw.hatIhavetosayisthat
relationships can be discoveredbetw'eenthe socialprocessesof the classroom group and the
individual psychological process of second languagedevelopment. Given the present state
of our knowledge about the learning of foreign languages,this assumption is supported
upon tenuous foundations. As most people at least begin to learn new languagesin
classrooms,the researcher can hardly fail to locate some variable of classroom life that uill
have a systematic effect upon language learning, or some variable of learning behaviour
which has correlational potential with instructional treatment. The researcher may ask,
"What are the spectJiccontributions of the classroom to the process of language devel-
opment?" The assumption being that we mav be able to explain hora/ classroom-based
instruction influences and interacts with learning if we come to understand the special
workings of the classroom context. The teacher's priorities - perhaps more urgent and
direct - are to build upon those inherent features of the classroom situation which ma.
facilitate the learning of u."*- Ianguage.Tlg.leaclerlguestion may be: "ln what ways miglrt
I exploit theseei'al-relirv-pf th" .Iurrroo-
--
Itus paper olters partlcular ans\\ersto both the researcners and tne teacners questlons.
It begins with an examination of the approachesof current research towards the language
class. I offer a particular evaluation of recent developments in investigations devoted to
second language acquisition and to language learning in the classroom situation. This
evaluation, though necessarilybrief, has three purposes. First, to identify the possible
contributions of the language classroom rvhich are perceived and revealed by current
research. Second, to identifv rvhat seem to be significant contributions of the classroom
which current research appears to neglect. And third, to deduce certain implications for
future research and for languageteaching.
The researcher and the teacher are confronted br. a crucial common problem: how'to
relate social activitl', to psr-chological change and how to relate psychological processing
to the social dvnamics of a group.The researchermust explain these relationships if he is to
understand adequatelvlanguagelearning asit is experienced by most people - in a gathering
made up of other learners and a teachet.T .itl
 THE SOCIAL CONTEXT FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING I23

event with the aim of i s nt. The teacher is obliged

-ontinually to integrate the learning experiences of individuals with the collective and
communal activities of a group of u'hich, unlike the researcher,he is not an outsider. The
researcher enters the classroom when a genuine sociocognitive experiment is already well
under way. In evaluating the findings of research, becauseof abstraction from the daily llfe
of the class,we need to discover and make clear for ourselves the particular perceptions of a
classroom which r!'e, as researchers, hold either before we enter it or subsequent to the
collection of our data. It is a truism of social anthropology that no human sociaiinstitutions
orrelationshipscanbeadequatelvunderstoodunlessaccountffi
/ r a l u e s ,a n d b e l i e t st h a t t h e l e n g a q e . ' l h i si s n o l e s st r u e o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f r e s e a r c h . T h e
definition of the classroom situation that we hold will influence how we perceive the
classroomgroup and how we might act w-ithin it, and this is asunavoidablefor the researcher
asit is for a teacher or a learner. One of the paradoxesof research is to challenge taken-for-
granted beliefs whilst, at the same time, clinging to beliefs which sustain the research
endeavour.Belief allows the researcher (and many teachersand learners) to take for granted
the capacitv 6fi to metamorDhose r uts into learning outcomes
t\4een teaching and learning, or isit a.-.-=-'-
ief sustainedprimarilv bv the social we invest in a gatherins of te

Can we detect particular definitions of the classroom situation within current language
learning research?What metaphors for a classroom are availableto us as researchersat
present? I wish to explore two metaphors for the classroom that emerge from tvr-oreient
and influential research traditions. I ar.nconscious that there may be as manl.metaphors
for the classroom as there are researchersin languagelearning. But I have to be brief and I
am encouraged to generalisehere by the tendencv ofresearchers to seek securitv around
particular domtnant
parttcular seeing.I One prevailing metaphor is the classroom
dominant paradigms or wavs of seeing.' cl
as elperimental laboraqqry, and another, more recently emergent, is the clas#oom as
,.---f#
discourse.Ililfbriefly
discourse. I wlll brieflv explore
exolore both.

^l/ l* a
The classroom

We are encouraged to regard the clasi

experimental laborator

ntal laboratoryby the areaoftheorl'

i bn-Jr*X
a@ec-ond LanguageAcq,uigitionISLA,1.Its tradition caiE?ic
tostudiesinrirst;" j:;#ift:;.'X:m
acquisition of certain grammatical morphemes, through the comprehensive theories
of Krashen, and up to the recent flowering in the identification of learner strategies from I
retrospective accounts offered by individual learners - either verbally or within learning
diaries.The primary function of the language classroom as implied or sometimes directly I
recommended bl' SLA research is that the learner, by being placed in a classroom, can be ff
,!o a certain kind of ling";stie I
:xposgd
d e s i r a b l e - I e a r n i n g o u t c o m e s . H e r e , t h e v a l u e a n d p u r p o tsheeocf l l l s r o o m i s i t s p o t e n t i a ll l
to provide linguistic data that are finsllruned for the efficient processingof new know-ledge;
classroomscan w'ashlearnets ttitir optim
learners accountsof their olvn strategiesencourageus to deduce further that the classroom
is a place in which we might reinforce good language-iearning strategies so that the input
becomes unavoidably optimal. As the mainstream of SLA research rests on the assumption
that the comprehension of input is the catalyst of languagedevelopment, it implies a
role for the teacher that is delimited vet complex. In essence,either the teacher must
 I24 MICHAEL P. BREEN

facilitalrcomprehensi
i-rner inclinations the teacher learning behavioirs
so that each learner ma.' *tain a repertoire of effici atesies.The SLA
66m implies teacher as sur ntal
Iearners as subject to behaviouralreinforcement.
Mofthelanguageclassroomleavesuswlthanilmberofunresolved
problems t}at warrant more attention if we seek to understand the relationship between a
language class and language learning. First, the interesting variables of linguistic input
anJthe strategic behaviour of learner s are notspecialto classrooms.Theywere not uncovered
as prevailing features of classroom life at all.2The second and perhaps more significant
problem is that tw-o crucial intervening variables seem to have been bypassedby SLA
."r.u..h. Both of these variables are centrallv related to the processing of input. Both will
determine rvhat a learner might actually intake.-SLA research whic! emplgglggaQgristic
input (provided_llinltruction or exposure) as the ilariable and somellter

'ith-TtTE6-earjreliance on I
over any actire
Ite a 6r plvchological c[ange there is a resultant in its
r---- | ) o o ,suPerficiality
,{4.__j*-
\ attention to learners' internal perceptual processes.The researchtakes f6i-pffihTed-What
--------------.--- rr .. I l t . ,l
tt,'"l@timalforhim.MorefundamentalIy'itdoesnotaddrejssthe
question oI' howa learner selectir-elrperceives parts of linguir,i. tffi.@T.n-a
_worffi lace.Therefore, the interveni@
utisnegiected'Giveniheimportanceattachedto
.o*p."h".rrion by SLA ,"r.u..h it seems paradoxical that the active reinterpretat)dn and
reconstruction of anv input bt' the learner is not accounted for. The search for correlations
between, for example, the frequency of a grammatical form in input and the frequent
occurrence of that form in some later learner performance seems motivated by a rather
narrow view of human learning. The research leads us to a causalconditioning as opposed
to a cognitive and interactive explanation of languagedevelopment. We are left unsure hor

these investigations primarily coiffi rners are unpredictable, inconsistent, and

sometimes seeminglv inefficient processors. Thus, the same learning outcome can
be achieved bv different strategies while different learning outcomes can be achieved bv.
the same strategy.Investigationsinto Iearner strategieshave not yethelped us to understand
how or why it is that one thing can be interpreted or learned bv any two learners
with seemingly different profiles of strategies. Until we understand these things, the
capacity of instruction to encourage or shape desirable or efficient strategic behaviour of
Iearnersremains unfounded.3This problem emerging from t}e data we derive from learners
concerning their strategies leads to the second crucial intervening variable which seems
to be neglected in SLA research. Learners certainlv are strategic in how they go about
learning, but if we ask them u'hat thev think thev do, or if they keep a diary of what
they do, such retrospections, inevitablv posr hocrationalisations, will exhibit a coherence
that bears onlv metaphorical resemblance to the actual moment of learning. Something
intervenes betw-eena learner's introspections to a researcher or to a diary reader, just as
something intervenes between input to a learner and benveen rvhat a learner has intaken
and some later test performance. I suggestthat one thinq u'hich crucially intervenes is the
learner's definition of situation: the definition oibeing an informant to someoneinvestigating
strategies,the deflnition of being a languagelearner in a classroom,and the definition of
doing a test. If we hope to explain fullv the relationship betu'een classroom input and
 THE SOCIAL CONTEXT FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING 125

learning outcomes, or to explain possible relationships between strategic behaviour

and language learning, then *.s_nqed to locate these
Tlationships socially.Aow and whv
learners do what they do b," strongl_yinfluenced
Titl -
and by their perceptionsof both.a
(Given
t-hatlve rvish to understand how.the external social situation of a classroomrelates
to the internal psvchological statesof t}re learner, tlre metaphor of the classroom asprovider
of optimal input or reinforcer of good strategiesis inadequate.ltreducesthe act or experi-
ence of learning a languageto linguistic or behavioural conditioning somehow independent
of the learner's social reality. Not onlv is SLA research currentlv offering ,,s a delimited
account of language learning, reducing active cognition to passive internalisation and
reducing language to verv specific grammatical performance, the mainstream of SLA
research is also asocial. It neglects the social significanceofeven those variables which the
investigatorsregard as central. The priority given to linguistic and mentalistic variables
in terms of the efficient processing of knowledge as input leads inevitably to a partial
account of the languagelearning process.The social context of learning and the sociafforces
within it will always shape what is made available to be learned and the interaction of
individual mind with external linguistic or communicative knowledge. EvenWundt, the
first experimgntal psych ou]d not studv hisherr'eGial66.E;",
su6h ai reasoning, belief, and language in a laboratoly precisely b:Sgglg-glgb
were rootecl wrt recent research tradition
dn oflspring of work rn ress intervening social variables.This tradition
provides mv second metaphor.

Recent classroom-basedor classroom-oriented research explicitlv seeksto describe what

gelually happensin a rather specialsocial situation.This reiear.hrelies upon methods of
conversational and sociolinguistic data collection and analysis,thereby seeking to offer a
richer and lessprescriptive account ofclassroom languagelearning than earlier investigations
of the comparative effects of different teaching methodologies.6 Classroom-orlented
eesteacher , I
Ft,-6G'at/
researcher explores the classroom aJa- as variable l(
participation by learners, various error treatments by teachers, and specific features of
classroom talk such as teacher evaluation, teacher-learner negotiation, and prevalent
instructional speech acts including displav questions, formulation o, and
messageadjustment. Although much of this researchseemsto avoid beinq "*plu.r"iion,
intentionally
explanatorv in terms of the possible effects of classroom discourse r'rponlung:rrugelearning,
some investigators seek to correlate selected features of classroom talk with certain learn-
ing behaviours or learned outcomes. Classroom-oriented research rests on the assumption
that the discourse of a ianguage classwill reveal w-hatis special and important aboui that
Ianguagelearning situation. It intends no practical implications for the teacher, although
some of the more overtly correlational studies may encourage the teacher to assumeth-at
he must endeavour to orchestrate his own and the learners'contributions to the discourse
according to conversational moves or speech acts which exemplify "good" instruction and
"good" learner participation.
Clearly, this focus upon the actual discourse of classroom communication provides
a valid location ifrve rvish to begin to understand the experience oflearning a languagein
 T26 MICHAEL P. BREEN

a classroom. However, even with such an ecologically valid point of departure, cuffent
classroom-oriented research leavesus with tr,vo important areas of uncertainty. We have
to question the extent to which the surface text of classroom discourse can adequatelr
,eu.ul th. underlving social psychological forces which generateit (the exoectations,beliefs
andattitudesofthqpa4q!E!p4!).andaIsoreveaIthesociocog"i@
t ifi@.i.tions and learning it provokes). This central issue leads us back into
debateon the poisiblerelationshipsbetweencommunicaai"g.lltt
ih" lorrg-"rtablished
lear.rini, betw'een language and cognition. A number of the correlational studies within
.lurr.oo--oriented research avoid the complexities of this debate by appearing to assume
6|ratcertain phenomena in clasgrolm discourse cause,learnin$Looccur. Anv correlation
n o9 ofr;", I u t"u.h"r',
hetween observable f'eaturesof discourse and testable learning
between
formulation of a rule, for example, and a learner's later use or reformulation of that rule
- d o e sn o t e x p l a i nh . ; . ; ;t:"-i endencl
on the ,rrp"rfi.i"l features of classroom talk can force us to deduce that if other learners in
the classiailed to use the rule correctly or w'ere unable to reformulate it the[ the teacher's
original formulation was inadequate.But what of the internal dimensions)f classroom
corimunication: the learners' lrariableperception, reinterpretation, and accommodation of
whatever may be provided through classroom discourse?In these matters, classroom-
oriented research seemsto share a ps,vchologicalnaivety with SLA research.
The second area of uncertainty is perhaps more fundamental. Most current
classroom-oriented research paradoxically reduces the external dimensions of classroom
communication, the actual social event, to observable features of the talk between teacher
and learners. Sixty years ago, Edr'r'ardSaPir cannot use observable data
alone from s even II \4 m to describe them uatelv.Nor can ue
i@roughour"v.'oiTifweeueiseektoexplainwhatthose
dataactuallymean.EvenDel Hvmei, who was foremostin proposingthe ethnographrv of
speaking*iri.h now underliesmuch also
research,
sociolinguistic insistedthat if we wish
nd"q,-,u,lety to explain any speechevent we .r".d to discover its existential and experiential
,ig.rifi"u.r.. for. thor. taking part.TThese proposalsimply that the-meanings and values oi
.l"ur..oo- discourse reside behind and beneath what is said and unsaid. {-5eseerrcher's
inte f the "text" of classroomdiscoursehas derived throush the participants'
i"@?Eir.tutiontof thuiffir". th" teu n as error
'a l."rn.rZ Is a learner'frequest for information - even if
- l
to as sucn
bvffipieceoftime-wastingore\.enexpressingsomethingelseentirelr?
Is superficial negotiation of meaning or a learner's generation of further input evidence of
the wish to learn more?
To begin to understand language learning experience in a classroom the researcher
must discover what teacher and taught themselvesperceive asinherent within the discourse
of lessons. More importantly, recent classroom research clearly shows the researcher as
someone who investsinto his text of classroom discourse certain patternedness or

c\utt meaningfulness.Classroom communication, like anv text, realizes and carries meaning
potentiJ . Becauseof this, if we wish to discover what the teaching and learning of a language
i.r u is for the people undertaking it, we need to know rvhat orderliness and sense
"lurrroom
they investinthe overt communication of the class.Put simplyrthe discourseof the classroom
does not itseh re'eal *hut th. t"""hur. arrd th.

inteisubjecti't e experience.The subjectiveexperience of teacher and learners in a classroon

.-
is@urposes,
^-r:r--l^^^-l--^f^*-^1
attitudes, and preferred ,ways
.,^,.,
of doing things.Th.
intersubjectit'e experience derives from and maintains teacher and learner share.
 THE SOCIAL CONTEXT FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING L27

definitions, conventions, and procedures which enable a working together in a crowd. Of

course, the discourse of a classroom mav provide a lvindolv onto the surface expression
of the intersubjective experience and even onto momentar-v expressionsof subjective
experiences,for these tlvo dimensions of experience must interrelate and influence one
another. However, classroom discourse alone allolvs us a partial vielv from which we are
obliged to describe others' experiences as if "through a glassdarklv."
Classroom-oriented research sharesw.ith SLA studies tJTetendency to reduce or avoid
consideration of certain intervening variables rvhich inevitabl-v influence how and why
learners mav internalise input and hor,vand rvhy learners interact w.ith a teacher in the ways
they do.This reductionism is characterisedbv an emphatic focus upon linguistic performance
- upon observable features oflanguage and discourse.To be fair, neither research tradition
mav intend to understand or even explain language learning in the classroom situation.
However, any researcher r,vhotries to correlate features of linguistic performance data in
terms of classroom input w'ith some learning outcome is, at least implicitly, seeking a
possible explanation of that learning outcome. And such an explanation can only be causal.
Classroom research is not asociallike SLA research, but it does share a non-cognitive vievi' lA
qtl"gryi:"gprysron ano...on*^Eilr-iG-pur o 1r
i n p u t a s d i s c o u r s er a t h e r t h a n m e r e l l g r a m m a t i c a l d a t a . research
@'oom-oriented
perceives the learner as ac to the discourse.ffi
iffi'non-contributions.oEF*;T.,,'ing?Learnersandteachersare
not dualities of social being and mental being - an idea appareitl@
I
by the very separateness of SLA and classroom-orientedresearchpnorrtres. lt rs rncumbent
upon classroom-basedinvestigations of language learning to;count for those social
psychological forces rvhich generate classroom discourse and for those socio-cognitive
effects of the discourse even3[its objective is primarilv to describe social phenomena. If the
subjective and intersubjective experiences ofand from classroom discourse are reduced to
what we can find in the discourse ^i; alone, then rve are allowed to deduce that classroom
;i. ;;;;;;';ilonditioning - no more nor lessth". ,o"iul U rr [7
determinism! Jn"<g- +
It appears that the tu.oYnelgg[9p-for the classroom u,hich@t
'er sP'
P(
6
of lan
f
definitions of the classroom situation which se.* to\-"qle.iiE" ,o.i"lrJiit
. -
learnlnq as 1t E exDerl y teachersand learners. metaDhors
oI
t'olrecf
unloitunately constrain our understanding of language learning because e@Les fof_
granted crucial intervening psvchological and social variables w'hich are the fulcra upon
1ffij-chlanguageIearningisbalanced.@tionollearnersandthesociil
____----ii:v---
and psvchological forces which permeate the processesof teaching and learning must reside
within anv explanation concerning horv and why people do what they do when they work
together on a new language. More seriouslv, perhaps, both contemporary metaphors
implicitly reduce human action and interaction to classicalconditioning, wherein,learners
though superficiallv participating are essentiall-v passiverespondentsto observablelinguistic
and discoursal stimuli. It therefore appearsnecessarythat research has still to adopt a
definition of the classroom rvhich will e h coonitive and social variables so that
their mutual influencecan be better understood. More precis"ly *-nEET...,"t.pFot

.or
1--;#
classroom

soclal Dernqs.
or soclal rernaPs the
Delngs.rernaPs tne metapnor
metap
neri can be viewed as thinking social actors
and not reduced to generators of input-ou\p-urifor analyzedas dualities of either conceptual
1verequrre can proudee a basis
baststor
for the synthesrs
svnthesisolof
&e
SLA and classroom-oriented research endeavourswhilst necessarilybeing more com-
prehensive than both. These deductions lead me to propose a third metaphor for the
classroom in the hope that it might further facilitate our understanding of classroom
 128 MICHAEL P. BREEN

metaphor is that it is likely to be

the characteristics of mv third
ianguagelearning' One of
and learners than it may be to some
fu-lti", to most languageteactrers
rnore exPetientialry
researchers.

e classroom f,s coral gardens )

initially
couldbe perceivedascoral gardensmaybe
A proposalthat the .lu.ooiill*",ion
d"'iui' from Malino*t[]-:'*t:]t:i:":Y::"::
reactedto as rather oaa fft" metaPhor
he describedin coratGardens
in particuiarthoseinvestigations
;::'rJ":fi;;;i,;, 'h
Magic.loff" th" -"t"phorF+Re it'"t;11'Ll;:: TTI''{'*'"!
andrheir
o a"no,.atocl'assroomlanguaselearl'"(q'^":^1'"'.::ili::::,lo'*:tH:iJ,l,i:
_ _r"

c
# necessarilYan ant ical endeavour. a
w l t h l n a n u m a n grouP'
withinTTilma-n " : ' , .investigations
R I U l P 'our j : " " - 5 - * " ; - - f f i p o I o g i-c a l .-t-

C@;naa'a;r'n*11 1T ttFtlg$-l*
explore.lu.r-- ils;5;;t it. And, o,

o
humrutY *"
@6 rto,-,ld
vvr )rrvuru
u'
'^r'"' ----i; s
tr*;st in a social situation\th
(@Til i' t"o5-lqperlelt,
ffiustasgardensof ,,* 2s oardens ot
. on *hii might be obser'edasi
M l n6fi. L r 4 J r - outwardlY
a r a n g u a g c class
*"t" s*"ted m"g,t-il-tE;l-iutt bv
rs,
ili - i, q,'u'."a of subiectiue_eld
:"::,'r::1""-:ffi;ilt;;^;;^;;;:J.o-,,,o., purpose
-" -er
t::::il::,,"":"::il;.,,vhich
':::
^,'"r locate
^----
"
and define
anQ
oJteacnlng
thetasks s
teulttlttS 'utauvav'
orraiiriolbackgrounlio "thty
u, if it nevei existed"before, clntinually specify and mould
t1e new language itr"lf "ttd
In essence'the metaPhor of cl11.::l
the activities of teaching and learning'
tftilllure hndworth i!Yg!!gt'rg as
i:::::9:*::
classas
insists that we perceive the language
such.8
...-3%-" situation,.n"t
-n adoptthis definitionof the classroom
,.,n':;;;ii""'ii,.;;;;;;;;;";rs we:T t-:::..,:1.:]:.c::'
: ^i":"1*::1.*,",t-*t'
^- ItA+-- ^f o l".orr:or-

r r "PP'ou:n - - ^t:,11::"
'--^--
- ^ rknowledge
-.,.l^l^^ -
- asiinvolving
.vnlvinq ssocio-
ocio-
u.,J ."air.overing of lu.,g,.ug.. ".
:;r.'_;3;;;;g;.,
^f::':::lf^::l::f:i*:'"::'"'::"f
:'#:-J:"J"T;:1';';;;";;;;;";";;"" L-, l^l:.^:+,;^- o^frilc

activities,;T'ot'1"1'"?::::fl::':::,i:i:i
;:il'.il;:i.,;;;;;;;;"';;';iar
!il:"il#;;."mprehension *r'ir'tit'. J"'T:'*-A;*H
ascentral,
attu utc r*"1""" -
of meantnqlutness
':omDrehension
""'(--'-- within the intersubjective construction
: F i i . . o J l n o t h e r u o r d s ' I n p u t l s
reinterpretatronoI *ttutt"tt .,'"v o" tttott"diiliLEilibk"llother'w1:t:^'**-
"^-.."hensible.

" in its e of the class Bene-rates

u-nfamiliarby those r'r-hoparticipate

.'#ffi;;;;s *#r,g i.,

j"tior,. clur...,omloriented
researchexplores thediscourse T::::::
J*r:::*:iT1?::
rvhilstth. tl"'s'Jorn ascultureextends acrossislands
of lessons, "t*tt-::"I]::li::::::
touch,the surface
whichonlyrarely
andinterpretations
intentions
I:tililrffiil;. lessonswill
oft"r, d'"lib"tately hides' The discourse of
of talk and which th" dlr.or.r.re itself what
to thot" lt"o"s and it will not signify
mainiy symbolise*fr" f".,i.iPants contribute
from them'
th.v u"t.t"lly invest in ih"t ot derive
justify my own belief in the classroom asgenuine
It is, of course, incumbent uPon me to
or abstract'
that such rn"iuphot may b; too idealised
culture. In order to meet th. .ha.g" " classroom' I
features of thl cttlt"re of the language
I need to identifv some of the essJntial
willbrieflYdet.'lb.@
 THE SOCIAL CONTEXT FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING I29
1,)
The culture of the classroom is interactive
The languageclassinvolves all its participants in verbal and non-verbal interaction ofcertain
kinds. This interaction exists on a continuum from ritualised, predictable. phatic
c o m m u n r c a t r o nt o d v n a m i c , u n p r e d i c t a b l e ,d i v e r s e l y i n t e r p r e t e d c o m m u n i c a T i , o i l O l
course'humanrnteractionu-illberelatire11.loca1edonffiocial
situations.One specialcharacteristicof classroominteraction, however,is that it is motivated
b1'the assumption that people can learn together in a group.This meansthat a high premium
is pl5!_upon_l9lsens,ur tuhilr, -i.r.tffidfgr, ult.rr.tir nd
negotiable meaning r.r'illparadoxicall-vbe the norm, and from which participants will seek
t ts nr.illimpose their own purposes.This
is not to sav that the observable interaction rvill not be patterned or constrained, but that
it is very likely to be patterned differently in the interpretations invested in it by each person
in the class.Therefqre the researcher needs to be w'ary of assuming that the patterns of
interaction which we perceive as si the same saliencetor teacher a
tiuiht.4 special characteristic of the languageclassis that interaction is further motivate
by the assumption that people can objectifv a language and talk about it and analyseit in
wavs they may not naturallv do if left alone. Th-e lanquaqe class implies metalinguistic
interaction.However,itisoftenfurtheru.,u*uid.
oppor6nilles for genuine interaction through the new l".rg.r"g" code. A language class
. I - l - H

entaifs interaction /"bST{__1.!g!age_and interaction lthrougFl/anBua7es in continual

juxtaPosluon.
. #--TIIlEest
and other characteristics of the interactive process of the languageclassmav
or may not be efficient or optimal for languagelearning. However, all represent the jnherent
authenticit)/of the interaction within a languageclassgiven the external constraints of space,
time, participation, etc., w'hich tvpifv anv classroom devoted to any subject matter.
A significant paradox for the languageteacher - a paradox of which teachers are w'ell aware
- is that the establishedinteraction which is evolved and maintained by the culture of the
classroom group often conflicts lvith efforts towards communication through the new
language.Communication in the new languagerequires the temporary suspensionof those
cultural conventions governing the evervdayinteraction ofthe particular classroom group.
It requires communication r,t'hich is, in fact, inauthentic to the interactive context in
which it has to occur. This implies that one of the conventions assumedto be honoured by
participants in the culture of a languageclassis the willingness and capacity to suspend
disbelief, to participate in simulated communication within classroom-specificinteraction.e
/4\
.__
'qhs{Iure oJ the classroomis differentiare\
Although the languageclassmav be one social situation, it is a different social contextfor all
those who participate within it.The culture of th" .l"rr.o
6FEiff.t".rt social rei'iiRfhis means that the c9!!g{ofl9ss9!L(the language being taught) /
and the p (the things being done) are both coljlnugll1-
4
interpreteddifferenth.u'th"li@heclassroomisthemeeting/
point ofi'arious subjective r-ier,r's
of language,diverse learning purposes, and different
preferences concerning how' Iearning should be done. Such differentiation brings with it
potential for disagreement, frustrated expectations, and conflict. The culture of the
.lur..oo^ do., .roi erasethese differences; it contains them. A major'ca-a'Il6-g?1or%iEF \
und l" flicting internal iocial realities )
takindofsubiectiveanarchv|)andanexternalrealitr',,hi/
 130 MICHAEL P. BREEN

The outside observer has accessto the compromise lvhich results, but we would be naive
to deduce that such a compromise represents what is actuallv intended or perceived as the
social realit,v for anv one Person in the class.

The culture of the classroom represents a tension between the internal world of the
individual and the socialworld of the group,u.eclllsn! juxtaposition of

l( experiences and communal teaching-t;#"g

'reality,
a mind of its olvn, which
-
s trom thrs tuxtaDosltlon.

I'
) l

g r o u p s \ - a l u e sm
, eanrngs.
F-. thu.r the sum of the individual psychological orientations of teacher and learners.

departure for psychological change.A teacher and a learner have to discover rfict definition
of situation r,vhichseemsto maintain the group and its activities - riat definition of situation
which will be relativelv distinct from their personal definitions. This involves all members
of the group in empathising with the roles and views of others and continually checking
such external frames of reference. The individual has to

fs, and attitudes it generates)implies that

the researcher should be wary of crediting the classroom with powers separablefrom what
individual learners actuallv mafteclassroomsdo for them, and similarly wary of crediting
individual learners with powers separable from what the classroom group provides. An
individual learner in a classroom is engaged in both an individual learning process and a
group teaching-learning process.Thereforeindividual psychological changewill continually
relate to group psvchological forces.The researcheris obliged to discover tlese two worlds
becausethey are distinctive. To inJerindividual learning process from classroom process or
vice versa w'ill lead to a partial understanding of classroom Ianguagelearning. We need to
exnlore both and how thev relate one to the other.

culture oJ the classroom is highly normative,

Our mem 6-urbehaviour rvill be evaluated againstcertain

norms and conventions - membership entails sho*tii we
assroomsare very special in this regard. Schoolsan are among the main
t oI'us enteidlrinq
our li-.s, our vie*s of classroomswill be silrnificanth coloured bv this initial experierce.
More importantly, our personal identities as learners w'ithin a group derive much from such
experience.This is due to the fact that our public learning selveshave been moulded by a
continual and exolicit evaluation of our worth as \earners.Whena e learner enters a
classroom. he anticipatesthat the evaluation of him as a leiTfrEi to be a crucial part
r€
oI
offfitGxFEiience.Tffi-implies
_tnatexpe that the search for external criteria for successin coping
with languageleaining and, less optimisticallv perhaps, the day-to-day search for ways of
reducing the potential threat of negativejudgements of one's capabilitieswill impinge upon
whatever internal criteria a learner mar- evolve regarding his own learning progress.
 THE SOCIAL CONTEXT FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING 131

Learners in a classwill obviouslv varv with regard to tleir relative dependenceupon external
and internal criteria. However, one ofthe prevalent features ofthe culture ofthe classroom
is the establishment of overt and covert criteria againstwhich its members are continually
judged.In I1q-. of the classroom refies the persons who participate
(al I tt
within it in teachers an teachers,
"b6fiiners," "adv " participators,
etc., etc.P[f51IEill
theTanguage class is a hlv normative and evaluative environment wE-iEhengagesteacher
and tqe€b! in conlilgiuudgement of each othe@s members who
are supposed to learn and a member u.ho is supposedto teach. This highly normative
characteristic of classroom life implies for the researcherthat we need to discover the overt
and covert grorrp .rit"ri" (ond -
'a
*h
error corrections are consistentlv based upon objective linguistic criteria or are otherwise
apparently random would lead to a superficial analysisof phenomena which, though opaque,
are deeply significant for a teacher and learners in the particular classroom.

\.
fficifture of the classroom is arymm-dilita*-1

Becauseteaqhers are exBected to knou- lvhat learners are expected not to know, certain
.J[Iu.'dpsychologicalconsequencesinevitablyobtainfor@
class.The culture of the classroom insists upon asymmetrical relationships.The duties and
rightsofteacherandtaughtaredifferent.Mo.uu
beeoua]]vre]uctanttoupsettheasYmmetrvofrolesandidentitie.toffi
n most societies perhaps all, despite some relative variation - an

-
taril@ltp
. Teachers
the
betu'een teacher and taught is a contradiction of what a classroom
arners are ver)-
degree of asymmetry w'hich enables them to maintain a
+l
graoualr\
relativelr'
rl
establishing precise
harmonious *oi.i.rg gro.ri As teachers,\\'e are also familiar r,vitha classwhich erodes rvhat
they perceive as being too democratic or too authoritarian an approach on our part, even
though we ourselvesmay perceive our teaching style asconsistentlysomething else entirely!
Here is a paradox. Learnersgjut a te to a role and identitv ofteacher.
And a teacher has ib ta.n uties in t arnlng grouD. - - I

ffiffitFistory of the tribe marches behind the teacher, and a teacFer throug
unfoldinq culture th" pq$i."lu.
"f "lutttoot
to learners. Indeed, one of the rights andluties of a teacher is to do precisely tlatl However,
ffiffi.i.ul relationships do not only exist betw'een teacher and taught. Sub-groupings
which are asvmmetrical with the dominant classroomculture also emerqe and orosoer. such
a s a n t i - a c a d e m i cp e e r g r o u p i n g s o , . . . , " t " 1 " " . " . . , * h
successful or less successful and ev6fil--o$iwho share a common identity (such- as
froom.Thus,notonlyisthecultureoftheclassroom
individually differentiated yet collective, it is also made up of sub-grorrl. which develop for
themselvesmainly covert, though sometimes overtly expressed,roles and identities which
are potentiallv asymmetrical rvith both the dominant culture and with other sub-groupings
in the class.
Asvmmetry of roles and identities, and of the rights and duties they bear, derives from
and further generatesconceptual and affective dissonances. Asymmetrical relationshipsvery
often entail disagreement in beliefs, in attitudes, and in values held.The collective nature
of the classroom culture and the negotiated compromises which permeate the teaching-
learning process often hide within themselves - sometimes w-ith difficulty and often onlv
I32 MICHAEL P. BREEN

fbr a tirnc - difl'crcnt views of what should be happening in a class and what should not.
Tlris suggcststhat, although the nature of interpersonal and intergroup relationships within
the language classroom may be complex and changing, the researcher needs to uncover
what these are if we wish to describeiwhat happens in the classand further interpret this
as it is experienced by those within the class.As researchersin the past, we have tended to
be teacher-centred in our assumingthat the major asymmetry in role and identity, and the
likely Iocation of dissonancein perceptions and effects, resides between the teacher and
the rest. We have also perhaps underestimated the possible effects - both negative and
positive - of asymmetry and dissonancewithin the classroom upon the language learning
1o
process.

Perhapsone of the best wavs of revealing the establishedculture of the classroom group is
to try to introduce an innovation which the majority neither expects nor defines as
appropriate. Most teachers have had direct experience of the effort to be radical in their
approach with a class(be it through different material, tasks, or procedure, etc.) and have
suffered the experience of at least initial rejection. A genuine cultureis one in which its
membe Iative har actorv milieu. As suchthinss
take time to develop. inp' which the gro rceives as chanse will also take time to
be absorbed or it will be resisted as deviant. (This does not mean that harmony will
necessarilyreign in the classroom, for even apparent anarchy - as long as it is the preferred
ethos of that group - may be quite consistent with a definition of classroom life for some
seemingly unsocialisedcollection of learners!). In essence,a classroom group seeksa
particular social and emotional equilibrium just as soon as it can - even one
- 1'
seem to titheticalto-Iffi newlv
establishedorder. The indivi arner risks ostracisation from the group ifhe does not -
-
overtly at least conform, and the teacher risks rebellion in various forms if he does not
honour the conventions expected bv the collective definition of what a language teacher
should be. Although thls conservative spirit has its origins in the prior educational
experiences of the learners, each new classroom group reinvents "tle rules of the game" in
ways which both reflect and form the classroom-culture assumptions of the particular
participants who are suddenly sharing each others' company. It has to be said, of course,
that a teacher may participate in this conservatism and, indeed, work throughit in order to
help develop group harmonv, security and efficient ways of working. And teachers are
certainly familiar with the dilemma of wishing to innovate whilst being cautious of
disruption. This means that the very presence of a researcher,or even the awarenesswithin
the group that thev are the focus of apparentlv objective evaluation and study will mobilise
change. Our personal experience of having someone visit our home for the first time and
then looking at it with them, as if seeing it through their eyes, can remind us of the effect
of intrusion. In a sense,the classroom changesin the eyes of those within it and, tJrerefore,
wlLLchangein certain rn'avs.Thisis, of course, the truism of observer effect. But there is also
tglbcryg*fgl4.-1n that the classroom we now see will be in a state of dis-equilibrium:
it will not be the same cl;ssroom asvesterdayand w-ewill be investigatinga classroomgroup
which is ner,vly adapting in a number of subtle rvays.This phenomenon can be either bad
news or good news for the researcher. It will render short-term, one-shot investigations
into classroom language learning largely"invalid and unreliable. If, on the othe, haid, *e
approach studies of classroom language learning on a longitudinal basis, then we may be
able to explore the process of re-establishment of social and emotional equilibrium which
 THE SOCIAL CONTEXT FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING I33

our initial arrival challenged. In other words, 1r'emav uncover more precisely the "rules
of the game" u'hich represent the self-maintaining culture of that particular working group.

culture oJ the classroom is jointly construct

Whilst we may acceptthe truism that all knowledge is sociallv constructed - most especiallv
if we are working wi{ the knowledge of a language and how it is used between people -
we need to consider how classroornsre-construcr knowledge. In a language class, the
classroomgroup togeth" e (the coiten-t oflessons),
but toge-theralso jointlv constructs the lessonsiihE-Fiia
r or not thaieacher plans a lessonin advance,the actual we4<jng gut of

ssocial
ocialddvnamic t h e g r o u p i n s i s t s t h a t l e s s o n se v o l v e . t h r o q g h e x p l i c i l o r - i m o l i c i t
off the
J r n a m i co
/
negotiation. In whatever wavs the lesson mav be perceived bv those who participate in it, Qpp*
f[iToit takeswill be drawn bv the joint contributions of most, if not all, of the members . - -,'n,
of the class.Teachers and learners are well aware that lessons are rarely straightforw ^ra 4//M*
journevs but are punctuated bv hesitant starts, diversions,momentary lossesof momentum, U'
interesting side tracks, and unexpected breakdowns.That it may be better to plan classroom
learning in advance has little to do with this entirely normal and creative evolution of
lessons.tt
Severalimportant implications for the researcher result from the fact that the content
and process of language classesare jointlv constructed. First, any teacher-centred (or
researcher-centred)perspectiveon lessonsis partial. Second,the researcher'sbackground
knowledge of the actual languagebeing worked upon in a classcan be a serious handicap
becauseit potentiallv blinds us to the processof re-invention of tlat languagewhich teacher
and taught engage in together. (This implication warns us againstrelying on external
linguistic criteria alone in assessingthe nature of comprehensible input, for example.)The
problem reminds us of a similar gap betrn-eenthe teacher's definition of the new language
and the different learners'definitions.There are likelv to be as manv versions of the new
Ianguage,and changing versions of it, as there are people in the room.Third, the researcher
has to be continually wary of being dazzled by what seemssalient in classroom life. For
example, even the most passiveor non-contributorv learner in a classcan be a poltergeist
on the proceedings. Silence, encouraged or not, is a characteristic part ofthe culture ofthe
classroom and it has great significance. Silence or w'ithdrawal can change a Iessonjust as
powerfully as their opposites, and not just for the person w'ho w-ithdraws, but also for all
the others who senseit.The fourth implication of the joint construction of the content and
process of a language classis particularlv significant for researcherswho wish to examine
the effects of classroom language learning. The fact that lessons-in-processare communal
endeavoursmeans that any learning outcome,for any member of the class,has been socially
processed.The actual nature of individual achievements has been communally moulded.
The culture of the classroom inevitably mediates between a new languageand a learner in
class.The culture of a particular classwill shape what is made availablefor learning, will
work upon what is made availablein particular ways, will evolve its own criteria for progress
and achievement, and rvill attain specific and various objectives. (lt is worth emphasising
here that linguistic input is only a part of the first of these classroom-basedphenomena.)
What someone learns in a language class will be a dynamic synthesis of individual
and collective experience. Individual definitions of the new language,of what is to be
attended to as rvorth learning, ofhorv to learn, and personal definitions ofprogress will all
T34 MICHAEL P. BREEN

interactwith the particular classroom culture's dehnitions of each of these things. If strictlv
individualised or autonomous languagelearning is desirabie or even possible then the
classroom is necessarih' antlthetica\ torvards it.The \anguage I \earn in a classroom is a
communal product detit ed through a jointlv constructedProcess.

What is overtly done in a classroom and what can be described by an observer are
epiphenomena; thev are reductions of classroom reality. How things are done and why things
nr" do.r. have particular psychological signilicancefor the individual and for the group. The
particular culture of a languageclassw-iil socially act in certain ways, but these actions are
Lxtensions or manifestationsof the psychology of the group, its collective consciousnessand
subconscious.Individual perceptions and definitions w-ill, of course, feed into and evoh'e
-
from those of the group. However, the socio-cognitive world of the class- its culture u'ill
be a world other than the sum of the individual worlds within it.What is signtfcant for learners
(and a teacher) in a classroom is not oniy their individual thinking and behaviour nor, for
instance,a longer-term masterv of a syllabus,but the day-to-dayinterpersonal rationalisation
of what is to be done, why, and how. The immediate significance of the experience oi
classroom language learning resides in how individual priorities (teacher and learner
definitions of what, why, and how) can be given social spacehere and now. It is precisely this
interplay between the individual, the individual as group member, and the grouP which
represents and generates the social and psychological nexuswhich I have proposed as the
culture of the languageclassroom.Most often the flow of classroom life is actually under the
surface.What is observableis the rim of a socio-cognitive coral reef! Classroom life seemsto
require that many learners spend surprising amounts of time doing little, whilst a teacher
spends equally surprising amounts of time trying to do too much. As researchers we can
describe such overt peculiarities, but we also need to explain them.We have to ask whether
or not such phenomena are true, and we must doubt the integrity of the observable. If u-e
do, then we are led towards discoveringwhat is, in fact, immediately significantfor the group
of people we started to observe.The search for the significancewhich a person, learner or
teacher, invests in moments of classroom life (and for the significance granted to these
moments by the classroomculture) is neither trivial nor avoidable,though it may be compler
and subtle. We will never understand classroom language learning unless we explore it-.
Iesson-by-lessonsignificancefor those w'ho undertake it.

Reviewing the classroom as culture

I have offered brief descriptions of eight features of the genuine culture of the language
classroom in order to achieve two purposes. First, to illustrate the potential of classroorr,
life itself, its social and psy'chologicalrichness.The particular features I have selected art
offered with no evaluative intent. I would not wish to suggesthere that such features art
"good" or "bad" aspectsof a classroom.Thev are the inevitable characteristics of the socia,
event in which most people learn a foreign language.My second purpose has been to drau
attention to significant social and psvchological variables which we seem to be neglectin;
in our current research in languagelearning. My main argument would be that, if we u'is:
to investigate language learning, these variables must be contained in whatever metaph,::
we have for that special social location from w'hich a great deal of languagelearning actuai.'
derives.l2
 THE SOCIAL CONTEXT FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING 135

My practical purpose in exploring the metaphor of the classroom as culture has been
to seekto offer a possible means for relattngsocialand cognitivevarrables which may influence
a
languagelearning; to suggest particularTrame we may come to understand
bles a
ical and social factors. A teacher or a
learner is not ejtherindividual mind or social actor when participating in lessons.Each is at
once cognitive and social, and so are the classroom realities which each perceives. Current
languagelearning researchtends to examine psvchologicalchangein an asocialway or social
events in a non-cognitive w.a,v. Either approach implies distinctivenessof psvchological and
social dimensions of learning and, therebv, risks offering both a partial account and a
simplistic causal explanation of the relations betw'een social phenomena and individual
development. The metaphor of the classroom as culture allows us to perceive the two
dimensions as irrevocably linked and mutuallv engaged.Themetaphor also captures the
classroom group as a socio-cognitive dynamic r'vhichis an extensionof the individual within
it. Becausethe classroom culture is a human enterprise, it provides the researcher with a
living subject, an informant, not unlike a single learner.When investigating an individual's
learning process,we may endeavour to account for the particular permutation of attributes
and activities of that learner u'hich may influence the learning. Similarly, the study of a
Ianguage class as culture can provide us u'ith a holistic and integrated framework which
incorporates the experimental and discoursal attributes of a classroom, but which also
locates these attributes within a richer cluster oftvpical characteristics.
The eight features I have described are selective, and there are further features which
reflect and create the socio-cognitive realities of a language class.A classroom group will
achieveinteraction, collectivism, or significancein its own ways. But all of the features
overlap and interrelate, and a classwill evolve particular permutations of featuresover time.
Just as each feature will varv as the life of the classproceeds, there r,vill also be changesin
the patterning and interaction of all the features.Although I r,r,ouldsuggestthat the classroom
as culture and the features w'hich represent its cultural nature are universalto language
classroomswherever they mav be, a particular classroomwill evolve both individual features
and a synthesisof features in particular ways at particular times. And it is the synt}esis of
features which is the specilic culture of a classroom group. If such proposals are acceptable
and valid, w.hat do they imply for undertaking research w'ith a language class?Also, what
does the metaphor of classroom as culture offer to the languageteacher?I wish to conclude
by briefly outlining some major deductions for researching and teaching.

Researching within the classroom as culture

A researcher's sympathies rvith u'hat I have argued so far may be strained by the seeming
complexity suggestedfor methods of investigation. If our goal is to move closer to the
realities of language learning and to understand the experience of discovering a new-
Ianguagein a classroom group, then such an audacious inquiry demands anthropological
sensitivity.The culture of the language classrvill resist exposure from a single source - a
sampled informant or a special moment perhaps or through a single investigatory lens.
Cautious triangulation has to be married with longitudinal patience!We are required to
enter a cultural world - as if from Mars, perhaps and intrude upon a relatively unique
socio-cognitiveprocess,unavoidablyparticipating within asmanv realities asthere are people
in the room. In essence,we have to criticallv reexamine our own assumptions and familiar
ways of collecting information. We will be obliged to employ what Gar{inkel referred to as
I 3And such methods rvill lead us in the follorving directions :
oJ understand;ng.
methods
 I}6-lfrlCTfAEL P. BREEN

1 An initial questioning of our own rvell-establishedperceptions of the classroom

situation - its purposes, its subject matter, capacities,and social and psychological
processes.(lf we have learned or taught a language,or if we know the languagebeing
taught for example, we are unlikely to be objectiveh'innocent.)
2 A recurrent reasonabledoubt about the integritv of the observable, and an insistent
curiosity for learner and teacher points of view'.
3 An uncovering of the intentions and interpretations invested in classroom activities
and content by its participants. A search for what is significant in the immediate and
existential (historical) experiences ofthe classroom for those lvithin it.
+ A socio,cognitive frame of reference which will give accessto mutual relationships
between social activity and psychological changes.An investigatory template which
can reveal socialbehaviour asmentally motivated and thinking and learning as socially
shaped.
5 An anthropological exploration of what, ho*', and why things are done within the
classroom from the perspectives of all the members of the group (and including the
researcher'sperspective). A discoverl',over time, of the subjective realities which that
classroom contains and the distinctive intersubjective world of the group which is
evolved by them but w.hich is also other than the sum of individual definitions of the
situation.
6 An evaluation of change and progress which accounts for individual and collective
contributions, achievements, and failures. Evaluation which seeks the interac\ns
between individual and collective and which can be based upon criteria deriv\d
directly from individual expectations and the group's emerging norms and values. \
7 A study of the interpersonal and inter-group relationships, the roles and identities\
generated and maintained, and the rights and duties which are entailed (and including ]
the researcher'slocation in these relationships).
8 A description and explanation of the specific culture of the classroom group which
accounts for all the features of classroom life which generate the language learning
context for that group. A profile of features and their dynamic permutations which
avoids the partialitv of the isolation and comparison of a few selected variables.
9 A research approach lr'hich honestly grapples lvith'observer effects' so that we can
move from intrusion towards a reciprocity of frust and helpfulness; becomingwithin
the classroom culture over time and being seen as contributing as much to the group
as we receive from it.

If the above objectives are seen to be difficuit or impossible to attain, then our future
investigations into classroom language learning *.ill need to acknowledge more explicitly
those things which we have not accounted for.

Teaching within the classroom as culture

As direct participants in the culture oi t}eir languageclasses,teachers are very likely to be

highly sensitiveto t}re nuancesoi tle ieatures of classroomlife which I havetried to describe.
However, the metaphor oi the classroom as culture suggeststwo major implications for
the languageteacher.The flrst relates to the specialtask of teaching a language,and the
secorydrelatesto the teacher'sdirect concern s-ith the processof learning in classrooms.
//\\

#ry
,-,ide :la-.sroombe exploited asa resourcefor the development
{l .lHott can the culturt
o f K g u i s t i c a n d c o n r n r : l : - - r : . - . : N r o \ \ l e d g e a n d a b i l i t i e s ?A l t h o u g h a c l a s s r o o mi s a n
 THE SOCIAL CONTEXT FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING T37

apprenticeshipfor later authentic communication and anv use of the new languageprimarily
serves the learning and teaching ofthat language,anv group oflanguage learners has two
significant contributions to make to the development of the new'Ianguage: first, individual
prior definitions and experiences of languageand communication, of learning, and of
working in classrooms:second, the capacitv to be metalinguistic and metacommunicative.,
to talk about, to explore collectivell', and to reconstruct jointly language and its use.The
language classhas the communicative potential for a dialogue about subjective definitions
of language,how languagemav be best learned, and how the classroom context mav be best
used. The positive and explicit use of the interactive, collective, normative, and jointly
constructed nature of lessons can be a meansto uncovering and sharing what individual
learners and the teacher perceive as significant for them in learning a language together.
And what is revealed can, in turn, provide the starting points for later interaction, collective

#
more overtlv. I do not have sDacehere to cletall the practlcalltles ol moDlllsln

of languageand communicating from rvhich anv new know'ledge and experience must flow.
SF6"9, tlhe teaching-learning p.o."r, requires decisionsto be made, and decision-making
h)rs"ffgh communicative potential. The sharing of decision-making in a language classwill
qenerate
- communication u-hich has authentic roots in getting things done here and norv.
'?Ho* can the culture of the classroom help the teacher to facilitate classroom language
l-FgiThe culture oFlhe class h a s t h e potential t o r e r e a l t o t h e t e a c h e r t h e language
leirning processasit is actually experienced. In this lvay,teachiag languageand investigating
languagelearning may be seen to be synonymous.Teachersrahdlearners alreadv undertake
research in classrooms, but their joint investigation tend( to focus upon subject matter -
the new language and its use. An additional focus of investigation could be the language
learning process as it actually unfolds and as it is directly experienced in the class. Manr'
teachers and learners alreadv undertake such action research, but it is sometimes rather
implicit and accorded little space and significance. I am suggesting here that genuine
classroom languagelearning researchmay progress to the extent t}at those people who are
immediately involved in its evervdavrealities also become explicitly engagedin a methodical
reflection upon their own learning and teaching.The pedagogtcmotivation would be that
teacher-learner research has the potential to facilitate a delicate understanding and
refinement of language developmentwithin the classroom itself. If this pedagogic purPose
may be seen as valuable, then the researcher can offer knowledge and skills to a classroom
rather than act onlv as a recipient of its riches.ls

Learning within the classroom as culture

I have briefly argued for the explicit use of shared decision making and for teacher-learner
research in the language classbecauseboth seem to me pedagogically appropriate within
classroomsdevoted to the discoverv and development of a newlanguageandits use. However,
both proposals derive from considering the potential of the culture of the classroom;for
language teaching. Both also derive from the wish to bring research in language learning
u.rJ th. classroom experience of languagelearning closer together. The research approach
suggestedearlier requires participating investigatorsand Iongitudinal involvement (at least),
138 MICHAEL P. BREE..

-;.t i:.:l;l.ilc'n: bet\\'een doing research,doing

and it could lead to a positir. erc,sii'n -:
t e a c h i n g ,a n d l e a r n i n q .
Th[ paper is not intended as sonreRousseau.squrappealfor a return to the primitive
savager)tl.l.rrroo- liie. in reaction. perhaps. to a vision of finely-tuned classrooms
*,heiei. Iearners might be discoursallr programmed. \or is it intended as a rejection of
the metaphors of classroom as erperimental laboratorv or classroom as discourse.
Classroomsare experiments and thel are places*-here the discourse symbolizes significant
actions and thoughts of those participating. .\nd classroomsare specific cultures. All three
metaphors ...-io me to be true, but all three are also partial. I have tried to show that the
.lurr.oo- as culture embracesvariablesu-hich \\'e mal haveformerly neglected in research.
The metaphor can allow us to see the classroom more distinctly u.td to re-explore its
potential more precisely. However, \\'e still need to develop, during the research Process,
sufficiently sensitive methods of investigation so that the culture of the languageclassmay
be less of a metaphor and more of a revelation.
I am pleased to be able to end with one of Edw'ard Sapir's enlightening observations
because hL .*pr"rred, sixty years ago, a crucial consideration regarding the relationship
between scientific efficiency and genuine culture. Sapir comments on his imPortant
distinction between human progress and cultural experience:

We have no right to demand of higher levels of sophistication that they Preserve to

the individual his manifold functioning, but we may well ask whether, as a
compensation, the individual may not reasonablydemand an intensfcation in cultural
,olur, aspiritual heightening of such functions as are left him.l5
i (1949:97 fmv emPhasis])

In this paper, I have tried to argue that our professional contern with one of the individual's
most sociallymotivated functions - learning how to colxiunicate with members of another
social group, another culture - requires ,r, to ,.,odJ.stand how the individual may best
achieloethis. And if the individual undertakes t}re task in a classroom,we need to understand
the socio-cognitive experience made available through the meeting of individual and
classroom group. The classroom may be a relatively inefficient environment for the
methodical mastery of a languagesystem, just asit is limited in providing opportunities for
real world communication in a new language.But the classroomhasits or,vncommunicative
potential and its own authentic metacommunicative purpose. It can be a particular social
context for the intensification ofthe cultural experience of learning.

Notes

1 This tendency has been captured bv Kuhn's (1962) analysis of scientific research.
Researchexemplifying the first r-ierr-I u'ish to explore is representedin the excellent
anthologiesofHatch (1978), Felix ( 1980t,Scarcella and Krashen(1983) and Baily,Long,
and Peck (1984).The second prevalent vieu-is implied by recent studiesof classroom
language learning, fairlv represented in the valuable collections of Larsen-Freeman
(1980), Seliger and Long f 19E3r and Ferch and Kasper (1983). Of course, much
languagelearning researchmakesno reterenceto the classroomand severalresearchers
do .rot assumethe perspectivesdiscussedin this paper. Mv emphasisis upon currentir
influential views of languaqelearning and l-hat these imply for the functions of the
classroom.
 THE SOCIAL CONTEXT FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING 139

2 Paradoxically,the featuresof optimal input were initiallv derived from (1) the order of
emergenceof certain linguistic featuresin the production of languagelearners and (2)
the characteristicsof simple codesusedbv people other than learners- e.g., motherese,
foreigner talk, talk to foreigners, etc. Neither phenomenonhasbeen shown to have anv
necessaryrelationship with learning language.(On the relationshipbetween motherese
and learning,for example,seeNewport, Gleitman,and Gleitman 1977; Shantz1982.)
Most work on learning strategieshas tended to be individual casestudies undertaken
outside classroomsor through simulated tasks.These points are not intended critically
but suggestlimitations in relating researchfindingson learning to the languageclassroom.
To try to teach learning strategiesseemsto me an inappropriate interpretation of the
investigations of, inter alia,Naiman,Frcihlich,Stern,andTodesco(1978), Rubin (1981),
and Cohen and Hosenfeld (1981). Apart from the major problem of the researcher
having to inJerstrategies from retrospections (Mann 1982) or from communication
strategies(Ferch and Kasper,1983), we need to maintain clear distinctionsbetween the
act of iearning and the influencesof teaching.Languagelearning researchcurrently lacks
an approachto learning strategiesand stvleswhich accountsfor key intervening variables
- such asthe context in \4,-hich the learner rvorks and how the learner strategicallvreacts
to that context. Examplesof a more comprehensiveanalysiscan be found in Gibson and
Levin (1975), Mann (1983) and Marton, Hounsell,and Entwistle(1984).
Although SLA researchevolvedfrom work in L1 acquisition,it haspersistedin a narrow
focus upon linguistic and mentalistic variableswhilst the last decadeof L1 researchhas
been characterisedbv its concern rvith social, contextual and interactive variablesalso
(Waterson and Snow, 1978; Lock, 1978).The significanttheoretical synthesispror,ided
to SLA researchby Krashen (1981, 1982) has encouragedthis asocialperspective.
However, a paradox thrives at present u'herein it is fashionablein some quarters to
belittle Krashen'sinvaluablecontributions to the SLA paradigm lvhilst manv researchers
unquestioningly assume his hypothesesproven as the starting. point of their os n
investigations.Both positions seem equally unjustifed. ..,"
SeeMueiler's (1979) historical analysisof the "science"of psvehologr'.In this paper,I s'ill
arguefor a socio,cognitive perspectiveon languagelearning.Current influential approaches
to the social psychologv of languagelearning seem to me too narrowlv focused upon
motivational and attitudinal factors (Gardner, 1979) and,although socialpsychology grants
significanceto relationships between the individual and social context, its prevailing
tradition is non-cognitive and somew-hatdeterministic in its evaluationof the effects of
socialexperience.A socio-cognitiveperspectiveallows us to identifv variablesof learning
both within the social situation and within the active cognition of the learner (Forgas,
198 I ). It also encouragesseekingrelationshipsbetween learner cognition and situations
and implies the need to understand,to see through languagelearning in ways cogently
arguedby Ochsner(1979).
Allwright (1983), Gaies (1983) and Long (1983) provide excellent reviews of
c l a s s r o o m - o r i e n t er e
ds e a r c h .
Sapir (1949) and Hvmes (1972) are, of course, emphasisingcollective meanings and
values.Other scholars,notablvGoffman (1959) and Cicourel (1,973),would alsoassert
the significanceof personal intentions and interpretationswithin socialevents.I will argue
that we need to account for both and their interrelationships.
The notion of "genuine culture" derivesfrom Sapir'sdiscussionof "Culture, Genuine and
Spurious"(19+9).ln referring to Malinorvskit (1935) study,I do not wish to imply that
we adopt a narrol!' social anthropologicalapproachto the classroom;rather one which
relatessoctalexperience and psvchologicalchange in the tradition of Margaret Mead,
Ruth Benedict, and Clvde Kluckhohn (see, for example, Beattie's1964 overview of
social anthropolog).Perhaps the studv of the classroomgroup might resemble Oscar
140 MICHAEL P. BREEN

Lewis'sinvestigationsof family life in Mexico ( 1959) but with a particular focus upon the
relationshipsbetween classroomlife and languagedevelopment.
"lnteractivl" is becoming a much-usedterm in languageteaching circles and is, thereby,
expandedto encompassmanv assumptionsand diverse meanings(ashasbeen tle fate of
"fu^nctional," "communicative,""negotiation,"and, when applied to pedagogy,"natural").
Ambiguitv residesin the fact that human interaction can be both interpersonal and intra-
persoial;'both overtly social and covertly mental. Allwright's (1982, 1984a) fruitful
identification ofinteractive rvork as a defining feature ofclassroomsclearly relatesto the
interpersonal. However, interactive w'ork also occurs in the recreativerelating of mind
to external phenomena (Neisser, 1976). But interaction is more comprehensivethan
(1) overt behaviour between people and 121 covert perception and reconstruction
of perceptions and experiences.We also need to regard social interaction as having
pry"hologl"ul roots and outcomes (Rommetveit 1981) and mental interaction as being
rlrtj".t to socialforces (Gauld and Shotter,7977; Harr6, 1978; Shotter, 1978).Thus,
interaction is also (3) a socio-cognitiveprocesswhich continually relates social action
and experienceto the content and capabilitiesof the mind, and vice versa.
10 Ou., tir" past t\r.entv yearsthere h"u" b".., a number of interesting studiesof ciassroom
relationshipsand roles within the school system.Jackson's(1968) seminal investigation
is complemented by Hargreaves(1972) and Woods (1919) - the more recent works
echoing Goffman's (1961) revelationsof the effectsupon the perceptions and activities
of people in situationswhich maintain asymmetricalrelationships.Learner experience.s
uni ;,rJg.-.nts have been studied by Taytor (1952) , Nash ( 1974), Meighan (1977) , anQ
Ha.grea.,res(1977), whilst teacher perspectives are considered by Morrison and
Maclntvre (1959).
11 A well-establishedtradition within the sociology of knowledge arguesthat most of our
learning is socially constructed. Berger and Luckmann's (1965) justification of sueh a
view is basedupon a phenomenologicalapproachto human experience.(Douglas, 1973.
and Luckmann, Tg'/8, offer a range of studieswhilst Filmer, Phillipson, Silverman, and
Walsh, 1972, provide an overview.) Perhapsthe two major influences uPon recent
endeavoursto relate social experience and knowledge have been Schultz (1962-65.
1967) and Husserl (1965, 1967). Investigationsdirectly concerned with the joint
construction of classroomlife are exemplified within Hargreaves(1977) , Nash ( 197 3 I .
Stubbsand Delamont (1976),Woodsand Hammersley(1917), andWoods(1980a,b).
la
IL The eight essentialfeatures u'hich I describe are based on my own experience as a
teachei and the sharedexperiencesof many teachersfrom most countries of the world
r,r,.ithn'hom I have worked. The featuresare also influenced by *y interpretation of a
number of scholars.WillardWaller's (1932) evaluationof the teachingprocessis still the
most comprehensive,*'hilst the studiesof teaching and learning referred to in notes 1Cf
and 1 1 provide strongjustification for seeingthe classroomgroup asa specialculture. (.\
helpful overvierv of classroomresearchw'ithin general education is provided by Cohen
a n dM a n i o n 1 9 8 1 . )
l.J Garfinkel assertsthe need for methods of understandingthe everydaylife of the group
we may be investigatingthrough an ethnomethodological approach. (Douglas, 1971.
Tirrner 19J4, and Douglas, 1973 provide examples of this approach, whilst Hughes.
1980, offers a humanistic interpretation of ethnomethodology.) For a broader critica-
consideration of methods of investigation, seeTaylor (1911).Interesting examples ol
current research in classroom language learning which adopt various methods o:
understandingare found in Dingwall (1982), Wenden (1983), Murphy-O'Du-r'e:
(1983),Allwright (1984b), and Bonamy,cherchalii,Johnson,Kubrusly,schwerdtfeger.
(all 1984):
Soule-Susbielles
t+ In Breen (1982), I examinethe practicalrealitiesofclassroomlanguageand procedure.
 THE SOCIAL CONTEXT FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING 141

The more explicit involvement of learnersis consideredin Breen (1983), r,vhilstsyllabus

planning through shareddecisionmaking is discussedin Breen (1984).
l5 This implies that mv proposalsfor the researchermay also be directly relevant to the
teaching-learningprocessitself. If the culture of the group is explicitlv mobilised for
sharing decisionsand for reflective investigation,then the generalisabilityof what may
be derived from that classroommay seem to be undermined. But more mav be gained
from participatory researchthan might be lost.We havefailed, as vet, to discoveractual
relationshipsbetw.eenthe classroomsituation and languagelearning.We simply do not
know wficr the classroom contributes to the developmental process. Researchwhich
implies that phenomena unique to classroomsmust be tfre contributions to learning
which only classroomscan offer is trapped in its own circularity. Objective investigations
- through discourseanalvsisor the quantificationof selectedvariablesof classroomlife,
for example - represent little more than a researcher's inferencing and, thereby, remain
only relatively objective.Yetwe cling onto a faith in the chastenessof neutral impartiality
which is assumedto be synonvmouswith non-participant data collection and analysis.
Validity of classroom data and its interpretation demands direct teacher-learner
intervention in the researchprocess,w'hilstthe researchercan facilitatetheir exploration
bv contributing rigourous and establishedresearchmethods and criteria.
l5 Sapir( 1949: 97), rny emphasis.

References

Allwright, R.L. (1982) InteractiveworkJorinput jn the languageclassroom. Kevnote paper at the

SecondLanguageResearchForum, Los Angeles.
- (1983)'Classroom-centeredresearch on languageteaching and learning: \ briei
historical overview' TESOL@tarterly17: 191-20+.
- 'The
(1984a) importance of interaction in ciassroomlanguagelearning' ,lppltedLtngutsttcs
5:156-71.
- (1984b) Making senseoJ classroominstruction. Presentation at the Spnposium on
Classroom-centred Research,AILA TthWorld Congress,Brussels.
Bailey,K., Long, M.H. and Peck, S. (eds) (198a) Second languageacquisition Rowley,
studies.
MA: Newburv House.
Beattie, l. (196+) Other cuhures: Aims,methodsand achievements in socialanthropology.London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Berger,P.and Luckmann,T. (1966) Thesocialconsfiuction of reality.Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Bonamy,D. (1984)'Perceptionsof saliencvin a languageclassroom'.UnpublishedM.A. thesis.
University of Lancaster.
'Authenticity
Breen, M. P.( 1982) in the languageclassroom'. Bulletinof the CanadianAssociation
oJAppliedLinguistics (ACLA) 4: 7-23.
-- (1983)'Hor.vwould we recognisea communicativeclassroom?',in B. Coffey (ed.) Tbacher
trainingandthecurriculum, pp. 132 54. London:TheBritish Council.
- (198+)'Processsyllabusesfor the languageclassroom',in C.J. Brumfit (ed.) General
Englishsyllabusdeign, pp. +7-60. Oxford: PergamonPress/The British Council.
Cherchalli, S. (1984) Askinglearnersaboutlanguagelearning.Presentationat the Symposiumon
ClassroomResearch,University of Lancaster.
Cicourel, A.V (1973) Co7nitivesociology. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Cohen, A.D. and Hosenfeld, C. (1981)'Some uses of mentalisticdata in secondlanguage
research'. Language Learning3 I : 285-31 3.
Cohen,L. and Manion, L. (1981) Percpectiveson classrooms
and schools, London: Holt, Rinehart
andWinston.
L42 MICHAEL P. BREEN

Cole, M., Gay,J., Click, J.A. and Sharp,D'W. ( 1971) ThecuhuralcontextoJlearningandthinking'

London: Methuen.
Cole, M. and Scribner,S. (1974) Cuhureandthought'NewYork:Wiley'
in Dingrvall,
Dingwall, s.D. (1982)'Critical self-reflectionand decisionsin doing research"
and
s.D., Mann, S.J.and Katamba,F.X. (eds) Methods problems in doingappliedlinguistrc

, pp. 3_25. Universitv of Lancaster'

research
Douglas,J D a"d ) (19i1) IJnderst'anding
everyday1/?:.London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Oouglas.M. (ed.) (1913) Rulesand meanings. Harmondsworth: Pengurn'
F-.."h, C. and Kasper, G. (eds) (1983) Strategies communication.
in intetlanguage London:
Longman.
Felix, S.\d(ed.) (1980) Secondlanguagedevelopment:trends Gunter Narr.
and issues,Tiibingen:
Filmer, P., Phillipson,M., Silverman,D. andwalsh, D (1972) Newdirections in sociological
theory.London: Coliier Macmillan.
Forgas,J.P.(ed.) (1981) Social NewYork: AcademicPress'
cognition.
17:
Cui!., d.1. (1983)'The investigationof languageclassroomprocesses',TESOL@Larteily
20s-11. '
'
Gardner,R. c. ( 1979) Socialpsvchologicalaspectsof secondlanguageacquisition , i"gl"t' T
and St. Claia R. (eds)Longuag,oid roriolprychology,pp.193-200. London: B{lackwell.
Gauld, A. and Shotter, I. (1917) Human action and its psychological investigltion.London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Gibson,r.1. and Levin, H. (1975) Thepsychology oJreadtng.cambridge, MAi M.l.T. Press.
Goffman, C.E. (1959) Thepresentation oJselJineverydayllfe.Harrnondsworthi Penguin.
- (1961) Asylums.Harmondsworth: Pengurn'
Hargreaves,D.H. (1972) lnterpersonalrelationsand educationLondon: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
'The
- (lgii) processof typification in classroominteraction' . BritishJournaloJEducational
Psychology 41 : 274-84.
Harr6, if. lf fZa;'Accounts, actionsand meanings:Thepracticeof participatorypsychologv'.
in M. Brenner er a/. (eds) The socialcontexts oJnethod.London: Croom Helm.
Hatch, E.M. (ed.) (1918) Secondlanguage Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
acquisition.
London: Longman'
of socialreseatch.
Hughes, J. (1980) The philosophy
Huiserl, E. (1955) Phenomenology NewYork: Harper.
andthe crisisoJphiiosophy.
- (1970) Cartesianmeditations.The Hague: Nijhoff.
'Models of the interaction of languageand social life', in Gumperz, J.J
Hymes, D. (1972)
and Hymes, D. (eds) Directionsin sociolinguistics. The ethnogrophyoJ communicaticc.
pp. 35-71. NewYork: Holt RinehartandWinston.
NewYork: Holt RinehartandWinston.
Jackson,P.W (1968) LiJein classrooms.
Englishspeakers
non-native clr::'
inthe ESLPtacticum
Johnson,P.(1984) Oralcommunicationbetween
paper at the Svmposium on Classroom-centredResearch,AILA 7th World Congress.
Brussels.
Krashen,S.D.(19817 Secondlanguage secondlanguagelearning.
acquisitionand Oxford: Pergamor-
Press.
- (1982) Prtnciples jn second
and practice languageacquisition.Oxford: PergamonPress.
'Do".
Kubruslv, N,I.H. (i98+r the teacher make a difference?'.UnpublishedM.A. thesr.-
Universitvof Lancaster'
Kuhn,T.S.(19521 The:tru;turec{sctenttfcrevolutions. Chicago:University of ChicagoPress.
Larsen-Freeman.D. red. t 19t0) , Discourse analysis in second languageresearch. Rowlel', 11\
\ert bur. Housc.
ca
L e r r - i sO, . r 1 9 l 9 r F : ' : . ' : n ; , r : . , , . l / a r i c a n s e s t u d i e s i n t h e c u h u r e o J p oNv e w y .o r k :B a s i c B o o k .
r tY
Lock,.\. red., ,iql: l , - : r - . :q . j r u r c, t n d r m b o l : T h ee m e r g e nocJel a n g u a gN e .e w Y o r k : A c a d e n : ' -
Press.
 THE SOCIAL CONTEXT FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING I43

Long, M.H. (1983)'Does second languageinstruction make a difference?A review of

research'. TESOL@rarterly17;359-82 '
Luckmann,T.(ed.) (1978) Phenomenologv Harmondsworth:Penguin.
andsociology.
and theirmcgic.London: Allen and Unvl'in (2nd edition,
Malinou'ski,B. (1935) Coralgardens
1966).
Mann, S.J.(1982)'Verbalreports asdata:A focuson retrospection',in Dingwall, S.D., Mann,
S.J. and Katamba, F.X. (eds) Methodsand problemsin doing appliedLin7uisticrcsearch,
p p . 8 7 l 0 5. U n i v e r s i t vo f L a n c a s t e r .
-(1983) P r o b l e m s i n r e a d i n g a n d h o w t h e y m a y b e s o l v e d b y t hPear p
eea rdaetrt.h el T t h A n n u a l
TESOL Convention,Toronto.
Marton, F., Hounsell, D.J. and Entw.istle,N.J. (eds) (1984) The experience oJ learning.
Edinburgh: ScottishAcademic Press.
Meighan,R. (1977)'The pupil as client: The learner'sexperienceof schooling'.Educational
Review)9:123;.
Morrison, A. and Maclntyre,D. (1969) Teachers and teaching.,Harmondsworth: Penguin.
'Some 30
Mueller, C. (1919) origins of psychology as a sciente'. Annual ReviewoJPsychology
9-20.
'Gachers in training:A -diarlstudvduring an in-servicecourse'.
Murphy-O'Dwyer, M. ( 1983)
UnpublishedM.A. thesis,Universityof Lancaster.
Naiman, M., Frolich, M., Stern, H.H. and Todesco,A. (1978) The good languagelearner
Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studiesin Education.
observed.
Nash, R. (1973) Classrooms London: Routledge and Kegan Paui.
- (197+)'Pupil's expectationsfor their teachers'. Researchin Education,November 1974:
+rJ-/ t.
Neisser,U. (1975) Cognition andreality.New-York:W.H'Freeman.
Newport, E.L., Gleitman,H. and Gleitman,L.R. (1977)'Mother I'd rather do it mvself:Some
effectsand non-effectsof maternal speechstyle' , in Snow,C. E. and Ferguson,C. .\ . r eds r
Talkingto children:LanBua7e inpfi andacquisition.Cambridge:Cambridge Universiil Press
Ochsner, R. (i979)A poetics of second languageacquisition.Language Learning29: 5l-80.
Rommetveit. R. (1981)'On meanings of situations and social control of such meaningsin
human communication', in Magnussen,D. (ed.) Toward psychology a oJ situations:An
interactional
pe$pective, pp. 151-57. Hillsdale,NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
'The
Rubin, J. (1981) studl of cognitive processesin second languagelearning'. Applied
Linguistics 2:111-31 .
Sapir, E. (19+9) Culture,languageand personality:SelectedessaTs. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Scarcella,R. and Krashen,S.D. (eds)(1983) Research language
in second Rowley,MA:
acquisition.
Nelvburv House.
Schutz,A. (.1962, 6+, 56) Collected
PapersVols I -3. The Hague: Nijhoff.
- (1961) Thephenomenology oJthesocialworld.Chicago:Northwestern University Press.
Schwerdtfeger, I.C.(1984) ExercisesintheJorcignlanguageclassroom:Thepupils'pointoJview.Papet
at the Symposiumon Foreign Languagelearning under ClassroomConditions,AILA 7th
World Congress.Brussels.
Shatz,M. (1982)'On mechanismsof languageacquisition:Can featuresof the communicative
environment account for development?', in Wanner, E. and Gleitman, L'R. (eds)
Languageacquisition:The stateoJ theart, pp. 102-27. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
'Torvards
Shotter,J. ( 1978) a social psvchologl' of evervdaylife: A standpoint"in action"' , in
Brenner,M. et al. (eds),pp. 33--+3.
Soule-susbielles,N. ( 1984) Pupilsanalvsetheir ownclassroombehaviour. Paper at the Symposium
on Classroom-centred Research, AILA TthWorld Congress, Brussels
I44 MICHAEL P. BREEN

Stubbs,M. and Delamont, S. (edst t19l5t Erplorations in classroom observation. London:Wilev.

Gylor, C. (1971)'lnterpretationand the sciencesof }lan'. Review oJMetaphysicsxxv: 3-5 1.
'Children's
Tayloa P.H. (1962) evaiuations of the characteristics of a good teacher'. British
JournaloJ Educational Ps.vcholog.r 3l : I i E 56.
T[rner, R. (ed.) (1 9] +) Ethnometho dologr'.Harmondsrvorth: Penguin.
Waller, W (19 32) Thesociolog,roJrcaching.\eu- \brk: Wilev.
Waterson,N. and Snou',C.E. 1eds1(19781Thedevelopment 2f communication. London:Wiley.
W e n d e n , A . L ( 1 9 8 3 ) ' T h e p r o c e s s o f i n t e r a c t i o n ' . L a n g u a g e L 3e 3a :r1n0i n3g- 21 .
Woods, P.and Hammersley,M. (eds)(19711 Schoolexperience. London: Croom Helm.
Woods, P. (1979) Thedividedscfiool.London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Woods,P. (ed.) (1980a)Pupils'strategies. London: Croom Helm.
- (1980b) Tbachers' strategies. London: Croom Helm.
PART TWO

andgoalsin the
Strategies
classroomcontext
 - Ft?
Chapter 8

Paull(night

THE DEVELOPMENT OF EFL

METHODOLOGY

Introduction
---"/
HEN PLANNING THIS CHAPTER I CONSIDERED mvownUK-based
training as an EFL teacher and the fact that it contained virtuallv no explanation of
the practices I u'as trained in. Further training informed me how Communicative Language
Teaching had supersededAudio-Lingualism, but it was not until later that further studies
made me aware that the field of foreign languageteaching hasa long and rich methodological
tradition.
Ways of teaching English have been shaped by developments in manv disciplines
including linguistics, psychology and education. Thev have been informed U;:*pgXg!
research, purelv theoretical developments and the practical hands-on experience of

u"Ein-g these influences is necessary.I hope this chapter can help foster that
"f ! '

understanding by:pre-EiEQ an ovEivi6w ofthe debatesand issues,illustrated by reference

to a variety of approaches,practices and materials.
First, it is important to remember that most second languagelearning, both in the past
and todal', has not been influenced by any of the methodologies that I will revierv here.
Outside of the UK and NorthAmerica, the prevalence of multilingualism acrossthe globe
shows that monolingualism is the exception rather than the norm. Most second languages
are still learnt informally. Formal methodologies have tried to copy certain features of .,1
informal second languagelearning and tlis is something to look out for as we proceed. qe:
While the term'method' might be used to describe any practical procedure for teaching ^,"du?l\.
'methodolgg''' u
a language,the term implies the existence of a set of procjgllg: rglgted b,y Jf
teaching and lEi? lTEe approachesI w-ill
all been t ir advocatesas constituting a'methodology in that
sense.I will examine each of them bv considering three questions:

What is the desired outcome?

What model of languageis it based on?
What model of learning is it based on?
 148 PAUL I(NIGHT

Historical / Pre-World War I I

In mv experience, ferv modern EFL teachers have looked at the history of their profession
urrdih" methodoiogical practicesof the past.The common perception is that until the advent
of Audio-Lingualism, language teaching methodology consisted simply of the grammar-
translation method, and the reform movement at the end of the nineteenth century was
simply a reaction against this. Holr'ever, as we shall see, methodological debates have
characterisedthe profession for much longer.
Howatt records the use of materials to teach both French and Latin in the middle ages
which were basedon the studv of dialogues(Howatt 1984). He.notes the development of
methods bv teachers like Bellot and Holl'band in the 16thand 17'hcenturies which included
substitution tables, dialogues based on common situations and an emphasis on spoken
pro{iciencv.DescribingWebbe's'anti-grammar'stancein the 17mcentury,Howatt observes
that:

there is . . ever\.reason to supposethatWebbe w-asproposing a form of l'direct

method' of languageteaching rvithout the use of reference grammars, which] lvould
depend heavilv on spokeninteraction . . .' (Howatt 1984:37)

By the 19'h century, grammar-translation was the dominant methodology. lhis was
b""urrr. of the importanle given to the study of Greek and Latin in public schobls'The
study of Lati.r and Greek at tfus time focused on accessingtheir literature, somethingr,vhich
was thought to be best achieved by cops-ciousl),@l rules. and lexical
"the
items of target language.The basic unit of study was the sentence and, as the name of
I.@ translating both into and
@g"rt,
from the target language. si'?n t".ffiqG"'ere not onll'thought 6t.[-i-*-.t"T!,ET1lto
t6GtFil'.n.fii-AG+ffie' (Stern19831.
The 19s centur). i^*, u gr"d.,ul disillusionment with the grammar-translation method.
which led to a number of observations which w-ereto change language teaching. Marcel.
Prendergast and Gouin each drew on children's language learning to inform new theortes
(Richardl and Rogers 1986: 5). Marcel argued for a focus on meaning; Prendergastnoted
the use of contextual factors in furthering comprehension and Gouin argued for the
'using
importance of context and that language learning was facilitated by language to
accomplishevents' (Richardsand Rogers 1985: 5 & 6)'
By the end of the 19s centurv iJeas which previously had only had a limited impact
became more widelv promoted. Central to this was the Reform Movement, an internationai
movement which grew. out of the formation of the International Phonetic Association rn
1885. Its most significant British member w'as Henry Sweet, who argued for a scientihc
1!!-roach to t}e practice of language teaching in his Ifie PracticalStudy oJLanguagesin 1899
The key principles of the Reform Movement were:

the primacv of speech, the centrality of the connected text as the kernel of tht
t"u.ffilifi;iff"ss, andthe absolute in th.
prioritl' of an oral methodolog)'
c l a s s r o o m(.H o u a t t 1 9 8 4 : 1 71 7
-=F

It is important to note that it is not just the ideasof th. &fot*J4ry,.nt which art
significant;its approachalso shapeddevelopmentswhich followed. It was the first trul.
sc]entific approachto languagelearning and can be seen as an important step in th.
developmentof the disciplinesof linguisticsand appliedlinguistics.
 THE DEVELOPMENT OF EFL METHODOLOGY I49

"'...This challenge to grammar-translation in the 19thcenturv and the increasing interest

in childlanguage learning led to the development of natural approachesto languageteaching.
Sauver'sfocus on oral interaction and of &" *oth"r to.g hool
"uoidu.".
in th tical
principles of which were outlined bv Franke in 1884. fillA6;ha-t became known as
the Direct Method, r,vhichrvas in turn popularised as the'Berlitz Method' by Maximilian
g.rV- .-
In the first decadesof the 20'n century, the forerunners of today's applied linguists
started to take the ideas of the Reform Movement furiher. In the United States the
foundationsof.$udio-Ling!alismwerebeinglaid,rvhileintheUKthe@-was
developed bv Palm-Effio?fi6-Tiid others. The Oral Approach proposed principles of
selection,gradation and presentationr.vhichhad been lacking in the Direct Method (Richards
andRogers1985:33).TheprinciplethatlanguageshouIdb.@"
situations, that is, it should be contextualised, led to the Oral Approach becoming known
@gThi-Tid-notmeanthatasituationalyllabuswasproposed,
rather that referencesshouldbe made to_thereal world in or!€r to teach a structural
syllabus,e.g.bi3 ia and'.actions'hee
FigureS.l,fo. example).By the 1950s
*ris was the standard British approach to languageteaching.It sharedwithAudio-Lingualism
both rt.""t"r"l ui"* and a belief in behaviouriirt*o94l9l!g.nlrg, but its
",
focuson situationsmadeit distinct.
't
\>z a1b P.'', 5 3
Audio-Lingualism -t

The Second World War and its aftermath provided a great spur to language teaching,
especiallyin the USA.The Armv SpecializedTrainingProgram (ASTP) rvasestablishedin
1,942to provide the large number of foreign language speakersrequired bv the militarr.
This programme influenced the development of what became know'n asAudio-Linguaiism
andwasifo.,,,ofattentionamongstappIiedlinguistslongafteritffi
militarv.
'scientific'
saw itself as the first language teaching methodology.
4gdlg-!-l"g"alism 'Oral
when he outlined the Approach', a forerunner of Audio-Lingualism,
€-Sfi66essof teaching as depending not only on classroom methodology, but also:

fundamentallyupon havingsatisfactor)'materials
selectedandarrangedin accordwith
.' y+))
souncl llnqurstlc
ol
Drrnclplesj_(t-rres I

The principles he is referring to here r,verethose of structural linguistics, whose main tenets
were that language is primarilv oral, and that it is a rule-governed system understandable
in terms There p@ously outlined
"@plexit1..
b}'Blooee,,1914an-d1942(Bloomfield1914,1933, t-
1e+2). lo r
The other important strand underlyin dio-Lingualism as that of behaviourist
psychologv.Behaviouristmodelsof learningessentilllillil as a behavioural skill
Tfu1,4l
wherel.ui.,... receivea stimulus(suchasa Ju. i.r u d.illF;.Ffi
urrerance)uno ffi-rlGG, ."
t that this viill lead to t}e errbrs beinp reinforced and'bad
hahits' engendered. Languagehad been view.edin terms of habit-fo.-ationTefbq
e.'G+
Falmer outlinad a theory basedon r.r.hatrvould later havebeen called behaviourist principles
]50 PAUL I(NIGHT

UNIT A ONE
T H E YD O \ s . T H E ' I ' - \ R ED O I N G
OFTEN/NE\-ER,etc.Questions andNegatives

1 DOES vs.IS DOING

Problem Situations
Where is Mr. Collins?
i. Mr. Collins is a businessman He gets
What does he do?
"The FinancialTimes" every dav and
alwavsfinds it verv interesting' Does he read "The FinancialTimes"?
At the moment, he is in his office' Is he reading it?
His copv of "The FinancialTimes" is Where is his copy of "The Financial
I lmes ,
in his overcoatPocket.

ii Jack Cariton is a famous football- Who is Jack Carlton?

player. At the moment he is at the Where is he?
dinner-table. There is a large Does he play footbali?
beefsteakin front of him. What is he doing?

2 IllustrativeSituations
i. John Dallas is a film director.
A.t the Question Prompts:
moment he is in a Plane ovelthe 1. Ask and answer these questions
Atlantic. He is on his waY to about John Dallas:
Hollywood. There is a glassof (a) Who (b) Where
champagne in his hand, a stnile on 2 . U s eD O E S H E D O ?
his face, and a pretty girl opposite him 3. or IS HE DOING? in these
questions:
Question:What DOES HE DO?
The only answer is: HE DIRECTS FILMS (a) fiims (b) a glassof chamPagne
OT:HE IS A FILM DIRECTOR (c) to Hollywood (d) at a pretty girl

Question: What IS HE DOING

Answer: HE IS FLYING TO
HOLLYWOOD
HE IS DRINKING A GLASSOF
CHAMPAGNE
HE IS SMILING AT A PRETTY GIRL

ii. Arthur Docker is on the sameplane. Questions and Question PromPts:

He is a verv rich man. He drives a 1. Is he smoking a Havana cigar?
Rolls Rovce, often eats caviar, plavs 2. Does he smoke Havana cigars?
rouiette at Monte Carlo, hunts lions 3. What is he doing?
and elephantsin Africa, and smokes 4. Ask and answer questionswith these
large Havanacigars. At the moment w.ords:
he is having a nap. (a) rouiette (b) lions and eiephants
r o a R o l l sR o y c e{ d ; c a v i a r
Question: What IS HE DOING?
The only answeris: FIE IS HAVING A \AP
he
Question: What are some of the things
DOES
Answers:HE DRIVES A ROLLS RO\-CE'
HE PLAYS ROULETTE. HE HU\TS
LIONS AND ELEPH-\\TS. HE
SMOKES H.\\"\\.\ CIG \RS.

F i g u r e8 . 1 S i t u a t i o n al l. r r . ; - i : . . : ( : . h l r . f m a t c r i a l
 THE DEVELOPMENT OF EFL METHODOLOGY 15I

(Palmer 1921). However, it is Skinner who is generallv credited as laying down the most
complete theoretical basisfor this assumption in his VerbalBehavior,lvhere he assertedthat:

We have no reason to assume . . . that verbal behaviour differs in any fundamental

respect from non-verbal behaviour.(Skinner 1957: 10)

'empty
The role of the learner inAudio-Li ilism came to be portra)'ed asthat of an vessel'
no more in the drills organisedbv his/her teacher to learn the 1/vA
tareet
-r-t_
languqgg1l5s Figure8.2 for example). This is to some degree unfair; it was certainly
no-tffiat the exponents oi the method had in mind. Fries outlines the role of the student
as an active one:

The studentmust be vgillingto givehimselfwhole-heartedlyto the strenuousbusiness

of l.u.@(Fries 1945)

What'syouriob?,

/->rr
\)
Exercise 1
\a
rY

Look at 13. Lookat 14. L o o ka t 1 5 . Look at 16.

What'shis job? What'sherjob? Whataretheirjobs? 2
He's a manager She'sa receptionist They'rewailers.

Look at 17. Lookat 18. Lookat 19. Usethesewords:

,) 2 2
cleaners
cook
secretary
porter

Figure 8.2 A tvpical audio-lingual drill

 T52 PAUL KNIGHT

S u b s e q u e nat t t a c k so n \ u d r o - L i n g u a l i s mc l a tion over

communication. TLusis rather unfair as it saw communication as bein I and saw this
as bein_qTiiiTilatedbr learners not har translate o tarset Ia
havi ill-Klein;ans 19511.
i*F..t*rt t"""t of \udio-Lingualismwastha@g1lggre

#
a {
N'$9o
\
t a r q e t l a n g u a g ea n d t h e l e a r n e r s 'f i r s t l a n
ffi
ffi@ffi;eant
66111astlu.urrulrri, of
--=afffiF6eaudio-lingual
that skilled linguistsw.ereneeded
r,vould influence lan
s as'facilitffiT6-'
rib ed these-influence
tolrepare materials
learning either
interference'
basedon a

classroom was ver):teacher :en_tred,tlT,9ggl.gltgagher

couldbeminimal.Teach6ffiffi
I autonomy @e,judg:s
ilimmanagersof ----'-
rl f -,^.-:----
I qAf l\ | l-ric ntfan marhl rrqlno nreqcrlr)eal

:'Failure
'(hr/'e'
uage laboratorv was a develoPmen io:linEual method. It was seen
as the ideal Loi* ith n'hich to applv behaviouristprinciples as it lllowed self-monitoring,
reinforcement of correct lgarner responsesand the cotte"tion of e.. e
attention drawn !,g{6"- (M"eller i 959).Althoughthe languagelaboratoryhasbeen
.rts of more communicative approachesto language learning, it is
important to-remember that it marked an important departure from book-based learning,
b"i.,g attempt to applvthe principle that languageis primarily oral.
"r,
From theseroots,Audio-Lingualismdevelopedinto a systemwhich is still usedin mgy
oarts of the world today.Thecont]nuedpubhcJon and successof teffiFE;ffi1-I6;farge
i@inciples,,.,&",theStream]ineseries(HartleyandVine1978),
shJwthatAudio-Lingualism However,Audio-Linguali:* T ..h"1*:
hasnot disappeared.
- "
ts tod4y. bven belore the method aPProacneo
ay, lts t tical basis was shed. Chomsky exposed the inadequacies
of Audio-Lingualism',vhen he showed that la Lgeis not just a learnt habit but something
created by the s r usrng an lnnate la ility (Chomsky1957,1965etc.),therebr
ca rnto o odel and of la learning.
's
Parallel to theoretical attackswas an increasingsenseof the limited practical
value amongst teachers and learners.

Humanistic methodologies

Duiln&t!&POs a number of methodologiesappearedwhich havebeenbroadlylabelled

u(H"-."irtA Broadlvspeaking,this labelappliesto thosemethodologieswhich-seethe
Iear:6$.5ffi.Bole' person and the classroomas an environmentwhere more than the

me \1-l ar. the\ are northl ol some atffis to

an€@figtromdirectionsotherthanlinguistic.Wewilllookatfour
methodologies'The Sijent \\ai. Communitv LanguageLearning, SuggestopediaandTotal
PhvsicalResponse.

The Silent ll'at

C a l e bG a t t c ' n : , ': : : - Siient\\ ar in tn-o publicationsin the 1970s (Gattengo 197-

and 19lc T:..' i..- .,,als are self-expressionin the target language, learne:
 THE DEVELOPMENT OF EFL METHODOLOGY I53

r: icpendence and the development of the learner's ow'n facility to assesscorrectness.These

- :ls are tvpical of modern languagemethodologies; it is the way they are to be achieved
' rr is unique. The roles of teachers and learners are the key to this.
Teachers,although silent much of the time, should be constantly monitoring the
:rners as learners' errors are used to shapefuture input. Learners are expected to be
',.r.onsible for their own learnin$, to make their own generalisationsfrom the language
:::sented to them and to self-assess their orvn output. Feer correction is encou.ug.d, ,o
:.ners are expected to become comfortable with each other. It is also thought that learners
.: learn' what they have been exposed to while they are sleeping.
Silent Way lessonsare characterised bv the use of Cuisenaire rods (coloured wooden
' is ofdifferent lengths), Fidel charts (colour-coded pronunciation charts), vocabularv
:.rrts and the fact that the teacher is silent 1!ryt*rytb].. Typically, the teacher w'ili
-
Jel an utterance usirr-fT6-e-Effi1i?fEhartsand elicit student responsesto it. which the
: r.her will accept or ask to be rephrased.
The SilentWay takes an essentiallvtraditional structural vierv of language.It does,
- -,\ever,see the spoken language as paramount. Reading and lvriting are not explicitly
::ght, but are seen to follow'from the spoken language.
.r..
./
-.mmunity Language Learning i
:rmunity Language Learning (CLL) is the nary€ given to a teaching methodolog,v
,.cloped by Charles Curran in the'1970s basedop psychologicalcounsellingtechniques
:rran 1972,1976).The teacheractsasthe'counsellor', and n e r sa r et h e ' c l i e n t s '
- '-rracticethis means that a translationof w'hatthe learners rrlihJo
:' irom their L1 to the target language, thus allow'ing the learners to interact usinq the
I n. 1
:::rt language.Dialogues developed in this wav then form the basisfor further studr'.
It is a crucial part of t}e teacher'sjob to create an unthreatening supportive atmosphere
:rin the classroom as this is seen to be crucial for successfullearning. In addition,
,--her-learner interaction should not be limited to the exchange of information'but
- -rld include the discussionof the learners' feelings about the learning process.This
' .=rionship has been compared to that of a parent helping a child attain greater levels of
:.pendence (Richardsand Rogers 1985).
The desired outcome of CLL is not only that the learner should be able to communicate
- :re target language, but also that helshe should learn about his/her own learning and
.... rncreasingresponsibilityfor it (Larsen-Freeman1986).
Initiallv CLL rvas not based on any nell' theories of language; La Forge, Curran's
, --essorin promoting CLL, saw the learners' job as being to master the sound and
-.:rmatical systemsof the language(La Forge 1983), which suggestsa traditional structural
-
.:nus. However, he later w'ent on to suggesta theory of languagewhich seeslanguageas
. --ralorocess.This seemsmore consistent u'ith the wider foundations of CLL asit focuses
' :5e interactional nature of language, something mentioned earlier by Curran but not
: . n d e du p o n .

::lgestoPedia

..estopedia, the system espoused bv Georgi Lozanov, is perhaps the best-known

- -'.anistic method due to the media interest it attracted and the extent of the claims made
'.s proponents (Lozanov 1978). It is famous for its use of music to create a non-
, t e n i n ga t m o s p h e r ec o n d u c i t e t o l e a r n i n q .
 T54 PAUL I(NIGHT

It is this focus o that makes

Suggesropedia an interesting methodilogfT-ozanov claimed that languagelearning based
or,'ii, -"rhod could be 25 times more effective than other metlods (Lozanov 1978). Amid
such claims it is not surprising that Suggestopediahas also had equally ardent critics, most
famouslv Scovel (Scovel 1979).
Suggestopedia'starget is conversationalproficiency in the languagebeing_studied'
Although Suggestopediais not based on a model of language,it usually describes Ianguage
I'.
C
in ternis of ii, r,oc"brrlary and grammatical system. In other words, the underlying model
of languageappears to be structural. Lozanov does say that Suggestopediadirects learners
{( to'acts oi communication' (Lozanov 1978: 109), but goes no further towards a commu-
N! nicative model of either language or languagelearning.
-
It is its model and conditions of learning that characteriseSuggestopedia the creation
of the right learning environment and the fact that learners are expected to have faith in the
systemand accept that they are in 4 childlike situation where they follow the teacher/Parent.
,6 Iir this *"y le
.ng "d
T.T*iiffit" Ae creation of the right enviroynt{{or learning to occur.

e Tbtal Physical Response

(TPR) is a languageteachingmethodologyproposedby JamesAsher
TotalPhvsicalResponse
rhroughout the second half of the 1950s and 1970s (Asher 1965, 65,69,77). lts
distinguishingfeatureis thg bki ment. Asher was
not the first personto proposea link betweenphysicalactivityandlearning.Sincethe early
part of t}e century, severalpsychological models of learning had argued for a link between
physical activity and learning, including languagelearning (Palmer and Palmer 1925).TPR
dru*, on models of first languageacquisition, in particular the ideasthat comprehension
"lro
comes before output and that earl,vIearning is usually associatedwith the concrete rather
than the abstract.
TVpically,learners respond physicallyto commands given by the teacher.Learner output
is not required until the learner feels he/she is ready.The limitations of t}e method mean
that it is rarely used beyond beginner level. This has meant, however, that the method has
been used more n'idely than the other humanistic methodologies described here. Many
teachers have been huppy to borrow.its techniques and use them with lower level classesas
a prelude to moving on to more mainstream practices, usually CLT. Asher acknowledges
this and considers it a positive trend (Asher 1977).
TPR is not based on a particular model of language. Simple structures are usually
selected and vocabulary is selected for its relevance to learners' needs.Although this might
suggesta structural view' of language,TPR proponents would claim that the linking of the
language with a physical response shorvsthat meaning is considered paramount:
-tnlheTPR
classroomthe teacher is expected to direct the lesson.The material to be
taught and the actual classroom activities are all selected by the teacher. The learner is
required to listen and act upon the instructions given.The degree of reflection on the content
is not specified, and the method clearly has some links with habit-formation theories of
languagelearning.
The teacher-centrednessand apparently formulaic responsesof the learners might not
appear'humanistic', however, these practices are believed to reduce the stressthatTPR
proponents claim accompanieslearning a language.
 THE DEVELOPMENT OF EFL METHODOLOGY 155

,rnrmunicativeLanguageTeaching >t4- a'tro 6 3

F'
:r-rmunicati can be said to be the current dominant

_ - _ > . " of
Even in countries
v ,education
' ' " ' : ' appear""";-''-".
u'here CLT has " " " -adopted
not been . . " r ' - -in" t e sector. m-ost
-.,rrstries to be mor-ing in its direction. Manv of its practitioners,
-. '.\ever, would espouseit on intuitive rather than theoretical grounds. Ithas become an
-nbrella term which covers a u,ide
.r.ichcovers ranpt -f
u'rde range ul classroom practlces.lvlany
classroom practices. A4anI teggher
teacher traiffig
tralnlng T
rr@.5
.l br.i. 'JrilTt
CLT which is original; many of the classroom practices with rvhich it is associatedare
A
und elsewhere(seeFigure 8.3 for example).
j--_ r -L:- ^L _.
_:-,-- ,r^lJ,Az-D
If rve look at the questions asked at the beginning of this chapter, we can answer the
..:.t.aboutthedesiredoutcome,bvsayingthatforcI-rt@
:rner can communicate successfullvin the target languagein real situati,ons,raiFi-I

. rc rvhichconsiderslanguage asit is used

- ratherdpn asan abstractsvstem.Theconcept
, is the kev to this (Widdowson 1978,Hymes 1971,Canale
".r1."l""1..,fG-."*p.*d
-.-.; ,iwain 19801.A thEEiidlmodel of languagewas developedto include ideasabout
' '.' languageis actually used to communicate in real life situations. Chomsky had alreadl'
ftrr
-.- , r.\A -
- .EG-"rbe4PK{ -c
- .p.aker l<lrowsand the lutti. b"rng ryh+th" rp.ukq1 .!q4lly does, r\rt+*6fi seen in--,''
-,:=1.,
Tinguistic terms. TFq_idea was developed to include ideas of appropliacy ari-fthe
:l use of language,giving .iie . In order
'=hne communicative competence, Hymes proposed a four point model concerned w-ith
',.t a speakerboth knor,r,'s
".rd
i, ublffi iHy-"r 1971).ihe points of this model are a
, 11o.t- ngurge, what is feasiblegiven the means of
:.eme.rtatio what is in fact done.
e*t, and lasffi-v.
--ffi
.*.ironme@oxy of Ar@..t
.-:edited, the concept of communicative competence helped shape new models of
--:raqe teachingand learning. CLT has been describedas:

an approach that aims to (a) make communicative competence the goal of language
teaching and (b) develop procedures for the teaching of the four language skills that
acknowledge the interdependence of language and communication. (Richards and
Rogers 1986 66)

..r basicprinciples havebeen applied in a variety of w-ays.Holever, Richards and Rogers

. isolated three key elements which thev feel characterise CLT classroom practice and
::l.orv of learning underlving it:

' (lne such element might be described S,"g*-""i."ti"" p_:i": ctivities that
"t
!..ornot" r e a l l o m m u n i c a t i q p r o m o t e l e a r n i n g .A s e c o n d e l e m e n t i s t h e t a s k
\
- \rinciple' Activities in rvhich languageis used for carrying out meaningful tasks
^<-: romote learnlng. A tntrd e s s p i i n c i p l e : L a n g u a g et h a t
ning process. (Richards and Rogers
-
,--/ q86 72)
 156 PAUL I(NIGHT

LISTENING AND SPEAKING

Leaving home

Pre-listening task

Discussthe following questionsin groups'

\ I Do vou live in the capital citv of Your country?
a. Ifvou do b. If you don't
a - would you like to?
do vou like it?
- have vou visited your capital city?
N'hat are its attractions?
- r.r'hatattractions does it have that
l. l: Sale:
your town doesn't have?
a -.r,:-=: :. i. p,,,pulatronof I our caPitalcitv?
' . t ,l - : :
.' '::.:.i. J!fut lti

'..,':-.:.
I titm home (for a short or a
i .. : :..\'4...
- :-. -:j:-a . :: 1 .11..t ,. t.'x;11flou'?

Jig=ar*'listening
Dlr.li. r.:, t\.', a--'rr.
Engiand, talking
T.2a Group -\ \'c,u srii hear Darrd SnoK', $'ho lives in the north-west of
about hrs oniv daughter.Jackie.

T.2b GroupBYouxillhea.Jaclre,DaTrdSno$''sdaughter,talkingaboutherlifeinLondon'

(continued opposite)
Figure 8. 3 CLT materials u.hich encouragegrouPwork and participation
 THE DEVELOPMENT OF EFL METHODOLOGY L57

icad and answer the questionsbelolr' as vou listen.

You can't answerthem ali!)

Comprehension check

I Why did Jackie come to London?

2 When did she come?'
3 Where is she living?
4 Who is she living with?
5 What's she doing in I ondonl'
6 What does her bovfriend do?
7 What does she do at the u'eekend?
8 What does she think of living in London?
9 How often does she keep in touch?
l0 What doesshe think of her parentsi

\\:hen you har.eansweredyour questions,find a partner lrom the other group.

Compare your ansrl'ersand swap information.

What do you think?

I Is Jackie'sfather right to be so u.orried about his daughter?Was Jackieright to leavehome at

eighteen?

7 Use your dictionarv to find out what generation

Bapmeans. Is there a generation gap between
you and your parents?Between you and vour children?

3 In your countrY, at what age

can people get married? - can thev smoke?

can they vote? - can thev drive?

.: hasbeen observed that CLT exists in bot} rsion (Howatt 1984).

j,,rs'att suggeststhat:

r, //
/a^
' l
Th{ t'veak)"'ersion,rvhich has become more or less standard practice in the last
tenLleafs, stressesthe importance of providing learners withopportunities to
use their English for communicative purposes and, characteristically,attempts
to lntegrate such actllltles lnto a \1lcer Programme or languageteacnlng.(t-lowalt
.98+,;

/:',
, hilstthe 'ftrong',version:
I /,
w4.
advanFesthe claim that language is acquired throushc o m m u n i c a t i o n ,s o t h a t
n o t m e r e l v a q u e s t i o no f l c t i v a t i n g t n e x i s t i n but iner
but of stimula the develooment of the aqe s (Howatt 1984
2e7) {*.
A@.@\t'utQ^
i: concludes:

If the former could be describedas English,the latter ..tui6Q

---<-
dnslish to learnl\Hou'att 198{: 297t
\€__________,
 158 P A T J L( \ I G H T

Our third question, concerninllggner and teacher roles, is perhapsthe most oPen.
\\'e can see that in all strands ot Cf- th
other learners and the material. A strong cooperative element is also Present in many
.lurffith"d.fi,tiiio greeto
,, hi. li-..ct their ow-n learning-:r ol"t
assigned-br aleacher. Nunan analysed this question rncreaslng
'learner
^-C-
indepgndenceu-ithin CLT (Nunan 1989).
N
cc
Breen and Candlin identifi three kev roles for the ILT teach€ - facilitator of the
.orylun'.ttto" p-cess, particrpant withi,n the le,arn o"p' un5!g59t.\.-
at" l.u6E 1Bt"en and Candlin 1980).The1,ilso see these roles as including those of organiser
'('
.tl
Ne ls Tlll"l-la..fhe
-
.lffi.o
CLT teacheris often more autonomousthanthe
""di _]i"g4lgggh.r
because
practicesa.e ,rsuallylesspredicqrble,andin his/her role asfacilitatorof commu-
f^l14\ nication tt6t"".h"t oft"nGl-t"r..ts with the learners in ways rvhich mirror interaction outside
the classroom,e.g.byaskingreal questionsabout t}e learner'sbackground,opinions, etc.
'(fr onenewrolefisthatof.needsanal1st',i'e.some-

?n\its elevation by writers such as Mun r tnan an

a significant change (Munby 1978). For individual teachers in
collaboration with their learners to decide on the content of courses was very different to
the audio-lingual tradition where it u'as thought that it rvasthe job of structural linguists to
prescribe course content.THe realisation that learner needs vary can be seen as a Precursor
of the trend tovi-ardslearner n

--------___--=-=
Immersion progralnmes and the Natural Approach

Parallel to the development of CLT in the late 1970s and early 1980s another methodology
was being developed which had at its base a model of language learning partly based on
studies of students in Canadian immersion programmes. This methodology was called the
Natural Approach and its proponents were Steven Krashen andTracyTerrell.
The Canadian immersion programme dates back to the 1950s, but really became
widespread in the 1970s and 1980s. It marked a move away from the formal teaching o1[
French in Canadianschools to the teaching in French of other subjects.It was felt that while
the content would be clear to the students through the context, they would acquire the
target language through exposure. This process has been described as t}e partial
'deschooling' language(Stern 1992 12).
of
Canadian French immersion programmes seem to have had interesting but mixed
results. Surveying the various studies into their effectiveness,Ellis notes that they do not
seem to have had a negativeimpact on the students'proficiency in English, their L1, and
that they have also tended to break dou-n ethnolinguistic stereotypes. He also notes that
they have led to hlgh levels of proficiencv in the target language, French, in the areas of
discourseand strategic competence.Thev havenot, horvever,been as successfulin promoting
grammatical proficiencr and it has been observed that a fossilised non-standard variant of
the target can result (Ellis 199+).
In 1983 KrashenandTerrellpubiishedfr= \'arural.1pproach,whichessentiallycontained
K r a s h e n ' st h e o r e t i c a lp . r . p e c t i r e s . d e r e l o p e di n e a r l i e r p u b l i c a t i o n s( K r a s h e n 1 9 8 1 a n d
19821,andTerr.li . --r:-:..inesior their classroomapplication(KrashenandTerrell 1983).
 T H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F E F L I \ l E T H O D O L O G Y1 5 9

- ,ti'..n andTerrell saw the NaturalApproach as'similar

to other communicative approaches
._.deleloped', and it can be seenas sharingthe sameqoalsas CLT (KrashenandTerrell
-':: 17t.
The Natural Approach's uniqueness lies in its model of learning. Krashen drew a
-:.:..tion between consciouslearning and 'acquisition', u-hich paralielsL1 development.
'acquired'
.- languagewhich is is seen as being ar-ailablefor natural languageuse.
. .:-rage rvhich has been'learnt' can be used to monitor and correct output based on
, ,-lrr.d' Iearning, but that is all; a function u'hich has obvious time constraints in natural
_.-:ilge Processlng.
l e a r n e r s ' a c q u i r e ' n e r , vl a n g u a g eb y b e i n g e x p o s e dt o ' c o m p r e h e n s i b l ei n p u t ' . S u c h
: -: rs defined by Krashen as being comprehensible to the learner but containing language
- , : :'rot'e the learner's current level. According to Krashen it is only comprehensible input
.:h lacilitates acquisition, learner output is essentiallyirrelevant. Also according to
' :..hen learners are only able to acquire new grammatical structures in a certain
order.
--.i
.: called the Natural Order Hypothesis and is basedon studies of children learning
. :.: Ll rvhich suggested a certain
order of acquisition. This focus on grammatical
'--::ures, usuallv individual morphemes,
suggestsa grammatical view of languagemore
..:-pinq rvith the audio-lingualtradition than CLT (Richardsand Rogers 1985: 130).
Krashen also thought that learning was influenced by the learner's emotional state, an
.':' :hared bv humanistic approaches.Krashen argued that an'Affective Filter'existed,
----:l meant that learners who weren't very
motivated, lacked confidence or who were
-- ,.- 'us u-ould not do as well as thbse w'ho were motivated, confident and reiaxed.
The breadth of Krashen'smodel obviously attracted a lot of attention, and it would not
-:.reasonableto sa,vthat a lot of the claims on which it was basedhave been overturned.
-'ughlin has shown that the acquisition/learning differentiation is hard to support and
- :i irere is no need-to
postTlate-amonitor' basedupon it (Mclaughlin, 1987).
Krashen'sideasconcerning comp\xehensible input havealso led to a great deal of debate.
-.. been clearly argued that comprehensible
input is not the only, or even the most
. :tant, factor in languagelearning (Mclaughlin, 1987;White, 1987). The Natural order
: '.hesis and Affective Filter Hypothesis have also been subjected to criticism
-:ughlin, 1987).ln the caseof the former for methodological,"urorm concerning the
.---iion of data; in the caseof the latter becauseit is unclear exactlv how such a filter
-. ; rvork, and aiternativemodels seem better able to explain the evidence.
^: u'ould be unfair to leave our discussion of the Natuial Approach on such a critical
- . .,rithout acknowledging its role in increasing
our understandingof the languagelearning
" :)s. Krashen'smodel of languagelearning l\,as an attempt to find a broad universal
---.:u'ork and althoughit is not widely acceptednow,
it hasacted asa spur for a great deal
-:sequent thinking and debate.

.:.k based learning (TBL)

. . asedlearning of languagesis currently attracting a lot of attention. However, as with

, :ne definition of this methodolog) is not fixed. In general though it can be said that
. - :-..thodologles:

.hare a common idea: giving learners tasksto transact,rather than items to learn,
:rovloes an envlronment \\'nlcn DeStPromotesthe natural .languagelearning process
 160 PAUL K\IGHT

jtnrihed three approachestoTBL, including theirown: Prabhu's,

Long ar: C: .- i=. :.:.. -
.,'rhi.Ih.,-,-r :::t:i :. ":,r,-,ceduralsyllabus;Breen and Candlin's, which they regard as a
as a true task basedsvllabus(Long and
p.o..,. ,. -,.. r.. -. i :r,.r. ,r.r-n,u'hich the,vregard
Crookts i ':-
in
Undi r-tc.n:,., mr.t classroomteachersw.ereonly likell'to have encounteredTBL
bv u'hich the Bangalore,/Madras Com-
reterence ro rhe Bangalore Project, the name
was
municarional Teachinl Project (CTP) in India is commonlv known. This project
I.t establishedb.. \.S. Piabhu in 1979 and formed the basisof his SecondLanguagePedagogl
o
(prabhu 19S7r. It s'asa consciousattempt to compare different methodologicalapproaches
a(,l
to the teaching oi Enghsh.
N!
Prabhu.s,...io.oiTBLrr'asbuiltaroundasyllabuswhic@stic
'instead
ifications but
specllrcatlons contained a series of tasks in the 6-rm of problem-solving
-:- Davis
r6ilGl f6.retra and Davies1985).When evaluatingthe project' Berettaand
'provide
conclude that the results of their investigation: tentative suPPort for the CTP claim
'14r.
that srarmat-colstruction can take place through a focus on meaning alone''
F approach focuses on t1le input the students receive and the cognitive processing
"thrr', it
which th"y u." required to carrv out. Unlike the otherTBL approacheswe will look at,
the
does not focus on interaction as a facilitator of acquisition. Groupwork is allowed in
language- be
classroom, but not activelv encouraged; the argument being that -can
consolidated in this way but not acquired (Prabhu 1987:82). Prabhu outlines suitable types
of tasks and a procedri. for their uie, including guidelines for the selection and grading of
tasks (see Figure 8.4 for exdmple). He found that the best activities were'reasoning-gap
activities', *lhi.h'involve deriving some ne\4'information from given information through
or
processesof inference, deduction, practical reasoning, or a PercePtion of relationships
patterns' (Prabhu 1987: 46).
Long and Crookes criticise Prabhu's approach for failings deriving from its being based
o., u pro"."dural svllabus (Long and Crookes 1992:37).Thus they claim that no rationalt
exists for the syllabus content; grading and sequencing of tasks appear arbitrary and tJrt
syllabusdoes.,'i addressspecific languageacquisition issues(Long and Crookes 1992 3i t.
W" could say that the Bangalore Project has proved influential becauseof the questions it
has raised rather than the questions it has answered.
During the 1980s Breen and Candlin started outlining their ownTBL proposals, which
*.'.bu,.jofficaIratherthanpsycho1inguisticprinciples(Lon;
and Crooke, t otiated svlla6ii:il]Tfi-b6TFteiitrers anc
learnersselectingthe content oIa couise built upon socialand problem-solvinginteraction
ts aim would be to increase the students ---Ior cg!q1q!-,rl
J8-ents'capacitylottglqlqg-,ttt-.-ution-rathcrltrEir
capaclt)'
declaratt"ekno"'l ough the.teacherwould be expectec
6-E"r*" th"t ,,rffi.ie.rt b.e"dth of languagercontent was included in the course (Breen
1984.1987:Breen and candlin 1980; candlin 1984, 1987; Candlin and Murphv 1987).
This approach has been criticised because ,t t:glS. highly comfergllgachel-nc
self.awarestudentsinordertobesuccessf.,ltto.
exist.These are not insurmountable problem:
Ho*:.'uer, Long and Crookes feel that there are four possible theoretical problem,swith *u.
approach (Long and Crookes 1992: 4041). First, the lack of preselection of material'
*"un, that leainers' needs might not be adequately assessedor addressed. Secondl'
although the basis of materials sJlection is discussed,ii is not sufficiently outlined. Thirdl'
'.,o
.*pli.it provision is made for a focus on languageform' (Long and Crookes 1'992:41
Finally, the model's lack of a clear psycholinguistic foundation makes it difficult to asse:,
according to current models of languageacquisition.
 THE DEVELOPMENT OF EFL METHODOLOGY 161

Pallavan Transport Corporation

(Madras City)

' - -cnts can buv and use bus tokens for a month, buving a ticket for each bus
.: ne\..
..ie cost of tokens is as follows:
t ' tokens Rs 7.50
tokens Rs 15.00
- , tokens Rs 22.50
.lrl tokens Rs 30.00
\ studenthasto buv at least 30 tokens a month. He/she cannot buy more than 120
:,,,kensa month.
(lne token is equal to one bus ticket: the student has to give a token to the
conductor of the bus, instead of buving a ticket from him.
Tokens should be used only for the purpose of travelling between one's home and
:he school or college where one is studving.
Tokens should be bought each month between the 1st and the 15th. They can be
used only between the 16th of that month and the 15th of the next month.
\o money will be refunded on unused tokens.
Onlv full-time students of i school, college, or university can buy and use bus
tokens.They have to produce a certificate from the head ofthe institution to shou'
that they are full-time students.
Tokens cannot be transferred from one person to another.
If a student misuseshis/her tokens, helshe will not be allowed to buy any more
tokens during that year.

:''--::sft After a glossing, at the students'request, of some words (for example

'misused')
..iunded', and a preliminary discussion,involving questions,about the
:.::ure of some rules (for example on the point that tokens can be bought only in
:--ultiplesof thirty and that a direct bus from home to school involves the use of a single
: ,ken while a change of buses involves using one token on eachbus), the following
--aseis discussedas the pre-task:

Ramanis a student of the GovernmentArts College in Nandanam. He lives inT Nagar.

He has classesfrom Monday to Friday each week and eats his lunch at the college
canteen.There are direct buses fromT. Nagar to Nandanam.

I How many bus tokens does Raman need each week?

2 How many tokens does he need for a month (i.e. 4 weeks, by convention)?
J A bus ticket fromT. Nagar to Nandanam costs Rs 0.50. How much does Raman
saveby buving tokens?
{ How many tokens should he buv each month? Why? How many will he actually
u s e?
5 Raman's brother goes to a School in Saidapet.Can he use Raman's extra
tokens? Holv do vou knorv?
 T62 PAUL I(NIGHT

5 Raman goesto seehis uncle in K. K. Nagar everv Sundav.Can he use his tokens to
go to K. K. \agar? Hou'do vou know?

Icsl Balan studies at the Higher Secondary School in Nungambakkam. His home is in
Advar. He has classesonlv in the afternoons, from Monday to Saturday.Thereare direct
buses from Nungambakkam to Adyar and a ticket costs one rupee.

1 Horv many tokens does Balan need each month?

2 Horv many tokens should he buv each month? How'much money does he save?
3 He bought 50 tokens in July. His school had some holidays in August, so he used
only 30 tokens up to 15 August.
a Can he go on using the remaining 30 tokens? How do you know?
b Can he return the remaining 30 tokens and get back the money? How can you
tell?

Figure 8.4 A typical Prabhu task

Having used Long's and Crookes' analysisofTBL, we now come to the model that they
propose,knon'n astask-basedlanguageteaching (TBLT).They arguethat this model is soundly
i"
basedon SLA research,on classroom-centredresearchand on principles of syllabusand
course design (Long and Crookes 1992: 41). A distinctive feature of this model is that it
encouragesa'focus on form'.This is not a traditional structural syllabus approach, but an
can be accelerated if learners' attention is drawn to specilic
linguistic featuresof the target language(Long 1991). In developing the model ofTBLT
fuTTE-er,Long has outlined those features which should characterisea'task' and attempted
to provide a solid theoretical framew'ork for an approachbasedon them (Long 1,996, et a\.) .
However, there are still questionsTBLT needs to address.Long and Crookes acknowl-
edge this when they compare it to other TBL approaches(Long and Crookes 1992: 46) . lts
researchbaseis still small and no complete programmes have yet been undertaken to access
it. The question of sequencingtasks is still an issue, as is the question of producing a
taxonomy of tasks. Finally, the degree of reduced learner autonomy could invite criticism.
Long and Crookes' model has also never actually been realised in terms of materials
development or classroom practice, in contrast to Prabhu's model or Breen and Candlin's.
Overall,TBL looks like a verv exciting areaand one which is alreadystrongly influencing
thinking in the field of languageteaching methodologr.. It is not just limited to those models
described here; other models are being proposed and specific questions of task definition
and designare also being examined (Skehan1996,1998;Nunan 1989, etc.).

Text-based teaching

Another new post-CLT approachto languageteachinghas been text-basedteaching(also

UnlikeTBL, rr-hich\\'e sa\\-isbasedo.riGod-JiTIEffiGllt.*t-
known asgenre-based).
f fr-
basedlearning grew' out of a model of language.namelr Sr-stemic-Functional
Grammar. It
is a1rapproa.li *hi.h has been summarisedin rtr.

- panguage occurs as whole texts u-hich are embedded in the social contexts in which
I
I fh.y areused.
\ . ,,4eople learn Ianguagethroughu'orkin_;',\r::. .,:. ,Ie rexts. (Feez 1998)
\-/
 THE DEVELOPMENT OF EFL METHODOLOGY 163

This approach is perhaps better know'n and more widelv applied in Australia, where
r:uch of the theory w'as developed, than elsew'here.Its development there has primarih'
T .:urred within the provision of English as a second languagefor migrants, as well as more
_:rcrally in languageand literacv programmes. English for Academic Purposes (EAP)
-
:rammes have also been influenced bv its innovations.
scribes language not only in terms of linguistic
. lnfffiiElJtes theseto the socialinteraction [hev are usedto undertakeand the wider
r..'in-* u.E-rrt@
--@llidav1973).
The model of learning upon w'hich this method is basedis informed by researchin first
,*.:uageacquisition.LearningisseenaSaProcesso.
with iearners through an ilti-ceship'processas they
_t:n m gree to w ners are expectecl to
,=:ffi ow'leoqe a has been debated by proponents AJat
: text-based met o g i e s a n d , in general, somE ieclarative knowl i, ,"".r i^ u,frpa
"/
..irable, in other words, learners are e d to become, to some de

ls not seen as a necessarv outcome o

s gs iSt_o theg=uRlidn-6T-learMit'Gdeflles Fffhin this approach. l&t-
-:.ed approachescan be seen as mo@ other current methodologies
:.. the role of teacher as'expert' is central. Typically, the teacher rvould lead the initial
:rploration ofa text
sole uctron
roles, as asV skian notions of the social interactional nature of communication
:ro Iearnlng.
-lt
aa--,::-l-r
will bEnteresting to see this methodology develop further as more materials based
n it become avaiiableand it becomes taken up more wideh'.

Conclusion

:1orv does one conclude an outline of a process which has been underway for centuries -
: amely the search for better ways to teach languages? This searchhas probably never been
rs intense as it is today, with universities, classroom teachers and publishers all active.The
:ealisationthat this is an'on-going'process is perhaps the first step.This might make us
,pproach more criticalll'the claims of researchersand pubiisherswho are trying to promote
:articular solutions. Instead, lvith a senseof historical perspective, we should assesseach
reu,' development ourselves.This assessmentshould draw on the disciplines which inform
-,ur field, .rot only r.co.rd lu.rg.t"
-
- u e l l . O u r t h r e e a u e s t i o n sl r o m t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n t h a t w e h a v e u s e f r t o e x a m i n e t h e
ffioil6Togies presented here can provide a starting point. We should not ignore our own
c\perience either; classroom-centred research has been one of the most important steps
iorward in recent vears. In this way the field of languageteaching methodology will remain
vibrant and exciting.
 164 PAUL I(NIGHT

UNIT OFWORK
CASUATCONVERSATION

Goal
To enable learners to participate in a casualconversation in a workplace.

N
co
Learner objectives

al(l
'd
The learners w'ill:
- understand the purpose of casualconversation in Australian workplace culture
N!
know which conversation topics are appropriate in Australian workplaces
- recognise and use the key features of a casual conversation, i.e. greetings and
closures, feedback, clarification, managing topic shifts
- recognise and use conversation chunks such as comments, descriptions or recounts
- take turns appropriately rvithin simple exchangesie question/answer, statement,
t5', agreement, statement/ disagreement
- use languageappropriate to casualconversation including politeness strategies,
informal language,idiom
- build pronunciation and paralinguistic skills and strategies, specifically in the areas
of intonation and gesture

Teacher objectives '

The teacher u'ill:

- provide authentic Iistening materials
- provide conversation practice through scaffolded roleplay
- record learner languagefor analysis

Achievement assessment

The unit will enable students to achievethe following curriculum outcome, eg CSWE
III Competencv 7.

Figure 8.5 An example of unit objectiveswithin a text-basedapproach

References

Anthony,E.M. (1953)'Approach,method and technique'. EngltshLanguageTbaching:63-'1 .

'The
Asher, J. (1965) strategy of the total physical response: an application to learning
Russian'. International ReviewofAppliedLinguisilcs
3: 291-300.
- (1955)'The learningstrategyof the total physicalresponse:a review' . ModernLanguaai
J o u r n a 5l 0 : 7 9 - 8 4 .
- (1969) 'The total phvsical response approach to second language learning'. Moder:
Language Journal53: 3-17 .
- (1977\ LearningAnorherLanguageThrough Actions:The
CompleteTeacher's
Guide Book.Lt.,
Gatos,Calif.: Sky Oaks ProductionsInc.
Beretta,A. and Davies,A. (1985)'Evaluationof the BangaloreProject'. ELTJournal39/2.
Bloomfield,L. (191+) An Introduction rc the StudyoJLangucrge.
NewYork: Holt.
/ 1 9 l l r 'I"n" tn1 "n" 4t 1t n
' ' nN
p en \brk: Holt.
 THE DEVELOPMENT OF EFL METHODOLOGY 165

- (19+2) Outline Guidefor the PracticalStud;' oJ ForeignLanguages. Baltimore: Linguistic

Societyof America.
Breen, M.P. (1984)'Processsvliabusesfor the languageclassroom',in C.J. Brumfit (ed.),
GeneralEngltshsyllabusdesign.(El) Documents No. 118,+1-50). London: Perqamon
Press&The British Council.
- 'Learner
(1987) contributionsto task design', in C.N. Candlin and D. Murphy (eds)
LancasterPracticalPapersin English LanguageEducation:Vol7. Languagelearning tasks.
EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.
Breen, M.P. and Candlin, C.N. (1980)'The essentialsof a communicativecurriculum in
languageteaching'. AppliedLinguistics, 1 (2).89 112.
Canale,M. and Swain,H. (1980)'Theoreticalbasesof communicativeapproachesto second
languageteachingand testing'.AppliedLinguistics I / 1.1 7
Candlin,C.N. (1984)'Svllabusdesignasa criticalprocess',in C.J.Brumfit (ed.) General English
syllabusdesign.(Elff Documents No. 118, 2946). London: Pergamon Press and The
British Council.
- 'Ton'ards
(1987) task-basedlanguagelearning', in C.N. Candlin and D. Murphv (eds)
LancasterPracticalPapersin English LanguageEducatton:Vol7. Languagelearning tasks.
Engieu'ood Ciiffs, NJ : Prentice Hail.
Candlin, C.N. and Murphy, D. (eds) (1987) LancasterPracticalPapersin EngltshLanguage
Education:Vol 7. Language learningrasis.Englewood Ciiffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Chomskl',N. (1957) Svntactic Structures.The Hague:Mouton.
Chomsky,N. (1956) Aspects oJtheTheory oJ Svntax. Boston:MIT Press.
Curran, C.A. (1972) Counseling-Leirning:AWhole-Person ModelJor Education. NewYork: Grune
and Stratton.
- (1975) Counseling-Learning in SecondLanguages. Apple River,Il1.:AppleRiver Press.
Ellis, R. (1994) TheStudyoJSecond Language Acquisjrion.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Feez,S. (1998) Tbxt-based Syllabus Desi:gn.
Sydney:NCELTR, MacquarieUniversity.
'Task-based
Foster,P. (1999) learning and pedagogy'. ELTJournal53 / 1. 69-70 .
Fries, C. (1945) Teachingand LearningEnglish as a ForeignLanguage.Michigan: Michigan
University Press.
Gattengo, C. (1972) Teachtng ForeignLanguages in Schools:TheSilentWay(2nd ed.). NewYork:
EducationalSolutions.
- (1976) TheCommonSense oJTeaching ForeignLanguages. NewYork: EducationalSolutions.
Halliday,M.A.K. (1973)'Towards a socioiogicalsemantics'.Explorations in the Functlons of
Language . London: Edw'ardArnold
Hartley,B. andVine,P (1978) Streamline Engltsh.Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
Howatt,A.P.R. (1984) A HistorSr oJEnglishLanguageTeaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hymes, D.H. (1971) On communicative competence. Philadelphia:University of Philadelphia
Press.
Kleinjans,E. (1961)'From Mim-Mem to Communication'. Srudies in DescriptiveandApplted
Linguistics:BulletinoJthe Summerlnstitutein LinguisticsYol7.
Krashen, S.D. (1981) SecondLanguage Acquisitionand SecondLanguageLearning.Oxford:
Pergamon.
- ( 1982'1Principles and Practicesin SecondLanguage Acqujsirjon.Oxford, Pergammon.
Krashen, S.D. and Terrell, T. (1 983) The NaturalApproach: LanguageAcquisitionin the Classroor,.
Oxford, Pergamon.
La Forge,P.G.(1983) Counseling and Cuhurein Second Language Acqursition.
Oxford: Pergamon.
R.
Lado, (196+) LanguageTbaching:A scientficapproach.NewYork: McGraw-Hill.
Larsen-Freeman,D. (1986) Techniques and Prtnctplesin LanguageTeaching.Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
'Focus
Long, M.H. (1991) on form: A designfeaturein languageteachingmethodologv', in
 166 PAUL I(NIGHT

research
Foreignlanguage in cross-cuhural K' de Bot, D. Coste, R. Ginsberg and
perspective,
C. K-ramsch(eds).Amsterdam:John Benjamins'
in
- (1996)'The role of the linguistic environment in second languageacquisition',
Language w.c.
Acquisition, B. Ritchie (ed.). T K, Academic Press.
HandbookoJ Second
'Three
Long, M.H. und-c.ook",, G. (1992) ApproachestoTisk-BasedSyllabusDesign'. TES)I'
@ t a r t e r )l y6 : I : 2 7 - ; ;
Lorun*:., G. (i978) Suggestology and Outlinesof Suggestopedy.NewYork: Gordon and Breach'
Ir
c( Mclaughlin, B. ( i 987i Ih eories oJSecond-Language Learning.London: Edward Arnold.
Moskoi-itz, G. (1978) Caring and Sharingin the Language
Foreign Rowley, Mass': Newbury
C1ass.
1(t House.
Nu' 'Psychologyand the Language 87 .
andSociety
Arts'. scfioo1
Mueiler,T. (1959)
Munby, l. ( 1978) Communicative SyllabusDesign.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (1988) TheLearner-Centred Currjculurn.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press'
- (1989) DestgningTasksJor the Communicative Classroom.Cambridge: Cambridge University
.(t
Press.
'lntensiveTraining for an Orai Approach in
O'Connor, j.C. and Twaddell, W.F. (1950)
LanguageTeaching'.TheModernLanguage Journal VolXLIV 2:2.
Languages.
inTbaching
Palmer,H.E. (1921) TheOralfulethod Cambridge:Heffer.
palmer, H.E. and Palmer, D. (1925) EngltshThrough Toyko: IRET. Repubiishedby
Actions.
Longmans,Green, 1959.
Prabhu, N.S. (1 9877Second Language Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pedagogy.
Richards,J.C. and Rogers,T.S.(1986) Approaches andMethods Cambridge:
in LanguageTbachtng.
CambridgcUniversit;'Press.
'Review
Scovel,T. (1979) of "suggestologyand Outlines of Suggestopedy"'. TESOLQgarterly
13 . 2 5 5 - 2 6 6 .
Skehan, P. (1996) A framework for the implementation of task-basedinstruction. Applied
Lingdstics17 1 : 38-52.
- ( 1998) A Cognitive Approachto LanguageLearning.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skinner,B.F. ( 1957) VerbalBehavior.N eu'York: Appleton- Century- Crofts.
Stern, H.H. (1983) Fundamental Conceptsof Language Teaching.Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Stern,H.H. (1992) Issues in LanguageTeaching.
andOptions Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8: 95-109.
White, L. (1987)'AgainstComprehensibleInput' . AppltedLinguistics
Widdowson, H.G. (1978) Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
 l6?
Chapter 9

Jack G. Richards

ETHooo-a6cv I N T E A C H I N G I S T H E A C T I V I T I E S , t a s k s ,a n d
learnffexperiences-used by the teacherr,r'ithinthe teachingand learning process.
is seen to have ions about (a)
r".--l-"d h"guage learning, (b) ,"u.h"t l""t".t t
""d
lnstructlonal materlals. I nese aSSUmptlOnS ano DelleIS pro\-lce tne DaSIS

tmakingthatunderliesthemoment-to-moment
processesof teaching.Methodologl is not thereforesomethinghxed, a set of rigid principles
and procedures that tffi nform to.
il*ploruto.y p.o."t. ,hut b"
Teaiffin!-as an exploratory processis different from the approach to teaching seenin many
teacherpreparation programs or Ianguageteaching programs, where particular instructional
methods, such as the SilentWay,Total PhysicalResponse,or the NaturalApproach, are
presented as models to be imitated and internalized. In this chapter, these two approaches
to teaching will be explored in more depth.The use of methods as the basisfor instructional
processesin a second languageprogram rvill be compared with one that moves beyond
methods and focuses on exploring the nature of effective classroom teaching and learning.

Approaching teaching in terms of methods

For many centuries the goal of languageteachers has been to find the right method (Kelly
1959).The history of languageteaching in the last hundred years has done much to support
the impression that improvements in languageteaching will result from improvements in
the quality of methods, and that ultimatelv an effective language teaching method will be
d e v e l o p e d .S o m e b r e a k t h r o u g h i n l i n q u i s t i c t h e o r v o r i n s e c o n d l a n g u a g ea c q u i s i t i o n
,.,"u.Jh,itifassufr-ed,r,villeventuallyunIockthesecretsof,".o@

"
ffiteac
such as the SilentWay, Suggestopedia,or the
Natural Approach will bring about dramatic improvements in languagelearning.
Common to all methods is a set of specifications for how teaching should be
accomplished, derived from a particular theory of the nature of language and second
language learning. Differences in the instructional specificationsreflect differences in the
theories underlying the methods. Some methods advocatean earlv emphasison speakingas
 158 JACK C. RICHARDS

be delayed
a basisfor establishingbasic languagePatterns. Others recommend that speaking
Some make use of
until the learner hasluitt up a receptive comPetence in the language.
with
memorized dialogues and texts; others require that learners attemPt to communicate
their or,vnlanguage resources. Common to all methods
each other u, ,oo.t aspossible using
is a set of prescriptio.t, o., u'hat teachers and learners should do in the langlag-eclassroom'
prescriptions for the teacher include rn"'hat material should be presented and when it should
be taugit and how.,and prescriptions for learners include what approach they should take
towarJlearning. Specificrol", io, teachers, learners, and instructional materials are hence
established(Ri;ha;ds and Rodgers 1985).The teacher'sjob is to match his or her teaching
style as *.li u, the learners' learning stvles to the method. Special training packagesand
progru*, are availablefor some methods to ensure that teachers do what they are supposed
to do and teach according to the method.
Despite the appeal of methods, their past history is somewhat of an embarrassment.
Studiesof the effectivenessof specific methods havehad a hard time demonstrating that the
(.
method itself, ratler than othei factors, such as t)re teacher's enthusiasm or the novelty of
the new method, was the crucial variable. Likewise, observers of teachers using specific
methods have reported that teachers seldom conform to the methods they are supposedto
be following. Swaffar, Arens, and Morgan (1982), for example, investigated differences
between wf,at thev termed rationalist and empiricist approaches to foreign language
instruction. By a rationalist approach thev refer to process-oriented approachesin which
language is seen us i.rt.ir"lated whole, where Ianguage learning is a function of
".r
.o,iprIh..rrion preceding pr6duction, and where it involves critical thinking and the desire
to communicate. Empiricist approachesfocus on the four discrete language skills.Would
ciassroom practices reflect such differences?"One consistent problem is whether or not
teachers involved in presenting materials created for a particular method are actuallr-
reflecting the underlyiig philoroihi.s of these methods in their classroom practices" (Swaffar
al. l9d2:25). Swaffai er a1.found that many of the distinctions used to contrast methods,
"t
particularly those based on classroom activities, did not exist in actual practice:

Methodological labels assigned to teaching activities are, in themselves, not

informative, because thev refer to a pool of classroom practices which are used
uniformly.The differencesamong major methodologies are to be found in the ordered
hierarchy,the priorities assignedto tasks.(1982: 31)

but - dynamic,
-- a
- - - is ) '- ' interactional process
| - in- which the teacher's "method" results from the
.
;t""#;f ,.t"r".tton between the teacher, the learners, and the instrucfintal tasks and
i*"-ffut et al' 1982)'AttemPts
to find general*Efr"Er that are suitablefor all teachersand all teachingsituationsreflect
 BEYOND METHODS 169

anessentiallynegativeviewofteachers'onewhichimpliesthatsinc@s
cannotb"g,.'","it..d,thecontributionoftffiouIdbeminimizedbv
dr.
+_
methods is hence esienTldlfT:hrsih-chers cannot be trusted to teach well. Left to their own
devices,teachers will invariably make a mess of things. A method, becauseit imposes a
uniform set ofteaching roles, teaching styles, teaching strategies,and teaching techniques
on the teacher, will not be affected bv the variations that are found in individual teaching
skill and teachingstyle in the real *o.ld.
Researcherswho have investigated the nature of teaching, however, have proposed a
different view of teaching (Good 1979; Elliot 1980;Tikunoff 1985).Thev begin with the
assumption that teachers (rather than methods) do make a difference; that teachers work
in ways that are, to an extent, independent of methods; and that the characteristicsof
effective teaching can be determined. Other researchers have turned their attention to
Iearnerr 4!I!_!pugh!l!o determine what characterizes effective learning. This requires a
different approach to teaching, one in wFtFTEilEErs are involved in observing andE
uDon thelr own

The nature of effective teaching

Teacher strategies

Every teacher aims to be an effectiv'eteacher.The concept of effective teaching is a somewhat

elusive one, however. Can it be determined from the teacher's behavior, the learner's
behavior, classroom interaction, or the results of learning? Researchershave attempted to
operationalize the notion of effective teaching by describing it as teaching that produces
higher-than-predictedgains on standardizedachievementtests (Good 1979). Studies of
teacher effectivenesshave dealt mainly witl first languageclassroomsand w'ith the teaching
of reading and math. One major studv hasdealt rvith effective teachersin bilingual programs
(Tikunoff et al. 1980). These studies are characterized by detailed observation of teachers
performing instructional activities in the classroomin an attempt to isolate the qualities and
\.
In a comprehensive
survevof the researchon effectiveschooling,Blum (198+: 3-6)
summarizes effective classroom practices as follows:
1 Instruction is guided by a preplanned curriculum.
2 There are high expectations for student learning.
3 Students are carefullv oriented to lessons.
4 Instruction is clear and focused.
5 Learning progress is monitored ciosel,v.
5 When students don't understand, thev are retaught.
7 Classtime is used for learning.
8 There are smooth and efficient ciassroom routines.
9 Instructional groups formed in the classroom fit instructional needs.
10 Standardsfor classroom behavior are high.
1 1 Personal interactions between teachers and students are positive.
12 Incentives and rewards for students are used to Dromote excellence.

Severaldimensions of teaching havebeen found to account for differencesbetween effective

and ineffective instruction (Dovle 1977; Good 1979).Theseinclude classroommanagement,
structuring, tasks,and grouping.
 170 JACI( C. RICHARDS

:* Classroom manaBement

C]assroommanaBementrefers to the ways in which student behavior, movement, and

interaction during a lesson are organized and controlled by the teacher to enable teaching
to take place most effectivelr'. Good managerial skills on the part of the teacher are an
essentialcomponent of good teaching.In a well-managed class,discipline problems are few,
and learners are activell.engaged in learning tasks and activities; this contributes to high
motivation and expectations for success.Evertson, Anderson, and Brophy (1978) found that
it was possible to identify teachers w'ith managerial problems in the first few days of the
school year, that such problems continued throughout the year, and that managerial skilis
in the classroom lvere related to levels of student involvement.

x Structuring

A lesson reflects the concept of structurinq when the teacher's intentions are clear and
instructional activities are sequenced according to a logic that students can perceive.
Classroom observations and studies of lessonprotocols indicate that sometimes neither the
teacher nor the learners understood what the intentions of an activity were, why an activity
occurred when it did, what directions they w'ere supposed to follow, or what the relationship
between one activity and another was. Hence, it may not have been clear what students
needed to focus on to complete a task successful\. Fisher et a1.( 1980; conclude t]lat students
"pay attention more whenth€ teacher .p..rd, ti*. $"
4)
t etimes not done at all,
sometimes it is done only minimally, and sometimes it is overdone" (p. 63).

Iasfrs

Iasfu, or activity structures, refer to activities that teachers assignto attain particular learning
objectives. For any given subject at any given level, a teacher uses a limited repertoire of
tasks that essentially define that teacher's methodology of teaching.These might include
completing worksheets, reading aloud, dictation, quickwriting, and practicing dialogues.
According toTikunoff (1985), classtasks vary according to three types of demands thev
make on learners: rcsponse modedemands(the kind of skills they demand, such asknowledge,
comprehension, application, analysis/synthesis,evaluation); interactionalmodedemands(the
rules governing how classroom tasks are accomplished, such as individually, in a grouP, or
with the help of the teacher); and rasl complexitydemands(how difficult the learner perceives
the task to be).
Teachershave to make decisionsnot only about the appropriate kinds of tasks to assign
to learners, but also about the order oJ rasis (the sequence in which tasks should be
introduced;' t; t pacing
. u
(how much time learners should spend on tasks);products(whether the
product or .Eilt oh-iTalET expected to be the same for all students); Iearning strategies
(what
iwhat learning strategies wili be recommended for particular tasks); and materials
sources and materials to use in completing a task) (Tikunoff 1985).
The concept of tasks has been central to studies of effective teaching.The amount of
time students spend actively engagedon learning tasksis directly related to learning (Good
and Beckerman 1978). For example, Gacher A and Gacher B are both teaching the same
reading lesson. In TeacherA's class,learners are actively engagedin reading tasks for 759 i
of the lesson, the remaining time being occupied with noninstructional activities such a.
 BEYOND METHODS 171

taking breaks, lining up, distributing books, homework, and making arrangementsfor future
events. Students inTeacher B's class,holvever, are actively involved in reading for only
55% of the lesson. Not surprisingly, studies of time-on-task have found that the more time
students spend studying content, the better they learn it. In one study (Stallings and
Kaskowitz 197+), the students with the highest levels of achievement in a reading program
were spending about 50%omore time actively engagedin reading activities than the children
with the lowest achievementgains.Good teaching ir h"r." r"id to b" t. .tiu.
teachers also monitor performan6e on
been completed

ufouPlnB

A related dimension of effective teaching is the groupingof learners to carrv out instructional
tasks,and the relation between grouping arrangement and achievement.An effective teacher
understandshow' different kinds of grouping (such as seat work, pair u'ork, discussion,
reading circle, or lecture) can impede or promote learning.Webb (1980) found that the
middle-ability child suffers a loss of achievement, while the low-ability child shows some
gains in achievement in mixed-abilitv groups, compared with what would be expected
if both were in uniform-abilitv groups. Tikunoff ( 1985) cites Good and Marshall's findings
on groupings.

Good and Marshall (1984) found that students in low-ability reading groups in the
early grades received very little challenge,thus perceiving of themselves as unable to
read. In addition, a long-range result of interacting most frequently with onh'other
students of low-ability in such groups was an inability to respond to the demands of
more complex instructional activities. Ironically, Good pointed out that the ven-
strategy,rr.d,o presumably help low'-abilitv youngstem onlth their reading p.obl"-,
- pull-out programs in which teachers worked with small groups of these students
outside the regular classroom- exacerbatedthe problem. Demands in the special
reading groups were verv different from those in the regular classroom and at a much
lower level of complexity, so low-abilit,v students were not learning to respond to
high level demands that would help them participate competently in their regular
c l a s s r o o m st.p . 5 6 r

The research findlngs suggest therefore that effective teaching depends on such factors
as time-on-task, feedback, grouping and task decisions, classroom management, and
structuring. Although the concept of effective teaching evolved from studies of content
's
teaching,Tikunoff ( 1983) major stud,vof effective teaching in bilingual education programs
has examined the extent to which it also applies to other contexts, such as bilingual and
ESL classrooms.

ffictive teachingin bilingualclassrooms

etence are needed for the student

abilitv "to res
appropriately to classdemands and the them" (p. 4);
6}-accomplishing
Mabilitt to classroomrules o[discourseand social
-
 L72 JACI<C. RICHARDS

information, and construct ne$, concepts" (p. 4). Furthermore, to be functionally proficient
the classroom, the student must be able to utilize these competences to perform three
functions: (a) to decgde and und-erstandboth task expectati^n. and new information;
T/\AA
Ttajor
tasks, with high accuracy; and (c) to-obtain
1U;-to engage "pp.op.i"t.ly in completing
(p.s). urately
G;>\
ftiiptive',u{,,f 'ku'$)
n-his Significant Bilingual InstFuE
(1983) collected data to lind out how effective teachers in bilingual education progTams
organize instruction, structure teaching activities, and enhance student performance on
taJks.Teacherswere interviewed to determine their instructional philosophies, goals, and
the demandsthey rvould structure into classtasks.Teacherswere clearly able to specify class
task demands and intended outcomes and to indicate what LEP students had to do to be
functionallv proficient. Case studies of teachers were undertaken in w-hich teachers were
observed during instruction, rvith three observers collecting data for the teacher and for
four target LEP students.Teacherswere interview'ed again after instruction.

An analysisof data acrossthe casestudiesrevealeda clear linkage between ( I ) teachers'

ability to clearly specifv the intent of instruction, and a belief that students could
achieveaccuracyin instructional tasks,(2) the organization and delivery ofinstruction
such that tasks and institutional demands reflected this intent, requiring intended
student responses, and (3) the fidelity of student consequenceswith intended
outcomes. In other words, teachers q--ab19 ibe clearlv what instruction
would entail, to operatlonalizE ts
i n t e r m s o f s t u d e n tp e r f o r m a n c e .( p . 9 ;
--------+

This approach to teaching is

studving the classroom Practices d bv effective teachers
GliEing ts not viewed as something t}at results from using M X or Methodl
or something that results from the teacher modifying teaching behaviors to match some
external set of rules and principles. Rather, it resultsfrom the teacher's a:ctiv: nd
management of the processesof teaching, learning, and comfrrunication within the classroom
and from an understanding ofthese processes.Theclassroom is seen as a place where there
::T-:-. --,,
is ongoQ-arul dynamic interaction between the teacher's instructional goals, Iearners
purposes, classroom tasks and activities, the teacher'sinstructional activities and behaviors,
student behaviors in completing assignedtasks, and learning outcomes.
In the bilingual classrooms observed inTikunoff's study, effective teaching was found
to reflect tlre degree to which the teacher is able to successfullycommunicate his or her
intentions, maintain students' engagement in instructional tasks, and monitor students'
performance on tasks. In classrooms where different instructional goals are present and
different aspectsof second languageproficiency are being addressed,the characteristics of
effective teaching in those settings cannot be inferred merely from reading about the
theoretical principles underlying the method or approach the teacher is supposed to be
following. Rather, classroom obt..uuti .t
predicteJlevelsof achi"r:-@assessed asperfor{ningat high
f oIETIEctiiEn6s s accordin g to other criteri a, ifrom which
ctive teachers rn llstenrng, readtng, wrlt aking, and other ki classescan
 place in the classroom. However, what the teacher does is only half of the picture. The other ' ( c r r
haif concerns what learners do to achievesuccessfullearning, or \earnerstrategies.P,lcfiied
bvtheawarenessthatlearnersmaysucceeddespitetheteac}ffitechniques TAJ'+.
.--
rather than becauseof them, researchersasw-ellasteachershavebegun to look more closely
at learners themselvesin an attempt to discoverhor'vsuccessfullearners achievetheir results
r O ' M a l l e -ev t a l . 1 9 8 5 ab, ; W i l l i n g l 9 8 5 r .
Studies of learner strategies attempt to identify the specific techniques and strategies
learners use to facilitate their ou'n learning (Oxford 1985b). The locus is on the particular
cognitive operations, processes,procedures, and heuristics that learners apply to the task
of learning a second language. Given any language learning task, such as understanding a
lecture, reading a text, writing a composition, understanding the meaning of a new
grammatical or lexical item, or preparing a r,r'ritten summary of a text, a number of
strategiesare availableto a learner to help carry out the task. But what is the practical value
of knowing which particular strategies a learner employed?
Just as research on effective teaching has identified the kinds ofteaching behaviors that
appear to account for superior teaching, so research on effective learning seeksto identifv
the kinds oflearning behaviorsthat can best facilitate learning. Good languagelearners seem
tobesuccessfulbecausetheyhaveabetterunderstandingffi.n

f €

touncl to account lor t rformance ners on many classroom learnlng tas

(ft63€ntelcfT9-/9). ltt should
shouldtherefore be possrble
theretore be to improve
possibleto improre-studenipeiT6?fri
student pertormantE5n
learning tasks by identifying successfulapproaches to learning and by directing learners
toward these kinds ofstrategies. Researchon learner strategiesin secondlanguagelearning
hence seeks to identify the strategies emploved by successfullearners and then to teach
those strategies to other learners in order to improve their language learning capacities
(Hosenfeld 1977; Cohen and Aphek 1980; Chamot and O'Malley 1984). The premises
underlying Cohen and Aphek's work, for example, are:

Some language learners are more successfulthan others.

t Some aspectsof the learning process are conscior+sand others are not-
e Less successfuUearnel, .un"u'rdilEE*6i **.gi.. .onr.io.rrly to acceleratelearnin

classes.

The field of learner strategy researchin second languagelearning is hence now an

,Sn-i.*C'
important domain of classroomresearch,and differs substantiallyfrom previousresearchr,p---{
in thisarea.Earlierw-orkon learningstrategies
lackeda soundth"o."ti.4!gis andconsisted

iffwere developed from interviews with successfullanguagelearners (e.g., Rubin 1975,

1 9 8 1 ; S t e r n1 9 7 5 ; N a i m a n e t a l .1 9 7 8 ) . W i l l i n g ( 1 9 8 7 : 2 7 5 ) p o i n t s o u t t h a t " w h i l e s u c h
generalizations have their usefulness as a help in understanding t}e process of language
learning from the point of vieu. of the learner, thev do not immediately yield prescriptions
for teaching."
 174 JACK C. RICITARDS

More recent s'ork on learner strategieshas attempted to yield more usableresults b'
making use of data obtarned hom a brouder.ung. of .o,rr."r, ..l.h asclassroom observarior:-
"think--aloud"procedures rin s'hich learners record their thoughts and observations as ther
perform different tasks). intervieu-s, self-reports emploviig note-taking and diaries.
questionnaires,as u'ell as conrrolled experimental studiesdesignedto investigatespecih-
cognitive processes(e.g., Heuring 1984).Thesekinds of approaches are yielding information
of greaterpractical value. For example, Cohen (cited in Oxford 1985a) Iists six strategi.:
used by successfullanguagelearners:

1 Attention-enhancing strategies,such as responding silently to tasks asked of otF=:

students in class
Use of a variety of background sources, ng knowledge ot
ing eci:
of tthe world, knou'lei.=
-rreness
ol the srven toDlc. awa of stressand tone of voice of the speaker' PercePtior' :
'--1----irt^-
thd-speaker'sbody la.tguf,ge,ind cues from earlier parts of the conversation in -,.
effor t-to de code communi c ative me aning
3 Oral production tricks, suchas@, and ask:-;
ParaPhrasing,
for hel
-g
such asmakinq associations,attending to_the mY
Ioffi-=tn.
' l structr.ileof the word, placingthe word in a tor--arl
---1--i-----:--'11 r-.
g r o u p $ - i t h s i m i l a r $ o r d s , \ ' i s u a l i z i n gl l s o n t e x t u a l l z l n g lt, llnklng lt to tne sltua::d

sensationto it
Gaing-oltext-processing strategies,such as clarifying the communicative Puri -ie
of the text, distinguishing imPortqllfgrnls_frgrn lrr,/9, skipping around to E€: arL
nd kno*Ie:.--'
srt_ ou"r3]lgglruig1se1;
."udiigE-ET-oudphrasesrather th"g:lrrd &r:ryqd, relying on cj$9xtya\lii-
making onSin$-uirmlries, and looking for;g
text
Writing techniques such as focusing on simplY getting ideas doln'n on paper in=r.aC
of trying for perfectiol]ight away; purposefully using parallel structures and c'i=.
@and writing multiple drafts.

Willing (1,987: 278 9) notes that strategiesare essentially"methods employed by the per.s:m
for processinginput languageinformation in such a way asto gain control of it, thus enab'--'E
the assimilatio.r-of thai information bv the self." Strategies are hence viewed as s'a'*': :f
managing the complex information that the learner is receiving about the target lanqua.-:
W.rd".t (1983) intervieu'ed adult language learners about how they organized d.=o'
languagelearning experiencesand found that they askedthemselveseight kinds of quesri'"--*.

@rcstion Decision

1 Hou'does this ianguagerr'ork? Learners make judgments about the

linguistic and sociolinguistic codes.

2 \\'hat's it like to learn a language? Learners make judgments about hou- to

learn a language and about what languag.
learning is like.

3 \A'hat should I learn and how? Learners decide upon linguistic objecti..,
resources,and use of resources.
 BEYOND METHODS 175

4 What shouldI emphasize? Learners decide to give priority to special

linguistic items.

5 How'shouldI change? Learners decide to change their approach to

lanquaqe
ooo
Iearninq.

How am I doing? Learners determine how well they use the

Ianguageand diagnosetheir needs.

What am I getting out of this? Learners determine if an activity or strategy

is useful.

B How am I responsible for learning? Learners make judgments about how to

How is languagelearning affecting learn a languageand about what language
me? learning is like.

O'Malley et al.have investigated the use of strategiesbv ESL learners both in and out of
classrooms(O'Mallel' et al. 1985a,b; O'Mallev and Chamot 1989). ESL studentsand their
teachers were interviewed about the strategieslearners used on specific languagelearning
tasks,and the learners were observed in ESL classrooms.Thev were also asked about their
use of English in communicative situations outside the classroom.A total of twenty-six
different kinds of learning strategieswere identified.
In a follow-up-str*ffd
particular strategiesin order to det€rmine if it would improve their effectivenessaslanguage
learners and their performance on vocabularl',listening, and speakingtasks.Strategieslvere
T
compared across proficiencv levels and r'vith learners of different language backgrounds. v
Students\r'ere given training in the use ofspecific strategiesfor particular languagelearninq
tasks.Resultssupported the notion that learners can be taught to use more effective iearninq
strategies(O'Mallev et a|. 7985a,b1:

Strategiestraining was successfullvdemonstrated in a natural teaching environment

with second languagelistening and speaking tasks.This indicates that classrooms
instruction o" l"ul"iie t,.","gi; *i
@t-
Phillips (1975) investigated how- learners approach reading tasks and identified strategies
employed by good and poor readers. She emploved a "think-aloud" procedure to investigate
readers' strategies in dealing unknon'n vocabulary. From her students' descriptions
"vith
Phillips found that strategies used bv efficient readers included categorizing words
gram-;"4t!e!y, interpretini grammatiial operations, and recogniri.rftofi.t-6iE-6-ot
ilar..H.*rf. u.r@u
f"*_-tg. language readers when encountering unfamiliar words. In one study (Hosenfeld
1977), some of the differences bet'r,'l'eenthose with high and lou,' scores on a reading
oroficiencvtest were these:Hish scorerstended to keep the meanins of the passasein minfr-\
..dl}ro lpfr*:.r, *-ords,.
skipu-nesssntial r
I **
fromcontext;lowscorerstendedtoIosethemianingof@d.d|
th" ord by word or in short phrases,,u..ly".kipwords, and turn to the glossary
I
when they encounteredneu'words. In addition successful readerstendedto identify theJ
grammatical categories of words, could detect-word-order differences in the forei
ro€pals! and usecl th e qIossan' on@
blg"lg., reco8lnlzcd :
7Jjt.Ho'.nfeidfoundthatunsuccesstulreaders.@icalstrategies ot
L76 JACK C. RICHARDS

successfulreaders, confirmingWenden's observation that i'ineffective le?rners are inactive

learners.Their apparentinabilttl to learn is. in fact- drre tn their not having an appropriate
r e o e r t o i r e o f l e a r n i n ss t r a t e g i e st" 19 8 5 : 7 r .
Studies of horv learners approach writing tasks have also focused on the effectiveness
of the processeslearners emplov (Raimes 1985). Lapp (1984) summarizes some of the
research findings on differences betrveen skilled and unskilled writers with respect to
rehearsingand prewriting behaviors (what a writer does before beginning writing), drafting
and writing processes(how the writer actuallv composes a piece of writing), and revising
b_ehaviors(revisions and corrections the writer makes).
Research findings on learner strategies in reading and writing classes(e.g., Heuring
1984) suggestthat teachers need to evaluate their teaching strategieson an ongoing basis,
to determine if thev are promoting effective or ineffective learning strategiesin learners.
Many commonly emploved techniques in the teaching of writing, such as outlining or
writing from a rhetorical model, might well inhibit rather than encourage the development
---v?Y--=-:-
5f-effective writing skills, because they direct the learner's attention to the form and
-."hu.ri.r of *.laiig ,o.
'ln
order to present information about learning strategies to students, strategies need
to be operationalized in the form of specific techniques (see Fraser and Skibickl 1987);
however, there is no consensusyet concerning how to approach the teaching of learning
strategies.As rvith other aspectsof language teaching, qgjlue_g{Ihether strategies are
best..Larned,'or..accuired'iisacentralone-.Some."s.u.ffi'
involves explicit training in the use of specific strategies and teaching students to
T ilililililililililililililililis
consciouslymonitor their own strategies(e.g., O'Malley et al. 1985a,b; Russoand Stewner-
Manzanares 1985). Others favor a more indirect approach in which strategies are
incorporated into other kinds oflearning content. Fraser and Skibicki (1987) describe the
development of self-directed learning materials for adult migrant learners in Australia,
w-hich focus on specific strategies in different skill areas.A related issue concerns whether
the focus of teacher intervention should be to provide additional strategies to learners or
merely to help the learner develop a better aw-areness of and control over existing strategies.
Willing (1987: 277) observesthat despite the recent amount of attention to learning
strategies, some serious issuesstill await resolution:

1 Current notions of learning strategieslack conceptual coherence . . .

2 Learning strategiesas currently describedhavebeen identified more or lessin isolation
and on a purely empirical and arbitrarv basisand have not been related to an overall
viewoflearning...
There has been little systematic work on placing learning strategieswithin a broader
description of the nature and meaning oflearning itself . . .
There has been little effort to relate the notion of learning strategies(within a general
Iearning theory) to current ideas about second languageacquisition.

In addition, there has been little attempt to relate theories of learn

general t the one di

Summary

Two approachesto language teaching have been discussedand contrasted. One con-
ceptualizesteaching as application of a teaching method, in which both the teacher and the
 BEYOND METHODS 177

attempt is then made to make the teacher's and learner's classroom beha,rioiiEE& the s'a
specificationsof the method.This can b".ont.urt.d *ith ur ch that starts with the
"pp | )) /
ise.,rable processesof classroom f
PrrnclPres rces ln ranguage ied.@o

The study of effective teaching provides information about how effective teachers
organize and delir.er instruction. This relates to classroom management skills, and to
the strategiesteachers r.",o p..t.^, i^r,.r",i u.rd
activities, monitor learning, and provide feedback on it.
The on about the learning strategies
effective learners applv to the process of using and learning G"dliJfoilg"
language.

However, a word of caution is in order, since the goal of this approach is not simply to arrive
at a set of general principles that can be taught to teachersand learners.Lhis of course would
be to come full circle. and "method" lr-ith another.The aooroach
1-
aovoca starts with the assumption that the investigation of effective teaching and
learning-strategiesis a central and ongoing component
^,
of the process
I
of teaching.Thisis the
.".\ - r,

"dby@
externallv derived set incioles to their eachers are seen rather as I
their own classroom practices and those of the learners. Much of the effort to
determine what constitutes effective tGacEing and learning is initiated by the teacher
:@
rirr""gh."g"1"..br. A
teachers can obtain valuable feedback about the effectivenessof their own teaching.At thA--/

teaching and learning in their ou'n classrooms. In the domain of learning strategies, the
teacher alsohas an important role to plav.The teacher is initiallv an observer and investigator
of the learners' learning behaviors and subsequentlvprovides feedback on the kind of
strategiesthat are most successfulfor carrving out specificlearning tasks.Relevant concerns
for the teacher thus focus not on the search for the best method, but rather on the
circumstances and conditions under r,vhich more effective teaching and learning are
accomplished.

References

Berliner,D.C. (1984)'The half-full glass:a review of researchon teaching',in P.L. Hosford

(ed.) UsingWhatlVeKnow aboutTeaching, pp. 51 77. Alexandria,Va.: Associationfor
Supervisionand Curriculum Development.
Blum, R.E. (1984) EffectiveSchoolingPractices:AResearchSynthesis.
Portland, Ore.: Northwest
Regional EducationalLaboratorv.
Chall,J. (Xl; Learningto Read:The GreatDebate. NervYork:McGraw-Hill.
Chamot,A.U., and O'Malley, J.M. (1986) A Cognitive AcademicLanguageLearningApproach:An
ESLContent-Based
Curriculum.Rosslln,Va.:National Clearinghousefor BilingualEducation.
178 JACI( C. RICHARDS

Cohen, A.D., and Aphek, E. (1980)'Retention of second-language vocabularyover time:

investigatingthe role of mnemonicassociations' . SSrstem 8: 221 35.
Doyle, W. (1977)'Paradigmsfor researchon teacher effectiveness',in L.S. Shulman(ed.)
Review o J R e s e a ri cnhT e a c h eErd u c a t i o n , Y o5i,.p p . 1 5 3 - 9 8 . l t a s c aI,l l . : P e a c o c k .
Dunkin, M., and Biddle, B (197+) The StudyoJTeaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
'lmplications
Elliot, J. ( 1980r of classroomresearchfor professional development',in E. Hoyle
and J. .\le_garrrr edsI llbrld Yearbook oJEducation,1980, pp. 308-2+. London: Kogan Page.
Evertson.C.]1...\nderson,L.M. and Brophy,J.E. (1978) TheTexas junior highschool study:report
.- relailonships. University ofGxas, Researchand Development Center for
"..'--.-,,,-;r-'iu:t
T-a;ltr Education,.\ustin.
F : . i - . : . C \ \ . . B e r l i n e r ,D . C . , F i l b l ' ,N . N . , M a r l i a v e ,R . S . , C a h e n ,L . S . a n d D i s h a w ,M . M .
''.r'r , 'Teaching
behaviors,academiclearning time and academicachievement:an
'.
-.rc:r ies in C. Denham and A. Lieberman(eds) ftme to Learn,pp. 7-32. Washington,
D C. : U. S. Department of Education,NationalInstituteof Education.
'Self-directed
i::...r. H., and Skibicki, A. (1987) learning strategiesfor adult Vietnamese
learnersof ESL'. Prospect 3, 1: 33 44.
Good, T.L. (1979)'Teacher effectivenessin the elementarv school'. JournalofTeacher Education
30,2:52 64.
Good,T.L., and Beckerman,T.M. (1978)'Time on task: a naturalisticstudy in sixth grade
classrooms'. Elementarv School Journal 78: 193-201 .
'Do
Good, T.L., and Marshall, S. (198+) students Iearn more in heterogeneousor
homogeneousgroups?', in P. Peterson, L.C. Wilkinson and M. Hallinan (eds) Iie
SocialContextoJInstruction:GroupOrganizationand GroupProcesses. NewYork: Academic
Press.
Heuring, D.L. (1984)'The revision strategiesof skilled and unskilledESL rvriters: five case
studies.Master'sthesis.University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Hosenfeld, C. (1977)'A preliminarv investigationof the reading strategiesof successfuland
non-successfulsecondlanguagelearners'. System 5: 110-23.
-11979)'Alearning-teachingvie'n'ofsecondianguageinstruction'.ForeignLanguageAnnals
12,1:51-4.
- 'Case
(198+) studiesof ninth gradereaders',in J.C. AldersonandA.H. Urquhart (eds),
Readingin a ForeignLanguage, pp. 23149. London: Longman.
Kelly, L. (1969) Twenry-fveCenturies oJLanguageTbachtng.Rowley, Mass.:Newbury House.
Lapp, R. (1984)'The processapproachto writing: towards a curriculum for international
students'. Master's thesis.Working Paper availablefrom Department of English as a
SecondLanguage,University of Hawaii.
Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H.H. andTodesco,A (1978) The GoodLanguage Learner.
Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studiesin Education.
O'Mallev, J., and Chamot,A.U. (1989) LearnerStrategies in SecondLanguage,4cguisition.
New
York: Cambridge University Press.
O'Malley, J., Chamot, A.U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo,R.P. and Kupper, L. (1985a)
'Learning
strategy appiicationswith students of English as a second language'. TESOL
Quarter1 l y9 , 3 : 5 5 7 8 4 .
O'Mallev. J., Chamot,A.U., Stew'ner-Manzanares, G., Kupper, L. and Russo,R.P. (1985b)
'Learning
strategiesused by beginning and intermediate ESL learners'. Language
Learning35, l .
Oxford, R. (1985a) ,4 Ner.vTaxonomv oJ SecondLanguageLearningStrategies.
Washington, D.C.:
Center for Appiied Linguistics.
- (1985b)'Secondlanguagelearning strategies:rvhat the researchhas to say'. ERIC/CLL
\ews Bulletin9, | .
 BEYOND METHODS 179

Phillips, J. (915)'Second languagereading: teaching decoding skills'. ForeignLanguageAnnals

8:227-30.
Raimes,A. (1985)'What unskilled ESL studentsdo as thev w'rite: a classroomstudv of
c o m p o s i n g. ' T E S O LQ t a r t e r l r1 9 , 2 : ) ) 9 - 5 q .
Richards,J. C., and Rodgers,T.(1985) Approaches andMethods
in LanguageTeaching. NewYork:
Cambridge University Press.
'whatthegoodlanguagelearnercanteachus'.
R u b i n ,J . 0 9 7 5 ) r E S o r Q u a r t e r l y 9 , 1 : 4 7s l .
- 'Studv
( 19 8 1) of cognitive processesin secondlanguagelearning' . AppliedLinguistics II,
2: 117 31.
Russo,R. P., and Stewner-Manzanares, G. (1985)'The training and use of learningstrategies
for English as a second languagein a military context'. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American EducationalResearchAssociation,Chicago.
Stallings,J. A., and Kaskowitz, D.H. (197+) FollowthroughClassroom Observation Evaluailon,
1972-1 973. Menlo Park, Cal. : Stanford ResearchInstitute.
Stern, H. H. (1975)'What can we learn from the good languagelearner?'Canadianl4odern
'I-n" dn"n" t 1
t n" n pR p v i e w 7 l : 3 0 4 - 1 8 .
Sw-affar,J.K., Arens, K. and Morgan, M. (1982)'Teacher classroompractices:redefining
method as task hierarchl.'. ModernLanguage Journal66, 1: 24-33.
Tikunoff, WJ. (1983)'Utilitv of the SBIF featuresfor the instruction of limited English
p r o f i c i e n ts t u d e n t s 'R
. e p o r t N * o .S B I F - S 1 - R . 1 5l 6
/ f o r N I E C o n r r a c tX o . + 0 0 - 8 0 - 0 6 2 e
.
SanFrancisco:FarWest Laboratorv for EducationalResearchand Development.
- (1985) ApplyingSigntjcant Bil.ingualInstructionalFeatures in the Classroom. Rosslyn,Va.-
National Clearinghousefor Bifingual Education.
Tikunoff, WJ., Ward, B.A., Fisher,C.A., Armendariz, J.C., Parker,L. Dominguez,VJ.A.,
Mercado, c., Romero, M. and Good, R.A. (1980)'Review of the literature for a
descriptive studv of significant bilinguai instructional features'. Report No. SBIF,81-
D. 1.1. SanFrancisco:FarWest Laboratory for EducationalResearchand Development
Webb, N.M. (1980)'A process-outcomeof learning in group and individual settings'.
EducationalPsychologist I 5: 69-8 3 .
Wenden,A (19S3)'Aliteraturereview:theprocessofintervention'.LanguageLearning33,l:
103-21.
- (1985)'Learner strategies'.TESOLNewslecrer (October).
Willing, K. (1985) HelptngAdults DevelopTheir Learning Strategies. Sydney: Adult Migrant
Education Service.
- (1987) 'Learner strategiesas information management' . Prospect 2 , 3 : 2i 3_92.
Chapter 10

MichaelH. Long

FOCUS ON FORM: A DESIGN FEATURE IN

LANGUAGE TEACHING METHODOLOGY

ainst methods-

TEACHER EDUCATIc|N PRr|(rR{}iTS PERSIST iN

ANGUAGE
to traineesin terms of methods.Whl" Plh*.l,o,pred
presenting.lurrrooi o--ptions
endins thal any one mettod is a panaceaor at lgast lbqt they know *hich one is, most
nevertheless continue to use
credit for training in particular methods ta
cojpqs,-4ld-some elen giue college cred lt
d-",relope.,o. lr!""*d Books on methods sell very well' books surveying methods
"$tes.
a@veone-day..seminars''offeringtraininginparticuIarmet]rods
it is no exaggeration
arerarelyshort of customers.Yet teachingmethods
to saythSt.lanquage
do not exist - at least, not where theJ.yegld rnggg! if they did, in the classroom.
as idealized
rrescribingand proscribing
manv of the same clasiroo
J
fls. For example,while oie method may haveteachers
using hand-signals,
;" error using
iidFT-eedback on and one
hand-signals, and verbally,U.ttt
one verbally, pt.*ltb="-::19
bglrl_prescrlDe error.
"r-; correctlor,
rection". Almost all methods in fact advocate error 1KEf,E-itt?'-S6@
r).
- records of what teachers and
Second, u.hen third parties analyze l.pryPg
Iearnersactualll'do, as opposedto w-hat;ffiE;Egttttiell them to do - brief excerpts
can occasionullvb. identified asthe product of this or that method, but thfiliiilfidlions
ffiFhuu. to-b" -ud" on th. Uffiut 1asfar aswe know)Tijvial
featffi, e.g. whether students lidinloT commlsslon oI error y or non-

real classei, as opposed to staged demonstration lessons(

different methods (e.g. Scherer andWertheimer 1964; Smith 1970;Von Elek and Oskarsson
1975) have typicall),Tound little or no advantagefor-one.over another, or only local and
usually shortTueTidvantages. One inteSpretationo[ such results is that methods do ncit
ffidonot"
ds te*quirethis, after all), whatever they are
supposed to be doing, especiallv over time. The absenceof a systematic observational
component in most of the comparative methods studies makes either interpretation
 FOCUS ON FORM 181

problematic. However, the second vie'iv is supported retrospectively by descriptive studies

which have found the same classroom practices surviving differences not only in,'methods,,
(Nunan 1987), but also in professionaltraining (Long and Sato 1983;, materials
lphillips
a n d S h e t t l e s r v o r t h1 9 7 5 ; L o n g , A d a m s M c l e a n a n d C a s t a n o s1 9 7 6 ; R o s s , t o u p p . u i ,
teaching generations (Hoetker and Ahlbrand 1959) and teaching experience (pica and Long
1e86).
-.thod -"), -")" r?t b" g,
,Dut lt.t:".*,
ls tot
?. 1rr.
a cor:eptuul . Numerous studiesof the
*"rr r3"_
t r a n s P l r e sI n t h e c l a s s r o o ml n t e r m s o f i n s t r u c t i o n a la c t i v i t i e s ,o r t a s k s( f o r r e v i e w . s e e
Shavelsonand Stern 198 1; Crookes 1985). The same appearsto be true of FL teachers.
Swaffer,Arens and Morgan (1982) conducted a six-month comparative methods studv
("comprehension" and "four skills" approaches)of German t"u.hi.rg at the Universitv
ofTexas. Classroom observations and debriefing interviews with teachlrs at the end of the
study showed that, desE chers havins receiv
(r"pport4lDlEli"e .".h r for a semester,there was no clear distinction
between them in their mi
"r"d
For these and other reasons, it is clear that "method" is an unverlfiiUte ana irrelevant
constructwhenattemPtingtoimpror.eclassroo
d. aying that -ethods do
not exist and so do not matter at the classroom level does not mean, after;ll, that what goes
o n i n c l a s s r o o m sd o e s n o t m a t t e f . O n t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e r e i s g r o w i n g e v i d e n c eo f t h .
importance of classroom processes. of pedagogic t";k.ffi i'
successand failure in FLs (foffi
RSTherthan focus on metlod i v. however, we would do better to think in terms ol
p./il"lttg"trtt.l prelerabh.learures
which caPtureimportant characteristics of a wide range oT-syllabus types, methods,
materials,tasks,and tests.It is to one of thesffZus-onlofrf,that we now turn.

Focus on form in language teaching

Many develoPments
in foreign languagesyllabusdesign,materialswriting, methodology
and testing during the past 30 years reflect the tension between the
desirability ;f

lin-guisticfocus in languagelea r. However, while discussionhas occurred

insfdll-rooms and journals alike, it has qenerallv concerned how best to achievesuch a
focus, not whether or not to have one. Most applied linguists and continue to
advocateteachins and testinq i linffi6iliTnlTi of one kind or anotherin-o.,. -uv o,
rnother. Thus. while procedural
1987; Breen
reen 1987;
t98Z; Iioig-""d
ong and Crookes
C 1989), th. ot".*h"l*i.g -ujo.ity
structural, notional-fun or a hybrid, and superficiallv di ",likeALM,

There havealwavsbeen a few dissentingvoices.Newmark (1966),N"*-..r".ki.rd1Gb-.1

(1958),Corder (1957)andAlhvright (1916),amongothers,havearguedstronglyagainst
 TB2 MICHAEL H. LONG

..interfering',*i.@hiIedifferingconsiderablr'bothinthedetaiIoftheir
red for them' each has claimed that the best way to
---:\\
an obiect of studY'
irrrli" o' outside a classroom' ilr*ot b' treating it as
\lgarn a language,
t bv experiencing it as a medium of communication'

t.#i";;;;;"l.o"'''@hfindings(seee.g.!ula1^and|'urt
1987;Wode1981)'Most
1973;Ellis"ll5+;f"il* tlSt;'f.ash..t u.tdT"rr.ll1983;Prabhu
sequ:nces in interlanguage-llL)'
often cited in this context are the u'ell attestedde,'e1o?menral
clausesand German word order' I nese
such as those for Swedishnegation, English relative
"of relative
,.q,r"rr.., are fixed ,e.i". oo'erlafping stages_,each characterizable by the
have to traverse on the way to mastery
fr"qrr.rr.n of IL structures, rt hich le"rrr.t, apparently
(For the rnori study of this phenomenon, see
of tire target languagesystem. "o*p.ehensive
J o h n s t o n1 9 8 5 . )
has a four-stage sequence (for
Numerous studies show, for instance, that ESL negation
review, see Schumann 19797
..-- \
-'
f-ft"n,
uttercnces
Sample
I
I ' i,*"
| 2 no/not/don't
No is happy/NoYouPaYit
They not working/He don't have job
\
I
| ^ I can't play/ You musgn't
can't play/You do that
musln't do I
\ i lllnffi,,', n Irdidn'i see
didn't see her/She
her/She doesn't li'oe
io""'t live there
there //

I%'--
haspre-verbal negation, but also
At stages1 and 2, notjust Spanishspeakers,whose L1 ^!^l
negated
native systemis post-,rerbal,lnitlally p.oduce pre-verbally
J"p";"Jf;t"";;,;;.r"
although the Japaneseabandon
,r,',"r".r.", in ESL (Gillis andWeber 1976; Stauble 1981),
aPPearsto reflect strong
the strategy sooner (Zobl 1982). Pre-verbal negator placement
both naturalistic and instructed
\ internal p?".r,rt"r, for it is widel,v observed in s"tudlesof
for example, start with pre-verbal
st-R. turklsh speakers receiving formal instruction,
i
I
systems (Hyltenstam
\ negation in S.nredlsh,even thoulh both L1 and L2 have post-verbal
\ 1977).
that the sarylgvelopmeggrl
\ Wn6 minor variations, the evidence to date suggests
instructed and
\, ,""".":;:-";. obr.ru"a in the ILs of children u'd uJilt., of naturalistic,
on
\ffi;ers, of learners from different L1 backgrounds, and of learners performing
sub-stagesand swifter or
different tasks. L1 differences occasionally r.rrrltl.t additional
the basic sequence by skipping stages
slower passagethrough stages,but not in disruption of
in Zobl1982).
(for review, see Ellis"lg85lLarsen-Freemanand Long, press;
aPPears to be unavoidable, and obligatorinesshas
Passagethrough.u.h rtug", in order,
the d"fi.tition of "siage" in SLA (Meisel, Clahsen and Pienemann
been incorpor","iinto
is accurate, also seemsthat
it
1981 ; Johnston 1985). As would be predictedlf this definition
bl-Eilotttttu6d
cleveloomentalsequencesare impervious to instruction ' lt hasrepeatedly
ences do not reflect instructional
;;
a German sL word order structure
,"q,r..r.., (Lightborvn 1983;Ellis 1989), "nd t,,,ition in
shown not to result in learning
b.yond studJnts' current processing abilities has been
(Pienemann 1984).
related findings of common
The results for developmental sequences,together with
orf:t:l:lrt:,Pi
(althoughnot invariant) naturalistic ani it'str"cted morphem"eacculacl
forcqs t
learningis obviouslyat leastPartlv qorerngd.b)'
iungrrqg".
ter s co Frealization i"G" t"a some theorists to conclude that
text
 FOCUS ON FORM IB3

classroomsare useful to the extent that thev provide sheltered Ii

content and focus is a series of isola o r m s ( s o u n d c o n t r a s t s ,l e x i c a l i t e m s ,

stfuctu eech acts, notions, etc. with no overt tocus on
g
a feature wh=ichrevealsan underlvins simiiFity a*ong-TTiiiET! of
(a) teaching"methods", e.g.ALM,TP\ Grammartanslation and SilentWa)',(b) syllabus .. r
' r r * " ' - ' 5 ' "structuralr.rotiJ.,"l-ffiiltiort=lJ.*--[il*d
iyp.r, ';J:::::_:- "*.'=**:::i::':" ' J r ' - ' ' .g.r.rb-..rion, ]br;;=
typof
".g. : r " ' ' - l ' * " . ' ' _ "GDt.g.;-
,r'"5'*"' |f /Lv'''
0 o t r'r--
r : (r
immersion, shelteredsubject-matter, which on the surfaceappearto differ greatly.Groups I
(a) and (b) all utilize an overt focus on form, 6;;1. It also allows
E ""p l.)
generalizationsacrosstraditional boundaries, identify\ng a link between the program types
in group (c) and in theory, at least, a linguisticallv non-isolating teaching "method", such
as the Natural Approach (Krashen and Terrell 1983). At the classroom process level,
techniques, Pfoccuurcs, exercises
f,ecluuqucs,procedures, excrulsesand allt.lpedagogic
Pcuagoglctasks LasKs can also be Decategorized
categorlzeo as aSto
tO whetlpl
wneU{f-1
o r n o tttthheeyyeei itthheer rppeer rmmi ti ot or rrer e
qqu iur ier ae faofcoucsuosnofno fromr .m @. @
n dnr idI rI si I I s l
and error correction, for e*ample, all overtlr foqusstudentson form;..f.r.r,iiul qu"r,ionr, I
,r,rJt1Tffi u,-,d
t*o-*u' turk,do'ffi potentially."l"uuntI
designfeatures
*lll dlruri@ffiil!ilodfryllabi, tasksandtestsfromothers,fe*hryq\
the valency of focus on form. It apfears to be a parameter one value or another of which
characterizesalmost all languageteaching options.
Five caveatsare in order. First, it is not being suggestedthat whether or not a program
type, syllabus,method, task or test focuseson form is the only relevant design characteristic
or that important differences will not eist among members of groups which sharethe feature,
and viceversa.Second,while most programs, svllabi, methods, tasksand tests either do or do
not overtly focus on form, some withi y
isolate linguistic structures, not to mention as to how they do so; there are, in other words,
t._----<.ffi
relativeaswell ifferences.Thi.d,i!,
ule, w.tuurr-groupas welr asrnrer-group, orrrerences. hkgly
r ruro, ]!]r-l]Sgly_
", "Urot
that students will often focus on form when teachersor materials designersintendthem not
to, and i form when thev are s to concentrate on it. Fourth, some degree
awarenessof form and a focus oi-frEaning may not be mutually exclusive on some tasks (for
review, see Schmidt 1990). Fifth, the fact that the distinction can be made doesnot mean that
it should; whether it is important is a theoretical and/or an empirical matter.

Focus on form: a choli istic

Th"P.".@!,teachingandtestiy'gthem\neatatime,was
o.igi'ull ol"qy 6r;astructLahst linguistics.
combined with the advent of a world *u. ull']ffi-#d f.@
speakers,these events led to the growth of ALM and its many progeny. As distinct from a
focus onyform, to which we return below, structural syllabi, ALM, and variants thereof
involve a focus is to saX the content of the syllabus and of lessonsbased on it

-
{Ior;}That
is the linguistic iTE--rru
themselves (structures, gotions. l"*r*Lrt.-j,
oesrgneoro reacn rne Dasrconrlnuous requesting"and so on. notlinq else.
--
etc.); a lesson is

Arguments abound against making isolated linguistic structures the content of a FL

#
course, that is, against a focus onJorms. Of the hundreds of studies of interlanguage (lL)
 184 MICHAEL H. LONG

development now completed, not one shows either tutored or naturalistic learners

,@
developingproficiency one linguistic item at a time. On the contrary,3!]:sygll camPlex.
grudrui pathsfor grammaticalsubsystehs,suchasauxiliarl
developmental
l"a "rrilnt..-t"lated cst-
d*rcR.";;aEenemann 1981). Moreover'de ffil;
Jqyyu+..r'v." 'vrr^ru -as
-
r-*-^E-'<,does
---- accuracy
--- of suppliance.
-Altho"gh
rrrvrr/ J L L
/*,,; most syllabi and methods assume the opposite, lggrnel-g.do not mov+o-1n
, learners
/1

'":l'i:fJ:H: [:liFe miifr&, and only graduallyimProvesin accurac\'

Tqyt
/'
or use. rL sorneLulcb-)L!!!L:j!\Lglt!* Lr rrr

. ' - - - (Huebner i 9831.It quite + ." a".U""t fucy

- : _ : . enter
' j i a ; _fo.ms
If,e;
-^
::_F-,
or eventemporarilr
,

"i Clahsenand
dis;FfdhfioEather due to a change the IL (see,%. Meisel,
"lse..fiEei.t a
Pier.-".rr, 1981; Huebner 1983; Lightborvn 1983; Neumann 7977), phenomenon
imes describ,ableas U-shaped behavior (Kellerman 1985). Further, attemPts to teach
ns to be one the learner can process
rs Psy inguisticallv readv to uire. In Pienemann's ( I terminologr.
r o s nguage teachers, employers and learners

Fl[i--*itt utt"rt, th".. l.l-g.E-t diff...""" b"t*."" tt "ug"'

.glk -I when that is achieved. and ubilitv to use that knowledge to communicative effect.
'A
t dvocatethat
teachers abandonnot just t'focus onJorms,but a focus onJorm,i.e. any attention to language
asobject,asweIl.Flawsinthi.."uso.'i,,gareobviou,.F,,.th",,reuieffics
61'lnsd;AionSn IL development (Harley 1988; Long 1988) find clear evidence of some
beneficial effects of a focus onJorm, and suggestiveevidence of otiers. Briefly, while it is true
that instruction does not seem cap4l" .f .tt".i"g ttqrrl.t t, it does aPPear
to off.. c SLA or classroom instruction with no
focus on form. (1) It speedsup the rateof learning (for review, see Long 1983). (2) It affect:
acquisition processes in ways possiblvbeneficial to long-term accuracy (Lightbown 198 3; Pica
1983). And most crucially, on the basisof preliminary data, (3) it appearsto raise the ultimare
Ievelof attainmenr.Further, asWhite (1987, 1989) has argued, incomprehensible input and
dr"oui.rglearners' attention to inadmissableconstructions in the L2 (two kinds of negative
evidence) may be necessar)'when learning from positive evidence alone will be inadequate.
To illustrate, an L1 may allow'piacement of adverbsof manner more flexibly than an L2. "He
drinks every day coffee" and "He drinks coffee every day" are both acceptablein French, for
example, but not in English. Both w'ill be communicatively effective in English, however.
with the result that the French learner of English (but not the English learner of French) r'rill
need negative input (e.g. error correction) on this point.
Whe.eas the content of lessonswith a focus onlformsis therlormsthemselves, a syllabu-'
with a fo.r. oqfo., t.u.h.r ..'-"th lse - biology, mathematics, workshop practice.
repair, the geography of a country where the foreign language is spoken, tht
ulTtoilG lelelelelelelelelelelelelele"
cultures of its speakers, and so on - and overtly draws students' attention to linguistic
elements as they arise incidentally in lessonswhose overriding focus is on meaning, oi
communication.Vien's about hor,l'to achievethis vary. Une proposal ls lor lessonsto Dc
_-ffi;fltGEffipted"
bv tgachers rvhen they notice students_makingerrors_which are (1
svstematic,(2) pervasiveand (3) remediable.TEE]inguisticfeature is brought to learner'
attentioninany@students.age,proficienc1'|ereI,etc.betorethecla:.
returns to whatever pedagogic task thev were rvorking on when the interruption occurrec
(For detailsand a rationale, see Crookes and Long 1987; Long, in press).
 FOCUS ON FORM 185

An example of the probable effect of instruction on ultimate attainment comes from

w'ork on the acquisition of relative clausesin a SL. Several studies (e.g., for English: Gass
1 9 8 2 ; G a s sa n d A r d 1 9 8 0 ; P a v e s i1 9 8 6 ; E c k m a n , B e l l a n d N e l s o n 1 9 8 8 ; f o r S w e d i s h :
Hvltenstam 1984) haveshou,nthat both naturaiistic and instructed acquirersdevelop relative
clausesin the order predictable from the noun phrase accessibilityhierarchy (Keenan and
Comrie 1977; Comrie and Keenan 1979; see Figure 10.1), although with occasional
j
reversalsoflevels 5 and 6.

least marked

1. subject (The man that stole the car . . .)

2. direct object (The man that the police arrested . . .)
3. indirect object (The car that he paid nothing for . . .)
4. object of a preposition (The man that he spoke to . . .)
5. possessive/genitive(The man w'hose. . .)
6. object of a comparative (The man that Joe is older than . . . )

most marked

Figure 10. i Noun phrase accessibilitv hierarchv

t

Of particular interest in the present context, Pavesi(1985) compared relative clause

formation by instructed and naturalistic acquirers.The former were 48 Italian high school
students, ages 14-18, who had received from 2 to 7 years (an averageof 4 r.ears) of
grammar-based EFL instruction and who had had minimal or (in 45 of 48 cases)no informal
exposure to English. The untutored learners lvere 38 Italian workers (mostlv restaurant
waiters), ages 19-50, whohad lived in Scotlandanyr,vhere from 3 months to 25 vears (an
averageof 6 years), with considerable exposure to English at home and at work, but who
had received minimal (usually no) formal English instruction.
Relative clause constructions were elicited using a set of numbered pictures and
question Prompts: ("Number 7 is the girl w-hois running", and so on). Implicational scaling
showed that both groups' developmental sequencescorrelated significantly with the noun
phrase accessibilitv hierarchy. There w-ere two other kinds of differences, however. First,
naturalistic learners produced statisticallv significantlv more full nominal copies than the
instructed learners (e.g. "Number 4 is thl woman who the cat is looking at tle woman"),
whereas instructed iearners produced more pronominal copies ("Number 4 is the woman
who the cat is looking at her"). Given that neither English nor Italian allow copies of either
kind, this is further evidence of the at least partial autonomy of IL syntax, a claim also
supported by the developmental sequenceitself, of course. Interestingly, the relative
frequencies of the different kinds of copies suggest that the instructed learners had
"grammaticized" more, even in the errors they made, a result consistent with findings by
Pica (1983) and Lightbown (1983). Second,more instructed learnersreached 80 percent
criterion on all of the five lowest NP categoriesin the hierarchy, with differences attaining
statistical significanceat the second lowest (genitive; level and falling just short (p. 05) at
the lowest (object of a comparative) level. More instructed learners (and very few
naturalistic acquirers) were able to relativize out of the more marked NPs in the hierarchy.
In considerablv less averagetime, t}rat is, instructed learners had reached higher levels of
attainment.
 185 MICHAEL H. LONG

Pavesi'sstudy is a non-equivalent control grouPs design, so causalclaims are precluded

taught
There are also no data o.r ro'h.th". or not the high school students were ever actually
that they received something like a
relative clauses,or if so, w'hich ones.We know: simply
of the kind of effects
grammar-translation course. The findings are nonethelesssuggestive
i fo.r* on form ma,vhave on ultimate SL attainment. Two other studies, furthermore, have
formation can accelerate learning.
shown that structurully fo..,r"d teaching of relative clause
instruction
also that, at least u, fu. do*n aslevel 4 (object ofa preposition) in the hierarchy,
less marked
in a more marked structure will generalize back "p th. implicational scale to
s t r u c t u r e s( G a s s1 9 8 2 ; E c k m a n e t a 1 . 1 9 8 8 ; a n ds e ea l s oZ o b l 1 9 8 5 ) .

-+
SLA research findings '-------5- like those brieflv described here would seem to suPPort
f
I two conclusrons.(1) InJruction fqill around a focuson formsis counter-productii'e'
er
I ellnstruction rvhichen
/ .rryj@attainmentthaninstruction$'ith
lrt
L;fh;"#m". programsexist u,hichhavethis feature,alternatingin someprinciPled
waybetweena focuso" t"gt"g:lq1!:119n fo:m' riOne,exampleis task-base €
t andCrookes 1989;Long,inPresst'
F-Ei-;. with a Tocuson form need to be compared in carefullycontrolled studiesw'ith
with no overt
pro[."-, with a focuson forms andwith (e.g.NaturalApproach)Programs
focus on form.

Further research

oi
True experiments are needed which compare rate of learning and ultimate level
attainme^ntalter one of three programs:f ,r, inJor^r.Jocusonform,andllocuson communication
preliminary research in this u..u hur produced mixed results, two studies finding positive
relationships between the amount of class time given to a focus on Jorms and various
Parkinson anri
proficiencv measures (McDonald, Stone andYates 1977, for ESL; Mitchell,
and a third study of ESL (Spada 1986, 1987) finding no
iohnstone 198 1 , for French FL),
such effects. (For detailed revien, see Chaudron 1988.) All three studies were comparisons
ha-'
of intact groups which differed in degreeof focus onJorms,it should be noted. Research
yet to be conducted comparing the unique program tvpes'
Studies of this kind should be true exPeriments, employing a pretest/post-test control
oi
group design, and should also include a process comPonent to monitor implementation
Ih. thre" distinct treatments.They should utilize multiple outcome measures,some focusing
on accuracy,some on communicative ability or fluency, thereby avoiding (supposed)-biasin
favour of o.r. program or another. The post-tests should include immediate and delavec
measures,ri... ulleast one study (Harley 1989) has found a short-term advantage,for
students receiving form-focused instruction disappeared(three months) later. Some of the
measures should lurther reflect knorvn developmental sequencesand patterns of variation
in ILs, appropriate for the developmental stagesof the subjects as revealed on the Pretest-r
A distinciion should be maintained between constructions which are in principle learnabl.
from positive instantiation in the input and constructions which in principle require negatir t
evidence. (For further details and desirable characteristicsofsuch studies, see Long 198+.
forthcoming; Larsen-Freemanand Long 1989.)
S"o'e.u[dditional issuesneed to be addressed,either as separatestudies of the;focusc-
as sub-parts of the basic study outlined above. Many interestin.
,[orm design feature or
requir
questioniemain unanswered,after all. It will be useful to ascertainw'hich structures
 FOCUSON FORM 187

focus and/or negative evidence, and w-hich can be left to the care of"natural processes"
(White 1987). Other possibilities include studies motivated by implicational markedness
relationships designed to determine the principles governing maximal generalizabilityof
instruction (see, e.g. Eckman et al. 1988). Similarh',one can envisagestudiesinspired by
current models of UG designedto test the claimed potential of certain structures to trigger
instantaneous(re-)setting of a parameter.An example would be Chomsky's (1981) work
on the pro-drop parameter, and the claimed triggering effects of expletives with ir and there
as dummy subjects (Hvams 1983;Hilles 1985). Finally, further theoretically motivated
r'vork, Iike that of Pienemann ( 1984) and Pienemann and Johnston (1,987),is clearly needed
on the fiminBof instruction. Researchof these and other kinds will establishthe validity and
scope offocus onJormas a design feature in languageteaching methodologv.

References

Allwright, R.L. (1977) "Language learning through communication practice." ELT Docs
1 6 / 3 . 21 + .
Breen, M.P. (1987) "Contemporarvparadigmsin syllabusdesign."Language
Tbachtng
20/ 2.81-92,and20/ 3.151-17+.
Chaudron, C. (1988) Second
LanguageClassrooms.
Aesearch
onTeaching and Learning.Cambridge:
Cambridge Universitv Press.
Chomsky,N. ( 198l) Lectures
on Goverfi,ment
andBinding.Dordrecht: Foris.
Comrie, B. and Keenan, E.L. (1979) "Noun phrase accessibilityrevisited". Language
55.6+9-66+.
Corder, S.P. (1967) "The significance of learners' errors." InternationalReviewoJ Applied
Linguistics 5 . | 61-11 0.
Crookes, G. (1985) Taskclassfication: a uoss-disciplinary rcview(Technical Report4.) Honolulu:
Center for Second LanguageClassroom Research,Social ScienceResearchInstitute
University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Crookes, G. and Long, M.H. (1981) "Task-basedlanguageteaching.A brief report". Modern
E n g l t s h T b a c h(tP
nagr t 1 ) 8 . 2 6 - 2 8 * 6 1 , a n d ( P a r t 2 ) 9 . 2 0 - 2 3 .
Dinsmore, D. ( 1985) "Waiting for Godot in the EFL classroom."ELTJournal 39.225-23+.
'Should
Dulay, M. and Bert, H. (1913) we teach children syntax?' LanguageLearning
2 +/ 2 . 2 + 5 - 2 5 8 .
Eckman, F.R., Bell, L. and Nelson, D. (1988) "On the generalizationof relative clause
instruction in the acquisition of English as a second ianguage."Applied Linguistics
9/1.1 20.
Ellis, R. (1984) "The role of instruction in secondlanguageacquisition."Language Learningin
Formaland InJormalContextsed. bv D.M. Singleton and D.G. Little, 19-31 . Dublin.
IRAAL.
- (1985) I.Jnderstanding
Second LanguageAcquisition.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- (1989) "Are classroomand naturalistic acquisition the same?A study of the classroom
acquisition of German word order rules." Studiesin SecondLanguageAcquisition
11l3.305-328.
Felix, S.\M (1981) "The effect of formal instruction on secondlanguageacquisition."Language
Learning31/1.87-112.
Gass,S.M. ( 1982)"From theory to practice."OnTESOL'81ed. by M. HinesandW Rutherford,
129-1 39.Washington,D C : TESOL.
Gass,S.M. and Ard, J (1980) "L2 data: their relevancefor languageuniversals."TESOL
@rarterly14/ +.4+3452.
188 M]CHAEL H. LONG

Gillis, M. andWeber, R. (1975) "The emergenceof sentencemodalitiesin the Englishot

japanese-speakingchildren."Language Learning26/ l.7l 9+.
AnnualAeviewoJApphea
Harley,B. (1988) "Effectsof instructionon SLA: issuesand evidence."
Linguistics9 . 165-17 8.
- (1989) "Functional grammar in French immersion: a ciassroom experiment." Appliec
L i n g u i s t i c1s0/ 3 . 3 3 1 - 3 5 9 .
Hilles, S. (1986). "lnterlanguage and the pro-drop parameter." SecondLanguageResearch
2/ 1. 3 3 - s 2 .
Hoetker, J. and Ahlbrand, W P. (1969) "The persistenceof the recitation." AmericanEducationa'
Research Journal6 / 1/ 1+5-167 .
Hyams, N. (1983) "The pro-drop parameterin child grammars."Proceedings oJtheWestCoasr
ConJerence ed. by M. Barlow',D. Flickinger and M.Westcoat. Stanford.
on FormalLinguistics
CA: Stanford Universitl', Department of Linguistics.
Hyltenstam, K. (1917) "lmplicational patterns in interlanguagesyntax variation." Language
L e a r n i n2 g 7/ 2 . 3 8 3 4 1 1 .
- (1984) "The use oftvpological markednessconditions as predictors in secondlanguage
acquisition:the caseof pronominal copies in relative clauses."Second Languages.A
Cross-
Linguistic Perspective ed. bv R.W Andersen,39-58. Rowley,MA: Newbury House.
Johnston, M. (1985) Syntacticand morphologicalprogressions in learner Engllsh. Canberra.
Australia: Commonwealth Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.
Keenan,E. and Comrie,B. (1977)"Noun phraseaccessibility anduniversalgrammar."linguisttt
l n q u i r y8 . 6 l - 9 9
Kellerman,E.(19S5)"lfatfirst,voudosucceed..."InputinSecondLanguageAcquisirioned.b
S. Gassand C. Madden, 345-353. Rowlel',MA: Nelr'burv House.
Krashen,S.D. and Seliger,H.W (1975) "The essentialcontributionsof formal instructionir
adult secondlanguagelearning."TESOL@tarterly9 / 12.173-183 .
Krashen,S.D. andGrrell,T. (1983) TheNaturalApproach. NewYork: PergamonPress.
Larsen-Freeman,D. and Long, M.H. (1989) Research Prioritiesin ForeignLanguage Learnjn;
and Teaching. Washington, DC: Johns Hopkins University, National Foreign Language
Center.
Larsen-Freeman,D. and Long, M.H. (1991) An lntroductionto SecondLanguage Acquisitic:
London: Longman.
Research.
Lightbow.n, P.M. (1983) "Exploring relationshipsbetween developmental and instructiona-
Research
sequences."Classroom-Oriented on Second Acquisitioned. by H.W Seliger
Language
and M.H. Long,217 2+3. Rou'ley,MA: Newbury House.
Long, M.H. (1983) "Does instruction make a difference?A review of research."TESOL
1l / 3.359-382.
@Larterly
(1984) "Process and product in ESL program evaluation." TESOL @Lateri.'
18/3.+09425.
- (1985) "A role for instruction in second language acquisition: task-basedlanguage
teaching."Modellingand Assessing Second Language Acquisitioned. bv K. Hyltenstam and ll
Pienemann, ll*99. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
- (1988) "Instructed interlanguage development." lssuesin SecondLanguageAcquisitictl
MulttplePerspectives ed by L.M. Beebe,115-1+1. NewYork: Newbury House.
- (1991) "The design and psvcholinguisticmotivation of research on foreign languag.
learning." ForeignLanguage AcquisitionAesearch and the Classroom ed. by B. Freed. Bostor.
D.C. Heakin.
- (2001) Task-Based LanguageTeaching. Oxford: BasilBlackwell.
Long, M.H., Adams,L., Mclean, M. and Castanos, F. (1976)"Doing thingswith words: verb.
interaction in lockstep and small group classroomsituations."On TESOL.'76 ed. i
J . F .F a n s e l o ravn d R . C r v m e s ,1 3 7 - 1 5 3 . W a s h i n g t o nD,C : T E S O L .
 FOCUS ON FORM 189

L o n g , M . H . a n d C r o o k e s , G . ( 1 9 8 9 )U n i t s o J a n a l y s i s i n s y l l a b u s d e s i g n . M s . D e p a r t m e n t o f E s L ,
Universitv of Hawaii at Manoa.
Long, M.H. and Sato,C.J. (1983) "Classroomforeignertalk discourse:forms and functions
of teachers' questions."Classroom-Oriented Research in SecondLanguageAcquisitioned. by
H.W Seligerand M.H. Long, 258 285. Rowley',MA: New'burvHouse.
McDonald, F.J.,Stone,M.K. andYates, A. (19775 Theeffects oJclasvoom interaction patternsand
student characteristics on the acquisition of profcienc,v in English as a secondlanguage.
Princeton, NJ: EducationalTestingService.
Meisel,J.M., Clahsen,H. and Pienemann,M. (1981) "On determiningdevelopmentalstages
in natural second language acquisitions." Studiesin SecondLanguageAcquisition
3 / 2 . 1 0 9 - 1 3 5.
Mitchell, R., Parkinson,B. and Johnstone,R. (1981) TheJoreignlanguageclassroom: an
observational study. (Stirling Educational Monographs 9.) Stirling: Department of Education,
University of Stirling.
Neumann, R. (1977) An attemptto dejne througherroranalysisan intermedjateESLlevelat UCLA.
M . A . i n T E S L t h e s i sL. o s A n g e l e sC , A: UCLA.
Newmark, L. (1966) "How not to interfere with languagelearning." InternationalJournal oJ
A m e r i c aLni n g u i s t i c3s2 / 1 . 7 1 - 8 3 .
Newmark, L. and Reibel, D.A. (1958) "Necessit-vand sufficiency in language learning."
International Review ofAppliedLinguistics 6.1+5-16+.
Nunan, D. (1987) "Communicative language teaching: making it rvork." ELT Journal
+ 1/ 2 . 1 1 6 t + 5 .
Pavesi,M. (1985) "Markedness,discoursalmodes, and relative clauseformation in a formal
and an informal context." Studies in Second Language Acquisition8.1 38-55.
Phillips, D. and Shettlesworth,C. (1975). "Questionsin the designand implementation of
coursesin Englishfor specializedpurposes."Proceedings of the 4th InternationalCongress oJ
AppliedLinguistics (Volume/) ed. bv G. Nickel, 249-26+. Stuttgart: HochschuleVerlag.
Pica,T. ( 198 3) "Adult acquisitionof Englishasa secondlanguageunder different conditions of
exposure."Language Learning33/ +.+65--+97.
Pica,T.and Long, M.H. (1986) "The linguisticand conversationperformanceof experienced
and inexperiencedteachers.""Talkingto learn": Conversation in Second LanguageAcquisition
ed. b-vR.R. Day,85 98. Rou'ley,MA: Newburv House.
Pienemann,M. (1984) "Psychologicalconstraintson the teachability of languages'." Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 6 / 2.186-21+
Pienemann, M. and Johnston M. (1987) "Factors influencing the development of language
proficiency." Applying SecondLanguageAcquisitionResearch ed. by D. Nunan, +5-1.+1
Adelaide. SA: National Curriculum ResourceCentre.
Prabhu, N.S. (1987) Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ross, S. (1992) "Program-defining evaluationin a decadeof eciecticism."In Alderson C. and
Beretta, A. (eds). Evaluating SecondLanguageEducation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Scherer,G.andWertheimer,M.(196+)APsycholinguisticExperimentinForei7nLanguageTeaching.
NewYork: McGraw'-Hill.
Schmidt, R.W. (1990) "The role of consciousnessin second language learning" Applied
L i n g u i s t i c1s1/ 2 . 1 1 - 4 5 .
Schumann,J.H. (1 979'1"Theacquisitionof Englishnegationby speakersof Spanish:a review of
the literature." TheAcquisitionand UseoJ Spantsh and Englishas Firstand Second Languages
e d .b v R . W A n d e r s e n3 , - 3 2 . W a s h i n g t o nD, C : T E S O L .
Smith, P. (1970) A Comparison oJthe Cognitiveand AudiolingualApproaches to ForeignLanguage
lnstruction:The Penns/vaniaForeignLanguage Project.Philadelphia:Center for Curriculum
Deveiopment.
190 MICHAEL H. LONG

Spada,N. (1986) "The interactionbetween types of content and types of instruction: som.
Acquisirtc:.
effects on the L2 proficienc,vof adult learners." Studiesin SecondLanguage
.
8/ 2 . 1 8 1 - 1 9 9
- (1987) "Relationships between instructional differences and learning outcomes: a
process-product studv of communicative language teaching." Apphed Linguistit.
8.131-16L
Stauble,A. -M. ( 1981) A comparative second
andJapanese-English
studyoJa Spanish-English languag;
continuum Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,UCLA.
: verbphrasemorphology.
Swaffer,J.K., Arens, K. and Morgan, M. (1982) "Teacherclassroompractices:redefining
method as task hierarchy."ModernLanguage Journal66.24-33.
Von Elek, T. and Oskarsson, M. (1975) Comparative MethodsExperiments in ForeignLanguagi
Teaching. Department of EducationalResearch.Gothenburg, Sweden:Molnda Schooloi
Education.
White, L (1987) "Against comprehensibleinput: the Input Hypothesisand the developmentoi
second-languagecompetence."AppliedLingui stics8 / 2 .9 5- I | 0 .
\\'hite, L. (1989)'The principle of adjacencyin second languageacquisition:do learners
obserte the subsetprinciple?' Paperpresentedat the Child LanguageConferenceBoston
\1.A..N{arch.
\\bde, H. (1981) "Language-acquisitionai universals:a unified view of languageacquisition."
\-ativeLanguageand ForeignLanguageAcquisition.(AnnalsoJthe NewYork Academy of Sciences
379) ed. by H.Winitz,218-23+. NewYork: New'YorkAcademy of Sciences'
ZobI,H. (1982) "A direction for contrastiveanalysis:the comparativestudy of developmental
sequences." TESOLQyirterly 16. 169-183,
- Acquisitioned.
Language
( I 9 8 5) "Grammars in searchof input and intake."Input in Second
by S.M. Gassand C. Madden, 329-3+4. Rowley, MA: Newbury House,
 r4[
Chapter 11

DavidNunan

TEACHING GRAMMAR IN CONTEXT

Introduction

RoM A GRAMMATICAL PERSPECTIVE, MANY foreign language

E
|' programmes and teaching materials are basedon a linear model of languageacquisition.
This model operateson the premise that learners acquire one target languageitem at a time,
in a sequential,step-bv-stepfashion. However, such a model is inconsistentwith what is
observed as Iearners go about the process of acquiring another language.In this chapter I ,.
argue for an alternativl to the linearmodei w'hich I call,"for want of aietlr termg-gggic lts
approach to second languagepedagog,v.In the first part of the chapter I shall contrast both
approaches,and look at evidence from second languageacquisition and discourse analysis
which supports the organic view. In the second part I shall outline some of the pedagogical
implications of the organic approach,illustrating them with practical ideasfor the classroom.

Metaphors for second language acquisition

A strictly linear approach to languagelearning is basedon the premise thallg3yrgrs acquire

one grammatical item at a time3nd that they should dg!gg"!E"t" tleir mastery of oneTE1E
. .*u-pl!, ir, 1"u..,
oire tense form, such as the simple present, before being introduced to other forms, such
as the present continuous or the simple past. Metaphorically, learning another languageby
ttxs memod ts ttke co ll.The langfragewall is erected ^
a time.TheeasygrammaticalbricksareIaidat the bottom of the wall, providinga foundation ^ A
_6i6EEo."difH..,ltones.ThetaskfortheIearneristogetth"li,-,8@.,-%&

ffis,andthenthesentencebricks.Ifthebricksarenotinthecorrec-t.rC&.)
-
wall will collapseunder its own ungrammaticality.
order,tJ-re
' . t
When we observelearners as thev go aboufthe processof learning another language,
we see that, by and large, they do not acquire languagein the step-by-steprbuilding block
fashion suggestedby the linear model. It is simply not the casethat languagelearners acquire
target items perfectly, one at a time. Kellerman (1983), for example, notes the'u-shaped
behavior' of certain linguistic items in learners' interlanguage development. Accuracy does
not increasein a linear fashion. from 20Yoto 40oh to 100%: at times. it actuallv decreases.
It appearsthat, rather than being isolated bti.k., th" .1.-.
"utio"r
with bv. other elements to which thev are closelv related i
 T92 DAVID NUNAN

w
{A'l\A,
,
senSe.Thisinterrelationshipaccountsforthefactthata-le*1Inerj_@
T..rgru$ l."qI
ffi*u-p1.,
"ggble,
appearing to increase and decreaseat different times during the
(temporaril) at
-rri.r.'of the simplepresentdeteriorates r
)t2,n.o"iit*-i"ri""r".rr@resentcontffi
'/ asukinJof lgga
,fts process
\a;irU* 'o-ganid
The adoption of an perspective can greatl'
language acquisition and use. Without this perspective, our understanding of other
'grammaticality'
di-enSo.rs of language such as the notion of will be piecemeal and
incomplete, as will any attempt at understanding and interpreting utterances in isolation
from the contexts in which thev occur. The organic metaphor sees second language

learnffillo hot learn one thing Pe v' numerous things

simultaneously \(and
SIIlltllLdllcuu)r) 4rru
rimpei
rrrPLr ruLLll /t
inguisttc rs do not all apPear at the same trme
ItLrt uu LltE/t
)j 4all
r t gr u v v
5r
4L LlrL J@rrrL e . S o m e e v e n a P P e a r t o w i l t , f o r a t i m e , b e f o r e^r' ^e. * n e" r^,- t- b- i n g
L v Y Y r r l t r v r u r r ^ r r v t

their growth.The rate of grow.th is determined by a complex interplay of factors related to

speech processing constraints (Pienemann and Johnston 1987), pedagogical interventions
(Pica 1985), acquisitionalprocesses(Johnston 1987), and the influence of the discoursal
environment in w'hich the items occur (Nunan 1993).

Language in context .
In textbooks, grammar is very often presented out of context. Learners are given isolated
sefi-tences,which therjare expEcTdfrtb1-nterilahzethrough exercises involving rePetition,

rners \Ll ve maste

they make the task of developing procedural
n e to use the I 6-r communication - more dif{icult than it needs to
se le ic relationships that
exist
As teache that effective communication involves achieving
harmony between functional interpretation and formal appropriacy (Halliday 1985) by giving
m tasks 4matize the relationship between grammatical items and the discoursal
6itr i.r which occur. In genuine comm room, qrammar
context are otten so c related that a riate matical choices.un [i]u b"-
th reference-To-TE6i6nt ex t rpose of t}e communication.This,6yTFe way, is
onJ of the reasons*Tl' itli oft-."T[Ei"lt to answerlearners' questionsabout grammatical
appropriacy: in rygn1in s9alg9s,_Jhe orientation
that the wants to towards wishes to report.
If l-u.n.rr *e .r6Qi"..r opportunities to explore grammar in context, it will be difficult
for them to see how' and w.h,valternative forms exist to express different communicative
meanings. For example, $etting learners to read a set of sentencesin the active voice, and
then transform these into passivesfollorving a model, is a standard way of introducing the
passive voice. However, it needs to be supplemented b1' tasks which give learners
opportunities to explore when it is communicativelrvappropriate to use the passiverather
than the active voice. (One of my favourite textbook instructions is an injunction to students,
in a book which shall remain nameless,that'the passiveshould be avoided if at all
We need to supplement form-focused exercisesu'ith an a ch that for
 TEACHING GRAMMAR IN CONTEXT I93

grammar allows them to make meanings of increasinglv sophisticatedkinds, to escapefrom

the tyrannv of the here and noll', not only to report events and states of affairs, but to
editorialize, and to communicate their own attitudes towards these events and affairs.
Unfortunatelv. manv coursesfail to make clear the relationshio bet and
Learners are taught a t not how
For example, through exercisessuch asthe one referred to in the preceding paragraph, they
are taught how to transform sentencesfrom the active voice into the passive,and back into
the active voice; holvever, thev are not shou'n that passiveforms have evolved to achieve
certain communicative ends - to enable the speaker or writer to place the communicative
focus on the action rather than on t r of the action,to avoidreferring to the
performer of the action. I!
made clear to learners, they coEE-awa m with the impression that the
alternatlve lorms exrst merely to make ttungs dlttlcult tor them. an approach
throughwhich orreiilfiTn-d-al-so
how to usethem to
communicate meaning. Such a methodolog.',r,r.illshow learners how to use grammar to get
things done, socialize,obtain goods and serfises, and express tFeir personality through
l a n g , G . I n o t h e r w o r d s , i t u i l l s h o r r 't h e m to achieve [heir communicaiiiFT
-

Some practical implications

IntherestofthischapterIshallfocusontheimpIicatio,,,of
teaching.SuchanapproachoffersexcitingoPPortunities[or
at languagein a neu.way - as a vehicle for taking voyagesofpedagogical exploration in the
classroomand beyond.
'traditional'
There are manv different ways of activating organic learning, and manv
typ"r .u^, *it ,
"*...ir.
partilularly ifthey are introduced into the classroomas exploratory and collaborative tasks.,
(For examples,seeWajnryb's(1990)'grammar dictation'tasks,and Woods'(1995) gap and
cloze exercises.)
In my own classroom, I trv to activate an organic approach bv:
. teachinllanguageis-rset of cho
. providing opportunities for iearners to explore grammatical and discoursal
relationships in autlentic data;
a
teaching languagein rvaysthat make form,/function relati
ooo-
rent;
encouragingIEainerst-o6-ecomeacti\e explorers of language:
encouraging learners to explore relationships between grammar and discourse.

Teaching language as a set of choices

As indicated in the preceding section, one of the reasonslvhy it is difficuit to give learners
hard-and.fastqrammaticulJ,'l",isthat,inmanYinstances,;;ffi
,--ff
ffimunicative service, d..istor. *hich fot
"bort
meanings ljglners themselves wish to make. For example, if learners wish to give equal
weight to two pieces of information, thev can present the information in a single sentence,
using co-ordination. If they wish to give one of these pieces of information greater weight,
they can use subordination.
In order to help learners see that alternative grammatical realizations exist in order to
 I94 DAVID NUNAN

enable them to make different kinds of meanings, and that ultimately it is up to them to
begin my language courses with'ice-
breaker' tasks such as Example 1. In completing this task, learners come to fashion their
own understanding of the functional distinctions between contrasting forms.They also come
to appreciate the fact that in manv instancesit is only the speakeror writer who can decide
which of the contrasting forms is the appropriate one.

Example I

In groups of 3 or 4, study the following conversational extracts. Focus in particular on the

parts of the conversation in italics. What is the difference between what Person A saysand
what Person B t"y.?,Wh"" *o"ld yo" r 9I?

A: I've seenRomeoandJuliet twice.

B: Me too. I sawit lastTuesday, and again on the weekend.
A: Want to go to the movies?
B: No. 1'mgolng to studytonight We have an exam tomorrow, you know.
A: Oh, in that case,I'11studyas well.
A: Looks wet outside. I'm supposedto go to Central, but I don't have an J
I wentout without one,I'd get wet.
B: Yes, I went out a rvhile ago.IJ I'd Boneout without an umbrella,I'd haveBot wet.
A: Ifnnhed m)/essq/just before the deadline for submission.
B: Yes,minewasjnishedjustin time as well.
A: My brother,wholivesin liewYork,is visitingme herein Hong Kong.
B: What a coincidence! My brother,whois visitingme in Hong Kong,livesin NewYork,too.
A: I need you to look after the kids.You'll be home early tonight, won'tyou?
B: Oh, you'll be late tonight, wtllyou?
A: I won a prize in the English-speakingcompetition.
B: Yeah?I won the prize in the poetry competition.
A: Thebabywassleepingwhen I got home.
B: So, he'11be sleepingu'hen I get home, then?
A: Are you hungry?
B: No, I'r,ealreadyeaten.
A: Well, 1'11havealreadyeatenby the time you get home.

Compare explanations with another group. What similarities and differences are there in
your expianations?

Providing opportunities for learners to explore Brammatical and discoursal

relationships in authentic data

Non-authentic texts are meant to make language easier to comprehend but an unvarying
diet of such texts can make languagelearning more, not less,difficult for learners. Authentic
languageshows how grammatical forms operate in the'real world', rather than in the mind
of a textbook writer; it allows learners to encounter target languageitems - such as the
comparative adjectivesand adverbsin Example 2 - in interaction with other closely related
grammatical and discoursal elements. Wlq
4t"xt-
 TEACHING GRAMMAR IN CONTEXT 195

Example 2

Study the following extracts. One is a piece of genuine conversation,the other is taken from
a languageteaching textbook. Which is which? What differences can you see between the
two extracts?What languagedo vou think the non-authentic conversation is trying to teach?
What grammar would you need in order to take part in the authentic conversation?

Text Al Text B'

A: Excuseme, please.Do vou know
where the nearest bank is?
B: Well, the Cit,v Bank isn't far from
here. Do you know where the main
post office is?
A: No, not really.I'm just passingthrough.
B: Well, first go down this street to the
r-^ CC^ l: -L.
rr dr rrL uBrrr ,
A: OK.
B: Then turn left and go west on Sunset
Boulevard for about two blocks. The
bank is on your right, just past the post A:
office.
A: All right. Thanks!
B: You're welcome.
A: How do I get to Kensington Road?
B: Well you go down Fullarton Road . . .
A: . what, down Old Belair, and around
,.,?
B : Yeah.And then you go straight . . .
A : . . . past the hospital?
B : Yeah,keep going straight, past the
racecourse to the roundabout.You
know the big roundabout?
A: Yeah.
B: And KensingtonRoad'soff to the right.
What, off the roundabout?
B: Yeah
A: Right.

Teaching la s that make unction relationshi transDarent

This principle canbe activatedby .r.

ll
andrestructuretheir own qqderstandingo]Lform/functionrelationshipsthroughinductiveaJ - Z
' (ryy j:
a n d c r e c u c t r \ -tea s K s .C x a m p l e J . t a k e n f r o m n a c a t a m e n t la n c lH e n n e r - j t a n c n l n a
"^71'--:-;-7-;- | r. (r
f05), is usetul lor exploring a range of structures,including'there * be', articles, )es/no
questions, and conjunctions.The teacher can determine which form/function relationships
are focused on by giving the learners certain types of prompts, for example: Whose
apartment is this? How much can you tell about the person who lives here? Is the person
poor?Why is the person fit?

Encouraging learners to become active explorers oJ language

By exploiting this principle, teachers can encourage their students to take greater
responsibility for their ovr.rrlearning. (A striking example of this principle, in an ESL setting,
can be found in Heath ( 1 992) .) Students ."., b.i.rg samplesof h"g""g" into class,u.rd *oik
fX All O.,
together to formulate their orvn hvpotheses about language structures and functions. I (Aa-r-i"
'v-vt
sometimes give my students a Polaroid camera, and get them to walk around the campus 'l
-
taking photographs, either of signsand public notices *hi.h th"y believe are ungrammuti.ul,
or of signs which ther: think are interesting, or puzzling, or which contain language they
would like to know more about. The photographs then become the raw material for our
next languagelesson. In fact, the last time I did this, the lesson culminated in the students
writing a letter to the universitv estates office pointing out the errors and suggesting
amendments.
196 DAVID NUNAN

Example 3

Look at the picture. Whose apartment is this? Make guessesabout the person who lives
here. Circle your guessesand then explain them b-vcircling the clues in the picture.

1 . T h ep e r s o ni s aman/awoman
2. The person has a babyi doesn'thavea baby
3. Theperson hasa pet/ doesn'thavea pet
4. Thepersonis athletic/ notathletic
5. Thepersonis a coffeedrinker/ not a coffeedrinker
6. Thepersonis well-educated / notwell-educated
7. The personis a smoker/ nota smoker
8. The personis middleclass/ ooor
9. The personis a musiclover/ nota musiclover
'10.The personis on a diet/ noton a diet

Classrooms nhere the principle of active exploration has been activated w'iil b=
characterized by an inductive approach to learning in which learners are given accessI:
data and provided with structured opportunities to work out rules, principles, ar,:
applicationsfor themselves.The idea here is that information will be more deeply processe:
and stored if learners are given an opportunity to work things out for themselves, rathe:
than simply being given the principle or rule.

Encouraging learners to explore rclationships between Brsmmar and discourse

Tasksexploiting this principle show learners that grammar and discourse are inextricab,r
interlinked, anithat gram-atical choices (for exaiple, whether to combine two pieces ,-:
'
information using co-ordination or subordination) will be determined by considerations
context and purpose. Such taskshelp learners to explore the functioning of grammar -:
 TEACHING GRAMMAR IN CONTEXT I97

context, and assistthem in deploying their developing grammatical competence in the

c r e a t i o no I c o h e r e n td i s c o u r s e .

Example 4

Consider the follow'ing pieces of information about nursing.

The nursing process is a systematic method.

The nursing process is a rational method.
The method involves planning nursing care.
The method involves providing nursing care.

'packaged'
These can be into a single sentence by using grammatical resources of various
kinds:

The nursing process is a systematic and rational method of planning and providing
nursing care.

TdskI Using the above sentence as the topic sentencein a paragraph, produce a coherent
paragraph incorporating the follow'ing information. (You can rearrange the order in r,r,'hich
t h e i n f o r m a t i o ni s p r e s e n t e d . ;

The goal of the nursing process is to identify a client's health status.

The goal of the nursing process is to identifv a client's health care problems.
A client's health care problems mav be actual or potential.
The goal of the nursing process is to establish plans to meet a client's health care
needs.
The goal ofthe nursing process is to deliver specific nursing interventions.
Nursing interventions are designed to meet a client's health care needs.
The nurse must collaborate with the client to carry out the nursing process effectively.
The nurse must collaborate with the client to individualize approaches to each person's
D a r t i c u l a rn e e d s .
The nurse must collaborate with other members of the health care team to carry out the
nursing process effectively.
The nurse must collaborate u.ith other members of the health care team to individualize
approachesto each person'sparticular needs.

Task2 Compare your text rvith that written bv another student. Make a note of similarities
and differences. Can you explain the differences? Do different ways of combining
information lead to differences of meaning?

Iasft3 Now revise your text and compare it w'ith the original. [This is supp]ied separately
to the students.]
(Adapted from Nunan 1996)
 198 DAVID NUNAN

Conclusion

In this chapter, I have argued that we need to go beyond linear approachesand traditional
form-focused methodological practices in the grammar class,and that while such practices
might be necessar), thev do not go far enough in preparing learners to press their
grammaticai resources into communicative use. I have suggestedthat grammar instruction
will be more effective in classroomswhere:

@ K
. ---contexts 1
it is not assumedthat once learnershavebeend4]lgdjl ticular form
acquiredit, and drilling is iEEEtEIylS-I-fr-rststep towards eventualmastsfy:
.a--:-.:_

ihere are opportunities for recvcling of languageforms, and learners are enqaqedin
have

tasks designed to make traniparent the links between form. meaniq53ldJgq:

learners are 8l'en oppo. ,unorng, oI tne
grammaticalprincipiesof English!
lan inductive learnin iences which encour
the functionin
over time, learners encounter target language items in an increasingly
complex range of linguistic an environments.
_-.---.1

In making a casefor a more organic approach to grammar teaching, I hope that I have not
given the impression that speciallv written texts and dialogues, drills, and deductive
presentationsby the teacher, have no place in the grammar class.What we need is an
appropriate balance between exercisesthat help learie.s come to grSTGthliu-muilcal
forfrs, or explorrn ms to communrcate e
ln seeking to explore alternative ways of achieving our pedagogical goals, itTfiilpbrtant
not to overstate t}re casefor one viewpoint rather than another, or to discount factors such
as cognitive style, learning strategyp..f".".r..r, prior learning experiences,and the cultural
contexts in which the languageis being taught and learnt. However, while there are some
grammatical structures that may be acquired in a linear way, it seems clear from a rapidly
growing body of research that the majority of structures are acquired in complex, non
linear wavs.

Notes

I havenot acknow'ledgedthe sourceof this extract, becauseI do not wish to appearto be

criticizing the text from which it was taken. It is cited here for contrastivepurposesonly.
: . N u n a n( 1 9 9 3 ) .
S o u r c eD

Acknowledgement

The author and the publisher rvould like to thank Heinle and Heinle for their kind
permission to reproduce copyright material from Badalamenti and Henner-stanchina
( 1e e 3 ) .
 T E A C H I N GG R A M M A RI N C O N T E X T 1 9 9

References

Badalamenti, V and Henner-Stanchina, C. ( 1993) Grammar DimensionsOne.Boston:Heinle and

Heinle.
Ellis, R. (199+) TheStudyof SecondLanguage Acquisicion.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Halliday,M.A.K. (1985) An Introduction to FunctionalGrammar.London:Arnold.
for ESL/EFL learners'in
Heath, S.B. (1992)'Literary skills or literate skills?Considerations
Nunan (1992\.
Johnston,M. ( 1987)'Understandinglearnerlanguage'in Nunan ( 1987).
Kellerman,E. (1983)'lf at first you do succeed. , i. S. Gassand C. Madden (eds)lnpur in
Second Language Ror,r.'ley,
Acquisition. Mass.:New-bury House.
Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M. (1991) An Introduction to Second
LanguageAcquisition
Research.
London: Longman.
Nunan, D. (ed.) (1987) ApplytngSecond Language Acquisition Research.
Adelaide:NCRC.
- (1992) Collaborative LanguageLearningandTeaching.Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Nunan, D. (1993) Introducing Analnis.London: Penguin.
Discourse
- (1996) AcademicWritingJor'l',lursing Hong Kong:The English Centre. University
Students.
of Hong Kong.
'The
Pica,T. ( 198 5) selectiveimpact of classroominstruction on secondlanguageacquisition'.
AppliedLinguistics 6/ 3: 2I+-22.
Pienemann,M. and Johnston,M..(1987)'Factors influencingthe developmentof language
proficiency' in Nunan ( 1987).
Rutherford,W (1987) Second Language Grammar:Teaching and Learning.London: Longman.
Wajnryb,R. (1990) Grammar Dictation.Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
Woods, E. (1995) Introducing Grammar. London: Penguin.
 Chapter 12

AnneBurns

GENRE-BASED APPROACH ES TO WRITING

AND BEGINNING ADULT ESL LEARNERS

Introduction

OMMUNICATIVE L A N G U A G E T E A C H I N G ( C L T ) H A S p l a y e di t s p a r t
in revo luti oni sin g larra$llvronceiyed-theoi Iearning and most language
v t}lev no lotiser equatethe learnins of a second e with the learning
@tthesametime'CLThasgivenrisetoasometimesconfusingarrar
of methodologies,some of which claim to be'the method'by which secondlanguagesuili
be acquired and all of which call themselves'communicative'.This has often led to a state
of"
intuition.
,--.f, |
IVI-oreand more, researchers and educators have begun to question some of t}r
assumptionsimplicit in communicative approachesto second-languageteaceffilTffi:ffi8-.e
failed to take into acTount a well-lormulated theory of language. Cope (1989) has argued
'authoritative'
tJlat what is needed is an pedagogy for the 1990s which will replace what he
terms the'progressive'curriculum whichhas existed since the mid-1970s. Becauseof is
(-\u-3discoverylearning,ego-centredb"'",P.
\ / to learners the knon'ledqethev need to gain accessto sociall)'powerfu] forms o[ ]anguage
\_-/ ffi
f{V- | . . It has emphasisedinquirv learning, processand naturalism but hasneglected to offer learners
/(AHA.>:,:i^#
/-\ual-- systematic explanations of how languagefunctions in various social contexts.
'
\ In
ln recent
recent vears
vea- mucn attentron nas Deen glven to soclally based theorles
es ot
of language
language
4do
L and in Australia work drawing on svstemic linguistics and notions of genre and register
developedby Michael Halliday (e.g.Halliday 1985; Halliday and Hasan 1985) hasprovided
a model for explaining language in relation to the contextin which it is used, while at
thesametimetakingi',to...ou@.Iffi.E}.Iwouldalsoargut
tlldt5)5LctlllL-tulIL.,..,,,cnlngIl[well1\-lIn

Communicative LanguageTeaching,as the,vprovide teachers and learners with a means oi

exploringlanguage use n ithin u f.u*.*o.
Ot,,',o,r*t', ken and writrer
language,much of the work done in educational settingshasrelated to literacy developmenr
in the schoolscontext (Martin and Rotherv 1980, 1981 ; Martin 1985). The Adult Migran:
Education Program (AMEP) Literacv Project organisedthroughout the National Centre fc,:
English LanguageTeachingand Research(NCELTR) described by Hammond (1989; ha.
 GENRE-BASED APPROACHESTO WRITING 2OL

lrau'n on this work aswell as on w.ork done bv t}e SvdnevMetropolitan EastDisadvantagect

SchoolsProgram (Callaghanand Rotherv 1988).

The NCELTR Literacy Project: a genre-based aPProach

\s one of the te s involved in the Project, I rvasparticularlv interested in investigating

holv uld be applied to adult second-languagelearners at the earlv
of learning. T\'pically in beginning ESL classes,reading and r,vriting are consigned to
secondplace and the focus is on the development of speakingand listening. In addition,
assumptions are frequently made that beginning learners are unable or not readv to cope
r.r'iththe development of reading and u'riting in English, even though there is a frequent
reliance on written materials to support spoken languagedevelopment.Teacherssometimes
maintain that learners do not have u'ell-developed skills in first-language literacy and
therefore it will be difficult to provide instruction in a second languagewhere oral skills are p ly
almost non-existent also.This mav be true, b"t -""i' b.gi""i"g 1"".
developed literacy skills in frrst lan and those w'ho do not will senerallv wis

I w.ould argue that these beliefs prevent learners from gaining accessto opportunikie, S€a
to develop their literacv skills in second languageand from understanding and responding t;-r. eT?
to the *iitt.n texts $.hich rvill be of value to them in furthering their learning and in t:
extending their ability to cope w'ith a range of taskscommon in the w.ider community, manv
of which depend on the ability to read and u-rite.
In the schoolscontext the range of genresdeait u'ith in the classroomis fairl-vrestricted,
asthey *'ttt U" *o.. *tt"tt .." O
of the s-6Foolcurriculum. In the adult context the choice is more open-ended, as texts lvi (
, .------'-------1- t -'----T-
be drawn lrom a larger numDer ol s grq;. At present, o
t eachir s-G-iLi ni-rv i t h b es inn i n€-ad u It ESL Iear n er s have [ew lines to direct them to

Beginning learners and a genre-based approach

Within the group oll$erac1' Projectparticipantswas one teacherrvho wasw'orkingon a

.lur, 1ffi;i-ing
L.'€--.-L-\__/
l.uii#)g.cause part oi the participants'involvementin the pioject
was thi recordii!-of?lassi6bm interaction and the documenting of any written texts usey',
tJSe',;'
she agreed that I would work collaborativeh'with her, collecting and recording the cl
P[LaJtct
data as she taught the class.The 19 learners were all within their first year of settlement as
permanent immigrants to Australia and had all been rated as less than 1 .0 on a seven-ficrint
oral rating ,.u1. 1LMES, Sp"uki.rgProfi.i".,.v fih"-
school and, of these, six had some post-high school education. Of the
others, two had primarv school education only, while six had received varving levels of high
school education.The-v came from a rvide varietv of first-language backgrounds, some of furJ
wftich usednon-Romanscript.
ou.g!'
\(--------- | //
\\One_o{the genresidentifiedasimportant bythe learners,in consultationwith the ir9.Z
teacher, waq;[ cations, and the writing of a lettd of application r,vasused by the
202 ANNE BURNS

teacher to structure a unit of w'ork. During the theoretical input sessionsat the beginning
of the project, Jennifer Hammond had proposed a teaching-learning cycle (Callaghan and
Rothery 1988), an adaptation of which (Hammond 1990) is presented in Figure 12. I below,

JOINT
NEGOTIATION
OF TEXT
readexamplesof genre; teacherandlearners
discussandanalysetext construct
text;ongoing
structureandlanguage discussion
of howto do this

DEVELOPING
redraftino
andeditino CONTROL OF learnerwrites
-
to "pr'btith"bt"" THE GENRE ownlext
standard '.

,'conferencinq betweent.
l e a c h e ra n d l e a r n e r

INDEPENDENT
CONSTRUCTION
OF TEXT

Figure12.1 The teaching-learning

cvcle
Hammond(1990)
Source:

This cycle incorporates different classroom activities which move the learners througn
various spoken and written tasks related to the genre being taught. The teacher can begin
the cycle at any point,btt
teacher to work through all stages.For this particular class,the teacher decided to work in

1 Modelling
2 Joint Negotiation ofText
3 IndependentConstruction.
 GENRE-BASED APPROACHESTO WRITING 203

Putting theory into practice

The rest of this paper {"rgib.. a lessonwhich focuseson the stagewhere the teacher
p"*:f
gr.€4,+'re.effation o a
Ii*lluri"*t. At the beglnnilfof the lesson, the teacher and learners again discusseda model
job-application letter which had been presented to them the previous day:

Text 1: Model job application letter

11CoLLenAvenue
KeneinqLon
N?W 2033
7th Oecember1989

The Tereonnel}fficer
Elfex LLd
I'iqh SLreeL
North Ry/e
New2113

D e a r) t r o r M a d a m

Ke: ReceVtioniet'sJob

I am wrilinq for Lhejob of receplionief,adverr,ieedin The )ydney Mornin1Aerald

today.
I haveworkedae a receptionlelfor Lhreeyearo in a denlieL'econeullancyand I am
very experiencedin answer'tnq the Lelephone, wrlLinqletters and Vreparinqaccounf'a.
I am 20 yeare old and I havemy I'iqher )chool CerLificaLe. I epeakand writ'efluenl
E n q l i e ha n d G r e e ka n d c o n e l d e m
r y e e l a
f m o o f ,
s u i t a b l ec a n d t d a t ef o r L h ej o b .
I haveencloseda referencelrom my laeL job. Tlease conLacf, me af' homeon 37O
2915anyttme in the eveninq.

Y o u r eo i n c e r e l y
(Siqnature)

teacher's aim was to h the learners describe rhe)K

schematic stffiTfiie S tCXt ich woEltl assistthem during the joint ructron
Sctivitv which w'aSto lollowing extract from the classroom illustrates how- this
was done:

Classroom transcript I

T: AII right, have a look at the letter we wrote together yesterday.In fact I'm going to
read it to you so that we can recall what rve did. At the top right hand corner we put
the . . .?
LL: Address . . . address. . . date.
T: Address . . . OK and date.Then on the left underneath we put . . .?
L: Who...andaddress.
204 ANNE BURNS

'Dear
T: OK . . . to whom and the address.Then Sir or Madam'. Why did we put'Sir or
Madam'?
I
BecauseI don't knolv man or woman.
T: Y o u d o n ' t k n o w i f i t i s a m a n o r a w o m a n . ' R e : R e c e p t i o n i s t ' sj o b ' . W h a t d o e s ' r e '
mean?
L . About...about...
T: 'l am w'riting to applv for the job of the receptionist advertisedinThe Sydney Morning
Herald today.' So the first t\llgaou should sayin the letter iq what the letter is about.
'l'm
w-riting to applv for the job. I have worked as a receptionist for three 1'earsii-a
dentist's consultancyand I am very experienced in answeringthe phone, writing letters
and preparing accounts. So, the seconjljel!!what is that . . . ?
L : Experience. . .
T: RThJTo"s the experience (w-riting on board next to number 2). What was one?
What would you put for one?
LL: (Untntelltgible')
T: What is the first thing in the letter?'l am writing. . .'?
L: Address?
LL: No...no.
'l
T: am writing to appiv . . .'What could we put there?
L: The problem . . .
T: Not a problem .
L: No...information
LL: No...aboutme...
T: The main information in the letter . . . OK? (writes on board next to number 1)

thelearners.The
resultr.r,'as
thefollowinfde@ion oTttrdschernai

Text 2: Schematic structure of job application letter

1 Address
2 Date
3 Who to and address
+ Dear
5 Re (about)
5 Main Information
7 Experience
8 About me (relevant to job)
9 Ending
10 Reference
11 Contact
12 Yours sincerelv
13 Signature.

The teacher follor,vedthis bv discussingrvith the learners some of the distinctive features
 GENRE.BASED APPROACHESTO WRITING 205
6
' - . , , - ^ , - - - - -use of the Present tense, the bt
of the text, such as the predominant
participantandthe useof primarii)'
'being'and'having'clauses.,At ""j!AS""l
the end of thissegmeniof
o!
:r
the-1eS6n] the learners were asked to construct their ow'n letters in response to
Commonwealth Emplovment Service (CES) advertisements,which had also been read and
discussedin a previous lesson.EachgrouP wasgiven a samPleadvertisement(seeTbxtI below)
and askedto choosea scribe lvhotwould record the text asit was produced.The accountwhich
follows described how one group of three learners rvent about constructing their text.
The group was composed of three female learners; Katia, who was Chilean;Zorka, who
wasYugoslav;and Susanna,aCzech.All three w'ere in their 20s and had post-high school
education, two haling been nurses and one a teacher in her owrr countrl'.They had all indicated
that job-seeking \!.asa priority for them and were highly motivated to improve their ianguage
skills so that they could eventuallv find emplovment. Susannawas nominated to scribe t}re
^ text and *'hut .h.
iointlv negotiated
ty \4Tote \{'as ln resPons9 to me lollo)vlng aov'
q.u [o*( &> 4\a-rs l" t\^*. cr,L>e-.
)
Text 3: CESjob advertisement

Mechanic 5 0 5 2 a / 5 3 1k c s
Woolloomooloo Motor repairs
General RepairWork on Jaguars
8a.m.-5p.-. ''
gAward - Negotiabl.
Age:25*
TradesmanMechanic
Exp. On Jaguars

Despite their limited proficiencv in English, the group employed a wide range of
strategiesduring the joint construction activitv. The following extract illustrates how they
collaborated to produce their text:

Classroom transcript 2

Su: I am writing to applv . . . (w-riting)

Ka: O f t h ej " b . . .
Zo: Excuseme
Su: About thejob . . .
Zo: Of ? Of the job?
Su: About
Ka: About. . .about. . .of. . .of. . .
Zo: No . . .forthe . . . forthejob
Su: For the j"b . . . 1u'riting)
Zo: Of ...
Ka: Motor mechanic

(Susannawrites, then reads aloud)

Su: I am u'riting to apply for the job . . . (compares with model) in the CES todav . . .
Ka: In the service station . . . in the nel4'sPaPer. . . Spanish. . . new-sPaPer
206 ANNE BURNS

Su: Oh (laughs) . . . (looks at job advertisement) In the CES C...(writes)

Ka: (watchesas Susannawrites)C . . . E . . . S .

This extract illustrates how the learners:

referred to the model

transferred language fro ext of their own
-
text ---
+#
oFferedsuggestionsfor constructing the text
collaborated to produce what they believed to be correct versions ofthe text
monitored what was being written
used the model to check their version of the text
read aloud to'trv out' the text on each other
used each other as resources for writing
exchanged .Ior*:ylt".ul i"fo.*utior ocial context of the

The final version of the letter by this group of learners is reproduced below and is
representative of similar texts completed by other groups in the classduring this activity.

Text 4: Jointly negotiated letter of application

Z/fl7 ea.ec PeReD€
'
.rQzoulQqlosf
P.A T

TH€ HAOECE?
te\ytc€ .fTBT/dl./
ADotzss

Deap,,rB/ ua)a// ,
R€: aoroQ ,E1*411 JOt
'1'
t o. -")fi? /" ter /he7ob
.
o, -fuf
?ryo?
-.chant4r1.,6 lhe C.€.f. tc4r.
.t!- ha-ve vork4 a.r elo? taeclauL {o, d
',o
fQrt 4 getn.rmczl tcrrtZ? tja/rba.
f fflffE"arinuis q*'aio,h (teqo,pe.j) a.,a

f cott -o.L-('/l ]inz od cune& ovzt'/ttt'e

q,d o,glQf 1-rrrA . f, ce'tlr'd'cr ttSrzlf amotf
.torhb/o'-vfnbaal €.r lhe2ob ,
/ hor< c-nc/otc4 a.oferencc {.o-, tt; ht/
7.b,
?lc.,p- coatt.:c,l ne o{ ij ilf ,, ,' . ' ,
cn sef,c rz ,#. or )n iAo
"n"ri;--i*
on rr ( f,43 .f'arr
V nn,
 GENRE-BASED APPROACHESTO WRITING 207

It can be observed that the learners hut'. dtu*l tPon th. *od.l ptot h..
ro
to structure
structure the
the texlapplggiarQ\'in
text a terms gf Uygl*and oveEU-Pls!]3nIation.ln
addition ^
thev ha , *,i* fi"-$<ltrlg and-lllesgrel!-sl+eneral-.
I O I I O \ \ - e Oby
n t r o ( l u c t l o n , follorved
p u r p O S e C O m t n g a S a n lintroduction, D)- a c c o u n I s g,f
accounts O I plet*i-o-gs
Pre\ lous eexperience,
xPerlence,

rl
""ffiheyhavealsowrittenaiuitabIeconclusionwFctr-reI-ers
--i-:-l-- |
and lncludesa contact numDer'
to the reterence
Although these learners are at the beginning stage in their second-language
developmenl, they havebeen able to produce a fairly effective text approximating the genre,
'letter
of job application'. I believe that this u'as made possiblebecausethe approach taken

ich they n-cre focusing.

Even at early stagesin second-languagelearning, Iearners can, and must, be assistedto
begin the process oiacquiring and extending skills in reading and writing. As there is no
."J.on to suppose that written language acquisition in a second language cannot-be
developmental in the same l4y-lh4lspoken lqg+g uisition is general to be,
it is'vitaf that in a techno oriented and hi iterate societ ult learnerFre
giverf instruction in written lan as earlv as possible ln a Drl
ba's?dapproach provitles t w'ith lea actlvltles Dresen n a social contextual
them to focus on langua lssist them to

Note

I am grateful to the other participants in the NCELTR Literacy Project and in particular-to
their advice and contributions to the writing of this
J".rniHam-ond and Eileen Lustig for
PaPer.

References

ProfciencyTfuough
oJSpeaking
Brindley,G. (1919) TheAssessment Sydney:
the Oral Interviev'.
AMES.
j. ( 1988) Teaching FactualWriting: A GenreBased Approacfi.Report of
-the M. and Rother,v,
Callaghan,
DSP Literacv Project, Metropolitan East Region. Sydney: NSW School Education
Deoartment.
Cope, W (1989) A historicalbackgroundto current curriculumchangesand the shift to gente.
Presentationat the First LERN Conference,SydneJ'.
H a l l i d a y , M . A . K .( 1 9 8 5 )A n l n t r o d u c t i o n t o F u n c t i o n a l G r a mLm
oan rd.o n :E d w a r d A r n o l d .
Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R. (1985) Language, context and text:Aspects oJlanguage in a social
semjoticpercpective. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press'
Hammond, J. (1989)'The NCELTR LiteracyProiect.'Prospect 5, 1: 23-30.
- (1990) Collaboratingin LiteraqrTeachingand Research. Paper presented at 26th Annual
TESOL Convention, SanFrancisco.
Martin, J.R. (1985) FactualwtitinB: Exploringand Challenging SodalReality.Geelong,Victoria:
Deakin Universitv Press.
Martin, J.R. and Rothery, J. (19S0) Writing Project,ReportNo. l,WorkingPapers in LinguisticsNo.
1. Universityof Sydnel':Department of Linguistics.
-(1981) WritingProject,ReportNo.2,WorkingPapersinLinguisticsNo.2.UniversityofSydney:
Department of Linguistics.
 Chapter 13

A. SureshCanagarajah

CRITICAL ETHNOGRAPHY OF A SRI

LANKAN CLASSROOM: AMBIGUITIES IN
STUDENT OPPOSITION TO
REPRODUCTION THROUGH ESOL

Introduction

HIS CHAPTER ARGUES THAT THE wayinwhichdominationisexperienced

T1
I and oppositional tendencies are formed in classroom life has to be observed closeh'
rather than conceived abstractlv.This ethnographic study of 2 2 tertiary-level Tamil students
following a mandatory English for general purposes (EGP) course reveals that whereas the
lived culture displaysopposition to the alienating discoursesinscribed in a U.S. textbook.
the students affirm in their more conscious statements before and after the course t}eir
strong motivation to study ESOL. Interpreting this contradiction as reflecting the conflict
students face between cultural integrity, on the one hand, and socioeconomic mobility, on
the other, the studv explains how students' desire for learning only grammar in a product-
oriented manner enables them to be somer,r'hatdetached from cultural alienation while
being sufficiently examination oriented to pass the course and fulfill a socioeconomic
necessity.However, this two-pronged strategy is an ideologically limiting oppositional
behavior that contains elements of accommodation as well as resistance and unwittinglr
leads students to participate in their oq'n domination.
The recent introduction of poststructuralist perspectives on language and radical
theories of schooling that view language teaching as a political act is a long-awaited
developmentinTESOL. Suchtheoriesenjoy much currency in L1 circles,almost becoming
the orthodoxy in areaslike composition teaching, with w'ords like discourseand,^po*rr^rn,
becoming clich6d and posing the danger that they might have lost their critical edge.TESOL.
on the other hand, tvhile being a far more controversial activity, has managed io see itself
as safelv"apolitical" due to its positivistic preoccupation with methods and techniques.
In recent issuesof the IESOI Qgarterly,scholars such as Pennycook (1989) and Peirce
(1989) have deconstructed dominant methods and the idea of met}od itself in order tc
exPose the ideologies that inform TESOL. Though their papers perform a pioneering
function, the force rvith w'hich they are compelled to present their thesesalso involves some
simplification.Whereas Pennycook'sdelineation of ideological domination throughTESOL
aPPearsoverdetermined and pessimistic,Peirce's characterizationof the possibilities c:
 ETHNOGRAPHYOF A SRI LANI(AN CLASSROOM 209

pedagogicalresistanceappearstoo volitionist and romantic. We should now turn to the

sober task of analyzingthe complexities of domination and resistanceas they are plaved out
in ESOL classroomsand the confusing manner in which they are often interconnected.
Pennycook (1989) is generally convincing when, after a detailed analvsisof the socially
constructed nature of the concept of method, he asserts,"The power of the Western male
academy in defining and prescribing concepts . . . plavs an imPortant role in maintaining
inequities between, on the one hand, predominantly male academicsand, on the other,
female teachers and language classroomson the international power periphery" (p.612).
This scenario is so true that, ironicaliy, even pedagogies of resistance (of those like
Pennycook and Peirce) have to reach us in the peripher,v from the West. However, in
stretching the effects of the political economy of textbook publishing and research at the
-
macrolevel to languageclassrooms,Pennycook is making too wide a leap especially
becausehis paper does not focus on classroom realities. What Pennycook overlooks in the
process is that the classroom is a site of diverse discoursesand cultures rePresented by the
ua.ying backgrounds ofteachers and students such that the effects ofdomination cannot be
blindll: predicted. Such classroom cultures mediate the concepts defined and prescribed by
the Western academy as they reach the periphery. It is possible that various modes of
opposition are sparked during this encounter. Although Pennycook himself eventually
teachers and academicsto envision a more democratic social environment, this will
"*ho.tr
not be possible if a spaceis not created for such resistanceby acknowledging the relative
autonom)/ of the school from other socialinstitutions and processes.Throughthis term, Henry
Giroux (1983) posits that the different social institutions and cultural sites"are governed
by complex ideological properties that often generate contradictions both within and
betu,een them" (p. 102), that a specific institution like the school is not ruled inexorably by
the interests of the state and economy, although necessarily influenced by them. Giroux
(1983) in fact criticizes reproductive perspectivesofschooling, such as those ofAlthusser
(1971),Bowles and Gintis (1976),and Bourdieu and Passeron(1977) for deterministically
conceiving the school as serving to inculcate only the culture, ideologies, and social relations
necessaryto build and sustain the status quo
If Pennycook has to attend the noun in t}e term relativeautonoml, Peirce has to note
the adjective.That is, the attitudes, needs, and desiresof minoritv communities and students
are only partially free from the structures of domination in the larger social svstem. Hence,
whereas Peirce (1989) makes a porverful casefor how'the teaching of English can oPen uP
possibilities for students bv helping them to explore what might be desirable,as well as
nappropriate,"uses of English' (p. 401), she assumestoo much in considering "People's"
English as what w-ill be unanimously desired bv the "minority" students of South Africa. This
is not to slight the importance of developing such pedagogiesof resistance,that is, politicallv
conscious approachesto learning/teaching which critically interrogate the oppressive
tendencies behind the existing content and forms of know'ledge and classroom relations to
fashion a more liberating educational context that would lead to student emPowerment and
socialtransformation (see Giroux, 1983).They are certainly a pressingconcern inTESOL
and a much needed corrective to deterministic theories of schooling. However, with
remarkable balance,Giroux (1983) also criticizes one-sidedpedagogiesof resistancefor
"not giving enough attention to the issue of how domination reachesinto the structure of
personality itself " (p. 106). Minoritv students may then display a complex range of attitudes
towards domination with a mixture of oppositional and accommodative tendencies which
have to be critically examined.
Pennycook and Peirce are unable to attend to the complexities of the classroom culture
in the face of domination becausetheir papers are broadlv theoretical, focus on the politics
2TO A. SURESH CANAGARAJAH

ofTESOL-related macrostructures, and onlv assumeimplications for language classrooms

rather than reporting empirical observations of the classroom itself for how domination is
experienced and oppositional tendencies are formed there. We can understand the
"ambiguousareas"(Giroux, 1983, p. 109) of student response,where a confusingrange of
accommodative and oppositional tendencies are displayed, only if we take a closer look at
the day-to-day functioning of the classroom and the lived culture of the students. It is br
doing so thai we can attlain a realistic understanding of the challenges as well as the
possibilities for a pedagogy of resistancein TESOL. The objective of this chapter is not to
outline one more pedagogv of resistance,but to interrogate the range of behaviors students
display in the face of domination the awarenessof which should precede and inform any
development of such pedagogies.The ethnographic study below of an ESOL classroom in
Sri Lanka creatively complicates the perspectives on domination and resistancepresented
by Pennycook and Peirce.

Contextualizing the study

Ever since the British colonial polr'er brought the whole island of (then) Ceylon under its
control in 1796 and instituted English education to create a supportive lower administrative
work force, English has functioned as a valued linguistic capital over the local Sinhalaand
Tamil languagesto provide socioeconomic advantagesfor native Lankans.Although since
1956 (8 years after independence), "leftist" governments have professed to raise the status
of Sinhala (and, to a limited extent, Tamil), it is the English-speakingbilinguals who have
dominated the professionsand social hierarchy. On the other hand, the democratization or
popularization of English promised bv "rightist" governments has only amounted to
providing limited mobility into low'er-middle-class rungs for aspirants whose newly acquired
English is marked as a nonprestige "sub-standard Sri Lankan English" (see Kandiah, 1979).
These developments have historicallv disgruntled the monolingual majority to make them
perceive English as a double-edged weapon that frustrates both those who desire it as well
asthose who neglect it (Kandiah, 1984). Similarly,in theTamil society,whereasthe emergent
militant nationalism has unleashed a Tamil-only and even "pure Tamil" movement, such
parallel developments as t}re exodus to the West or the cosmopolitan capital as economic
and political refuges have bolstered English to assurethe dominance of English bilinguals
and to attract monolinguals.
As for English language teaching, the teachers, administrators, and general public in
Sri Lanka agree that English languageteaching is a "colossal failure" (de Souza, 1969, p. 1.81
considering the vast resourcesexpended on tlris enterprise by the state andWestern cultural
agencies.Though all identify the problem as one of student motivation, they differ as to
why students are unmotivated. Hanson-Smith (1984), a U.S. TESOL consultant, and
Goonetilleke (1983), a local professor of English, fault the educational system. In the
university, for instance, thev perceive that the requirements for English are not stringent
enough to motivate studentsto take the subject as seriously as other subjects.Both, however,
are in agreement that English does a u'orld of good for Sri Lankan students:"English is
learned not primarilv to communicate with other Lankans . . but to converse with the
world at large - and not just the world of technologv and machines, but also of dreams.
aspirationsand ideals"(Hanson-Smith,1984, p. 30).BecauseKandiah (1984), on the other
hand, is of the view that the dreams encouragedbv English are illusory (as English learning
does not challengebut in fact perpetuatesinequality) and its ideals are suspectedby students
'
of resulting in cultural deracination, he seesthe problem of motivation differently: "1The
 ETHNOGRAPHYOF A SRI LANI(AN CLASSROOM zTL

reasonswhy thev lack this motivation are socioeconomic-political"(p. 132). The present
study developed as an attempt to arbitrate between these divergent approaches to the
problems of motivation w-ith empirical data becausethe papers of the above scholars were
largely impressionistic and simply imputed to students attitudes neither systematically
o b s e r v e dn o r e l i c i t e d .

Method

The methodological orientation and fieldwork techniquesdeveloped bv ethnography enable

us to systematically study the students' own point of view. of English language teaching in
its natural context. Though ethnographv is noted for its intensive, detailed focus on the
1ocal,contextualized, and concrete, the challengein this studv is to analyzehow the attitudes
iormed by students in dailv classroom life are impinged upon by the more abstract
sociopolitical forces outside the walls of the classroom. Holvever, current ethnographv is
taking up the challengeof"how to represent the embedding ofrichly described local cultural
.r'orlds in larger impersonal svstemsof political economy" (Marcus and Fischer, 1985, p.
S'l).This new orientation in the {reldn'ork and writing of ethnography is inspired by a more
complex, politicized view of culture in both anthropology and political economy. Such
developments account for a small but grow-ing body of ethnographic literature that looks
at the culture of classroomsand student communities in relation to social conflict and
political domination (see Bourdieu and Passeron,1977; Ogbu, 1986;weis, 1985;Willis,
1977). .,
In order to conduct such politically motivated ethnography, we have to go bevond the
dominant descriptive ethnography that is practiced today inTESOL circies (see, e.g., Benson,
1989) and theorized in delinitive terms foTTESOL practitionersbyWatson-Gegeo(1988).
What we need in its place is a critical ethnography - an ideologically sensitive orientation to
the study of culture that can penetrate the noncommittal objectivity and scientism
encouraged by the positivistic empirical attitude behind descriptive ethnography and can
demystify the interests served bv particular cultures to unravel their relation to issues of
Power (see Marcus and Fisher, 1985).Willis (1978), whose 1977 study of working-class
black students in an urban British school is a pioneering and sophisticated example of this
orientation, defines the project of critical etlinography thus:

We must interrogate cultures, ask what are the missing questions they answer,probe
the invisible grid of context, inquire what unsaid propositions are assumed to the
invisible and surprising external forms of cultural life. If we can supply the premises,
dynamics, logical relations of responsesrvhich look quite untheoretical and lived out
"merely" as cultures, we lvill uncover a cultural politics. (p 18)

Practicing such a committed, value-laden ethnography does not mean that we can ignore
Watson-Gegeo's (1988) warning that "true ethnographic work is systematic, detailed and
rigorous, rather than anecdotal or impressionistic" (p. 588). Hence, an intensive participant
observation of the ESOL classI taught 5 hrlweek was carried out for an academic vear
(November 1990 to J ulv 199 1 1.Though it is possible that my dual roles as teacher and
researcher could create certain tensions (as could be expected in any observation by a
participant), mv teaching also created certain advantagesw-hich I would have lacked as a
detached observer. My daily interaction r,r-iththe students in negotiating meanings through
English and participating in the students' successesand failures,'with the attendalnt,r".dio
revise my own teaching strategv,provided a vantagepoint to their perspectives.Moreover,
2I2 A. SURESH CANAGARAJAH

I enjoyed natural accessto the dailv exercisesand notes ofthe students and the record ol
their attendance u,ithout having to foreground my role as researcher. As the teachinE
progressed,I stumbled into other naturalistic data that provided insights into students' o$Tr
point of .i,i"*' of the course, such as the comments students had scribbled during classtime
in the margins of the textbook (which, due to frequent losses,was distributed before each
classand collected at the end).
To add a chronological dimension to the study, I situated the other methods of data
collection at significanf points in the progression of the course. During the first week of
classes,I conducted a free recall procedure, askingthe studentsto jot down their impressions
ofEnglish. I also gavea detailed questionnairecovering their social and linguistic background
to be completed at home. At the end of the course, but before their final examination,
I conducted an oral interview with the students in my office to analyze their responsesto
the course, textbook, and learning English in general. Though I invited the students for a
15-min interview, eventually each interview ranged from 70 to 90 min. Becausesome
students preferred to converse with me in the company of anotJrerclassmate,I permitted
-
them to meet me in pairs. Even then, 7 students, all females, failed to turn uP probablr'
reflecting the taboo on close interpersonal relations between the sexesinThmil society.The
interview, Iike the questionnaire, was inThmil so that students could express themselves
freely. (Such data is presented below, in translation, unless otherwise stated. The original
Thmil is cited only w'hen discursively significant.)
The ouestionnaire and the interl.iew modules were constructed in such manner as to
enable cross-checking of sttrdents' opinions. In the questionnaire, the 6rst part surveyed
students' educational backgrounds and exposure to English.The second part surveyed the
educational and socioeconomic background ofthe parents.The third part provided a set o[
true/false statements to test more obliquely students' attitudes toward the use of English.
The final part contained open-ended questionsthat further sampledtheir attitudes, allowing
comparison of these with their previous statements. Though the final interview u'as
prestructured, I shifted topic freel,v according to the flow of conversation. Questions 1-l
queried the attitude of the students towards English in relation to their other courses:
of the
Questions 4-7 checked their response to the organization and cultural content
textbook; 8 and 9 sampled t}re effects of English learning on their thinking and identitr:
10-1,2 invited a critique of the pedagogv and curriculum; 13-15 explored their use of
English outside the class;and 16-18 solicited their recommendations for the improvement
of the course. Some of the similar questions in the interview then enabled me to comPar€
the motivation and attitudes of the students with their opinions stated in the questionnaire
in the beginning of the course.The other modes of data collection, too, enabled me tc
authenticate the data more effectively through triangulation (see Denzin, 1970). For
instance, the lived culture of the students (as recorded in my field notes and student-.'
comments in the textbook) was at odds with their stated opinions in the interview anc
questionnaire, compelling me to reconstruct more complex hypotheses to explain thei:
attitudes.

The course

The classthat I observed consisted of 22 flrst-vear students in the arts and humanities at th.
University of Jaffna.The ESoL course is mandatorv for all students of the faculty of arr'
A pass is required in ESOL to qualifv for admission to the second year. For eligibili:
to specializein a specific subject from the second vear onwards, students are required :
score at least a B on the ESOL exam in the first sitting. It is from the second year that Engl:'
 ETHNOGRAPHYOF A SRI LANI(AN CLASSROOM 2I3

teaching is structured into English for specific purposes (ESP), catering to the different
subject specialties.The first-year course is basedon English for general purposes (EGp;,
providing practice in all four skills.
Because the course is structured around a core text, it is necessarv to discuss the
organization of AmericanKernel Lessons (AKL):Intermediare(O'Neill, Kingbury,Yeadon, and
Cornelius, 1978). We have to remember that such prepackagedmaterial, which comes wit}
a teachers' manual, testing kit, and audiotapesfor listening comprehension, represents "a
direct assault on the traditional role of the teacher as an intellectual whose function is to
conceptualize,designand implement learning experiencessuited to the specificity and needs
of a particular classroom experience" (Aronorvitz and Giroux, 1985, p. 149). Although
teachers in the Universitv of Jaffna realize these problems, the limitations of time, funds,
stationerv.and printing facilities in w-ar-torn Jaffnaeventually drive them to use texts such as
,4KI which have been amply gifted bvWestern agenciessuch asthe Asia Foundation. If existing
books become dated, teachershave to simply'w.aitfor the next consignment of material.
As the title implies, the text is targeted towards intermediate-level students and focuses
on the tenses,using eclectic methods organizedaround a predominantlv situationalapproach
(see Richards and Rodgers, 1986). Each unit contains five parts. PartA introduces the
grammatical item for that unit through a set of "situations," accompaniedby visuals.Part B,
labeled Formation and Manipulation, introduces the grammatical item more overtly and
provides pattern practice. Part C is a serialized detective story that introduces new
vocabulary in addition to providing practice in reading/listening comprehension. Part D
presentsa conversation for role pl"ftg, r,vhereasthe final part containsguided composition.
The last t$'o parts also provide grammar revision exercises.Though grammar is presented
overtly in some sections, in most others, students are encouraged to formulate their ovi'n
hypothesesinductively through active use ofthe languagein specific skills.
It is also necessaryto analyzethe ideologies that structure the text in order to place in
context the attitudes and responsesof tJle students to the course. What stands out in the
note, "To the Student andTeacher,"in the beginning of the text is the concern with providing
adequate"practice" so that students w'ill "progress" in the "fundamentals of English" which
intermediate students "still cannot seem to use correctl)', easily and as automatically as they
w'ould like" (O'Neill et a|.,1978,p. vi).The languageechoesbehaviorismand assumesthat
with sufficient drill, students can be made to display habit-oriented automatic responses.
Furthermore, the fundamentals of English are considered autonomous, value-free
grammatical structures (in the fashion of U.S. structuralism), ignoring the culture and
ideologies that inform the language or the textbook. The students themselves are isolated
from their social context, and there is no consideration of how their own linguistic and
cultural backgrounds can affect or enhance their learning. In its concern with correctness
(which, of course, is based on standard U.S. English rath-erthan on the Englishesstudents
bring with them), the textbook empo\!€rs the teacher asthe sole autlority ii th. .lr.rroorn
to regulate, discipline, and arbitrate the learning process.Such assumptionsamount to what
Giroux (1983) hasidentified as instrumental ideology (p. 209).Though,4KI acknowledges
the need to make learning an "enjoyable experience" and also provides opportunities for
collaborative pair work, these attempts provide only occasional relief from t}e largely
positivistic pedagogy.
In fairness to AKL, we have to note that certain sectionsare influenced by the notion of
communicative competence lr.ith advice to students that "the situations themselves are more
important than isolatedrvords" (O'Neill et a\.,1978, p. v). However, the interactions and
the discourse employed in such situations assumean urbanized, technocratic, Western
culture that is alien to the students. Even such simple speechactivities as conversationsare
2I4 A. SURESH CANAGARAJAH

conducted in a strictly goal-oriented manner (seeUnit 2d), whereasTamil discourse . a,-.

the "digression"and indirection typical of oral communities. The valuesthat emerge thro r.
the situations are not hard to decipher, such as upward social mobility and consumerl::
(4d).The work ethic (12a) and routine of factory life (13a) are presented positively, r,r'hert.-
strikes and demonstrations (5a) and the lifestyie of blacks (in the story of Jane and h.:
boyfriends) are not. The potential of the textbook to influence students with cert:-.
dominant values of U.S. societv is subtly effective because,4KI disarms its users :'
presenting languagelearning as a value-free, instrumental activity.

The class

The classconsisted of 13 female and 9 male nativeTamil students, of whom 3 were Rom":-
Catholics and the rest Hindus.These students had failed the initial placement test in EngL=-
and fared among the worst among the new entrants for that academic year. Thev u'er=
enrolled in a range of subjects related to the humanities and social sciencesbesides*-.
mandatory ESOL. A majorit,v of these students were from rural communities and from tr:,=
poorest economic groups. Except for 4 students whose parents were in clerical or teachir-:
professions(thus earning the relatively decent sum of 1000 rupees, or US$25 a month
the other parents did not have steadyjobs or salaries.In the latter group, some were tenar----
farmers, and others were seasonalcasuallaborers.The families of the students had also ha:
limited education. Only one student's parents had proceeded beyond Grade 10.The Paren-
of 5 others had not completed an elementary school education.
Furthermore, the students came from backgrounds in which English held limittj
currency. Only 8 students said their parents had managedto studv some elementary Engli=:
in school. Of these, 3 reported that their parents might listen to English programs on the
multilingual television or radio. Five reported that their parents could be expected to uttc.
some English words if they encountered foreigners or if need arosein their workplace. None
of them could read or write English. Considering the students themselves,although 18 hal
satfor the Grade 10 Englishlanguagetest, only 10 had managedto scorea simple pass(i.t..
a grade op 4go/oS.Threestudents reported that they had read English newspapers/books '--.r
seen English films - although thev could not remember the titles of any. Fourteen rePorte'l
that they might occasionall-vswitch on some English programs on radio or television.The
same number said they might code-mix English with friends or when thev needed a linr
language.

Contextualizing classroom life

Precourse determination

When the universitv reopened belatedlv for the academic year, it was after much doubt as
to whether it would continue to function at all because renewed hostilities between d:=
Sinhalagovernment andTamil nationalistshad brought life to a standstill in theTamil regior-
Yet students trickled in from jungles where thev had taken refuge from the fighting - ;
some cases,trekking hundreds of miles b,vfoot. In a country where only a small percenta!.
of all those u'ho annually qualify for tertiary education do get admission,the students valut:
their university degreessufficiently to turn up for classes.As a grim reminder of the violen: .
and tension that u'ould continue to loom behind their studies, government fighter jt-.
screamedoverheadand bombed the vicinity of the university while the students were taki: -
the English placement test during the opening week of classes.
 ETHNOGRAPHYOF A SRI LANI(AN CLASSROOM 2I5

Despite these problems or becauseof them, students were highlv motivated for studies
(including English), as is evident in an initial questionnaire I gavethem. Asked whether the,v
."vantedto study English at the universitv, all of the students replied in the affirmative.
How'ever, the intensitv of the feelings that accompanied their motivation is conveyed through
some of the other data in which students enjoyed more scope for free expression. Thiru
rvrote the following personal note at the end ofhis free recall procedure:

It is difficult to studv English in the village. And I am from Kaddaiparichchanin Mutur.

There was no English from Grade 3 to 7 . I lacked opportunities. But I really
(extremely) desirelearning English (Please don't reveal this to anybodv else in the
class: Here in Jaffna there are a lot of opportunities, and I am presentlv studying
English from a private tutor also).

Students from remote villages profoundlv regretted not having enjoyed opportunities
to learn English earlier and admitted that it u,as belatedlv that they had realized the need
for the l"ngrrug.. Some of the male students includingThiru caught me alone a couple of
times in the first month (while I u.alked back to mv office after class)to impress upon me
their previous frustrations with the language and their present desire to master it in the
universitv.
The reasons for learning English however seemed predominantly utilitarian. In the
questionnaire,76.l04 stated"educationalneed" as their first preference(including 61 .9o/o
who considered this their sole chc;ice)."Job prospects"was cited by 19.20h,and"social
status"bv + .7oh."To travel abroad"was cited bv none. But the categoriesstudentsthemselves
proffered suggest motives that are more pragmatic or idealistic as they emerge through a
relatively open-ended later question. Students needed English (a) because ESOL is
mandatory in the universitl', 5 .8%o;(b) becausea passis required in the first-year test, 5 .8%;
(c) to pursue postgraduatestudies,5 .8oh; (d) to understandother cultures, 1 1.7o/o;(e) to
interact with a wider group of people, 14.70k;(f) to gather more information, 20.8%; (g)
to know an international language,23.5o/o;(h) "to become a complete person," 11.7o .
Although Motives a-c show a narrowlv pragmatic view of education, Motives d-g are less
so. And the final reason, w.hich is the most idealistic stated, suggeststhat students are not
alwayspurely utilitarian in their perspective. Some, Iike Lathan, insisted, "Through English
a student becomesa mulu manithan[i.e., a complete man]." In fact, when the question was
reframed as"What are the disadvantagesof being aTamil monolingual?" students expressed
a paralyzing senseof powerlessnessin the face of diverse peoples and circumstances.
Such high notions as Lathan's about the functions of English are confirmed in the
students' attitudes tow'ard English as a language.Although students would be expected to
resist English at a time of heightened linguistic nationalism and purism in the community
with political leaders daily condemning English, students' attitudes were, on the contrary,
quite positive. Except for one student (i.e., Supendran- whose remarkably consistent
opposition will be discussedlater), the rest disagreedrvith the statement "studying English
as a second languagewould create damageforThmil languageand culture." Similarly, for the
more personalized variant of this statement, "What are the social/personal disadvantages
that would occur to you by your use of English," all answered "none." Such a favorable
attitude on the part of the students is partly explained bv a phrase that kept recurring in
their responses:Englishasapothumoli (i.e, common language).It was evident that students
were not using this synonymouslv with sarvathesa moli or akila ulaka moli (i.e., international
language) with its usual connotations. When they used pothu moli in addition to the latter
terms, they seemed to use it'lvith the meaning that it was an "unmarked" languagethat
2T6 A. SURESH CANAGARAJAH

transcended the specific cultures and ideologies of different nations. So Gnani stated,
"Although it is the language of a particular nation, it is a common languagefor all people
and nations."
Although the relatively more spontaneousimpressions of the students in the free recall
procedure largeiy con{irm their positive attitudes toward English, they are also tinged with
fears and inhibitions. Hence, though a majority of the students associatedEnglish with
development, progress, learning, civilization, literacy, culture, social respect, and
personality',one can also detect other comments lvhich suggestthat studentsare not unaware
of the sociopsychological damage and politics of the language.Shanthi wrote:

British mother tongue. We were forced to studv it becauseof colonialism. If we have

a knowledge of this language we can live in whichever country we want. Brings to
mind the developed life of the white people. A languagethat evervbody should know.

Though conflicting impressions are mixed in Shanthi'sstream of consciousness,what

is remarkable is that she remains detached from the negative features and fails to take a
perspective on them.The fact that students are probably consciouslyrationalizing their fears
or suppressingtheir inhibitions is evident from Ratnam's comments. He argued, "Since t}e
dominance of English is uncontestabie,the best strategy is to exploit its resourcesto develop
our own languageand culture."

Midcourse resistance

The inhibitions towards English which lay partly suppressedduring the initial period of the
course in the conscious responses of the students, came into relief in their largelr'
unconscious lived culture as the course proceeded. It is evident from the record of dailr
attendance that students faced problems in the course. Although students recorded an
impressive 94oh dail1,turn out for most of the first 2 months, at the end of the second month.
attendancefell to 500%.Studentsbegan to miss classesfor the slightest reason: to write
tutorials for another subject, to prepare for a test, to attend funerals offriends'relatives.
At times intense fighting in the district or the imposition of curfew also affected attendance.
But none of this deterred 90% of the students from attending from the eighth month as the
final examination was approaching, demanding that past test papers be done and revision
undertaken.
The comments, drawings, and paintings students had penned in the textbook are more
subtle evidence of the flagging interest of students. Becausestudents had written these
during class time, this activity suggested that topics other than English grammar had
preoccupied them u'hile teaching was going on. Although students had appeared to be
passivelyobserving or listening to the teacher, as required bv the instrumental pedagogv in
the class,the glossesin the text suggesta very active underlife. Unknown to the teacher.
students were communicating with each other or sometimes with tlemselves through these
glosses.The glossessuggestthe discoursesand themes that seem to have interested thr
students more than those in the textbook. In one sense, these are the discourses which
mediate for the students the situations) grammar, and languagetaught by the textbook. Ir:
another sense,these are students' counterdiscourses that challenge the textual languag..
values, and ideology. Hence, they deserve close examination.
Many of the glossesare inspired by the ongoing nationalist struggle for a separateTam;
state. For this reason, in Unit 1c, the picture of Fletcher (the protagonist in the detectir.
story) ashe is seatedin a prison cell is modified in a couple of textbooks. He hasbeen paintt
zLB A. SURESH CANAGARAJAH

(.) Teacher: Armv?What makes vou sav that?

tdt Shanthi: He is uearing a uniform.
(e) T e a c h e r :W e l l . . . l n d r a n ?
(0 Indran: He is in the hospital. . ' . He is seatedon a bed.
(g) Teacher: But rvhat about the bars? . . Don't vou see the bars? He is actuallv in
orison.
(h) Shanthi: bkur', b.rt he is rvearing good clothes. He is rvearing shoes.
itl Indran: And he is said to be going to the librarv and having regular meals. ' . . And
he is seatedalone in the room.
0) Teacher: (Explains in detail the difference betu,een prison life in Sri Lanka and th.
U . S)

The students'image of prison life as overcrow.ded,dirtv, and more rePressive(based

on Sri Lankan conditions) interferes u-ith their interpretation.The other situations visuallr
represented, such as an orchestra plaving, air tral-el, department store shopping, and
apa.tme.rt living, also confused the students. Such cultural estrangement created an
uiditio.rul luv.. of problems to the linguistic ones students were alreadv confronted with
Other tensionsin the course resulted from the styles of iearning desiredby the students
The students seemed uncomfortable r,r..itha collaborative approach to learning whenever tr
was encouraged. Becausethe textbook specifiedpairrvork occasionally,and I myself wantec
to create mo-relinguistic interaction among students, I insisted that the desksbe arranged in
a circle. But before each cliss, the students rearranged the desksinto a traditional lecture-
room format, w-ith the teacher'sdesk in front of the room and their own in horizontal rou'..
Thus, students minimized interaction among themselvesand failed to take initiative in thc
florn'of classroom discourse.As the conversation cited above suggests,tlpical interaction.
follow- the features of traditional teacher-centered classroom discourse (see Mehan, 1985.
Stubbs, 19'76),in rvhich the teacher regulates and dominates talk.Turn taking follows th.
tripartite Structure of Question (see Turn a above), Ansr,ver (Turn b), and Evaluatior-
(Turn c); such sequencesfollow in c d--e, e-f-g.Turns for studentsare assignedby the teacher
(seeTurnsa and e); for eachsingleturn bv the student, the teacher takestrvo, thus dominatin;
the quantity of talk. The questi,onsaskedare displav questionsfor which the teacher alread.
knows the ans*,er. I.r u qrit. atvpical -oo'" h.o, Sh""tttl and Indran attemPt to contradic
the teacher'sexplanation;sigruGcantlltheseu-erenot framed asquestionsbut simply ascasur
asides.It was onlv Supendranrvho askedfor clarificationsor challengedmy explanationsmor.
explicitlv. For most of the time, the rest preferred to sit, pen in hand, and rwite down whateve:
*,u, on ih" bourd or simph'listen to the teacher'slecture (asinTirrn j).lronically, one of tht
glossesabor,ean interactive pair-rvork exercise said,"This is a job for the jobless."
Accompanr.ing this desire for teacher-centered learning, students made learning .
product rather than process. Students expected to be provided rvith the abstract forms an:
iules of languagedeductivelv or prescriptivelv for them to store in memory rather than t -
inductivelv formulate the rules for themselves through active use of the language i:.
communicative interactions. Disregarding activities, students demanded notes. Whenevc:
charts or grammaticai paradigms were presented, the students eagerly wrote them dolr-
The_vdemanded more r,vritten r'vork rather than speech or listening exercisesbecausetht'
felt that thev could retain it for personal studv and revision before tests. Mv diarv recorc,
much time iaken in discussingthe importance of "use rather than rules." But the sloganfail. -
to create changesin their attitude. Graduailv students noted mv practice of reservinq t:-
2-hr classesfor activities and t hr slots for the more overtlv grammar-oriented secti(-:
of the textbook and attended the latter u'hile cutting the former.
 ETHNOGRAPHYOF A SRI LANKAN CLASSROOM 2I9

Studentsalso resistedthe active use of Englishasa medium for instruction or interaction

in the classroom. During the first r.veek'"vhenI asked students to introduce themselves in
English by making use of simple svntactic structures I had u.ritten on the board, thev simply
giggled and found it embarrassingto do so. Studentsresponded inTamil even though I used
English for questions, commands, and explanations, lvhether in formal or informal
situations.Thiru displavedthe most paralvzing senseof inhibition. It u'as simplv impossible
fbr him to produce a single r,vord of English from the textbook or bv himself. The long
moments of siience rvould become embarrassingas the ciassr'vaitedpatientlv for Thiru to
open his mouth rvhen his turn came to do an exercise or read a passageorally. Although
Thiru was very voluble in classin Tamil about matters related to universitv policies and
regulations,in Englishhe was simplv tongue-tied.
Much of the stress seemed to result from the implications of Engiish for the identity
and group solidaritl- of the students. A particularlv trving time was the correction of
pronunciation as required bv the textbook. BecauseTamillacks svllable-initial fricatives, the
students pronounced he and sheas /ki/ and /si/.The discomfort of the students in my
repeated attempts to correct such pronunciation lvas explained br,their later comments
that revealed their awarenessof such pronunciation being identified as "nonstandard"Sri
Lankan English.These studentshad been the target of insults bv middle-classspeakersof
"educated" Sri Lankan English. Not onlv pronunciation but the verv language was a class
marker. Supendran said that he simplv avoided contexts in rvhich students (from "better
backgrounds") used English rvith him because he felt that the-v rvere flaunting their
knowledge of the ianguagein ord€r to make him look ignorant. English then provided
unfavorable subject positions to such students, making them feel disadvantaged,helpless,
inferior, and uneducated. Students also felt that the use of English for interactions rvould
be interpreted bv their peers as an attempt to discard their local rural identitv and passoff
as an anglicized bourgeois or even a foreigner. It was probablv for this reason that in the
questionnaire, although 50%ostated that thev rvould use English "rvith a foreigner rvho also
knewTamil," all except one rejected the possibilitv of using English "u'ith aTamil who also
knew English."
The conflicts English created for the representation of their identitv become more
explicit in the conversation pieces students had to role-plar in each unit. Students typicallv
uttered their parts in a flat reading intonation when thev w'ere asked to dramatize the
dialogue in front of the class.Mv model renditions rvith an eve for realism only increased
their inhibition. Students said that it rvas"funn\'" or "unbecoming of themselves"to speak
in such manner. It soon became apparent that the discoursebehind these dialogueswas itself
so alien to these students that thev had difficultv entering into the roles specified. One such
conversation rvas betu,een Joe and Susanin Unit 4d u.hile thev budgeted their weekly
expenses:Joe'scasualremark that he has to hold a party soon for 35 people in his office to
celebratehis nromotion irks Susanbecauseof insufficient notice and the amount of additional
expensesinlolved rvhen thev have just purchaseda nelv house.When, as usual, students
found it difficult to imaginativeiv enter into the situation, I tried to construct local situations
w-here such dialogue could be expected to occur. Students hor,veverpointed out that the
genre of "monev talk" or "budgeting conversation" was alien to their peasantbackground.
"We spend as$,e earn," according to one student, r'vastheir lifestvle. Even the consumerism,
thrift, delayedgratification, and drive for socialmobilitv assumedbv the conversationturned
out to be alien. It u'as not surprising then that such role-plaf ing exerciseslr'ere purely of
academicinterest to them and, therefore, nothing better could be emploved for these other
than tlre reading intonation for descriptive prose. Indran's notes in his notebook at the end
of the class 1\.erea telling comment on his attitude to the exercise. He had simplv jotted
220 A. SURESH CANAGARAJAH

andpromotionand identified
dorvnTamil svnonvmsfor nerv lexical items like adding,ftadition,
the unit was suPPosedto teach:"Hou'
some exampi.. of .ou.rtlnoncount structures rvhich
spend iast lveek?" Indran had
,.ru.ru.-plovees are at the bank? Holv much moneY did vou
items from the supposedlv
t."Ott nt't"r"d out the necessarl grammatical and l'ocabular'"'
interesting conversation'
trend' On the one
What the lived culture of the students suggestsis a dual oppositional
and textbook' On the other
hand, the,v oppose the alien discourses behi"d the language
hand, the,vopposea process-orientedpedagogy and desirea product oriented one' Indran's
-connected,
,rotebook ,.,gg.rt, that both trends could be Seeinglittle possibilitv of relating
for the
r,vhattheV l#n.d to their sociocultural background., students saw'Iittle meaning
the examination and satisfying
course other than the formal, academicone of i'cti.tg through
the English requirements of the institution'

Postcourse contradiction
impressions of the content
Although the final intervierv rvith the students soliciting their ou'n
on their lived culture'
urrd oriu.irution of the course confrrmed some of the observations
which subjects they had
it also contradicted many findings at least at face value. Asked
mentioned their different
enjo-vedmost and rvhictrthev ha"dlvorked hardest in, students
English for the latter' When
,nf;".,, of specializationfor ih" fornr.. but unanimousll' cited
their claim, I rva'
t pol.,t"d orrt th" flagging attendance in English and contradicted
the students in the classhad
confronted r.vitha ,rr.p?iri.,"gpiece of evid"n.".1h. majoritv of
As Indran put it-conclu-
been going for private lnstriction in English outside the universitv.
for tutoring, thus spending additionai
sio.ehi,Foino oth". subject in the univeisitv do'"ve go
our motivation tc
timeand monev on it.The fact that rve do this onlv for English.proves
had done at the beginnin;
master the language."The students continued to affirm, as thev
of the cours", th. .r".d for English and the prioritv thev had given to it'
was potentiallv ar'
The admission that .trrdJ.tt, had sought heip outside the class
what it_was that tht
indictment of the universitv ESOL course-.I then began exploring
thev were not getting in the universit'
students were getting in theii private instruction that
- if they used anv a:
It appeared thit the iutoru ou"r" using Sri I ankan or Indian textbooks
value in these courses I'
ull.'ti,rt it lvas not the cultural ,.I"tu.t." that students seemed to
\\"ere overtly grammx
much as the grammar instruction. In fact, the texts and pedagogv
(using lexical borrow'ing'
oriented and u'ere rarely contextualized.Tharma praisedhis tutor
'cleared' the 'grammar'"'
from English):"He
for gramma:
Othlr questions in the interr,ielv confirm the desire of the students
thev had enjoved and rn'hic-
oriented instruction.When askedrvhich section of the textbook
thev found the gramma--
thev had found useful ( 13 out of the 15 intervierved) replied that
useful although thev had variously enjoyed t:'
tubi", u.d exercises (Sections b and e)
these distinction:
serialized storv, conversation,and listening sections.Some conflated -
said ihat she enjoved the grammlr section "because it is useful for the tes:
Jeyanthi
to learn the rules ':
Statements such as luuu.rJh;. r.u."l""d that the desire of the students ''--
motivation. In fact.
grammar prescriptivelv was related to an examination-oriented
aspects.Lat-:
final 3-hr,,vritten test featured mostlv discrete-item questionson formal
course r:
asked specificallv u'hat the students had initiallv hoped to achier''ethrough.this
said, "l expected::-'"
the extlnt to nfuich the course had fulfilled their expectations, Siva
n e c e s s a r yg r a m : - -
t h e c o u r s e u ' o u l d p r e P a r em e l o r t h e t e s t ' . . t h a t i s . c o r e r t h e
agreed that the co--
comprehensivelv."It rtas.rot surprising, then, lvhen all eventuallv
had failed to satisfvtheir expectations'
 ETHNOGRAPHYOF A SRI LANI(AN CLASSROOM 22I

The recommendations of the students for a more effective ESOL course that r,vould
also successfullymotivateTamil studentsn-asquite predictable.Tharmaarguedthat a more
grammar-basedtextbook should replace,1K1.Vilvan expounded, "Grammar should be given
primacv and covered first since this is crucial for other areaslike listening, reading, or
speaking."Most students agreed that grammar has to be taught first before "w.astingtime"
on skills and activities. Other recommendations also confirmed a product-oriented,
examination-basedmotivation:"More notes should be provided . . more homework should
be given to retain grammar . . . allovr.textbooks to be taken home for personal stud,v. . .
teach more slor,vlv. . . " Onlv a couple also added: "Provide more communicative tasks
. . . get more culturallv relevant textbooks."
Moving on to the attitudes of the students to the cultural content of the textbook, here
againsome observationson their lived culture lr-ere contradicted. Studentsdid not perceive
anv threats stemming from the foreign culture. Some students disclosed that they had
actuall-venjoved learning about life in the U.S. In fact, becausestudents failed to understand
the force of mv questions, I often had to reframe the questions to highlight the issue of the
damageU.S. valuesand lifestvle could do to their subjectivitv or culture.When I pointed
to instanceswhere details of people, places,and situationshad confused them, students
agreed that these had created some confusion especiallvat the beginning of the course but
added that these difliculties rvere outrveighed bv the nerv and interesting information that
thev could gather from the textbook. Thev rvent on to state that ,4KI '"vas"interesting,"
although not "useful" - perhaps from the examination point of vier,r-.
Discussingnext their impressidnsof U. S. societ\',thev listed a varietv of both positive
and negative features rvith tvpical academic poise. Although thev observed the individual
freedom, technologicaldevelopment,comfort, and liberai relationshipbetr,veenthe sexes,
thev also stressedthe subtle forms of racism, social inequalitl', "decadence,"and imperialism
(although it u.asnot clear rvhere in the text thev saw'the last feature displaved).Asked hou'
these had influenced their ou'n r.alues and behavior, students displaved a remarkable
detachment tou'ards this clashof cultures. Jevanthisaid, "We don't haveto accept evervthing:
We can take the good and leave out the bad." It has to be observed that the students'relaxed
attitude to',vard U. S. culture (at least in their statements)might result from making culture,
too, a product - something to be learnt for its information value and stored in memory.
Although the retrospective statements of'most students are at tension rvith their lived
culture, it was Supendran r,vhodisplaved a remarkable consistencv.Supendran, r.vhocame
from a remote rural communitv and lvhose nonliterate parents iacked anv formal education,
entered the universitv relativelv late after u'orking as a teacher in his community. He did
not go for private tutoring - partlv due to lack of finances.Rather than being examination
oriented or desiring grammar-basedinstruction, Supendranrvanted Englishto equip him
to serve his own communitv: "to enable me to help mv village folk to draft official letters
to institutions, to read documents rve receive from the state, to understand foreign news
broadcasts, to read labels on fertilizers and farm equipment." Therefore, Supendran was
the onlv student rvho categoricallv stated "llKl has to go." He w.anted a textbook and
pedagogvthat w'asnot just communicative,but aiso basedon local culture: "Rather than
talking about apples, talk about mangoes; rather than talking about apartment houses,talk
about village huts. Are lve all emigrating to America? Nol Some of us rviil continue to live
here." Being the single student rvho consistentlv stated that English posed a cultural threat,
he sought deep social relevance from the teaching and textbook.
Before concluding the storr of our classroomlife, it is necessarvto provide at least
sufficient information to enable a consideration of hou,'mv ow-nsubject positions could have
contributed to the construction of student attitudes and classroom culture.Younq (in mv
222 A. SURESH CANAGARAJAH

earlv 30s),male,"progressive,"Christian,culturallvWesternized,middle class,nativeTamil.

bilingual, director ofEnglish teaching at the universitv are the identities that I believe rvere
most salientfor the students.So students'insistenceon the use ofTamii in the classroom.
for example,is motivated b1'm,vbeing a bilingualTamil. If there had been a native-English-
speaking teacher, students u.ould har.ebeen compelled to use English. Additionalll', use oi
English with me rvould have been perceived to violate our Tamil in-group solidaritr.
(Hor,vever,m1'classand cultural identities separateme from the rural poor and lvould likelr
have increasedstudents'inhibitions in using their marked English.) Our commonThmil
identity rl ould likeh' have also forced students to sound more nationalistic, especiallyasthe
present communalist mood tends not to tolerate neutralit-v.In this context, however, their
;ffirmation of English is daring. On the other hand, becauseI ',vasin an institutionalh
powerful role, instlnces of oppo"sitionto English (astheir falling attendance) are significani.
The sameidentitr,.,however,rvould havemotivated studentsto affirm the language,textbook.
and the course.(ln a sense,then, ml.multiple subjectpositionsseemto qualifv eachother. ,
Although the uniquenessof each teacher/researcher-studentinteraction should not bt
slighted in favor of the generalizabilitv of this studv, rve have to note that almost all Srr
Lankan ESOL teachersareWesternized,middle-class,bilingual, native Lankanslike me.

Contextualizing student opposition

At face value, the findings of the studv seem inconclusir.e,if not contradictory. On the ont
hand, studentsseemedto graduallvlose motivation in the course,asit was most objectivel:
displavedin their record of attendance.There is reasonto beiieve that this drop in motivailo:-
*u, ."lut"d to an oppositional response to the threats posed bv the discourse inscribed i:
the language,pedagog,v,and the textbook. At the verv least, students were experiencing .
tension or discomfort in the confrontation bet',veenthe discourse they preferred and th.
discoursesinforming the ESOL course. But, on the other hand, studentsinsistedthat ther
w-orked hardest in Eirglish compared to all the other subjects (which is true becauset]rtl.
had been attending private.lurr", as rvell).Thev maintained, as they did in the beginnir:;
of the course, the importance of English and the high priority given to learning the language
Thev went further to insist that thev enjor-ed learning Western culture and using the U. !
textbook (although thev did not find them useful from the examination point of vieu'1. b-
general, the oppositional attitude w'asmanifested in the largelv unreflected, untheorizt:
lived culture of the studentsemerging from their glossesin the textbooks and my field not.. "
the receptive attitude emergesfrom the more consciousexpressionof their views in ti:.
q u e s t i o n n a i r easn d i n t e r v i e r v s .
As arvay of reconciling this tension, rve have severaloptions:We can suppressone s.:
of data in favor of the other; !\'e can judge the students as confused and contradictin;
themselves;or we can simplv fault the methodologv.Not seeingvalid reasonsto do anr -:
this, I find it challenging to preserve both sets of data and consider how both attitud..
of the students displav a complex response to the learning of English. It appearsthat tie .=
dual attitudes simplv dramatize the conflict students faced in the course between the thre:'-.
of cultural alienation experienced intuitivelv or instinctivelv and the promises o: .
socioeconomicnecessitvacknolvledgedat a more consciouslevel.The studentsexperien;=-
discomfort in the face of the alien discourses,although thev do not theorize about it. B--
this experience has to be juxtaposed rvith their a',varenessof the powerful discoursesu'f' , '
-
glorif-vthe roie of English(such as those of policvmakers Goonetilleke, 1983, and Hans
Smith, 198+), the pressurefrom the educationalsvstem to displavproficiency in Eng-..
 ETHNOGRAPHYOF A SRI LANI<AN CLASSROOM 223

the promise of social and economic advancementEnglishholds, and (especiallyforTamil

.tudents todav) the uses of English as a buffer againstSinhalanationalism and passport for
cxodus as political or economic refugeesabroad.
The grammar-based,product-oriented learninq u-hich studentsalternativelvdesired
'as exemplified in the lived culture as u-ell as their statements)is one lvav for them to
lcconcile this conflict.That is, grammar learning enabledthe studentsto be ietached lrom
tl'rc language and the course, avoid actir-e use of the language u'hich could involve
internalizationofits discourses,and therebv continue their opposition to the reproductive
tendenciesof the course. At the same time, this strategv enabled them to maintain the
rninimal contact necessarvw'ith the language in order to acquire the rules of grammar
n'hich in their vierv u'as the most efficient preparation for getting through the examination.
'fhis
strategv rvhile enabling them to preserve their cultural integritv (horvever tenuously)
also enabledthem to accommodatethe institutional requirement of having to passEnglish
and thus bid for the socioeconomic advantagesassociatedr,vith the language.
Although noting that grammar learning functions as a possiblestrategy to negotiate the
conflicts students face in the ESOL classroom, rve har,eto realize that there are signi{icant
historical and cultural reasonsrvhich motivate them to adopt this strategy.The popular
demand for grammar among all Sri Lankan unir,ersitv students is attested to bv the
chairperson for English LanguageTeaching Centres in the countr). (R. Raheem, personal
communication, September 2Sth, 1991). Students'desireto be simply given the abstract
rules of the languagebl- the teacher could be influenced bv traditional stvles of learning in
Tamil sociel.(or, for that matteriSri Lankan societ|), w'hich have been largely product
oriented and teacher centered. Although it is hard to generalize about the different
institutions of learning that have existed historicaliv (such as thtnnai,or "house front," and
temple schools),it can be said that tvpicallv the teacher (alwavsmale) passedon his stock
of received knou-ledgeorailv to the disciple at his feet (seeJevasuriva,no date; Sirisena,
1969; Somasegaram,1959).The discipleshad to cultivate the art of listening meditativelv
and memorizing accurateh' the huge stock of information to be preserved without
corruption.The reverence paid to the guru, as to the knowledge he transmitted, was almost
religious in character. This tradition is directlv inherited bv private institutes in
contemporarvTamil societr, enjoving immense popularitv among parents and students (and
pitted bv my own students as a corrective to the universitv ESOL course), u-hich intensivelv
p r e p a r ep a s s i r es t u d e n t sf o r c o m p e t i t i v ee x a m i n a t i o n s .
Moreover, traditional descriptions of languageand pedagogiesof languageteaching
display a penchant for prescriptive, deductive, and formalistic methods. Although the
rvell-know-n Dravidian scholar Emeneau (1955) outlines the fundamental influence of
Hindu linguistic tradition onWestern descriptive linguistics,he also notes: "lntellectual
thoroughness and an urge torvard ratiocination, intellection, and learned classificationfor
their ow'n sakesshould surelv be recognized as characteristic of the Hindu higher culture .
. . . T h e v b e c o m e g r a m m a r i a n s ,i t u ' o u l d s e e m , f o r g r a m m a r ' s s a k e " ( p p . 1 4 5 1 + 6 ) .
Similarll', as late as the colonial period, the teaching of locai languagesto European
administrators was primarilv based on studving and memorizing learned grammatical
treatises(seeWickramasuri-va,198 1).
Anthropological approachesbased on a narrolvlv conceived egalitarianism would
encourage us to fashion a method of ianguageteaching that resembles the native tradition
o f a c o m m u n i t y ( s e e ,e . g . , a d e s c r i p t i o no f t h e K E E P p r o j e c t i n W a t s o n - G e g e o , 1 9 8 8 ) .
Holvever, the grammar-focused tradition of Tamils - rl'hich resemblesthe now disreputed
grammar-translationmethod inTESOL - drives to a reductio ad absurdum such attempts.
Critical ethnographv rvould posit that native Iearning traditions have to be interrogated for
224 A. SURESH CANAGARAJAH

the interests thev serve becauseminoritr,' cultures are steeped in traditions of domination
as *'ell as resistance.Without delving too much into horv this favored pedagogv of Tamiis
traditionallv bolstered their caste structure and religious hierarchv, \'ve can proceed to its
contemporarv implications for the students discussedin this study.We must remember that
such a pedagogvencouragesa teacher-controlled,nondialogic,"banking" style oflearning
that is knolr.n to reproduce the dominant values and social relations of an oppressivelv
stratilied societv (seeFreire, 1970; Giroux, 1983).
Furthermore, though a formaiistic approach to the abstract rules of "standard English"
might appear to preserve students from the more obvious cuitural content associatedw'ith
the communicative orientation of the course, it in no lvav savesthem from other forms ot
domination: It disconlirms the Englishesstudentsbring u'ith them; it pre\,entsstudents from
interrogating their or'vnculture and societv through literacl''; it fails to alter the unfavorable
subject positions belonging to monolingual and English-incompetentLankans.Nor does
the formalistic approach enable students to effectivelv internalize the rules of the language
or progress rupia-tyin fluent languageuse. In the in-course assessmentscarried out to
monitor their progress, the majoritv of the students continued to score below the passing
grade.Thev remained u-ith the smattering of "marked" English thev brought with them.
What all this implies is that these students u'ill continue to occupv the marginalized position
accordedto the monoiingual, poorlv educated,rural poor in a socialsystemdominated br
the English-speaking,bilingual, urban middie class(seeKandiah, 1984). Ironically, the desire
for grammar-oriented learning onlv influencesstudents to accept these limitations more
uncritically and give in to sotial reproduction.
Hence, although on one level the grammatical approach w'hich is a culturallr'
mandated, indigeno"usform of learning - eiables studentsto somewhat resist the ideological
thrusts of the foreign languageand textbook, it is doubtful w.hether we can glorify this as a
form of radical "resistance"as Kandiah (1984) implies.This is not to denv that the studr
sympathizes u'ith Kandiah's explanation of lack of motivation in ESOL students as being
a result of the sociopolitical impiications of English in Sri Lanka; the study also refutes
the alternativeexplanationsof Goonetilleke (1983) and Hanson-Smith(1984) that this is
simplv a consequenceof the educationalpolicv rvhich makes studentsgive more time to
rival subjectseven though students are convinced ofthe benefits ofEnglish.Yet Kandiah
fails to grapple u'ith the complexitv of students' opposition '"vhichhasto be qualified by their
belief in the benefits of English, resulting in examination-oriented motivation. This tension
results eventually in their giving in to social and ideological reproduction through English
It becomes important therefbre to unravel the ambiguous strands of students' behavior
with the help of Giroux ( 19 8 3) u'ho rvarns that the concept of resistancemust not be allou'ed
to become a categorv indiscriminatelv hung o\:er everv expressionof "oppositional behavior-
(p. 109). Thus, Giroux distinguishes betrveen resistance, which he sees as displaying
ideological ciaritv and commitment to collective action for social transformation from mert
opposition,which is unclear, ambivalent, and passive.Har.ing analvzedthe effects of classroon"l
behavior in the larger historical and social contexts, we can say that the responsesanc
attitudes of the students do not fall under Giroux's definition of radical resistance.Student.
fail to sustainconsciousness-raising or collective critical action.Theirs is largely a vague.
instinctive oppositional behavior r,vhich,due to its lack of ideological clarity, ironicall'.
accommodates to their reproductive forces. It is perhaps in Supendran we see any signs c:
consciousresistancethat displav potential for the development ofa radical pedagogy for th.
Lankan context.The behar,iorof most other studentsin the classis an ambivalent stater.l-hic:.
contains elements of accommodation as lvell as opposition in response to the conflictir. -
pulls of socioeconomic mobilitr', on the one harrd, and cultural integritv on the other.
 ETHNOGRAPHYOF A SRI LANI(AN CLASSROOM 225

Hou,'ever,the prospects for a pedagogv of resistance for such students is not all that
b l e a k .G i r o u x ( 1 9 8 3 ; i s q u i c k t o p o i n t o u t :

On the other hand, as a matter of radical strateg\-all forms of oppositional behavior,

rvhether thev can be judged as forms of resistanceor not, need to be examined in the
interests being used as a basisfor critical analvsisand dialogue.Thus oppositional
behavior becomesthe object of theoretical classificationasrvell asthe basisfor possible
radical strategvconsiderations.(p. 1 10)

The foregoing studl'has been conducted in the same spirit and for the same objectir,'es.
It attempts to disentangle the conflicting strands in the classroom culture of marginalized
students,to expose the accommodative impulses and encouragethe potential for resistance,
in order to fashion a pedagogv that is ideologicallv liberating as rvell as educationally
meaningful for such students.

References

'ldeologv
Althusser,L. (1911) and ideologicalstate apparatuses'
, rn Leninand philosophyand
otheressays(pp. 12 1-1731.London: Nerv Left Books.
Aronowitz, S., and Giroux, H. (1985) Education undersiege:Theconservative,
liberaland radical
debateoverschooling.South Ha8ler',N{A: Bergin and Garvev.
'The
Benson,M. J (1989) academiclistening task: A casestudr''. TESOL@rarterly, 23(31,
+214+s.
Bourdieu, P., and Passeron,l-P. (1917) Reproduction in educafion,
socienand culture.London:
Sage.
S., and Gintis, H. (1916) Schoolngin capitalist,Lmerica.
Bovr..les, Nell'York: BasicBooks.
'The
de Souza,D. (1969,April) teachingof Engiish'. TheCe1'lon pp. 18 29.
Observer,
Denzin,\M (1970) Theresearch acr.Chicago:Aldine.
'lndia
Emeneau,M. B. (1955) and linguistics'.JournaloJ the AmericanOrientalSociery,
75,
1 A f r . l
l+)-1)).

Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy oJtheoppressed. NewYork: Herder and Herder.

Giroux, H. (1983) Theorvandresistance in education:A pedagogvJor theopposition. SouthHadley,
MA: Bergin and Garvev.
G o o n e t i l l e k eD, . C . R . A . ( 1 9 8 3 ) ' L a n g u a gpel a n n i n gi n S r i L a n k a ' .N a r a s i l u5, , 1 3 1 8 .
Hanson-Smith,E. (198+)'A plan for the improvement of Englishinstruction in Sri Lanka'
Navasr'1u, 6, 26 30.
Jevasuriva, J. E. (no date)'The indigenousreligious traditions in education',in Educational
policies andprogress duringBritishrule)n CevLon (pp. +-23). Colombo, Sri Lanka:Associated
EducationalPublishers.
'Disinherited
Kandiah,T.(1979) Englishes:Thecaseof LankanEnglish'. Navasilu, 3,'75-89.
Kandiah,T. (1984) "'Kaduva":Porverand the Englishlanguageweapon in Sri Lanka', in P.
C o l i n - T h o m ea, n d A . H a l p e( e d s )H o n o u r i nE g . F . C . L u d o w(Jpfpt . 1 1 1 - 1 5 + ) .C o l o m b o ,S r i
Lanka:Tisara Prakasavo.
Marcus, G.E., and Fischer,N{ 1,1J (1986) Anthropology as culturalcritique:An experimental
moment in thehumansciences. Chicago:Universitvof ChicagoPress.
'The
Mehan,H. ( 1985) structureof classroomdiscourse', in T. A. r-anDijk (ed.) Handbook oJ
d i s c o u r as n e a l y s i(sV o l . 3 , p p . 1 1 9 - 1 3 1 ) . L o n d o n :A c a d e m i c .
Ogbu, J. (1986)'Classstratification,racialstratificationand schooling',in L.\Veis (ed.) Race,
class andschooltng (pp. iO 25). Buffalo,\\': ComparativeEducationCenter.
226 A. SURESH CANAGARAJAH

O'Neili, R., Kingburl., R., Yeadon,T., and Cornelius, E.T. (i978) Americankernellessons:
Intermediate. Ne*-York: Longman.
Peirce,B.N. (1989)'Tou.arda pedagogvof possibilitvin the teachingof Englishinternationally:
People'sEnghshin SouthAfrica'. TESOL@Larterly,23(3), +01 420.
Pennycook,A. (1989)'The concept of method, interestedknowledge, and the politics of
languageteaching'. TESOLQuarterll',23(.+), 589 618.
Richards,J. C., and Rodgers,T.S.(1986)Approaches andmethods in language description
teaching:A
. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni'r'ersitr,Press.
and anal'lsis
Sirisena,U.D.l. (1959) Editorial introduction in Educationin Ceylon(Pt. 1, pp. xxv-xvii).
Colombo, Sri Lanka: Ministrv of Educationand Cultural Affairs.
Somasegaram, S.W (1969)'The Hindu tradition', in U.D.l. Sirisena(ed.) Educatton 1n Ceylon
(Pt. 3, pp. 113 1-1 144). Colombo,Sri Lanka:Ministr-v of Education and CulturalAffairs.
Stubbs,M. (1976) Language,schools London: Methuen.
andclassrooms.
Watson-Gegeo,K. A. (1988)'Ethnographvin ESL: Defining the essentials'.IESOI Qgarteily,
22(+\,515-592.
Weis, L. (1985) Betweentwo worlds,B\ack studentsin an urban communitycollege.Boston:
Routiedge.
Wickramasuriva,S.(1981)'James de Alu.is and second languageteaching in Sri Lanka'.
4, 11-29.
Navasilu,
Willis, P. (1917) Learningto labour:How working classkidsget worktngclassjobs. Manchester,
England:SaxonHouse.
- (1978) ProJane
cuhures.London: Routledge,
 ,cter I4

J. KeithGhicl<

SAFE-TALI(: C0LLUSI0N IN
APARTHEID EDUCATION

Introduction

Background to the study

- T r H E R E I S w I D E S P R E A D A G R E E M E N T A M O N G S T o b s e r v e ras b o u t r , v h a t
I u-ere the essentiaicharacteristicsof interactionsin schoolsfor black people in South
:,irica under the former apartheid system: highlv centralised, rvith teachers adopting
.-rthoritarian roles and doing most of the talking, w.ith ferv pupil initiations, and u'ith most
: the pupil responsestaking the form of group chorusing.Schlemmer and Bot (1986: 801
::.port a senior African school inspector as stating that black pupils rvere discouraged from
..king questionsor participating activeh'in learning and explain that it rvas regarded as
.:rpolite and even insubordinateto ask questionsor make suggestionsin class.Thembela
'r986:41) refers to classroom
practice being characterisedbt'rote learning and teacher-
--cr-rtred instruction.
Most observers,moreover,agreethat the educationalconsequences of suchinteraction
.rvles w.ereunfortunate. Schlemmer and Bot (1985) andThembela (1985), for example,
:rque that the use of such stvles oppressedcreativit\.,initiative and assertiveness.MacDonald
1988) claims that there are aspectsof metacognition and disembedded thinking crucial to
rdr-ancedlearning and to effectir,efunctioning in a technological societv w-hich these stvles
rf interacting and learning did not promote.
I became verv a\\,are of the possible negative educational consequencesof the
'..erw.helmingpreference for such stvles of interaction in schools for black peopie in South
I r:ica. through mv involvement u,'ith in-service teacher education projects w.hich had, as
. . ,r their primarv objectives, the fostering of communicati"'e approachesto the teaching
-nqlish in Kn'aZulu schools. (Kr,vaZulu rvas a patchu.ork of geographical areas on the
,.:ern seaboardof South Africa r.r'hich,in terms of apartheid policl-, r,vasdesignateda
, rneland'for Zulu people.At the time of the studv reported here, the total population of
,-,r.e speakersof Zulu rvasalmost sevenmillion; thev thus constituted the largest language
- irp in South Africa . Zulu speakerslive in manv parts of South Africa, but at that time
. :rroximateiv6ve million of them lived in Ku-aZulu.)
.\ number of the implementors of the in-serr.ice teacher education projects complained
'-rtthe reluctanceof manv of the teachers,and even some of the students,to adopt the
228 J. KEITH CHICK

more egalitarian,de-centralisedlr'avsof interacting associatedrvith these approachesto

languageteaching.This reluctance lvas pervasive enough to make at least some of those
involved rvith the in-serr,ice projects, including mvself, question whether the choice
of communicative language teaching as a goal was an appropriate one. Given that
communicative language teaching approacheshad their origins chiefl,v in Europe and the
USA, contexts very different from those u-hich obtained in KrvaZulu, I began to wonder
whether our choice of communicative languageteaching as a goal rvas possibly a sort of
naive ethnocentricism prompted bv the thought that rvhat is good for Europe or the USA
had to be good for KrvaZulu. I reasonedthat, in order to discover rvhether the goal of
communicative languageteaching \\:asappropriate or not, it lvould be necessaryto discover
why students and teachers in KrvaZulu schools found it so difficult to transfer to styles
compatible rvith communicative language teaching.With this goal in mind, I encouraged
Marianne Claude - u,ho, under mv supervision,u'as engagedin action research/in-service
education w.ith teachers in a peri-urban area of Kr'vaZulu to collect, by means of
participant observation, interviervs and discussionsu'ith the teachers,relevant ethnographic
data, including classroom interactional data. I supplemented this w-ith mjv o\r'n participant
observation and discussionsu-ith teachersduring visits to classroomselsewherein KwaZulu.
In this chapter, I report on my analvsisand interpretation of some of this data.
Mv thinking at this stage was heavilv influenced bv the findings of research I had
completed earlier, u.orking r,vithin the interactional sociolinguistic framework developed
b t ' s c h o l a r s s u c h a s G u m p e r z ( s e e ,f o r e x a m p l e , 1 9 8 2 a , 1 9 8 2 b ) a n d E r i c k s o n ( s e e ,f o r
example, 1975 and 1976).'\n analvsinginterethnic encounters betrveen a white South
African English-speakingacademic and Zulu graduate students at the Universit-v of Natal
(see Chick 1985) I had identified putatir-eculturallv-specific Zulu-English interactional
stvles.These stvles are characterised,amongst other things, bv the preference bv higher
statusspeakersin asvmmetrical encounters (i.e. those in rvhich there are marked differences
in the relative statusofthe participants) for rvhat Scollon and Scollon ( I 983) term solidaritr
politeness,including the politeness or face-preservingstrategv of volubilit,v (much talking ,.
and by lower statusspeakersfor lvhat thev term deference politeness,including the strategr
of taciturnitv (avoidance of talking). I hvpothesised that KwaZulu teachers and student.
found it dlfficult to transfer to stvies compatible rvith communicative language teachin_.
becausethese stvles, which call on students to be voluble, differ markedly from those which
predominate in a r.viderange of domains r.vithin the Zulu-speaking community, and w-hich
are transferred to their use of English in academic and other settings.
Incidentally-,to avoid misinterpretation, I need to clarifv that I am using'preference'
not in its lav senseof speaker'sor hearer's individual preferences. Rather, I am borrou'ing
a technical term from ethnomethodologl; a branch of sociologv concerned rvith investigating
how.people organiseand make senseof socialactivities.AsLevinson (1983: 307) explains.
'preference'is
not a psvchologicainotion but a structural notion that correspondsclosel.
to the linguistic concept of markedness, according to which certain linguistic features are
more basic and conventional and occur more frequentlv ('unmarked') than other feature.
(referred to as'marked'1.Thus,'i,,'henZulus rvho haverelativelv low statuschoosedeferentia-
politeness,it is not becausethel'like behavingdeferentiall-v, or that the-v'feel'deferential
'targeted'.
but rather because such behaviour is conventional, or as Lakoff expressesit, Sht
explains(1979:69) that each culture hasimplicitlv in its collective mind a concept of ho.'.
'a
a good human being should behave: target for its members to aim at and judge themselle .
and others br".
 SAFE-TALI( 229

Organisation of the study

-\lost researchreports implv that the researchwhich thev are reporting on proceeded in
lerv orderlv and logical lvavs, and that the researchers,from the outset, lvere more
know-ledgeableand insightful than ther- actuallv rvere. The false starts, the partial
understandings and the dead ends do not feature. In this chapter I r,r'ill be departing from
this tradition, and sharing rvith mv readers the often tortuous paths I follorved in exploring
the significanceof interactional stvles n'idelv emploved in schoolsfor black people in South
\frica.
To begin r,vith, I report on mv micro-ethnographic analvsisof an episode in a lesson in
a KwaZulu classroom.The general goal of micro-ethnographic analvsisis to provide a
description of horv interlocutors set up or constitute contexts that allorv t}em to make sense
,rf one another's messages.Mv specificpurpose llas to trv to establishw'hy teachers and
.tudents in such classrooms found it difficult to transfer to stvles compatible r,vith com-
n.runicativelanguage teaching.The analvsisreveals interactional behaviour consistent
"vith
the putatir.e Zulu-English interactional stl'les identified in the interethnic encounters
referred to above. More significantlv,it reveals that such stvles served valuable social
tunctions for students and teachers alike.This could account for r,.,'hvteachers and students
nere reluctant to abandonsuch stvles,despitethe fact that the academicconsequencesof
.uch oreference \\'ere probabh' unfortunate.
I then explain hoiv mv gior.-ing a\\'arenessof the limitations of micro-ethnographic
researchin general,and explanatio.ps of pervasiveschoolfailure amongstdominated groups
.n terms of culturallr'-specificinteractionalstvlesin particular,prompted me to rr-cranrine
:lv classroominteractional data. Critics havepointed out that micro-ethnographicsturliei
,iten take insufficient account of holv p..o'uiir'. r'alues,ideologies and structures in tht
rlider societ) (macro context) constrain rvhat takes place at a micro lelel..{ccordinqh. I
.ive an account of the historical, structural circumstancesrvhich contributed to making
'--.rimarvschool education for most teachersand studentsin so-calledblack education in
,partheid SouthAfrica such a traumatic experience.Finaliv I offer a reinterpretation of the
,nalvsed data. I suggestthat what is most significantlv displayed in this episode is not
-ulturally-specificZulu interactional stvles,but stvlesconsistentlvith interactional norms
,.tri.t'rt"".tr"rs and studentsinteractionulh'.o.r.titl,ted asa means of avoiding the oppressive
-.nddemeaning effects of apartheid ideologv and structures. Follou.ing McDermott and
Tr lbor (1987) I see the teacher and her studentsas colludingin preserving their dignitv bv
:.rdingthe fact that little or no learning is taking place.While serving the short-term interests
iteachers and students,such strategies,I suggest,contributed to the lvidelv documented
'.rghfailure rate in black education in apartheid SouthAfrica, and made teachersand students
:rsistant to educationalinnovation.The strategiesthus served to reinforce and reproduce
:he inequalities betu'een the r.arious population groups r.vhichcharacterised apartheid
. rciet)..

Culturally-specific interactional styles as barriers to innovation

.rnd learning

.\-ith the goal, then, of trving to estabiishrvhv manv teachers and students in KwaZulu
,:hools resistedthe adoption ofegalitarian, decentralisedq'avsofinteracting, I carried out
. nne-grained micro-ethnographic anaivsisof an episode in a video recorded mathematics
,sson, initiallv rvith the help of Marianne Claude (rr'ho had observed the lesson rvhile it
''astaking place) and, later, independentlr'.I selectedthis episodefrom the corpus collected
230 J. I(EITH CHICI(

bv Marianne Claude becauseit contains features that I had observed in many lessonstaught
bv t.u.h.., rvho rvere highlv regarded either bv students or-b1'school authorities in the
(*-uZrl1, educational,yri"-. In other u'ords, I chosepart of a'good'lesson. I did this to
's
ensurethat I u.ould be analvsingconventional'targeted'behaviourin Lakoff sense'I chose
a content subject rather than an Engiish lesson so as to lessenthe chance that the teacher's
style might have been influenced bv Marianne claude's intervention.
I baied the analvsison methods developed bv interactional socio-linguists(see, for
example, Gumperz 1982a1u'ho,rather than impose their ow'n categories,attemPt to access
the inierpretative or inferential processesofthe participants bv repeatedly playing t1revideo
or .orr.rd recordings to the participants and/or informants who share their cultural
backgrounds, and bu eliciting interpretations from them about pro€ressively finer detaiis
of thJ dis.ourse. I make use of transcription conventions rvhich highlight the nature of turn
exchange and which provide information about the supra-segmentalphonology of the
episodel Latch marks 1 l-1 u." used to shou- smooth exchange of turns r'vithout overlap,
while square brackets are used to signifv simultaneous speech ( [ ). Underlining is used to
signify phonological prominence such as stressor marked pitch movement.The'shape' of
ttt. plt.t, movement is indicated above the part of the utterance rvhere this occurs' and so
.t .
( ) s l g n l h e sr l s l n g t o n e .
Relevant contextual information is that the classconsisted of 3 B students of both sexes
rvho lvere native speakersof Zulu, lvhose averageage at the time was fourteen years, and
w.ho u,ere in their seventh vear of schooling (the fourth vear of the Senior Primary phase).
The teacher, w-hom I shall rdfer to as Mrs Gumbi, also a native Zulu speaker,was 32 years
of age and had completed ten vears of schooling and trvo vears of teacher training. Mrs
CnJt i conducted the entire lesson from the front of the ciassroom, making considerabie
use of the board. The students lvere cror,r,dedinto multiple-seat w'ooden desks arranged in
rorvs facing the board. The lesson took place through the medium of English. (ln KwaT,ulu
schools Engtistr served as the medium of instruction across the curriculum after the first
four vears of schooling through the medium of Zulu. )
'elements
n, th. uideo-recJrdi.rg ,'honus,the focus of the lesson u'as which form the
union set'. At the start of the lesson Mrs Gumbi introduced the notion of elements of a
union set u.ith the aid of the board. Elements r,vereu.ritten on the board, and common
elements pointed to. She individuallv nominated one student to answer a question but,
significantlv, onlv after the information to be provided had been written on the board. The
few other student responsestook the form of teacher-initiated group chorusing.
The lessoncontinued:

1 Mrs Gumbi:but I knor,vthat these tlvo elements are common

2 becausethey are found in set B as rvell as in set C do vou get
3 that
+ S t u d e n t s :l ) ' e s
5 Mrs Gumbi: I norv nou- a let us form the universal set the
o univers I mean sorrv union set is the set lvhich
7 has the elements of both sets get it B dnd IC
8 Students: tC
9 Mrs Gumbi: collect
10 the elements of those tu.o sets and rvrite them togellher
11 allthemthevrvil'..T,#f"
12 I :::
13 Mrs Gumbi: lcan .'ou trv to to list
 SAFE-TALK 23I

the elements of the union set

StudentA: ltn-o Ithree
Nlrs Gumbi: I that is tri'o
StudentA: three
Mrs Gumbi: lthr6e
StudentA: lfour
Mrs Gumbi: lfoui
StudentA: l{ile
N { r sG u m b i : h r .
Stud.nt t, sir
- \ l r sG u m b i : 'si-r
StudentA: lseven
Mrs Gumbi: lser:en
StudentA: leight
Mrs Gumbi: leight and eight . . .
r,vhattvpe of set is this nor,r'. . . it is d I union set
Students: I union set
Mrs Gumbi: llt is a
union set becausewe have been listing no$r at the elements
of set B togelher rvith the elements of set IC
Students: I C
''
Mrs Gumbi: lto form one
setr,vhichcalled rvhat . . . a uriion I set
Students: I set
Mrs Gumbi: lbut remember
u-hen you list the union set the elements for for the union set
do not repeat those elements w.hich are lvritten tlvice do vou get that
Students: lves
Mrs Gumbi: ido not repeat them list them once OK
Students: lves
M.s il*bi, ldo vou understandthis
Students: lyel
N{rs Gumbi: ]do vou understandthis
Students: lves

'. irar is immediatelv striking about this episode (as also the lesson as a rvhole) is the
:ncidenceofteacher volubilitv and student (particuiarlv individual student) taciturnity,
:'.:racteristicsof interactions in the formerlv segregatedschools for black people in South
-.::lca, which, as I noted above,havebeen commented upon bv manv observers.Mrs Gumbi
-. :his extract, as elsew.herein the lesson,does most of the talking. Indeed, of the total 19
.nutes duration of the lesson as a u'hole, five secondsshort of 16 minutes consistsof
::;her talk. Also the students'opportunities to talk (r,vithone or two exceptions) are
: u c e dt o g r o u p c h o r u s i n g .
\blubilitv on the part of the teacher, u'hich Scoilon and Scollon (1983) regard as a
..daritv strategv, and taciturnitv on the part of the students, which they regard as a
:r.rerlc€ strateg;-,is consistent w'ith the culturallr'-specific interactional styles I had found
.lence for in ml'analvsis of interethnic encountersbetrveenZulu-English speakersand
- -LthAfrican(u'hite) Englishspeakers(Chick 1985).Thisfinding might, therefore, be seen
. .ending credence to the notion that the interactional stvles emploved in KrvaZulu
232 J. I(EITH CHICI(

classroomsrvere similar to those used in a u'ide range of domains w'ithin the Zulu-speaking
communltv.
A problem for this interpretation is that teacher volubilitr'' and student taciturnity have
been shown to be characteristic of classroom discoursein manv parts of the lr-orld including
r,vhite,middle classEuropean (see, for example, Sinclair and Coulthard 1975) and USA
classrooms(see,for example, Mehan 1979).lndeed Ellis ( 1987: 87) suggeststhat teacher-
centred instruction, rvhich has been so pervasive in black education in South Africa, is
derived from classroompracticescommon in pre-lvar Europeanschools.An equally,if not
more plausible interpretation, is that teacher volubilitv and student taciturnitv are features
of instltutio.r-.p".ifi. rather than culturalll -specific discourse. According to this
interpretation, the source of teacher volubilitv and student taciturnity is the asvmmetrical
distribution of social po\\:er and knorvledge betu-een teachers ani students evident in
educational institutions throughout the n'orld.
lVhat is not found, horvever, in classroom discourse throughout the world is the
chorusing behaviour evident in this episode, r'vhichis u-hy I chose to focus on it in ml'
analvsis.Closer examination revealed that trvo kinds of cues to chorusing are provided bv
'do
M r s G u m b i . T h e o n e k i n d o f c u e i n v o l v e st h e u s e o f a s e t o f y e s / n o q u e s t i o n s : you
u n d e r s t a n dt h i s ? '( l i n e s4 ' l a n d 4 6 ) ; ' d o y o u g e t t h a t ? ' ( l i n e s 2 - 3 a n d 4 0 ) ; ' O K ' ( l i n e 4 2 ) ;
'isn't i n t h e l e s s o n ) . T h es e c o n dk i n d o f
i t ? ' a n d ' d o v o u s e et h a t ? ' ; ' c a nI g o o n ? ' ( e l s e l v h e r e
c u e i n r . o l v e st h e u s e o f r i s i n g t o n e o n a c c e n t e ds v i l a b l e s( e . g .l i n e s 7 , 1 7 , ) 9 , 3 3 , 3 6 ) . T h i s
cue is also used as a prompt to individual student responsesin a sequence(lines 16, 18 , 20,
22,2+,26 etc.).What this sr:iggests is the operation of a relativelv simple prosodic system
in which a restricted set of prosodic cues is used for a wide range of prosodic functions.
Interestingly, this observation is consistent w-ith mv finding in a studv of interethnic
encounters (see Chick 1985) that Zulu-English speakersrelv iess than do white South
African English speakerson prosodic cues to signal (together with kinesic, paralinguistic,
lexical and syntactic cues) the relationship betw-eendifferent parts ofthe text, the relative
importance of information units, speakertransition points and so on.This ma1'be related
to the fact that the prosodv ofZulu, a tone language,is very different from that of English
The closer examination of the chorusing behaviour in this episode points to a possible
exolanation for the difficultr, rvhich teachers and students in KwaZulu schools have in
transferring from the putatire culturallr'-specificZulu-English stvles (of w'hich the system
of prosodic cuesis apparentlv a distinctive feature) to styles compatible with communicative
Ianguageteaching. I examined, first, the possibilitv that the chorusing elicited by the one
kind of cue (rising tone), in certain cases,servesthe academicfunction of reinforcing certain
key information items and, perhaps,helping the students to become more familiar rvith (to
memorise?)technicalterms (e.g.lines 29-30). Horvever,further analysisrevealedthat it is
often not newinformation that studentsare askedto chorus, but information already available
to the students before the lesson (e.g. in lines 12 and 3l the students are required to supplv
the word SET rather than the name of the set that thev have learnt about in the lesson).
Elsewhere in the lesson the rising tone prompts them merelv to complete words (e.g.
intersecTlON; w.e are looking for the unKNOWN).The fact that the information value of
items chorused is often low- prompted me to investigate the possibiiitv that the primarv
function of the chorusing eiicited bv this kind of cue is social rather than academic.
I also examined the possibilitv that the chorusing elicited by the other kind of cue (the
set of questions) servesthe academic function of enabiing Mrs Gumbi to accessthe level of
her students' understanding so that she can knorv r,vhetheror not to recvcle her explanation
at a lou'er level of abstraction.Holvever, I discoveredthat the chorused responsesare without
exception'ves'.This suggeststhat the questionsare not realir-openquestions,and that their
 SAFE-TALI( 233

function is to signalparticipation rather than ler-elof understanding,i.e. it is again social

rather than academic in purpose.
The social function of chorusing became even more clearlv evident when I
examined the lesson as a vi.hole. I discorered that the students u.. ."qui."d, in response to
both kinds of cue, to provide mainlv confirmative one- or tu'o-w-ord responses,or responses
rvhich repeat information on the board or information u'hich has been rec-vcledagain and
again bv Mrs Gumbi. This suggeststhat chorusing gives the students opportunities to
participate in rvavsthat reduce the possibilitv of the loss of face associatedwith providing
incorrect responsesto teacher elicitations,or not being able to provide responsesat all. It
is interesting to note that the chorusing is more evident at the beginning of the lesson than
later on. Once responseshave been u'ell rehearsed, so that the chance of being wrong
publiclv is reduced, more individual responsesare elicited, and at the end studentsare even
invited to leave their desks and carrv out the verv public act of '"vriting their responses
on the board.
There is, of course, nothing unusual about teachersneeding to resort to face-saving
strategies,since the asvmmetrical roie relations betlveen teachers and students to be found
in most parts of the lr'orld ensure that the risk of face threat is great. As Cazden (1979 : 147)
expiains,'teachers,bv the verv nature oftheir professionalrole, are continuously threatening
both aspectsoftheir students'face constrainingtheir freedom ofaction; evaluating,often
negativelv,a high proportion ofstudent acts and utterances; and often interrupting student
w.ork and student talk'.To reduce this risk, teachersempiov face-savingstrategiessuch as
'Can
expressingdirectivesindirectlv bri'meansof interrogatives,e.g. vou open your books,
please?'This strategv reduces the sense of imposition associatedu'ith the directive
bv suggestingthat the students are free to decide rvhether or not to compll'. Horvever, the
need to resort to face-savingstrategiesis particularlv great in Kw'aZulu classroomsbecause
the asymmetrv in the relative status of teachers and students is marked. This reflects the
marked asvmmetrv in the relative status of adults and children in the w-ider communitv.
According to Marianne Claude'sinformants (seeChick and Claude 1985), an adult in that
communitv has the right to ask anv child, r,vhomav rvell be a stranger, to do errands for
them (i.e. take a messageto someone;buv somethingat the shop) and mav even chastisea
child not tireir ou.n.
Another striking feature of this episode is the remarkablv rhvthmic manner in which
teacher and students svnchronise their verbal and prosodic behaviours, particularly in
a c c o m p l i s h i ntgh e c h o r u s i n gs e q u e n c e sC. o n t e x l a n a l r l s ttse . g .S c h e f l i nI 9 7 l ; C o n d on 1 9 7 7 :
Kendon 1973,1979; McDermott, Gospodinoff and Aaron 1978) have demonstratedthat
participants in conversations organise their behaviours in co-operative, reciprocal,
rhvthmicalll' co-ordinated u'ays in signalling to one another and negotiating the context of
their talk. This enablesthem to make senseof rvhat it is that thev are doing together. In the
episode such interactional svnchronv is possible, presumabiv, becausethe teacher and her
students are abie to dralv on their shared,implicit knowledge of the discourse conventions
associated',vithconventional interactional stvles. I suggestthat this synchronv contributes
to the perception that purposeful activitv and learning are taking place.
To sum up, the micro-ethnographic analvsis of this episode reveals interactional
behaviour consistentrvith Zulu-English interactional stvlesidentified in a studv of interethnic
encounters (see Chick 1985). Particularlv noteu'orthv features ofthe discourse are the
chorusing behaviour and the remarkablv rhvthmic manner in w'hich the participants
synchronise their interactional behaviours in accomplishing the chorusing sequences.
Analvsis revealed that these putative stvles serve social rather than academic functions. For
example, thel help the students to avoid the loss of face associatedlvith being wrong in a
234 J. I(EITH CHICI(

public situation, and provide them u-ith a senseof purpose and accomplishment. Something
not examined here, but equallv important, is that these stvles also help teachers avoid the
loss of face associatedwith displavs of incompetence. This is becausethev ensure that the
Iessondevelops along predetermined lines, and that the opportunities for students to raise
issuesand problems that teachers mav not be competent to handle are few'. It is for such
reasonsthat I refer to discourseassociatedr,viththese stl'lesas'safe-talk'.
What this analysissuggestsis that the task of making a transition - from the culturally-
preferred interactional styles empioved conventionallv in KlvaZulu classroomsto the styles
associatedlr.ith the more egalitarian relationships required by the communicative language
teaching approach rvaslikelv to be fraught rvith risk for both teachers and students.Thev
'safe-talk'.
all resistedinnovation becausethev had vestedinterestsin the maintenanceof

Limitations of explanations of school failure in terms of

culturally-specifi c styles

One of the advantagesof doing sociolinguisticresearchrvithin the context of apartheid

South Africa w-asthat one rvas constantlv prompted to reconsider one's interpretations.
Man_vscholars in this context were verv suspicious of sociolinguistic research which had
un orientation, and indeed of ethnography in g..r"rul. As Kuper, writing
"ih.rog.uphic 'almost
during the apartheid era, explained, bv its verr' nature, ethnographic research mav
appear to provide some support for the ideological assumptions underpinning apartheid.
notably the belief that "traditional" and "tribal" institutions remain viabie, and command
respect' (1985: 1). It was in part the negative reaction of such critics to my analysisand
interpretation of the episode referred to above which prompted the reinterpretation
outlined below'.
Another advantageof researchingwithin the context of apartheid South Africa was that
the discriminatorv legislation tended to make visible'r'i'hatis normallv hidden in democratic
societies, namelv thJmechanisms in the r,vider (macro) societv through which groups and
individuals exercise pow.er and denv it to others. It rvas the visibility of those mechanisms
that had prompted me in an earlier studv (see Chick 1985) to trv to account for how macro-
level factors, such as segregation,constrain r,vhattakes place at a micro level of interethnic
communication. I lvas, therefore, open to the suggestion that a limitation of my originai
analysisof the episode u.as that I had not adequately contextualised my data; that I had not
taken suflicient account ofthe effect on ciassroomdiscourse ofsuch factors asthe differential
funding ofthe raciallv segregatedschool svstems,differential teacher-student ratios, Ieveis
of teacher training and so on.
I was also familiar rvith the claim of such critics of micro-ethnography as Singh, Lele
and Martohardjono (1988) that, because micro-ethnographers fail to show how the
pervasive values, ideologies and structures of the r,vider societv constrain micro-ler-ei
behaviour, thev come perilouslv close to being apologists for the systems they are
investigating.Along similar lines, Karabel and Halsev(1977 : 8) are critical of the neglect ot
macro factors in interactional accounts of the pervasive school failure of minority groups.
They point out that:

Teachersand pupils do not come together in a historical vacuum: the weight ol

'negotiation'
precedent conditions the outcome of over meaning at every turn. It
empirical w'ork is confined to observation of classroom interaction, it may miss tht
processbv rvhich political and economic power set sharp bounds to w'hatis negotiabl.
 SAFE-TALI( 235

-^'-r r1981), too, lr-hile not denving that micro-ethnographic studieshave a role in
. :..:r: hon-interaction acts as an immediate causeof a particular child's failure, arques
. - - : -.sential also to studv how'theseclassroomeventsare built up bv forces emanatrng
- : - r d et h e s e- i c . o s e t t i n g s .
.:.nced bv such thinking, I concluded that mv micro-ethnographic analvsisoithe
. : - f r o m t h e m a t h e m a t i c sl e s s o nn e e d e d t o b e i n f o r m e d b r . a m a c r o e t h n o o r a o h i .
-:.: ,,ithe schoolingprovided for black studentsin K.,','aZulu.Thisaccoun,. ul,-i. 1',n..
. - - . : : , 1 b l O g b u ( 1 9 8 1 ) , u ' o u l d b e o n e t h a t s h o r v e d h o u - t h e s c h so\oslt e n r ' ' u . . . l . r . , - l
... organisation,economr',political organisation,belie{'svstemand . alu... chan;. rn.1
,
.:. the section r.vhich follor,r's,I provide information about the macro context of
..r,gtor blacksin SouthAfricaduring the apartheidera, l'hich I identified aspotentiallr
' ::: io the reinterpretation of this episode.Sincethe lessonoccurred in a Senior Primary
. ,iourth to eighth vearsofschooling) I focus on this phaseofthe schoolingsystem.I
.. :lso on the role of Englishas medium of instruction, sinceresearchsuggests(see,for
.-:.:le. \lacDonald 1990) that difficulties associatedu.ith the transfer from mother tongue
-:..lish in the first vear of this phaseconstrainclassroombehaviour in powerful ways.

ihe macro context of schooling for black people in apartheid

\, 'uth Africa

- - ::,rst people are a\\rare,apartheid,an Afrikaans u'ord meaning literally'apartness' or

::ateness,refers to the policv of the Nationalist Partv,r'vhich,subsequentto its coming
. ,\\'erin 1948, w'asimplemented as a massiveprogramme of socialengineering.Racial
::._fation had been a feature of South African societv ever since the arrival of lr'hites in
I . ;ttt century. How-ever,after 1948, segregationon iacial and even, r'vithin racial groups,
-thnic lines, in every sphere of life, tvasimpiemented on a scaleunprecedented in human
-: ,r\'. Not merely were separateinstitutions such as educational institutions established
. Iitterent race and ethnic groups, but geographical separation u'as attempted through
-:., creation of ethnic 'homelands', of u-hich Ku'aZulu was one.
Exemplifying as it does the classic dir.ide-and-rule strategy, the apartheid policy,
, ::rirablv served the goal of the Nationalist Partv of consolidating and increasingthe ner,vlv
r hegemony of Afrikanerdom. Segregationalso served to maintain and increase the
:.r ileged statusthat u'hites had enjoved since the 17th centurv, bv facilitating the systematic
,.::rimination againstpeople of colour.
In education, svstematic discrimination was evident in the differential per capita
r\penditure on education for the various population groups. Tow-ardsthe end of the
.: rrtheid era, there were attempts bv the government to narrow the gaps betlveen the
' :,r\ ision for the various groups. Horvever, as recentlv as the financial vear 1986/ 7 , the per
.pita expenditure on educationfor *-hites u'as R2508.That for blacks(i.e. Africans rather
:'..rnAsians or so-called'coloureds') '"r,asonlv R+l6, r,r'hilstthat for blacks in the homelands
'.rs still lorver; for example, in Ku-aZulu it u'as onlv R359 (South African Institute of Race
. r r l a t i o n s( S A I R R ) S u n e v 19 8 7 l 8 8 ) .
One of the consequencesof this differential expenditure, u'hich probablv played a role
: determining lvhat stvles of interaction rvere possible, lr.as differential teacher-student
:':tios.In 1987, lvhereasthe student-teacherratio for r,vhitesr'vas16 to 1, that for blacksin
- ,-calledr.vhiteareasu.as,l1 to 1, and for Ku'aZulu primarv schools53 to 1 and KwaZulu
. : c o n d a r v s c h o o l s3 7 t o 1 ( S A I R R S u r v e r '1 9 8 7 / 8 8 ) . l t i s v e r v d i f f i c u l t f o r t e a c h e r s ,r , v h o
236 J. I(EITH CHICI(

are responsibie for large numbers of students and rvho usually have to cope w-ith
overcrolvded classrooms,to facilitate more egalitarian, decentralised r,vaysof interacting.
The more long-term discriminatorv effects of segregatededucation were evident, also,
in the differential levels of professional qualification of teachers in schools for the various
populationgroups.According to Du Plessis,Du Pisaniand Plekker ( 1989) whereas,in 1989.
t OO%o of teachers in schools for rvhites u'ere professionalh' qualified in the senseof having
at least matriculation or higher academic qualifications, as rvell as a teachers'certificate or
diploma, only 2Oo/o of teachersin black primarv schoolsand 10% in black secondaryschools
were professionaiiy qualified.
Of particular relevanceto the constraintsof macro factors upon classroomdiscourse
is another factor, namelv, horv apartheid ideoiogv rvas translated into languagemediun:
policv in black education. Hartshorne (1987) reports that, untii the Nationalistscame tc
power, the position of English as sole medium of instruction after the first few' years o:
schoolingwas unchallenged.He rePorts, further, that the Nationalists:

made of Afrikaans a st'mbol of exclusivenessand separateness,and the struggle fo:

Afrikaansbecamepart of the'mission'to control and rule SouthAfrica. In educatior-
this expressed itself in a commitment to separate schools and rigid mother-tongut
educationpolicy. (Hartshorne 1987: BB)

This commitment eventuallv translated into mother-tongue instruction in primar'.

education with English and Aftikaans as compulsorv subjectsfrom the first year of schooling.
and u'ith both Afrikaans and English as media of instruction in secondary education (ha-:
the subjectsthrough English and half through Afrikaans). It was the inflexible and doctrinair.
implementation of this policl; and the deafnessto the protests of the black communitv, tha:
sparked the Soweto uprising of 1976 .This spreadto the rest of the country, almost assumin_;
the proportions of a full-scale civil lvar. As a consequenceof the conflict, the governmer.:
rvasforced to concede to the black communitv the right to chooseeitherEnglish or Afrikaar.
as medium in the high schools. In response to further pressure from the communitr', th.
right to choose was extended to the higher primarv phase.English became overwhelming,.
the chosenmedium in black educationafter the first three yearsof schooling.In 1988. i::
example, onlv 20 primar-v schools (including some verv smail farm schools) and no hu_.:
s c h o o l su s e d A f r i k a a n sa s m e d i u m ( S A I R R 1 9 8 8 / 8 9 ) .
Though the choice of English as medium represented the will of the people. :.
M a c D o n a l d ( 1 9 9 0 ) e x p l a i n s ,i n p r i m a r v e d u c a t i o na t l e a s t , i t a d d e d t o t h e b u r d e n s ' - :
teachers and students. She points out (1990:39) that the apartheid system ensured th::
most of t}e teachers in so-called black education did not speak English u'ith confidence :
fluency, used outmoded materials, and had almost no contact rvith English speakers.-{,ls
following the major shift to English as medium in primarv education from 1979 on\\'drC:
no changeswere made to the sl'llabus for English to prepare the ground linguisticallr. r. -
conceptually for its use acrossthe curriculum. As a consequence,black primary schc',.
students were not adequatelv prepared for the sudden transition to English in the four--
year ofschooling concurrentlv rvith the curriculum broadening into ten subjects.Nor st:.
most of the teachers equipped to explain effectivelv in English the new'concepts in i:..
various content subjects such as mathematics.
MacDonald and her fellorv researchersfound that there rvasa considerablegap bets't.:
the English competence required for the reading of content subject textbooks in the fou:---
year of schooling,and the English competencethat might havebeen expected if a stud.:'
had benefited optimallv from English as a second languageteaching materials then usec
 SAFE.TALI( 237

- :r:imarv schools.Thevalso found that there rvasalso a verl-larqe gap betr.veenthis

. ...cd optimal .o-p",".r.. and the level of competence studen'Gi'.i,-,ull,ureached.
.:,r.nated,for example, that the vocabularv requirements in English increasedbl
rn the fourth vear of schooling.Thev calculated that a student rvho had learnt
'. trom the ESL materials in the junior primarr- phasemight have encountered not
.:. half the vocabularr',and might have been unfamiliar rvith svntactic elements in
- ,i sentencesin sciencetextbooks used in the fourth vear of schooling.Moreover
- : . r . e b e e nr o i g n o r a n to [ t h e c o n v e n t i o n so f e x p o s i t o n n ' r i t i n g a st o c x p e r i e n c e
. . : : r € d t o a s ' r e g i s t e rs h o c k ' u . h e nr e a d i n gt h o s et e x t s .
- rse quence, the fourth vear of schooling ',r'asa time of trauma for both teachers
' - :::: a trauma reflectedin the high drop-out rate in black schoolsat the end of that
'r,r(-)
o r 8 . 9 % o f t h e t o t a l o u t f l o u ' i n 1 9 8 7 a c c o r d i n gt o t h e S A I R R R e p o r t
The researchersfound that the effect of those conditions r'vaslvhat thev termed
: nreaning'.'The children are likeiv to be alienatedbv rvhat ther have to learn,
:;rnlv perceive the implications and linkages betw'een the concepts the'g are
- : '.iith' (MacDonald 1990: 141). Facedu"ith theseodds, teacherstended to resort
,.:'.: notes that the studentsu'ere required to memorise.This gavethe impression
.:ninq taking place,but as MacDonald (1990: 1'13)points out, the studentsoften
: :: rhev did not understand, and n ere usuallv unable to use vrhat thev had learnt
. - r . . -n r o d eo f e d u c a t i o nd i d n o t a l l o r vt h e i n t e g r a t i o no f n e u i n f o r m a t i o nu ' i t h u h a t
- '.rrnt before.

:::.nt€rpr€tation: safe-talk as the outcome of collusion bet\\'een

.- iers and students

,- .:rng mv micro-ethnographicanalvsisof the episodein a mathematic-sles-sonin a

- - .- classroom,I w'asstruck bv the similaritv betlveen MacDonald's account ol the
-. r-sponseto the trauma experiencedin the earlvvearsof seniorprimarv schooling
'safe-talk'
:.:(rpretation of the interactionalbehaviour in the episodeas .
:ninking was also stronglv influenced bv tr','o studies that attempt to trace the
. :..:ripbetrveenthe structure of classroomdiscourseand the macro context in which
.:.. including the ideologiesthat are promoted in them. In the first of these studies,
. 19S7)arguesthat the ideologr of abilitv grouping promoted in school systemsin
, .::r,d Statesleads students in lou'abilitv groups and their teachersto socialiseone
- :: into systematic departures from the norms of classroom discourse. Behaviour
.:.nt rr-iththese'emergent' norms (seeMehan 1979 901interferes with the reading
: -. u'hich members of these groups so badlv need. Collins argues,further, that the
.', of prescriptivism also promoted in the United Statesschool svstem results in
, .:. -,nbeing made on the basisof cultural background ratler than on academicaptitude.
. . ,il,sto the svstematic exclusion of minoritv students from opportunities to learn and
..:: torms of iit"rur.'discourse.
.:. rhe second of these studies, McDermott andl'lbor (1987) analy'sean episode in
: teachers and students do interactional rvork to make the illiteracy of one of the
'i:'.is.Rosa, not noticeable. In the process Rosa does not get a turn to practise her
,.. Thev sholr- that rvhile evaluation is constantiv taking place, teachers and students
-: in evaluating overtlv onlv w'hen the evaluation is positive, u'hile, at the same time,
. .:-.: covert, unspoken, negative evaluations.Such collusion hides the unpleasantfact that
irng is structured in such a way as to provide accessto opportunities for learning for
.tudents and to denr,it to others.
238 J. I<EITH CHICK

These tlvo studies show hon' features of the macro context, namelv the institutional
ideoiogies and bureaucratic structures, constrain u'hat takesplace at a micro level. They also
,hoot t]r" participants u,orking together to reshape the structure of their discourse and to
socialiseone another into a set of sociolinguistic norms that enable them to meet their
i m m e d i a t en e e d s .A s C o l l i n s ( 1 9 8 7 : 3 1 3 ) e x p l a i n s :

Institutional ideoiogies and bureaucratic organisation forms do not entirely constrain

participants;peoplestill strive to make senseof their situation,to avoid or resist that
r t h i c h i s d e m e a n i n go r o p p r e s s i r e .

It was these insights that enabled me to recognise that the'safe-talk'w-hich I had

identified in my analrsis of the episode of the mathematics lesson does not represent the
inappropriate use of culturallv-specificZulu-English interactional styles.Rather,it represents
stvies *'hlch the participants interactionallv developed and constituted as a means of coping
*ith the o,r..*'h.l-i.rg odds thev facedin their segregatedschools.I suggestthat these styles
enabled them to collude in hiding unpleasantrealities.Thus, for example, the rhythmicallv
co-ordinated chorusing prompts and responsesenabled the teacher and students in the
episode to hide their poor command of English; to obscure their inadequate understanding
oi academic content; and to maintain a fagadeof effective learning taking place. In this rval
they r.vereable to preserve their dignitv to some extent. In terms of this interpretation.
.o-*onulities betw'een'safe-talk'ur,-dth. putative Zulu-English stylesidentified in an earlier
studt' (Chick 1985) are featuies of conventional Zulu interactional styles that survived the
process of constituting a ne\,r'set of norms of interaction. In doing the interactional w'ork
i.rlrolued in constituting these norms, the participants inevitably started by making use oi
interactional stvles most familiar to them.
'solutions
Unfortunately, as Collins (1987 :31 3) notes, achievedto local problems ma.
have unforeseen consequencesr.vhichare quite damaging'.'Safe-talk'has proved to be a
barrier both to learning and to educational innovation in South Africa. As such it served tc'
reinforce the inequalities that gave rise to it in the {irst place.

Conclusion

To sum up, in this chapter I have explored the significanceofinteractional styles that lver.
widel-v employed in schools for black people in South Africa. The fine-grained analysisof ar.
episode from a lesson'"vhichexemplifies such stvles revealedthat thev served importani
social functions for teachers,but probably did not promote efficient learning.They ais'-
provided support for the hvpothesisthat teachers and students in KwaZulu classroomsu-ert
often reluctant to adopt more egalitarian, decentralised rvavs of interacting advocated l:,
in-service educationbecausethev had vestedinterestsin'safe-taik'.
A richer contextualisation of the classroom data in terms of the ideology and structurt.
of the wider apartheid societv facilitated a reinterpretation of m,vfindings. According to tli:.
'safe-talk'
reinterpretation. represents styles consistent lvith norms of interaction r,r'hic:.
teachers and students constituted as a means of avoiding the oppressiveand demeanin;
constraints of apartheid educational sYstems.
One implication of this studv is that teaching innovation at the micro level which is n :
accompanied bv appropriate structural changeat the macro level is unlikelv to succeed.F'-:
those like m-vselfu.ho havebeen engagedin the difficult task of educationalinnovation rvitL.
the constraints imposed bv the apartheid societt',it has been exciting to experience t:,'
 SAFE-TALI( 239

.:rartheidstructuresand the assemblingof alternativestructures.Hopefullv,

,.:ke it lessnecessarvfor teachersand studentsto engagein'safe-talk'.

\ L- ..' .rdgement

Mr li" .,.ledge the contribution of Marianne Claude,'"r-horecorded the interactional

iiilllllL; - i in the analvsisof it, and that of mv colleaguesRalphAdendorff and Nicole
.: ,nsightfulcomments and suggestions.

ilulTr:-::-. c-S

- '
. . I 9 r Language in education: r'ariation in the teacher-talk register' , in J. E . Alatis
, I Tucker (edsl Languagein Publjc 4fe, 1++-62. \Vashington D.C.: Georgeto$'n
:--:r Press.
'The
: .qSi) interactional accomplishment of discrimination in South Africa.
, , , - : ) n S o c t e t1r4 ( 3 ) : 2 2 9 - 3 2 6 .
: . . : r d C l a u d e , M . ( 1 9 8 5 ) ' T h e V a l l e v T r u s t E n g l i s h L a n g u a g eP r o j e c t : r e s e a r c h i n
- ProceedingsoJ the Fourth \ational ConJerenceoJ the Southern AJrican Applied
: :::
- - .,. .:,-i.{ssocicrion.
Johannesburg: Universitv of theWitr'r'atersrand.
- jSTr'Conversation and*knou.ledgein bureaucratic settings' . DiscourseProcesses 70:
.
. .,).
',i,
t1977)'The relation of interactionalsvnchronv to cognitive and emotional
- - : j:es, in M. Kev (ed.) fhe Relailonship oJ lbrbaland\-onverbal Communicatjon, 50 6j.
-
, ila.que:Mouton.
--... .\., Du PisaniT , . a n d P l e k k e r ,S . 1 1 9 8 9 , E f d u c a t i oann d ' \ { a n p o w eDr e v e l o p m e n r .
: :ntontein: ResearchInstitutefor EducationPlanning.
- . q S 7 ) ' U s i n gt h e E n g l i s hm e d i u m i n A f r i c a n S c h o o l s 'i,n D . Y o u n g( e d . 1B r i d g t n gt h e
,. ..LqeenTheorv and Prdctice in EnglishSecond LanguageTeaching, S2-99. CapeTor.r'n:
'.I ..ken' Miller Longman.
. . :-..F. \1915) 'Gatekeepingand the melting pot: interactionin counsellingencounters'.
a le t i e w4 > ( 1 ) : 4 4 7 0
- . . t ' , a r dE d u c a t i o nR
' G a t e k e e p i n ge n c o u n t e r s A: s o c i a l s e l e c t i o np r o c e s s ' ,i n P . R . S a n d a v( e d . )
.9761
'...:hropologt andthePublicInterest: Fieldrvork andTheor,v,l 1 1-,+5.New'York:AcademicPress.
-,-:2. (1982a) Discourse Strateg)es (Studies in interactional sociolinguistics 1).
l.
r.rmbridge: CambridgeUniversitvPress.
1982b) Languageand SocialIdentitv (Studies in interactional sociolinguistics2).
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversitvPress
' : . : r o r n e ,K . ( 1 9 8 7 ) ' L a n g u a gpeo l i o . i n A f r i c a ne d u c a t i o ni n S o u t h A f r i c a1 9 1 0 - 1 9 8 5 ,u ' i t h
particularreferenceto the issueof medium of instruction', in D.Young (ed.) Language:
Planningand.tr4edium oJEducation. Rondebosch:LanguageEducationUnit and SAALA.
. ,-::re1,J. and Halsev,,\.H. (Eds) (1911) Powerand ldeologvjn Education. Ne'"vYork:oxford
UniversitvPress.
. :-.Jon,A. (1973) 'The role of visiblebehaviourin the organizationof socialinteraction', ir-
Il.Von Cranachand LVine (eds) Socia1 Communication and Movement, ) 74. New'York:
AcademicPress.
'Some
(1979) theoreticaland methodologicalaspectsof the use of film in the studv of
socialinteraction',in G. Ginsberg(ed.1Emergtng Research,
in SoctalPs;'chologtcal
Strategies
6l -91 . NervYork: f ohn Wiler'.
240 J. I(EITH CHICI(

Kuper,A. (1985) SouthAJrtcaand the.4nthropologisr. London,/NewYork:Routledgeand Kegan

Paul.
Lakoff, R. (1979)'Stl'listicstrategiesrvith a grammar of stvle', in J. Oraisainn,M. Slaterand
L. LoebAdler (eds). nnalsoJthe\ewlori .Tcadem-r oJsciences 127:53-78.
Levinson,S.C. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversitvPress.
'Teaching
MacDonald,C. ( 1988) primarv sciencein a secondlanguage:trvo teachingstylesand
their cognitive concomitants',in A. \!'eideman (ed.1 StllesoJTbaching and StylesoJ
Learning.Bloemfontein: SAALA.
- ( I 990) Crossing
theThreshold jnto Standardlfiree. Report of the Threshold Project. Human
SciencesResearchCouncil.
McDermott, R., Gospodinoff, K. and Aaron, J. (1978)'Criteria for an ethnographically
adequatedescription of the concerned activities and their contexts'. Semiotica24:
2 + 57 5 .
'On
llcDermott, R. and T\'lbor, H. (1987) the necessitvof collusion in conversation',in
L. Kedar (ed.) Pou'er throughDtscourse. Norrvood, N.J.:Ablex.
\lehan. H. (1919) Learninglessons:SocialOryanization in the Classroom. Cambridge, Mass..
Harvard Universitr-Press.
t - l g b u .J i l 9 3 1 t ' S c h o o l e t h n o g r a p h va: m u l t i - l e v e la p p r o a c h ' A
. n t h r o p o l o gayn d E d u c a t i o n a l
Q;rrerlr pp. 3-29.
> ; h e t l i n . . \ . E . ( 1 9 1 3 ) C o m m u n i c a t i nSgt r u c t u r e s : . 4 n a l v soiJs a P s y c h o t h e r aTpila n s a c t i o n .
B l o o m i n q t o nI :n d i a n aU n i r e r s i t rP r e s s .
S c h l e m m e rL, . " a n dB o t , M . 1 1 9 8 6 ; ' E i u c a t i o na n dr a c er e l a t i o n si n S o u t h A f r i c a ' i,n G . K e n d a l
(ed.) Education andtheDiversity oJCultures. Pietermaritzburg:Universityof Natal.
Scollon,R. and Scollon,S. (1983)'Facein interethniccommunication',in J.C. Richardsand
R.W Schmidt(eds)Language and Communication, T56-88. London: Longman.
Sinclair,j.McH. and Coulthard, N{. (1915) Towards an AnalS,sis oJDiscourse. London: Oxford
Universitv Press.
Singh,R., Leie, J. and N{artohardjono,G. (1988)'Communicationin a multi-lingual societr:
some missedopportunities'. Language in Society17:43 59.
SouthAJrican lnstituteoJRaceRelations (SAIRR)Reports87l88, 88/89
'Some
Thembela,A. (1985) cultural factors u'hich affect school education for blacks in Souti-.
Africa', in G. Kendall (.d.) Educationand the Diversity of Cuhures,3T--+)
Pietermaritzburg:Universitv of Natal.
rART THREE

teachingandlearning
Analysing
 er3
;3ter l5

NeilMercer

LANGUAGE FOR TEACHING A LANGUAGE

::troduction

HIS cHAPTER IS ABour r H E u s e o fl a n g u a g e a s a m e d i u m f o r t e a c h i n g a n d

learning, rvith specialrelevanceto the teaching of English. Horvever,many of the issues
, dcal lr'ith, especiallvthose in the earlv parts of the chapter, are not specific to the use
:'i particular language in the classroom, or the teaching of any particular curriculum
rt. Of course, languagesof irstruction and curricula varv from countrv to countrv,
-l
- n to region and even from school to school.Teachersdiffer in their st1'leand approach,
:reir classesare made up of individualsof variouspersonalcharacteristicsand cultural
i GrfL
..-rounds, rvho differ in the u.avs thev respond to teachers and particular str-lesoi [- f6r
'fta,\t* r
.rng.But, asI rvill explain,observationalresearchsuggeststhat some wavsthar languaqe
tI '
, - . .1in interactions betu,een teachers and students featuresof .lurrrooirl liL ,
- .._lhoutthe w'orld. I will illustrate some of these"..L--on features of classroom language .lr-ith
- .-fc examples,and discusstheir possibleeducationaifunctions.In the latter part of the
,. icr. I r'vill use the theoretical perspective of socio-cultural psvchologv to relate the
'r analysisof classroom language to a consideration of the nature and
quality of
,'':-)om education.In these rt'ays,I hope to demonstratethe practical educationalvalue
. . :reful anall'sisof the interactive process of teaching-and-learning.

- rnqlrage and teaching

:.r'er thev are and u'hatever thev are teaching,teachersin schoolsand other educational
' . -ttions are likelv to face some simiiar
practical tasks.Thel, have to organize activities to I
r c l a s s eosI d i s p a r a t ej n d i r i d u a l s l.e a r n e r su h o m a r r a r r c o n s i d e . ] b l ui n t h e i r a i m s ,
-.-r-s I
and motivations.Thevhaveto control unrulv behauio,r..Thevare exoectedto teach J
i l i c c u r r i c u l r r - , . b o i . ' o f k n o u l e d g . . n d , k i l l , u h i c h r h e i r s t u d e n t sn ' o u l d n o t
-:..alh-encounterin their out-of-school lives.And
thev have to monitor and assessthe
.tional progressthe studentsmake. All these aspectsof t"uchers'responsibilitiesare
. ted in their use of languageas the principal tool of their responsibilities.As examples
".., I'"vould like I'ou no\\-to consider two transcribed sequencesof classroom talk,
. -'nces1 and 2 overleaf.For each in turn, consider:

Can t''ouidentifv anr recurring patterns of interaction in the talk betrveen teacher and
.l r
D U D I l Si
244 NEIL MERCER

in each of the
2 \\'hat \1,ouldvou sa\'\\'erethe main functions of the teacher'squestions
sequences? Do the sequencesdiffer at all in this respect?

I have made mv o\\-n comments after both the sequences'

(Note: in the transcriptions\\-ordssPokenparticularlv emphaticalivare underlined'Words

The onset of
rvhich u.ere unclear during transcription are in curled brackets { }.
simultaneousspeechis marked u-ith a squarebracket [')

Sequence 1:Tov animals

teacher
This sequencewas recorded in an English lessonin a Russianprimary school.The
hasjust set up a collection of soft tov animalsin front of the class.

her own hani

Have vou got anv to-v animals at home? Be quick. Raise Volr hand (sheraises
S-
and show -e. Huo'e vou got anY tov animals? {Name of child}

S: (Standing up) I have got a cat, a

T: No, sit dou'n, in vour place'
S: Yes, I have.
T: I have got manv?
S: Tovs at home.
'
T: Tov animals at home.

Sequence 2: Personal qualities

l-
This next sequencecomes from aTESOL classfor voungadults in a college in London
'
little earlier, th. t.u.h", had askedeach of the students to list their own Personal qualiti"
b o t h p o s i t i v ea n d n e g a t i r e .

T: Who w-ouldIike to tell,the classabout their personalqualities?Dalia?

D: I am polite, friendly, organized,trustu'orthv, responsiblebut sometimesI am impat:'":
and unpunctual. Sometimes(laughs)'
T: Good, isn't it? (Addressing rfieclass)Thankvou, Dalia.That rvasgood. Now can you tell : '
t h e p o s i t i t eq u a l i t i e sv o u h a v ei u s t s a i d
D: Yeah?
T: T h a t i s . f r i e n d l r ,u m , o r g a n i z e d .
D: {Right}
I: H o \ \ r sI t n e l P r n gY o u . .
D: Yeah?
T: . . . u'ith vour friends [in the class?
then-'-'d]
D: [It help me to get along rvith people and to understand
helo them.
T: That's good. And u.hat about the, the not verv positive ones [like punctual
D: [Sometimes
T: What happensthen?
D: SometimesI lose mv friend basicailvof that becauseI lose mv temPer very quickli
T: And what happensrvith me? I don't smile at vou that much do I ?
 L A N G U A G EF O R T E A C H I N GA L A N G U A G E 2 4 5

ll Comments on Sequences 1 and 2

Sequence 1 illustratessomepatternsu.hichtvpifv most classroom

talk. First,the teacher
h
ll
took lolgStJgrls_:t_spSglTgthan anv students.Second.she askedJl.-tTe queTtr--ons.
^- - -
\ r D S e r v a i l o n a l r e s e a r c n n a s s n o \ \ ' n t n a t I n c l a s s r o o m c o n v e r s a t l o n st e a c h e r s u s u a l l t ' a s k t h e
great majority of questions:5+]b_- as in thjs case to elicit some kind y
responsefiom the stude.ts Sheth@qq..s the replies &e)'gqShe is also using questions
to direct the topic or content of the talk torvards issues that she u.ishes to66iiIIEiFo.t
o n . L o o K I n g m o r e c a r e l u l l \ a t ) e q u e n c e l , \ 1 ' ec a n s e e t h a t t h e r e t s a s t r u c t u r a l p a t t e r n t o
-Th-e
--4-il
talk: a teacher's
Susstionis follorved by u tLylS"t;4Lg-follolved in turn bv some teacher
o,
feedback structural .I"rn"nt of cluir.oo- talk rvasfirst describ.dffi.
"roluotiF.rts
t.----1---F1---7=- | ^
l i n g u i s t - S i n c l a iar n d C o u l t h a r d( l 9 7 J l s e ea l s oM e h a n , 1 9 7 9 ; V a nL j e r , C h a p t e r5 o f t h i s
book) and usually knorvn as a For example:

T: . Have vou got anv tov animals? S {Name of child}

,'I
S: t Srandingup ) I have got a cat. a D

T: No, sit dolvn, in vour place. E/

\a::_
IRF exchangescan be thought of as the archetvpal form of interaction between a teacher
and a pupil - a basic unit ofclassroom talk as a continuous stretch oflanguage or'text'.
They do not typifv the pattern of talk in all classroomactivities; other kinds of talk involvins
) , , t ) |
- _

diff".."!p ionsofteachers, or ofother

,t".iilt$?f6ppen too. R.rd outrid. th ms, thev
mav not often be found in their classic,simple form. But IRFs hare been obserr'"d us a
common feature in classroomsthe rvorld or,er,and in other languagesbesidesEnglish.
In Sequence1, the IRF exchangesare being used to perform a common function in
classrooms,one that is almost certainlv familiar to you from I'our olvn schooldavs:a teacher
is eliciting from learners their ktro.tledge of the relevant curriculum subject ii.r thi, .ur.,
English). Researchshou'sthat this particular kind of use of question-and-ansr.ver by a teacher
- rik.rg questions to ll'hich
.o^-o' function of IRF to prffi
inforrfi'dTiolfr-tEat
the teacher expects them to knou'. As the classroom researchersEdwards
andWestgate sav:

Most classroom talk u'hich has been recorded displavsa clear boundarv between
knou ledgeand ignorance . . . Tb be askeda questionb.: ,o-.o." * ho u'unt, to kno*
I
is to be given the initiative in deciding the amount of information to be offered and p
I
t h e m a n n e r o [ t e l l i n g . B u t t o b e a s k e db v s o m e o n er r h o a l r e a d vk n o u ' s .a n d r , r ' a n ttso I
, G---7-'----'--
t<11.12l11|;Su
knS\, is to hatelour ansn'eraccepted, reiectedor otbenviseevaluatedt
-
accordingto the questioner'sbeliefsaboutrvhatis relevantald truq, (1994,p 48) j

Teachersneed to check students'understandingofprocedural, factual matters, and thatis

I
c o m m o n l v t h e t u n c t i o n o f I R F e x c h a n g e sS. e q u e n c eI i l l u s t r a t e sa l f f i T i F e e d b a c k ' f i o m
a teacher mav also be used to control students' behaviour.These are quite legitimate
functions of teacher-E all teachers might expect to use languagein this rval' quite

t(frequentlv. But
q"":trol-u"!_glrlg
relving heavilv and continuouslv on traditional, formal
ffifo. guidinglea
fo. fr - suchasexperiminling\\ith neu tl pesot languEe
constructtons.
 246 NEIL MERCER

As in much classroomtalk, in Fequence2 we can also see IRF exchangesoccurring,

though here as slightlv rno.".o*plex, linked structures, in r'vhich th" tgd".!itt"!:gt'
drrririg the teachei's .ii.itutionr, perhaps seeking clarification rvhich the3ggbgryIgvrlgl
Anffitandfuiitionofthequestion-and-ans1Verexchangesinthe
In
two sequences,\\,e can see that something rather different is going on in each of them.
teacher is asking her primar,y school.pupils to prodyge English sentenggs
b,6A S.q,r".r6ftre
which conform to the mod
s4".'" these,r 2 is not doing that. I"gsd_fuIr*}lg
the students to elaboratl in En_g!r!4r!at thev have'"vritten. ln
3s,\F questiffi e-age

wv
:.:i:-
this *'ar',the teachertr h' A
but ratfrer encourugin el' I 4
am not suggestingthat either teacheris usingtheir quesUonlngtechnlquesto better or worse
effect, b"ilmpti ill,ttt.uting th. fr.
pragmatic, educational functions.

Techniques for teaching

Having identified the archetvpal structure of teacher-student talk, I n'ill next describe some
specifi"cw.avsof interacting with students which are commonlr used b)'teachers. I call these
f.tffioGl bec
l.tto u rJolf *itable tools for'pursuinq their professiot'ti
una s of teaching-and-learning'The
techniques are summarised in Table 15 ' 1 below'

,\ TableI 5.'l Sometechniquesthat teachersuse

/,\
/r\ | n
LJI . . . to elicit knowledgc from learnett U
Dircctelit'itations
t hrpl I
"^o8rl cuc<lelicitations
I
ly- l ,.-\
. . . t o r e s p o n d t o u ' h a t l e a r n e r s s' uIt ' Z )
fur t | Y/
Q t.c6' I Conhrmation,
l^\ | R.lections
t Repetitrons
I
f-'
I 1,.1"'.tlations
Llaboratrons
I
l/\ . to describe significant asPects of shared experience
/ 1)
I \/
ampnncations
I
I exolanations
';'statements
[
I recaps
tq\-
/.,
ing knowledgeJrom learners
t1?\rli.it
i
V W" haveseenthat vuhena teacherinitiatesan IRF sequence, thislggbllut ,n. 1'ntt"1ionr:
eliciting information from a student. If thisGmplu " ,t..iglffiii request,we ca:.
d;tr" But
t-h"teacher'sverbalact asa directelrcttatton. teachersalsooften engagein u'h.-
canbe r^Ira@ rTrorr* thich ersthelnformati,
 LANGUAGE FOR TEACHING A LANGUAGE 247

'right'
they are seeking - the answers to their questions
ple recorded in an Englishlesson
-'-=:-;-
ln a Zimbabwean primarv school.The teacherhas set up a number of objects on her desk,
'f, 'j'
and also has a set of cards on w.hich various consonants('b', etc.) are rvritten. The
children have to come to the front of the classand match the consonantsto the name of an
object.

Sequence 3: say the sound

Teacher: (to child): Sav the sound.

chtld: b-b b
Teacher:b-b-bls for?
)€re I\L
(Child doesnot answer.Teacher
wavesher hand overthe nearestoblects,oneof which u o book;
) e;/6
Child: b-b-b is for book.
Gacher: Well donel

The use of cued elicitation as a teaching technique is r'videspread.It can be traced to the
S o c r a t i cd i a l o g u e sc o n s t r u c t e d b v P l a t o ( E d u ' a r d s ,1 9 8 8 ) . B y u s i n g t h i s t c c h n i q u c . ,t h e
tcacher avoids simply giving the chiid the risht ans\\-cr.Sequence3 also illustratis hor,r,
n o n - v c r b a lc o m r n u n i c a t i o n- t h c u s e o f g e s t u r e sa n d o t h e r s i g n s- c a n b e a n i m p o r t a n t
-rl
coml)onent oI classroom taIK.

1) Responding to what learners sa)/

As illustrated bv the sequencesabove, one of the u.avsthat teachers sustain dialogues u-ith
their students is to use what students savas the basisfor lvhat thev savnext. In this r,r'av.the
l e a r n e r s o \ 4 n r e m a r K sa r e l n c o r p o r a t e o l n t o t h e t e a c n r n g - l e a r n l n gp r o c e s s .I h e m o s t
oUulo 's 'Yes,
that's
right'to a pupil's ans\ver).B@ of things learners sav are another way, one which
allows the teacher to draly to the attention of a r,vholeclassan anslveror other remark which
.the teacher to have educational significance.
DZbpupitt remark.usuallvsoasto offertheclassI
a revised. tidied-up versiron of what ,uia *tti.h e,r in U"r,"r *i,h ,tr" pJ
wishesto make or t. For example, in this extract
..--
I r o m ) e q u e n c el :

S: Yes,I have.
T: I havegot many?
S: Tovsat home.
I
l: lov anlmals at nome
./ -l

Thereareulto@,lrrhen o n a c r l p t i c s t a t e m e n tm a d e b r -a p u p i l
a teacherpic,ks-g1
- 4-
a n c le x P a n d sa n d / o r e x p l a l n sl t s s l g n l t l c a n q g _ l s l rest of the class.Wrong answers or
unsuita'68-6fr tri butions mav be explicitlv v a teacher. But lve should also note a
ue that teachers have for ith u rong ans\vers- rr*p.!_jg...-g
 248 NEIL MERCER

Describing shared exPetience

, lvhether in print o" u
Classroom activities oft"rr ..lt, o.r ttnd.tttt .e ::,
s c r e e n . lI,t tr
c o m p u t e r screen.
computer i s t-Poffi.h..lt.t'=.tndtltt1rd r o p e r l \ ' \ \ ' n a t l s e x p e c l e o o t r ' I l e r r' r '
pfT
i m p o r t a n t t [ g j j l s v L l n d e r s t a n dp
if the acti'itr i, ,o ru..
s. Other t"ffi^:utrocontain information w'hich
.f
Fenseof v continue anv further. In ciassroomsit is common

some confusion about them seemsto arise. for example,

IesGiT5iililTltillen t s:

Sequence 4z Ser and Estar

'This is one of the main difficultiesfor Engiishspe-aking
gJrom text)
Gacher: It savs(readin 'to
serandestarr.vhichboth, uh, translateas be' in
learners'-"u-r1ingthe tu.o .r'erbs
English. (Reading-again)'Sermeans to exist'"vhile esrarmeans to be situated'.Tha:
as being abou:
so.rnd, horriblrl cJmplicated, I think to start bv thinking of ser
lhmos a ver . . (He continut'
permanenr things and estaras temporarY rvavs of being.
rn Spanish)

dhey do'
An important task for a teachel is to help lea{ngrs see how the.vario-gq actiYities

merelv the effiecutive events, it must be a deve

of la o n e s .F c :
in ,r'lrich earlier experiences provide the foundations for
thor. i.r"o@i"g, ."tti"to", .h"t. e is one of the mos:
tol:ryff1ti1u+:
preclous resources available.There are manY wa,vsthat teachers try
.ti
in thee*peri..rg. oI l"u.*rs - bv sequencingactivitiesin certain rvft, bi:g-lhg
.econtinuityinr'h":
,@dsoon
i;ffiguage therei, th. ing u''
reinterpreting"that .*i"ti"rr.", u"d tt th" bt.i. fot fu k, activitv ar-:
"f "rrttg ",
Iear!$l--f
rtr
ffi;-,**rl(.r i" a teachersavingto a class'lastrveekwe learnedhorv to measu:=
.tt 'jiE:=J sed* hen. tryry:::,tflll-
teach"rs,are
rt\
'ffi"*
--<--:
acti\it\'.Thev short hou teachers help learners see that thev have significantp-:
a7 >/ l -^ l-^--^ -^i-^l ^t*^ -
\' .rtrY. bffi-'i.'-'..in-.o--o''andsohu'"g@andco/!Scti,\.eunderStand:::
@n to progressTurther. Teachers also often lecaplbharedclassro'-=
-:,:
,C experience from earlier in a lesson, and from previous lessons, emphasising
.f\
C/

ot --:rt
obvious function; but this is a simplification, for the sake of claritv of exposition,
e l a 0 o n s n l p betrveen
rrelationship r a n z u a g e l o t I l l r l u r l L L r u r r and context. An analvstof classroomdisco';"t
D e t l v e e n l*gfi;T.;.-'F;-tion
u
I| 4 ! r : tt .
''
hu. to r..Jgni-zcthat@.: particufarutterance
'
that, asi., ti'e 6rr, pu.Vs"qu
U.ur"a-Uf
".tiiE1f;;6;..:'.. c:'
a
contextual tactors not avallable to t as intormatton
ence of Interactlon; see n, t 7 . fot furtler discussionof such matt-:
Fo* e, e., desp-iTer-ffiie ats,I have found the identificationofthese techniquesa ust
practical aid to analvsis
 LANGUAGE FOR TEACHING A LANGUAGE 249

Interaction in bilingual and multilingual settings

In the next part of the chapter I u.ill consider some aspectsof teacher-student interaction
in classroomslr'here English is being used as a classroom language,but is not the first
languageof the children. I hope to shorv through these examples some of the qualities these
bilingual settings have in commo_ry;$ghmonolingmlcla-s-sro-oms.lvhile also pointing out
some of the specialinteraitional featuresthe)'ma)'generate.There are tlvo main sorts of
situation u''hich can be included here. The first occurs in countries r,vhereEnglish is not the
usual evervdav languageand the mother tongue of most of the children is not English.The
secondis u,.herepupils rvhosemother tongue is not English enter schoolsin a predominantlv
English speaking countrv. I rvill provide examples from both of these tvpes of situation.
In anv situation u'here English is used as a classroom languagebut is not the main
languageof children's hone or communitr', teachers ma)' have th1 mlultiple task of teaching
(a) the F.glish l'.gu.ge (h) th , u.rd
(c) anv specific subiect content. Jo Arthur (1992) carried out obserr.ationalresearchon
#
teactring and learning in primarv school ciassroomsin Botsrvana.English w.asused as the
medium of education, but it rn-asnot the main languageof the pupils' local community. She
. i , , , - . 1

db'-served that \\hen teachersFere teaching mathematics,thev commonlv used question-

sessionsas opportunities for schooling children in the use of appropriate
and-ansr.r.er
'classroom
English' as rvell asmaths. For exampie, one primarv teacher 99lq11g!]yf4;f$gd
t iln-full sentences', as show.nbelolr.:

Sequence 5: How many parts?

Teacher: Hou.manv parts are left here (first pupil's name)?

First pupil: Seven parts.
Teacher: .\nsu'er fullr. Hos manv parts are there?
Pupil: There are . . . there are sel'en parts.
Teacher: Hou'manv parts are left? Sit dorvn mv bot'.You have tried.Yes (second pupil's
name)?
Secondpupil: We are left rvith seven parts.
Teacher: We are left rvith seven parts. Sav that (second pupil's name).
Secondpupil: We are left vrith seven parts.
Teacher: Good bov. W'e are left with seven parts.
(Artl'rur,1992,pp. 6 7S

Sequence5 is made up of a linked seriesof IRF exchanges.For example:

Horv many parts are left here? flnitiation]

Sevenparts [Response]
Answ.erfullv IFeedback/ Er.aluation]

The Botsu.ananstudents therefore needed to understand that their teacher lvas using these
exchangesnot onlr-to evaluatetheir mathematical understanding, but also to test their
fluencf in spoken English and their abilitv to conform to a'ground rule' that she enforced
'ansr,ver
in her classroom - in full sentences'. Arthur comments that for pupils in this kind
of situation, the demandsof classroom.o*^ui6-tion ur. complicated b..urrr" their teacher
is attempting to
250 NEIL MERCER

Arthur reports that such dual focus is common in Botsrvananclassrooms,as the follow'ing
sequencefrom another lessonsholvs:

Sequence 6: the continent of Africa

T: In vr.hichcontinent is r,our countrr'? In rvhich continent is your country? Give an ans\\'er

P1 : In Africa is mv countn'
T: He saysin Africa is mv countn'. Who could frame her sentence?In Africa is mv countrr.
P2: Africa is mt' continent
T: My question u'as in rvhich continent is vour countrr'?
PJ: l t s c o n t i n e n ti s i n A f r i c a
T: It is in the continentof Africa. evervbodv
Ps: It is in the continent of Africa
(Arthur, 1992, p. 13 t

Bilingual code-switching in the classroom

In circumstanceswhere one languageis being used as a classroom language,but w-heretht

pupils' first languageis a different one, a tetch-ermav_sometimes'code-slyitcb' to the {rrs:
iu,lg,rug"if thev judge it necessarv.(\A/esa'lt'this kind oi su'irch=taEng pliie between Spanisl:
anJ English in Sequence4 afove). Sometimes the first languagemav be use{91]y for asides.
for control purposes or to makgasSsnal rengn::tS-. Floiilevi:i, when code-sn'itchin,.
amointE-liin5lation bv the teacher of the curriculum content being taught, its use as ar.
explanatorv teaching strategy is someu'hat controversial. On the one hand, there are thost
*ho that it is a sensible,common-senseresponsebv a teacherto the specifickind c:
".grr"
teaching and learning situation.Thus in studving its use in English-medium classroomsir-
Hong Kong, Angel Lin (Chapter 17 of this book) explainsa particular teacher'suse of codc-
switching as follou's:

. startin
alr'var,s - irJLt\Teacher
....".<rl
D aln'avsstarts from rvhere the student is - fror:
f,iTE6-student.unYutfi, understandaqd5 falqt]t4g.witb- (p. 282)

Researchersof bilingual code-su-itching(as reviervedbv Martvn-Jones, 1995) have ofie:-

concluded that it is of dubious value as a teaching strateg)',if one of the aims of the teachir.;
is to improve students' competencein English.Thus Jacobsoncomments:

t}e translation into the child's vernacular of evervthinq that is bein t mav Pre\ t
him/her from ever developing-t of Enslish lan encv that must
o n e o l t h e o b t c c t l \ . e so l a s o u inglil programme(Jacobson,1 9 9 0p,. 6 . )

It seems,hou'el,er,that teachersoften use code-srvitchingin more complex lvaysthan sin.i-

translating content directlv into another language.On observing classroomsin Hong Ko:..
emploveo -
Johnson and Lee (1987) observed that the sr,vitchingstrategv most commonly
teachers had a three-part structure as follort's:

'Kev
1 statement' of topic in English
Z nmpllfication, clarification or lxplanation in Cantonese
3 Restatementin English
 LANGUAGE FOR TEACHING A LANGUAGE 251

They comment that'direct translation \\'as comparativeiv rare; the general effect was of a
spiralling and apparentlv haphazardrecvcling of content, rvhich on closer examination
proved to be more organisedthan it appeared.'(.1987,p 106).The implication here is that
such teachers are pursuing the familiar task of guiding children's understanding of
curriculum content through language,but using special bilingual techniques to do so.
An interesting studv of code-srvitching in bilingual classroomsin Malta w-ascarried out
byAntoinette Camilleri (199+). She shorvedthat code-su-itchingrvas used as a teaching
technique by teachers in a varietv of rvays.Look for example at these t\\.o extracts from the
talk of a teacher in a secondarvschool lessonabout the production and use of wool, and
based on a textbook u-ritten in English. The teacher b"gi.r, bv reading part of the text (l
translationoJtalk in Maheseis given in the right hand column)

Sequence 7:Wool

Extract 1
EnglandAustraliaNerv Zealandand
Argentinaare the bestproducersof lr'ool
dawk|-aktar Ii gfiandhomfarms 1;7 thev have the largest number of farms
rabbun-nagflagghas-suJO.K. England and the largest number of sheep for wool
tghtduli minn licma post England O.K. England where in Englandwe reallv
''
ghandhomScotlandnaghruf n tont mean Scotland thev are verv lvell-known
ghall-wool u 6ersijtcttaghhomO.K. for their rvoollen oroducts

Extract 2
wool issait does not creasebut it has to be
washedwith care issadin rmporranri norv this is important didn't I tell vou that
ma ghidtilkomxtllt lekk tkollt nara xagttrajew if I had a look at a single hair or 6bre
suJawahdaunder the microscope ghandha it has manv scalesw.hich if not washed
qishahaJnascalesta1.ltuta tssa lekk ma nah properlv get entangledand I put a jersey
sluxsewwadawk l-tscalesjitgfiaqqdugo xulxin this size into the r,vashingmachine and it
u indahh6ersidaqshekl gol- u ashing' comes out this size becauseit shrinks and
machine u nohor7udaqshekk gttaxjixxrinklali gets entangled
u jitghaqqadkollu
(Adapted from Camilleri, 1994)

Camilleri notes that the first extract shorvs the teacher using the switch from English to
Maltese to expand a-;ifi the poinf bRg made, rath"er than simplv repeat it in
"{
t r a n s l a t i o n .I n t h e s e c o n d e x t r a c t . s h ( e . r p l a i n i r t h eE n g l i s hs t a t e m e n t i n M a l t e s e ,a g a i n
avoiding IISSI translation. Camilleri comments that the lessontherefore is a particular kind
- of 'two
Iiteracl' event,Tn r'vhich these are parallel discourses the u'ritten one in English,
the spoken one in Maltese' (p 12)
Studies of code-su.itching in classroomshave revealed a variety of patterns of bllingual
use (Martvn-Jones, 1995). For example, Zenteila (1981) observedand recorded eventsin
two bilingual classesin Ne*.York schools, one a first grade class(in rvhich the children were
about six vears old) and the other a sixth grade (in rvhich the averageage would be about
12).The pupils and teachersu'erd all native Spanishspeakers,of Puerto Rican origin, but
the official medium for classroom education rvas English. One of the focusesof her anaiysis
of teacher-pupii interactions u'as IRF sequences.Both Spanishand English were actuall)
252 NEIL MERCER

Zentella rvas able to show that there rvere

used bv teachers and pupils in t]]e classes,.and
in IRF_sequences, rn"hichseem to represent
three recurring patterns of language-slvitching
'grorr.rd r...l"i' g3t'.rrring lan"guagechoice. These are summarized belou':
the use of certain

student rePlv teacher feedback

Rules governing teacher initiation
language choice

English Spanish English

1. Teacher and
Spanish Spanish
student:'follow Spanish
the leader'
English Spanish Spanish
2. Teacher:'follou'
Spanish English Engllsh
the child'
English Spanish both languages
3. Teacher:'include
English both languages
the child's choice Spanish
not vours'

(Adaptedfrom Zentella,1981)

of language use emerge lr'

From this example, we can see that distinctive Patte-rns
as adaptations of the common IRF
bilingual classrooms,but these can be interpreted
in monolingual settings'What is more'
structure and language strategiesused bv teac-hers
in teacher-talk can be explained in term'
the distinctive patterns of ,*iihlng *hl.h emerge
..ir" in a modern languageclassroom and tht
of the special communicative resoirrcesthat
special circumstances'The extent to whici-
wavs that teachers a".i,l" to respond to these
setting *ii'
;; ;;;;gi","*"" English and.another lu.g,tug" o^ccursin a particular
d!gt." of fluencyin English that member'
therefore be influenced b,t fuZtot. such as (a) the
teachers (c) the specih:
oi u pural.,rtar classhu.'. l.hi.t.d; (b) the bilingual"competence,of
- - attirudes of both children and teacher:
teaching goals of.teachers; and cruciallv (dithe
languagesinvoived'
i. ,i. p?i",lce of code-sw-itchingand to the

language
What learners have to und,erstand about classroom
 LANGUAGE FOR TEACHING A LANGUAGE 253

in relation to the learning of u-ritten as u'ell as spoken Enslish. and is r'vellillustrated bv the
.. r.-ur.ffi ;;-*r@ ren or non - Eng'sn speaKrng
immigrant families entering secondarv schools in Britain.
'action
Becauseof his close and continuous involvement in classroomeventsas a kind of
researcher'(Elliot, 1991), Moore rvasable to observe, describe and analvseteaching and
learning over severalr,veeksor months in one class.One of his special'casestudies'u'asof
the progress of a S-vlhetibov of 15 u'ho had been in Britain one year since coming from
Bangladesh(rvhere he had been educatedin Bengali). Moore focused on Mashud'sclassr.oom
education in writing English. Mashud had quite a fer'v problems w'ith'surface features' of
English such as handwriting, spelling and grammatical structures, but -!vasan enthusiastic
w'riter. However, Moore and Mashud's teacher (Mrs Montgomery) both noticed that:

his rvork had a particular idiosvncrasl'in that w'henever he w'asset creative writing
- or e\rendiscursiver'vriting - assignments,he produced heavilv formulaic fairy-story-
style moral tales which \!'ere apparentlv - according to information volunteered by
other Sylheti pupils in the class translationsof stories he had learnt in his native
tongue. (Moore, 1995: 362)

Despite being a uilling pupil, Mashud seemedunable to transcendthis traditional style of

f.@u.,a ,.'ii,. j.r thJger,res that his teachersk r.ro'*'oriTllreq]rir"d of hi- l.,ih"Eiitfh
tdlrr.ution system u.rJ i., u'ider societt'. Further consideration led Moore and Mrs
Montgomeru ,o .o-. hvpothesesabout u'hv this rvas so:

It has to be said that neither Mrs Montgomerv or I knerv enough about Bangladeshi
or Sylheti storv-telling traditions to be able to expound rvith anv degree of con{idence
on the causeof Mashud's particular wav of going about things. The kev to our future
pedagogv,horvever [. . .] lu,uin Mrs Montgomerv's very w'ise recognition that "there
could be the most enormous difference betrveen rvhat Mashud has been brought up
to value in narratives and r,vhatlve're telling him he should be valuing". (Moore, 1995:
366) ..{,)

This insight into Mashud'sdifficulties w-ith genresof writing was supported bv a more carefulR\\
analysisof Mashud's texts, which had a linear, additive, chronological structure associated R \. Sj
rvith oral, rather than literate cultural traditions (Ong, 1982).'The outcome lr'1the;lggg\e-r
R+ +

lf lve responded appropriatelv, Mashud r,r-ould,',vehoped, learn somethi"g

"J:lbgt
r1a1-aluedin expressiveu'ritinq in his neu school, and how that was different from
thoggh !9-q9$erltha4 - ''r:hatFe mav have learned to r.alue at schoolin Panglaclesh.
( M o o r e1 9 9 5 : 3 6 8 ;

This approach proved successful,as during the remaining period of Moore's research
Mashud shou'ed clear progress in coming to understand and cope w-ith the demands of
writing in the genres of English required in the British schooi svstem. Describing research
w.ith children in a Spanish-Englishbilingual program in Caiifornian schools, Moll and
Dworin (1996) also highlight the important role of a teacher in helping learners make the
best educational use of their bi-cultural language experience in developing their literacl
skills in the secondlanguage.
 254 NEIL MERCER

A socio-cultural perspective on classroom interaction

I now-rvish to relate the abor.ediscussionof languageasthe medium of teaching-and-learning

to a consideration of the qualitv of education.To do this, I will draw on a particular approach
to human learning and development r,vhichis known associocultural psychology.This approach
has emerged during the final decadesof the tr'ventieth century from a belated appreciation

carriedoutbvtheRussianpsvchoT-gistLel.Vl.gotskv1@).
Vygotskv rvorked in Moscorv in the 1920s and 30s, in an institution for children who had
special educational needs, but his ideas on the process ofteaching and learning have much
\ broader educational relevance than the specilic institutional settings in u'hich he put them
Jnto practice. Vvgotskv gave language a special, important role in human cognitive
development, describing human individuals and their societies as being linked by language
into a historical, continuing, dvnamic, interactive, spiral of change. Led bv the example of
Jerome Bruner (1985, 1986), a considerablebodv of researchhasnor,vemerged which uses
socio-culturalperspectiv"i., ihe anahsisof educationalpiocesses.So-e
"'n.o-Vvgotskian',
of the most significant and distinctive implications of adopting a socio-cultural perspective
on classroomeducationare. I believe.as follou-s:

is our most ,:lAlthough thev do not necessarilvmake this

-expficit, I
suggest that the most influential socio-cultural theorists of cognitive
development (asrepresentedbv such as Bruner, 1985;Wertsch, 1991; Rogoff, 1990)
ascribethree important functionsto language:1u1
^, or6friliili(:*hose"acquisition
enables childrento qain,process. orqanize
andevaluate knowledge; {b)as afulturalI
to:Jly w'hich k"g! is shared, stored and made available to successive
generations; (c) as a f v u'hich@is provided to
t#r <--
chlldren bv other people.Theseroles are inextricablvintertu'ined.To this specification
.TJ

of the roles of Ianguagerve might add the comment: learning how to use language
effectivelv as a cultural tooi is an important educational goal for native speakersas

-
teachinq-and-learninqand also that \\'hich is miant to be learnt and iiuEEr
Etucarion it o diolofftJ@rural proce\ The der elopment of studenii-E6tledge and
understanding is shapedb\-'-ih€iiGfationships rvith teachers and other students, and
b-vthe culture in rvhich those relationships are located. (Newman, Griffin and Cole.
1989; Gee, 1996).The educational.rr.."r, studentsachieveis onlv partly under their
own control, and onlv purl$@ the control of their teachers.This is where the
sociocultural concept 'hich I mentioned briefly earlier,is useful.Thr

thataneffectiveteacherprol'idesth"@twhichenables
IA\,
| | .\
Iearners to make intellectual achievementsthev lvould nev
one \\ a\ the'r'do so is b)' usinq dialoque t.o guide and ;gppgll1hl qe''/.91o-pment o:
\ u.z understanding.
---". '
3 fanguage carries th, hlIpry4.:.!!jlro:!_gy,tLr"ro i,t fut"r.lhe socio-cultura.
perspective suggeststhat if \\'e $'ant to understand the process of learning, we mu:l
studl not only r,r'hata learner does but also the activitiesof parents.teachers]Eder.
v r h o c r e a t e- i n d e e d .c o n s t i t u t e- t h e d ) ' n a m i cc o n t e x t o l t h e i r l e a r n i n ge x p e r i e n i -
, in-bei..;
'guided
irf'olrecf-in a process of participation' in the intellectual life of the.:
communities, lvhich implies the necessan'involvement of others. For similar reasoni
 LANGUAGE FOR TEACHING A LANGUAGE 255

'the
I have described the process of teaching-and-learning as guided construction of
knouIedge'ti\1ercer,l995r.Thjsisupio..,,rrhichLc#ftat'
'--------
a s T F E - l a n g u a gr ees e a r c h e Jr a n e tN l a v b i n{ 1 9 9 4 )h a s p u t i t , t h e t a l k o n a n v o c c a s i o n
between a teacher and their regular class of students can be considered part of the
.lo.g.oanguageisatoolforbuiIdingthefutureout

6ft-e past: the meaningfulnessof .EIS.I fulgre_jogt activities of teachers and

"td
learners foundations r common knou'ledqe (Mercer, 2000)
r-1 'oround
r . 3) CIassr ws implicit rule socio-cultural perspective
emphasisesthat evervdav human activitv depends heavilv on participants being able
to dran on a considerablebodv of sharedknou'ledge and understanding,based on
their past sharedexperience or simiiar histories of experience.The conventions or
'ground
o--_.:--# rules'^u'hich ensure that speakersand listeners, lvriters and readers are
operxinqrrithinthesameqenresoflanquage@utSolonqas
participantsggnrs!!I_issume sharedknou
participa@d knou ledge,,!1@g"uge
ledge,the languageof er-er;'dav
interaction
everydaf i{e119[qn
, Tff
lolows lts con\-entronal oatterns. ll'the contextual tbundatio-ns ollnarec Kno\\ leose
Slreiacking -,such as vrhen students' home backgrounds havenot prepared them well
r---___-
libr makr-ngsenseof the language and culture of the classroom - misunderstanllings
mav easilyarise and persist unresolvedlHeath, 1983; LoCastro, 1997l. Makinq the
-----_
l =r o u n d ..r u l e- s ' o f": c l a--s s r o o ma c-t i v i t l ---e x p l i c i t c a n h e l p o v e r c o m em i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g s
r t
I i n d m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s ,a n d t h e r e i s g r o u ' i n g e v i d e n c et h a t s t u d e n t s ' p r o g r e s si s
.. t f1U|-
-u' , es
I

I Conclusion

Recordings and transcriptions of classroomtalk, anal-vsed from a socio-cultural perspective,

offer us glimpses of the social, cultural, communicative process of education being pursued
and, with varving degrees of success,accomplished.Thev may capture illustrations of the
best practice, in lr.hich teachers enable students to achieve levels of understanding which
m i g h t n e v e r ,o r a t l e a s tn o t n e a r l r s o q u i c k l r ' ,h a v eb e e n a c h i e r " l . r : , t r y r , r ' * m . t { r r g '
s u i d a n c e :t h e v a s o if t e n r e v e a lm i s u n d e r s t a n d i n pbse i n p q e n e r a t e d a
q . n d o D D o r t u n i t i e sl o r
guided develoTment bglg1glg4:..d..\s teachers,as uell as researchers,\\'e can learn
at thev reveal. It is of course unrealistic to expect anv busv teacher to monitor
and evaluate everv interaction in their classroom; but recent research (in areas of the
curriculumotherthanlanguageteaching)hasshorr.nthatthrough@
of the use of lansuase as a
um.relaleo learnlng earningand ano their
ic tool, teachers can help students im rove their
rnelr use or languageasa tool
and Palincsar,1989;Wegerif,Rojas-Drummond and Mercer, 1999; Mercer,Wegerif
rool tor consrrucrlnqKno\4lecrge.
ror constructr e6
a n d D a r v e s ,19 9 9 . l l . f s o c r o - 6Fas onlv quite recentlv
i?d learning in the modern languageclassroom(see Chapters 5, 15 and
19 ofthis book, br'\hn Lier, Gibbons and Breen), but I am convinced that its application
will have significant practical implications for this field of educational endeavour. ,r"
eyl 1
qry
Rererence "+/f
" llznrrO
Arthur, J. (1992)'English in Bots*.anaclassrooms:functions and constraints'. CentreJor
Language \o.46. Universitt' of Lancaster,U. K.
in SocialL{elNbrkingPapers
 256 NEIL MERCER

'Guided,
Brown, A. and PalincsarA.S. (1989) cooperativelearningand individualknou'led,.
acquisition',in L. Resnick(ed.) Knorring,Learningand Instruction. NewYork: Lau.renc.
Erlbaum.
'Vvgotskr:
Bruner,J.S. (1985) a historicaland conceptualperspective',in J.V.Wertsch (ed
Culture, Communicationand Cognition:\tygotskianperspectives. Cambridge: Cambridgt
Universitv Press
Bruner,J.S.(1986) Actual.illinds,Posstbleltrbrlds. London: Harvard UniversitvPress.
Camilleri, A. (199+)'Talking bilinguallv,r'vriting monolinguallv'. Paper presented at tht
SociolinguisticsS1'mposium,LancasterUniversitl', March 1994.
Christie, F. (1990) LiteraclJora Changingllbrld. tr{elbourne:AustralianCouncil for Educationa,
Research.
Edwards,A.D. andWestgate,D. (.199+)Investigating ClassroomTalk (Second Edttion).London:The
Falmer Press.
E d w . a r d sD, . ( 1 9 8 8 ) ' T h eM e n o ' , i n B i l l i g ,N { . , C o n d o r ,S . , E d l , v a r d D
s ,. , G a n e ,M . , M i d d i e t o n .
D. and Radler',A. (eds) IdeologicalDilemmas:a socialpsychologyoJ everydaythtnking.
London: Sage.
Edr,r'ards,D. and Mercer, N. (1987) CommonKnowledge: the development oJ understanding in th;
classroom. London: Methuen/Routledge.
Elliot, J. 0991) 'lctionResearchJor Educattonal Change. Milton Kevnes:Open Universitv Press.
'Vl'gotskv
Gee,J.P.(1996) and current debatesin education:some dilemmasas afterthoughts
to Discourse, Learningand Schooling', in D. Hicks (ed.) Discourse, Learningand Schooling.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversitv Press.
Heath, S.B. (1983) Wayswith Words:language,ltfe and work in communities and classrooms.
Cambridge: Cambridge Universitt' Press.
'Contextual
Hicks, D. (1996) enquiries:a discourse-oriented study of classroomlearning', in
D. Hicks (ed.) Discourse, Learningand Schooling.Cambridge: Cambridge Universitr
Press.
'Ailocating
Jacobson,R. ( 1990) two languagesas a kev feature of a bilingual methodology', in
R. Jacobson and C. Faltis (eds) LanguageDistribution lssuesin Bihngual Schooling.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
'Modes
Johnson,R.K. and Lee, P.L.M. (1987) of instruction:teachingstrategiesand students
responses',in R: Lord and H. Cheng (eds)LanguageEducation in Hong Kong.Hong Kong:
The ChineseUniversitl'Press.
LoCastro, Y. (1997)'Politeness and pragmatic competence in foreign languageeducation'
LanguageTbaching Research,YoI.l, No. 3, 239-268.
Martyn-Jones,M. (1995)'Code-sr,r'itching in the classroom',in L. Milroy and P.Muysken(eds.1
One Speaker,two languages:cro.t.tdisciplnar; perspectives on code-switcfring. Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversitvPress.
'Children's
Mavbin,J 099+) voices:talk, knorvledgeand identity', in Graddol, D, Maybin,J.
and Stierer, B. (eds) Researching Languageand Literacyin SocialContext.Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Mavbin, J., Mercer, N. and Stierer,B. (1992) "'scaffolding"learning in the classroom',in
Norman, K. (ed.) Thtnkinglbices. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Mehan,H. (1979) LearningLessons: socialorganization in theclassroom. Cambridge,Mass:Harvard
Universitl' Press.
Mercer, N. (1995) The GutdedConstructionof Knowledge:talk amongstteachersand learners.
C l e v e d o nM : u l t i l i n g u a lM a t t e r s .
- (2000) Wordsand Minds:how'we uselanguageto think together.London: Routledge.
Mercer, N., Wegerif, R. and Da*-es, L. (1999)'Children's talk and the development of
reasoningin the classroom'.BririsfiEducational Research Journal,25, 7, 95-1 13.
'Biliterao'development
Moll, L. and Drvorin, I (996) in classrooms:socialdvnamicsand
 LANGUAGE FOR TEACHING A LANGUAGE 257

cultural possibilities',in D. Hicks (ed.) Discourse, Learningand Schooling. Cambridge:

CambridgeUniversitvPress.
Moore, A. (1995) TheAcademlc, Linguisticand SocialDevelopment of BihngualPuptlsin Secondary
Education:issues oJ diagnosts, pedagog,r and culnre. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis,The Open
Universitr'.
Newman, D., Griffin, P. and Cole, M. (1989) The Construction Zone.Cambridge:Cambridge
Universitv Press.
Ong, W ( 1982) Oralitl andLiterau. London: N1ethuen.
Rogoff,B. (1990) Apprenticeship inThinking.Oxford: Oxford UniversitvPress.
Sinclair,J.andCouithard,M. 15)hwardsananal,vsisoJdiscourse:theEnglishusedbyrcachersand
( 1 9
pupils.London: Oxford Universit.,'Press.
Vvgotsky, L.S. (1962) Thoughtand Language.Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. (Originally
publishedin Russianin 1934.)
W e g e r i f , R . , R o j a s - D r u m m o n d ,S . a n d M e r c e r , N . ( 1 9 9 9 ) ' L a n g u a g e f o r t h e s o c i a l
construction ofknoro-ledge:comparing classroomtalk in N{exicanpre-schools', Language
a n dE d u c a t i o n , V o 1 l3. ,N o . 2 , p p . 1 3 3 1 5 0 .
Wertsch, J. (991) l6cesoJ rhe .l{ind:a socio-cultural approach to mediated acrion.Cambridge,
Mass.:Harvard UniversitvPress.
W o o d , D . i 1 0 8 8 .H
1 o v c h i l d r eLnL i n ok n d1 e a r nO. x f o r d : B a s i lB l a c k u e l l .
'Ta
Zentella,A.C. (1981) bien,r'ou could ans\\'errne in cudlquieridioma:Puerto Rican code-
switchingin bilingual classrooms',in R. Duran (ed.) Iar;no Language and Communicative
Behavior, pp 109-132. Noru,ood, N.J.:Ablex PublishingCorporation.
Chapter 16

PaulineGibbons

LEARNING A NEW REGISTER IN A

SECOND LANGUAGE

lntroduction

OR STUDENTS WHO A R E L E A R N I N G E n g l i s ha s a s e c o n dl a n g u a g ien a n

thev arenot
-F englishmedium school,€lglELllboth u ta.gei und.meliqg'ol education:
but th.e\are learntng'n ', ,ndff,iQl-li..,"tll,
onlr learningthe dominanrlanguage flf
,t"r.t""..r"?s, t ust go hand in hand with t]re
development of the secondlanguage. r r
that learners
This chapter illustrates hontlt".h integration can be achieved' In it I argue
e
current und"rstundingsof a curriculum topic, andthetr useof gtFr
r s t a n d i n g s .t t t q u l d b . t " . " u ; , h . b ; ttt f

,rrot"' l' I sholv ho'"v teacher-student talk'

U56ia on shared.o-rnon Ieadsto the develoPmentof new w-aysof meaning'
""p*i"nces, of classroom-based
I also suggestthe usefulness'of bringing together, for the PulPoses
language acquisition
,"r.u..h]Eodies of knorvledge u'hich have rarel,v overlapped; second
(SLA) reseat.h, .4*V;S!.f,i* socio-cultural approaches to teaching and learning' and
srsrer{aflunctional \
""_*r"ffi-t' \ +o]I,5

The context for the studv

d\^o\trq1fl
Ji1
At the time
The classroom from r,vhichthe data derive is in an inner cit,v schooi in Svdner''
in the school. The class
of t]-Iestudy, t\\.entv three languageswere spoken b-,1$e children
in the classcoming
consisted of 30 chiidren aged betitee.t 8-10, u'ith all but tu'o children
spoken. Man-v children had been born
from homes where a langu'ageother than English rvas
migrants,
in Australia but entered-school r'r'ith little English, others were first generation
Generally, such
including tu,o children rvho had arrived in Austraiia rvithin the last Year.

: such
JiE?;
collier (1989) and McKav et al. (1997) have shorvn,children who appear'fluent'in
'
contexts ma,vstill huo'.

[i-'t"aMi"largelvfluentinEngilshinface-to-face,evervda\'communication.
 LEARNING A NEW REGISTER 259

The language model

Where the teaching of a nelv languageis to be integrated u'ith the teaching of subject
content, then program planning needsto be informed bv a model of Ianguageu-hich relates
Ianguageto meaning, and to the context in u-hich it is used.This studv draws on svstemic
functional grammar (Hallidav, 1985) and related descriptionsof register theorv (Halliday
a n d H a s a n .1 9 8 5 ) .
A major organising principle of the teaching program described w-asthe construct of
mode (which refers to the channel of the text, whether it is spoken or written) and the
notion of a mode continuum (Martin, 1984), becauseit offers a linguistic framework
againstrvhGh-teari@ffiTtffan-be sequencedfrom most si
thus for ESL learners the most easilv understood), to least situationallv-depenGrThe
toll6wtng tOur texts lllustratetlxS mOdecontlnuum. anOSno\\'no\\' certaln llngulSUcleatures
change as languagebecomes increasinglv closer to u'ritten forms.

and accompanying
Text1: (spokenb1 three1O-1ear-oldstudents action)

this...noitdoesn'tgo...itdoesn'tmo\ie ..trvthat....yesitdoes...abit...that
won't . . u,,on'tworkit's notmetal . . . theseare the best . . . goingrealiv fast.

Tbxt2: (spokenby onestudentaboutthe action,aJterthe event)

w e t r i e d a p i n . . . a p e n c i l s h a r p e . p e r . s o m e i r o n f i l i n g s a n d a p i e c e opf l a s t i c . . . t h e
magnet didn't attract the pin.

Text3: (iritten by the samestudent)

Our experiment w-asto find out u'hat a magnet attracted. We discovered that a magnet
attracts some kinds of metal. It attracted the iron filings, but not the pin.

Texr4: (takenfroma child'sencSclopediat

A magnet . . . is able to pick up, or attract, a piece of steel or iron becauseits magnetic field
flows into the magnet, turning it into a temporar\.magnet. Magnetic attraction occurs only
between ferrous materials.

Text 1 is tvpical of the kind of situationallv-dependent language produced in face-to-face

Nlt"M
contexts. Becauseth. ..irrrul .ffi"'th"
referenceis used (thts,these,rfiat), and
..f"r".rt.
"*n.,ho.i.
is a relativelv lorv lexical densitv. or number of
@y9'
s perlause. In-Text 2 the context changeT,'becausethe student is telling
6thers what arned, and no lo"g". hu, th" t.i""". . Shemust
. =------T- r r r r. ,l .,
no\(, reconstruct the .*p.rGiFthrough languagealone, and so ggbes-e{p]lct ife
participants (we.pin. pencilsharpener, iron filinTs,Peceof plasrielatA Processtarrracr;she is
."ferrin the audiencairnou'_unleeft it cannot relv
on shured assumptio4l3nd so the ivriter must.recreate
--=--z=-T
experience through languagealgne
€
nore, ror exampre, th" q,rre",gtiorybich rs neecleclto provicle the context for what
follow.s: Our experimentwasto . . . In Text 4 the major participant (t ft4gnet) is generic : its
properties are those of all magnets. There is a further increase nE h"
l.*i l.rclrrd.s a nominalisation]the coding of a process term as u noil@f.tffi'hich is
tvoical of much vrritten text.
While spoken and r,,.ritten languageobr,ioush'have distinctile characteristics,this
continuum of texts illustrates that there is no absoluteboundarv betrveenthem.Technologt
 260PAuLlyE-4;letrN-s-'f Wl rke q. ----t wt'ftu'^--{;l..e

this blurrinq. Leaving a detailed messageon an ans\\'eringmachine, for example

incr.-eases
be quite linguisti-calh'dem"andingsince,in th-eabsenceof tr,ro-*-at'contact, and lvithout
w'hichare implicit in nvo-
lini,irtt.:.t l"u,ir the shi.ed underiandingsand expectations
way,face-to-facecommunication,we are required to'speak aloud' the kind of languagethar
r,vouldmore usuallvbe rvritten.Thus in terms of the mode continuum it is perhapsmort
art
E p p r o p r i a t et o c l e s c r i b et e x t s a s '
t
n man\'\18 fiilm reflects the processof formal education itself, as students
are required to move from personal er.ervdavrvavsof making meanings towards the sociallr
shared discourses of specilic disciplines. A second language learner is likelv to have fer,ver
difficulties rvith producing something like text 1, nhere the situational context itseli
providesu,,ppo.ifo.-.uii.,gandtheiearethusferver1inguisffi
*ritten--1ik-t
writ s are required. red. It is lvorth
r,vorth
nffin too.-Ih-ai-Fh6?Eildren are expected to rr-rite simplv on the basis of persona-
e x p e r i e n c e s ,t h e r a r e b e i n g a s k e dt o t a k e a v e r \ l a r g e l i n g u i s t i c s t e p ( a s c a n b e s e e nb t
), ano one \\ ion-qi6F c u rre nt Ii n gu i st i c re so u rc es ofldffi'.
uage learners.
fn the classroom described here, a major focus is on students using spoken languageir-
the wav that text 2 illustrates, that is, language n'hich, r,r.hilespoken, is not embedded ir.
'w'ritten-like'
the immediate situational context in rvhich it occurs. This more spoker.
Ianguagecan be seenas a bridge between the languageassociatedr,r''ithexperiential activitit.
and the more formal - and 6ften rvritten - registers of the curriculum.

The role of talk in learning

While the importance of talk in learning has iong been recognised(Barnes 1975; Brunt:
1978; Martin et al . 19761,a more recent focus, largelv influencedby the work ofVygotskr
hasbeen on the social and cultural basisfor learning (Mercer 199+,1995 and Chapter 1:
of thisbook;Mavbin,MercerandStierer1992;Wells1992,1999),.A rygo-g!".ul ot'*
TGn-GEo{learningattl-.:
@lacescfir*.teTffiT'endtheEi6ld-s?fi
'ru
h.g@'.s processithe classroomis vie*ed -as - - - - - - - - - - - -- - 3 - -
"a- rp-lacTaFr.k!:g3"'tg.=
l[ilou'ledgeare iointffiructed, and rn-herelearnersare guided or'apprenticed' into tl-..
., .<-7---
broader unders-and-ngs and linguage of the curriculum and the particular subjectdisciplint
The notion of apprenticeshipinto a culture is particulariv relevant in an ESL school conte\:.
'
iA f r.r'here,in order to participate in societt',slllents must learn to control the dominant qenre.
F\L

l'n.},.(MartinT986-Delpitl988:Kalantzis'Copt'
*\1.$",/
-\7 NobleandPovnting1991t.
of interactionfor secondlangua;t
havealsoshorvnthe significance
SLA researchers
/\r
l e a r n i n g( s e ef o r e x a m p l e ,E l l i s 1 9 8 5 , 1 9 9 1 , 1 9 9 4 ; v a n L i e r 1 9 8 8 , 1 9 9 5 a n d C h a p t e r 5 , - :
\this book; Sw.ain1995;Swain 2000). Of particular importance are the kinds of on-goir;;
*;T:l t: orclarified(Long tt"u",o1-':
. \ .rilp, )modificatio"'1 9 8 6"::"' i'^T,'.""':g ":g:ti:t"q :e8]i
{t\qfi'lr"d;"ghtv ;P i c a1 9 9 4 ) S
. n,ain ( 1 9 8 5 ,1 9 9 5 )a l s oa r g u e fs" ; ; ;
v" 'cornptehensible "lJl.:
ou!pul',w -:
V /
more com e, coherent, and s-vntacticallyimproved discourse. Tl:
output'stretches' the learner, inGI-ilFE is svntactr.:
g!!9-ploclrssing.The classroom implication for thisJsuggest, is not tl:=
e a major teaching focus, but that it is important. .
times, for learners to have opportunities to use stretchesof discoursein contexts u'he
 LEARNING A NEW REGISTER 267

there is a'press' on their linguistic resources,and lvhere, for the benefit oftheir listeners,
the,vmg4{ocui not only on r,vhatthev rvish to savbut on how the}' a
()ne clear tea ese varlous st is that the degree to which a
i. oi'r".o.ra languagelearningdependstglg.Ir:;"h"* .lurr.ooofi
. --
,.1
i.. o,Nr r r. t d . T. udi t i onul il I. r]r.oo,.n i nii.u. ri on, . o@L-*lnr*
, anTfi
"
C ,es(Sinclair and Co I l:o\\'aros ano lvtercer dt
) may, in
conditi61r-mlc h SLA fglggdjygge
ive lea ust those interactional f"ut.r.., and interactive
sts are enabling iict or 1Tn-Iiifr
TW
i-itiationTlead to single vrord or sing[FT1EIS6Fesponses,-therF-i
e to be'stret , or lor the uctron oI comDre
F-o-om-program rvhich is supportive of se anguagelearning must
opportunities for more dialogi tterns to occur see van Lier 1
iscussionof these issues)

The data

The classroomcontext
Basedon the science topic of magnetism,;E4hlqq and lgqnrng activities were planned to
tiol b'-.g
- - 6 e r e l o p m e n t i n t e r m s o T l a n g u a g e . - - l f i n g .T:"'"p :h':,trlTTW
T h u s s t u d e n t si n i t i a l l r p a r t i c i p a t e di n s m a l l -
group iearning experiences rvherq,the languageused rvas clearlv situationaliy-embedded
This lvas follow'ed by a teacher-guided reporting session,'"r'here,in interaction lvith t
teacher, each group shared their learning rvith the rvhole class.Talking w'ith the teact
about w.hat had been learned. since this did not involve the use of the concrete materials
led to a mode shift tor,vardsmore wlitten-like language,and provided a bridge into t
,. rr r-----T--
\4'rltlng, u'ruch \\'as the nnal actlvltv ol lne cvcle and llngulstrcall\ tne most demanolng. L
--
Ere€F cl'cle u'as repeated several times during the course of the development of th\
unit of rn'ork.The three stagesare described belorl', together lvith representativetexts from
each stage.Taken as a sequence,thev illustrate horv languagedevelopment can evolve
through jointlv constructed discourse.

StageI

In many primarv schoolsit is usual for students to rotate through a number of activities over
the course of one or tu'o lessons.Holvever, such an organisationalstructure may negate an)'
authentic purpose for reporting back to others, since children are likelv to shareverv similar
experiences.Here, an attempt rvasmade to set up a genuine communicative situation by
having each group of children u'ork at dtferent (though related) science experiments; thus
thel'held different information from other classmembers. In its communicative structure
the classroom organisation rvas based on an important principle in second language task
desisn: the notion of an information'sap'and the need for information exchangelLono
t v 6 9) .
One experiment consistedof a small polvstvrene block into rvhich a number of paddle
pop (ice-lolly) sticks had been inserted to enclosea bar magnet.The studentswere asked
to test the effect of a second magnet. (When the second magnet is placed above the first in
a position in which thev are repelling, repulsion causesthe secondmagnet to be suspended
in mid-air.)The texts belorv ( 1 . 1 and 1.2) occurred as students\\'ere engagedin this activity.
Prior to beginning the activitr', thev rvere told that thev rvould later describe and attempt
t o e x p l a i n r v h a t h a p p e n e d t o t h e r e s t o f t h e c l a s s ( [ .m
. .a] r k s a n o b v i o u s p a u s e ) .
262 PAULINE GIBBONS

Text 1.1

Hannah: tr)' . . . the other rvav

Patrick: like that
Hannah: north pole facing dou.n
Joanna: u'e tried that
Peter: oh!
Hannah: it stavsupl
Patrick: magicl
Peter: let's sho'"t-the others
Joanna: mad!
Peter: I'll put north pole facingnorth pole . . . seervhathappen
Patrick: that's rvhat lve just did
Peter: veah . . . like this . . . look

ThedtaloguecontinuesJor severalmjnuteslongerasthe students

try dffirent positionsforthe magnet
and then the,vbegintoJormulatean explanation.

Text 1.2

H a n n a h : c a n l t r v t h a t ? . . . I k n o l * - h ) ' . . . l k n o u ' r v h 1 ' . . . t h a t ' s l i k e .. . b e c a u s e t h e n o r t h

pole is on this sideand that north pole'sthere . . so thev don't stick together
Peter: u'hat like this?veah
Hannah: veah seebecausethe north pole on this side . but turn it on the other . . . this sidr
like that . . turn it that u.'ar'. . . veah
Peter: and it r,vill stick
Hannah: and it w-ill stick because.look . . . the north pole's on that side because.
Peter: the north pole'son that sideveah

Stage2

The overall aim of the teacher-guidedreporting was to extend children's linguistic resources
and focus on aspectsof the specific discourse of science.As the
the children'. we'retr;ing to talk like scientists.
It r'vasanticipated that the reporting stagr
-reh.&G'
a
would create context tor students to Ianguage structures w-hich w-ere closer
to r,vritten discourse. Before the reporting began, there had been a short teacher-led
discussionfocusing on the specific Iexis the children rvould need to use, including the lexical
item repel.
In the text belorv (Text 2), Hannah is explaining rvhat she learned.

Text 2

TEACHER

tr)' to tell them what you learned .

O K . . . (to Hannah) ves?
 LEARNING A NEW REGISTER 263

2 u'hen I put/ u.hen vou put . . . rvhen vou

put a magnet . . on top of a magnet and
the north pole poles are.
t7 second pause.Hannah is clearlvharmg
what shewantsto sd1')
dtffculry tn expressing

3 yes \-esvou're doing fine . . . vou put one

magnet on top of another . . .

4 and and the north poles are together er

em the magnet . . . repeis the magnet
er . . . the magnet and the other magnet
. . sort offloats in the air?

I think that \r'as verv well told . . . very

rvell told . . . do vou have anything to add
to that Charlene?
( T h e t e a c h e ri n v i t e s o t h e r c o n t r i b u t i o n s ,a n d
t h e n a s k sH a n n a h r o e x p l a m i t a g a i n . l

r. nor'r. listen . . no\.!' Hannah explain once

more. . alright Hannah . . excuse me
ererrbodt' t regointngclasses
attentton)
listen again to her explanation

7 the tw-o north poles are leaning together

and the magnet on the bottom is repelling
the magnet on top so that the magnet on
t h e t o p i s s o r t o f . . . f l o a t i n gi n t h e a i r

8 so that these tu'o magnets are repelling

(sald with emphasis)
each other and . . .
(.demonstrating)
look at the force of it.

Stage3

After the students had taken part in the reporting session,thev w'rote a response in their
'u,hat
journals to the question have vou iearned?'These 'lr'erelater used as a source of
information in the w'riting of more formal reports about magn"tr.fbgjtl53-of tb.
'u
journals here, holvever, is that thev provide some evidence of in that thev reflect
nqs
o
$ i-red in the process of jointlr=pr glss.s r discourse.The
s o\l'n entr\-, an anotherstrudent u'ho had listened
to Hannah's talk with her teacher.

Text 3.1 (Hannah's journal entry)

I found it verv interesting that rvhen vou stuck at least 8 paddle pop sticks in a piece of
polystyrene, and then put a magnet rvith the North and South pole in the oval and put
 264 PAULINE GIBBONS

another magnet u'ith the north and south pole on top, the magnet on the bottom u'ill r.':
the magnet on the top and the magnet on the top rvould look like it is floating in the air

Text 3.2 (another student's journal entry)

The thing made out of polvstvrene rvith paddle pop sticks, one group put one magnet faci:..
north and another magnet on top facing north asrvell and thev repelled each other. It look. -
like the top magnet rvas floating up in the air.

Discussion

Stage 1 texts

The small group activitiesproduced situationallvembedded,'here-and-now''language.Nor=

forexample,th".*o@that;likethis;thatw9-!41.1(The..
r e f e r e n c e so, f c o u r f e , c a r r r -m e a n i n g su ' h i c h . l n t h e a b s e n c eo I a v i s u a lc o n t e x t , m u s t : ' -
realised in a different \\'a\',and it g-re: cqusesHannr-
1s
and manv of the other students, difficultv in the IIT-terrepgliingt::Ign.)__
h-"- Grpeiao:ral aspectsof language.Students a::
concerned n ith diiecting eatli other's actioifTitlffiIili-eTffianging inlormation. Ter:
1.|isaboutsociaIinteractionasmuchas@specifrclanguaq...
simplv not necessarr'lor communication betu een the interactants becauseoTffie v-i3[ITTa-a. =
to-til.ini"iTrnffiurs.lnerearealSoperSonatcommentslnolCaB:.:
the expressionol attitude and t'eelings:in thifte-rtTr-ay,--i?Participar.--.
-affect. such as
are senerallv-human a equentlv thematised. and thev relate to the interactar.--,
themselres(
-----
lve
-Wh;i \--,/
t)leJffiQ'll
.v- lut norrhpoleJactngnorth pole.
islilportant aboTt the activities, horvever,is that they aliowed children to explc:.
and develop together certain scientifi.cunderstandings(the position of the poles is significa:.:
to the movement of the magnets). As the discourse progresses(text 1.2), indilidu:-
utterances become longer and more explicit, and this occurs as the students begin : -
f o r m u l a t e e x o l a n a t i o n sf o r . r ' h a t t h e t s e e t n o t e t h e l o s i c a l c o n n e c t i v e s s o .b e c d u . :
l n te rpers onat etem entia-r6-ftEIFalTfrFiF-is no* u .,o n - @ .
and this. rather than the inte selves
cognitive challengeinherent in the teacher'sinstruction to'try to explain what you see' m:.
have been significant here, since it extended the task from simply'doing'to'doing a:-:
thinking'. This explicit focus on thinking is an important one in the light of this tvp. .:
teaching context, where a teacher must balancethe need for suitablv high levels of cognitlr.
learning w.ith learners' relativelv low levels of English, and rn'herelearning activities aim. :
at development of the second language must also be linked to cognitive growth. Clear.
lr'ithin these texts there is evidence of children's learning of science: the beginnings o[ -
understanding of u'hv the magnets are behaving as thev are, and attempts to hypothe.:'.
about the causalrelati .olved. Through the kind of exploratorv talk which begins :
be elidenthereinfl5'small groupuork.fknoulglge is mademore publiclvaccourta.
and reasonlng rs more vlsl e g e r i fa n d N 1 e r c e r1
, 9 9 6 : 5 11 .
From the point of vieu- of sec nguagelEarnTl!]iT is also important to note tr-.'
the children developed some understandings about magnets before thev u'ere expecteC:
understand and use more scientilic discourse.For example, at the beginning of t}e report,:
 LEARNING A NEW REGISTER 265

session,the teacher introduces the term repelat a time *.hen studentshad alreadl'expressed
this meaning in familiar evervdav language,using terms such as it pushesaway;itfeelsltke a
strongwind.There is some paraliel here to the principle u-ithin bilingual programs u.hich
,,-
suggeststhat leirning should occur hrst in L i
is;

Stage 2 texts

'activity
Driver makes the important point about science education that bv itself is not
e n o u g h .I t i s t h e s e n s e t h a t i s m a d e o f i t t h a t m a t t e r s ' ( D r i v e r , 1 9 8 3 : 4 9 ) . l n S t a g e 2 t e x t s
w.eseethe teacher u-orking rvith the children to'make sense'of the activities in r'r'hichthev
have been engaged,bv helping them reconstruct their experiences and develop shared
understandings rnrougn
undersrandlngs through ranguage. vlsgsl-io and Mercer
language. Weggltf lvrercer suggest
sugSesrthat rnaf rr rs rnrougn
it is through beingDerng
encouragedand enabled'to clearlvdescribee e
wrat tnev
e ercer, 1996: 53).Text 2 ilfi-st.atesone tvpe
ru
in which this process can occur.
The teacher'
with individual students
to proieEl-rvhile giving the lear ne$. ffi eulsTfilaGfn Text 2, the interaction
betu'een teacher and students is different in several small but important respects from the
traditional IRF pattern, but th"r.
"
'ffiTypicaiI1,,theIRFPatternisrealisedlnfJirlvpredictabIewavs,
f."qrr".r,l).ino'o1ui.rgu,"u; on, follorved bJ 3 siie"t uns*'flofien .T/t1*
nd foIIowed bl_{Sglh gfsf Ig}!91 .*, lg,9-, E . * ct rylsg{g{l
br ieT),-a T 9Rf1
....'..t.........'..',.'- . - "I ---; - -\-\_--/:- rr-r-T_ t.
F r u r v e r . I n T e x t 2 . t h e i n t e r a c t i o n s a p p r o x i m a t e m o r e c l o s e f v r v h - a to c c u r s i n L l a d u t t - c h i
:.\
inteiac-tionsoutside of the formal te-cfiifr!'?oitext
te (see for example, Hallida-v 1975;Wells , *
u ' i t h i n r i t i n g s t u d e n t st o r e l a t e* h r ( . 1 g )
thev havelearned, rather than achers -
cuesttonsare olten lramec ln \\aYs \\ n o t a l l 6 w f o r s t u d e n t st o m a k e e x t e n d e d
responses(Dillon, 1990), here, bv contrast,9aleacher sets up a context lr'here it is the
students5lro initiate the specifictopic of the exchange..A.s Eilis 119961shows, n'hen learners
-
i n i t i a t en h a t t h e y u i s h t o t a l k a b o u t , l a n g u a g el e a r n l n g l st a c r l r t a t e d
lscourse on thelr own terms. rather than respondlng to a
b e c a u s et h e y e n t e r t h e
rl,3',
from the teacher. In l^o$.
. - - _ - _ - _ . : - _ ^ ^ . 1 _ l
n o w e r '( B e r r r l 9 8 l 1 . A l t h o u g ho f c o u r s ei t i s t h e t e a c h e lrr - h oi s i n c o n t r o lo f t h e
k_--_
knowledgffiffied r,r.iththe overall thematic der.eiopmentof the unit of worLjte
individual exchangeslocate that controi in the student.The recipro^citvand mutualitv in the
speaker roles leads to Ha
classroom interactign. As is tvpical in these reporting seTsioiiT,-TEffit
r-----::->
bifld_: and u'hile follorving Hannah's lead and accepting as a valid contribution
information.h. gi.o"r,fh" ,.J.h.. ulro .9.urt, it, p*l{r.g
encode student meanins rn
llternative linguisticfor
:t#;i
i s a l s oc l e a rt h a t t e a c h e r - g u i d erde p o r t i n ge n c o u r a g eIse a r n e rl a n g u a g teo b e ' p u s h e d ' .
(As one student commented as she struggled to explain rvhat she had done: I can't say it
Miss!).Hu , becauseshe is allowed a
second attempt, she
secondattempt, rh. hu has an opportuniq'to produce mge;gryIgbgrl$le output. t. Hannah's
Hannah's
s e c o n d a t t e m p t a t h e r e x p l a n a t i o ni s c o n s i d e r a b l l _ 1 " .!r: r t , . 1 1 { d s r n t a c t i c g ! } -n n o r e
complete than her first, and is s time n.ithout the help of the
 266 PAULINE GIBBONS

'ZPD '
notion of the is significant here. Vvgotskv suggeststhat learning occurs, with supp,
rner,S.Zoneofproximaldevelopment,(Vygotskv197:
that is, at the'outer edges'of a learner's current abilitie.s.In 1-2, Hannah aPPe.arsto har.
reaqhed her o*.t ro
.
P considerabletime, and can presumablvgo no further alone.The recastingand suppc'rt sh
r e c e i v e st r o m t h e t e a c h e r( 1 . J \ t h e n a p p _ e at os b e P r e c t s e l r y n ,
to assistHannah to continue
As Text 2 illustrates, the reporting context also gives students opportunities to produc.
lonoer stretches of discourse u:hich are more uritten-like than those which occurred in th.
small group lr'ork. Often this required the teachert e', on occasions1o:
- ."vhen
aslong as eight seconds.R.jg3ISb A - sts that teachers ask questions of students
-l/l'll*"'---b----b-------
typicalh' \ -ait one secondor lessfor the studentsto
)KflI they ' - '
tt ll l lll
)
:' I f , it
tin - l /lf
lll
r "'
rya;l+*'*efJa'r+$-
of both studentsand teacherGJRowe, 1986).We car.
J-lLf /f 11" th. arritudesand expectations
t/ l oareformulatin.
^, " responses in a languagethe-vdo not fullv control. Ptlbgpt equallyimportant, studentsu'ert
' . ," V
t-/'it,,abIetocompIetelvhatthevrr'antedtosar'andai-r r -

YI" - ^o
n. ;.r
lntEfaetants aRc learners. lnacrufirorr,-srnce lt ls tne r I-.
FtlF -
1 l-- i s i n t l u e n c i n gt o a l a r g ee l t e n t t h e t e a c h e r ' sc h o i c eo f ng, it would seem likel.
that this u"ordingrvill be i-.. more likely to be noticed - than if it
, n t ' h f r h a do c c u r 6-text which w'asless immediate. (For discussionof the significanceol
-a.10dI-'- r .^^-#
,hl''*,-. ,1--n"4 in secondlanguag€development,seeEllis, 199+).
I Another
Anotnef significant
Sfgnlncant mode
m O L I C shift U U C U I I e l J towards
S I I I L occurred L O w d I u s the
L I l c cend ofl most
llu u r t r P u r u r r 5 sessions.
r r r u ) L reporting rtJrrurl:.
n6Np
n(lV"-?
*;Y
where the teacf,er used children's personal knowledge to show how generalisationsmight
'\J'
be generated. Her questions at this point included, for example: can)/ouseesomethinBtI)
commonwith a]l theseexperiences?what'sthe sameaboutall theseexperiments?
Such questionsrequire ,h. . ,
of what thev did: thev must no\\, recontextualise this in terms of the teacher's quEitionl-
ffih."; is now characteri
field soecificlexis. and the thematisationof children themseives
^---\------\--
ire no lonper the

the north pole oJ the magnetnicks . attracts. . . the secondmagnet. . . the southpole oJ
.L ^ ^^^^- )
LII( )CLULlU tilUHrtCL.

tf you put the southand north toBethetthentheywtll . . . attractbu {you put north and north
or southand south. .. together. . . theywon't stick. . . attract.

Thus the teacher againmediates betu.een children's individual experiences and the broader
knorvledge and discourse into u-hich they are being apprenticed, Iocating these experiences
within a larger framervork of meanings. Stage 2 texts, then, both in the way language is
u s e d , a n d i n t h e k j n d s o f k n o u l e d g e 1 1h ( c h i s c o n s t r u c t e d ,s e r r e t o c r e a t ea
al experiential lvavs ofknorvi i6-c
ihscourse of
and,sociallvconstructed knou-ledge.

Stage3 texts

Many of the journals reflected rvhat had been said in the teacher-guided reporting sessions.
Students included',vording rvhich thev had used in interaction with the teacher, or which
 LEARNING A NEW REGISTER 267

had been part of the teacher's

- re and this rvasparticularlv evident w-henthe students
-r------i---r
themselveshad retormul.t"ilhgffpl .r lalk. Compare, for example, Hannah'sw'ritten text
(3l)iththe.t"u.h",.Th".Jisalsoevidencethatthe
reporting back sessionsinfluenced not onlr,'the interactants themseir.esbut also those vl'ho
'
listened to the interactions ai-;iart ol the larger group:Text 3.2 w'asr,vrittenbv a student
who had not taken part in this particular eip?iili-e-frTT-e-rself.

Conclusions Usu/Us4'"'^:
'leaqnlng-br
While the researchI fiavedescribedillustratesthe valueo-f doing' (especialll
/,
for second languade
for second learners rvhere
languag'e learners rvhere concrete exoerienceshelp to make language
comprehensible), it also iilustrates the critical role of teacher-learner talk in childrenT
learning and languagedevelopment, andTh?wav that s
\r\ v4c
*---f-F
co-construct a ne\\' ..gjtq]Egbg!-guid.d t.p"ttqin particular appearsto offer a {-/
potential for second languagedevelopment
The researchalso suggeststhat in analvsinghorv interactions are made comprehensible
to ESL studentsin the classroomcontext, rve need to look further than the linguistic features
of the interactions themselves (for example the simpiicitv or otherwise of svntactic
structures),and examine the on-going:ontext in lvhlchihose interactionsa." ritrrut"d. Of
particular significance-i-ithin tFe se -essonswas the scattoldrngo

concepts through the_sma rouo u-ork- lt allo\\ teacher to use new' ll'orcli
$
wavs of meanin u hich u-ere Th-enmore readilv interoretable bv the
sildents. The broader principle is that languagei,r.hichrvould normallv students
-comprehension
--'-----; ' . r.r
is likelv to be understood r""henstudents can bring their experiences and
understandings as a basis for interpretation. The degree to lvhich interactions are
comprehensible for ESL students should therefore be related not onlv to the interactional
featuresthemselves.andtotheimmediatesituationaIcontexti,'ffio
,o r,nuinr@g1nem - rn , r.,rgr,
ffi,F

because studea!! and teacher

'relate
::.*"";ls:H5:Hlffill+
discourse to context, and build through time a joint
truTgjllg&I".."' (Edrvardsand Mercer, 19951..\s\\bng'FillmorestatdlnTd.tuq
fffSl kindergarten class,"!g pnor glglience becomes a context for interpreting the
ne\v exDerlence . Drlor exDerlences e.
'---:--.T_-r
bbeing
eingu used t o b e u n d e r s t o o d "( Wong-l-illmore
s e d iirs to_bs_.gnd9l15ood\ g - l - i l l m o r e198
W o n-also 9 8 5 t.
t.
-_-
t he o'eratl ,"qu"iElf *il'itics prgtentsa challengeto moretradjtional* aysof C,f. oJt^ft
seouencinq teachinq andlearninpactivities in the secondlanquaqeclassroom. uherea unit fo
.r "^e no R E F 6 @ r i t h t h e p r e - t e a c h i n g o\ of c a b pft. _fc,ecA
.'-------d"' c t u r e . W h i l e t h i ,t| V.o. -c o (- .. ,
@einsometeachingconteXtS,itisunderpinnedbvthenotion
that learnersmust first'learn' Ianguagebefore thev can'use' it. Aside from questionsabout
the nature of languageand languagelearning vr-hichthis sets up, it is also clear that it is an r
approachr,r.hichcannotbeeasiivappliedtotheschoo]ESLcontext'@fdarr..

In t t .Turr.rtud""t, ur"d t r/ / | \
)A
the focuson.nerrlanguage occurred.at laterstages. a seque,nce.rr-hich gllou'edfor sludentsTS
tt6build o n ttheir
- ob u i l d on existing
heir e understandingr
x i s t i n qu rnd
sn d llunguisF.;;a
n d e r s t a n d i n qa a n q u a q ea. n d tto-link-old
o l i n k a . [ ! _ll"arn'ng *ith
e a r n i n gu e u ; \o"'
ne.r;
ith n
l n e l l e c t t o m o | e s u c c e s s l u l lt\o \ t a r d st a r q e l t e x t s . r a t h e r t h a n b e g l n n l n gu ' l t h t h e m .
268 PAULINE GIBBONS

The research I have described also indicates the signilicance for language learning
p r o d u c e dl : '
t h e i n t e r t e x t u a ln a t u r eo f c l a s s r o o ml a n g u a g eh: o u o n e t e x t i s u n d e r s t o o do r
r p l ration
t i n n to
relation t o :another.,
another.
nnther o l intertextual
r a n q e of
* ' i d e range
A u'ide int"rta* re lPs ex
Et--GJ";;".*p1", what a teicher savs and u'hat students are exPected to read; what
students listen to thev are expected to lr-rite; the discourse of the lesson and the
".rd.,uhut
texts studentsare expected to r,r'orkrvith for homeu'ork; and the familiar languageor dialect
the home a.,d th" less familiar languageof the school. A consideration of how these links
m a d e i n t e r t e x t u a l l v a n d r e c o g n i s i n gr v h e r el i n g u . r _ s l i c ' b r i d g easl e' m i s s i n g m i g h t
o [ e rri n insishts f o r tthe
s i g h t s tbr l p t learners,
l a n n i n g @ a I I l e a r n e r s , a n d h eall
h e ppianning;f-nTi..l-ptogttd6r o and help to suggestthe
d of liiguistic ,upport *ort ."l.uu.rt for students iess familiar w'ith the language of the
tlassroom.
A final point concerns the model of ianguagedrarvn on in mv research.A language
modellvhichaddressesthereIationshipbeIweencontextandmeaning,u@
c o n c e r n e d t h e r e f o r e u - i t h m o r e t h a n g r a m m a t i C a l c o m P e t e n c e , p r o \ ' l d e s a _s l g n l l l -
ng
Sctrvrtles.
--FurflrcTclassroom-based
studies are needed into the language learning processes of
school-agedESL learners, if educators are to develop more theoreticallv informed and
.qrrltubl" curricula and pedago$ This task requires
_
interdisciplinar roactrto researchiln multilinqual ciassrooms,one which draws on
,i**l theoretical and methodological lines of enquirv andffi?Eis underPin
view oflearningl

t^tetdrsct+_)
tvt'*<rq

References

Barnes.D. (1916) FromCommunication Harmondsworth:Penguin'

to Curticulum.
Berry, M. (1981)'systemic linguisticsand discourseanalysis:a multi-layeredapproachto
exchangestructure', in M. Coulthard and M. Montgomery (eds) Studiesin Discourse
London: Routledge and Kegan.
Analysis.
Bruner,1.-1ilza;'The role of dialoguein languageacquisition"inA. Sinclair,R. Jarvella,and
W Levelt (eds) Ihe Chtld'sConception oJLanguage. New'York: Springer-Verlag.
'Hou.
Collier,V. (1989) long?A svnthesisof researchin academicachievementin a second
language'. TESOLQgarterly,23,509-531 .
Empowerment
EducationJor jn a DiverseSocieur.
Ontario
CumminJ, l.-(1996) NegotiatingIdentities:
CA: California Association for Bilingual Education.
Delpit, L. (1988)'The silenceddialogue:po\\'er and pedagogvin educatingother people's
children'. HarvardEducational Review,58(3),280-298.
Dillon, J. (1990) ThePractice London: Routledge.
of @testioning.
Driver, R. (1983) ThePuptlas Scientjst?Milton Kevnes:Open Universitv Press.
Ed'"vards, D., and N{ercer,N. (1987) Common Knowledge:TheDevelopment oJUnderstandinginth.
Classroom. London: Methuen.
Second
Ellis, R. (1985) IJnderstanding Oxford: Oxford Universitv Press.
LangudgeAcquisition.
- (1991)'The interactionhvpothesis:a critical evaluation',in E. Sadtono(ed.), Languag;
LanguageClassroom.
Acquisitionand the Second/Foreign Singapore:Anthology Series 2E.
SEAMEO Regional LanguageCentre.
- Language
(199+) The StudloJ Second Acquisition.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Explorations
Halliday,M. (1975) LearningHow to ,Mean: of Language'
in theDevelopment London,
Arnold.
- London: Edu'ardArnold.
Grammar.
Functional
/1985) An Introductionto
 LEARNING A NEW REGISTER 269

Hallidav, M., and Hasan, R. (1985) Language, Contextand Tbxt.GeelongVictoria: Deakin

UniversitvPress.
Kalantzis,M., Cope, B., Noble, G., and Povnting,S. (1991) Cuhures oJSchooling:PedagogiesJor
CuhuralDtfferenceand SocialAccess.London: Falmer Press.
Long, M. (1983)'Native speaker/nonnative speakerconversationsand the negotiationof
comprehensibleinput' . AppliedLinguistics,+, 125-1+1.
\'[artin, J. (1984)'Language,register and genre', in F. Christie (ed.) Chi]drenWrtting, Stud,v
6uide.Geelong,Victoria: Deakin Unir-ersitvPress.
- technology
(1986) SecretEnglish:discourse in a junior secondar,v
school.Proceedingsfrom the
Working Conferenceon Languagein Education,N{acquarieUniversitv.
N1artin,N., Williams, P, Wilding, J., Hemmings, S., and Medwa-v,P. (1976). Understanding
ChtldrenTalking.London: Penguin.
'Children'svoices:
Mavbin,l. (199+) talk, knorvledgeand identitv', in D. Graddol,J. Mavbin
and B. Stierer (eds) Researching Languageand Literacrn SocialContexts.Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Mavbin, J., Mercer, N., and Stierer, B. (1992)'Scaffoldinglearning in the classroom',in
K. Norman (ed.) Ifrinftinglbices:Thel4brkof the |iational Orac,v
Project.London: Hodder
and Stoughton.
, . , a n d Z a m m i t , S . ( 1 9 9 7 ) T h eB i l t n g u a l
M c K a v ,P . ,D a v i e s , A . ,D e v l i n ,B . , C l a v t o n J, . , O l i r - e r R
InterJace ProjectReport Canberra: Department of Emplovment, Education,Training and
Youth Affairs.
M e r c e r , N . ( 1 9 9 4 ) ' N e o - V v g o t s k i a nt h e o r v a n d c l a s s r o o me d u c a t i o n ' ,i n B . S t i e r e r a n d
J. Mavbin Language, Literac,r' ahd Learntngin EducationalPracdce.Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
-(1995) T h e G u i d e d C o n s t r u c t i o n o J K n o w l e d g e : h l k A n o n g s t T e a c h e r s aC
ndl eLveeadronne r s .
Multilingual Matters.
Painter,C. (1985) LearningtheMotherTongue. Geelong,Victoria:Deakin UniversitvPress.
'Research negotiation: rvhat does it reveal about secondlanguagelearning
Pica,T. (.199+) on
conditions,processes and outcomes?'Language Learning, +4, +91-527 .
P i c a , T . , Y o u n gR, . , a n d D o u g h t v ,C . ( 1 9 8 7 ) ' T h e i m p a c t o f i n t e r a c t i o no n c o m p r e h e n s i o n ' .
TESOL@Larterly, 27(4), 1 31-1 58.
Rowe, M. (1986)'Wait time: slor.r.ing dorvn mav be a u'av of speeding:up'.JournaloJTbacher
+3-50.
E d u c a t i o n , 3, T
Sinclair,J., and Coulthard, R. (1975) Towards an AnalvsisoJDiscourse: the EnglishUsedbS'Teachers
and Pupils.London: Oxford Universitv Press.
Slvain, M. (1985)'Communicative competence:some roles of comprehensibleinput and
comprehensibleoutput in its development',ln S. Gassand C. Madden (eds) lnput rn
Second Language Acquisidon . CambridgeMA: Nervbur\ House.
Srvain,M. (1995)'Three functionsof output in secondlanguagelearning', in G. Cook and
B. Seidlehofer (eds) Princtpleand Practicetn Applied Linguistics:Studies in Honour H.G
"J
Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford Unir.ersitv Press.
'The
Swain, M. (2000) output hvpothesis and bevond: mediating acquisition through
collaborative dialogue', ir-r J. Lantolf (ed.) SocioculturalTheor,y' and SecondLanguage
Learning.Oxford: Oxford UniversitvPress.
van Lier, L. (1988) TheClassroom andtheLanguage Learner. Harlo."r':Longman.
- (1996) lnteraction in the Language Curriculum:Awareness,Autonomy andAuthenticirl. London:
Longman.
Vygotskl', L. (1978) ,NIindin Socieq':The DevelopmefioJ Higher Ps,vchological Processes. London.
Harvard Universitv Press.
'Computers
Wegerif, R. , and Mer."r, N. ( 1996t and reasoningthrough talk in the classroom'.
1
L a n g u a gaen dE d u c a t i o nl 0. t t , + 1 6 + .
270 PAULINE GIBBONS

Wells, G. (1981) LearningthroughInteraction: Development.

the Studl'of Language Cambridge:
Cambridge Universitv Press.
'The Work
- (1992) centralitvof talk in education',in K. Norman (ed.) ThinkingVoices:The
oJthe NationalOracyProject.London: Hodder and Stoughton.
- (1999) Dialogiclnquiry.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversitYPress.
Wong-Fillmore,L. (1985)'When doesteachertalk n'ork asinput?', in S. Gassand C. Madden
(eds)lnpurin SecondLanguage Row.lel'MA: Newburl' House.
Acquisition.
 cayfrJ : zt\
" cJh*'J
, s7.,^,(/ils tttolzLtQ
Lsc'^rsi"t
n a p t e r 1 7 , uX"u^trrt, "?*3
, ir.,^t-Jar ^o'ft'
sr6
?r
AngelM. Y. Lin

DOING-ENGLISH-LESSONS IN THE
REPRODUCTIONOR TRANSFORMATION OF
SOCIAL WORLDS?

I Introduction

H I S A R T I C L E T E L L S A F S T O R Y o f f o u r c l a s s r o o m ss, i t u a t e di n d i f f e r e n t
socioeconomic backgrounds. Drau'ing on the theoretical notions of cultural capital,
habitus, symbolic violence, and creative, discursiveagencvasanalvtic tools, the storv unfolds
r,vitnessingthe classroom dilemmas in *'hich students and teachers found themselves, as
rvell as the creative, discursive strategiesw'hich they used to cope with these dilemmas.The
implicationsoftheirstrategiesarediscussedr'r.ithreferencetot!9qussti9g9I@
'
Engl
social worlds.
-'St"r,.-;s
about the global spread of English and its increasing socioeconomic
importance in the w-orld have almost become cliches. On colorful banners celebrating the
TESOL Annual Convention in Chicago streetsin 1995 r'vasrvritten the eve-catchingmission
slogan,"TeachingEnglishto theWorld". Indeed, Englishseemsto havebecome a precious
commoditv increasinglvdemandedbv the world, andTESOL practitionersand researchers
seem to be striving to meet the demand of the rvorld market *'ith all our professionalism.
InTESOL journals and annual conventions,practitioners and researcherssharetheir findings
about methods, approaches,material designsthat are effective.
However, apart from the technical concern of efficiencv in teaching and learning, it
seemsthat a fai more diverse range of questionsneeds to te addressed*hich includes
questionssuch asw.hether,and if ves, horr-,Englishis implicated in the reproduction of social
inequalities in different conlexts in the rvorld. As regards the global influence of Englishl
pen l doirinant p*ltio.r of English u.rJ th"
socioeconomic, cultural and political embeddednessof Engiish in the world. Access(or lack
of it) to E"€l!b affectsihe socialmobilitv andlife chJ.,cesof manv.hild'ffillltF
ins Enslish as therr tirit or angua
world is a a Ti d e n t i t i e sa n d u n e q u a lr e l a t i o n so f p o w e r
l M a r t v n - J o n e sa n d H e l l e r , 1 9 9 6 1 . I t i s a l s ol i k e l v t h a t m a n v s t u d e n t si n
ambivalent, want-hate relationship rvith Engli e classroom becomes a site for
student3 str tronal Practrces\'\ horvever, often lead students to
272 ANGEL M. Y. LIN

participate
|,-*#
i" thgg_glyl.dsmlourion (e.g. see Canagarajah,Chapter 13 of this book). This
.{ffit.r
lr
is u'ritten foTTESOL practitioners and researchersu-ho want to listen to more ol
the lived stories of English in the r,r'orldand r,r.hoshare a similar concern in exploring wa\ s
o f d o i n g T E S O L t h a t d o n o t p a r t i c i p a t ei n t h e r e p l o d u c t i o n o f s t u d e n td i e.

2 A theoretical preamble: cultural capital, symbolic violence, and

creative, discursive agency

Some theoretical notions that can serve as analvtical tools for achieving a greater
understanding of sociai phenomena of reproduction are discussedin this section. Given
limited space, rvhat goes beiou. must be treated as a highlv svnoptic characterization and
the interested reader is urged to consuit the referencesthemselvesfor a more detailed
account. - t

,/L (o't''t"*dL
This is a concept from Bourdieu (Bourdieu,1973; Bourdieu and Passeron ,1977; Bourdieu.
1 9 7 7 ; B o u r d i e u . 1 9 9 1 ) r e f e r r i n g t o l a n g u a g eu s e . s k i l l s .a n d o r i e n t a t i o n s / d i s p o s i t i o n s
attitudes,/schemesof perception (also called"habitus") that a child is endowed with by virlue
of socialization in her/his familv and communitv. Bourdieu's argument is that their familial
. omic elite th. .ight kind of cultural capital
for school success(i.e., their habitusbecomestheir cultural capital).A recurrent theme in
Bourdieu's w'or ildren from disadvan w'ith a habitus incompatible
vi'ith that presupposedin school, are not.o*pgtt ints u'ith children
irefrte Eence.Eerenroducti tratification. The notion ot
ts(e.g..Delpit,198E;Luke,l996ltodescribe
the disadvantagedposition of etirnic and linguisti. ti.roriii", and to problematize the notion
that state education in modern societiesis built on meritocracy and equal opportunity.

lCV

Another recurrent theme in Bourdieu's rvorks concerns how t}re disadvantagingeffect of

the schooling sr' e's consciousness. School failure can
be convenientlv attributed to individual cognitive deficit or lack of and not to the
unequal lnltlal s oi the cultura valuecl a itimized in school:

the dominatedciasses allorv(the struggle)to be imposedon them w-henthgy:ggqg1

the stakesoffered bflr":lqlfi"*Lelasse!. It is an integrative struggle and, by virtue
v___:__- --__,___
oFthe initlal handicaps, a reproductive struggle, since those who enter this chase,in
which they are beaten before the)'start, asthe constancvof the gapstestifies, rmphcitlr

i ls+, t es)
fu"-"f t"h"g pJrt.(Bourdt.l.r,

Svmbolic violence, according to Bourdieu,i, thj r-pgjio. of ..presentations of the world

and social meanings upon groups in such a u'av that theljlre experienced as legitimale.This
isachier'edthroughaprocess@)Forinstance,therecent..EnglishOnl,Y''
campaigns in the United Statespror-idEillustrations of the political struggles required to
create and maintain a unified linguistic market in r'vhich onlv one languageis recognized as
 D OI N G - E N G L I S H - L E S S ON S 2 7 3

legitimate and appropriate fbr discourse in official settings, and this "English = American"
st.mbolic representationhas numerous consequencesfor schooling and jobs (Collins, 1993)-
For another instance,manv Hong Kong parentsinsist on flghting for a place for their children
in English medium schools (often despite the lact that their children speak and understand
- good schools" svmbolic
little English) because of the "English medium schools
representation that they have steadfastlvaccepted even in a largelv Chinese societv and a
post-1997 era (for some background to the svmbolic domination of English in Hong Kong,
seeLin, 1996,1998; and more on this in section 3 belorv).

.d\ ^
>c t)-
Bourdieu has often been accusedof bejn'e overlv deterministic and a theorist more of
, /----;-----S\ ,./, :.
reproductionthaq{an1lory9tt g.,Jenkins,1992;CanagarajahinChapter 13). Lemke,
holever, points ouitEaTBo[r-Fu is not limited to reproduction; w'hat he does limit is the
effectiveness of single agentin changing *-hole 6elds of taluatiofr-{uy...-.----L"mIE,
pets-o-nul
com ched to English in Hong
Ko+g cannot be changed b)' single agents unless there are systematic changesin the social
."l"a a
oft6?JoE?1ilil; see section 3 belorv).While the above seems true, an area in which
Bourdieu offers ferv analvsesis the creative, discursiveagencv of social actors who find
. s C o l l i n sp o i n t so u t :
l h e m s e l v e sc a u g h ti n d i l e m m a s A
.t

rve need to allor,vfor dilemmas and intractable oppositions; for dlvided consciousness,
not just dominated minds; ... for creatr,f:-_discurlve agencv in conditio.. U?tr,,r
prest.uctured,tobesure,butul'dynamic*^".'.,iio}
(Collins, 1993 134) 0

ln section 4 below, rve shall see some examples, and discussthe consequences,olsg@-_

arger urFeT.ffiir€\e7,5efore looking at the classrooms,let us first

iook at the larger social context of the classrooms.

3 Hong Kong: the setting of the story

Despite its international cosmopolitan appearance Hong Kong is ethnically rather

homogeneous.About 97o/oof tts population is ethnic Chinese,and Cantoneseis the mother
tongue of the majoritv. English native speakersaccount for not more than 3%oof the entire
population.They constituted the privileged classof the societv until July 1,1997 w'hen Hong
Kong's sovereigntv was returned to China and Hong Kong became a SpecialAdministrative
Region (SAR) of China.The English-conversantbilingual Chinesemiddle classhas,however,
remained the socioeconomicalh' dominant group in Hong Kong.
Notwithstanding its being the mother tongue of oniv a minoritl, English has been the
language of educational and socioeconomic advancement; that is, the dominant symbolic
resource in the svmbolic market (Bourdieu, 1991) in Hong Kong. Even in the post-
1997/ colonial era, English has remained a socioeconomicallv dominant languagein Hong
Kong society.For instance,a 1998 survev on businesscorporations in Hong Kong found
that the majoritv of businesscorporations said thev would prefer emplovees with a good
command of English to emplovees rvith a good command of Chinese (SingTaoJih Pao,Ma:,'
 274 ANGEL M. Y. LIN

21 ,1998). Besides,English remains the medium of instruction in most universities ani

professionaltraining programmes.
It can be seen that the svmbolic market is embodied and enacted in the many ker
situations(e.g.,educationaland job settings)in u.hich svmbolicresources1e.g.,certainir p.,
of linguistic skilis, cultural knorvledge, specializedknow-ledgeand skills) are demanded o:
social actors if thev $'ant to gain accessto valuablesocial,educationaland eventually materia-
resources (Bourdieu, l99ll. For instance,a Hong Kong student must hal'e adequuie Englisi-.
resourcesto enter and succeedin the Engiish-mediumprofessionaltraining programme:
and in order to earn the qualificationsto enter high-income professions.
To seehow.the larger social context can pose loca!$]g4ggl on teachers and studeni.
and how they can exercise their creative discursive agencv in dealing w.ith their dilemma.
Iet us compare and contrast four different classrooms.

4 A story of four classrooms

Tiken from the databaseofthe author's ethnographic and classroomdiscourse study ofeigl.:
classroomsin sevenschooisfrom a rangeof socioeconomicbackgroundsin Hong Kong, t.
follorving four classroom scenariosare meant to give the reader a senseof the diversitr , :
discursivepracticesthat can be found acrosseven simiiarlv constrainedciassrooms(e.g
ClassroomsB, C, and D) To protect the anonl'mitr:of the schoolsand the participants.a--
namesare pseudo-namesand all identifving detailsof the schoolsand teachersare left ou:
In iistening to these verv different stories, holever, -voulvill sensea preoccupation r,",-ith.
current question:To rvhat extent are classroomlellicpan'tslhapgl bv the larger socia-
structures such as sociocultura a c K p r o u n d a n c lt o \ \ ' h a t e x t e n t a r e t h e \ t r c :
to tf-arxform their lot (and habitus)?We shall return to this question in section 5 . For ea.-i
classrooml-3h-ilfTrst describe the background, with information based on questionnairt
survevs and intervier,vsof the students, and then an English reading lesson.All four teache;'.
are Hong Kong Chinese, sharing the same mother-tongue r,vith their students.

A: a scenariooJ compatiblehabitus
Classroom

Background V

This is a form 3 (grade 9) classofthirtv-three students, aged from fourteen to fifteen, in :

prestigiousgiris'school.The majoritv of the studentscame from families in the expensirt
residential area in'"vhich the school is located.Their parents \,vereprofessionals,busine'.
executives, or universitv professors, r'r'hoseeducation level ranged from secondar..
university, to postgraduate.Thev spoke mostlv Cantoneseat home , but sometimes als'-
English,for example, w-henspeakingto their Filipino domestichelpers.Theyread a variet.
of extra-curricular materials, including both English and Chinese,both serious and non-
seriousmaterials; for example, comics, Chinesene\4'spapers, Englishnewspapers,Englisr-.
fashion magazines,English detectir-estories, sciencefiction, pop vouth magazines,TV neu'..
Reader'sDigest (both English and Chinese editions), and Chinesetranslationsof foreig:
classics(e.g., Gone n-ith theWind;.The students \l'ere fluent in their responsesto th.
{\
lJ teacher's questions and could elaborate their ansrversw'ith the teacher's prompts.
TeacherA's English u'as the best among the eight teachersr.r'hoparticipated in my studr
English seemed to be a tool she readilv used in her dailv life and not just in academr.
conteXts'SWerdaughter,hershoppinghabits,Mother,sDa.',
 D O I N G . EN G L I S H - L E S S O NS 2 7 5

and her feelingsnaturallv and comfortabh'in Enslish. She u'as interestedin both Chinese
'and
English literature, and she read for leisure English magazines.Sometimes,she w.ould
bring her old magazinesfrom home to the classlibran. and share them rvith her students.
the reading l"rro.r describedbelorv was run smoothlv and the teacher engagedstudents
in high-level r,e.g.,be)'ond factual) qugslions about the stor) thev had read ill"through rh.
,,
l F s s o nE n g l i s h u ' a s c o n i l s t e n t l r u s e d b r b o t h - T e a c F ear n d s t u d e n t sa n d t h e c l a s s r o o m
//
atmosphere w-asinterestinglv both relaxed and seriously on-task. i f)

A readinglessonin classroomA t*, D""

iegr^'s c.( ;"s
The teacher began the reading lesson n.ith the follou-ing extended introduction:

T: O k a l ' . . n o \ 4 , ' . . h a v e v o u b r o u g h t b a c k . . . F l o r v efrosr M r s . H a r r i s ? . . . N o w . . .

I'd like to discussone thing u'ith vou. . . for this lessonfor this book. Have vou ever
vl'onderedWHY this book is called Flou'ersfor N{rs.Harris . . . and not a Dior dressfor
Mrs. Harris? . . . Norv the u'hole book rve are talking about HOW Mrs. Harris . . .
saved. . . horv she ll'orked extra hard to sa\-eup the monev . . . so that she could go to
Paristo buy the dress.And after that . . aa . . . againshew.entthrough a lot oftroubles
in order to get the dress back . . . and at the end it rvas ruined. So all along -"vew.ere
talkingaboutadress...andMrsHarris...butr""-hv...rvhvFlolversforMrs.Harris?
. . . A l r i g h t n o \ { : . I r . r , a n t t os p e n d . a a . . . t h e n e x t f i t " t o t e n m i n u t e so r s o .
and try to discuss in groups, okav? aam . . . )'ou can probablv find some hints . . .
tow'ardsthe end of this book,'fn the last chapter.

The students swiftl-vformed groups and discussed.Theteacher w-alkedto a group and started
to engage students in thinking deeper about the storvTl:i
. r r t f l r . I r . -
ons. e.9.. vvnal oro lvlrs. Harrls see ln 6-rrers?"or. "Besidesthe {lolrers. how
else can she feel fter ing some time with one group
shefioved onto another group and did the same
After about fifteen minutes she addressedthe rvhole cla
questions about the storv. The students readilv gave her answers and she built on their
arFswersto bring out the themes of the storv: friendship, hard w.ork and courage.Then she
talked about the class'supcoming examination and encouragedher studentsto emuiate Mrs.
Harris, to w'orkhard and not to lose heart u'hen faced with difficulties. Most of the time
during the lesson, the students seemed to be attentive to their teacher or on-task.

Classroom
B: a scenariooJ i

Background

This is a form 2 (grade 8) classof fortv-tu'o students, twent\-bovs and tlr,'entv-tu'o girls,
agedbetween thirteen to fourteen.The schoolis locatedin a government-subsidized public
housing estate.The students largelv came from families r,r'holived in the nearbv public
housing estates.Their parents u'ere manual or service r'vorkers and their education level
rangedfrom primarv to secondarvschool.Ther,spokeonlv Cantoneseat home. Most of the
bovs read comics, ne\\rspapers,TVneu's, and pop vouthmagazines.Most of the girls read
TV new's,love stories, ghost stories, netl:spapers,and pop vouth magazinesrlhe).did not
read any English extra-curricular materiais.
s r,vhor,vereobserr.edto be the most resistant
to the teacher in the .l^rr.oo*."Th"rl ,r-".. plavful and testing, as if checking out u'hether I
 276 ANGEL M. Y. LIN

could understand their insider jokes. When I asked them questions such as w'hether ther'
liked English or their English l"r.o.,r, thev replied in the affirmative, but in an exaggerated
u.rd loki"g u,ay. I sensedthat thev r,veretrving to give me rvhat thev thought I was after, so
I said again that I w.ould like to hear u'hat thev reallv thought and that I rvould not tell
_ Then thev seemed to be more w'illing to voice
F6'l anythin; theJ said to the schooi authorities.
_--___ -_____:_-_
frli, f"Jli.rgr.fn"1'saidthel found their Englishlessonsboring andthey did not know a lot
of the thingsthe teuchiilllilar the iiacher would onl,vspeakin English.I TkdJh1he)'
did ll th" te !-",:Iplq" qf th*gl th#'d.9llnder stand.Ther
""tt. ".h.Lg.@g'
saidt6etei&eiw.nd i-1)'""pt"* .gr"l"T"glirt\ u.rdlh.u u'ouidstill not understand.
Thel.said thev chatted and plaved in the classroom becausethe lesson rvas too boring but
they u-ere also afra!{ of being askedbv the teacher to ans$'er questions.They said thev felt
("r,vitbcq!,ia9s) standing-p-th-eTe in TEerclassan?TEin!-inable to answer the
""ry?f,r."
-ff
teacner s ouestlons.
Thev irad a verv cvnical r'ie*' about school life and about their future. They said thel'
did not like learning English but thev knerv thev could not 6nd a job without English in tfus
societv.Thev also stated that thet did not consider thel' would be able get into universitr
TeacherBt relationship *ith so-e of t to be stressfulat times. For example.
,6i!tii6rhe had to chidethe bovsangrilv for not pa-vingattentionor chattingwith their
neighbours.The follou'ing reading lesson w-ill give the reader a senseof the atmosphere ir-
her classroom.

B
A readinglessonin Classroorr'f

The teacher started b-v saying thev rvere going to read chapter 30 of the storybook.
.,1'.= Adventures of Tom Sarvyer,in groups of four or five and each grouP would send a
t aJ representative to retell the stor-vin 50 to 60 words to the whole class.Each grouP was to
$O f
lvrite down a summarv on a piece of paper first and the summary should cover the main
points in that chapter. As the teacher u'as savingthese instructions, the classwas noisy and
some students said loudly in Cantonese that thev did not know rvhat to do. The teacher
repeated her instructions and w-alkedaround to help students to form grouPs and to explain
againwhat thev u,ere expected to do. Most of the students were off-task, chatting and joking
in Cantonese.A girl at the back rvasw-riting the lvrics of a popuiar Cantonese love song on
a piece of paper. There seemed to be a lot of non-teacher-approved activities going on in
the classroom and a lot of noise. The teacher seemed exhaustedcirculating around the
classroom trying to get her students to do the task. All through the lesson English was
consistentlv spoken bv the teacher w'hile, in contrast, Cantonese was invariablv spoken by
the students except rvhen thev rvere called upon to do the storv-retelling. When they did
that, thev read mechanicallr.from a seriesof sentencesthey w'rote on a piece of paper while
most other students continued to chat noisilv on their own. After a student had finished
readingfromthepaper,theteacherrvould.")...\,.''
or'_Quite nice, thev have covered some of the points" and then immediatelv called another
gro,rp'r d had to
get all the retellings done rvithin the lesson.This might explain the brev$rof her feedback
to the students.
 D O I N G - E N G L I S H - L E S S O NS 2 7 7

ClassroomC: a scenarlo oJ inconpadble habitus

T
Background v
This is a form 2 (grade 8) classof thirtv-nine students,nineteen male and twentv female,
aged from thirteen to fourteen. The school is located in a torvn close to an industrial area.
The socioeconomicbackgrounds of the studentsand their sociolinguisticand extracurricular
literacv habits are like those of their counterparts in Classroom B. Their English fluency, as
can be seen from horv and lvhat thev spoke in the classroom, seemed to be rather llmited
for their grade level. There n'ere manv r,vordsin the textbook that thel' did not understand
or did not knolv hou- to Dronounce.
When I informallv interr-ieu'eda group of bovs after class,thev expressedthat they
found English "boring" and "difficult" but thev also said thev knerv it w.asverv important to
learn English well. Thev found schooi u'ork generallv boring but said thev still preferred to
go to school becausethey said thev could at least meet and plav rvith friends at school.Thev
said it lvould be even more boring to stav ail dav at home. "Boring" lvas a word these boys
used frequently to describe their life and school.The reader can get a senseof the atmosphere
in their classroom bv looking at the foilorving readrng lesson.

A readinglessonin ClassroomC

The reading lessoncan be divided'lnto three stages.In the pre-reading stage,the teacher
us - Heaven-QueenFestival,
using
rsing the Initiation-Response-Feedback (lRF) discourseformat (Sinclair and Coulthard
Coulthard,
f lZi; lf
comprehension ques
teacher wrote ten numbered reading
d the classr,vasgiven fifteen minutes to read a*1r
t3n*-
silerit i.rr*'.., from the text to th.l..r questionsbv undffi
the-text.T@The final stageis a.r u.rs*.e. ng stage.
t6ucfiEitlicited answers from the .1".. r.rri.rgthe IRF dircourse format. The teichei often
hadtore-asko'"|ub.toqetresPonsesfromstudents
u"atn ;.
I"lF6tt"-t'-g f.o.r-rth. un.*.r-.h".k;g rt"g"Jt" fi"d the creativitv
"-*tpt;ken
of the studentsbu;sting ;ut in u ,riche that e;
ffi
urilnteresting IRF diTourse. The teacher had been asking lactual reading comprehension
-questions
:ii;
about the Heaven-Queenstory that thev havejust read. She came to question 9
(What happened r,vhenshe ansr.veredher mother?) and first asked the question in English.
No response was forthcoming and so she was no\{' elaborating the question in Cantonese
in pursuit of a responsefrom her students:

LessonExcerpt

(To facilitate reading, Cantoneseutterances have been translated into English; thev are
bolded and placed in pointed brackets.Seeappendix for other notes on transcription.)

870T: <What happened? . . . Leih-Lohn-Mihng (2) rvhen she answeredher mum

(1) her mum called her name, and rvhen she answered her mum, what
happened>?
872 Leih: <Her old-manfell off to the (ground;>. chucklingtowardsthe end of
{
nls sentence I -
l. t_
278 ANGEL M. Y. LIN

8 7 2 . 5S s : =Haha! hahal haha! hahahahal {other Ss laughing hilariously}

8 7 2 . 8T : <What?! (2) louder> I {againsta background of Ss' laughter}
8 7 3 . 2C h a n : <Her old-man fell off to the street)l {chuckling } =
8 7 3 . 5S 1 : =Hihihihik!t= { laughing }
-<(lt
8 7 3 . 8S 2 : theretastreet)l
(ls there a street)? {T in an amusedtone; some studentslauIaugh)
874T:
874.5L: <fell into t / the sea)=
874.8/ /T: =<WHERE did he fall into>? {quite amusinglv}
8 7 5L : (Sea that is).
875.2T: (Yes . . . fell into the sea).
8 7 5 . 5S 1 : <fell off to the street).
8 7 5 . 8S 2 : <Her old-man feli off to the street).
876T: // Right? (1) Her father dropped into the SEA!==
8 7 6/ / 5 3 Hekhek!{laughing}
<finallv>
8/6.J ==l: Right?(2) <l; that mannerdied> . . . SHHI (1) <okay>
. . . SHH! numberten .

has been a reculrent

The need to base one'S ansrl'er (or to "find the ans'"ver")in the text
concern of the teacher voiced in her recul.r.entPromPts and follow'-up questions such as
"\\'here can r-ou {ind it?", "Does the book reall',' sav so?"' "l ook at paragraph -, h-"t
- ,"
times when a bookish
{bund in other parts of the lesson transcript.'Hortener, there are
has left little room
ans\\,eris boring to the studedts.The factual nature of the set of questions
livelv thirteen:,vear-olds.
theselivelv thirt""rr-u"ut- In the above lesson excerpt t.
\\'-eseeno\\'
for imaginationfor
for imaqination for these
se slot to do somethingplartul'jg!lfgtitt-{:l)#'
story,whict
forward a contributionthat r,r.illiurn the r,vholestorvinto a comic-stri!-tvoeof
-----= comlc strips, raEGrs usriall.
they enjov readlng oxtr'ide school. In their most favourite ,:.
a.i"@Sementandenjovmentcome-fromthesuperimposing
boring -"lqT'
of l-porribl" and u.rp.edictable fantasvrvith the familiar, predictable, and
*o.td. It seemsthat ihe bov $'ho proo'iies this funnv anslver (turns [872], t873.2]) is a skillful
ofhis fello$
storv-teller $'ith a..udu undi"rr.., urd this is reflected in the hilarious laughter
students.

tJ rr:lfuy
D: a scenario
Classroom

Background V

This is a form 1 (grade 7) remedial English classof thirtv students' twent)'bovs'.ten girls'
in the nearbr'
aged betrveen t*iue to thirteen. The Jtudents came from families u'ho lived
the students and their
public housing estates. The socioeconomic backgrounds-of
in
iociolinguistic"and extra-curricular literacv habits are like those of their counterparts
ClassroomsB and C.
The classroom at WAS \:CI\ students were attentive to the teacher
and focusedon thei tasksmost of t
and rvereboth eagerand eten-gb]9&--e
n I askedthe students in informal i Iass rvE-ether thg-lik.d Engli sl-.
a n d t h e i r E n g l i s hl e s s o n st,h e r s a i dv e l a n d t t h e ]e s p e c i a l l ) ' . l i k et h
d
said that the\,liked to h..rffiEnglis\eader Iand that shecoul:
clearll tdthem. Thev li . t a . ' s h e e x p l a i n e ds o m e $ r a m m a t i t :

'ngth;clifferenceb.i'"e".,..li1tle''and..|ew,''theteach.
 D OI N G . E N G L I S H - L E S S ON S 2 7 9

lped them to remember the difference bv saving"little" has more letters than "few" and
' ir uncountable
rF\'To-fin-ilthis
mnemonic tip very helpful to them.Thev also@r a
ffi.The"saidthaithev.[@,h.,'couldlearnEngIishr,ve1lbecause
r e vc o u l d s e e oing betterand betterin theii ctanons. exerclses and
teacherhad kept a persona ress chart for the students so that thellEew Eoil'
irev w-ere-doingover time, and the teacher would gi
itidents.Thev felt that thev could succeed in their studies and rvould have a good chance
,i lirthering their studies (e.g., entering universitv) in the future.
Cantoneseto exolain roc rections, make the English
-tori texts come alive,explaingrammaticalpoints.and interactrvith studentsmost of
--
rhe time. Sher.r'f,s-the
u'asthe teacher*'ho
rvho *SdiE*
usedthe most C@ers
Cantoneselfronqaheeiqht teachers
rl mV stud\.5ne Delle|ed that slnce tne students \\-ere strll l-orm I students and rt'ere
feGA:SU f.f"sing Englishall the time, using Cantonesecould help them become
rtlorernteresteclrn tne lessonsanclundersta-nd the lessonsbetter. Shealsofound that her
:tudents had made good progress over the academic vear, for instance, as reflected in their
# r .-_---
a n d t h e i r i m p r o v e d s c o r e si n s c h o o l t e s t s a n d

TeacherD lvas the form teacher of this class.She spent most of her recess.lunch. and
rfter-school hours talkins to individual students ms, ror example,
'f o
' -r bo e. - to Drlng s t o s c h o o l , n o i s v i n o t h e r t e a c h e r s ' i e s s o n ss, c o r i n g p o o r l y i n
dictations or tests. I got a senseth;it the good relationships she had u.ith her students (as
could be reflected in their eagerresponsesto her questions,and their co-operative responses
to her directives) might have something to do rvith the amount of individual attention sh,e

this 'vvar''.
she maintained both a c
However, that also seemed to make her school davs fullv packed and busv from earlv
morning till late into the afternoon. She seemed to be an energetic teacher w.ho did not
mind doing extra w'ork and spending extra time u'ith her students. The reader can get a
senseof the atmosphere in her classroom bv looking at the follorving lesson excerpt.

A readinglessonin ClassroomD

The lesson excerpt belou, is taken from the beginning ofthe reading lesson.The teacher
announces that she is going to ask them questions about the part of the English storybook
that thev have read in a previous lesson:

+69 T: <Okay, let me ask vou about the storv, and see if you can still remember itl
Last time we told the ston' to page fortr; that is the last- the lesson before the
last lesson, and then in the last lesson rve told the storv from page forty to
fortv-tu'o ! Nou' Iet me seeif vou can still remember the story . . . Sinbad w-as
sailing in a boat, remember?Thosejervelries,then he had given awav half of
t h ej e r ' r r l r i e s t o . . . a n d h e h a d b o u g h t a b o a t , a n d h e h a d b o u g h t .. . r e c r u i t e d
manv sailors, after that, he also bought four boats, one sailing torvards the East,
one tou'ards the South, one tow'ards theWest, and one tolvards the North.
Sinbadhimself took a boat, sailing back to rvhere? . . . sailing back to rvhere)?
{A girl raisesher hand;T turns to her and savs}Yes,
+78 Girl 1 {standsup and speaks}: <Brazil>l
478.5T: < G o b a c k t o B r a z i l > ? lN o : : : ,
2 B O A N G E L I V I .Y . L I N

4 7 8B
. Some Ss {speakingin their seats}: Baa'Gaak-Daaht!
479T: No, not <Brazil> i (manv students raise their handsnorv andT points to a bor
L'79 \ Bov 1 {standsup and speaks}: <Baghdad>!
(that is), in English '
4 ' 1 9 . 8 T . <Baghdad>, hor'vto spell . . . <Baghdad>?English
<nalhdad>. {Girl t raisesher hand again;T turns to her and gesturesher t
speak)Yes,
481.5 Girl 1 {stands up and speaks}: b - a - g - h . . . - d - a - d { T r v r i t e s i t o n t h .
b l a c k b o a r da s t h e g i r l s p e l l si t )
4 8 3T : Yes! (Horv to read this rvord>?
Some Ss {speakingup in their seats}: <Baghdad>l <Baghdad>l
484T: No, Baghdal, Baghdad,Baghdad(that is. okav, as thev rvere thinking of goin;
back home, alasl on the u-avback, thev ran into a GROUP OF> ' ' '
(monkeYs! monkeysl monkevs!)
+87 Ss {speakingup in their seats}:
.f88T: (That grour
Mo.,ievslYesl {T writes the rvord "monkey" on the blackboard}
of *o.rl.v-*en, that group . . . monkev-men that is, monkey-men that is, the.
took them to an island), w'hat is the na::me of this island?Can you spell th'
rvord? { Another girl raisesher hand } Yes,
+9) Girl 2 {standsup and speaks}: Z-u-g . . .
- f9 2 . 5T : z-u'!, . .
+92.8 Girl 2 {standing up}: (d)
(How to read it;
193T: No, b, b for bori { T rvrites the word "Zugb" on the board }
A verv uglv plice.>
+9+.3 Some Ss {speakingin their seats} : Zugbl
494.5T Z::ugb'.
+9s Ss {repeating in their seats} : ZUGB!!
4 9 5 . 5T : <Alas> I ZugalAu uglv place for the uglv men. (An ugly place for those ugi'.
men to live in.Those monkevs brought them there for what>?
+98 Bov {speaking in his seat}: <(Dump him there)>l { Another boy raisesLu.
hand)
4 9 8 . 3T : Yes,
4 9 8. 5 Bov 2: <(Giant ? ? )>
4 9 8 . 8T : <Rightl Ho',r'to savgiant in Engiish>?
+99 Another bov {speakingin his seat}: <Giant>!
499.5T. <Giant in Engiishis . . . Leuhng-Mahn-Yih>!
500 L { s t a n d su p a n d s p e a k s } : G i a n t .
5 0 0 . 5T : Giantl Verv goodlYesl { T rvrites the w'ord "giant" on board }

ttr..,.".tr.t a:ry+l],h
In theexcerptabove, i"t
lh'
storr about Sinbadsailingin a boat.The teacherthen asksthe studentswhere Slnbadls salun:-
----+---:i---'-:--- -
6 l c k t o l l a s t t h r e e l i n e si n t u r n [ 4 6 9 1 1 .
The teacher gir,esnegatjve feedbacllo a student's answer in turn ItZ8.5] Some othe:
students i-rrildl"t.lu speak out their ansrversfrom their seats(turn [478.8]).The teache:
signalsto a bov to speak.The boy standsup from his seatand gives his answer (turn [479. i;
Bia-Gaak-Daaht).We see that in this rvav, the teacher maintains the practice of having :
r-accepts" ence to a student response.
This time th" rtnd"trEiiilEiis correct (turn [479J]:B-fr:GaIR:Daaht).Theteache:
reDeats it and immediatelvinitiatesanotherquestionin the feedback-cum-initiation slt:
== It seemqto belongto a ditterenttyPeol questr,:
(tfi-1 [479.8| l. TliS!-uestionis interesting.
from the first question she asks (see last line in turn [469]: <B>Sinbad . . . sailing bac.
 D OI N G- E N G L I S H - L E S S ON S 2 8 1

to u,here?>). Instead of follou'ing the storvline and asking about r,vhathappens to Sinbad
next, the second question requires the students to give the spelling of the English version
of the name of the place, "Baa-Gaak-Daaht",rvhich has been offered bv a student as a
responseand acknorviedgedand repeatedbv the teacher (turns [479.51,[+79.81).lt seems
to be a question that requires the students to focus on the linguistic aspectsof the storv.
'fhev
have read the English text (pp. +0 +2 of their storvbook), and the Engiish text is no\,v
laid out on their desks before them. The question requires them to shift their focus from
,
t n c c o n t e n t o t t n e s t o r l J o r a u n r l et o c o n c e n t r a t eo n t n e t a n g u a g el n \ \ ' n r c nt t u s c o n t e n l t s

6iTE6T6icher as an acceptablfnal ansrr'er.Theteacher'sfollow'-up question on the eliclted

ans\,'er would have the effect of getting the students to reformulate the answer into an
ormat - "in (the- woiiliTh-et-GacEer uses in her fbllor.v-up
i n i t i a t i o n ;s e el i n e 2 i n t u r n [ 4 7 9 . 8 ] ) .
We seein turns [481.5] and [483] that the teacherultimately gets the L2 formulation
of the answer -"Baqhdad", and she lvrites it on the blackboard. Only L2 ans\,versare w.ritten
on the blackboard. It seems that the teacher's act of lr.riting the student's resoonse on the
blackboard has the .ff".tiFI.,f"r.l.rg ;fi;l-anslver status on the response of the student
l H e l m a n , I 9 B3 ; .
------.-tu
UnlikeTeJcher C, r,vhooften does her initiations in an L2 (Question) L1 (Annotation
of Ouestion ) sequence.Teacher D often starts r'r'ithL 1 to initiate a question |,"' about the storv.
TeacherD seems
Teacher seemsto be be usinq
using a couplet
couplet of IRF IRF formats
formats to do
do consecutivelv tr.l.odifferent
consecutivelvtr.l.o different
k/-' I I?F
storl'1e.g.,turns [469]-[479.8]).The{ocus5 on the.o.,i".rt of th.ffi
--
from the storl'linelThesilond IRF format (e.g., J 0 r
askedin the initiationslotsfollow natura-llv
turns [479.8]-t483]) is usedto get the studentsto reformulat" i" EfrE-iE'-eriefitonese
st IRF format. The secon ormat mav
.5f-""t"d to get the studentsto locus o" th. Ii"gffilipects of the final L2 answer.For
example,the secondIRFformatis repeated in turns[483],[483.8],[484]to getthe students
'
ro sa\- t'agnoao ln Engilsn
brmat immediatelv followed bvv th tne
5'4,
-----.....j

the teacher cah-set

o
the students to reformulate their earlier L1
fonseilhto tFaEnguapfihat ther"aresupposedto be learning in the lesson:English.This
specral use of t Ftandsin contrast wi use of
the IRF format inTeacher C's class.fForinstance,TeacherC alrvavsstarts with L2 texts o '
quesuonsrn RF format. Shethen usesthe L2-Ll Annotation format
. B^4"
in the same initiation slot to annotate the L2 text or cuestion. Students usuallv resoond irr / A r
/(
Ll.Then the teacherherself reformulates the students'L1 resoonseinto L2 and confers on <J
it thelinil-anslver st4iu!._rhis kind of @ effect of allowing the- ; *
5if2:
,i.{ J"*=
get rvith Ll - L
stuoents to
ttudenG-t6lFt awav wltn [ 1 resDonses
res ses onl\'.
onh'. The
lne stuoents
students are iot
not reculred
."orri..d to co
do an\.
any Aqi+<Ce)t _-
reformulation of their !Lry1."* the- in the feedback
LZ.The teacher does it all for
ofTeacher C in the reading lesson can be
represented as follorvs :

Teacher-lnitiationIL2-L 1]
Student-ResponseIL1]
Teacher-Feedback [ (L 1-)L2]

In contrast,Teacher D usest$'o different IRF formats in the follon'ing cvcle in the reading
lesson:
282 ANGEL M. Y. LIN

/1
tr
Teacher-lnitiation L 1
Student-Response L 1
Teacher-Feedback L 1

ttr@ = L1 or L2)
T"uc},.i't"itiationI Ll /L2 ) (Ll /L2
Student-Response L l / L 2 l
is in L2
Teacher-Feedback L 2 l , o r u s e( 2 )a dl Student-Response

the L2 resPonseelicitt:
(3) Start (2) again to focus on another linguistic asPectof
in (2); or return to (1) to focus on the storr-again'

.to2fot"t lutgtus'
Thls kind of discourse practice allou,s the teacher to interlock " :it\"
focus in the reading l"iro.t. There can bt '
uage-tocus
6*mF, interntinednlth a
6a..h.t never starts an initiation in e alwavs starts i:
W6GGnoted above-[6-at
o i C r.ho always star'-
Ll.This standsin sharp contrasirvith the discoursepractices
in her initiations' It ars to me that always starting in L -
n'ith L2 texts or questions
lFilstudent can fui-
Teacher D ahvavs starts from u'h
G-fr-ihut u'ith. Qn the other hand, br usin the bcus IRF form::
IRF format, shecanalso usht s to *ove f.c,t:-
fficars
to u'ha1 e more famili::
what@xpressions)
with (e'g', L2 to@iottt)

5 Doing-English-tessons in the reproduction or transformation

of habitus?
really want::
You rvant to knorv rvhv I don't PaYattention in English lessons?You
and difficult and I c;:
knou.?okav, here'sthe reason:NO INTEREST!! It's so boring
If no good :-
never master it. But the societv wants You to learn Englishl Vou're
English,-vou'reno good in {inding a job!

the author in an intorm'

The above lvas said bv a 14-vear-old bov from Classroom B to
w'e mentioned Bourdieu '
intervierv after class(originai in Cantonlse). In section 2 above
notion ofhabitus refe.rin"g to ianguageuse, skills, and orientations/attitudes/disposition=
schemes of perception that a .trlta endow'ed rvith bv virtue o-f socialization in her l*o
" in section 4 above c-'
familV and communit-y.The four classroom scenarios outlined

of the students
tural caPital
and lingui'::
the schooi lesson: ther har,e both the right kind of attitudes/interest
themes of the storv in EngL'':
skills/confidence to pu.ii.ipur" in high-ievel liscussions on the
in Classroory!19p1glucg1'": -
rvith one anotherurrdrh" i"..h... Doing-English-iessons --.
.r . | -,--' ^--1...--l ^.'- Aflons an(l ODl(\
r e i n f o r c e st,h e s t u d e n t s ' c u l t u r acl a p i t a li
6 i l i ri . r o f s u c c e e d i n gi n s c ;.tett E.-th teacher and students are nc''
rlemmas cau t f f a n d t h u s t h e a t m o s p h e r eo f r e l a r
incomPatlbrutv oI naDltus,
hu.*o.tt' in her classroom.
 D OI N G- E N G L I S H . L E S S ON S 2 8 3

In Classroom B, however, u'e r,vitnessa situation of incompatibilitv betr,veenstudents'

habitus and what is required of them in the English lesson.The 14-r'ear-oldschoolbov's
r oice quoted above expressesvividlv w.hat Bourdieu rvould call a rvorking classchild's
' ubj ective expectati ons oJobj ecti veplgbabi I t t i es:

socialclass,understood asa svstemof objective determinations,must be brought into

!relation
----i-- | rr I
not r'vith the individual or lvith the "class"as a populattonJ . but w'ith the
classhabitus, the svstem of dispositions(partiallr') common to all products of the same
<
structures.Though-t isimpossible-Ioro1lmembers of the sameclass(or e\en tno of
them) to have had the same experiences) in the same order, r!_:: r:lt"g tb!=ggb
member of the sa is more likeh' than anv member of another classto
en conlronteo \\' freouentTSrthe members of that class.The
objective structures rl,hich science apprehends in the form ofltalistrca
(e.g. emplovment rates, income curves, probabilities of accessto secondarveducation,
frequency of holidavs, etc.) inculcate, through the direct or indirect but always
c o n \ e roqr oer n
.u
te x o e r i e n c e su h i c h p i l e a s o c i a le n v i r o n m e n li t s D h v s i o o n o mwri.t h i t s
"closeddoors". "dead ends".and limited "prosFrects",. . . in short, the senseof reality
or realitieswhich is perhapsthe best-concealedprinciple of their efficacv.(Bourdieu,
1977, pp. 85-86; underlining added)

In Classroom B, rve lr.itnessstudents rvho seem to find themselves confronted w'ith a

languag-e in which the)'have neither ihterest nor competence/confidenc9, and yelL l."g.r€"
| h e' t . r e - c o g n i z e ] t h o u g h T r r g i l 1 i a s a' k e r t o S u c c e s s i n t h e i r s o c' i e t f f i
, 1" "1 1" i
theffielves seemsto U
from anv chancesof social success.Their behaviour in the classroom seems to stem from
r- | | l: | :l .r-l
t n e l r c o n l r a d r c t o r v l e e l r n q s a D o u t D o t n t n e r r s e l / - r e c o g n r l r oonI l n a D r l r t | t o c n a n q e . a n o a n g r v
p@h Ju gug.t- om practi ces o pp o sitiiiill6TE-cur riculim
"t
and the teacher.fully- expectino themselvesto be never able to master the "difficult". foreisn
ianguageanyway (..g., b)'ignoring the lessontask or the teacher altogether and engaging
inTee-r dItrinTEeii mother tongue most of the time).Their resistanceseemsto resembie
that of marginalized ethnic -i.roiities in North American inner citv schools(e.g., Solomon,
1992).
We also 'vr.itness
a je.4cbslilllilgnma in Classroom B. The dilemma is one of having to
teach Englishin Engiishonly, asthis is her school'spolicv and, in qeneral,a methodological
F**rylfgl dominant in ELT rEnglish languageteacherledrication in Hong Kong, and at
---,-------
iE-esame tim e hiiifrS@ her limited - English-proficiencv and apparently uncooperative
students to understand her instructions and expianations as lvell as to complete the lesson
task within the time limit of the lesson.Well'itnessa teacherrunning u.ourri the classroom
to get her large class of 42 students on-task. She lvas exhausted and frustrated, and
apparentlv failing to get connected in anv meaningful rvav to her students despite her painful
efforts.
Let us turn to Classroom C, u.here u'e rvitness a slightly different picture.The lesson
is perceived as equallv "boring", a rvord used bv the students describing their iessonand
their view of English to the researcher in an informal after-classinterview'. Holvever, the
teacher seemsto be (partially) successfulin getting her students to collaborate in extracting
-
inlormationtromtheStor\texttoanS\\.erp."
kind of quest-6-nstvpicallv found in school tests and examinations in Hong Kong. Sheseems
to,bc.irlQpgli!&examination skills albeit in u'a) s that students might find unengaging.The
mother tongue is a tool she uses to get her limited-English proficiencv students to
 284 ANGEL M. Y. LIN

collaborate in this text-information extraction process. She seemqjlgbgjsnnggl:1lI

'_---=--T-.r,
h e s m i l e sa n d a p p :ars to be amusecl D\ tll
e
,tud.ntr r t t o - " l " t ' .
ti"
,t*EFil[iun unr*J1,GoQh the also seemsto be eager to socializ' studentsinto the tex:
eagert9i9g9]t"
infbrmation extractionmin?ret. 1
stffiteacherr"q..iresoftheminthereadinglesson.Usjngth.
oi, the teache
.o'.iiQ hEt ttud.nrr t n,o u;1'*,i fislthog! f orientations to text, albeit with van'in;
iloss her students
r'sefforts,thestudentsmavbecomebetterverse
English findinq
in examination skills although_their basic habitus orientation towards
-
boring and irrelevant to their dailY life rem
ffi..go:todea}rvithherdiIemma:holvtogetherstudentst.
collaborate in a task perceived as unengaging bv her students'
disadvantage :
Nol' Iet us turn to Classroom D.Th. students come from a similarlv
B and C' Like the::
socioeconomic background as their counterParts in Classrooms
them r.viththe right kind of attitudes and interesl
counterparts, their h;Litrrs does not equip
.'"i1j,,hil,u.'dconfidenceinlearningEnglish..
itus being transformed h the creativediscursive

"boring" and basicall"

in learning u lun*rruge that is otherw'ise perceiied ai-tlifficult",
i,."l.u".,t?ffiisco-ingfromaCantonese-dominantworkin;
c l a s sh a b i t u s .
coming frorr.
Searchingfor the appropriate methodoiogl'fordifferent_kinds of students
roci"i backgrounds r'vith different habituses becomes an importan:
different culirral
"nd r,vithstudents b."kqt:unds tha:
w.orking
raskandpossibilitvforTESoL pru.-.titio.r"rs T:T
do not give them the right i.,"d .f ."1 i t a l . I t s e e m st h a t T E S O L p r a c t i t i o n e r sr t r - -
benefit more from their
i-Tor their students rather iELilutt ftom merelr' flollou'ing ELT prescription=
instance, rvhile thrg -escrlotlon oI usln ngg oonh'the 4 r r x u d K \ -I:.
t d r x q t rlanguage
I I l \ t l l c target -'
(
it becomesclear from observinq the above tou:
teac
ms that it is 1 or L2 is used that matters,$ut rather, how Ll or l=2 ca:
be used to connect r,vith students and to h"lplE.ttt ttunsform their attitudes/
ce, unlike the self-defeating
s f a bov's voice above), students i:
my studies.".-'
Cturrroo-,-,'D are not pessimistic about their life chances:"1rvant to further
rvhat the students in Classroom C tol -
feel confident about leurni.rg English."- these are
exPectatio-n'
the research.r.l6eir school resulis confirm their nen-lY-found confidenqe and
---Thecuestion th6-i one of u,hether to use L 1 or not but one of searchingfor appropriat'
"ot
L."",it" discursivepracticesr'r-ithone's orvn students.In this resPect'-weconfirm Collin'
'-:
(.1993)observationthat individual creatiYe,discursiveagencvcan make translormation
on"'rro.,ul*'o.11porrl!
outlinedbv Bourdieu(1977).
 D OI N G - E N G L I S H - L E S S ON S 2 8 5

6 Interrogating symbolic violence

Although 1\'ecan see a glimpse of hope in creative, discursive agencv in transforming our
habitus and life chances,ure cannot neglect the need for the continual interrogation ofpolver
a n d f i e l d s o f v a l u a t i o n i n t h e l a r g e r s o c i e t . " ' ( P e n n v c o o k1,9 9 ' l ; L u k e , 1 9 9 6 ) . F o r i n s t a n c e ,
found I bit of the cultural capitalthat ther,need for
studentsin Classropm-p_m.Qhlh;rr-e
'
sch6oland social through
success their te t
thei aie still in a race the rules of rrfiich arellicfZoi
alreadvwav aheadof them in the race (e .g. , ClassroomA students). T.freserules are, however,
.t tl tt,-. lll#
olten taKen lor grantec anc Percer\eo as legrilmale D\. ail Parues: teacners, stucents.
xe6sffifl-rh-dfrT-(s€€
section 2 above).
interrogation, together r,vith their students, of the role of English in their societ,vand in
their life chances to develop a critical socialtheorv ofpractice (Luke, 1996).As Pennycook
points out,

In somesenses, then,the Englishla1gytrlgg"m, alongrvith other sitesof cultural

productionandpolitical opposition,could becomea kev sitefor the renervalof both
"-
local and globalforms of knowledg-lFennvcooEJgg4-,p:'T}6,

Understanding existing practices and the sociocultural and institutional situatednessof

classroom practices is a first step tqrvards exploring the possibilitv of alternative creative,
discursive practices that might hold promise of contributing to the transformation of the
students'habitus.More of thesestoriesaw'aitanother opportunitv to be told. It is my hope
that through telling these lived stories of classroom participants, TESOL practitioners and
researcherscan gain some insights into hou- our role as teachers of English in the w.orld can
be reassessed, reconceived,and ultimatelr',repractised.

Appendix: notes on transcription

The numeral precedingeachturn is the transcribingmachine counter no.; a speaking

turn is referred to as: turn [counter no.]
Simultaneous utterances:The point at rvhich another utterance joins an ongoing one
is indicated bv the insertion of tu-o slashesin the ongoing turn.The secondspeaker
and her/his utterance(s) are placed belorv the ongoing trri., u.rd are preceded Ly'two
slashes. The latching of a secondspeakingturn to a preceding one is indicated bv a
single equal sign,"=".
Contextual information: Significantcontextual information is given in curly brackets:
e.g., { Sslaugh }
Transcriptionist doubt: Unintelligible items or items in doubt are indicated bv
question marks in parenthesesor the r'vordsin doubt in parentheses.

References

Bourdieu, P. (i973)'Cultural reproduction and social reproduction', in Brotvn, R. (ed.)

Knowledge, educationand culurcl change . London : Tavistock.
Bourdieu, P. (.1917) Outline of a theor,voJ practice(translated bv Richard Nice). Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversitvPress.
286 A N G E L I V I .Y . L I N

- socialcritiqueoJthejudgenenoJtusrc.London: Routledgeand Keg::

(1984) Distinctjon:A
Paul.
- ( 19911Language ands,vmbolicpower.Cambridge,Mass.: Harvard UniversitvPress.
Bourdieu, P., and Passeron,
I. C. (1911) Reproduction
in education, and cuhure.London
soctetSr
Sage.
'Determination
Collins,(1993) and contradiction:An appreciationand critique of the work o:
Pierre Bourdieuon languageand education',in Calhoun,C., LiPuma, E., and Postone
M. (eds)Bourdieu: Criticalperspectives, pp. 1 15-138. Cambridge:Politv Press.
Delpit, L. D. (1988)'The silenceddialogue:Pon-erand pedagogvin educatingother people.
children'. HarvardEducational Review, SE(3),280-298.
Heap, J. L. (1985)'Discourse in the production of classroomknorviedge:Readinglessons'
Curriculum l n q u i r l, l j t 3 t , 2 4 j 2 1 9 .
Heyman,R. D. (1983)'Clarif ing meaningthrough classroomtalk. Curriculum lnquiry,l3(.1t.
2342',.
Hollidav, A. (199+) Appropr)atedmethodolog,v and social context. Cambridge: Cambridge
Universitv Press.
Jenkins,R. (1992) PierreBourdieu. London: Routledge.
'Biiingualism
Lin, A. M. Y. (1996) or linguisticsegregation? Svmbolicdomination, resistance
and code-srvitching in Hong Kong schools'. Linguistics andEducation,
8(l), 49-84.
- (1997) Hong Kong children'srights to a culturallv compatibleEnglisheducation.Hon;
KongJournaloJApplied 2t21, 2148.
Linguisrtcs,
(1996) 'Genres
Luke,A. of pou.er? Literacv educationand the productionof capital',in Hasan.
R., andWilliams, G. (eds)Literacl'insociet)', pp. 308 338. London: Longman.
Mart-vn-Jones,M., and Heller, M. (1995)'Education in multilingual settings:Discourse.
identitiesand porver'. LinguisticsandEducation, 8(1), 3-15.
Mehan, H. (1979) Learninglessons: Socialorganizati'onin the classroom.
Cambridge, Mass.
Harvard Universitv Press.
Penn-vcook,A. (199+) The cuhural poliilcs of Engltshas an internationallanguage.London
Longman.
Sinclair,J. M., and Coulthard, R.M. (1975) Tbwards an analysis
oJdiscourse:TheEnglishusedb.;
teachersandpuptls.London: Oxford UniversitvPress.
StngTaoJih Poo,Niur:21 , 1998.Englishimportant for job promotion: blow' to mother-tongue
education[in Chinese].
Solomon,R. P. (1992'SBlackresistance Neu.York: StateUniversity of NewYork
in hi7h scfroo1.
Press.
 Lb+

Chapter 18

AssiaSlimani

EVALUATION OF CLASSROOM
INTERACTION

NTIL RELATMLY RECENTLY, THE TRADITION in the fieid of

languageteaching and learning has been to expect a better understanding of the
teaching/learning phenomenon bv making a broad comparison betr'veenthe learnin

ffiAhrrsrrg-ation ,hoJS-oi I qutcomes. What happened during the

implementation of the method u-as largelv ignored r,vhenit came to the evaluation of the

Wertheimer (196+\ and Smith (1970\. u-ho focus-edon outcomes and oaid
FNBhrw
l r t t l e a t t e n t r o nt o p r o c e s s . \ X
-.- t
fV D l O f
-

N t ee\
|

c h a p t e r p r o p o s e st o a n a l r s ea n d e v a l u 6 t ern' hr hf tA ti s J c l a i m e dt o b e l e a r n .e d f r o m
classroorninteraction. The method, u'hich rvill be described later, allor.r'sa detailed studl
of the classroom interactive processesin attempting to un and evaluatethe oualit
interaction u'hi defined as lrhat learners
claim to have learned from a particular lesson. 'rro*t
Importance of the study of classroom interaction

Allrwight ( 1984a) suggeststhat a high proportion of apparent mismatchesbetween teaching

and learning could be explained i
teachers' ano learners'
teacners and learners contributions.
contrlDuuons.Learning
Learnrngoutcomes
oulcomes are not necessarily tne refl
necessarllvthe rellecuonn
ofih--e teacher's plan since, in the prfess of accdnpfishing instructional objectives,
ticipants and leads to the creation of a '"vho
range or rea nv of which are perhaps unexpected
The observation of languageclassestvpicallv shou'st s not something
prepared beforehand bv the teacher and simplv implemented with the students. Instead, it
is iointlv constructed bv contributions from both parties so that learners are not iust
passivelyfed from the instructor's nlan.Thev can have preoccupationsor goals on their
p-ersonalagendasthat the) attempt to claritv during i
e x p e r l e n c et n a t a r e s s o no o e s n o t o l t e n t a K er n e c l r e c u o n n * ' a s D J E n n e tdo t a k e . o r , i f i t
does, it might neverthelessinclude or exclude aspectsthat neither the teacher nor the
---.-
l e a r n e r s h a \ e a n t l c r p a t e d .r r o D l e m s , q u e r r e s s and
ils comrnents. influenced bv the teacher's as u'ell as the learners cholo an
 r-.aO,v
I \'^'
)t7+ 288 ASSIA SLIIMANI
f,\^ I \
\-/ \.
emorronal dispositions,arise in the course of the'planned'lesson and create the learnir,.
gJ,PO't
.i;ila.fto rrom rrus pornr or r.ieu, lessonsare'co-productions'and'sociall)'construci=:
e r e n t s 'b r o u g h t t o . * i r t . . , c " , h . o u g h
pfitidTh6 learners' role in the creation of the co'production is not to be underestimate l
- how- powerful the latter .
rn compaTlsonrvith the role plaved bv the instructor. \g **5.
influence,.noteachert"u.h",withoutconsent,(Corde
er"'-dimension r'vhi;:.
ties the teacher, in his/her attempts to make instruction reler,ant and comprehensible, rlir,
the Iearners, in their attempts tounderstand instruction and manage theii olvn learninfJf
the classroom ssis disregarded then r,r'hatlearners get mjg!
rerhadintended(seealsoAlIwright1984b,19E:
of iurPrise,sucha'
exclamations
'But '
I taught them that last rveek! , are onlr'' too common in staff rooms. They bear w.itne.'
to the faci that much more than the investigation of the teacher's plan is needed to proviri.
t u l l e r e x p l a n a t i o nosf t h e l e a r n e r sr e a c t i o n s .
Seen from this point of vieu-,it a ict which linguistr
'uptaken' even before the lesson has taken . As arguedb-
items u'ill be bv learners
[ 1 9 8 + a ;e, a c ! different Iessonfor each individual earner as differer---
ngs are likell to bldralvn b)' different learners from the sqme gYent'
.---*A;fr4;Gshtb-tb.*'n,1983;Ellis1984;EllisandRathbone1987)makepri,
assumptionsabout u'hat leJ.ners might see as optimal in the input. Hence, choosinq t-
-s morphemt.
examine the teaching effect on the learners' accuracv of use of the
(Lightbou'n 198 3), ofWH-questions (Ellis 1984), and German rvord order and verb endin-;.
(Ellis and Rathbone 1987) might provide the investigators rvith the advantageof having:
rich description of the developmental stagesof such features in frrst and second langua..
development. Horvever, brvpredicting the subjects' learning outcomes, such investigatc'r:
mlght te missing out on lvhat has actuall)'attractedthe learners'attention in discourse.
Therefore.Allrr'.i =
investigationofrvhat individuai learn6rs claim to havelear nteractrve classroc,i:

ffist preceded.What fol]owi is a discussion I uptake, and of r::

ffi616,tti". t" a better understanding and evaluation of rvhat ge claimed to be learnt:
during classroom interaction

Uptake
'as
Learning a languqqeis defined bv 'some
" ' : ^ ' r ^ proponents
"rt-":'-"" of
" . - communicative
.-"- -_---: curricula learnir-t
:j .
ho[ to ."r.rr r"icate as a member of a socio-culturalgroup' (Breen and Candlin 1980:9 -
F{il-*, it is amplv acknon-ledged-hat learning a linguage is not merely a matter of recal}r:-;
beadsof items but rather of coming to grips u'ith the ideational,interPersonaland texr-'
knowledge rvhich is realised through effectiue con6ffi6i-ln ttte target langua;.
T6. one might argue that attemPri
r t l a n g u a g el e a r n i n g i n v o l v e s . I n t h i s c h a p t e r . i :
. )nell as performan,. '
(9-
fr6-*-."r, since u'e are concerned rl.ith relating learning outcomes to their immec..-.
and potentiallldeterminitffIrrlgn-ent. it appearsrather9jblllo think of r.a.'
.r;i-
aTld."." ,hr."eh ,"r,i
gettifra-aJ-lE-ar;i-rg s traditior
 E V A L U A T I O N O F C L A S S R O O MI N T E R A C T I O N 2 8 9

understood. The interactive process lends itseif to the creation of an infinite set of learning
opportunities w-hichare not pre-establishedbv the teacher'splan. In such circumstances,
it appearsto be practicalh'impossibleto undertake the complicatedtask of designinga test
to assessthe effects of interaction asit occurs, especiaiivsince the test hasto be administered
at the end of the lesson. How'ever,the major problem encountered
-'ountered when when attempt!4gtc)
attempting to---1
. . r : : ; :: : :
researchthe of the direct impaCt of rnteracr u b l e c t l-claims
s c l a l m s is
l s tthat ofl finding
hat o hndrng I
'u
i rvay to identifv and collect the learners' performance data or ce identihed, ffid. I
ilptake needsto be relatedto the classroomenr ironment u'hich Lichmight subsequentll'explain
might subsequentlv explain I
emergence.lo do thrs, uptake has to be capture
its-emergerrce.
rts ffi"q--,1
'tlook
ffi.---1-|'._----T--}-
olace.,trut before
t65k-Elf,ie.,but too m[ch
betore too cou[dFlbpen
much could happen 16
to th-e-ln6imantsthat w'ouldobscurethe
, ',.-e-
dlrectrmpactot the ..lFnt on th. l..tn".i claims. 6^-4 -|ga, ...
--TEe ffiest-based evaluationprocedures.SLA
;;;blemlia-ot
elicitation techniques rvould also fail to meet the objectives of getting unmediated learner
data. Elicitation procedures, similar to those used bv Lightbown (1983), provide the
informants with an obligatorv context of use; this enablesthe researcher to evaluate,under
experimental conditions, the informants' accuracy r,r-henusing the features which are being
investigated.Bv their nature, these procedures assumethat one is looking for particular
features w-hich are predicted from the teacher's plan. Horvever, .uvhatis needed is a rvay of
identifvinq r'vhatlearners havego,lrfrcm '+eir experience of being in a particular classsession.
*---9-;----- 'uptake'identilication
The solution eventuallv adopted to the problem of must seem
somewhat naive at first sight: simpil' asking the informants to tell the researcher rvhat thev
believed thev had leu..r.d"in ttr" t"S5o
dl-ThFprocedure outweighed its obvious shortcomings.
The great advantageof this approach is that it offers an oa9.1g11onglu'arof getting at
u.hatlearnersperceivethevhavelearned.Itmakesitpo,,ibl"@
thleimmediate environment lrom lvhich thev emerged in order to see if it is possibleto
estabIisharelationship.Theideaofrequiringlearnerstotellus@
learned n'ould supplv the researcher u'ith manageableamounts of data, directly referable
t g t h e c l a s s r o o md a t a . F o r i n s t a n c e
'list' 'least',
difference between and the investigator could trace th
anscrl nd studv the opportunities rvhere'iist' and'least'arose and scrutinisealso the
clrcumst \ ! r I I L r r r r r r t r r L lEave
I t r l s L a r l u c s ;hch-ffi-gflt r d ! c made L l r u s c ritems
l r l d u c those L c r l l s particularlv outstanding
LrLurdr l\ u L U the
u L S L d r l u r r r E to u r c point oofr / - - \
Pdr PUurr
u i l npting
prompting
Pf
rPrrut learners
l r d l l l r r 5 to ( u claim
( r d i l r r , Lthem
r r r r r r as d ) flearned.
rdr rrqu. ( -- )
,--( iqx
It should be acknowledged at this stage that I am dealing here w'ith the]earn€f/\--/
Ii the ]earn€if \--lcfi.-
'facts'.,:Flon'ever.'n qf
eotions of what
perceptions nhat thev the) believed believed thev the) har.e
have uptaken
uptaken rather rather than
than rvith'facts'.,'Flon'ever,
lvith in e r a r
' / lr6al__
t h e a b s e n c eo l a s a t i s t a c t o r vm e a n so f g e t t i n g a t l e a r n i n gi n s u c h a \ \ ' a ) a s t o r e l a t ei t t o i t s
potentialll' determining environment, a qualitative approach based on the study of uptake
seems to be an interesting phenomenon to guide investigation into a possible relationship
between interaction and learning outcomes.
Prior to moving to the description of the method, it is relevant to provide brief
information about the participants in the studl'.Thev rvere thirteen Algerian male 6rst year
universitv students at l'lnstitut National d'Electricite et d'Eiectronique (INELEC).They
were aged betw'een eighteen and tu'entv. Thev all spokeArabic as theii mother tongue and
French as a second or foreign language.Thev u,'ereon a six-month intensive language
programme (24 hours per rveek) to prepare them to undertake their engineering studies
in English. To benefit from their languagetraining, the students rvere put in small groups
(in this casethirteen) according to the results of a placement test.Their exposure to Englisn
outside their classesr,vaslimited to their classroom rvork and occasionally to listening to
folk music. Their instructor was a trained Aigerian male teacher.
 290 ASSIA SLIIVIANI

Method

Uptake
The procedure developedto collect the learners'claims about uptake rvasto distribute a
'Uptake
questionnai.e or Recall Chart' at the end of obr".u"d ldilotr-liiEii
"u".r'
rnlor mants to r.tut., i.r-iEii-i ofFiil..,"@ronun ciation anc
spelling,6nd in asmuchd.,ut!_g in the evenGTh-atTac
jdst preceded {seeAppendix 1 in this chapter for the original lavout of the Uptake Recalj
€heTt.Tfterepproximatelr three hours (before too much had happened to them, but after
enough had happened to counter immediate recenctTfr-dTiimacv e@€56h-le5iiE{ u'as
p r e F n t e d r v i t h h i s o u n u p t a k e r e c a l l c h a r t a c c o m p a n i e dt h i s t i m e w i t h a n ' U p t a k .
Identi{icationProbe'(seeAppendix 2 in this chapter for the Uptake Identification Prober.
This is another questionnaire asking the participants to annotate their uptake recall chart
by clearlv dissociating the items thev believed thev had actuall-vlegl.gdj.lbef_pg4Uglu.
-'-
lessonIIOm
leSSOn from tnOse
thosetne\:ther hacl
naCalreadY Seenlvltn
alreaclvseen \\ltn Otner
other teacners
teachersOr or tne
the Same
sameteacher
teacner Onon prevlOU:
previoui
ocEisionslh tFis u'ar', I gave the data the strongest possible chance of b,q_ing
lelatable tc
||,p+memteractionsinthIlessonb'u,ki.'gffilvestothethingsthe.
llb ,
\l , ',uu'
above ali, it ro'ur.rti-ut"d thut th. d
thought thev had learned fro.m todav's Iesson.
-EIh
instruments, m-eUFFatreRe?iII Charts and the Uptake Identification Probes, r.r-err
presented in French, a languager.vithr,r-hichthe researcherand all the learners were familiar

Learning opportunities

Once uptaken items have been identified, it is necessarvto locate them in the relevant
interactive events of t}le lessonin r,vhichthev occurred. Learners lvere observed two hour=
a w'eek during the first six lveeks of the term. To carrv out the classroom observation
procedure a high qualitv audio-recording of classsessionsrvas crucial to allow the tracing
of uptake in the learning opportunities r'r.hicharose in the lessons.Thelatter needed to have
aqoodnumberofjrrstanceso|interactir.elr.orkrr.hichcouldbecloffiot
tounderstandu'hatmadelearnersclaimuptakeintho.
rfh-erethe teacheru'oulifbFFolding the floor during the entire lessonwould not havesuited
the needs of the studr'. Holvever. a relative lack of interaction seemsto be a characteristic
of lectures rather than language classesn'here a fair amount of interactive rvork generallr
r' *6
( -, t a k e sp l a c e .
|O
-'o(A.Itu'asfeltthattheamountofinteractionocCur
D.nit-- )s ,
Y\U \ the learners'abilitv level and the "uhj'ct studied_.To produce the right conditions for the
J
f
/ : - - : r - - - - - - - - - -'"vas
---^r-r----r-
project, it assumedthat the- - -teaching
--r-:----
ofr -grammar
-,-,-,---- --t- : L -,1:-
to lor,vintermediate or, advanced
r , 1

beginners u'ould offer the most suitable atmosphere.A rveak as opposed to a strong group
, 1;of students might tend to seek more learning opportunities and pav extra attention to u'hat
on in the classroom in order to improve their languagecommand. It is noted that the
// lgo.r
subjectsof this study rvere particularlr.motivated to master the second language.Theywere
expected to take their technical subjects in English at the end of an intensive language
programme rvhich served as the setting for this data collection.
Grammar lessonsu'ere chosenbecausediscretepoints are frequently dealt with in sucn
lessonsand it is relatileiv easvto find out u-hathasbecome of items in the learners' uptak.
list. Moreover, it r,r'as assumedthat it u'assimpler for the learner to pick up discretepoint..
 E V A L U A T I O N O F C L A S S R O O MI N T E R A C T I O N 2 9 1

such asone might expect to occur during grammar lessons,remember them, and afterr,vards
list them on the charts r.r'hichr'r'ouldbe distributed at the end of the recording.
To investigate the learnrn ortunities fullv. I exhaustir
text aids. I also took notes of w-hatwent on the
blackboardto help account later for the ciaims of uptaken items.

fr; s e6 pro.1( c/
Interview %
To provide the studv r.vithcorroborative data, it',vas felt necessarv
-
to intervier,r,the subiects )
. ,' :l : /
tr,viceover the six-lveek period: once in the middle and once at the end of the data gathering. /

possiblereasonsr'vhichmade them claim the particular items thev reported on their uptake
charts. The intervie\(. \{'as also believed to allolv learners to express other ideas thev felt
rvere missing from their uptake charts. As the number of learners u,as rather ,-"i1,
"ll
thirteen could be intervie.,ved in about one hour, the same day, after the third lesson
recording.The subjectsw'ereindividuailv askedto answer the researcher'squeries n'hile the
other learners were outside the room, u.aiting for their turn to be intervielved.
The intervieu., conducted in French or in Arabic according to the learners' wishes, was
an adaptive structured intervierv u'here respondents rvere free to gir.e details on the five
issueswhich were follow'ed up u'ith all learners during the intervieu. session.The issues
could be summarisedas follolvs:

1 Clarifications (ifnecessarv) of self-reported data on the charts distributed at the end

of everv observedlesson.
2 Rationale for claiming those specific items on todav's uptake chart or, if possible, on
the uptake charts distributed at the end ofthe tvvo previous observed lessons.
3 PossiLilitiesfor the learnersto extend their percepiion, of those items.
+ Reactions to the benefits or otherwise of completing the charts at the end of everv
taped grammar lesson.
5 Feelingsabout the researcher'spresence and the tape-recorder in the back of the
classroomduring the lesson.

The second question, about the reasons for claiming certain items instead of others,
was found to be most problematic to the respondentsas some remained evasivervhile others
rri
produced overgeneralisedstatements as to r,r'hatmade them claim those items.They w'ere
unable to tell the researcher the reasons which made anv oarticular item outstandinq in
;iat
-\r.r
disco-uragddthe researcher from intervielving a second time as this question was the focus
of the interview'.
The respondents produced responsesthat rvere insufficientlv precise to be interpreted
in relation to *'hat might account for their claims. BecauseI u'as observing the same group
for the period of six weeks I could have trained the informants by asking perhaps more
detailed and specific questions about lr'hat most attracted their attention in classroom
discourse. However, as I had never even conducted an intervielv b"fo.gJ.uargfu{to lgl
words in the learners' mouths. Moreover, being miles arvayfiom anv professionalconsultant,
Idiffiprocedureandruntheriskofunderminingthedatagathering'
The intervier,vhad to be given r,r'ithinthe six observational',veeksas the learners'responses
had to relate to these oreciselvobservedevents.
 292 ASSIA SLIIVIANI

Method effect

I am avr-areof the fact tlrat the methodological procedure used to collect the data can strod
f-!{h._j!bjects'consciousness of the learning process and might, by the same token,
t
p O l l u t e t h e C l a t a . I t u s \ , \ O U I C In a v e D e e n t n e C a S el I t n e C I a S SO D S e r \ - a t l O n n a c l a s t e c l O V e r a l o n g
-!?ri"Tl-iffi. I u.ashou'ever,onlv thinking of observingtr,r.ohours a week during six weeks
of the informants' timetable, rvhich amounted to trventv-four (24) hours of intensive English
lessonsper rveek. It seemed rather unlikelv that the methodological procedure would have
anv maior effect on the subiects'behaviour.
How.ever,to confirm this supposition, the results of the MichiganTest were used.This
test w.asalready being used, at the beginning of the programme, as a placement test to
determine the learners' abilitv levels.This procedure produced four groups, one of which
rvasthe group under st"d,".T ,i jJbg_lhlgg-ge, for the purpose of the project, considered
as control groups. All four groups r'vere folloui -
6r,-vnpace.Without telling the learners in advance,the same test was again administered to
the experimentai group, as',vell as to the three control groups, after the six observational
periods. The pre- and post-test results u'ere inspected to see whether the study qroups
I

progress nad Deenslgnlncanil\'lnlluenceo Dv tne ettects oI tne oeslgn. ---^+

.f,fl t
T h b t el 8 . l s u m m a r i s e st h e r e s u l t so f t h e p r e - a n d p o s t - M i c h i g a n T e s trse s u l t s( T l a n d
T2 on the table).The table shou'sthe averagescore obtained bv the participants in the studr
to be slightlv higher (7+.76) than the one achievedbv group 2 (72.66).In comparison,the
averagescore ofgroup 2 dois not overtake that ofgroup 1, and neither does group 4 over
group 3. It seemsrather unreasonablehorver.erto attribute this slight improvement whollv
to the procedure itselfas it rvasapplied on onlv trvo hours ofinstruction out of 24 hours a
week.The merit I can seethe dure objectiveiv deriving from this
it did
the m to have negativelv affecte grouP.
The total percentage increase for each group FTrepFeFei'tation, within the whole
programme, of the students' languagetraining development in the {irst six weeks. It appears
to happen in an expected *'av: the low'er groups shorvmore progressthan group 1 (20 .65% t
and 2 (37.53%). This increase in languagedevelopment is quite comprehensible since
k n o u i nJg m u c h l e s sa t t h e o u t s e to f t h e p r o g r a m m e- s. r o u D sJ t 5 7 . 8 8 0 o l a n d4 ( 1 0 3 . 1 2 0 0 r
.--

huyg-lqq."-tegfn fodrnprovement. The total percentage IO

increasetherefore does not displar
anv convincing sign in favour of an interfering methodological design.The learners in group
3 , in spite of my demandson them at the end of eachof the observed sessions,do not achiele
in any markedil' different manner than what rvould be expected from them if one thought
that the procedure could have influenced the quantitv of their learning.
In summarl., t$'o tvpes of data r.veregatheredfor the investigation of the issu@gli
specific claims collected through uptake charts and detailed accounts of thE learning
tunrtres obtalned through systematlc rvatlon ol audlo-recor naturall\
occurnng c m data.Thesew'ere supp ted wrth held notes taken bv the author.
--- r-
u'asintended to protide corroborativedatadidnot produce responser
The intervielr-'r,r'hich
that uere suthclentlv preclse to De lnterpreted ln relatlon to u'hat m elr
+-1-,.
the end,the bulk of nhat migtri
claims.-ln us find out abouTTfi€ rs selecu\-e
ffiiTiiln rnechanism would have to arise from a consideration of classlgom_tranlglipls in
relation to uptake charts
".
directed th"i.
-
Both the teacher and the iearners under studl' rvere informed in general terms of the
goals of the research. Both parties u'ere told thai the project *-ur r.-.ki.,g a relationship'
 E V A L U A T I O N O F C L A S S R O O MI N T E R A C T I O N 2 9 3

lncreasefor eachgroup
Table1E.I Averagescoresand Percentage

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3* Group4

SS T1 T2 SS T1 T2 SS T1 T') SS T1 T2

/o
18088 i 53 70 150 85 73
27583 2 a'7 73 250 72 36 81
37+84 3 )+ 79 348 58 35 63
+ 67 83 + 53 78 ++7 83 3+ 71
ql
56276 5 58 545 82 2',)
l8
66178 6 48 6++ 30 37
7 60 75 7 52 63 l+3 66 29 53
85064 8 52 76 8+2 84 11 )+

95875 9 .1
)l 70 9+1 77
10 58 75 10 l1
fl 58 10 +1 11
11 51 78 1l 50 78 11 +1 58
1l 50 1+ 12 39 72
12 50 -/ t2 39 12
13 38 70

For Each Group

AuerageScores

T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2

6 + . 72 78.09 52.82 12.66 ++ 5 3 7+.76 l2 55

For Each Group

oJIncrease
Percentage

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

20.650k 37.53% 61.88% 1 0 3l 2 0 A

xgroup under studr'

between what the informants report as'uptake' and the interactive process in which the
classpart Hou'ever, I did rvith them, not rvanting t
"@ail
Gache ue emphasisto linguistic items in order for learners to remem
manv as possible.It rn'as ImEThFGuaf ttaching and learning situati
inflilA&fb.r_aFfii; participan-ffi ii5n-ioth-rresearcher'sfocusof interest.
-ln 'uptake
frTatT5'hen fill inEGTTFF-up
tact, lvhen hlling out the lesson,
charts at the end ot the hm-t-ODSeTTaUORaI
it was noticed that some learners tried to peep at their peers' charts to enable them to
report more items than thev actualiv could. At this point it rvas emphasisedto the subjects
that they should look upon the author as an outsider, a researcher rather tltan as a teacher,
and that rvhatever reports and comments thev made u'ould be entirelv confidential.Their
reports olr.. th"ir,
grades.
----A;t
ttas planned to observe the same teacher rvith the same group for tu'o hours a
u.eek for six rveeks,the procedure became routine and mv presencer,vasacceptedrvith ease
 294 ASSIA SLIMANI

after the first hour ot

bv the learners.The instructor also appearedmuch more relaxed
e
otretuation. erl 'realh',
r-ies-istan-e6d avoidanceon the part of the staff members u.ho alluded to the fact that
n-as
not much is going on in our classesright nor'v'. The procedure discussedin this chapter
the teachers particularlv apprehensive at having
part of u doftorJ project and this made
'dissected'and looked at through'magnifving' lensesfor research
iheir lesso.rs PurPoses.
How-ever,I persisted in spite of their anxietv as their refusal could mean the end of mv plans
Therefore, i re-ain indetted to the'chosen' teacher lvho, knowing that he could not openlv
in the back oi
refuse me u,ithout losing face, gracefullv adjusted to mv persistent Presence
his classes.
The rest of the chapter rnill describe some of the tentative findings (see Slimani 1987
for a fuller report) *.tri.n might help us understand the relationship betrveen the classroom
Tu'o
interactive processesand uptake, and their consequencesfor evaluation studies.
interesting characteristi., of ,tpt"k" emerged in the investigation of the learners' uptake
charts.Th"e first characteristic is that most of the learners' .l"i-t *.t" topi.ulit"d
instruction.ThesecondisthatleaInerJ;@othaspeiG.frll
EeTrscuis-ed in detail belolr'.

Importance of topicalisation on uptake

A thorough studv of the inforinants' Uptake Charts and Uptake Identification Probes shouec
that a total of 126items w-ereclaimed to har,ebeen learned.These items w-ereverbs, nouns.
adjectives,adverbs,connectors, auxiliaries,models and some set phrases.Almost all (11i
Ite-r €FgnFJfitrof what rhe respondents claimed to have seen and learned for the firs:
ti-" i., th*i* observed lessons, s
n s t r u c t i o n .1 1
iinstruction. 122o
out off 1
ut o 2 6 were-glvsrl-sorqesort of promin
126 ' t c,:
being the topic "
{orN-rsffi-n nrhiG-iEEleilaining fourteen items or 11 per cent happened as part o:
classroom lnteractlon \\-ltn no [i upon tEern.The follorvin;
the various means used to focus upon o- ose items claimec
"iZdptr-ill"strate ' l e a s t ' ,' l i s t ' , ' l i k e ' , ' l o o k a f t e r ' , ' l o o k l i k e ' , ' m a t c h ' , ' i n o r d e r t o '
t o h a v eb e e n l e a r n e d :

1 T: What'sthe dtferencebetween leastand |ist?

[pointing at both items r'vritten on the board]'
2 T: The mother looks after her son at insr;-:
home. Canvouuseanotherwordor expression
oJlook aJter?
L1: Don't rt'orrv.
L2: Not rvorried but uh the sameuh.
L3: Uh, take care.
3 T: OK. When I sat'uh this car is like that one, w'hatdoes'like'mean?
L4: Similar.
L5: Almost the same.
T: OK. Norv,John'snerv car looks almostthe same.Whatis'looks'?
L6: Tosee...
T: To see,uhuh. So,canvoureplace'tolook'hereby'tosee'andsay'John's newcarsees alm::
thesame?
4 T: Let's see the instructions given here and see if thev match. To match, that'sa n:"
word,I think [writesit on board].Tomatch.[,] long explanation with atrcmPtstoJi-:

rynonvmsJollows.l
5 T: OK,in orderto.What doesthat mean?
 E V A L U A T I O N O F C L A S S R O O I VI IN T E R A C T I O N 2 9 5

In the abovecasesthe upta become the ostensible

,----a r-,:-. , G
toprc ot tne con\ersauonratner man DerngsrmPt\a Part ot ctassroomdrscourse.I ne eplsocles
d e a t l n g\ 4 - l t ht h e s ep a r t r c u l a rl e a l u r e sa r e a l s os e e nt o b e l e r m r n a t e db \ .s o m ef e e d b a c kl r o m
the teacher r,vhichmight be expected to be interpreted bv learners asindicating that an item
is worth paying attention to.
The differencebetween the fourteen (11 per cent) and 112 (89 per cent) items claimed
to have been learned during the sessionsunder studv is that the latter had, to a greater or
l e s s e re x t e n t , b e e n t h e s p e c i f i ct o p i c o [ i n s t r u c t i o n b r h a r i n g t h e i r m e a n i n g ,t h e i r s p e l l i n q ,
t h e i r p r o n u n . i u t i o nu n d ' - -
b) ffi s'here learners
ofTEe?treersJhe teacher is seen to interl'ene bv approving the provision of information,
It must be emphasisedhorver,er that this does not imed
items were intended to be taught prior {-o the iessons.Manv of them, as the following
elamples sho'w',arose incidentallv in the qourse of events and becamq topics in discourse
t=:-

6: L: . . . Bob/bought/five booksand Georgedid too.

T: Bob?Whatdid he do? [Teacherinterrupts]
L: Five books
T: What did he do?
L: /bought/
LL: Bought Icorrect pronunciation]
T: Bought.Which r.erb is that?
L: To buv.
T: To buv, bought bought
7 T: . . . OK. Did vou like it?
L: Y e s .r ' e s .I l i k e i t .
T: Yes,I?
L: Y e s I, l i k e di t .
T: Yes,I liked it or I did.

It appears,then, that within the limits of the analysisso far of the uptaken items, instruction
has exercised a rather positive impact on the subjectssince 1 12 out of the 125 items claimed
to have been learned for the first time during those observed lessonshavebecome, however
momentaril), teaching points. How-ever,a close examination of the data suggeststhat the
above statement alone is far from establishinsthe instructor s suDremacvas a learning
facilitator. A further investigation *tua rt
it6ffiFTEai-are claimed as ne\\' acquisitions in relation to those rvhich have apparently been
the subject of similar intentions and treatment but rvhich failed to lead to anv claims on the
part of the subjects.
To evaluatethe proportion of u'hat has been claimed to be learned from rvhat has been
pedagogicallv focused upon in some \\rav during those six instructional sessions,the sum
total of the topicalised items rvas counted independentlv of rvhether thev had been claimed
as ne\\'or otherlvise on the iearners'uptake charts.The results are summarised inTable
18.2 where column 1 indicatesthe total number of items tooicalisedin eachlesson.Column
2 presents the total number of items which are both focused upon and also claimed by at
least one learner to have been learned. Column 3 introduces those which have not led to
any positive assertion on the part of the subjects despite the attention paid to them, and
column 4 dispiavs the total number of items u'hich have been claimed to be partlv or
completelv familiar alreadv and therefore'ineligible' for learning claims in the context of
 296 ASSIA SLIMANI

TableI E.2 Effect of topicaiisation

2 J I

IESSONS Total No of Topicaltsed

and Topicalised
but Topicalised
but
topicalisedttems claimed not claimed known

1 +0 17 I6 0l
2 55 21 l) 12
3 JI 16 12 03
A
60 31 15 1+
5 31 11 19 0l
6 )1 15 07 09

TOTAL )56 tt2 92 52

100% +3.15% 35.930

o 20.310k

this stud\'.The data of the last coiumn lvere derived from the answ.ersto questions b, c, and
d on Upiake Identification Probes u-hich rvere distributed to help learners dissociate the
items thev believed thev had learned during the observed lessonsfrom those thev had already
encountered in different circrimstances.Theobserved lessonsin which these items occurred
againcouid not fullv justifv their'uptakinf;@Lrave3 ed in situationswhich

ffitopicalisedcasespror.idinglearningopportunities[or
the class, 92 failed to attract the learners' attention and 52 u.ere claimed to be somewhat
known as they had alread-vencountered them in earlier events unrelated to this study. In
'reached
other rvords, +3.75 per cent focused episodeshave the target', while 35.93 per
cent went compietelv unnoticed and 20.31 per cent lr'ere alreadyto some extent familiar
to the subjects.
The abovefigurespror-ideus u-ith a picture of the'svllabusasreality'as opposed
.svllabusu.pIu,'iTh.r..themidsttlinteractive
j!-:Tk-dffiST-the participants. The on-going interaction leads to the creation of a whole
range of learning opportunities, some of r'vhichare the results of the teacher's plan; others

,'('f
s',,"#
arise as a br.-product of the plan, but some others arise independently of any intentions,
perhapsas a b-v-productof classroominteraction.
No precise comparison can be made u'ith th"'tr'll.b,tt u. pl. u. u
\(o\ syllabuswhich attempts to predict rr-hatis likelr-to be learned from a planned learning
e,"
65idc-t1ves.I w'asgiven the title of the structure to be taught and the series of exercisesin
the textbook to practise the grammatical features to be introduced to the group.
Hence, the detailed stud-vof the classroomdiscoursehas revealed that about 44 per
been pedasosicalh' Even
ough the teacher's objectives *.ere geared torvard the teaching of some particular
structural features,most of the 44 per cent $€re lexical items claimed to be seenand learned
for the first time in those observed e\.ents.Nevertheless it would be misleading to conclude
that the lessonsw-erenot successfulbecauselearners did not claim many' of the structural
objectir,esthe teacher had on his plan. Although it might be suggestedthat the shortage of
grammatical claims is due to the possibilitv that it is much easierto report lexis because
 E V A L U A T I O N O F C L A S S R O O MI N T E R A C T I O N 2 9 7

this does not require the use of metalanguage,in fact, a close perusal of the learners' uptake
charts demonstrates that the informants were perfectlv capableof reporting n'hat ,,venton
during the course of the iessonsin terms of grammar. Bv and large, learners succeededin
accounting for the teacher's structural intentions bv reporting the title if not w-riting the
main points of the sessions.Some er.eniliustrated the teacher's focus of instruction bv
providing examples of sentencesto shou. their comprehension or at least familiaritv witl
what naJtaugtrf.firi. suggeststhat the informants did not lack the means of expressing the
structural obj ectives.
It is believed that one of the reasons r.vhvlearners did not report as manv structural
features as lexical ones is that se\-eralof these features u'ere aireadv familiar to the class.Irr
fact, it is not surprising that most of the structural features emphasisedduring instruction
were not reported as nelvlv learned becausemost of them, if not all of them, 'i'r.'ere part of
the svllabus in high school. For instance, onlv one informant claimed to have seen and
learned the passii and active voicesfor the fiist time during the observedevents.In fact,
these affirmations are confirmed bv the 20 per cent of topicalisedepisodesin the lesson
which rvere claimed to be part of the learners' prior knorvledge. One could add that after
a few hours of teaching, second languageinstruction becomes verv much remedial as
structural features are p"resentedu.rd iepi"rented for a review'.
It looks as if the learners' claims are somer'r-hatdifferent from n.hat the teacher has
planned for them. His intentions might havehelped learners to rehearsealreadyencountered
(if not mastered) structural features. How'ever,in the process of carrying out the plan, the
'tLe
interactive work has lent itself to creation of a r,vholerange of perhaps unexpected and
beneficialevents(at least,to some learnersif not to all).The learners'claims (44 per cent
on Table 18.2) remain a combination of the teacher'sobjecti'l'esbut also their bv-product
as lvell asthe bv-product of the classroominteraction. For thesereasons,therefore, attempts
to evaluate the learning outcomes againstthe teacher's plan can be misleading if one does
not take into account the mediating interacti\.e processesrvhich characteriseclassroom
interaction.
In vielr' of the data expressed in the table. therefore. the teacher's influence over the
subjects'learningdid not revealitselfto be asstrong assuggestedearlier sinceapproximatelv
55 per cent of w-hathas been focused upon did not apparentlv bear anv immediate fruit: 20
per cent lvere claimed to be alreadvfamiliar and 35 per cent rvere not, in anv w'av,mentioned
bv the learners.
It should be pointed out that about 77.45 per cent of the topicalisationwas effectedbv
the teacher.This is not particularlv surprising in vierv of the fact that the discourse rvas
unidirectionallv controlied bv the teacher, u-ho did 45 per cent of the talking.What appears
to be strikinglv interesting though is that a further analvsisof the effect of the teacher's
versusthe learners' scarceopportunities (22.54 per cent) for topicalisationshowedthat the
latter offered much higher chancesfor items to be uptaken. Learners benefited much more
from their peers'rare instancesoftopicalisation than from the teacher's.
A close scrutinv of the theme of topicalisation reveals that topics initiated bv learners
attracted more claims from the learners than the ones initiated bv the teacher.The analvsis
shorvsthat out of 46 items initiated bv the iearners, 34 (73.9 per cent) $'ere claimed,
whereas onl,v78 (49 .4 per cent) out of 158 u-ere claimed *'hen topicalisedbl'the instructor.
Thus, the chances for claims are much higher ."vhenitems are triggered by classmates.A
further emphasis on the profitabilitv of the learners' initiation is that it attracts more
reporters than rvhen topics are brought up bv the teacher.
Bv limiting to himself the initiative of topicalisingmost items for instruction, the teacher
does not give the learners much opportunitv to distinguish betrveen items which are
298 ASSIA SLIMANI

important and those lvhich are not.To this particular teacher evervthing lvas relevant. It is
therefore possible that the reason r'r'hv the participants of this studl were not affected
by the teacher's efforts is that in his attempts to focus their attention on everything, no
specificaspectappearedasparticularlv prominent in his discourse.Having little opportunitv
to raise topics for instruction, learners might have made some features outstanding to their
peers if only for the reason that, coming from learners, topicalisation appeared as a
memorabie event rather than the routine procedure of the teacher (see Slimani 1989 for
further details).
Finallv, in this discussionit is u.orth mentioning that the majoritv of the unnoticed or
'lost'
items (36 per cent) are instancesof error treatment provided most often by the
teacher.Their analvsishas allon-ed the identi{rcation of a limited number of features which
differentiate their treatment from that allocated to the topicalised and claimed items ( 1 12,
or 44 per cent). As the illustrations belou' show-,it appearsthat absenceof metalanguagein
the teacher's talk and straight pror.ision, most often bv the teacher, of the correct form of
the item under focus, w-ithout further involvement from the teacher or the learners,
characterisethe strategiesused to deai'uviththese items (see examples 8, 9, 10 below).
Cueing br-the teacher is another common corrective strategy sometimes followed by the
immediate pror,ision of the expected forms bv the speakerhimself, if he sw'iftlv managesto
spot the error (example 1 1), bv his peers (example 12) but lessoften by the instructor.
8 L: . . . and uh sometimesuh onWednesdav.
T: And sometimeson\Arednesdays. Whv onWednesdays?

9 L: . . . I looking for mv pen.

T: You are looking for vour pen.

10 L1: . . . [Readingfrom the book] Bob drink a glass.

L2: Drinks flnterrupts the speaker].
L2: Bob drinks a glassof milk everv dav and George does too.

11 L: Pencilshavebeen sharp
T: Sharo?
L: SnarDened
T: Sharpened,ves.

12 L: . . . The simplest method is bv srvimming on one side.The rescuerpulls the victim

bv the /hair,/
L S : H a i r ,h a i r [ c o r r e c tp r o n u n c i a t i o n ]
T: Yes,hair,br the hair.All right , . .

Nearlv a third of the lost items consists of corrections of tenses and -s morphemes.
Informants can, holvever, be assumedto be alreadv familiar with these features as they have
been the explicit content of instruction in other l.r.orr. or in high school. Despite preloious
exposure to explicit explanation ofthe rules and recurrent repetitions ofthe correct forms
of these features, the subjectsof this studv persisted in misusing them when using the target
language.It is possible that the informants are not ready to learn these structures as part of
their interlanguage svstem and consequentlv their continued treatment remains pointless.
at least, at this stage of their training. It is rvidelv accepted that features such as the use of
articles bv Arab speakersand some of the -s morphemes, for many English as a second
languagespeakers,remain unmastered in oral production tili an extremely advancedstage
of their training even if these features are explicitlv known to the trainees. This situation
makes us question the necessitv or otheru'ise of attempting to keep on correcting features
 E V A L U A T I O N O F C L A S S R O O MI N T E R A C T I O N 2 9 9

w.hich have been persistentlv dealt rvith but still remain largelv ignored by some learners
during verbal interaction (see Slimani 1987 for further quantitative and qualitative analysis
of error treatment in this setting).

\r]L^'A'
:'t^/LI
Learnerst idiosvncracies
C",kt
J

The second characteristicwhich emerged fromlhe investigationof the learners'claims is

that uptake is highl,vidios,vncratic The}4rcl:hglfularlv revealing for evaluation which
qenerallv assumesthe effect of instruction is somehorv uniT6iilI6r most
ffiss. Such evaluation takes aslts starting point the teacher's plan u.-hic-FIFGxp-eEI&ITd
---#
control what learners r,vouldseeas optimal in the teaching.Even though the teaching in thrs
particular setting was not differentiated in anv obvious w'ay,i.e., in the sensethat different
learners w'ere given different tasks, it appears that tvpicaliv only very ferv learners at any
one time happened to take the information in. Table 18.3 illustrates the extreme
individualitv w.ith which learners react to instruction. It presents the total number (N) of
items or linguistic features ( 125) reported to havebeen learned during the observed sessions
as well as the percentage of claims associatedrvith them and the number of reporters that
eachcasehas attracted.

Table18.3 Percentageof claimsmadebv reporters on eachlinguisticfeature

,l

N of items (i 26) %oof claims N ofreporters

37.30% l5
20 -t).d/ 2
27 21.+2 3

Total 14.59ok

7 5.s5 4
5 3.96 5
10 1.93 6
3 2.38 7
3 2.38 8

Total22.20o/o

1 0.79 9
2 1.58 l0
1 0.79 11

T o t a l3 . 1 6 %

The results point to the fact that as manv as 74.59 per cent of the total number of claims
are reported bv no more than three learners at a time, and no felver than 37. 30 per cent of the
total are reported b1'onlv one person at anv one time. A negligible percentage(3. 15 per cent)
of claims is simultaneouslvmade bv nine, ten or elevensubjects.Thesefigures expressthe high
level of individualitv' and'autonomr,' u.-ithu.hich some subjectsmight face instruction.The
3OO ASSIA SLIMANI

frgures are particularlv striking as the teaching stvle was not individualised in anv sense'It
w"asunidirectionallv addresseJ to the class as a u'hole. One, therefore' might expect the
sameitemsorlinguisticfeaturestobeclaimedbvmanvl"u..'".'W
is that individual learners reacted individuall-v despite the centrality ol'the teaching style- .
Further evidence that learners s lvhen underqoirlg-mstructions is a
clearly illustrated in the 1 1 per cent o. fo,rrGEi-uptuken_itemsthat w'ere mentioned earlier
,r.de. th. heading of the importance of topicalisation.While 1 12 linguistic features claimed
to be learned *"*." the focus of instruction, fourteen happened as a part of the classroom
where
discourse lvithout anv specific attention drau.n to them. Despite a teaching situation
the classroom discourse is highly controlled bv the teacher and does not involve anv grouP
w.ork activity, learners hur,. ,ho*rl considerableindividual reaction bv claiming items which
did not ,"."iu" anv kind of attention in terms of topicalisation, as defined earlier.The above
for learners
proportion might have been even higher if the teacher had allow-edmore room
t o e x D r e s st h e m s e l v e s .
Wt lt" some of the 1 1 per cent of t}e claims rvere traced back as part of the discourse
to deal u.ith classroom routlnes, some \'vere not found at ali in the transcripts.To explain
their presenceon the learners' uptake charts, one can only assumet}at what'"vent on during
the lessonspossiblv reinforced some previous learning and brought those particular words
back to the iearners' minds.The r,vord'slippers',for instance,remained a complete myster\
as I did not even recail the teacher having dealt, horvever remotely, with a situation which
might have led to such a claim on the part of the learner. Moreover, the examination of tht
l."i.r..r' charts revealed aiso'the presence of a felr. examples of appropriate generalisation.
For instance,n'hen the lvords'thick','thickness', and'thin' w'ereexplained,one of the most
able learners reported having learned the w-ord'thinness' even though the latter_wasnot
'.rurrou" r,vasalso claimed to have been learned b-v the sam.
uttered in class.The rvord
'thick' 'thin'.
learner in relation to and
It is interesting to notice here this learner's tendencv to generaliseso successfullyfron:
a lesson event that he can believe the generalisation rvas taught. In this respeclr iI has been.
suqqestedthat one of the good Ianguagelearner's attributes is to be able to organisetht
d
or-

Conclusion

The problem of making sense of instruction seems to lie in the difficultt' of findin.
appropriate researchtechniquescapableof evaluatinglearning outcomes in relation to inpu:
f"iflr paper, input is seen as a co-production bl the participants in an instructional setnn;
\\.
und ther.fore renders the task of using traditional testing measuresrather difficult.
attempted to find a rvav of relating the learners'claims to their immediate interactir.
environment.
The technique used proved to be a useful means of shedding light on rvhat is ciaim.:
to be learned from the on-going interactive w.ork rvhich takes place in the classroom. B'
asking }earners to reflect on theii perceptions ofrvhat thev have uptaken, one could see. :'
examlning the interactive lvork, some of the factors lvhich characterise the emergenct -
these particular uptaken features.
M o r t o f t h e l e a r n e r s ' c l a i m s r v e r e t o p i c a l i s e d . I n t h i s s e n s e ,W h i t e ' s ( 1 9 : -
recommendations seem to broadlv match the present teacher'sbehaviour in this particu---
context. She suggeststhat
 E V A L U A T I O N O F C L A S S R O O MI N T E R A c T I O N 3 O }

We should not be afraid occasionallvto provide input udich is ex

. . . the form of grammatical teaching, of correction, or other
p ar ticu] ar str uctur es frnl sisl; at \\'orst, it u-ill!9_1 it mav tri
e 19871
: 08)

Bringing particular linguistic featurer to th. .lurt'r utt""t s to be a rather valuable

Cnu.uCterrStt tOn. \1F
lne lact tnat most ot the'lost'items lr'ere error correction doesnot necessarilvcontracli-ct
the effect of topicalisation.Learners mal not be readv to internalise particular structural
featuresdespite their persistent explanation and correction. Correction is often seen, in
this studv, to be provided in an erratic and confusing manner.The studv revealed that r,vhile
some uptaken features r,vereproducts of the teacher's plan, others rvere bv-products of the
plan or perhapsofthe classroominteraction.
These uptaken items, u'hich represent 44 per cent of the participants' interactive
efforts, are revealed to be highlv idiosvncratic. The detailed analvsisof the interactive
processeshas shou'n that different features of the same event haveh"". ,,pt'Lo' h..lifferent
Iearners.Veryft"'ltems *ere claime Moreover,.w.hilemanv
ffif,t.r
of the claihs could be traced in the transcripts as having received some kind of emphasis
on the part of the participants, mostlv of the teacher, others merelv occurred as part of the
classroom interaction or did not feature at all in the text, suggestingthat learners reacted
with some autonomv to u.hat $'ent on during the interactive event.
Viewing input as co-produceihbv the p'articipantshas highlighted idiosyncrasy and
topicalisation as particularlv relevant to evaluation studies which generallv tend to assess
learning outcomes on the basisof the teacher'sobjectives:these objectives are subsequentlr
assumedto be learned bv most learnersin the class.A test basedon the teacher'sobjectives
would have taken into consideration the features rvhich the teacher planned to treat. Such
a test would, bl- its nature, ignore the verv manv other features u-hich incidentalll arose
during the actual classroom interaction, some of rvhich learners claimed to have benefited (
" \
--BEfuse
of the finding that r,vhat actualh' gets topicalised during the classroom
interactive r,vork is different from the teacher's plan, and because uptake is strongly
idiosyncratic,it is therelore not helpfu] to usethe teacher'splan asa measuringrod lor what
h a sb e e nu p t a k e f il r o m t h e l e s s o n I. n f a c t .a c o n s i d e r a t i o n
o f t h e a c t u a lc l a s s r o o mi n t e r a c t i v e
wo?F wEch charicterises second languageinstruction and a studv of learner idiosyncrasv
might help us gain a better understanding of the complexities of second languageteaching
and learning.This understanding might subsequentlt'inform the improvement of evaluations
of what actually gets learned from languageprogrammes.

References

'\lbrking
Allwright, R.L. (ed.) (1975a) papers: Ianguageteaching classroom research'.
Department of Languageand Linguistics,Universit\. of Essex,England.
Allw-right,R.L. (1975b)'Problemsin the studv of the teacher'streatmentof learnererror', in
Burt and Dulav: 96-109.
- (1983)'The nature and function ofthe svllabusin ianguageteachingand learning'.
Unpubhshed mimeograph. Department of Linguistics and Modern English Language,
LancasterUniversitv.
- (1984a)'Wh)-don't learnerslearn r,r'hatteachersteach?Theinteractionhvpothesis',in
302 ASSIA SLIMANI

D. M. Singleton and D. G. Little (eds) Languageleaming inJormal and t{ormal contexts,pp.

3-18.Dublin:IRAAL.
- 'The
(19S4b) importance of interaction in classroom languagelearning'. Applied
Linguistics,52: 156-1 1.
- 'The
11984c) analvsisof discoursein interlanguagestudies:the pedagogicalevidence', in
Davies,Criper and Horvatt.
- (1988)'Autonomv and individualisation in rvhoie-class instruction',inA. Brookesand P
Grundv (eds) lndilidualizatrcnand autonomfin languagelearning,pp. 35-44. ELT
Documents 131. London: N{odernEnglishPublications,British Council.
Breen, M.P. and Candlin, C.N. (1980)'The essentialsof a communicativecurriculum in
languageteaching', AppliedLinguistics 1(.2):89-112.
s s e c o nlda n g u a g el e, a r n i n g ,
B u r t , M . a n d D u l a v , H . C . ( 1 9 7 5 1O n T E S O L ' 7 5 . | t e wd i r e c t i o ni n
teaching andbilingualeducation.Washington, D.C. : TESOL.
Corder,S.P.(1977)'Teachingand learningEnglishasa secondlanguage:Trends in researchand
practice',in H.D. Brown, C.A.Yorio, and R.H. Crvmes (eds)OnTESOL'77.Teaching and
learning Englishas a secondlanguage:trendsin researchand practice.Washington, D.C.:
TESOL.
Davies,A., Criper, C. and Howatt, A.P.R. (eds) (198a) hterlanguage. Edinburgh:Edinburgn
UniversitvPress.
Ellis, R. (1984)'Can svntax be taught?:a studv of the effectsof formal instruction on the
acquisitionofWH questionsbv children'. AppliedLinguistics 5(2): 138-55.
E l l i s , R . a n d R a t h b o n e ,M . . ( 1 9 8 7 ) ' T h e a c q u i s i t i o no f G e r m a n i n a c l a s s r o o mc o n t e x t ' .
Unpublishedreport. EalingCollegeof Higher Education.
Fanselow,l. (1971)'The treatment of learner error in oral work' . ForeignLanguage Annals I0
s 8 39 3 .
Krashen, S.D. (1980)'The theoretical and practical relevanceof simple codes in second
Ianguageacquisition', in R. Scarcellaand S.D. Krashen (eds) Researcfr in second language
acqusition,pp. 7-1 8. Rou'le1,Mass.: Nen'bury House.
- ( 1981)Second language acquisitionandsecond languagelearning.Oxford: PergamonPress.
- ( 1982) Principles jn
andpractice second language NewYork: Pergamon.
acquisition.
'Exploratorv
Lightbown, P.M. (1983) relationshipsbetu'eendevelopmentaland instructionai
sequencesin L2 acquisition',in H.W Seligerand M.H. Long (eds) Classroom orienteri
research in secondlanguageacquisition, pp. 21745. Rorvlel',Mass.:Newbury House.
'Some
MacFarlane,J.M. (1975) tvpes of psvchologicaldiscussionthat help to establishthe
teacher'streatmentof error asa fruitful variablefor investigation',inAlhvright (1975ar
p p .4 - 6 3 .
Morray',M. (1916)'INELEC:Team'vvork in an EST program', in BritishCouncilTbamteaching ir
ESP'.ELT Document 106. ETIC Publications.
'What
Rubin, J. (.1975) the "good languagelearner"canteachus' . IESOI @rarterly 9( 1): 41-5 1
Scherer,A. andWertheimer, M. (196+) A psvcholinguistic
experimentinJoreignlanguage teaching
NervYork: McGraw' Hill.
'The
Slimani,A. (1987) teaching-learning relationships:Learningopportunitiesand learnin-g
outcomes. An Algerian case studv'. Unpubhshed doctoral dissertation, Lancaster
Universitv, England.
- ( 1989) The role of topicalisationin classroomlanguagelearning. System77: 223 34.
Smith, P.D. (1970) A comparison oJ the cognittveand audiolingualapproachestoforeign langua;:
instruction:ThePennyslvania FordgnLanguageProlect.Philadelphia,Penn.: The Center fo:
Curriculum Development.
Spada,N.M. (1987)'Relationships betrveeninstructionaldifferencesand learningoutcomes:'
process-product studv of communicative Ianguageteaching'. Applied Linguistics8(2
131-61.
 E V A L U A T I O N O F C L A S S R O O MI N T E R A C T I O N 3 0 3

'What
Stern, H.H. (1975) can rve learn from the good languagelearner?'CanadianModern
L a n g u a g e R e v i3e1w: 3 0 4 1 8 ; a i s oi n K . C r o f t ( e d . ) ( 1 9 8 0 )R e a d i n gosn E n g l i s h
a sa s e c o n d
language:for teachers andteacher tainees(2nd edition). Cambridge,Mass.:Winthrop.
White, L. (1987)'Againstcomprehensible input: the input hvpothesisand the der,eiopmentof
secondlanguagecompetence'. AppltedLinguistics 8(2): 95-110.
 I
2
F
l
cc
F
a c
z .9
6
I.IJ q)
o-
tr
O
uj
t-ll -
tU 1[ il
rji
l
LIJ ;-
rI =
oz z O
=
o
o-
J F @ I
f c
F uJ C)
I c
F o
((l
d
z z a
a z
r)
U F l
tr
Fl l
LL
a U)
Fl f- uJ (E
a ril UJ
z a5 -
t.) C' :)
(L =
f
a
F.
t4 z
- rt t-
rrl
F
(I
M uJ
f o' i
z:
o6
o 4
(/'b
llJ c)
: JE
!r, I
X >o
o-
oF
zEI Fj
z- t=
o irr
JO
1!-
=:
OF
(J(g
luJ --.1
>
>
- J

o- u)
Fq)
z= uJ
a
o-
(E
dG
L O - 2
KH o_
Iai
=o- x
o
z
o
E
2 U) 1 z
IF o :)
cc = z
I.JJ
6
uj
cc
(\ n (r
= a TL
a C\i
 APPENDIX 2: UPTAKE IDENTIFICATION PROBE

R E A D C A R E F U L L YT H E F O L L O W I N G Q U E S T I O N S , M A R K Y O U R A N S W E R S
'UPTAKE
AS INDICATED ON THE RECALL CHART'.

1. Of all the things vou n-rote on vour'Uptake Recall Chart', lr'hich do you think
r o u l e a r n e dt o d a ri

(u) Did vou learn anything that rvas reallv neu. to vou? If ves, circle it.

(b) Did ,vou learn anr,'thingthat was not reallv completely new, that vou knen'
partlv alreadv?Ifves, underline it.

(.) Was there anvthing that -voudid not learn at all becausevou knew it already?
If ves, mark it u.ith a zigzag line.

2. Of all the things -vou\,vrote, w.hich do vou think the teacher most wanted you to
learn? Mark them rvith aT. .-

Thank vou for lour cooperation.

Chapter 19

MichaelP. Breen iillll

qF

|frll

NAVIGATING THE DI SCOURSE: ill

ON WHAT IS LEARNED IN THE

LANGUAGE CLASSROOM

t(tut()
Ir-rtroduction Yl ilw61t**
CE\TRAL CONCERN F N G U A G E teachersis w'hat learners can learn
t r o m l a noqou a p e I in a somervhat startling paper some years ago
,l.dr-rce
d that. regardlessof i I-Teacher taught in a lesson, the learners w'ill inevitablr
-.
lcarn dltlerent thlnqs lrom the sam
fiTreTictable trend u ith referenceE
I
t takes place betrveen
[eachersand learnersand the covert interactionthat takesplacebetu'eent]glear:Ler-ald
therariousSourceSo|ryutdg4qg-g}isan,includingth"-!s@''9"andother
,r-rittilGG;m5i;1;the learners.Suchinteraction,he aig.,"d, mediateibetweenwhat
th.-t.*h.., teii-h ^ "input" and riLt learners actualiv "u " from the lesson. In other
ngrnt particular context of L l 1 (
class ensuresvariation outcomes.
ish to explore this phenomenon further by focusing upon the
se of la s revealed bv current research. I want to suggestthat one oi
ear-nerslearn in the classroomis hor,vto navigatethe opportunitie:
b r c l a s s r o o md i s c o u r s e..{ c e n t r a l a r g u r n e n tw i l l b e t h a t r e l a t i i t -

referenceto hou'learners chooseor are obliged to undertake such navigation.Ofcourse.

the particular features of the classroom context u'hich I describe can not provide a full',
adequateexplanation of variation in languageteaching.The influences of the context c:
learning are onlv one set of variablesin the broader picture. Hor,vever,I wish to assert tha:
an account of such influences can enrich Second LanguageAcquisition research and theor.
and usefullv inform the practicai concerns of ianguagepedagogv.

Explaining Second Language Acquisition

Anv adequatetheorv of SecondLanguageAcquisition (SLr has to account for three kt

fu.to., and, crucialiv, their interre[tio'nshlp. These are,( the learner brin
activation
'f
t AJi,,"bS*s 212.
 NAVIGATING THE DIScOURSE 307

unthreateninq: nature ofthe actuallanquaqelearning process;a the outcomes

v __-i__
the proce teffis of lingui-tic or, more broadlv, communicatir.'eco-mpeGrrcein the
tarset
ooo
lanpuaqe.
In exploring this relationship, SLA researchto date has primarilv focused upon the
interaction betw'eenlvhat learners contribute, particularlv their innate template for I tz.<
rs. ano tne language cata made avaliable to theryL-+n-a-recent
revle\\ ,ot.rl.*tL
ofSLA resear ihat the ,"."u.-.h u"pp"u.,to ta'.,,o,11.pa.frCilffiaradigms
of learning
and, therebl', constructs
ano, tnereDl" construcls the
tne learner
tearner inrn oarticu
partlcurar wal's (Dreen, l>>6). risinq- , verv
-
briefly,SLA rFsearg\tellsus a great deal about the learneras bei

to to be the catalvstsfor languagelearningJhe accommodation bv

@
the learner of language data is tvpified bv the learner's creativ n of
interlanguagesu'hich sent sradual approximations to the
ies and communicative strategies are ed bv learnersin order to make
their interpretative and acco
co-nstructsof the learner lvhich we can deduce from the researcffiibute significantly
to an
LU 4 t r sexplanation
^pr4rr4ltvrr of
v r lhovl'
ruv! language
rdrr5u45E is
1 ) liearned.
E4l llcu.
aA
However, this explanati.onrvill remain partial if much of plnl-."r"urch persists in
d e c o n t e x t u a l i s i n Ige a r n e rc o n t r i b u t i o n s t. h e l e a r n i n qD r o c e s sa. n l M r n i n s o u t c o m e sf r o n ,
the location in which these three tnree fadtors
ractors are realised. Mainstream SLATEseirch, SL,t rer"ur.n- in rn locusing
locusrnq xi l ^ .-l A.
'upon :

the relationshipbetu een the learnErn-n-d1ii$rage data.is conductedand reported on y::

iri *uv, thatappear
t'oou..lookthesocial,"utitui.,"rri"J ,h...r.u..h i, / I ^ - - ^I
".i""rir. "i"d".;.d ___t?_u
Uvacllc enco- \ o u n g r e a r n e r s o r D e t \ \ ' e e n n a t l \ e s p e a k err
,f'' _ g _0- -
..r"r..h.., and non-native speakinginformants, eiperimental situationsusing elicitation
techniques, quasi-experimentainegotiation tasks undertaken bv non-natir.espeakers,or
observedinteractionsduring lessonsare never sociallvneutrai activities.Toreduce the data
s t o d i s l o c a t et h e m
from their intersubjective nature. The evidence '"veobtain from anv learning event, even in
a quasi-experimentalsetting, is significantlvshapedbv the social situation and the social
relations within that event.
If lr'e used Ellis'srecent verv comprehensiverevieu-of SLA resear@ Ellis, t 99+\ an
indicatorof the major focusof SiR ."."u..hers to the presentti-., *'.1--iTTmrno--i-tirun
two thirds of the chapters in his account refer to x'ork u.hich assumesthat the interaction
betw'een the learner's mental resources and features of linguistic input will provide a
sufficientlv adequate explanation for language learning. Eliis fairlv reflects current SLA
research in devoting just over a quarter of his revieu- to more recent studies which locate
the interaction betrveen learner and lansu
,it been delined o. f.u..r"d i.r particular lvays
ffir.urch. It is addressed in a fragmentarv ro'-ay
as a diversitv of"socialiactors"- from
identification by the learner rvith the target languagegroup to the possibleeffectsofdifferent
types of languageprograms or as the specific features of classroom interaction, or as the
possibleimpact of formal instruction. Ellis himself concludes that"the relationship between
social factors and L2 achievementis an indirect rather than a direct one" (1994:239). In
referring to classroom interaction studies, he concludes that thev have "contributed little
to our hovr'interactionaffectsacquisition"Ug;+:607). And he deduces
""a@&"f
that formal ins cihtating natural language
development"in terms of increasedaccuracvand acceleratedprogress(1994: 659).
 3OB MICHAEL P. BREEN

''Ll
The apparentassumptionin thesedeductionsis that achievement","acquisition"or
,,natural lu.rgrrug"d".,,.lop-".t" can somehou- occur almost regardless of contextual
closely atthe
variables.In"thif chapter,'horu"r-".,I rvant to suggestthat, iiu-e look more
classroom as context, such a focus u'ill reveal that the interaction be
oulded and
, and the differential outcomes from this tntetuctio" t
.^/ .;;
arytffiwema\.deducefromcurrentSLAresearchasoptimaIfor
- r --:ll ^.:ll l:ff^-^-+:^11,. ^^L;^,'^ Tl"-....'ill nnnfinrre to leern rnostlv
languagelearning,Iearnerslr'illstilIdifferentia1lvu.hie""@{

,itq
TryM "?h:"*::::$
ffi-o diu".titr- in the contributions of the learners to
7"**. the process. But variation rvill also have to be explained rvith reference to the particular
"fy' in r,vhich the learning occurred so that input, Process,and outcomes are seen as
"on,"*,
functionsofholvtheiearneisvariouslvd.fi"@Ifweare
of ittittss in languagelearning in the
classroom, ther'tovene-edto take a sociulWn the interaction betrveen
learner and data. In order to lustifi---uch- claim, I $ ill begin bv offering mv interpretation
of the context of learning.

Second Language Acquisition in context

dow'n by
There is little doubt that th6 historv of SLA not onlv gre\\' out of the roots put
up its own
studies offirst languageacquisition and has, over the last tlventv years or so, sent
this area of research. Building on the influences of
shoots and bra.rche, in the shadorv of
(1986t there is a signilicant
sociolinguistics, discourse analvsisand the *,o.koffig@
acquisition research rvhich e"plicitlY.ecogni l
bodv oifirst Ianguage
coniext og 1.u.rrin, u, ,h. .rrr.ibl" of ,h. *'hol".Uro..r. of l.tttrrut" d"*loPmeht
c k 1 9 8 0 ,S c 1
f
into SLA
and 1985, Foster 1990, tntera/ia). Evelvn Hatch brought this kind of perspectir"e
extend their grammatical repertoires on the basis of the
researchin revealing holv learners
"scaffolding" p.otid-ed for them by profrcient speakersdttt"g .o""'..i3!q!L(H{ch 1978
ce uPon those in SLA
arr
"56gi6linteractionist" perspectir,e in seeing sPeech modifications durin8
researchr,vhoclaim n
communicatio'b"to achersa@

P
recentlv have a number of SLA researchersreturned t(fygotskf complex
-ffi:\€rv
ideas r,vhichinsist on i"^. ial activitr"

pleoiVra^These ttit-' is
"ro.io.tltrrrul" (Lffipel 1994)'Sucha perspective
.',^,40,-
u1l ^6;lo'*;.."ni.dp".rp..tit" a" iT:3-yth'jogtd
a.
sar".lgerli?g
br: Leont'evrvho,likevvgotskr',
undertaking betrveen those in societv lvho havemastered knolvle
ffi'.--ffi;rins such kno*'ledqeor derel ilities. Leont'ev identified
ersocialactivitiesinthew.idirworldsuchaswork,or
familv lif", o. participation in various evervdav situations and institutional settings. For
the
L"o.ri'.t, ,r-h"r, or.. ,"ud text, Iisten to music, or paint a picture, even when not in
" constructed:
presenceof others, we are participating in a process that is sociallv

if rve removed human activitv from the svstem of social relationships and social life,
it w.ould not exist and lvould har.eno structure. With all its varied forms, the human
 NAVIGATING THE DISCOURSE 309

individual's activitv is a svstem in the svstem of social relations. It does not exist
u'ithout these relations.The specificform in u'hich it exists is determined bv the forms
and means of material and mental socialinteraction.
(Leont'ev 1981 471

is, bv its nature. a andi-ulturalconstruct.@uppo., ru.[

a c l a i m i - nr e v e a l i n st h a t s o c i a ls t r u c t u r m may be seen to eate the rvhole
texture of alaiTia-anguage (Halli*r, 1978)Jhis perspective implies that the interpretative,@)
-4@"t"2-"TL€-nd
b no@
strategidSlorkof learnersasrevealedbv mainstreamItR reiEii6Fis
t that i t is situltaneor.l.Ful*-,iil.
tf r,6learn a h;-g""g" i" fie companvof others ln u 6llffiL-en the nature of this
socialaction is not merelv a superficialframe for our '"vorkon languagedata. Social t.
relationshipsin the classroom orchestrate lr'hat is made availablefor learning, how'learning
is-tlone,anilwhat we achieve,l'heserelationshipsand the purposelul socialaction of teaching
and learning are directlv realised through the discourse in rvhich r,r'eparticipate during
lessons.
The datamade availableto iearnersare sociallvfiltered throughthe particular ,
'.-.
o l s c o u r s eo I t n e C l a S s r O Oam n o . I n e r e D \ .r e n o e r e oO l S t l n c t l vter o m \ - h a t\ v e m l g h t d e s c r t b e
2-snarura l
madeavarlabletolearnerstnaclassroomareaJ@ctr,r.ithlvhichteacherand3.
learners interact activelv as both creators and interpreters. becauseu'hat Iearners actuallo
l e a r n T r o m t h e c l a s s r o o mi s s o c i a l l rr a t h e r t h a n i n d i v i d u a l l vc o n s t r u c t e d .a n v e x p l a n a t i o n
o l n o w l a n g u a g el s l e a r n e c n g u a g el e s s o n s .
This implies that language iearners need not onlv be interpretative, accommodating,
and strategic as SLA research suggests,but also active practitioners r,vithin the discourse of
the learning contexlrn wblqh tfr."y}"a *"-
i t w i l l p r o r i d e v e r ) ' p a r t i c u l a ro p p o r t u n i t i e sf o r a n d s p e c i f i cc o n s t r a i n t su p o n l a n g u a q e c { .
learning.These oppdlrrnities and constraints can be identified in the discourse of language
lessonsand a crucial variable which can contribute to our understanding of the relative
successor failure of learners is holv thev themselvesare obliged to navigate within it.
We can expressthis central irsue i.r terms of a questioi: Does a l3ur.r.r', successin
learning languagein a classr d upon the learner's successfulnar is;ii6n-;TT6-e Qj'

prevailing features of classroom discourse. I rvill addressthe question r,vith reference to a

number of findings from SLA research.

Dimensions of discourse

Discourseis a diffrcult concept because,like SLA research,discourseanalysisis a relatively

v o u n gd i s c i p l i n ea n d t h e r e a r e s e v e r acl o n f l i c t i n ga n d o v e r l a p p i n gd e f i n i t i o n sd e r i v i n gf r o m
a range
ranse of th.o..ti.ul
theoretical and anah'ticalpositions (van
undu."lt' vanDijk Diik 1 1985,
98 5 . Macdonneil 198CI:E;alt ). Larly work
,- pattern and
rn drscourseanalvslssought ught to uncover
uncover pattern and system
syste
ystem at i a highe gher level of organisation
than the sentenceand iesof dialo acts,turn taking,
topicalisation, and so on. Descriptir.'ediscourse analvsisrvas also undertaken in relation=16
ffiediscoursessuchasmediadiscourse'medicaldiscourse,orlegal
 3IO MICHAEL P. BREEN

discourse. More recentiv, the ideas of social theorists such asrf-ouffirt11972 and 1984) and
.B'di?fEIh( 1991 t har-eled to an extension of such '"vork to refer to how human knowledge
\-{.r... I r r .. -t r - - =)-:)-:=--
anoCaPaDrlIueSanoevervdar.socialpracticesed
throuqh discourse.
-Tn-relating
F=-g__-<-
social theorv directh- to earlier and more conventional approachesto
discourse analysisrvith a vielr. to developing a critical approach to analysisiFa-ilretotEh{ 1989
and 1992) has provided a frameu'ork of discourse '"vhichis made up of three related levels
orcomPonents.Forhi-,@ecanbeSeenasbeingsimultaneousIya
piece of text, an instanceoldiscursive practice,and an instag ilresb]-Placl$e. Applying
-
this framew'ork to the lariguageclassroom, th<fe?>'f lessonsis all the availablelanguageor
communicative data, be thev spoken, lvritten, or in other visual media from pictures and
diagrams to facial expressions.The are hou'texts are oroduced and
interpretedand hor,vdifferent tvpesof textf are combined.Clearly,teachersand learners
_-_-:-
produ&, interpret,andcombinetexts.Theteachingmaterials,
in the classroom in whatever
medium, are aiso produced and combined bv people not present in the classroom and
teacher and learners interpret such materials in ',vavsthat serve their immediate purposes.
,, -z--\
Frnal\c6al praciNefers to the org'anisatfqlql-?ndjsdtulioxakircrrmstances that generatg
and delimjt both the specifictext and discursivepractices oflessons. Socialpractices include
not-only those broader cultural and situational factors r,vhichlocate classroomsas having a
particuiari,,n.glvtrivialbutneverthe1essimportJnt
practices r".h li1l=d*' ttrEJfi-rniture is organised in the room or horv long a lesson should
iast. More cruciallv, perhairs, bo,h,"*h.r and learners are actuallipositioned and
constructedasrcachersandas]earnersbi.thesos
urr o work together in
a relativelv harmonious rva1.,r'r'hichI have described elsewhere as expressingthe underlying
culture of the language class (Breen 1985), are also highlv significant social practices that
are Dart of the discourseof lessons.

smave or limit certain discursive practices and these, in turn, may

ffii]-ltate or constrain alternativeloEfEractices. It is time to step inside the classroom and
explore tne posslDlelmpacr upon ranguagelearnlnq nrngor
or rne(rexr
rh@1g,..,@-
X oj lerc!9, mwrslx

@iq
t'l
.,'J th;i,@"ri[i"gh *iiof th. .,oiIJ".
provide{ to us by classrroomrresearch.
E^a"A"v Tavdo'$L
The text of language lessons

Apptying this three-dimensional vie'"v of discourse to the findings of SLA research which
has focused particularlv upon classroom languagelearning, r,vefind that the text of language
lessons,like lessonsin other subjects,appearsto have a consistent pattern in which teachers
I Dr initiate, learners respond, and teachers follou, up their responses by-repetition,
l|(t-reformulationorevaluatio,,iSi,'.l(1975)identi_6}a
--,'@ernlvhichappearedtobespecifictolanguagelessonswhere
E-r',r a teacher'sreformulation is often repcated verbatim bv a learner or the lvhole classbecause
\,-' ,4. ,
1/\l(9 t*lxl,l;#"::*a;ffi':;
this book; points out that a good proportion ofth"e teachers' utterances in a languagelesson
 NAVIGATING THE DISCOURSE 311

are not directed al-particular individuals but serve as a kind of communal monolosue
-
directed bv the teacher at the lvhole classlr.herein learner contributions are w-ovenbv the
t e a c h e rr n t o l u s o r h c r o u ' n t e x t .
researchonteachertaIkinthelanguageclassfurther
\-+--------l
r
rer ealiThTT]5od proportion of teacher input made availableto learners has verv specific
characteristics.Teachersappear to har-etu'o-thirds more Dracticein the tarset lanquaqethatr I O / S p 6
a l l t h e l e a r n e r sp u t t o g e t h e r .T h e r a l s o m o d i f r t h e i r s p e e c hi n r r a v s s i m i l a r t o t h e
I'olt'rt
cElaracteristrcs olcaretaker spEechto voung children or native speakerspeechto non-native
speakers.Interestinglv, such teacher modification appearsmore emphatic when addressing
4rua+
learners ryhgq,lLl"-"..g. u.t
9 S S ,f V o r r g - p i l m o r e1 9 8 2 ) . I n o t h e r
words, the degree of modification in a teacher'sdirect interaction w'ith an individual learner
mav stqna
J - -
is or her caoabilities.
A crucial feature of the text of lessonsis teacher feedbackon learner utterances.Because
ofthe fast flow'oflessons. teachers are understandablvinconsistentin their reactions to
learner errors u,'ith the result that different learners mav either fail to distinguish a teacher's
correction from other kinds kird. of teacher utterance or assumethat almost all teacher resDonses :s
<--:i-
To-FFat they sav are some form of judgement or correction (Allwright Allwright and Baile, Bailey 1991,
88). UnderliningVan ngVan Lier's observatior
observationsabout
the teacher'sdiscursivecontrol of the text of lessons,researchrevealsthat a remarkably
high proportion of teacher utterances are interrogatives (Johnston 1990, Long and Sato
a verv nt rtion oi these are cl ions in r,vhichlearners
are required to provide i.fo.*utior *'hi.h th" t. dv knou's rather than open Ir,,tSt
0w"^
referenffil[estions
oP.clt. ) .
r'vhich genuinel]' seek information from the learners llong andTaib
,!owl.
Although acknorvledging the centralitv of the teacher in the orchestration of classroom lVu^-
-P--:
discourse@!$)988) suggeststhat the text of languagelessonsconstantlv shifts due
to its being generatedbv four tvpes ofinteraction: teacher instructions, teacher'shighlr
s t r u c t u r e de l i c i t a t i o n so f s t u d e n tr e s , and procedurtTF strlmFd learner activities
-,r-
suchf,l r o u p o r d r a d i c t a s k s .a l l o f u ' h i c h a r F o c c a s i o n a l l o
v u n c t u a t e db v s m a l l t a l k

of learners.
There appear to be features of the text of language lessonsthat ma)' be distincti
compared with other tvpes of lessonl We might describe this as r-textua ature of
languageinput in classroom talk
samDles or lnstances tarqet lan idance' rvhere communication occurs about
[he tarpet
ooo
lanquaqe- a anagement \1'hereln procedural tatk tacllltates the oDtrmal
--
idance.It seems,therefore, that the datamade availableto the
o c c u r r e n c e o I s a m D l e sa
earner in the-classroom is an on-going amalgam of three dominant and inter-weavlng
discursiveoractices: communicati target lan . metacommunrcatron I
2
have to navigate
J
-e a r n e r s
tion from one
U."a .f t"ru t" is verv likelv that differentlearnerswill be more or lessskilledin
"".tn4t
suchnavisation.
'*
We might concludefrom thesegeneralpatternsin the contributionsof teachersto the
interactivetext oflanguagelessonsthat learnersarenot actuallvrequiredto do much overt
 3I2 MICHAEL P. BREEN

or explicit discursive* orfi*n,t" d.t ott.,gth"i. dir.t.ri of the

Pr,rr€.-trepli
tea@rt to the moments uhen ther have to contrihul.. to it ind to t-he
,"AE;t.*ctions to tlh"i. .o.t

rners' discursive practices in the clas

So far, on the basis of language classroom research, I have suggestedthat the discourse ol
lessonsis significantlv shapedbv the teacher, that learners are positioned in particular lr'als
by this, that the discourse manifests a shifting inter-textualitv, and that learners are obliged
to undertake pragmatic navigation r,vithin this inter-textualitv if thev are to find their r,r-ar
-through it in order to make senseof it. For a fuller picture, holvever, lve need to focus upon
variations in the overtpgllgprltion gllglners in the discourse rvhich may be seen as further
. on t. iSrrt o--f". t t- t
"
om the bodY ol work
on controversiai modifications during group or dvad lvork on tasks, some of which having
been undertaken in classroom settings. Perhapsthis is not surprising when, if we examine
the research on learner participation and, bv implication, their contributions to the text oi
lessonsasdiscursivepractitionerS,*'trythe
dir.oq5g_iSg..sporlilgJgl. lPolitzer et al. 1981). Generally, it seemsthat, through their
control ofthe their use of question S.

ofEuch of the la
ural instructions, and, crucialh,-TE-er-r]eva]uition ucec
ffiritisuttered.teachersconStructIearnersasprimari1r
\,,,
nsive a iirlr passiveparticipantsin th" 4igg"1;t,_ln ollering an
*)"S- ....-ff

e x p i l n _ a t l o fr6 r t h e f a i l u r eo f F r e n c hj m m e r s i o n s t u d e n t st o f u l l r a t t a i nn a t i r e - s p e a k elri k t
--

lelrls in their olvn speechdespite vears of exposure to content-based and comprehensible

language input resulting in verv high levels ofreceptive understanding, Su'ain (1985
suggeststhat this failure mav be partiallv due to the telative lack of oPP.,t et
rrticipglgaveJ.lryj
to partic urse h their ow'n speech uctron.

e
iHon'ever, e v e n rer
l o \ \ ' e v e r , even r e s P o n s l vive discursive
l s c u r s r v e practices appear L ( Jr c d u to
P P e a r to v d r r a L r u r t lin
L o variation r r -learning
rcdtturr:
e o PracLrces a
\
In investigating u-hether greater learner participation had an effect upon learning, Stron;
(1983 and 1984) discoue.ed_thut-a hig ain learners correlatec
with their achievement in tests basedupon the grammar, proffit c,r
classroo,iip. st
inpurSaneffi performed better on an aural comprehension task than did le..
participating learners. In their ciassicstudv of the good languagelearner, Naiman er c.
(1978) found t their hands more and more often re
teacher eliei
S t u d i e s b v L a r s e n - F r e e m a n( 1 9 7 6 a a n d 1 9 7 5 b ) , H a m a v a n a n d T u c k e r ( 1 9 8 t )
Lightbon'n (1 983), and Long (1980), all suggestthat the frequencvofoccurrence ofcertai:
linguistic forms in classroomtext is likelv to correiate w'ith the accurateproduction of thes=
forms bv learners. More signilicanth',studiesbv Lightbor,vn(1980 and 199 1), Snou-an:
Hoefnagel-Hohle (1982), andWhite et al. (1991) not onl-vconfirm this but also sho*'hi1:
retention rates of question forms. Given the regular occurrence of questions in the text ,-:

are directed to them individuallv.

alL UIILULUU ururlruqqrrl. Lrrql, rrv!

-
"kincl--f:frlTerances
directedspeiihcallrat indiriduallearnerscorrelatedrvith hi
-----+

treouent occurrenc?;T?6il;iliTF;tu;:6Fin the text ot lessonsrender them more accessib.

I
 NAVIGATING THE DISCOURSE 3I3

types of teacher utterancqs rvhich place u_hatwe m-a)'desgribe 4 urslve uPon

lilarners, such as questioning or nominated terms, demand overt discursiver,vorkon the
part of learners that may, in turn, influence their learning outcomes.
The recent research on the kinds of classroom tasks u.hich most facilitate interaction
among learners confirms the significanceof discursive pressure.A task that entails an
-in&r-mafjp-ry:p betnveeninterlocutors, that is unlamiliar to them, that engageslearners in
socialexchangesabout sharedgoalsand problems, that is undertaken bv learners ofdifferent tr/'
levels of profi".i.rr.u, and that demands a single, closed solution for successfulcompletion
10/t
is found to encouraqeleqrnersto havelonger turns, pr_oducemore complex language,and
devote more ti-"
d",rot..tro.. explicit nesotiation for meanins than anv other kinds of task (Berw'ick
time to .*pli.i Berw'ic
l 9 W - ,-- C - o n gs1 9 8 9 a n d 1 9 9 5 . P l o u sg h a n d G a s s .,1 9 9 3 ) . F u r t h e r m o r e ., T a n a k a( 1 9 9 1 ) a n d
Yamazaki (1991) have suggestedthat at learner rvork on modif,vingmodif,vinq linguistic data through
ffihur p.o.idi.tslh;;il .it6;t
tft
(brrcc.(to^
and 1995) confirm that feedback is most likelv to have an impact on the learner's
interlanguage if it occurs at times rvhen the learner is w.orking hard to convev a particular
e s s a g e I. n sum.
..r...us.lT]n
m uggle to neg
s u m , the strugtfe negotiateT6r meaning
g tthror:sh-ouert
hl@ discurJiveFoiF
i-nders relativelv compiex text comprehensible and, consistent rvith a major assumption
in SLA research, t}ereb-v facilitates learninq.
different learnersuill
However,differe.rtieurners rvill navigate
na.-igJtethroughthe discourseof lessonsin differeni-l DiWou-
Dl'ft o*t
waysdependingupon their ou'n dEfinitionsof the situation,their previousexperiencesof
"{ f UL*
classrooms, and
classrooms, and their partrcular understanding
therr particular unclerstandlng ofot the dvnamicsocral
the dvnamrc socialpracilces or culture
practicesor culture ot
of
the classroom group (Breen op. cit.). Learners u'ill therefore place different values and-I
\ hh J/ pp,
significanceupon their role as a participant in the class.Oue.t discursi"e p. e upon.
particular learners or even spontaneousparticipation do not alone account for differences
inwhatlearnersl"u'.'f'offi)repIicationofS.Iig..''studyof..hig}r
. -rrl
input generatord[Seliger op.?iL1 and Elv's (1986) inr.estigation of learner initiated
-
u t t e r a n c e sl o u n d n o r e l a t l o n s h l p b e t \ l ' e e n o v e r t l e a r n e r p a r t l c l p a t l o n a n d l a t e r t e s t
,z.ftttainment.lnlfacingiearners' immediate "uptake" from lessons of previouslv unknown
('
/// r Ltq-57,^o^ --J looi
uo""b,rlury,61Iffi(1989 and 1992; aChapter
r------,-ro,f-ri-r r\
18 of this book; r r ^rr
conflrmed : r-,
Allwright's
hypothesis that different learners rvill learn different things even from the same lesson

A
----\
(Alhvright op.cir.)*lirnani-made+hri erv that lo\\ -DartrcrDatr
recalled as much from lessonsas di rtrcrPatlng

-)_ r
.---:--r
' o
. r r
recalled
,l
more iiems from lessons if they were 4F
lcallsec|or rntroduced
toDrcalrsed rntroouceo rnto
lnto the--text
tne text ol
ot the
tne lesson
lesson D\'
lx' learners
learnersrather
ratner than
tnan those
tnose toprcalf€cl
toDlcallseo
trt g
rom their hi ticipating colleagriE. Allrvright interpreted these findings as suggesti*ng
that-ih? -:r. pl@:g".* in a classrvho appearedto be those more willing to
participate;e.e teklg o" ahebd&;;T discursivervork but without seeminglygaining
f IrOm lt. ln O.n"l.\,'oro .n..
-6-an participation leading to gains in proficiency. Slimani's stqdl i]!e_gg!!_d*qgblin th"
claims of mainstream SLA researchersthat conversationaimodifications lead to greater
c o m o r e h e n s i b i l i t ra" n d . f i . t
,.-,,i-,,,
relation3h-iP-b-FT_$eenthenuffijustmentsoccurringinthetextot
lessonsaround specific linguistic items and tfrdpft.f.")of these items by leur.r..s.
A recent r.pli."tio.r Jf Sh.nuni', ,trdv bvlt6i(on tl996l largelv confirmed these
findings and suggestedthat differences bet'w.eenlearne\ in u'hat thev recalled from lessons
wereduetoan-holerangeoffactorsandthatsomeof\Pre'iousIr'unkno',r'@
(-t 4^,x vA;cahe tou-^
 3T4 MICHAEL P. BREEN

which thev not onlv recalled but also retained over a longer period \r'ere never overtly
negotiated about in the text of the lesson. Onir' 270/oof retained vocabulary items had been
topicalisedin the lesson,rvhilst 56%oofretained vocabular)'couldbe traced to the
A olertlv
indi.idual learner'spersonal r,r'orkupon items occurring in the spokenor r,vrittentexts of
rf rf _ l r :

ff tti-t"rron r,'hi.h t.igg..ed "ffo.t. to seekite

l / \ \ h a t l h e \ k n e \ , \ ' a l r e a c l \ ,t o \ \ ' r l t e t n e \ \ ' o r o c o \ \ ' n t o n n c o u t l t s m e a n l n g l a t e r , a n o s o o n .
r/r
relati\-e incompr and this resulted
f' \\'as the
( ^ i n c o \ e r t i n d i r i d u a l r t o r k t o u a r d s u n d e r s t a n d i n ga n d , t h e r e b r ' .r e m e m b e r i n g i t . I n f a c t ,
uobrnson drscovered that there u.us a conterse relationship betw'ffiiEdzfrbirnt of overt
neqotiation
o.
about new vocabuiarv items and their retention bv learners.The more an item
*u--,fo.rr.ed upon in the text of the lesson,the lesslikelv it \l'asto be retuine-ElSEii6i-dlftlEd
that there must be an optimal desree of overt nesotiat
focusing upon learner participation, Dobinson aiso discovered that learners n'ho did not
participate at all recalled equal or greater numbers of previouslv unknow'n words from the
lessonsas did higher participating learners.
From Slimani'sand Dobinson'sresearchit appearsthat u'e can deduce that individual
learners appear to be capableof navigatingthe discoursein u.avsthat reflect iffiifiiilfr[-
and agendas.ln certain circumstances,discursive pressure to re
@erorother1earnersfaci1itatesacquisitionori|yforsomelearners.
However, as w'ith all deductions from classroom languagelearning research, these findings
have to be seen in the light 6f the context from which the data w'ere obtained. Siimani and
lx'
Ipobinson located their studies in classroomsthat r,vereconventionall-vteacher-fronted with
Jfr.o"g teacher control over the text ofthe lessons.It appears,therefore, that there may be
r , -- --------i=--
lladifferencein learningoutcomesbasedupon overt negotiationfor meaninqin thiskindol
..
c l a s s r o o mc o n t e x t a s c o m p a r e d u l t h d v a d so r s m a l l g r o u p s o t l e a r n e r sn e g o t l a t ] n gt o r
m e a n i n g r r i t -h o u t t h e i n t e r r ] e n t i o n o f t h e t e a c h e r . T o r t
the arqument that context makes a difference.Overt participation in classroomdiscourse
oll

appears to serve other purposes in addition to the purpose of learning. In these

circumstances,so an
der-otetheir attention to their orvn learning aqendas.And the Slimani and Dobinson studies
confirm that it is likelv that learners will differentiallv gain from such practices.

Social practices in the classroom

Learners selectivelv r,vork through the discourse of the classroom not onlv as discursive
practitioners r,vithin the immediate lesson but also on the basis of horv they judge which
social practices are appropriate in the particular classroom group.Jbei._se]gctilg
oarticipation and the iudsementson u'hich thev baseit are derived from their definition of
t

f 6 e p a r t i c u l a rt e a c h i n g - l e a r n i n sgi t u a t i o na n d f r o m t h e i r e x p e r i e n c ew i t h o t h e r r e a l m so l '
dlscoursebevondJheclassroom.Learnersthereforenar-igatethe discoursein n.r-oconstantlr
idG\veavlirg \\ryx (or learning purposesand for social purposes.Differential outcomes
"m
fro m l esson s av' r efl ect th--.Eith;iE r n er s *' i l l al ft iffi ar abi li ti es t o b al ance th ese
two priorities and, cruciallv, in their relative allocation of attention to them.
Classroom discourse is, for the learner, a vovage of discovery in the close company ot
others r,vith a teacher who leads the expedition or, at least, carries the map. On the one
hand, learners navigate classroom discourse in order to discover here and notv what count
as vali d i nterbre tation . r,vhat coun ts-TIRn6w uortfr accommodating, and lvhat counts
 NAVIGATING THE DISCOURSE 3L5

as appropriate strategic behaviour for learning be it overt or co\,'ert. On the other hand,
tfr t ti. ,o.il[i-.ti.EiEl.r the classroom will
construct knovgledgeand the role identities of, and relationshipsbetw'een teacher and
learnersinvervspecificu.avs.Thevaretherefore
l Uul
psvchological and social cosiifieir selectire rvork therefore reflectstheir undeiiia-fr?ing
--
.r.rl
of, and c6A-ffiutions to, the emerging culture of the particular classroom group and their
own location u-ithin it. In an earlier paper, I suggestedthat this culture is not only
asvmmetricalin terms of u.ho controls the discourse,or normative in terms of the teacher's
j"G--Ttr correctness but .n., f
or appropriao', lth,"..nTi"
"..il.titF.noryl
creating and maintaining a manageabler.vorking harmonv through the particular routines
and prJcedures of the.*fu.. texl of lessons(Breen op.ctt.).From SLA research,*'e kttoo,-f
that different types of classroom-basedactilities and tasks u'ill permit different outcomes I
'
for different learners(Larsen-Freeman1975a,Tirone 1988, Schmidt 1980, BahnsandWode
1 9 8 0 , H l . l t e n s t a m 1 9 8 4 , L i g h t b o u ' n 1 9 9 1 ) . B u t . u v ea l s o k n o r v t h a t d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f 1
classrooms in terms of their overt routines and procedures or) more broadh', their social I
practices r,vill generate different learning outcomes as rvell (\\bng Filmore 1982, Enrightl
19 8 4 , S p a d a19 8 7 , A l l e n e t a | . 1 9 9 0 ).
Allw.right (1989) hassuggestedthat datafrom classroominteraction often reveal teacher

".'dl"",.,"i,havingto,ol"e"a1ec,,.''@hedilemmaconfrontingboth
teacher and learners is that of maintaining social harmonv or avoiding lvhat he calls "social
problems"rvhilst,at the sametiFipreservingl;E;TE?egards as"pedagogicpossibilities"

or dominating or highlv reluctant learners, or procedural confusions that appear to detract

"social trouble" is an inevitable part of classroom discourse a , paradoxically',"

upon approachesto languageteaching u'hich encourage on'".t ]""ry.
icipationnffigsocialproblems.Holvever,thecultureotmost
.16#o-o-. is oft"n buift up"" and prese.oedbv a sharedand unspokenassumptionthat
cooperation to maintain relative harmonv on the surfaceof iessonsbetween competing
agendasis ultimatelv easier for both teacher and learners. The costs of social trouble are
constantly in balance u'ith the benefits of fairlv predictable and stable routines and
p.o."drrl, and the teacher and most learners rvork hard in order to resolve or avoid such
l{ l

troubles. At different times. it is verv likelv th

troubles as learning rtunities iust as thev mav interpret lv /
P"d p6$l611iffi;Aailr threatgyngHorvever,the verv salienceof socialtrouble in
thedffintiontoitrt.hiIepossibivinvolr'ingteacherandlearners
in exactl,vthe kind of resolution w'ork that mav be directlv beneficial to ianguagelearning.
However. learners also navigate through classroom discourse in rvavsthat ll'ill enable
them to avoid individual trouble for themselves,in particular avoiding to
public.The interestingstudiesof Beebeand Zuengler(
1983) and ofYoung (1988 and 1991) revealthat the iearners rvill actuallyvarv the s0'le of
their production depending upon u'hom thev are addressing and, in particular their
perception of the relative status and linguistic competence of their interlocutors. Of direct
relevance to the classroom,Takahashi's researchsuggeststhat learners w-ill be more hesitant
and briefer in their rrtt.ru
-
c o m p e t e n ti n t h e t a r q e t l a n q u a g es u c h a s t h e l r t e a c h e r( l a k a h a s h rl y d y ) . A n c l K a m P t o n
1T98T revealslhat learners, u[ile actuallv capableof more complex language,may revert
 3T6 MICHAEL P. BREEN

to earlier featuresoftheir interlanguagepreciselvin order to signalthat thev cre learners.

Learners mav undertake a kind of impression management in their discursive practices
, , i i: ; i : , :, i i i t r
whtch e x p r e s s e s tneir
D u b l l c l \ . exPresses
$ h t c h publlclY t n e l r O\\'n c o n s t r u c t t o n ot
o \ 1 - n Constructlon o t tnemselves
tnemselves a
aS l e a r n e r s ano
s learnels a n o rnelr
tnelr
-----E-

construction ot r e
in the text ofJeGis--Filf-also be aiell-ection of their self assessmentand their assessment
of both the teacher's languageand the teacher's likelv reactions to their orvn production. It
*. seems that some learners' perceptions of the establishedsocial relationships in some
classroomsmav actuallv encourage them to underachieve.

What learners learn from the discourse of lessons

The foregoing revie',v of classroom language learning research has illustrated some of the
lvays in which fl.e interaction hetrv... th^ le"ne. and the target lenguagedata iq qitrrated
w-ithin social action. In order to summarise lvhat lve knorv of the discursive practices of
,-Tedne-rffi€Tngriage
classroom,rve can seethat learners are obliged to participate overtly
and covertlv in the discourse oflessons in the follorving lvavs:

Adopt a.Iry![s]y9--Ecle-in relation to the teacher's management of the discourse

through his/her control over the text of lessons.
Be alert to and uduot to th. uutftg itt.t of lessons.
. t .
. .
Act indil.iduall)'in response16 discurqi.e nressurewithin teacher-learnerinteraction
l l

and u'ithin tasks and activities during lessons.

Covertly."Cg!@'Pu.ti.iPutio" i as opportunities to serve

uc o\r'n purposesand lcarning agenda.

Navigate the discourse of the classroom itp.Spgific text. discu's
and particular socialpractices u'ith direct ref
^-
esent understanding of the
Difine the situation on the b?sisof past efperience.and presen
emerqinq iulture of the classroom groupand act in u'avs that are seen as appropriate
to that culture.
..#---
?articipate rvith the teacherand other learnersin the ongoing:glltruction of lessons
andthemaintenanceoffairIvpredictableclassroom'ffi
M a n a g e t h e p ? e s e n t a t i o no f s e ] T - t h r o u g ht h e d i s c o u r s ea c c o r d i n g t o o n e ' s o w n
definition ofboth self identitv and the demands of the situation.

In general, therefore, a learner *-ho is a successfuldiscursive practitioner in the

/'--':
/ classroom appears to be someone u-ho aloidsYKkl-I6-SElFldentitv in the group and
( @approp.iut"@loitingffiursal
\ opportunitie-sfor their orrn leaininE.IGSGstion I raisedat the beginning of tFis i@-e?
r
\
\ was: Does a learner's successin languagelearning
r r l r r -r t
in the classroomdepend upon the learner's
successfulnavigation of the opportunities and constraints inherent in the discourse of
lessons?Clearlv learners rvill differ in their responsesto the kinds of demandsthat are placed
upon them bv such discourse and thev u-ill differ in terms of their own priorities and
capabilitiesas discursive practitioners in the specificcontext of a classroom.I have suggested
that learners in classroomsr.vill differentiallv interpret, accommodate, and adopt strategies
largel)'on the bas,sol * hat classroorndtscou s
of teacher and learners, and hou- it constructs both the knorvledge to be learned and the
unfoldi earningprocessthrouqh s
u'i-thin the prevailing discourse through rvhich earn and there is good evidence that
 NAVIGATING THE DISCOURSE 3L7

learners navigatetlat discourse in different ways. It is inevitable that different learners will
differentiallv achieve in such circumstances. In fact, the variables to rvhich I have referred
in review.ingsecond languageclassroomresearchare an important explanation for such
differentiation.

1
Implications for classroom pedagogy

We misht deduce from the evidence that there is oniv a very tenuous relationshi tween
successful participation bv learners in t]re'discourse of lessons and their actual ress ln
, At ieastit seems lm

on actual learni tion for and

rs aspivotai for learning. But a crucial issueis that overt pditi-
Gffit-s to be relativelv rare T5lindiiffiTJ#ners in the kinds of lessonsfrom rvhich most
data for secondlanguageclassroomresearchare obtained. Navigating the discourse in manv
language classrooms,rvhilst resulting in different learning outcomes for most learners, is
not a difficult thing for most of them to do. Since their earlv years at school, language
learners have graduallv discor"eredrvhat is expected of them as discursive practitioners in
a classroom. In manv cases,they have had vears of practice at interpreting the texts of
lessons,learning and adopting appropriate discursive practices, and understanding and
contributing to the social practices of classrooms.As rve have seen, the data from second
languageclassroomresearchprima?ilv revealsthallqachers orchestrate the discourse rvhile
learnersnlav
learners play their narts
parts as a kind of ofcounterDoint
counterpoint to their their individual
individual learninglearning agendas.
agendas.The T
d i s c o u r s em a v m o m e n t a r r l Yh a r m o n l s e\ \ ' l t n t n e s ea g e n o a s\ \ n l l e a t o t n e r t l m e s , r n e r e
discordancebetween the discourse and genuine learning. To be provocative, we might
conclude that some learners'highlv attentive efforts to avoid trouble bv successfulh'
navigatingthe prevailing discourse of languagelessonsmight actuallv distract their attention
from actuallv learning something.
There is a grou'ing bodv of evidence rvhich suggeststhat the discourse ofthe language
classroom is distinctive. And it is distinctive in manv rvavsfrom the discourse in lvhich u'e
participatein other contexts (Riler' 1977, Gremmo et a\.7978, Edmondson 1985, Kramsch
1 9 8 5 , G l a h n a n d H o l m a n 1 9 8 5 , K a s p e r 1 9 8 6 , E l l i s 1 9 9 2 ) . I f , f o r m o s t l e a r n e r sp e r h a p s , ftt&
languagelearningis embeddedin the discourseof the classroom,if thel learn how' to become \,\ 6)
-.itrbt"., of a ne-,,r, langr,rg" ".,--r,.;.-r throuqh the discursi.e@t i'* t
t>r'-
or ar t in the .l1srrog themJo
tlc sroom? In other rvords. horiiFT&r-nEi
ws lo'*
transcend what thev have learned ssroom discoursein order to frr.
ifi-other realms of di
A paradoxicaibut central iisue for languagepedagogvis horv it mav faciiitate the gradual
disembedding of languagelearning from rvhat appearsto be the prevailing discourseof lessons.
In raising this issue I am not intending to implv that all the features of such discourse inhibit
the learner's capacitv to participate in other kinds of discourse. Hor,vever,I believe it does
imply that rve need to consider horv u'e might identifv and mobilise rsive work of
d reducing thosemu
constraints rvitirin the current discursive and social practices oflanguage c

4 ) inhibit it.
mav
II a learner a largelr nsive role rvithin the discourse,the resea ,,n/12
 318 MICHAEL P. BREEN

output and directlv fo.*",ro'"&"dbgck are significantiy curtaiied (Slimani; Dobinson; Sw'ain
, nds of participation which
SLA research identifies as genuine negotiation for meaning, in rvhat wavs can vary the
"ve
text, discursivepracticesand socialpracticesof the classroomso that genuine negotiation
tb, If there is a joint conspiracvU"-t*-il ,Gfl". *a
learners that predictable and trouble free discourse is preferable to having to work harder
within it, in he
ungedictable and to participate directl)'in resolving both learning and social confusionsl
TFe indir-idual effort to confront and reduce compiexitv in text through discursive
negotiation *'ith and about that text is the catalvst for understanding and, thereby, an
opportunitv for further learning (Long 1996).
All these considerations directh' implv that rve sh
discourse in a language classu'hich is more challeriging to its particjFgll!! :thanit often is.
SuchAlliscourse r,r'illpositively support the kind of risk-taking among learners that can
contribute to deeper and more resilient levels of learning.This means focusing upon the
potential inherent in those discursivepracticesrvhich learners arecurrentl)lobliged to adopt
Given that teachershavethe major responsibilitvin managingthe discourseof lessons,hor.
can \\'e manage it in r'r'avsthat mav maximise such opportunities? Recalling the discursive
practices of learners that I summarised earlier, alternative w.aysof managing the discourse
m a v i n c l u d et h e f o l l o u i n g :

c. Expecting
LAfrrLtrrtY learners
l q d r l t q r ) to'adopt
tv duuPL an
all active
dLrlrL and
alru creative
LlLaLl\L role
lvrL in
l l , constructing
rvlrJ(r u\ rrrrv the text ol
"r----:-
Y lessons
lessonsso that at least two-thirds of
leastt\l'o-thirds ofitit is gen er.
-niliaL'g
4 \,.n , r:-. Building o.,on th.the l.@ilit\:to
learners'alertnessand adaptabilitvto the th" inter-textualitv
i.,t"r]I[Jity Jl!*-o.,
oflessons
(--t-' | \- and familiaritl. u'ith inter-textualitv in the first language by encouraging the
understanding and creation of i.rr,..rtio'., and diverse combinations of written a.rd
1 --, --,.-- i-- -r-^ --^--- l------^-^ t,{,lot'(,r

learners as genuine opportunities for creative use of eme knowledpe and skills
rathert@ ma\ rng waYS.
Enabli rners to make overt and to t h e i r o u n o n - g o i n gl e a r n i n ga g e n d a s
so that these mav be personal]n n and refined and a
collective u'av.
4-

Enabling learners to recognise that-the inevi ng

t h r o u_q_ _h=aa m o r e c h a l l e n q - i ndqi s c o u r s eo f l e s s o n sa r e o u t u ' e i s h e db v b o t h i m m e d i a t e
and long term benefits.
.'--+.i;-
trxDlorlnp \\'lrn rearners\ avsin u-hich the emerging culture of the classroomgroup
can be adapted and constructed in an on-going lvav in order to facilitate their own

Accepting,h.. i"..o seek

TgIggtler,
wavsof ,o-diilrr.e, u..
chosenand adaptedon the basisof overt teacher-iearnerand learne.-t""cher
neggtiationaboutsuchthings.
Appreciating the social risk of doing ail these things, facilitate cooperative and
suooortiveu'avsof uorkinq asa classroomqrouo that resDectsthe identitv.diflficulties.
,',_
and relative autonomv of the individual includinp tiiose of the teacher.

Each of these 'lvaysof rvorking is, of course, related to one another and, therefore,
complementarv. The effort to implement one makes it more possible to implement any ot
 NAVIGATING THE DISCOURSE 3L9

the others. Of course, learners in such a context rvill be confronted bv the chaliengeof
having to navigate a discourse that mav be different from the kind of classroom discourse
with r,vhichthev are more at ease.How'ever, if u.e accept the implications of current SLA
research,it is possiblethat a more positive relationshipbetrveensuccessin navigatingsuch
discourseand successin languagelearning u-il1emerge.

References

A l l e n , P . , S l r ' a i nM, . , H a r l e r ' ,B . , a n d C u m m i n s ,J . ( 1 9 9 0 ) ' A s p e c t so f c l a s s r o o mt r e a t m e n t

torvard a more comprehensivevielr. of secondlanguageeducation',inThe development oJ
second language projciencv, B. Harleverai. (eds).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversitvPress.
Alirvright, R. (1980)'Turns,topicsandtasks:patternsof participationin languageteachingand
I a n g u o g ree J e d r ( hD, . L a r s e n - F r e e m a(ne d .)
l e a r n i n g ' . i n D i s c o u r saen a l ) s i st n s e c o n d
Rou4evMass:NervburvHouse.
- (1984)'Why do.r't leu.nerslearn u'hat teachersteach?Theinteractionhvpothesis',in
D. Singletonand D. Little (eds). Dublin.
ledrninginJormaland inJormalcontexts,
Language
IRAL.
- (1989) lnteraction.inthe languageclassroom: socialproblems and pedagogic Paper
possibilities.
presentedat Les EtatsGenerauxdes Langues,Paris,April 1989.
Allw-right, R. and Bailer',K. (1991) Focuson the languageclassroom: an introductionto classroom
researchfor langudgeteachers. Calnbridge: Cambridge Universitv Press.
'Form
Bahns,J. and Wode, H. (1980) and function in L2 acquisition',in Secondlanguage
development:trends andissues, S. Feiix (ed.;.Tiibingen:Gunter Narr.
'The Learning27,
Beebe,L. (1911) influenceof the listener on code-su.itching' . Language
331 9.
'Accommodation
Beebe,L. and Zuengler,J. ( 1983) theorv: an explanationlor style shiftingin
secondlanguagedialects', in Sociolinguistics andsecond languageacquisition, N.Wolfson and
E. Judd (eds).RorvlevMass:Neu'burv House.
Berrvick, R. (1990) Taskvarjatjonand repdr tn Engltshas aJoreignlanguage.Kobe Universitv of
Commerce:Instituteof EconomicResearch.
Bourdieu,P. (1991) Language andslmbolicpower.Cambridge:Politv Press.
Breen,M.P. (1985)'The socialcontext for languagelearning:a neglectedsituation?'Studies in
second language acquisition7. 135-58.
- (1996)'Constructions of the teacherin SLA research',in Georgetown UniversityRound
Tableon Languages and Linguistics1996, J.E. Alatis, C.A. Straehle,M. Ronkin, and B.
Geilenberger(eds;.WashingtonD. C. : GeorgetorvnUniversitv Press.
'The
Bruner, l. (1981) pragmaticsof acquisition',in The child'sconstruction of language,W
Deutsch(ed.). Ner,r-York: AcademicPress.
Chaudron, C. (1988) Secondlanguageclassrooms: researchon rcachingand learning.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversitl Press.
'The for secondlanguagelearners'
Dahl, D. ( 1981) role of experiencein speechmodiGcations
MinnesotaPapers in Linguistics
and Philosoph,v oJLanguage 1 . 7 8-93 .
Da.y,R. (1984)'student participation in the ESL classroom,or some imperfections in
p r a c t i c e. L a n g u a gLee a r n t n 3g + . 6 9 - 1 0 2 .
Dobinson, T. (1996) The recall and rercntionoJ new vocabularl'Jrom secondlanguageclassrooms.
Unpublished M .A. dissertation,Edith CorvanUniversity,Western Australia.
Donaldson,M. (1978) Children's minds.London: Fontana.
Edmondson,W (1985)'Discourservorldsin the classroomand in foreign languagelearning',
Studies in Second Language AcquisitionJ . 159-68.
320 I V I I C H A E LP . B R E E N

Ellis, R. (1985)'Teacher-pupilinteractionin secondlanguagedevelopment'.lnput in second

S. Gassand C. Madden (eds).Rou'levMass.:NervburYHouse.
languageacquisition,
- (1992) 'Learningto communicatein the classroom'.Studies
in Second Acquisition
Language
1+.1-23.
- (199+) ThestudyoJsecond languageacquisition.Oxford: Oxford Universitv Press.
'The
Enright,D. ( 1984) organisationof interactionin elementarvclassrooms', in OnTESOL'8
3:
, J. Handscombeet dl . (eds).Washington
oJcontrol
the question D.C.:TESOL.
Elv, C. (1985)'An analvsisof discomfort, risktaking, sociabilitvand motiration in the L2
^f ...-^^-' LL u^ t,I ,Ht un un[al E II ca un Ir n
t t it nt rna l6 l-);
Lld)sl uulll

Fairclough,N. (1989) Language andpower. London: Longman.

- andsocialchange.
(1992) Discourse Cambridge: Politv Press.
Foster,S. (1990) Thecommunicativecompetence oJloungchjldren.London: Longman'
Foucault,\[. (1912) ThearcheologyoJknowledge. London:TavistockPublications.
- ( 1984)'The order of discourse', in Language M. Shapiro(ed). Oxford: Basil
and politics,
Blacku'ell.
'Anglica
Glahn. E. and Holman, A. (eds) (1985) e t A m e r i c a n a 2 2 ' . L e a r n e rd i s c o u r s e .
Copenhaqen : Universitvof Copenhagen
Grcmnro..\1.. Holec, H. , and Riler',P ( 1978)MelangesPedagogiques. hking theinitiative:some
rrj;gogrcal applications oJ discourse anal,vsis. Universitv of Nancv: CRAPEL'
cntnths. R. r1991)'Pausological researchin an L2 context: a rationaleand review of selected
s t u d i e s.', l p p h e dL i n g u i s t i c s2 . 2 7 6 9 + .
1
Hallidar,.\1..\.K. (.1978)Lang,uage assocjalsemiotic. London: Edw'ardArnold.
Hamalan,E. andTucker,R. (19801'Language input in the bilingualclassroomand its relations
to secondlanguageachievement' . TESOL@tarrerlvl+. +53-58.
'Discourse
Hatch, E. (1978) analysisand secondlanguageacquisition', in Secondlanguage
acqutsition, E. Hatch (ed.). Rou lev Mass:Ne."vburvhouse.
- (1992) Discourse andlanguage educatton. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversitv Press.
Hatch, E., Shirai,Y.,and Fantuzzi,C. (1990)'The need for an integratedtheory: connecting
m o d u l e s.' T E S O L Q t a r t e r l ;2 + . 6 9 7 - 1 1 6 .
'Foreigner Linguistics 17.
Henzel,V (1979) talk in the classroom'. International Review oJApplied
15 9 - 5 5 .
Hyltenstam,K. (1984)'The use of tvpologicalmarkednessconditionsas predictorsin second
languageacquisition:the caseofpronominal copiesin relative clauses',rn Second language:
a crosslingutstic perspective, R. Anderson(ed.). Rorvlet'Mass:Nervburv House.
Hyltenstam, K. and Pienemann,N't. (eds) (1985) Modellingand assessing secondlanguage
acquisition. Clevedon:Multiiingual Matters.
Johnston,S. (i990) Teacher questions in the academ)c language-content classrcom. Unpublished
paper.Tok-vo: Tempie Universitv Japan.
Johnston,M. and Pienemann,M. (1985) Second language acquisition: a classroom perspective.New
SouthWales Migrant Education Service.
Kasper,G. (ed.) (1985) Learning,teach)ng and communjcatjon in theJodgn languageclassroom.
Aarhus:AarhusUniversitvPress.
K l i e f g e n , J ( 1 9 8 5 ) ' s k i l l e d v a r i a t i o n i n a k i n d e r g a r t e n t e a c h e r ' s u s ef oorf e i g n e r t a l k ' . l n p u t t n
secondlanguageacquisition, S. Gass and C. Madden (eds). Rou'lev Mass.: Neu'bury
House.
Kramsch,C. (1985)'Classroominteractionand discourseoptions'. Srudres in SecondLanguage
,4cquisition7 . 159-83.
'sociocultural
Lantolf, J.099+) theorv and secondlanguagelearning: an introduction to the
specialissue'. ,llodernLanguage Journal78. +18-4'20.
Lantolf, J. and Appel, G. (199+) (eds) lTgorsiyanapproaches to secondlanguagercsearch.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex PublishingCorporation.
 NAVIGATING THE DISCOURSE 32I

'Teacher
Larsen-Freeman,D. (1976a.1 speech as input to the ESL learner' . IJniversityoJ
CalrJornia'tl'orking Papers in TESL | 0 . + 5-+9 .
- 'An
(1976b) exploration of the morpheme acquisition order of second language
l e a r n e r s.' L a n g u a gLee a r n i n)g6 . 1 2 ; I l 4
- 'The
(1983) importance of input in second language acquisition', in Pidginizationand
creolizationand languageacquisition,R. Anderson (ed.). Rolr'le), Mass: Newbury House.
'The
Leont'er-, A.N. (1981) problem of activitv in psvcholog.t:, in l',vgotsk1' and the social
oJmind,J.Wertsch (ed.). Cambridge, N{ass.: Harr-ard Universitv Press.
Jormarion
Lightbonn, P. (1980)'The acquisition and use of questions bv French L2 learners of English',
in Secondlanguagedevelopment:trends and issues,S. Felix (ed.).Ttibingen: Gunter Narr.
- 'Exploring
(1983) relationships betr,r-eendevelopmental and instructional sequencesin
L2 acquisition', in Classroomoriented researchjn secondlanguage acquisition,H. Seliger and
M. Long (eds). Ror'vlev Mass: Neu.burv House.
- ( 1985) Can language acquisitionbe aheredb,r'instruction?,Hvltenstam and Pienemann (eds).
- (1991)'What have rve here? Some observations on the effect of instruction on L2
learning', in Foreign/secondlanguage Pedagogv Research,R. Phillipson er 41. (eds)
Clevedon : Muitilinguai Matters.
- 'Getting
(1992) qualitv input in the second,/foreign language ciassroom', in Text and
context:
cross-disciplinaw on languagestudv,C. Kramsch and S. McConnel-Ginet
perspectives
(eds). Lexington N{ass:D.C. Heath and Co.
Lock, A. ( 1980) ThegutdedrcinventionoJlanguage.Neu'York: Academic Press.
Long, M. (1980) Input, intercction and second language acquisition. Unpublished Ph.D'
dissertation. Universitv of California at Los Angeles.
- (1981)'lnput, interaction and second language acquisition'. '\iorire languageandJoreign
language acquisition, H . Winitz (ed) . Annals of the Neu'York Academv of Sciences, 3 79 .
- (1985)'A role for instruction in second language acquisition: task-based language
teaching'. Modelltng and assessingsecondlanguage acquisition, K. Hvltenstam and 11
Pienemann (eds). Clevedon: Mulitlingual Matters.
- '
( 198 9) Task, group, and task-group interactions' . Uni rersity oJ Hawai'i ltrlorkingPapersin
E S r8 . 2 5 1 - 8 6 .
- acquisition',in
(1996)'The role of the linguisticenvironmentin secondlanguage
HandbookoJ second languageacquisition,W.Ritchie andT. Bhatia(eds).Neu'York:Academic
Press.
Long, M. and Sato, C. (1983)'Classroom foreigner talk discourse:forms and functions of
teachers'questions',in Classroom orjentedresearchin secondlanguageacqutsition,H. Seliger
and M. Long (eds).Ror'r'levMass:Nervburt'house.
Macdonnel,D. (1985) Theories Oxford: BasilBlackrvell.
oJdiscourse.
McTear, M. (1975)'structure and categoriesof foreign languageteaching sequences',in
WorkingPapers: LanguageTeachtng CldssroomAesearch, R. Allu.right (ed.). Universitv of
Essex,Department of Languageand Linguistics.
Naiman,N., Frohlich,M., Stern,H. , andTodesco.A. ( 1978) Thegoodlanguage Research
learner.
in EducationSeries7 .Toronto:The Ontario Institutefor Studiesin Education.
Nystrom, N. (1983)'Teacher-student interactionin bilingual classrooms:four approachesto
error feedback', in Classroomorientedresearch
in second languageacquisition>H. Seliger and
M. Long (eds).Rou'levMass:Neu'burv House.
'Adult
Pica,T. (1933) acquisitionof Englishas a secondlanguageunder different conditions of
e x P o s u r e. L a n g u a gLee a r n t n )g1 . + 6 5 - 9 1.
Pica,T., Doughtv, C., andYoung,D. (1985)'Making input comprehensible:do interactional
'7
modificationshelp? InternationalRevtewoJAppliedLinBuistics2 . | 25 .
Pica,T.,Young,R., and Doughtr-,C. (1987)'The impact of interactionon comPrehension'
TESOLQgarterlv' 21. 1 3l-58.
322 MICHAEL P. BREEN

Piough, I. and Gass,S. (1993)'lnterlocutor and task familiaritv: effects on interactiona

structure', in Iasfrs andlanguagelearning:integratingtheory G. Crookesand S.
andpractice,
Gass(eds).Clevedon: N{ultilingual Matters.
politzer,R., Ramirez,A., and Leu'is,S. (1981)'TeachingstandardEnglishin the third grade
classroom I l. l7l ql.
l u n c t i o n so l l a n g u a g e.' L a n g u a gLee a r n i n g
Rampton, B. (1987)'stvlistic variabilitv and not speaking"normal" English: some Post-
Labovian approachesand their implications for the studv of interlanguage', in Secon:
languageacqujsition in context, R. Eliis (ed ). London: PrenticeHall Internationai.
Rilev, P. (1911) Discourse networks in classroom interaction: someproblems languagi.
in communicative
MelangesPedagogiques.
rcachinB. Universitvof Nanc-v:CRAPEL.
yf communicative
Schiefelbusch,R. and Pickar, J. (eds) (1984t The acquisition comPetencc
BaltimoreMD.: UniversitvPark Press.
. LanguaS:
Schmidt,M. (1980)'Coordinatestructuresand languageuniversalsin interlanguage'
Learning30. 397--+16.
Seliger,H. (1917)'Does practice make perfect?A studv of interaction Patterns and Ll
c o m p e t e n c e. 'L a n g u a gLee a r n i n 2
g1 . 2 6 3 - 1 8 .
Sinclair,J. and Coulthard,N,I.( 1975) Towards an anal,vsis Oxford: Oxford Universitr
oJdiscourse.
Press.
'The
Slimani..\. (1989) role of topicalisationin classroomlanguagelearning'. System1,
2 2 33 + .
- ( 1992y'Evaluationof classroominteraction', in Evaluatingsecond
languageacquisittor,-
Press.
J. AldersonandA. Beretta(eds).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
M. (1982)'school age secondlanguagelearners'accesst'-
Snoll.,C. and Hoefnagel-Hciirle,
Learning32. +11 30.
simplifiedlinguisticinput'. Language
Spada,N. (1987)'Relationshipsbetu-een instructional differencesand iearning outcomes:"
process-product studv of communicative language teaching'. Applied Linguistics>
18 1 - 9 9 .
'social
Strong, M. (1983) styles and second language acquisition of spanish-speakir:.
kindergarteners'. IESOI Qgarteill'1l . 2+1-\8.
Strong,M. (19S+)'lntegrative motivation: languageacquisition
causeor result of successful
Language Learnlng3+. 1-1+.
Su,ain,M. (1985)'Communicative competence:some roles of comprehensibleinput anc
comprehensible language
output in its development',in lnput in second S. Ga-'.
acquisition,
and C. Madden (eds).Rou'levMass:Nel'burv House.
Swain, M. (1995)'Three functions of output in second languagelearning', in For H.e
Widdowson:principlesand practicein the studvoJlanguage,G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer(eds
Oxford: Oxford Universitl' Press.
'The langua:':
T. (1989)
Takahashi, influenceof listener on L2 speech',rn Variationin second
issues,
vol II:Ps,vcholinguistic
acquisition, S. Gass.,C. Madden,D. Preston,and L. Selinke:
(eds).Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.
'Politeness:
Tanaka,N. ( 199 1) some problems for Japaneselearners of Engiish'. JALTJournal"
81-102.
London: Edward Arnold.
Tarone, E. ( 198 8) Variationin interlanguage.
Van Dijk,T. (1935) Handbook oJdiscourse 1 '1. London:AcademicPress.
analysis,lbls
Van Lier, L. (1988) The clasvoom andthelanguage learner.London: Longman.
Vygotskv,L. (1986) Thoughtand language(nerv edition, A. Kozulin (ed)). Cambridge,Mass
MIT Press.
studyoJlanguage
Wells, G. (1981) Learningtfuoughinteraction:the Language
development. at hor.:
and school:1. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversitv Press.
- in thepreschool
development
I 9 8 5 . Language at homeandschool:2.Cambridg.
l ears.Language
CambridgeUniversitvPress.
 Chapter 20

JoanSwann

RECORDING AND TRANSCRIBING TALI(

IN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS

Introduction

r f . l H I S C H A P T E R P R o v I D E S G U I D A N C E F o R t h o s eu ' h o w i s h t o c a r r yo u t
I an investigation into aspectsof spoken language. It is designed mainlv for use in
educational settings, and u'ill probablv be particularlv appropri.t" fo. teacheis and other
educationists engaged on small-sbaleresearch projects. Manv of the techniques and
principles it discusses,however, applv equallv well to investigations of spoken languagein
non-educationalcontexts.
I shall discussfactors to take into account r,vhenmaking audio and video recordings of
spoken language, then look at different r,l-aysof making a rvritten transcript fro- ttese
recordings.The article does not pror,'idedeiailed guidan"ceon analysis,but i shall refer to
other chapters in this volume that serve as examples of different ways of analvsingtalk.

Preliminaries: deciding what information you need and how to

collect this

I am assumingthat, asa reader of this chapter, vou rvill alreadt'har.ein mind a clear purpose
for recording and analvsing spoken language- that vou w-ill have identified certain issues
to focus on, perhaps specified, in a formal project, as a set of researchquestions.These
questions w'ill affect the setting in rvhich vou carrv out your research,the people and events
you decide to observe and record, the stance vou adopt tolvards others involved in _vour
research, the particular types of recording vou make and holr. -voutranscribe and u.rilyr"
these.

Selecting a sample oJ people and events

Since you cannot, and u-ill not rvish to record er.ervthing that is going on you will need to
select people and events to focus on. If vour interest is in aspectsof claisroom talk,
1.oumav
wish to focus on talk between the teacher (vourself or u .olleug.r"; and pupiis, or ietoueen
different pupils, or both.You mav be interested in u.hole-classdiscussionor small-group
talk.You ma1'rvish to compare contributions from a small number of pupils in diflerent
contexts, or to monitor one child closelvin a range of activities.
 324 JOAN SWANN

you r,vill also need to think about the representativenessof the tvpes of talk you wish
record
to examine. For instance,holv are vou seiecting the tvpes of activitv that vou wish to
are you
and analvse?Do these cor,er the full range of activities normalh' encountered? Or
contrasting contexts you think are distinctive in some r'vay?
If you'are carrying out a small-scale investigation focusing on talk in one or tw'o
talk vou
conte*is, there are trvJ important points to bear in mind about the samples of
eventuallv come up rvith:

your observationsmav provide great insightsinto peoples' conversationalstrategies.

the wav thev manaqe certain activities or their understanding of certain concePts
but vou cannot *-uk" b.oud qeneralizations on the basis of a sma]l-nunqLer of

# obr.ffi.t utio", of p.opies' behaviourin one set of contexts

fffi oip-todA;evid ence of hor'r-thev' gen erallv' b ehave.
A relatedpoint is that there ar:!Igbkl[-1! inferencesabout people's abilities
o. undersiandingon the basisof $ hat thev happentoFo u hen .'ou are re
r
theitln-T . studentsmav derelop ioping strategiesthat
a e.'rdo.

Adopting a reseatcher stance

A distinction is commonl,v made in research be.tween Pg:lN, *d

""-!""1'!t=
observation.A participant observer is someone lvho takes part in the evenishe or he .:
observing; a non-participant observer does not take part.There are practical dif{icultrt'
with this distinction: for instance,bv virtue of being in a classroom(or meeting' etc-)' ::
br settingup recordinq equipment, )ou are to some e .*d tjy:--Ut:-'
'-4:--_'.-

linguist ' identitied

Labov identitied what l'.
what l,=
tq have an effect on people's language behaviour.The
i 1970) that the mere act of observing peopl . '
-

l".rg,rug"b&-,ri.;-(;f; of their behaviour)tt4.h:9,.*-

thatiratter, otheraspects
thaibJhavlour. Different effects are likeh'to be produced bv differenf observers (it m:'
rffi*tretter an observer is female or male, or perceived as relativel)' senior or junior
Man' linguistic researchers(such as Labov himself) have attemPted, in various wavs'::
minimiselhe intrusion of their observationsin order to obtain more'authentic' data' Oth.:'
har.eargued that such detachment is not a reasonableresearch goal:

We inevitablv bring our biographies and our subjectivities to every stage -:

the research process, and this influences the questions lve ask and the lvays in lr-hi;:-
we try to fini ans\irrrs.
b" ,".r, as a regrettable disturbancebut as one element in the human interactio:-i
that comprise our obiect o fJimiliifv, research subjects themselves are actli:
Fffii" beings-;ho hu,= insights into their situationsand experienc.'
They cannot be observed as if thel' rvere asteroids, inanimate lumps of matter:.th.
har,eto be interacted rvith. (Cameron, Frazer, Hart'ev, Rampton and Richardsc:-
1992,p.5)

For educationistsresearchingin their ow'n institutions, or institutions r,vithwhich ther-ha'-

a close association,it rvill probably be impossibleto act as a completely detachedobserr':
It will be impossible, for instance, to maintain a strict separation between your role a' -:
-' -
observer u.i usual role as a teacher or a colleague.When interpreting the talk
"orr.
 RECORDINGAND TRANSCRIBING TALI< 325

.r'ill need to take t of the effect vour o\\'n presence.and the lvav vou
.: rhe obserr,ations.mav have had on vour data.
tionship 'ou have, or that vou
u ith those r,vhoparticipate in vour research and allou' vou to observe their
. chaviour. I have used the term to refer to this more general
@t@
. .^l the *'av a researcherbehavestow'ards the people and events she or he is
' r d n 1 € r o hF, r a z e r H . a m p t o na n d R i c h a r d s o nt 1 9 9 2 1 d i s t i n g u i sbhe t u ' e e n
, a r \ . e r 'R
- I r e l a t r o n s n r Do.r r e s e a r c n e sr t a n c e :

:, feSeafC r,vhicha researcher bears in mind the interests of resear-ch

-
rants e.g.minimising anv inconveniencecaused,protectingprivac,!'- but still
- -i:< {lut fe esearcherwho sets the
1) .. not other researchparticipants;
-
-:.ir, in lvhich researcherscarrv out research on andJor participants - e.g.
-. :-n_gthemselvesas accountableto participants and being r,villingto use their
: .lnou-ledgeon participants'behalf (rvhen required b1'participantsto do so);
- '.\!.rinq research' in r'vhichresearcherscarrv out research on,Jorand ra'ithother
,
, - - :ants e.g.being completelv open about the aims and methods of the research,
::..!rng the importance of participants' orvn agendas,empor,r.ering participants
- .r-.<them direct accessto expert knou'ledge.

: :!.searcherstancevou fbel able to adopt rvill affect the overall conduct ofyour
'.r'hat\rou research, the specific methods
1'ou adopt, how you interpret
, :.. rhe iorms i., r,r'hichvou disseminateresearch findings. Points to consider

' . :: of talk ts it reasonable to record? Onlv'public' talk or also casual,or'private'

- :!.rtion?
- :-;,s_1 5 needpermission to recordtoli? Researcherswouid usuallygain permission
_ -
:-\: , cLUru'rgo 1y€rhdpsfrom parents in the caseof voung children), whereas talk
-: rr-corded by teachers as a part of 'normal'teaching activitv that does not
. ,,-:: permission. But rvhat if the teacher is aiso a researcher,or if s/he wishes to
' - . : , S i o f ' r o u t i n e ' r e c o r d i n g sf o r r e s e a r c hp u r p o s e s ?
::-,hould you be aboutthe purposes ofl our recordings? Bound up-ryrlh rthis,ilSsde!-.
' s e r v F i sp a r a d o x : i t i s l i k e l r t h a t t h e m o r e \ o u t e l l p e o p l ea b o u t
: ' r i o n o f t h e o b---vr-
:r>tdrCh the more thEir bthaviour u-ill be aflected. Some researchers
yets
r o feel that, if 1'ou are
:'. rnq as a colleagueor a teacher,it is important to retain an atmosphereof trusl . J
' . n \oursell ancltnose vou \4orK \\'ltn.
=:1
your recordingswith research
" i ; i f f i r,,v-,- ),)u discuss pafiicipants?This has to do
,'- u-ith the researcherstancevou adopt. Discussingrecordings with others also
, ,u check 'r'our interpretations against theirs, -uu giie vou a different
"Id
: - t a n d i n go f r o u r d a t a .
- .../.1.,^.. :)^-.;./1, '
,, L)tu ) uu lwertL!);Aose lou haverecorded?In writrng reports, researchersoften give
- :'rnvms to institutions in rvhich they har-ecarried out research, or people r.l'hose
ecollaboratiieli:ffi-paniciprntr,holr'erer,
:'.1' .rvish to be identified bv name. If vou do rvish to maintain confidentialitv it
326 JOAN SWANI\

-
in-r'our ou'n institution the idenu:
mav be hard to do this'nvherevou are obserr-ing
,o ma1.beapparentto other'coileagu,es. one solution is to discu''
;;;;; .;;;,.r". ''
confidentialitrlthev feel is necessaryand h'-
r,vith colleaguesor students hoor'-rr.h
this mar be maintained'
haverecordedaboutthedissemination and'furt:::
. ln what wavsshouldvou consultthose,vou
for a certain purpose' b--'
use oJyourworft? Peoplema,vgi1 permissionto be recorded
rvhatifvourpr,.po*"hu"g-"iEg 1'oumavrvishtodisseminateyour*:1kt:a$'id':
audience,.r,";* fo, o-or*researchin a professionaldevelopm':':
"-rid"o-obtuii"d
s e s s i o nu ' i d l l o c a l t c a c h e r s '

camer'-:
betlveen researchersand'the researched"
For those interested in the relationships
orgalisllions aiso provide researchguidelir'"
et al . (19921 tsa usefLl source. Professional ':
(199+) Recommendation:
_ see for instance the British Association for Rp"phedLinguistics
GoodPractice in AppltedLinguistics'
on making audio and vidt
The sections that follou' provide practical guidance.
:
these recordings' a n d t r a n s c r i b i n gt a l k
recordings, making fieldnotes to supplement
detailed analvsis.

Making aud.io and video recordings

or other educational settings' it is importar-:

When planning to record tdlk in classrooms will n'et:
equipment is,routinelv
to allow adequatetime for this' Unlessrecording lsed' 1ou da::'
equifment.You will aiso need to pilot your
to allow. time to collect, set up and check
to record clearlv the kinds of data )ou a::
collection methods to ..r.rrr"'that it is porritl"
recordings vou will need time to play and repl:.
interested in' When vou have mud" vo,,I-
to make transcriptions'
these to become fu-iii". rvith vour data and
audioor videorecordings' Videos ar=
An initial decision .o.t."rt. u'hether to make
uset--
interest in rjon--r--ei6sfBehaviour;theY are also
pu.tlorlurlt useful for those u'ith an the othe:
out, or certain equipment used' On
for shotving holv certain activities are carried al'-
intrusive then audio recorders, and,vou maY
hand, video camerasare likelv to be more
oi speech'
find it harder to obtain a clear recording
to bear in mind w'hen making a choic'
I have set out belonu some practi."ul poi.r,,
b e t w e e na u d i o a n d v i d e o r e c o r d i n g s '
Afteryouhavemaderecordirr"gs,-itisusefu]tomake"'#
( u s e t h e c a s s e t t eP l a \ i :
. n J t h e n s u m m a r i z et h e c o n t e n t
a n d c o n t e x t o [ e a c hs e q u e n c ea
again).
tup"a,,dTJpyo' lo*re extracts
."r.ffi,r,

Aud.io or video recordings?

Audio-recotdings
.Anaudio-cassetterecordercanbeintrusive-.ho@d-
to bffiE7ecorded, or recordin-g
case in classrooms rr-her" l,'P;1. "." used
is moreor"@orders areused
;ffiusiveness
and u'here there is not tht
in contexts lvhere talk is not normallr:re.ord.d,
(e ' g' staff or other meetings) '
opportunit\ for recording to become routine
 R E C O R D I N GA N D T R A N S C R I B I N G T A L I ( 3 2 7

I n t r u s i v e n e scsa nb e l e s s e n e db v k e e p i n gt h e t e c h n o l o q l s i m o l ea n d u n o b t r u s i re -
a l
for example bv using a small, batterv-operatedcassetterecorder w-ith a built,in
.
a l s o a r o i d s t h e d a n g e ro f ' t r a i l i n g u i r e s . a n d t h e p r o b l e m o f
T5jgph.*.-Ihis
finding appropriate sockets.
It is also better to use a fairlv simple cassetterecorder if pupils are recording
themselves.In this case,go for a machine *-ith a small number of controls, and
check that voung pupils can operate the buttons easilr'.
There is a trade-off betu'een lack of intrusireness/ease of use and cualitv of
recording: more sophisticated machines, used lvith separate microphones,
will produce a better qualitv recording. This is a consideration if l.ou intend to
use the recordings r'r'ith others, for example in a professionai deveiopment
session.
A s i-:---_
n g l ec a s s e t t er e c o r d e r i s n o t s u i t a b l ef o r r e c o r d i n g u - h o l e - c l a sdsi s c u s s i o n ,
r..l".r t or fo.rr o. th . The recorder rvill pick up loud voices, or
voices that are near to it, and probablv lose the rest behind background noise
(scraping chairs and so on). Even lr'hen recording a small group, background
noise is a problem. It is rvorth checking this br. piloting vour recording
arrangements: speakersmav need to be located in a quieter area outside the
classroom.
With audio-recordingsyou lose important nonverbal and contextuai information.
Unless vou are familiar uath the speakers \-ou mav also find it difficult to
distinguish betrveen different voices.Wherever Wherer.'er possible, supplement audio-
r . . . o . i i n g , * i t h f i e l d - n o t e so r a d i a r r p r -

Video-recording s

' Video camerasare more intrusive than audio-cassetterecorders. In contexts such

as classrooms,intrusivenesscan be lessenedbv leaving the recorder around for
a w.hile (su'itched ofl).
o ,A video camera is highlv selective - it cannot pick up evervthing that is going on
in a large room such as a classroom. If vou move it around the classroom vou w.ill
get an impression of u'hat is going on, but rvill not pick up much data you can
actuallv use for analvsis.A video camera may be used to focus on the teacher's
behaviour.Wh"r, ,rr"d to record pupils, it is best to selecta small group, carrying
out an activitl'in rvhich they don't need to move around too much.
' As r'vith audio-recordings, it is best to have the group in a quiet area vv'heretheir
work u'ill not be disrupted bv onlookers.
' The recording wiii be more useableif vou check that the camera has all that -vou
want in view- and then lear.eit running. If vou move the camera around you may
lose important information, and you mav introduce bias (bv focusing selectively
on certain pupils or actions).
' Video cameras w'ith built-in microphones don't ahvaysproduce good sound
recordings.You w-ill need to check this. A common problem is that you may need
to locate a camera a long r,vavfrom the group you are observing both to obtain
a suitable angle of vien., and to keep the apparatusunobtrusive. If it is important
that you hear preciselv lvhat each person sal's,you mav need to make a separate
audio-recordingor use an external microphone plugged into the video camera.
 R E C O R D I N GA N D T R A N S C R I B I N G T A L I ( 3 2 7

I n t r u s i v e n e scsa nb e l e s s e n e db r k e e p i n st h e t e c h n o l o q vs i m o l ea n d u n o b t r u s i v e .
-
f o r e x a m p l eb r u s i n ga s m a [ .l b a t t e r r o p e r a t e dc a s s e t t er e c o r d e r n i t h a b u i l t - i n
m i c r o p h o n e . T h i sa l s o a r o i d s t h e d a n g e r o f t r a i l i n g n ' i r e s , a n d t h e p r o b l e m o f
--
finding appropriate sockets.
It is also better to use a fairlv simple cassetterecorder if pupils are recording
themselves.In this case,go for a machine u'ith a small number of controls, and
check that voung pupils can operate the buttons easilv.
There is a trade-off betu-een lack of intrusiveness/easeof use and cualitv of
recording: more sophisticated machines, used rvith separate microphones,
u.ill produce a better qualitr'' recording. This is a consideration if l-ou intend to
use the recordings r,r-ithothers, for example in a professionai development
session.
A siaglg_ge$etterecorder is not suitablefor recording u'hole-classdiscussion,
ru
r"_lesti.ot fo.r, ot th .The recorder u-ill pick up loud voices,or
voices that are near to it, and probablv lose the rest behind background noise
(scraping chairs and so on). Even w-henrecording a small group, background
noise is a problem. It is rvorth checking this br. piloting vour recording
arrangements: speakersmav need to be located in a quieter area outside the
classroom.
With audio-recordingsvou lose important nonverbal and contextuai information.
Unless vou are familiar with the speakers \rou mav also find it difficult to
distinguish betrveen dillerent different voices.Wherer-'er Wherever possible, supplement audio-
. " . o . J i n g , u i t h h e l d - n o t e so r a d i a r . p r .,

Video-recording s

' Video camerasare more intrusir-e than audio-cassetterecorders. In contexts such

as classrooms,intrusivenesscan be lessenedbv leaving the recorder around for
a w.hile (sw'itched oft).
o ,\ video camera is highlv seiective- it cannot pick up everything that is going on
in a large room such asa classroom.If vou move it around the classroomvou will
get an impression of r,vhatis going on, but rvill not pick up much data you can
actuailv use for analysis.A video camera mav be used to focus on the teacher's
behaviour.Whenusedto record pupils, it is best to selecta small group, carrying
out an activitv in n'hich thel' don't need to move around too much.
' As u.ith audio-recordings, it is best to have the group in a quiet area rvhere their
rvork will not be disrupted bv onlookers.
' The recording u'ill be more useableif vou check that the camera has all that vou
want in vieu' and then leave it running. If vou move the camera around you may
lose important information, and vou mav introduce bias (bv focusing selectivelv
on certain pupils or actions).
. Video cameras lvith built-in microphones don't alu.a_vs produce good sound
recordings.You wiil need to check this. A common problem is that you may need
to locate a camera a long u'a\. from the group you are observing both to obtain
a suitable angle of vieu,-,and to keep the apparatusunobtrusive. If it is important
that you hear preciselv lr.hat each person savs,vou mav need to make a separate
audio-recording or use an external microphone plugged into the video camera.
 328 JOAN SWANN

Making field-notes

Field-notes allorv vou to jot dorvn, in a svstematicu'ar',vour observations on activitie.

anc
and events.Thev provide useful contextual support for audio and video recordings,
if vour
mav also be an important source of information in their ou'n right. For instance,
focus is on students in a particular iesson, vou mav lvish to make notes on a (related
lessor'
discussionbetlveen teachers;on other lessonsvou are unable to record; or on the
make
vou are focusing on, to supplement \-our audio/r'ideo recordings.Youma1'alsolvish to
as a to (and a context for'
notes on the audlo/vidio recordings themseh'es, prelude
transcriPtion.
If uou a.e taking notes of a discussionor lesson on the spot, you w'ill find that the taik
as talk
flo*,, ,.".t rapidlv. ihi, i, likelv to be the case particularlv in informal talk, such
on the spot. Ir:
betq,een stnde"tr in a group. More formal talk is often easier to observe
talk
rvhole-classdiscussiont.a Ui u teacher, or in formal meetings, usually onh' one person
at a time, and participants may lvait to talk until nominated bv the teacher_or.chair.The
teacher or- chuir mav rephrase or summarize u.hat others speakershave said. The slighth
more ordered nut.,r" of such talk gives an observer more breathing spaceto take notes.
It is usual to date notes and to Ptotid. b.i"f .o"tt 'The format adoptec
, ,r'
\-/
i s h i g h l v r a r i a b l e d e p e n d i n go n p a r t i c u l a rr e s e a r c hi n t e r e s t sa n d P e r s o n a lP r e t e r e n c e s
Figu-rei0.1 ,ho*-, extiacts from field-notes made b.-t-,-o Open Universitl' colleague Janer
Mlvbin rvhile watching an assemblvin a school in the south-eastof England. Janet Mavbin''
obJervationsforrn pa.iofu l"rg", studt of 10 12 vear old children's collaborative language
down rr:
practices in school. In this extract, she rvasinterested in identifving the values laid
s.hool assemblies. She u,anted to see u'hether, and how, these might resurface later ir:
chiidren's talk in other contexts.
active part in the assembll" so she could jot dou-r:
Janet Mavbin \\-asnot taking an
observationsand brief comments at the time. Shealso audio-recorded the assemblyfor later
analysis(she occasionallvjots dou-n counter numbers in her field-notes). After school' sht
*.oi" up her field-notes, separating observations (u'hat actuallv happened) from a
r.
commenta.v (her questions,reflectiontGterp6T;-tions, ideasfor things to follow up later
,--Tii,utuirng'observation' from'commentarv' is useful in that itencourages the obserl'er
to thinl.u."frllv about rvhat thev have observed, and to try out different interpretations
Bear in mind, however, that no observati i enttrelY tl

focus on and hou' vou d-escribeevents alreadv de nd on an im licit inter

framefork.

Making a transcript Ih, = 15 Q,, lra',.st foa !

In order to anal-vsespoken languageat anv level of detail, vou will need to make a written
transcript.tanscription is, horvever,velv time-consuming.Edwards andWestgate(199+
suggestihat hou.', recording mav require 15 hours for transcription. I find that I can
"u.rv
-u1I" . rough transcript more quicklv than this, but a detailed transcript may take far longer.
particularli if a lot of nonverbal or contextual information is included.
In ,-ill-s.al. research,rr2nscripts mav b For instance, you coulc
transcribetti*_SoSlg nutes from a longer interaction.You could use field
notes to iftinn; or you could make a rough transcript o:
an ii-teraction to identifv general of interest, then more detailed transcripts of relevan:
extracts.
 R E C O R D I N GA N D T R A N S C R I B I N G T A L I ( 3 2 9

{* Nd"t 6otot lo^-&

,-,
w
t3+ 3 ol^i//..^i.l. ;, n t Ct^h ,t 9r otu\ +
t,*, L rreaar-t pen-i dl"r-trriltuTs,.!baf
,a. il6lt o0". d.;iXrta
abo.t 0,6"1 ,jLi iltr
ri fi" o-e.re.r^th.l^lAot,;
ha^)t kt",{h 5..J.1 d,-
od alf.qd,r.z. b"ri c*,* A-.tr L,. t
?*i,b
I clilA arL' {€-fr{ b A 6*ldd+ RAL +@tl,t
4.. t.-t osd b pry.lt4l E
br^L 6nJ.rrb o^ilr ra.rsq.
bt P?&,6.d u. arilr L
cl4 d&.f a&Mll.{ af CL 'fii,,t.Arr.R; "ur arJ}L-
.' S h. g pqst/
I*,t trai,,sqlr., 4te g-tc/
-rjrj{rq
f c-aq
"rAt*, ott;y t ,j r.t
[saa& 4.'oL ar').
"t*t }"tt fu oL+f*i.;.,rrr
{h1p ku.{ + . nL rc,;apl'
sk ft4 t

l+z^ lutlr- rwg Aa.t, pd'€"/.4 &.*/ a/.Lc^ l*ts-.^

I p".* oe.rd,u, Fu hdl, ot ezot-iilth 4L! sr-"r*
a+l d4niit dfr Ao', ir
fp dstr d,. LUJ'tu)*; k*
It .t lrt^o' u.qn- i n
Sta.ri, i La'C {oir,i"r cn - &lU^tq, r*t! lr-,.t^,t,,
baarars4 .S.fnf ,fJl^^ adry d;b
la+rl o.a r*z a\aotu;^A + p,;il t+o1nrr
(e'ilrr!
ls etqEuoltA-'
tb ,"tr b ^'t.t?
ttL-*iU.'+t
I\L A]ua* fi. l'at ,i. .lt' n ort *
PRtu.lri? S trq o^f" red-€ o*t L&rola ii rte<.qg $-
aAs L hL'4a-ir'. rcau.{ ceepatg^lI hi
t-'. J^ry 'P+X""', t" lui rc l!
---*l
ar$t +'.b'rd; s**ttaneauoi
re.i"r f.-Lj;
".e
4k e&d' &:J.J.'^ t7r 44zJt F. dt :"hrtt
Dd ^re no, *eJt {. cHl'L<a |" toz i* {t^tt'
di€\,ill.at" 1L "^*,;! 4 tt-,*+t^$|r'sqsfinrr -iedr =
tL 'izerler- at fiu {.^h + a-fir.$* v. tet)^*,
ftoit dif s*tt sqlt+ t*a3q p'1ir' t. s."+.
ij *J a, t\ ^o{n tna1a,f4r4. "
Io*l rur:.

Fir. Br-r qh;t*\ s+.a' tbftJuf A^la{{a s<c,q

0,4+ 4L a;+ clo^oet l-l^ir.,d tl.tdutA -
pff, a.A.qive,A-"iV$
.railn; i-t,*"t p,1:',.,.,rel4trr., d{ta
cll;f&u ^"ifu+rfqcir to'( 'rri*<Ai(l.. s.{L d6^h
or ha s3, 'sh'. t""+1
?^nJ.b:
t9o 5o.c 4.Jar.' 44. (U 1L s6,r, R'l hd.
\ sk,, o.l AU Ul qu.ictg 'tc".t*' b Li 'i.4. '
qa1 5.iteble
ht4q, cl**,.ItzUA*/* fua utar.,ttl
dt ,a"t bhP ',^t r\' "ld*/ n"t'+nu*
6{A qd p"ittttl'; &.4 3ffiT#
0""* ,".i,,k; ,rglna g( td.
Ai-d S. L-.r{bfl. , Q"Unb*rt
4"4 ,tt^ 3 tif,L P.i,l S"e
dUp'aa s:rt l.
"tU*.
a.^.it dl. "*.r
s*g .

in a school in south-eastEngiand
F)gure20.1 Fieid-notes of an assembl-v
330 JOAN SWANN

language,they only
While transcripts allor,va relativelv detailed examination of spoken
reproduce everv asPect oftalk'Transcribers
provide a partial.".o.d, theY cannot faithfullv
interests' w'hich means
r,vill tend io pav attention to different aspectsdepending upon.their
that a transcriit i, an interpretuiio., of the event it seeksto record' Elinor Ochs, in
"l.e"dv'Transcription 't,".-sttiPtifrilTIT"ttiu'
a norv classicaccount of as theorv' , suggeststh"t
; n"' Q979,f-l+l This point is illustrated
Proc9
tv t6ilu-pl" Iuio.,t, and tran-scriptionconventionsdiscussedbelo*'.

Tran scription conventions

use conventions
Manv published transcripts, such as those cited elselvhere in this volume,
But because u'ritten down
of rt.iit"., language,rr.h u, punctuation in representing speech.
speechis not the same as writing it can be quite hard to punctuate'
are giving
If _voudo u.ish to punctuate a transcript bear in mind that in so doing you
trvo methods of punctuating
the speecha particular interpretation. Compare the follorving
a t e a c h e r ' sq u e s t i o n ( s:)

hollow balls in
Nou-, think ven' carefullv.What rvould happen if rve cut one of those
half?What u'ould we frnd inside?

hollor'v balls in
Nou., think verv carefullv u.hat rvouid happen if we cut one of those
half.What would w-eHnd inside?

of the transcript
Use of punctuation representsa trade-off betr,veeniegibility and accessibilitv
It Prob3bl)' besl
is
and *.hat might be a premature and impressionistic anal,vsisof the data.

ffionsareavailab1etoi"di.it.f."t.,."'of,pokenlanguage.Someof
th"r" highlv detailed, allor.vingtranscribers to record intakes of breath, increasedvolume,
".. and Jefferson, 1974;
stress,,vltu"ut"lengthening 1r"", for instance, Sacks,Schegloff
"t.. transcriptions, but there
Ochs, 1979). Such-conueniionsare designed to produce accurate
to the exercise.
is a danger that thev rvill lend a misleading senseof scientific objectivity
to correspond
Rather ihun belng'objectivelv identified' sirch features of speech are likely
to the transcriber's initial interpretations of their data'
for
Bearinq in mind this caveat,Figure 20.2 illustrates a simple set of conventions
 R E C O R D I N GA N D T R A N S C R I B I N G T A L I ( 3 3 7

Teacher beginsby telling classthe lessonis to be about to,vanimals.Shearrangessomestulfed

'Have
toy animalson her desk,then asksthe cla.ss ,vouBot anv tov animalsat home?'Students
are selected
tndividually to respond.Teacherfrst asksa girl, and makesher repeatcarefully'l
havegot manJtoJ animalsat home.'Then turnsto a bov,Sl .

Transcription Notes

1 T: Y o u [ s t u d e n t ' sn a m e ] h a v ev o u g o t
2 manv tov animals at home
3 51: Y e sI h a v e { ( . ) I h a v ea g o t
4 T; {mmh
5 51: manv tov animals at home
6 T: That's good that's right rvhat tov
7 animals hate vou got at home (.)
8 what name for animals (. )
9 lstudent's namel rvhat tov anima]s low voice
l0 h a v er o u g o t a t h o m e r . r I m l i k e a t i g e r
11 Ss: <laughter>
12 T: What -ves
13 52: I h a v e { I h a v eg o t { ( . ) I T nods; lowers S2's
1+ T: { mmh {mmh a 1, ) hand and placeson
15 or mavbe tx'o or { mavbe three desk
16 52: { I h a v eg o t a m a n v
11 tov animals ,y
18 T: mmh I have got { manv tov animals
19 52; { manv tov animals

7h,s
K"y

I - I eacner

S = S t u d e n t( S 1 = S t u d e n t l , e t c )

student's name underlining indrcatesanr' feature vou u-ishto comment on

( ) briefpause

( l sec) timed pause

{ mavbe brackets indicate the start of or,erlappingspeech

{ I have got
<laughter) transcription of a sound etc that forms part ofthe utterance

Figure20.2 Transcription of teacher-student talk

the next n ord in his sentence (a, two, or thrce presumablv tov animals).This may be what
leads to the student's error (.amaryrtoy antmals)rvhich is subsequentlvcorrected by the
teacher.

Laying out a transcript

The most commonlv used lavout, rvhich I shall call a'standard' lavout, is set out rather like
a diaiogue in a plar.,ivith speakingturns follor.ring one another in seque.rce.This is the layout
332 JOAN SWANN

in this volume. one of the better known

adopted in Figure 20.2, and in several chapters
rvhich each speakeris allocated a seParate
alteinatives tJthis lavout is a'column' l"uor.,t,in
column for their sPeakingturns'
and'.column'layoutsappliedto
Figures20.3 and 20.1 illustrate respectivelv'standard'
one of a series of English lessonsin_a
the same briel extract of talk. This comes from
(Dam L"1:' 1998)'The classof 15-
secondarvschool in Denmark, near Copenhagen Td 'England and the English''
on
y"". mi*ed-abllltv students r.verecarrvin[ o,'r, u project
"la und toto to plan what to
The extract shorvsa group of students, two g"ir1s l:yt,,b"gt":ing
round a table, the girls opposite the boys'
do for their homes.o.k.T^he students ".. ,.ri'"d

Notes
Transcription
addressesgroup
1 G1: What arerve goingto do at home
directly
2 ( ) anl ideas
refers to book which
3 81: Yes (.) I takethis ( ) I take
he holds up
4 thi5 (general laughter) ves ves
5 I take it mmh and I see and I
5 see if there's something I can
u s e( .)
I G 1? : We canuse
9 81: W e c a nu s e
question towards
l0 82: So w.hat (*'ould) rve do (
girls?
l1 read rt at home (l; the
12 questionnaire
13 { (.) readit at home
l+ B] {r )
t.l
15 G2: Mavbe I can get some materials
16 for this
17 Gl: From ( mother)
18 G2: Yes
19 B1?: from rvhere
20 G2 from mv mother ( ) from the
21 travel agencl

K.y

As in Figure 20,2 *'ith, in addition:

-
G,B Girl,Bov

(u.ould) transcription uncertaln: a guess

( ) unclear speech impossible to transcribe

1 excision some data excluded

t.

Figure20.3 Transcription of small group talk: standardlavout

students'In this case'

In group talkit's ofteninterestingto look at-therole takenbv different
of another'
th"-grolp seemedto collaborat"-fui.lvrvell andto be generally_supportir'e^one
- e-g'b,v alkrng for ideas from the,rest
Glrft ,""*"d to plav an organisingor chairingrole
is for the gt1"P asa whole
of the group; bv'correcti.,g?Boullteminding"him that Tt_:"..0
17 of the standard
(line 8 of the stand".d l"r:o.,t;i and bv .o*il.tl.tg Girl 2's turn (line
 R E C O R D I N GA N D T R A N S C R I B I N G T A L I ( 3 3 3

GI G2 BI 82 Notes

I What are rve going addressesgroup

2 to do at home (.) directh
3 anv ideas
+ Yes(.) I take refers to book
5 this (.) I take r.hich he holds
6 this <general uP
7 laughter> ves ves
8 I take it mmh and
9 I s e ea n d I s e e
10 if there's
l1 something I can
I2 u s e( . )
l3 We canuse(?)
t+ We canuse
15 So t'hat (w.ould) question
16 rve do ( ) read towards grrls?
17 i t a t h o m e ( .)
18 the que:lionnaire
19 ( ) (.) readit at
20 home
t.l
21 MavbeI can get
22 some materials,,
23 for this
2+ From ( mother )
2S Yes
26 fiom nhere 1?1
2l from mv mother
28 (.) from the
29 travel agencv

K"y

As in Figure 20.3 u.ith, in addition:

(?) Guessat speaker

Figure20.1 Transcription of small group talk: column lavout

layout). I would be interested in looking further at this group's w.ork to see if Girl 1
maintained this role or if it was also taken on bv other students.
The wav transcription is laid out mav highlight certain features of the talk, for instance:

' The standard layout suggestsa connected sequence, in r.r,.hichone turn follows on
from the preceding one.lYhisdoes seem to happen in the extract transcribed in Figures
20.3 and 20.4 but it is not ahvals the case.In voung children's speech,for instance,
sPeakingturns mav not follou' on directlv from a pr'ecedingturn. I shall also give an
example of more informal talk belou' in rvhich it is harder to distinguish a series of
s e q u e n t i atl u r n s .
' Column transcripts allorv vou to track one speaker'scontributions: vou can look at
the number and tvpes of contribution made bv a speaker(e.g. Girl I 's 'organising'
contributions), or track the topics thel'focus on - or lvhateverelse is ofinterest.
 334 JOAN SWANI\

. In a column transcript, it's important to bear in mind lvhich column you allocate to
each speaker.Becauseoffactors such asthe left-right orientation in European scripts'
and associatedconventions of page lavout, we mav give prioritY to information located
on the left hand side. Ochs (1979) points out that, in column transcripts of adult-child
talk, the adult is nearlv ahr-avsallocated the left-hand column, suggestingthey are the
initiator of the conversation.In Figure 20.4 I beganlr'ith Girl 1, probably becauseshe
spoke 6rst, but I also grouped the girls and then the bovs together.This may be useful
iivon1. interest is, sa1 in gender issues,but it's important to consider why vou are
'natural'.
adopting a particular order and not to regard this as, somehor,v,

Accounts of conversational turn-taking har,eoften assumedthat one Person talks at a time

(e.g. Sacks,Schegloffand Jefferson, 197+).AsI suggestedabove,hor,r'ever, this is not alwavs
,h"-.ur., particJarlr in voung children's t.lk, :t i" trro,t" i"fotlul di"
"
is lots of overlapping talk andwhe.e speakersliJq-ilen-lv complete one another's turns' In
ff.ll
s of intormal talk amongstwomen lrle enniter Loates de\eloPecl a metnoo

of transcription in u,hich she used a'stave' lavout (bv analogv r",'ithmusical staves)to
represent tihejoint construction of speakingturns (see,for instance,Coates, 1996). Stave
transcription has not been used frequentlv in educationalcontexts but ma1'be adopted to
illustrate highh.collaborative talk in small groups. Figure 20.5 comes from a study made
bv Julia Dar--res (2000) of English lessonsin three secondarvschoolsin Sheffield,in the norttr
oiL.rglu.d. Davies oo-".purti.rrlariv interested in gender issue,s in ho'lr'girls and bovs
*-orkJd together in singfe-sbxand mixed-sex groups. Figure 20.5 shows a grouP of four
teenage giils reflectingtn their earlier experiences of school. Davies found (like Coates)
joint
that tie g'irls' talk rvasparticularlv collaborative (e.g' it contained overlapping speech,
construclion ofturns and severalindicators of conversationalsupport).
The lavout vou choose for a transcript rvill depend on what you are transcribing and
rvhy. Here I hur,. t.i"d to shou, horv different lavouts highlight certain aspectsof talk and
that
pluj do* n others.Yourvill need to trv out. and probablv adapt, la)'outstill )"oufind one
..rii, .'ou, purposes U. ulttudl' Ituditg you

Ir towards a particular interpretation of vour data'

I ncludin g nonverb aI and cont extual inJormation

Transcriptions tend to highlight verbal information, though I have indicated above hou'
.ro.rlr"rbul information can be sholvn in a'notes' column' or bY tyPographical conventions
such as capitai letters for emphasisor loudness. In some chapters of this book authors use
different conventions. Pauline Gibbons andAngel Lin, for instance (Chapters 16 and 17
respectively) include some nonverbal information within brackets in the dialogue. If you
are particularlv interested in nonverbai information vou maY w'ish to adopt transcription
conventions that highlight this in some \vav.As examples, Figure 20.6 shorvshow a storv
teller uses a number of nonr.erbal features in her perfor o f a N i g e r i a ns t o n ( ' A m a n
amongstmen'); and Figure 20.7 shorvsh:- .,*.b ate female or male
s t u d e n t st o r e s p o n dt o h e r q u e s t i o n s

Representin g dffirent lan guage vatieties

The transcripts of classroom talk I have iliustrated so far come from contexts in which
English is being used as a medium of instruction. In many contexts, however, even where
f"llith is used cl"r.roo* Ianguage,teachersand studentsmav also use another language,
", "
 R E C O R D I N GA N D T R A N S C R I B I N G T A L I < 3 3 5

Bel Right/anvthing else?/ evervone { h a v e a t h i n k r r i g h t /

Ju. {elervone have a think
Lou
Rosa

Bel
J". about their important memories ,/
Lou
Rosa

Bel I .e got one,. ' r i g h r I r e m e m b e rr . ,

r.^
Lou
Rosa

Bel {<laughs>JanAGAINi
r^- I'r,egot thisimportant {memorvof schoois'as-/lgot
Lou
Rosa

Bel
T-^
{this ef'fort trophv at middle school i.; /
Lou {Jan again/ r'eah?/
Rosa

Bel
J". and I / o h a n d t * ' " r " - Z " n d I r v a sd e a d c h u t l e d / l t h o u g h t i t $ e r e g r e a r /
Lou
Rosa

Bel
Ju. an effort trophr'?/ it $ ere great u'eren't it?/
Lou I got one ofthem/ veah/
Rosa

Bel
I:n {it w'ere great/
Lou iar the fourth r earof iunior:
Rosa

K"y
As above with, in addition:
Yeah/ A slashrepresentsthe end of a tone group, or chunk oftalk
\eah? / A question mark indicates the end of a chunk analvsedas a question
AGAIN Capital letters indicate a rvord uttered rvith emphasis
Staves are numbered and separated bv horizontal lines; all the talk rvithin a sta\.e is to be read together,
sequentiallv from left to right.

Figure20.5 Transcription of group talk: sta'r-e

Ialout
Source:adaptedfrom Davies(2000): 290

Nlote:Davies follolvs Coates in representing, u.ithin a stave, onlv those students rvho are speaking. Here I have
included all students throughout the transcription rvhich illustrates, for instance, that one student, Rosa, does
not speak at all in this sequence. Rosa mav have been contributrng in other rvavs e.g. nonverballv - and she
d o e s s p e a kl a t e r i n t h e d i s c u s s i o n .
336 JOAN SWANN

TranscriPt Notes
j spreadinggesture to start storv; downward
I [Once upon a time] a long
I long, long r long I longtime gesturesused for rhvthm;
ago there was a hunter a [r'en'
hunterl
u e l l . k n o r v na n d r e s p e c t e d
*everv dav he u-ould go out Into the *facing A, or orlenting torvards A
even lvhen embodvrng actrons
I bush he w'ould catch rvhatever
meat he needed for the village, he
w'ould carry it on his back he u'ould
bring it into the village he u'ould
throrv it down on the floor the people
xhands out to A; A also invited bv direct
they rvould see him *thev u'ould start
clapping their hands <claPs, gaze, head movement, general
A. claps> bodv orientation.

K.y
Squarebrackets indicate beginning and end
fOnceupon a time]
of large spreadinggesture

long Vertical slashindicates downrvard gesture

accompanl'inga u'ord
*everv da) Asterisk indicates something that is
'Notes'
commented on in the column

catch whatever meat Underlined speechindicates that the

storvteller also mimes the actions she
describes
<claps> As in transcripts above, indicates
sound/ action that forms part of the
utterance
Audience

ofnonverbalfeaturesin an oral narrati\e

Figure20.6 Representation

ma\ ::
such as the students'first or main language,for certain PurPoses.In this case,it
interesting to see lvhen a teacher or student uses each language'
TherJ are man\" different wavs of rePresenting the alternation between ' bdiffere:-:
ets-e.*
languagevarieties. I" Chupr,1] I fotl"t,"".. I Lin indicates'
C"nto.r.r" andEnglisffiEpGsen,i"EC"".o""t" i" o""tlitionand
.9 researchersha|e rePresentedlanguagesln r
also offering an English translation. Figure 20.8, from researchcarried outbyAntoine::=
r i
Camilleri iribilingu'-uiclassroomsin Malta, shou-sa teacher alternating between English
Maltese, $,here N{-ult.r" is used to amplifv or explain (rather than simply translate) an EngL':
sentenceread from a textbook. In this case,an English translation of the Maltese utteran.::
is given in a separatecoiumn. Figure 20.9, from research carried out by G.D. JayaiaksL*'u
:--.r5
i.riih"., in northern India, shoivs hou, a teacher uses Sanskrit partlv to demonstrate
not onj" 'r
knowledge and also'becausehe believesthat his function is to instruct students
lu.rgrrug.irrt also,more generallr',in life' (Javalakshmi, 1996,p. 145). In this case'an En;.-'n
translation is given in brackets beneath the Sanskrit'
In Figure 20.9, Javalakshmirepresents Sanskrit in Devanagari script. It would:-::
-:
have been-possibleto represent it in transliteration, in Roman script. It is, how'ever'r1
-r:
difficult to decide how-to represent languageyarieties closelv related to English, or difft:-
varietiesof English, that do not havea conventionalorthograph,v'Figure 20.5 represe::-:
 R E C O R D I N GA N D T R A N S C R I B I N G T A L I < 3 3 7

Teacher: i1,"" h"* p""drt,r- (.) otl-ti.hn- .rt"blirhedlastweekuas a u-eight 1.; suspended
" ".tr"rr
from a string.:ltgl_

I t :d: :r! :': !g*"gnn+_rih1q"'d';

;;;;; ;;tr :1,_(:,_:It,i.
ii *",
makes the pendulum su.ing in a dou'nnard directron for instancetill it gets to there? [1]?

f 1 .r j u s r * a t c h l l
1
Matheu': I gravin'
Teacher; wr'rltii.rn.ir'""i:l
Mather,: G.;;;
Teacher: n o r v r v e m e n t i o n e dg r a v i t vw h e n w e s ' e r e
J Y e s 1 . 1f
\/
Bol: I t )l
reacher: fi;;;;i;;;;;ff;;;;;.;;;;;h()oK:;lJ;g.";;;d*;;h;
::,:1'1,_1
F;11;; d;;; il rvhatcauses
it to goup
"g"i;;;["
;ihJ.
"+z 1:1
- r7----,--:'--:
'
Bor: ] l-orce the Iorce
1LThe
_ . string MissJi
Boy:

means gaze to bovs

means qazeto qirls

{ } overlap
(.) pause
( ) unclear

Figure20.7 Representationof teacher'sgazetowards female and male students

Source,Swann and Graddol (1989/ 1994): 157-9

Nore:The full transcript from u.hich Figure 20.7 is extracted shou's that the teacher's gaze is more
lrequentlv directed towards the bovs at critical points in the interaction, such as when a question is
to be answered.

England Australia New Zealand and

Argentina are the best producers of
thev have the largest number of farms and
wool dawAl-aktar li ghandhom larms
the largest number of sheep for rvool O . K.
It jrcbbu n-nagfiog ghas-suJ
England where in England we reallv mean
O.K. England
Scotland thev are very rvell-known for
tghtduh minn ljcma poa England
their w'oollen products
gflandh on Scotiand * oghtuf
"
tant gtlall-wool u gersijtct
tagllhom O.K.

20.8 Transcriptillustratingalternationbetr,veen
F)gure EngiishandMaltese
Camilleri(1994)citedin Mercer
Source: (.1996):134,andChapter15 of thisvolume

nonstandardgrammar ('it rvere great') but did not attempt to represent the girls'accent.
'eve 'ome1
Some transcribersresort to dialect' (asin wewuz jus'goin' to give an indication of
pronunciation but there is a danger here of representing certain speakers (rvorking class
speakers,children, non-native speakers)as somehow deviant or incompetent.
338 JOAN SWANN

Dr Keval:
ryTIeisT'i
IGood companv produces bad qualities]
(src)
You might have come across this verv saving in Sanskrit

vE)W frvr,l
IGood companvproducesbad qualities]

There I mean, 1\'e cultivate qualities bY virtue of what (?) companv lf we

are in good companvr rve'll cultivate good things, good habits. If we are rr
bad companv u.e'll be cultivating bad habits. So this rvill be our attemPt t'
be in good companv. Alrvar:s have control over vourself. Trv vour best
al',vavsfor keeping good companv.
(Lesson

Figure20.9 Transcript illustrating alternation betr,veenSanskritand English

Source r Ii9 q 6r : 1 4 5
: valakshm
Ja

Nore:In this casethere is an error in Dr Keval's Sanskrit. Javalakshmicomments that he mav have learnt
quotations such as this bl rote.

Mark Sebbaused a mixed svstem in his transcription of the speech of voung Blac.
speakersin London, rvho alternate betrveen Creole (derived from JamaicanCreolel arr
io.rdo. English. Creole utterances u'ere underlined, London English utterances ll'ere n.:,:
U n d e r l i n e J u t t e r a n c e sr v e r e ,t h e n , t o b e ' p r o n o u n c e d a s i f C r e o l e ' ( 1 9 9 3 , p . 1 6 3 ) . S e b t
'e-ve
also used some dialect' features to indicate the pronunciation of specific words ,
'one-off ' 'oh'
sounds;and certain conventions,such as the use of to rePresenta glottal stt':
(the sound used as a variant of /t/ in certain linguistic contexts, and in certain varieties ,
English-sometimesrepresentedasanapostropha e s i n b u ' e r f o r b u t t e r ) .F i g u r e 2 0 ' 1
illu-stratesthis. One point of interest is that the giottal stop, a feature of London English bL.
not (usually)of JamaicanCreole, is here used u-ithin a Creole utterance (invt%oe,line 4t,
Sets of svmbols such as the International Phonetic Alphabet (lPA) are used l'
phoneticiansto give a svstematicrepresentationof the soundsof English and other language'
-Such
alphabets are hard for the non-expert to read and are not usually suitable lr .
transcribing long conversational sequences.Hor,r-everif -vou are interested in learner.
pronunciations of English, and 1'ouare familiar u'ith the IPA or a similar alphabet, vou couL
use phonetic svmbols selectivelv for certain w-ords,or to rePresent certain sounds.
Figure 20.1 1 belou.illustrates the use of phonetic s,vmbolsto represent a young Russia:
studenl's pronunciation of the lr.ord 6ush,r,(this is taken from the same lesson as th;
t r a n s c r i b e di n F i g u r e2 0 . 2 a b o re l .
 R E C O R D I N GA N D T R A N S C R I B I N G T A L I ( 3 3 9

1 J, did vougo to Jackie's

paro/ov?
(1.0)
C: rvho JackieLomax
J: veah
C: no one never invi%oe
me
5 J' I heardthat shehad a reallv nice paro4r'an'Chervl saidthere was a lo%oofbovs there (0.6)
vou know and thev (rvere)plavin' passthe parcelan, that
C: is it?
l: veah
10 C: sheinvite vou?
J: no
c: ,he.r.u.. i.rtit. -"."ith.. 'uu"
ur Leo^i. or" ur *-.11.r.u". i.rvit..r.u.. t.ll
me not'in' (0.4) me no business
tool

Ftgure20.10 Transcription of a conversationusing creole and London English

Source:Sebba(1 993) : 19-20

Transcription Notes

1 S: Its tail is short and 1brjt1 pionor.rced to rhvme w'ithfshy

2 T: Bushy( tbujil ) more conventionalpronunciation
3 S: Bushy
( tbuJil) more conventionalpronunciation

Figure20.11 Representationof pronunciation using phonetic symbols

Towards an analysis: quantitative and qualitative approaches

Discussionsof researchmethodologv often make a distinction betrveen quantitative and

qualitative approachesto research. Broadl-v,quantitative approachesallow you to identifl'
and count the distribution of .q.tai.r linguisti@es ofutterance.you
can then draw'a numerical comparison betu.een, for irxtance, the tvpes of talk produGE-il--
dltterent contexts or t students, or qroups of students. Some T6ffis o
I=+._---i--iF_
l o n c a n b e c a r r r e c f o u t ' o n t h e s p o t ' . F o r i n s t a n c e r. v h i ving a lessonvou
could count the number of times each student responded to a teacher'squestion. More
complex Patterns can be identified from scrutinv of audio or video.eco.dings, or from a
transcript. G.D. Javalakshmi,for instance,r,vhoseresearchin Indian.lu..roo-s I referred
to above, noticed that students participated less in'traditional'teacher-directed lessons
(drawing on textbooks) than in lessonsbasedon videos n'hich she had introduced.To check
her impressions,she analvsedrecordings of a random sample of lessons,counting up the
number of times a student initiated talk; and rvhat tvpes of talk this involved
lwhether the
student was seekingclarification, asking about the meaning of a u'ord, making a single word
contribution, or making a longer contribution to discussion).She displavedher."irrlt, i.r ,
table (cited asTable 20. 1 belou'). Table 20. 1 shorvsthat, in the contexts analvsed.students
initiated more talk in video than traditional lessons,and they also made u 1".g. number of
longer contributions.
340 JOAN SWANN

Table20./ Number and tlpe of student-initiatedmovesin two tlpes of lesson

Typeofclass Number of Clarification Meaning of Single word Longer

student-initiated seeking rvords contributions contributions
moves

Traditional 11 2 5 0
Video Led 38 3 0 33

Source, (1993):287
Javalakshmi

Chapter 1B in this volume provides a more formal and detailed example of quantification
Assia Slimani r,vasinterested in the relationship between students' claims about what
linguistic features thev had learnt, and the direct teaching ofsuch features.Table 18.2
tp. 296) illustrates this, show'ing the number of linguistic features that had been explicitlv
dealt u'ith in iessons(identified from audio recordings), and the proportion of these that
...,'ere
recalled br-students, those that were not recalled, and those that w'ere said to hat'e
b c c n l r a r n e do n a p r e r i o u so c c a s i o n .

dfrifrg-t rneetingl ffiE.rTi-."orked together in certain learning situations; hou'

relatio=nshipswere establish'ed and maintained; or horv students achieved an understffifrg
this volume that look at classroom language
adopt a qualitative approach to the analvsisof talk. In Chapter 15, for instance, Neil Mercer
discusseshor",'teachers use language to guide students' Iearning. While Mercer identifies
certain teaching techniques, these are not svstematicallv coded and quantified. Mercer is
more concerned lr-ith analysingthe function of the techniques teachers use than with
counting the frequencv rvith which techniques are used, and illustrates this by quoting
extracts from transcripts. In Chapter 15 Pauline Gibbons examines children's progression
from'everyday'language to the use of scientificdiscourse,focusing on the experiencesof
one student. The languageused at different points in a series of lessonsis illustrated bv
transcripts along *itf, !lor. linguistic comrte.rtarv. Angel Lin, in Chapter 17, also uses
"
extracts from transcripts of classroom talk to illustrate the extent to which different
'habitus'
students' is compatible rvith vuhatis required of them in school English lessons.
There have been several debatesu'ithin educational research about the relative merits
ofquantitative and qualitative approaches.Featuresofeach approach, and some advantages
and disadvantagesthat have traditionallv been associatedw-ith them, are summarised in the
box opposite.
While some researchers argue for an integration of quantitative and qualitative
approaches,it has also been suggestedthat thev embodv fundamentally different views of
the meaning of spoken language (coding lan into discrete catesories.for instance
suggeststhat meaningsare relativelv s, whereasqualitative
asrseambrgurtv rn 6 and arsue that utterances to be interpreted in
context). For an oiervtelv i debate see,for instance,Edwards andWestgate(1994).
-Wdg-erif
and Mercer (1997) suggestthat it is possible to progress beyond this apparent
divide by drau-ing on corpus, or computer-based forms of analysis.Corpus-based analyses
allorv researchersto process huge amounts of spoken or rvritten Ianguageand establish
quantitative patterns of languageuse.Thev have frequently been used to identify meanings
of words and phrasesand to aid the compilation of dictionan'entries.Thev may also be used
 RECORDINGAND TRANSCRIBING TALI< 34I

Quantitative and qualitative approaches to the analysis of spoken

language
Qu4^,f
A quantitative aPproachallows )'ou to r ent vour data in terms of numbers.You can
--',
m a k e a n u m e r i c a l c o m p a r i s o nb e t u ' e e n t a l k p r o d u c e d b l d i f F r e n i p e o F F o r d u r i n g
different events.
When representing data that hasbeen analysedusing quantitative methods it is usual
to displav this in 1taLb].. Alternative forms of representation such ur hi.togrurfiIiEil €) "-
-
t -'---"----i----
charts may be used to point up comparisonsbetr,veenpeople or events.
Data may be u.taivsed,rri.rg p."rpecified .u,"goii., of talk. Alternativel), as in
Jayalakshmi'sresearch,categoriesmav emerge from close scrutinr. of data, e.g. from
playing, and replafing, an audio or video recording, or rvorking slorvlv through a
transcript. Such categoriesare not'naturallv'present in the data,but lvill depend upon
your own researchinlerests.
has th@sadtantlEe-yhat it is necessarilva
reductireexercise:
---
talkis reducedto a setofcategories;
4rg4qbers
it is abstracted
from its original Q-"
contextirt rs unambrg!9ql)'jtglg maskingthe rather fluid, uncertainand
- lgied.
ri-egotratedmeaninss that are eri
!- !-

rn a more oPen-e rvaiFe sEi?6hers adopting

a qualitative a explore anv interesti
Qurt c-
of their data. What count as intoresting aspectsrvill depend upon the questions the
6eaTcE6; concerned to investiga,.,"U.ri sometimes points emerge that are quite
unexpected.
Aspects of the data may onlv begin to make senser,r'henmulled over and com
with other information, or perhaps discussedwith speakers.Sometimes interpretations
@*
may change, or You mav 'want to allolv for a number of different interpretations.
presenting and discussingdata that has been recorded and analysedusing a
.When
qualitative approach, researchers frequently quote selectivelv from field-notes or
t r a n s c r i p t st o s u p p o r t p
deTaTled commentar\-,as in Chapters 18 and 19. -
S-uiE *ays oTanilysing and presenting data allow- the researcher to preserve
/t\
important contextual information that affectst
[/*
P r e s e r \ . et n e a m D l g u r t va n o r l u l d r t vo t t h e s em e a n l n g s l.h e a p p r o a c hi s s e l e c t i v ei n t h a t
tn'o researchers mav (legitimatell') notice different thinE-trout a stret
provi rent rnterpretatlons arso a oanger oI unrnte
.
ln that researchers mav v notice
notice teatures tall that support a point thev wish to make
of talk
features ol
:,

to identify stylistic differencesbetn'een different (literarv) authors or different tvpes oftext.

Wegerif and Mercer illustrate how corpus-basedmethods mav be used w.ith smaller amounts
of data, and in combination w.ith a qualitative exploration oi lu.rgrrug..
Wegerif and Mercer dreu- on this combination of methods as part of an ongoing studv
-
of exploratory talk in the classroom.Thevfound that primarv school chlldren perflrmed
better on a standardisedtest of reasoninq after thev had been 'coached' in the use of
exploratory talk. Thev also looked at transcript evidence of the quality of children's talk
during problem solving activities carried out before and after the coaching intervention.
Extracts from transcripts are used to shou' that, after the intervention childien sDentmore
time discussi.rgproblems, considered alternative solutions and reached
"o-".rt.rullv
342 JOAN SWANN

tbecause'
Focal Group 1 pre-intervention task use of "cos'or

'cos
Elaine: It isn't look that'sa square
'cos
Graham: No look .lvatchthere all dorvn there and ther are all at the side and they are
all up there
'cos
Elaine: Wait u-ait rvait its that one look it's them ts'o and them trvo ( ) and them
two
'Cos
John: look that goesout like that -
'Cos
Elaine: look that goesin
'Cos
John: look that goestoo far out
'cos
Graham: Look that's got 4
Elaine: it's got a little bit iike that it's that one
No . . . not that one not that one because
look it goesin and then it goes out

John: No it's isn'tbecauseit's there

Elaine: No becauseit u-iil come along like that
Elaine: Could be that one because look stops at the bottom and look
Elaine: It isn't it isn't becauselook
(12)

('cos'or 6because'
Focal Group 1 post-intervention task use of
'cos 'cos
Graham: Number 6 6 stopsin there look if vou
'cos
Elaine: It can't be there look if lou done that
'cos
Elaine: It is look if that goeslike that and then it has another one those tw'o make
'cos
Elaine: He doesn't savrvhat thev are he might be wrong
'cos
Graham: Yeh look
'Cos vl'ould round
Elaine: it go
'cos 'cos
John: It is it goesarvav look that one goeslike that
'cos
Elaine: No it can't be look . . . rvith the squarewith the triangle you take awaythe
triangle so vou're left rvith the squareso if vou do just this and then againtake
that arvavit's going to end up, Iike that isn't it?
'cos
Graham: Actuallv that's got a squareand a circie round it
'cos
John: Yeh it goeslike that and then it takesthat one awavand doesthat
'cos
Elaine: No look
'cos
Elaine: Probablvone in the circle there are onlv trvo circles
'Cos are lines and then thev are going like that it is becausethey are
Graham: if thev
w'onkv isn't it
'cos
Graham: No actuallvit ain't then
Elaine: Yeh it's number 8 because those ones- those two came that those tlr'o make that

John: N o b e c a u s7 e, 2 , 3 7 , 2 ' 3

John: that goesthat n'av and that goesthat lvar'

No because
Graham: it's that one
No because
(21.)

'cos in priman' school children's talk

Figure20.12 Incidence of and because
 R E C O R D I N GA N D T R A N S C R I B I N G T A L I ( 3 4 3

agreement on the correct ans\r'er.Wegerif and Mercer point out, how'ever,that such
evidencemay not be seenasconvincingbecauseit consistsonlv of one or t$'o brief extracts
from transcripts.
As a way of complementing their initial qualitativeapproach,Wegerifand Mercer used
a computerised concordancing program. This identifies all instancesof a word or expression
used in a particular set of data, and displavsthesein their immediate linguistic context. In
'cos
Figure 20.12 above,for instance,the rvords and because are displal'edin each speaking
turn in rvhich thev occurred in one group's interaction before and after the intervention.
Wegerif and Mercer suggestthat'cos andbecause are used differentlv in the pre- and post
intervention interaction: in the post-intervention interactions t}ey are more frequentlv used
to link reasonsto claims.Wegerif and Mercer carried out similar analysesof other terms
that might be seen as indicatir,e of reasoning (" g tJ and so used to link a reason to an
assertion).
This form of anah'sisprovides quantifiable data (i.e. it is possible to calculate the
frequencv lvith rvhich'cosand because are used in different contexts). It is also possibleto
'cos
see each instance of and because in a limited linguistic context, r'vhichprovides further
information about their use in eachcase(asin Figure 20.12). And it is possible,for anv one
instance, to displav further linguistic context (anv number of preceding and follou.ing
speakingturns) to allow a qualitative exploration ofthe data.
If this form of analvsisinterestsvou, itis possibleto purchaseconcordancingsoftware
(or, rn some cases,to dolr.nload this from the Internet;.i You rvill need, however, to be
prepared to spend time exploringt the softu'are to see holv it can be made to w-ork most
effectively for vour own purposes. For further discussionand examples of corpus-based
analysissee,for instance,Stubbs(1996).

Conclusion

In this chapter I have discussedvarious techniques vou can use to record and transcribe
spoken language.Thereis no'ideal' rvav to do this, and I have tried to indicate the strengths
and weaknessesof different approachesso that you can select the most appropriate method,
or combination of methods, for l-our o\\.n purposes. It is bevond the scope of this chapter
to consider,at anv level ofdetail, u'avsofanalysing spoken language,though I have suggested
some initial considerationsto bear in mind. Other chapters in this volume include examples
of research on spoken language, and illustrations of different forms of analysis:these mav
provide ideas for vour o\lrn research.

Acknowledgement

I am grateful to RupertWegerif for suggestionson computer-based methods of analysing

spoken language.
344 JOAN SWANN

Note

1 See, for instance,the examples of softr'vareiisted at http: //info.ox.ac.uk/ctitext/

resguide/resources/index.html#tatIt is often possibleto obtain demo versionsof text
'Wordsmith',
analvsistools - see, for instance, availablefrom http://w-wwl.oup.
/ u'smith/
co.uk/cite/oup/ elt/ softr'vare

References

British Associationfor Applied Linguistics (BAAL) (199+) Recommendations on GoodPracticein

AppliedLinguistics. BAAL.
Cameron,D., Fraser,E., Harvev,P., Rampton,M.B.H. and Richardson,K. (1992) Researching
Language: Issues oJPower and J'lethod.London: Routledge.
Camilleri, A. (1994)'Talking bilinguallv,u'riting monolinguallv'. Paper presented at the
Sociolinguistics Svmposium,Universitvof Lancaster, March.
Coates.l. (1995) lNbmenTalk. Oxford: BlackwellPublishers.
D a m . L . a n d L e n t z , J ( 1 9 9 8 )I t ' s u p t o , v o u r s{eyl uf w a n t t o l e a r n : a u t o n o m o u s l a n g u a g e l e a r n i n g a t
rnrermedtare 1e'e1 (\tideo and print). Copenhagen:DanmarksLaererhogskole.
Davies,J.A. (2000) Expressions oJGender:An Enquiryinto the.av Gender Impactson the Discourse
StS'les oJ Pupils )nvolved in Small Group Talk during a GCSE English lesson, with particular
reference to theunder,achiBvement oJboys.Unpublished PhDThesis. Sheffield: University of
Steffield.
Edwards,A.D. andWestgate,D.P.G. (199+) lnvestigating Clasvoomla1ft.London: Falmer Press
(2ndedn).
Jayalakshmi, G.D. (1993)'Video in the Englishcurriculum of an Indian secondaryschool'.
UnpublishedPhD thesis.Milton Kevnes:TheOpen Universitv.
- (1996)'One cup of ne\4'spaper and one cup of tea', in N. Mercer and J. Swann (eds)
LearningEnglish:Development andDiversitl'.London,The Open University/Routledge.
'The
Labor',W(i970) studvof languagein its socialcontext', inW. Labov(1972) Sociolinguistic
Patterns. Oxford: Basil Blacku'eil.
'English
Mercer, N.M. (u.ith contributions from Douglas Barnes) (1996) as a classroom
language', in N. Mercer and J. Slvann (eds) learning English:Development and Diversity.
London: The Open Universitv/Routledge.
'Transcription
Ochs, E. (1979) as theory', in E. Ochs and B.B. Schieffelin(edsSDevelopmental
Pragmatics. London: Academic Press.
Sacks,H., Schegloff,E. andJefferson,G. (1971)'A simplestsvstematics for the organizationof
turn-takingfor conversation. Language 50 (+), pp. 696-735.
Sebba,M (1993) LondonJamaican: Language Svstems London: Longman.
in lnteraction.
Stubbs, M. (1995) Textand CorpusAnalysis:Computer-assjsted StudiesoJ Languageand Cuhure.
Oxford: Blacku-ell.
Swann,J. and Graddol, D. (1994)'Gender Inequalitiesin ClassroomTalk',in D. Graddol.,J.
Mavbin and B. Stierer (eds) Researching Language and Literacyin SocialContext.Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters/The Open Unir ersitr'.
'Using
Wegerif,R. and Mercer,N. ( 1997) computer-based text analvsisto integratequalitative
and quantitativemethods in researchon collaborativelearning' , Language and Educatiort,
V o l .i 1 ,N o . 4 , p p . 2 7 1 - 8 6 .
 Index

absolute innovation 61 attitudes:to Englishasa language215-15,

a c a d e m i c c o m p e t e n c e 17 1 - 2 2 2 2 l : r o l ei n l a n g u a gl e a r n i n2g+ , 1 3 4
academic register 258 70 audio-lingualism14, 119-5 2
a c q u i s i t i o ns e es e c o n d l a n g u a g ea c q u i s r t i o n audiorecordings326 7
action research 57 -60, 137 auditorv discriminationtest 39
active exploration of language 195-5 A u e r ,P . I 1 7
adolescent learners 40-1 authenticitv129; using authenticdata 194-5
'l
adopters 61 automaticitv80 1
adult learners+0 1, 17+ 5; genre-based autonomy:learner97, 299-300; school's
a p p r o a c h e s5 5 , 2 0 0 - 1 relativeautonomt 209
Adult Migrant Education Program (AMEP)
I ifer:cw "P.r-nJi e' -c_t -) '0"0 - 7 Bahns,J. 52
advocacv 325 balanceddivergentfactor 54
affectivefactors24-5 Bangalore / NladrasCommunicationalTeaching
AffectiveFilter Hvpothesis159 Project(CTP) 63-4, 160
age23, 3642 Beckerman, T.I,l. 171
agency:creative,discursive 273,278 82,284 behaviouristpsvchologv149-5 1
A l l w r i g h t ,R 2 8 7 , 2 8 8 , 3 0 6 , 3 1I , 3 1 5 beliefs,learner 35 6
alternation,transcribing335, 3 37, 338 belonging1i 8-19
Amencan KernelLessons (AKL):Intermediate 213-14 Beretta,A. 25, 50, 53 -4
:*..-r"'-.-..-'-""
mnlifiotinns -) 4 R- Berlitz,M. 149
Anderson,A. 77-8 bilingualclassrooms17l -2
Anderson,J.R. 17 bilingualcode-switching250 2
anti grammar stance148 black SouthAlricans22740
anxiety 24-5 Blev-Vroman,R. 75
apartheid22740; macro context of schooling Bloomfield,L. 149
for biackpeople235 7 B l u m ,R . E . 1 6 9
A p h e k ,E . 1 7 3 B o t ,M . 2 2 7
application55, 65 Bourdieu,P. 93, 272 3, 283
apphedlinguistics64 8 B r e e nM, . P . 1 5 8 ,1 5 0
appliedscience,educationas54 5 Brindlev,G. 65
appraisal 55, 65 Brumfit, C. 59-60, 58
apprenticeship113; into a culture 250 B r u n e rJ, . 9 6 , 2 5 4
a p t i t u d e2 + , 3 1 . 2 b u r e a u c r a tsi ct r u c t u r e 2
s35 I, )17 8
A r e n s ,K . 1 5 8
Armv Specialized Training Program(ASTP) 149 C a m e r o nD, . 3 2 + , 3 2 5
A r t h u r ,J . 2 4 9 5 0 Camilleri,A. 251
A s h e r J, . 1 5 4 C a n a l eM , . 83,84
A s t o n ,G . 8 2 C a n d l i nC, . N . 1 5 8 ,1 5 0
asymmetrv13 1-2 C a r r ,W . 5 4 , 5 5
346 INDEX

C a z d e nC, . 2 3 3 c o n s t r a i n t s9 2 1 , 1 0 3
Chaudron,C. 31I consultants, researchers as 52-3
child learners40 1 contextual knou-ledge 78
choices,setof 193-4 contextualisation 1 16-1 9
C h o m s k vN , . 1 4 , 1 5 , 1 6 , 1 1, + 5 , 1 5 2 c o n l i n g e n c sq 8 1 0 2 . 1 0 2 : n e g o t i a t i o n .l a n g u a g e
chorusing231, 23)-3 learning and i00 2
Clark, E. 75-7 continuit\' 248
C l a r k ,H . H . 7 5 7 control 98
classroom:ascoral gardensseeclassroomas c o n v e r s a t i o n a n a l v s i s( C A ) 1 1 6 1 7 , 1 1 9
culturemetaphor;asdiscourse125-8; as conversational inference 1 17
experimentailaboratorv 123-5 conYersational interaction 99-1 00
classroomcontext 1; motivation 34; strategies co-operative learning activities 34
and goalsin 4 5 Cope, \\r. 200
classroomasculture metaphor 128 34; learning . - . -r ' " - - - - ' " ' - -) R- R-
cn-nrndrrrtinn

s i t h i n 1 3 7 - 8 :r e s e a r c h i $
n igt h i n l l ) 6 : coral gardens,classroomas 128-34 seealso
rer'leu.ing134-5; teachingu'ithin 136-7 classroomasculture metaphor
classroominteractionseeinteraction C o r d e r ,S . P .4 8 , 4 9
classroommanagementI 70 C o r n e l i u sE,. T . 2 1 3
classroomresearch51-), 51, 125-8 corpuslinguistics15, 340-2
Claude,M. 229-30 correctionof errors 180, 298-9
Clifford, R. 84-5 creativitv i9; creative,discursiveagencv273,
C o a t e sJ, . 3 3 4 278 82,28+
COBUILD team 15 critical actionresearch59
coconstruction9 5-7, 133-1 critical ethnographv21 1
code-srvitching250-2 Critical Period H,vpothesis 36, 37 9
cognition 94-5 C r o o k e sG , . 34,58, 59,50,160-2
'c"n5o"n" i. t' i r r c - f r c t n r q 74 cross-linguisticinfluences20
C o h e nA , .D. 173,17+ Csikszentmihalvi, M. 103
collectiveculture 130 cued elicitations 246-7
C o l l i n sl,. 2 3 7 , 2 3 8 ,2 7 3 , 2 8 4 cultural c pital 272, 21+-5, 282
collusion 6,22140 culturally-specrllcinteraction styles22740 ;
column transcriptlavouts332 -4 barriersto innorationandlearning229 34:
communicationstrategies82 -4; problemsu'ith limitationsof explanationsof schoolfailure
8+7 23+-5
CommunicationalTeachingProject (CTP) culture252-3, 254; classroomasseeclassroom
634,160 asculture metaphor;and studentopposition
communicative competence83, 84, 155 2 1 5 - 1 8 ,2 2 1 2 , 2 2 3 4
communicativelanguageteaching(CLT) 155-8, C u r r a n ,C . 1 5 3
200,2278
communitv languagelearning(CLL) 153 D a v ,R . 1 1 3
compatiblehabitus274-5, 282 decision-drivenmodel of researchuse 47
competence: communicatiYe 83, 84, 155; deference politeness228
participative,interactionaland academic determination21+-15
171-2; andperformance14-15 ; strategic developmental sequences18, I 82
824 dialogue 97,25+
comprehensible input 2 1, 75-6,'79, 159 differencesbetrveenlearners23 5, 299-300,
comprehensibleoutput 21, 19, 260-1 301
comprehension 3, 75 89; placeofin language differentiation 129-30
learning75-5; strategies75-8 direct elicitations246
computer-basedanalvsis340 2 direct method 149
conceptualevaluation55, 66 discourse59; classroomas 125 8; dimensions of
concordancing 3+2,3+3 309 15; grammar and 196-7; language
concurrentresources 101 2 acquisitionor languagesocialisation4,
confidentialitv325-5 108-21; managing318; navigating8,
confirmations247 305-22; positioningin andthrough 113-15:
confirmatorvresearchtradition 53-6 what learnerslearn from the discourseof
Conrad,J. 35 lessons3 16-1 7; seealsointeraction
conservatismI 32 3 discourseskills 8 I
 INDEX 347

discursive practices3 i 0, 3 12-14 GardneR

r ,. C . 2 3 - 5 , 3 3
displav94-5 uarnnKel, t1. lJ)
D o b i n s o nT, . 3 13 - 1 4 G a s sS , .53
domination 208 25 G a t t e n g oC, . 1 5 2
Driver, R. 265 generalmodel of secondlanguagelearning
13-1+
ecological approachseeorganicapproach genre-based approaches
5-,6, 162 3, 164,
educationalperspectives53 50 200 7
Edn.ards,A.D. 245 Giroux, H. 209, 22+.-5
effectiveteaching159-i 6 global influenceof English271
elaborations247 g l o s s e2s1 5 1 8
elicitation2+6-1,289 glottalstop 338
ellipticalconversation86 goals4-6
EllisR , . 18,307 G o o d ,T . L . 1 7 1
E l y ,C . 3 1 3 'good
languagelearner', characteristics of 28-9
E m e n e a uM, . B . 2 2 3 G o o n e t i l l e k eD,. C . R . A . 2 1 0 ,2 2 +
empiricalevaluation65, 66 g r a m m a ri . l 9 l 9 l l a n g u a gien c o n t e x r
empiricistapproachesI 58 192-3; metaphorsfor secondlanguage
empoweringresearch325 a c q u i s i t i olna l l ; o r g a n i c a p p r o a c h
English:global influence271; asmedium for 193-7; Tamil students'orientationto
instruction219, 235-7; numberof speakers 220 1,2234
23 grammar translationmethod 4+, 1+8
equalitv97 8 mrmm rtin'lit'' 1Q

Eraut,M. 47 Greek 148

error correction 180, 298-9 G r i c e ,H . P . 8 5
ethicalresearch325 'groundrules'
252 3, 255
ethnicitY115-16 group learning:collectiveculture ofthe
ethnographicmethods 1 I 9; Sri Lankan classroom130; small group learningand neu.
classroom studv6, 208-26 academicregisters261-2, 26+ 5
er.aluationof classroominteraction8, grouping171
281-305 Guiora,A. 32 3
experientiallearning113, 261-2, 26+ 5, 267 guidedconstructionof know.ledge254-5
experimentallaboratorv,classroomas 123-5 G u m p e r zJ,. 1 1 6 - 1 8
explanations248
exploration,active195 6 habitus272; compatible274-5, 282;
extroversion32 incompatible272, 275-8, 2834;
'eve
dialect'337, 338 reproductionor transformationof 282-4;
I ranstormino r7R
" " " f J
- ' v Rr
v 4 ' 284
lace-savingstrategies233 -4 H a l l ,S . 1 1 5
Ferch, C. 83 H a l l i d a vM , .A.K. 153
F a i r c l o u gN h ,. 1 1 5 , 3 1 0 H a l s e r ,A- ., H . 2 3 4
lalsificationof theories50 Hammond,l. 200,20)
FeezS , . 162 handover95
fieldindependence/dependence 35 Hanson-Smith, E. 210, 22+
field-notes328,329 Harler.,B. 76
F i r t h ,J . R . 1 4 , 1 5 H a r t s h o r n eK, . 2 3 5
lbcus on form 5, 180 90; in languageteaching H a r r , e vP, . 3 2 + , 3 2 5
181-3; psvcholinguistic rationaleI 83-6; H a t c h ,E . 4 8 - 9 , 3 0 8
researchissues186-7 Havelock,R. 52
ForeignServiceInstitute (FSI)84 5 Har.vkins, R. 18
form, focus on seefocus on form H e r v i t t ,R . 1 1 5
fbrm/function relationships195 Higgs,T. 84-5
Ibrms, focuson 5, 183 5 H i r s t ,P . 5 7
fossilization19-20 HoefnagelHohle,M. 39--ll
F r a z e rE , . 324,325 H o n g K o n g 7 , 2 1 38 5
Freidson,E. 46 H o p k i n sD , . 59
Freire,P. 97 Hosenleld, L. l/)-6
F r i e sC , . l+9,151 HorvattA
, . P R . 1 + 8 ,1 5 7
348 INDEX

humanistic methodologies 152-4 J o h n s o nR, . K . 2 5 0 - 1

H v m e s ,D . 1 2 5 , 1 5 5 j o h n s t o nM, . 5 1
hrpothesis testing 80 ioint construction95-7, 133 4
joint negotiationof text 202, 205-1
ice-breaker tasks 194 j o u r n a l s2 6 3 4 , 2 6 6 - l
identitv 219; social i 10
ideologv: ianguage practice and 1 15-1 6; macro K a n d i a hT, . 2 1 0 - 1 1 , 2 2 +
context oflearning and 235-7, 237 E Karabel,J. 234
i d i o s v n c r a c i e s ,l e a r n e r s ' 2 3 5 , 2 9 9 - 3 0 0 , 3 0 1 K a s p e rG, . 8 3 , 1 0 9
i m m e r s i o n 7 6 , 11 8 ; p r o g r a m m e s 1 5 8 - 9 Kellerman,E. 191-2
incompatible habitus 272, 27 5 8, 2834 K e m m i s ,S . 5 4 , 5 5
i n c o m p l e t e s u c c e s s19 - 2 0 Kennedr',G. 61
independent construction 202 Kingburv,R. 213
i n e q u a l i t i e s ,s o c i a l T , 2 7 1 8 6 knorvledge:guidedconstructionof 254-5;
inhibition 32-3 personal56; sourcesof and comprehension
initiation-response-feedback (lRF) exchange 77-8; technicaland practical46-8
9 + 6 , 1 0 1 4 , 2 + S 6 , 2 5 1 - 3 ,2 8 1 knou'ledge-drivenmodel ofresearchuse 47
innovation: conservatism of culture of the K r a s h e nS, . 1 2 , 1 7 , 6 1 , 1 5 8 - 9 ;c o m p r e h e n s i b l e
classroom 1 32 ; culturallv-specilic i n p u t 2 1, 7 5 - 6 , 7 9 , 15 9 ; t h e o r Y4 9 - 5 0
interactional stvles as barriers to 229-34 Kuper, A. 234
SLA and 50-'l KrvaZulu schools227 40
i n p u t 4 5 ; c o m p r e h e n s i b l e2 1 , 1 5 6 , 7 9 , 1 5 9 ;
generating better inPut 79-80 L a F o r g e ,P . G . 1 5 3
input-outPut model 102 laboratorv:experimental123 5; language152
insider/outsider problem 52 3 Labov,W. 324
institutional constraints andresources 92 4 L a m b e r tW, .E. 33
institutional ideologies 23J 7, 231-B language:carrvingthe historv of classroom
instrumental motivation 33 acti\,itvinto its future 254-5; and context 7;
integrative motivation 33 cultural and cognitivetool 6-7; imPortant
intelligence 24, 31 pedagogic tool 254; levelsof 14; mediumfor
interaction 4,7-8; in bilingual and multilinguai teachingand learning2+3 57; and teaching
settings 249-52; constraints, resourcesr 243-6; vieu'son the natureof 14-15
equalitv and svmmetrv 4, 90-107; culture ol languageacquisitionseesecondlanguage
the classroom 129; evaluationof8, acquisition
287-305 ; importance of studv of 287-8; languageanxietv 24 5
importance of talk in learning 250-1 ; languageaptitude2+, 31-2
language learning Process 2 1-2 ; learning language-focus-lRF 28 1-2
a ne*' register 258-70; and pragmatics languagelaboratorv 152
in SLA 109 10; recording and languagelearning24,11 27; contingency,
transcribing 8, 323 -14; reproduction/ negotiationand 100 2; factorsaffecting
transformation of social w'orlds 271 85; 28-43; andlanguage use21-2; linkswith
use of language as a medium 243-57; socialpractice25; process16 22; theoryand
seealso discourse 12 14; views of the languagelearner 22 5;
interactional comPetence 171-2 viervson the nature of language14-1 5
interactional sr,rnmetrv 9 8 languagemedium policv 235; seealsomedium of
interactive model of research use 47-8 instruction
International Phonetic Alphabet (lPA) 338 Ianguageprocessing23
interpretation 55,65 languagesocialisationseesecondlanguage
interpretative research tradition 53 6 socialisation
intersubjective experience 126-7, 2+8, 25+-5 ianguagetransfer 20
intertextual relationshiPs 268 languager,arieties334 9
intervieu's 291 Latin 148
intrinsic motivation 97 lavouts,transcript331-4, 335
iearner-learnerinteraction91-2, 98-102,
103-4
J a r v i s ,G , 5 1
340 learners:activeexplorersoflanguage 195 6;
J a y a l a k s h m iG , .D. 335, 338, 339,
j o b a p p l i c a t i o n sg e n r e 2 0 1 - 7 autonomv97, 299-300; characteristics of
'good languagelearner' 28-9; collusionr'vith
Johnson,J. 39
 INDEX 349

t e a c h e r s6 , 2 2 7 4 0 ; c o n s t r u c t s o f 3 0 7 ; humanistic methodologies 15 2-4; immersion

'ground
difficulties with rules' for classroom programmes and the natural approach
language use 252-3; discursive practices in 15 8 9 ; t a s k - b a s e dl e a r n i n g 1 5 9 * 6 2 ;
the classroom I I 2 14: exploration of' t e x t - b a s e dt e a c h i n g 1 6 2 3 , 1 6 4 ; s e ea l s o
relationships betrveen grammar and focus on form
d i s c o u r s e I 9 6 - 7 ; i d i o s v n c r a c i e s2 3 5 , m e t h o d s+ ; , l b ; - 1 9 . 1 8 0 l: approaching
r q q 1 0 0 . 3 0 1 ; a s l a n g u a g ep r o c e s s o r s2 l l teaching in terms of 167-9; learner strategies
l e a r n i n g f r o m d i s c o u r s e o f l e s s o n s3 1 6 1 7 ; 173 6; nature of elfective teaching 169-761
motivation seemotivation; research on teacher strategies 169-7 2
learner characteristics 30-42; resistance 6. Michigan Test 292
2 0 8 - 2 6 , 2 8 3 ; a s s o c i a lb e i n g s 2 5 ; s o c i a l mrnoritv ethnic groups I 15 15
p r a c t i c e s3 1 0 , 3 1 4 1 5 ; s t r a t e g i e s1 7 3 5 ; misrecognition 212-3, 21 3 4
t a c i t u r n i t r '2 l | ) : u p t a k es e e u p t a k er: ' i e u s Mitchell, R. 59-50
or t! t mooe l5v
learning 5-8; and acquisition 12; i,r.ithin mode continuum 259-60
classroom as culture 1 37 8; model of second language learning 13- I 4
culturallv-specific interactional stvles as modelling 202, 203 5
b a r r i e r s t o 2 2 9 3 4 ; e x p e r i e n t i a l 113 , Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT) 24,
261,2, 264-5, 267; role of talk in 260-1 ; 31 2
SLA theorv and 305-9 modularitv 15 I 7; and secondlanguageiearning
learning opportunities 290-1, 29) 11
l c a r n i n gs t v l e s l i : T a m i l s t u d e n t sa n d 2 1 8 . MoermanM , . 101
223 M o o r e ,A . 2 5 3
L e e ,P . L . M .2 5 0 - 1 M o r g a n ,M . 1 5 8
L e o n t ' e vA
, .N. 308-9 morphologv 39
levelsof language14 ''l motivation2+,30 1; and attitudes33 4; in the
I e v i n s o nS, . 1 1 6 , 11 7 - 1 8 classroom setting34; Tamil students215
Lewin, K. 57-8
Lightbown, P. 49 NaimanN , . 312
Lii,J.H. 93 National Centre for EnglishLanguageTeaching
linear model of languageacquisition19l 2 and Research TNCELTRr LireracvProject
lito.'.., nrrrtieec 1 I ( 200 7
Iocalmultiracialvernaculars116 naturalapproach51, 158-9
LongM , . 5 0 , 5 1, 7 9 , 1 6 0 ) naturalmethod 149
'long
conversation'255, 261 NaturalOrder Hlpothesis159
, . 1 5 3- 4
L o z a n o vG nature and nurture 15
Lvnch,T. 77-8 navigation of discourse8, 306--22
needsanalvsis158
M a c D o n a l dC, . 2 2 7 , 2 3 6 7 n e g a t i o n1 8 , 1 8 2
Nlaclntvre,P.D. 23-5 negativeevidence22
macro factors234 7 negotration 98, 100 2; joint negotiationoftext
magisterialdiscourse93 2 0 2 , 2 0 5 7 ; o f m e a n i n g2 1 - 2 , 7 9 8 0 , 8 2
'new.ethniclties'115
Malinowski,B. 128
masterl' 37-8 Newport, E. 39
NlcDermott,R. 237 non-participantobservation324 5
M c T e a r ,I v I . 3 1 0 n o n . e r b ailn f o r m a t i o n1 3 4 . 3 1 5 , l l 7
m e a n i n g1 2 5 ;l o s so f 2 3 7 ; n e g o t i a t i oonf 2 1 - 2 , normatir.eculture 130-1
7 9 8 0 ,8 2 noun phraseaccessibilitvhierarchvI 85
medicalpractitioners46 Nunan,D. 59
medium for instruction: Englishas 219, 236-7; nurture andnature 15
use oflanguageas 243-57
Mercer, N. 255, 340-2 O b l e r ,L . 3 1
Merrow, J. 93 observabledata I 26
metaphors4: lor secondlanguage acquisition observation 324-5
191 2 observer'sparadox324
methodologv4-5, 147-66; audio-lingualism O g b u ,J . 2 3 5
149 52; communicativelanguageteaching O ' M a l l e i ' ,J . 1 7 5
155 8; historical/pre-World\,\'arII 148-9; O ' N e i l lR, .213
350 INDEX
zoneof 96' 266
proximal development'
o p e r a t i o n6 5 , 6 6 pure research5 1
6, 208-26 ; contextualizins
;;;,;;;;",,t,'d"'t
qualitativeanalvsis339-42
oral aPProach 149 -4)
quantitatit'eanalvsis339
:;:;i:.;;'""ch ro2. rer '3; pedagosical ^
"'tl"or'.ii'".t l- 8
for grammarteachinglq ce 224-5
2b0 - 1 . e e also raclicalresistan
, .;;p'.h'nlibl' 21' 7e' Raheem,R. 223
"'r;I
Derformance,Productlon R a m P t o nB, 2 5
5 2-3
outsider/insiderProblem R a m P t o n\ .t B H J 2 + ' 1 1 5
Rathunde,K' 103
particiPantobservation324-5 rationalistaPProach158
3 13-14
particiPation
'particiPatite -2 reactiveresources101-2
comPetence17 1
reading17 5-6
iasseron,J.C 93 realitr: svllabusas 296
Patkorvski,M 37-8 recall,learner313-14
, . 185-6
P a v e s iM recaps2'18
Test 40
P"ubodvPicture Vocabularv recitation94-5
see teaching 326-7
pedagog\
'Peirce, recordingsPokenlanguage
B.N 208-10 Reforn-rMovement 148
285
P e n n Y c o o kA,' 2 0 8 - 1 0 ' reformulations247
p"rc"iu"d innovations61
to"rfor.unat u:e register7, 258-70
1 2 7 :c o m p e t e n caen d l 4 - 1 5 :
R e i d ,J . 3 s
andlearning2l-2 reiections247
personalknou.ledge56 relativeautonomr 209
o..ronul voice 8 1 relativeciauseformation 185-6
32-3
i..ronulitv repair 100-2
PhilliPs,J 175 rePetitions.24T
phon.ti. srrnbols338'
339 ^- ^";.led 26r,262-1,265 6
rePorting,teacher-gulo
Piaget,J. 17
,"'p.oduftion o [ ' o c i a l ' r o r l d s7 ' I t l - t 9 ^ , ,-
, . 5 2 , 1 0 0 ,1 0 1 5 / ttu' I ) ':
P i c aT ."r"ur.h 1, \+ 14: actionresearch
Pierce,B 110 uppliedlinguists P""P::l:t"::1
Batterv (PLAB) ,t -o ,I r,,/ '
PimsleurLanguageAptitude .iurroorn asculturemetaPhor
L)-o'
31 7 r e s e a r c\hl ) ' 6 1 ' 1 2 5- 8 1c u t t u t '
cla"sroom
plan, svllabusas 296 perspectives 53-60;
of 53-6; educational
-4; on learner
Polanvi,N{ 56 innovationistperspective
60
positioning11l-15 characreristics l0 I l SLA researchers ,
98 a n dp r a c t t c a t
' P . u b h34.
.os'er u, -2 p e r s p e c t i \4e8 - 5 l l t e c h n i c a l
N S 6l' 6l' lb0' lbl Lno.dedge 45-8
Practicalactionresearch
58 diffusionmodel 62
research,deielopment and
oractica]knorvledge45-8 researcherstance324-6
iractice seesocialPractices of classroom
resistance:conservativeculture
109-10 1 32; iearners'6'
Prugmutits
'p.uii, and resistanceto change
5l ' 66-1
i,tt"otu of action) 208-26,283;oPPosition
and 224-5
nrecision94-5 and924' 103; culture
resources:constraints
!t"f.,""t" 228; Iearnerpreferences35 as resource1 36-7
of classroom
PrescriPtions 168
retention 3 13-14
private instruction 220
R i c h a r d sJ,. C . 1 5 5
resources 101-2
Proactive Richardson, K' 324' 375
oroblem-solvingmodel 62 Rogers,R. 61
l' 7"5 89: importanceo[output
froau.tion
t R o g e r sT, . S . 15 5
8, o, problemtrtith communication role piav 219-20
output 79-81
strategies84-7; roles for routines 19
context i 'ground rules' for classroomlanguage
Professional rules:
testing 30 contraints
Proficiencv u s e2 5 2 3 ' 2 5 5 ;institutional
Progressiue aPProach200
924
39'219
Pronunciation
P.osodit cues 232
safe-talk22140
sPeciiications 60
Prot'isional
 INDEX 35I

sampling323--+ socio-culturalcontext 1-2

S a p i rE, . 1 2 5 ,1 3 E socio-cultural perspective25+ 5, 250
scaffolding 95, 103, 25+, 265, 267, 308 sociolinguistic perspective110
schematicknorvledge77 8 socio-pragmaticfailure 1I 2
schematicstructure 204 5 solidaritvpoliteness228
Schlemmer,L. 227 SouthAfrica )2740; macro context of
Schmidt,R. 34, 84, 109 schoolingfor black people 235-7
Schon,D. 56 specifrcations 60
schoolfailure 234 5 spokenlanguage seedi.cour.e.interaction
Schumann, J. 50 S p o l s k vB, . 1 3 1 . 1
S e b b aM, . 3 3 8 ,3 3 9 Sri Lankanclassroom 6,208 26
secondlanguageacquisition(SLA) 12; applied standardlavouttranscripts 331 3
linguists'perspective 64 8; classroom as stavelavouttranscripts334, 335
experimentallaboratorv12 3-5 ; in context S t e n h o u sLe., 5 1 2 , 6 0
308-9; educationalperspectii'es53-50; S t e r nH, . 5 7
explaining306-8; innovationistperspective Stoller,F. 54
60--4; and languagesocialisation4, 108 2l I strategiccompetence82 4
limits to a socialperspective109 10; strategies +-6, 2+, 75 89; classroom as
metaphorsfor 191 2; researchand language experimentallaboratorv 124-5 ;
pedagogv44-74; researchers'perspective comprehensionstrategies75 8; learner
', ". ". 1 .r e , l r o n o r '4 R i l s n c i o l i n o r r i s t i c
'**5"5_' " - -' "' """6-'""' 173 5; problems*'ith communication
p e r s p e c t i v eo n I l 0 strategies 84 7; teacher169 72
.econd language learning seelanguage learning Strong,11. 312
.ei:ond language socialisation (SLS) 4, structurallinguistics149
108 2 1 ; contextualisation and rvrder social structures,bureaucratic235-7, 237 8
p r o c e s s e s1 1 5 1 9 ; m e t h o d o l o g i c a l .r structuring 170
implications 1 19; problems rvith the model S t u b b sM, . 14,15
lr3 16 studentsseelearners
.egregatededucation235-5; seealsoapartheid subjectiveexperience126-7
\ . l i g e r ,H . 3 1 2 Suggestopedia 153 -4
--m:nfir c' *t'r-r. t*e6c' ,i -a"c 77
" summariesof researchlindings66
-entence judgement40 Srvalfar, J.K. i 58
.equencing 257 S w a i n , M7 , 6 , 8 0 , 8 3 , 8 4 , 3 1 2 ;c o m p r e h e n s i b l e
'haredexperience126-7, 2+8, 25+ 5 o u t p u t2 1, 7 9 , 2 6 0
'iqnifrcanceI 34 Su.eet,H. 14E
:ignifrcantBilingualInstructionalFeatures(SBIF) svllabus:asrealitvandasplan 295
studv I /l svmbolicviolence272-3, 2134; interrogating
, i l e n t r . v a v1 5 2 - 3 285
iinclair, J. 15 sYmmetrv97 8
-.ituational language teaching 149, 150 svnchronr'233
:kinner, B.F. 16, 151 svntacticprocessing80
\ l i m a n i ,A . 3 1 3 , 3 1 4 svntacticstrategies75 7
.rnall group learning 251-2,26+ 5 svstematickno*-ledge78
Sno*., C. 39 -41 svstematicitv 18 I9
.ocial being, learner as 25 svstemic-{'unctional grammar 152 3
rocral context 1, 4, 122 /.4; classroom as coral
gardens seeclassroom as culture metaphor; taciturnltv228; student231-2
classroom as discourse 125-8; classroom as talk seediscourse,interaction
experimental laboraton' 123 5 Tamil students208 26; midcourse
'ocial identitv 1 10 resistance 216 20 postcourse
s o c i a li n e q u a l i t i e s 7 , 2 7 1 E 6 contradiction220 2; precourse
social interaction model of innovation 52 determination21+ 15
social practices: language practice and ideologr' T a r o n e ,E . 4 8 9
1 15-1 5; naligating discourse in the task-based languageteaching(TBLT) 152
c l a s s r o o m 3 1 0 , 3 1 4 1 5 ; s e c o n dl a n g u a g e taskbasedlearning(TBL) I 59-62
learning theorv and 25 tasksI /u-l
'social
trouble' 315 teachereducatlon57
socralisation seesecond language socialisation teacher-guided reporting261, 262 3, )65-6
352 INDEX

t e a c h e r - l e a r n e ri n t e r a c t i o n s 9 1 , 9 3 - 8 , 1 0 3 - { ; u-shaped behaviour184, 191-2

seealso interaction United States237
teacher research (practical action research) 5E UniversalGrammar16, 17
teachers: collaboration rvith researchers 52-3; uptake287*305;and evaluation oflearning
collusion rvith students in apartheid South 288-9; importanceof topicalisation 294 9;
Africa 6, 22740; qualifications in apartheid learners'idiosyncracies299 300; uptake
S o u t h A f r i c a 2 3 5 ; a s r e s e a r c h e r s5 7 - 5 0 , identificationprobe 290, 305; uptakerecall
57-8; responding to what learners sat 247; chart290, 304
r o l e 1 0 3 - 4 , 1 7 7 ; s t r a t e g i e s1 6 9 7 2 ; t a l k a n d
text of language lessons 3 i 0-1 2; volubilitv \ranDijk, T. 115
231-2 \ r a nL i e r , L . 2 5 , 5 5 - 5 , 3 1 0 - 11
teaching5-8; classroomasculture metaphorand variabilitv18-19
135 7; conceptions of 55; cultureof 55 50; varieties,language3 34-9
languageand 243-6; methodologrsee videorecordings326 7
methodologv;methodsseemethods;nature volubilitv228; teacher231-2
of effectiveteaching169 7o: re5earch and V v g o t s k vL,. 6 7 , 9 6 , 2 5 + , 2 6 5 - 6 ,3 0 8
pedagogr'3, 44-7 4; techniques2'16-8
teaching-learning cvcle 202 rvait time 266
'we' 248
technicalaction research58 statements
technicalknowledge45-8, 50-l Webbe, 148
technologvof teaching5 1 Wegerif,R. 265, 340-2
T e r r e l l ,T . 5 1 , 1 5 8 - 9 W e i s sC , .47
testing288 9 W e n d e n ,A . 1 7 + - 5 , 1 1 6
t e x t 3 1 0 ,3 1 0 - 1 2 W e s c h eM , .B. 32
text-based(genre-based; teaching5-5, 162-3, Westgate,D. 245
t6+,200-1 W h a l e n ,S . 1 0 3
theatricalmonologue93 white, L. 300-1
Thembela,A. 227 Widdor'vson H,. 5 4 , 6 5 6 , 6 7 - 8
theorl':oflanguagelearning12 14; SLA W i l l i n g ,K . 1 7 3 ,1 1 + , 1 7 6
researchandpedagogv+9-51, 66-7 W i l l i s ,P . 2 1 1
Tikunoff,W.J. 170, 171-2 Wright, T. 5l
topicalisation29+ 9, 300-1 rvriting 176; genre-basedapproaches5-6,
total phvsicalresponse(TPR) 154 200-7; learninga new register251,263:
Tou'ell, R. 18 266 7
transcriptronsof spokenlanguage32344; Wundt,W.NI. 125
conventions330 1; lavout331 -t, 335;
nonverbaland contextual-information334; Y e a d o nT, . 2 1 3
representinq differenrlanguage rarieties Y o r i o ,C . 3 5
334 9
transfer,language20 Zahorik,J. 55
transformation97; of socialrvorlds7, 271 86 Z e n t e l l aA, . C . 2 5 1 - 2
transforminghabitus278 82, 284 zoneof proximaldevelopment96, 266
Tvlbor, H. 237 Zulu-Englishinteractionalstvles227-40