Discourse and Context in Language Teaching - A Guide For Language Teachers (2001)

 

I N G FUEL SED TEACHING -

A G u i d e f o r Language T e a c h e r s Marianne Celce-Murcia

Elite O l s h t a i n

CAMBRIDGE

UNIVERSITY PRESS

 

A Gui de f o r L a n g u a g e Teachers

Marianne Celce-Murcia E l i t e Olshtain

e y UNIVERSITY PRESS

 

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY

PRESS

3 2 Avenue o f the A m e r ic a s , New York, NY 10013-2473, USA

C a m b r i d g e University P r e s s i s p a r t o f t h e University of Cambridge.

I t f u r t h e r s t h e U n i v e r s i t y ’ s mission b y disseminating k n o w l e d g e i n t h e pursuit of

education, learning and research a t t h e highest international l e v e l s of e x c e l l e n c e .

www. c a m b r i d g e . o r g Information o n t h i s t i t l e : www.cambridge.org/978052 648370 © C a m b r i d g e University P r e s s 2000 T h i s publication i s i n copyright. Subject t o statutory e x ce ptio n a n d t o t h e provisions of r e l e v a n t c o l l e c t i v e licensing agreements, n o r e p r o d u c t i o n of a n y p a r t m a y t a k e place without t h e w r i t t e n permission of C a m b r i d g e University P r e s s . F i r s t published 2000

1 2 t h printing 2014

Printed i n t h e Uni t ed S t a t e s of A m e r i c a A catalog re co rd f o r t h i s publication i s a v a i l a b l e from t h e B r i t i s h L i b r a r y .

Li brary of Congress Ca ta lo g in g i n Publication d a t a C e lc e - M u r c ia , M a r i a n n e . Discourse a n d context i n l a n g u a g e teaching / b y M a r i a n n e Cel ce-Murci a a n d E l i t e Olshtain FoI, Includes bibliographical references a n d i n d e x . ISBN 978-0-521-64055-8 hardback - ISBN 978-0-521-64837-0 paperback

1 . L a n g u a g e a n d L a n g u a g e s — Stu dy a n d teaching - Discourse a n a l y s i s . 3 . Pragmatics. I Olshtain, Elite. I. Title. P 53. C38 2000 418.0071-dc21 00-031155 CIP

ISBN 978-0-521-64055-8 hardback ISBN 978-0-521-64837-0 paperback

C a m b r i d g e University P r e s s has no responsibility f o r t h e persistence o r a c c u r a c y of URLs f o r external o r

third-party I n t e r n e t Web s i t e s r e f e r r e d t o i n t h i s publication a n d does n o t g u a r a n t e e t h a t a n y content o n such

Web s i t e s i s , o r w i l l remain, accurate o r appropriate. Book design: E d w a r d Smith Design, I n c .

Text composition: Dewey Publishing S e r v i c e s Illustrations: Suffolk T e c h n i c a l Illustrators, I n c . , V.G. Meyers

E v e r y e f f o r t has been m a d e t o t r a c e t h e owners of copyri ght ed materials i n t h i s book. We would be g r a t e f u l t o hear from a n y o n e who recognizes t h e i r material a n d who i s u n a c k n o w l e d g e . We w i l l be pleased t o m a k e t h e necessary corrections i n f u t u r e printings o f t h i s book.

 

TO OUR BELOVED GRANDCHILDREN

KYLE, SCoTT, DANIELLE, AND JOEL L e ?

Ate)

eas

 

Acknowledgments

Vil

Vill

Credits

Part

|

Background

Chapter

1

Introduction t o Disc our se Analysis

Chapter

2

Pragmatics i n Discourse Analysis

Part 2

Language Knowledge

Chapter

3

Phonology

30

Chapter Chapter

4 5

Grammar

50 73

Vocabulary

E p i l o g u e t o P a r t 2 : Interrelationships a m o n g L a n g u a g e Resources

Part 3

Se)

Language Processing

Chapter

6

Listening

102

Chapter

7

Reading

118

Chapter Chapter

8 9

Wr iting

141

Speaking

164

E p i l o g u e t o P a r t 3 : Integration o f L a n g u a g e S k i l l s and Discourse Pr oc essing

P a r t4 t4

180

Implementation

Chapter

10

C u r r i c u l u m D e s i g n and Materials D e v e l o p m e n t

184

Chapter

11

Assessment (by E l a n a Shohamy, guest author)

201

Chapter

12

Discourse T r a i n i n g f o r T eac her s and Learners

216

GLOSSARY

235

REFERENCES

243

AUTHOR INDEX

265

S u s j e c t INDEX

269

 

é

retuas\

ron

mt

GF? a 4

tt

G e l i *~.

id

Avie

 

This book began a s a ollaborative p r o j e c t a t t h e TESOL C o n f e r e n c e h e l d i n San Antonio, Texas, i n 1989. I t was t h e r e t h a t we decided t o begin w o r k i n g together toward t h e completion of a t e a c h e r s ’ h a n d b o o k t h a t focused o n t h e r o l e of discourse i n l a n g u a g e teaching. We both had s e v e r a l other projects i n progress, s o t h e present t e x t unfolded slowly and i n m a n y ways h a s benefited from o u r e v o l v i n g thoughts o n t h e t o p i c o v e r t i m e . We owe a n e n o r m o u s debt t o o u r colleague Elana Shohamy, who had f a i t h i n o u r p r o j e c t and drafted Chapter 1 1 (Assessment) a t o u r i n v i t a t i o n . We asked Elana t o do t h i s bec ause w e k n o w t h a t she has f a r g r e a t e r expertise t h a n we do o n t h e r o l e of discourse i n assessment. M any , m a n y thanks, Elana. We a r e d e e p l y indebted t o Car leen Cur ley and J o e Plummer f o r t h e i r expert assistance with t h e word processing of t h e manuscript. We a l s o thank S u n Y o u n g ( S u n n y ) Oh f o r h e r c apable work o n t h e glossary and Namhee H a n and Amy S e o f o r t h e i r dedicated assistance with c o m p i l i n g t h e references.

Thanks a r e a l s o d u e t o o u r g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s , who served a s “ g u i n e a pigs” w h e n t h e s e materials were piloted a t UCLA i n S p r i n g 1997 and F a l l 1999 and a t H e b r e w University i n S p r i n g 1998. Professor S u n g - O c k S o h n audited t h e S p r i n g 1997 c l a s s a t UCLA and g a v e u s m a n y i n s i g h t f u l comments. T o M i r i am Eisenstein-Ebsworth and H e n r y Widdowson — a s w e l l a s s e v e r a l anonymous reviewers of t h e manuscript who g a v e u s feedback and c o m m e n t s a t various s t a g e s of i t s d e v e l o p m e n t — we o f f e r s i n c e r e t h a n k s . We have n o t inc or por ated a l l of t h e i r suggestions a n d we a r e c e r t a i n they disagree with aspects of t h e f i n a l version; nonetheless, we wish t o express g e n u i n e gratitude f o r t h e i r feedbac k s i n c e we have f o u n d i t invaluable i n our revision process. T h a n k s a l s o t o E v e l y n Hatch, who read a n d g a v e u s feedback o n portions of t h e manuscript. Needless t o s a y , we a r e s o l e l y responsible f o r a n y e r r o r s and omissions r e m a i n i n g i n t h e t e x t . This h a n d b o o k i s o u r collaborative work; however, we have benefited from previous collaborations with other colleagues who have influenced t h i s work. I n t h i s r e g a r d , Mar i anne Celce-Murcia would l i ke to acknowledge by name Diane Larsen-Freeman, S h a r o n Hilles, Donna Br i n t o n , a n d J a n e t Goodwin. We a l s o thank t h e f i n e professionals i n t h e New York o f f i c e of C a m b r i d g e University Press who helped u s with t h i s project from acquisition through production: Mary V a u g h n , Debbie Goldblatt, and Mary Carson, a s w e l l a s Tiinde A. Dewey of Dewey Publishing

Services. Last but n o t l e a s t , we lovingly a c k n o w l e d g e o u r husbands, Daniel and Zeev, who have suppor ted o u r e f f o r t s o n t h i s project and have unselfishly given u s t h e time w e n e e d e d t o

complete it.

Vii  

a e z2 &©™

The authors a n d publisher would l i k e t o thank t h e follow following ing for permission t o r e p r o d u c e copyrighted material:

Pages 37-38: from “ T e a c h i n g Intonation from T h e o r y t o P r a c t i c e , ’ TESOL Quar ter ly 5 ( 1 ) : 73-81. Copyright © 1971 TESOL. Used with permission.

P a g e 4 4 : B y Tennessee Williams from The Glass M e n a g e r i e . C o p y r i g h t © 1945 by University of t h e South and E d w i n D. Williams. Repr inted by permission of New Directions Publishing Corp. and Casarotto Ramsay and Associates Limited. Pag es 48 48-49 -49:: from “ H i l l s Like White Elephants.” Repr inted with permission o f Scribner, a Division of S i m o n & Schuster, from Short S t o r i e s o f Ernest H e m i n g w a y . Copyright © 1927 by Charles Scribner’s Sons. Copyright r e n e w e d 1955 by Ernest

Hemingway. Pages 48-49: from “ H i l l s Like White Elephants.” i n Short S t o r i e s o f Ernest Hemingway b y Ernest Hemingway. Copyright © Hemingway F or eign Rights T r u s t .

P a g e 6 6 : from “ M er c h ant M a r i n e ” i n Working by Studs T e r k e l . Repr inted by permission of D o n a d i o & Olson, I n c . C opyright © 1977 b y Studs T e r k e l . P a g e 6 6 : “The Night Will N e v e r Stay” by Eleanor Farjeon i n E l e a n o r Farjeon’ s Po e m s for Children. Reprinted by permission of H ar old Ober Associates Incorporated. Copyright © 1951 by E l e a n o r Farjeon. P a g e 7 0 : from U n d e r s t a n d i n g Cultural Differences: G e r m a n , French, a n d A m e r i c a n by Hall & H a l l . Copyright © 1990 E d w a r d T . Hall Associates. Originally published by Intercultural Press, Inc.

P a g e 8 8 : from The E c o n o m i c W a y o f Thinking, Ninth Edition, by Paul H e y n e . Copyright © 1994. Repr inted with permission of Prentice-Hall, I n c . P a g e 9 0 : from Teaching English a s a S e c o n d o r F or eign L a n g u a g e , F i r s t Edition, by M a r i a n n e C elce-Murcia. Copyright © 1979. Repr inted with permission of Heinle & Heinle, a Division of Thomson L e a r n i n g .

P a g e s 132—133: from “ D e m is e of t h e Dinosaurs,’ i n R e a d i n g by A l l M e a n s by F . D u b i n and E . Olshtain. Copyright © 1992. Repr inted b y permission of P e a r s o n Education. P a g e s 136-137: a d a p t e d from B e y o n d E x p e r i e n c e : A n Experiential A p p r o a c h t o Cr oss-Cultur al Lear ning, S e c o n d Edition, by T heodor h eodor e G o c h e n o u r ( E d . ) . Copyright © 1993. ISBN 1-877-86424-2. Repr inted with permission of I n t e r c u l t u r a l P r e s s , I n c . , Yarmouth, ME. Pages 139-140:

from “ B a c k t o Basics” by I s a a c Asimov. Repr inted with permission.

Pag es 153-15 153-154: 4: from Discourse Analysis for L a n g u a g e Teachers by M. McCarthy. Repr inted with permission of C a m b r i d g e University P r e s s . P a g e s 226-227: excerpt from White House Tapes. Repr inted with permission from White House Transcripts. C opyright © 1974 by B a n t a m Books.

viii

 

Introduction t o Discourse Analysis

“The a n a l y s i s of discourse i s , n e c e s s a r i l y , the a n a l y s i s of l a n g u a g e i n u s e .

As s u c h ,

i t c a n n o t be r e s t r i c t e d t o the description of l i n g u i s t i c forms i n d e p e n d e n t of the purposes o r functions which those forms a r e designed t o serve i n h u m a n a f f a i r s .

’

( B r o w n a n d Y u l e , 1983:1)

“

*“...one must l e a r n m or e than j u s t the pronunciation, the l e x i c a l i t e m s , the a p p r o p r i a t e w o rd order, . . . one must a l s o l e a r n the a p p r o p r i a t e w ay t o u s e those words and sentences i n the second language.”

(Gass a n d S e l i n k e r , 1994:182)

INTRODUCTION

This chapter and t h e n e x t one pr ovide a foundation f o r t h e f r a m e w o r k we present i n t h i s book — a f r a m e w o r k i n which both discourse and context a r e c r u c i a l t o e f f e c t i v e l a n g u a g e teaching. C hapter | d e a l s with discourse, which r e f e r s primarily t o the l a n g u a g e forms t h a t a r e p r o d u c e d a n d interpreted a s p e o p l e c o m m u n i c a t e with each o t h e r . Chapter 2 d e a l s with p r a g m a t i c s ( i . e . , context and i t s various f e a t u r e s ) , which d e a l s primarily with t h e s o c i a l , c u l t u r a l , and physical aspects of t h e s i t u a t i o n s t h a t shape how p e o p l e c o m m u n i c a t e with each o t h e r . Another w a y of looking a t t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i s t o s a y t h a t Chapter 1 deals primarily with t e x t u a l aspects of messages whereas Chapter 2 d e a l s primarily with t h e s i t u a t i o n a l aspects of messages. S o m e tim e s i t i s hard t o draw t h e l i n e b e t w e e n t e x t and context s i n c e t h e same forms m a y be used t o s i g n a l important information i n e i t h e r domain. A g o o d e x a m p l e of t h i s i s t h e r e f e r e n t i a l u s e of demonstratives i n English ( e . g . , t h i s , t h a t ) . Consider t h e following examples: 1 . Child (pointing a t food o n t h e p l a t e i n f r o n t of him): What’s t h i s ?

2 . C l a u d e t h i n k s we should p o s t p o n e t h e p i c n i c .

What d o y o u t h i n k o f t h i s ?

 

Introduction t o Discourse Analysis

I n t h e f i r s t example, t h e r e f e r e n t of t h i s i s t h e food o n t h e c h i l d ’ s p l a t e . The r e f e r e n t i s c l e a r bec ause t h e c h i l d i s physically pointing t o what he i s t a l k i n g a b o u t . We c a l l t h i s s i t u a t i o n a l

( o r d e i c t i c ) r e f e r e n c e , which i s p a r t of c o n t e x t . I n t h e second example, t h e r e f e r e n t o f t h i s i s a n i d e a previously m e n t i o n e d i n t h e o n g o i n g discourse “we should postpone t h e p i c n i c . ” We r e f e r t o t h i s type of reference a s t e x t u a l ( o r anaphoric) reference bec ause w e f i n d t h e r e f e r e n t i n t h e p r i o r text. I n a d d i t i o n , pragmatic analysis would t a k e l a n g u a g e v a r i a t i o n i n u s e i n t o account. For i n s t a n c e , i n t h e f i r s t e x a m p l e t h e speaker i s a c h i l d t a l k i n g a t home, a circumstance u n d e r which t h e question “What’s t h i s ? ” i s appropriate. A n a d u l t guest i n v i t e d t o dinner would n o t ask t h e question t h i s w ay s i n c e i t might be i n s u l t i n g t o t h e h o s t , s o t h e guest

might instead s a y something l i k e : “What’s t h i s n e w d i s h you’ re serving? ” I n addition t o interlocutor-related f a c t o r s such a s a g e and s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p , c o m m u n i c a t i v e f a c t o r s such a s politeness and a p p r o p r i a c y a r e a l s o relevant t o pragmatic analysis and need t o be p a r t of one’s o v e r a l l c o m m u n i c a t i v e c o m p e t e n c e . L a n g u a g e teaching, t h e r e f o r e , must be c o n c e r n e d with how both t h e discourse i t s e l f and t h e o v e r a l l context contribute t o c ommuni c at i on.

HUMAN

COMMUNICATION

Human c o m m u n i c a t i o n

fulfills many

d i f f e r e n t goals a t t h e personal a n d s o c i a l l e v e l s . We communicate i n for m a t i on , ideas, beliefs, emo tio ns , a n d attitudes t o o n e a n o t h e r in our d a i l y interactions, a n d we co ns t ruct a n d m a i n t a i n our positions within various social cont e x t s by e m p l o y i n g appropriate l a n g u a g e forms and p e r f o r m i n g speech a c t i v i t i e s t o ensure s o l i d a r i t y , harmony, and c o o p e r a t i o n — o r t o express d i s a g r e e m e n t o r displeasure, w h e n c a l l e d f o r . The acquisition of c o m m u n i c a t i o n s k i l l s i n one’s f i r s t l a n g u a g e i s a l i f e l o n g

process, but t h e basic s k i l l s a r e ac quir ed quite early i n l i f e . When learning another l a n guage, we have t o add t o , c hange, and readjust o u r native l a n g u a g e s t r a t e g i e s t o fit t h e n e w l a n g u a g e and c u l t u r e . Whether we teach “ l a n g u a g e f o r c o m m u n i c a t i o n ” o r “ l a n g u a g e a s c o m m u n i c a t i o n ” (Widdowson, 1984:215), i t i s imperative t h a t we c ombi ne k n o w l e d g e of t h e t a r g e t l a n g u a g e with s k i l l s and s t r a t e g i e s t h a t enable u s t o u s e t h e l a n g u a g e e f f e c t i v e l y and appropriately i n various s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l c o n t e x t s . This book i s intended t o help teachers d e v e l o p fr amew or k s of k n o w l e d g e and decision-making processes t h a t t a k e r e c e n t thinking i n discourse analysis i n t o account (from both t h e l i n g u i s t i c a n d sociocultural perspectives). We h a v e written t h i s book t o pr ovide l a n g u a g e teachers with a discourse perspective o n t h e l a n g u a g e a r e a s they a r e t r a d i t i o n a l l y p r e p a r e d t o t e a c h : pronunciation, g r a m m a r , and vocab ulary. These a r e a s a r e indeed t h e resources of any l a n g u a g e and must be p a r t of a l a n g u a g e teacher’s k now l edge. H ow ev er , w h e n l a n g u a g e i s used f o r c ommuni c at i on, t h e s e a r e a s a r e resources f o r creating and interpreting discourse i n c o n t e x t , n o t l a n g u a g e systems t o be taught or le a r n e d o u t of context f o r t h e i r o w n s a k e . When l a n g u a g e i s used f o r c ommuni c at i on, t h e coparticipants t y p i c a l l y e m p l o y one o r more s k i l l s simultaneously: l i s t e n i n g , reading, speaking, o r w r i t i n g . T h e y o f t e n switch quickly from one r o l e and s k i l l t o another ( e . g . , from l i s t e n i n g t o speaking and back t o l i s t e n i n g again), o r they a r e e n g a g e d i n a a s k t h a t involves carrying o u t s e v e r a l s k i l l s simultaneously ( e . g . , l i s t e n i n g a n d n o t e taking/writing). The l a n g u a g e p r o d u c e d i n t e r a c t i v e l y by such coparticipants i s discourse ( i . e . , l a n g u a g e i n u s e ) . We t h u s agree with C o o k ( 1 9 8 9 ) , who claims t h a t discourse analysis i s u s e f u l f o r d r a w i n g a t t e n t i o n t o t h e l a n g u a g e s k i l l s ( i . e . , l i s t e n i n g , reading, speaking, w r i t i n g ) , which put u s e r s ' k n o w l e d g e of phonol o g i c a l , grammatical, a n d l e x i c a l resources i n t o a c t i o n w h e n e v e r l a n g u a g e u s e r s achieve successful c ommuni c at i on.

 

Background

Wuat I s D i s c o u r s e ? T her e a r e two types of d e f i n i t i o n s t r a d i t i o n a l l y given f o r t h e term “discourse.” Formal d e f i n i t i o n s t y p i c a l l y characterize discourse a s a u n i t of coherent l a n g u a g e consisting of mor e t h a n one sentence; functional d e f i n i t i o n s characterize discourse a s l a n g u a g e i n u s e (Schiffrin, 1994). T a k e n alone, both of these definitions a r e deficient. A p i e c e o f d i s co urs e i n context c a n c o n s i s t of a s l i t t l e a s o n e o r two words, a s i n “Stop” o r “ No S mok i ng. ” Alternatively, a piece of discourse c a n c o n s i s t of hundreds of thousands of words a s i n t h e c a s e of a very long n o v e l . Usually, a piece of discourse f a l l s s o m e w h e r e i n between t h e s e two extremes. The notion of “sentenc e” i s n o t always relevant — especially w h en we consider spoken discourse. Likewise, t h e phrase “ l a n g u a g e i n use” i s s o g e n e r a l t h a t i t can be almost meaningless. I t presupposes t h a t we k n o w what “ l a n g u a g e ” c o n s i s t s of and t h a t a piece of discourse i s a n instance of putting elements of l a n g u a g e t o u s e . The most s a t i s f y i n g d e f i n i t i o n of discourse i s one t h a t combines t h e s e two perspect i v e s : A piece of discourse i s a n instance of spoken o r w r i t t e n l a n g u a g e t h a t h a s describable i n t e r n a l relationships of form and m e a n i n g ( e . g . , words, s t r u c t u r e s , cohesion) t h a t r e l a t e

coherently t o a n e x t e r n a l c o m m u n i c a t i v e function o r pur pose and a given audience/interl o c u t o r . Furthermore, t h e e x t e r n a l function o r pur pose c a n only be pr ope r ly determined i f o n e takes into a c c o u n t the c o n t e x t a n d participants ( i . e . , a l l the r e l e v a n t situational, social,

f a c t o r s ) i n which t h e piece of discourse o c c u r s . Using a l a n g u a g e e n t a i l s t h e a b i l i t y t o both i n t e r p r e t and p r o d u c e discourse i n context i n s p o k e n a n d w r i t t e n c o m m u n i c a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n , which i s why we assign such a e n t r a l r o l e t o discourse i n o u r discussion of fr amew or k s t h a t should inform l a n g u a g e teaching.

and c u l t u r a l

WHAT Is Discourse ANALYsIs? Discourse analysis i s minimally t h e study of l a n g u a g e i n u s e t h a t extends b e y o n d sentence boundaries. I t s t a r t e d t o a t t r a c t a t t e n t i o n from a v a r i e t y of d i s c i p l i n e s i n t h e l a t e 1960s a n d through t h e 1970s. At l e a s t two terms c a m e t o be used i n p a r a l l e l f a s h i o n : t e x t l i n g u i s t i c s , which focused o n w r i t t e n t e x t s from a v a r i e t y of f i e l d s and g e n r e s , a n d discourse analysis, which e n t a i l e d a more cognitive and s o c i a l perspective o n l a n g u a g e u s e and c o m m u n i c a t i o n e x c h a n g e s and which included spoken a s w e l l a s w r i t t e n discourse. Although today discourse analysis c a n be c onsider ed a well- defined discipline on i t s o w n,

i t i s closely linked with a number o f other disciplines a n d could, in f a c t , serve

as

umbr ella term f o r a variety of approaches. E t h nogr ap h y of c o m m u n i c a t i o n , from t h e sociological o r anthropological point of view, f o r i n s t a n c e , i s l a n g u a g e analysis of c o m m u n i c a t i v e behavior and of i t s r o l e within g i v e n s o c i a l c o n t e x t s . Within l i n g u i s t i c s , an

analysis has taken a t l e a s t two d i f f e r e n t p a t h s : one i s t h e extension of discourse i c a l analysis t o include functional objectives and t h e other i s t h e study of i n s t i t u tgiroan ma lmiazte -d l a n g u a g e u s e within s p e c i f i c c u l t u r a l s e t t i n g s (Bhatia, 1993:3—4). The former, which i s t h e o r e t i c a l i n n a t u r e , c a n o f t e n be r e l a t e d t o a p a r t i c u l a r school of l i n g u i s t i c analysis such a s formal l i n g u i s t i c s ( e . g . , van Dijk’s t e x t l i n g u i s t i c s ) o r systemic l i n g u i s t i c s ( e . g . , Bhatia’s g e n r e a n a l y s i s ) ; t h e l a t t e r i s mor e c o n c e r n e d with describing a c t u a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n within M o r e general i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d contexts ( e . g . , doctor-patient i n t e r a c t i o n , l e g a l c o n t r a c t s ) . discourse a n a l y s i s i n v e s t i g a t e s e v e r y d a y conversation, w r i t t e n discourse of a l l t y p e s , n a r r a t i v e , and o t h e r kinds of w r i t t e n o r spoken t e x t s . I n t h i s book, we have adopted O s tm a n and Virtanen’s (1995) p o s i t i o n o n discourse a n a l y s i s , which i s t o regard i t “ a s a n umbrella-term f o r a l l i s s u e s t h a t have b een d e a l t with i n t h e l i n g u iiss t i c study of t e x t and discourse.”2

 

Introduction t o Discourse Analysis

Another

impor tant aspect of discourse analysis i s t h a t of a p p l i c a t i o n . Thus, m a n y

discourse s t u d i e s have b een motivated by c onc er n with l a n g u a g e teaching, with speech a n a l y s i s , with t h e writing o r reading p r o c e s s , and with genre and r e g i s t e r analyses. I t i s t h e s e d i f f e r e n t types of applied discourse analysis t h a t a r e most r e l e v a n t t o t h e aims of t h i s book and w i l l therefore be addressed i n subsequent chapters. I t i s a l s o t h e s e d i f f e r e n t types of applied discourse analysis t h a t have l e d t o a g e n e r a l movement within l a n g u a g e p e d a g o g y , which moves from focus o n grammar t o c onc er n with discourse and a l s o mov es a w a y from l a n g u a g e a n a l y s i s , a s t h e goal of l a n g u a g e teaching, t o t h e goal of t e a c h ing l a n g u a g e f o r c ommuni c at i on. The present book i s designed t o help t h e teacher m a k e this transition. I t i s n o t o u r pur pose h e r e t o survey c omp r eh ens i v el y

a l l t h e various approaches

to d i s -

course a n a l y s i s ; however, t h e n u m b e r of d i f f e r e n t approaches t h a t scholars a r e currently p u r s u i n g explains i n p a r t t h e a m o r p h o u s nature of discourse analysis t o d a y . This makes i t d i f f i c u l t f o r u s t o define discourse analysis with precision. H ow ev er , we w i l l i l l u s t r a t e and m a k e r e fe r e n c e t o d i f f e r e n t types of discourse analysis i n t h e chapters t h a t f o l l o w . These

e x a m p l e s and o u r discussions of them w i l l give t h e reader a n e v o l v i n g sense of what d i s course analysis i s . We s e e n o p r o b l e m with t h i s appr oac h, given t h a t discourse analysis i s currently a d e v e l o p i n g a r e a i n l i n g u i s t i c s a n d r e l a t e d disciplines (anthropology, sociology, psychology, a n d philosophy). This i s why we believe we should work with a f l u i d and c ontingent d e f i n i t i o n of discourse a n a l y s i s .

TYPES OF DISCOURSE There a r e m a n y d i f f e r e n t ways t o c l a s s i f y discourse. O n e dimension i s t h e w r itten/spoken d i s t i n c t i o n resulting i n w r i t t e n o r spoken t e x t s . Both types of t e x t c a n be f u r t h e r d i s t i n guished a c c o r d i n g t o register ( l e v e l of formality) o r g e n r e ( c o m m u n i c a t i v e purpose, a u d i e n c e , a n d conventionalized s t y l e and format). Also, some discourse i s l a r g e l y monol ogi c (where one speaker o r w r i t e r produces a n e n t i r e discourse with l i t t l e o r n o i n t e r a c t i o n ) while other discourse i s dialogic o r multiparty i n nat ure (where two o r more participants i n t e r a c t a n d — t o v a r y i n g degr ees — construct t h e discourse t o g e t h e r ) . T h e d i s t i n c t i o n m a d e b e t w e e n speec h a n d writing i s often referred t o a s c h a n n e l (Hymes, 1968) o r medium, d u e t o t h e f a c t t h a t a d i f f e r e n t physiological process i s involved i n e a c h . Yet i t i s c l e a r t h a t we c a n have written l a n g u a g e t h a t i s intended t o be s p o k e n a n d s p o k e n l a n g u a g e t h a t i s designed t o be read (or which was f i r s t spoken and then written down). These d i s t i n c t i o n s f u r t h e r i n t e r a c t with r e g i s t e r a n d genre a s c a n be s e e n i n Table 1 .

Tablel. The r a l - l i t e r a c y Cont i nuum CHANNEL

SPOKEN

WRITTEN

e . g . , c onver sation

e . g . , informal

LITERACY

orate

letters,

dr ama, poetry literate

e.g., l e c t u r e s ,

e . g . , Expository e s s a y s ,

s ermo ns , s p e e c h e s

articles

 

Background

Discourse c a n a l s o be e i t h e r p l a n n e d o r u n p l a n n e d (Ochs, 1 9 7 9 ) . U n p l a n n e d discourse includes most conversations and some w r i t t e n t e x t s such a s informal n o t e s and l e t t e r s . P l a n n e d discourse includes pr epar ed speec hes o r sermons i n o r a l discourse and carefully e d i t e d o r published w r i t t e n work. The dimension of discourse p l a n n i n g could be added t o t h e f e a t u r e s of Table 1 . Most e v e r y d a y i n t e r a c t i o n s , whether w r i t t e n ( e . g . , n o t e s , shopping l i s t s , a d s , e t c . ) o r spoken, t a k e place i n f a m i l i a r s i t u a t i o n s . The interlocutors r e l y heavily o n s o c i a l convent i o n and contextual information. This type of discourse i s c onsider ed c o n te x t- e m b e d d e d and i s probably most relevant t o t h e or ate/spoken and some orate/written types of discourse. On t h e other hand, most instances of w r i t t e n discourse and some ex amp l es of spoken discourse a r e r e m o v e d from t h e immediate physical context and handle t h e i r t o p i c ( s ) a t a mor e a b s t r a c t a n d c onc eptual l e v e l . This type of discourse i s context-reduced, and u s e r s of such discourse n e e d t o r e l y more heavily o n t h e i r k n o w l e d g e of t h e l a n g u a g e c ode and g e n r e types because t h e context i s p a r t l y u n f a m i l i a r , l e s s immediate, and l e s s a c c e s s i b l e . This type of discourse i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of l i t e r a t e spoken and w r i t t e n t e x t s . Often p l a n n e d discourse i s c o n t e x t - r e d u c e d while unplanned discourse i s context-embedded. E d u c a t e d , p r o f i c i e n t l a n g u a g e u s e r s a r e a b l e t o u s e with f l e x i b i l i t y and appr opr iac y both p l a n n e d and u n p l a n n e d and c ont ex t - embedded and c ontext-r educ ed d i s c o u r s e .

v e r s u s interactional ( B r o w n a n d Yule, 1983), where transactional d i s co urs e i nvo l ves p ri m ari l y the transmission o f information o r t h e e x c h a n g e of goods and s e r v i c e s , and i n t e r a c t i o n a l discourse i s those instances of l a n g u a g e u s e t h a t shape and maintain s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s and i d e n t i t i e s and express t h e speaker’s/writer’s a t t i t u d e tow ar d t h e t o p i c o r tow ar d t h e i n t e r l o c u t o r ( s ) . I n t h i s book we t r e a t both transactional discourse, where t h e m a n a g e m e n t o f n e w and o l d information i s often s a l i e n t , a n d interactional discourse, where the t u r n - t a k i n g s y s tem of the target l a n g u a g e and t h e r e a l i z a t i o n p a t t e r n s of i t s speech a c t s and s t a n c e mar ker s c a n be c r u c i a l . With t h e e x c e p t i o n of s p o k e n versus w r i t t e n discourse, most of t h e s e d i f f e r e n t discourse types represent c o n t i n u a r a t h e r than hard and f a s t dichotomies. For e x a m p l e , a c onver sation w h e r e on e speaker dominates c a n be somewhat monologic, a n d a e t t e r t o a f r i e n d c a n e x h i b i t both i n t e r a c t i o n a l and transactional f e a t u r e s . A proficient l a n g u a g e u s e r develops t h e k n o w l e d g e and t h e s k i l l t o m a n i p u l a t e t h e d i f f e r e n t types a n d pur poses of discourse a c c o r d i n g t o h i s / h e r needs. This e n t a i l s k n o w l e d g e of language, of discourse, of writing and speaking conventions, of sociocultural norms a s w e l l a s other m o r e s p e c i f i c a r e a s of k n o w l e d g e . The various chapters i n t h i s book address m a n y of these knowledge types.

Discourse

has a l s o

been described

a s tr ansac tional

REGISTER AND GENRE IN DiscourRSsE ANALYSIS Discourse i s frequently studied from t h e perspective of r e g i s t e r o r g e n r e . Discourse r e g i s t e r s usually r e f l e c t t h e l e v e l of formality o r informality of a n i n s t a n c e of discourse o r i t s d e g r e e of t e c h n i c a l s p e c i f i c i t y v e r s u s general u s a g e . A g e n r e , o n t h e o t h e r hand, i s a c u l t u r a l l y and l i n g u i s t i c a l l y d i s t i n c t form of discour se such a s n a r r a t i v e ( e . g . , a s t o r y ) , exposition ( e . g . , a research r e p o r t ) , procedural discourse ( e . g . , a r e c i p e ) , and s o o n . 3 A c c o r d i n g t o Sw ales (1981, 1985, 1990) and Bhatia (1993), “a g e n r e i s a recognizab le c o m m u n i c a t i v e event characterized by a s e t of c o m m u n i c a t i v e purpose(s) i d e n t i f i e d and mutually under stood by t h e members of t h e professional o r academic c o m m u n i t y i n which i t r e g u l a r l y occurs” ( B h a t i a , 1993:13). Both authors emphasize t h e c o m m u n i c a t i v e purpose of t h e t e x t a s t h e most important f e a t u r e r e l a t e d t o g e n r e . I t i s t h i s c o m m u n i c a t i v e purpose t h a t shapes t h e g e n r e and gives i t i n t e r n a l s t r u c t u r e .

 

Introduction t o Discourse Analysis

R e g i s t e r , a s already mentioned, r e f l e c t s t h e d e g r e e of formality of t h e p a r t i c u l a r t e x t by using a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s e t of l e x i c a l and g r a m m a t i c a l f e a t u r e s t h a t a r e compatible with t h e p a r t i c u l a r r e g i s t e r . A lower r e g i s t e r i s represented by t h e u s e of more colloquial ( o r a t e ) and e v e r y d a y - t y p e vocabulary and fewer c o m p l e x g r a m m a t i c a l forms while a higher r e g i s t e r requires t h e u s e of l e x i c a l items t h a t a r e professional o r a c a d e m i c i n n a t u r e along with denser g r a m m a t i c a l s t r u c t u r e s , r e s u l t i n g i n a more l i t e r a t e spoken o r w r i t t e n t e x t .

FIELDS OF STUDY WITHIN

DiscOuURSE ANALYSIS

A n u m b e r of research a r e a s within discourse analysis have r e c e iv e d p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n and have b e c o m e s i g n i f i c a n t a r e a s of investigation i n t h e i r ow n r i g h t . With r e s p e c t t o

considerations relevant t o l a n g u a g e teaching, we w i l l b r i e f l y discuss f i v e such a r e a s : cohesion, c oher enc e, infor mation s t r u c t u r e and c onver sation analysis (with focus o n turn-taking), a n d c r i t i c a l discourse a n a l y s i s .

COHESION

The u s e of various cohesive t i e s t o e x p l i c i t l y l i n k together a l l t h e propositions i n a t e x t r e s u l t s i n cohesion of t h a t t e x t . The most obvious s t r u c t u r a l f e a t u r e s of such c o n n e c t e d discourse a r e t h e cohesive t i e s i d e n t i f i e d and discussed by Halliday and H a s a n ( 1 9 7 6 , 1 9 8 9 ) . There a r e f o u r types of g r a m m a t i c a l t i e s (reference, e l l i p s i s , s u b s t i t u t i o n , and c onjunc tion) a s well a s a v a r i e t y of l e x i c a l t i e s , which we discuss i n greater d e t a i l i n Chapters 4 a n d 5 . T h e following b r i e f t e x t e x h i b i t s s y n o n y m o u s r e p e t i t i o n a s one t e x t u a l f e a t u r e of cohesion t h a t c r e a t e s l e x i c a l t i e s : Natural b e a u t y plays a s t a r r i n g r o l e i n Santa Monica, and seaside i s t h e perfect v a n t a g e from which t o watch t h e performance. Early r i s e r s w i l l notice t h a t t h e show begins j u s t a f t e r s u n r i s e . ( S a n t a Monica Official Visitors G ui d e,

1998:18)

I n t h i s t e x t t h e same e v e n t i s referred t o with t h r e e d i f f e r e n t n o u n phrases: “a s t a r r i n g r o l e ” ( f i r s t mention; n e w information; u s e of a n i n d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e ) ; “ t h e p e r f o r m a n c e ” ( t h e u s e of t h e d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e i n d i c a t e s anaphor ic r e fe r e n c e t o a n e a r l i e r mention, and t h e semantic information r e l a t e s t h i s l e x i c a l item t o “ s t a r r i n g r o l e ’ ) ; and “ t h e show” ( t h e t h i r d reference m a d e t o t h e same e v e n t , which functions here a s a s y n o n y m f o r “ t h e p e r formance”). This e x a m p l e m a y seem t o display a complicated system of l e x i c a l t i e s and

reference, but such l e x i c a l c onnec tions a r e very common i n English w r i t i n g . I n t h e following excerpt from a e t t e r w r i t t e n by a mother asking f o r advice o n dealing with p r e - t e e n s , t h e r e a r e some examples of gr ammat i c al cohesive t i e s :

I a m a w or k i ng mother with two p r e - t e e n s . After dropping them o f f a t school, I have t o get r i g h t t o work. But my children a r e disor ganized a n d always l a t e . A few t i m e s , I have had t o t u r n a r o u n d and go bac k home because o n e o r t h e o t h e r f o r g o t something.

(Children-LA’s Best C a l e n d a r o f Family Events, July 1998:12)

The

u s e of t h e p r o n o u n them i n t h e f i r s t l i n e i s a n anaphor ic reference t o “two p r e - t e e n s . ” ” T h e c onjunc tion b u t , which begins t h e sec ond sentence, expresses t h e counter-

expectation a r i s i n g from t h e sec ond a n d t h i r d sentences. The phrase “always l a t e ” i s a n e l l i p t i c a l form of t h e clause “they a r e always l a t e ” and t h e phrase one o r t h e other i s a

 

Background

g o o d e x a m p l e of e l l i p s i s a t t h e n o u n phrase l e v e l m e a n i n g “one c h i l d o r t h e o t h e r c h i l d . ” Had t h e w r i t e r p r o d u c e d t h e other one i n s t e a d of t h e other we would a l s o have had a n e x a m p l e of s u b s t i t u t i o n i n t h i s t e x t , one would have substituted f o r c h i l d (somewhat a w k w a r d l y i n t h i s c o n t e x t ) . Of c o u r s e , t h e r e i s a l s o l e x i c a l cohesion i n t h i s t e x t , most obviously i n t h e r e p e t i t i o n of working and work i n l i n e s | and 2 ; children r e f e r s back t o pre-teens and a l s o r e l a t e s more i n d i r e c t l y t o mother. The words school and home a r e semantically r e l a t e d items a s a r e disorganized and forgot something. The cohesion of t h e t e x t i s a r e s u l t of a l l t h e s e cohesive t i e s , which l i n k together t h e words and propositions occurring i n t h e t e x t . COHERENCE

I n addition t o cohesion, which

i s expr essed

v i a l a n g u a g e resources, o r b o t t o m - u p

con-

nections i n t e x t , e f f e c t i v e discourse a l s o requires coherence, which c a n be v i e w e d a s p a r t of t o p - d o w n p l a n n i n g and organization. C o h e r e n c e contributes t o t h e unity of a piece of discourse such t h a t t h e individual sentences o r utterances h a n g together and r e l a t e t o each o t h e r . This unity and relatedness i s p a r t i a l l y a r e s u l t of a r ec ognizable organizational p a t t e r n f o r t h e propositions and i d e a s i n t h e passage, b u t i t a l s o d e p e n d s o n t h e pr esenc e of l i n g u i s t i c devices t h a t strengthen global unity and c r e a t e l o c a l c onnec tedness. R e c o g n i z a b l e patterns m a y include those based o n tempor al o r s p a t i a l r e l a t i o n s o r those based o n semantically associated r e l a t i o n s such a s prob lem-solution o r cause-effect. C o h e r e n c e m a y a l s o d e p e n d i n p a r t o n patterns a n d s t r a t e g i e s of t e x t d e v e l o p m e n t t h a t a r e very c u l t u r e s p e c i f i c . While t h e o v e r a l l c o h e r e n c e of a longer passage d e p e n d s o n t h e pr esenc e of a conventional scheme o r organization t h a t i s r e c o g n i z a b l e a s generic o r s p e c i f i c t o a p a r t i c u l a r c o m m u n i c a t i v e pur pose and discourse c ommuni t y , t h e o v e r a l l c o h e r e n c e of such a p a s sage a l s o d e p e n d s o n t h e d e g r e e of c o h e r e n c e within each p a r a g r a p h o r section of t h e t e x t . Each sentence o r utterance i s r e l a t e d both t o t h e pr evious and follow ing sentences i n ways t h a t l e a d t h e reader toward a n e a s i e r and more e f f e c t i v e interpretation of t h e t e x t . The notion of c o h e r e n c e applies t o a l l four chapters i n P a r t I I I of t h i s h a n d b o o k since t h e a b i l i t y t o u s e t op - dow n information and s t r a t e g i e s t o i n t e r p r e t discourse ( w h en l i s t e n ing o r r e a d in g ) o r t o p r o d u c e discourse (when writing o r speaking) assumes a n understanding of t h e discourse c ommuni t y ’ s assumptions — a s well a s a d e g r e e of control over i t s l a n g u a g e conventions. These a r e some of t h e things t h a t c o n s t i t u t e c o h e r e n c e i n t h e t a r g e t discourse c ommuni t y . We s h a l l be discussing more f a c t o r s contributing t o c o h e r e n c e l a t e r i n Ch Chapte apte r s 7 (Reading) and 8 (Writing). INFORMATION STRUCTURE

T h e major c o n c e r n of t h e a r e a of discourse analysis r e f e r r e d t o a s i nfor mat i on str uc tur e "new" (unknown) i nf o rm at i o n. L a n g u a g e s u s e g r a m m a t i c a l and discourse f e a t u r e s i n order t o i n d i c a t e which b i t s of i n f o r mation a r e k n o w n and which a r e new. E u r o p e a n researchers o f t e n u s e t h e terms th e m e a n d rheme, while in N o rth America t o p i c a n d comment a r e more common. I t seem s that t h e b a s i c principle f o r information s t r u c t u r e i s t h a t themes/topics (old information) genera l l y p r e c e d e r h e m e s / c o m m e n ts ( n e w information) i n order of presentation. I n spoken discourse, o l d o r g i v e n information i s frequently r ec over able from t h e s i t u a t i o n . I n w r i t t e n discourse, g r a m m a t i c a l and discourse f e a t u r e s pla y a n impor tant r o l e i n m a k i n g t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n ( t h e u s e of determiners, pronouns, word order i n t h e sentence). i s the p r e s e n t a t i o n o f “old”

(known) i n f o r m a t i o n

versus

Propositions within a l a r g e r piece of discourse a l s o involve more l o c a l considerations of “well formedness.” A c c or di ng t o Bardovi-Harlig ( 1 9 9 0 ) , a sentence within a passage functions a t t h r e e l e v e l s : t h e s y n t a c t i c , t h e semantic, and t h e pragmatic. I n order t o understand h e r d e f i n i t i o n s , we n e e d t o b e t t e r under stand t h e terms “topic” and “ c o m m e n t.”

 

Introduction t o Discourse Analysis

A t o p i c i s a discourse e n t i t y t h a t connects one p a r t of t h e discourse t o o t h e r p a r t s through continuity i n g i v e n information ( i . e . , o l d o r k n o w n information) t h a t r u n s through t h e e n t i r e discourse and helps u s under stand w hat i s b eing discussed. Thus, i f t h e r e i s a main character i n t h e passage and most of t h e sentences a r e about t h a t person, t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t h e m a i n character w i l l be k n o w n information and various g r a m m a t i c a l and l e x i c a l devices w i l l be used t o c onnec t t h e sentences through references t o t h e main c h a r a c t e r , such a s i n t h e following t e x t about Rona:

R ona was t h e youngest of t h r e e s i s t e r s . She l i k e d music and l i t e r a t u r e . B e i n g t h e y o u n g e s t s i s t e r was i n some ways a blessing and i n o t h e r s

@ecurse... I n t h i s e x a m p l e a l l n o n i n i t i a l references t o R o n a point back t o h e r i n i t i a l mention and l i n k t h e t o p i c of subsequent sentences i n t h e discourse back t o t h e i n i t i a l mention. The c o m m e n t, o n t h e other hand, i s what i s s a i d about t h e t o p i c and t h a t i s g e n e r a lly n e w o r added information. I n each sentence of t h e e x a m p l e some additional information i s added i n t h e c o m m e n t, d e v e l o p i n g t h e discourse a c c o r d i n g t o t h e w r i t e r ’ s i n t e n t i o n . I n t h e t e x t “being t h e y o u n g e s t of t h r e e s i s t e r s ” and “liking music and l i t e r a t u r e ” a r e c o m m e n t s about Rona. T h e terms “topic” and “comment” r e l a t e t o t h e t e x t u a l function of m a n a g i n g n e w information ( c o m m e n ts ) a n d o l d information ( t o p i c s ) . T i e s of g r a m m a t i c a l a n d l e x i c a l cohesion o f t e n pr ovide t h e g l u e n e e d e d f o r such information m a n a g e m e n t . I n t h e e x a m p l e about Rona, t h e topic of t h e t e x t i s a l s o t h e subject of t h e f i r s t sentence, s o i t s i n i t i a l position i s p a r t of t h e normal ( o r u n m a r k e d ) r u l e s of English

H ow ev er , a s we s h a l l discuss i n m o r e d e t a i l i n Chapters 4 ( G r a m m a r ) and 8 (Writing), s p e c i a l g r a m m a t i c a l constructions m a y be used t o bring for w ar d elements t h a t w oul d n o t be found i n i n i t i a l position i n t h e usual discourse sequence. T h e passage might have c ontinued a s follows: grammar.

For example, t h e r e was l e s s responsibility involved i n b eing t h e youngest. The most important t a s k s w er e assigned t o Rona’s older s i s t e r s .

H e r e t h e g r a m m a t i c a l subject “there” follows a n introductory c onjunc tive t i e ( “ f o r e x a m p l e ” ) a n d allows n e w infor mation ( “ l e s s responsibility”) t o function a s t h e m a r k e d topic of t h e f i r s t n e w sentence while t h e n o u n phrase “ t h e most important t a s k s ” i s both t h e subject and topic of t h e next sentence, amplifying o n “ l e s s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . ” “ R ona” has tempor ar ily b e c o m e p a r t of t h e two c o m m e n t s (involved i n being t h e y o u n g e s t / w e r e assigned t o Rona’s s i s t e r s ) f o r a s t r e t c h of discourse before she on c e a g a in has t h e potential to

become the topic.

Thus under standing how information i s m a n a g e d a t t h e l o c a l l e v e l c a n help contribute t o c o h e r e n c e a t t h e global l e v e l . T h e t h r e e s u b f i e l d s of discourse a n a l y s i s presented h e r e were chosen t o i l l u s t r a t e t e x t u a l f e a t u r e s of discourse t h a t a r e r e l e v a n t t o l a n g u a g e t e a c h i n g . The n e x t s u b f i e l d t o be discussed here i s relevant t o conversational exchanges, and t h e l a s t describes a s p e c i a l s u b f i e l d dedicated t o exposing s o c i a l inequality i n la n g u a g e . TURN-TAKING IN CONVERSATION ANALYSIS I n conversation, i n addition t o m a n a g i n g

n e w a n d old information i n a coherent way, t h e

interlocutors a l s o have t o t a k e stock of a n d constantly monitor each other t o t u r n - t a k i n g system of t h e t a r g e t l a n g u a g e i n question s i n c e t h i s i s another discourse i n o r a l i n t e r a c t i o n . T h e c onver sational turn-taking system (Sacks, a n d Jefferson, 1974) of a n y l a n g u a g e includes c o n v e n t i o n s g o v e r n i n g matters

control the f e a t u r e of Schegloff, such a s t h e

 

10

Background

following: how c onver sations open and c l o s e , who speaks w h en a n d f o r how l o n g , who c a n i n t e r r u p t (and how t h i s i s done), how t o p i c s g e t c hanged, how much time c a n elapse b e t w e e n t u r n s o r b e t w e e n speakers, whether o r n o t speakers c a n overlap, and whether o r n o t speakers c a n c o m p l e t e o r r e p a i r each o t h e r ’ s u t t e r a n c e s . T her e a r e o f t e n important c u l t u r a l (and subcultural) differences i n t h e w a y discourse c ommuni t i es d o turn-taking. A l a c k of understanding of t h e s e differences c a n cause problems i n cross-cultural

c ommuni c at i on.

O ne important source of organization i n t h e turn-taking system i s t h e “ a d j a c e n c y p a i r , ’ where t h e f i r s t speaker s a y s something t h a t c o n v e n t i o n a l l y requires of t h e i n t e r l o c u t o r a response t h a t i s o f t e n p a r t l y predictable. Thus a t y p i c a l a d j a c e n c y p a i r f o r a c onventional greeting t o o p e n a c onver sation i n English might b e : 1:

2:

Hello, how a r e y o u ? Fine, thanks.

Other a d j a c e n c y p a i r s o f t e n have a t l e a s t two c o n v e n t i o n a l options. I f t h e f i r s t p a r t of t h e p a i r i s a n i n v i t a t i o n , t h e sec ond p a r t c a n be a n a c c e p t a n c e o r a e f u s a l . I f t h e f i r s t p a r t of t h e p a i r i s a request f o r confirmation, t h e sec ond p a r t c a n c onfir m o r disconfirm: 1:

Y o u ’ r e f r o m Manchester?

2:

Yes. / No, L i v e r p o o l .

I n a n y g i v e n speec h c o m m u n i t y such a d j a c e n c y p a i r s can have highly conventionalized and formulaic phrases associated with them. Needless t o s a y , master ing t h e s e conventions and phrases i n a sec ond l a n g u a g e w i l l contribute greatly t o o r a l fluency and c o m m u n i c a tive competence.

We s h a l l have more t o say about t h i s i n C hapter 9 (Speaking).

CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

T h e primary i n t e r e s t of c r i t i c a l discourse analysis i s t o deconstruct and expose s o c i a l inequality a s expressed, constituted, a n d legitimized through l a n g u a g e u s e — notably i n t h e p ub l i c media such a s n e w s p a p e r s , radio, television, films, cartoons, a n d the l i k e , but also in settings such a s c l a ssr oom s, c o u r t r o o m s , news i n t e r v i e w s , d o ct o r- p at i ent interactions, as in everyday

discourse analysts believe t h a t discourse tends t o b e c o m e nor mative with repeated u s e and t h u s appears t o be n e u t r a l ; however, i n a c t u a l f a c t , discourse i s n e v e r n e u t r a l . I t must t h u s be a n a l y z e d i n terms of t h e p o l i t i c a l ideology, s o c i a l h i s t o r y , a n d p ow er s t r u c t u r e s t h a t i t embodies and expresses, e x p l i c i t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y . T h e research of c r i t i c a l discourse analysts o f t e n t a k e s o n a p r o b l e m - p o s i n g / p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g q u a l i t y and addresses discriminatory u s e of l a n g u a g e directed a t w o men, lower socioecoas well

talk. C r i t i c a l

o f ethnic, r a c i a l , religious, a n d linguistic minorities, a n d others. discourse analysts a l s o m a y suggest r emedies i n t h e form o f nondiscriminatory

nomic classes, members

Critical

behaviors and l a n g u a g e p r a c t i c e s t h a t could replace t h e problematic discourse. Some c r i t i c a l discourse analysts who a r e w e l l k n o w n t o l a n g u a g e educators a r e F air c lough ( 1 9 9 5 ) , Pennycook (1995), a n d Ph i l l i p s o n (1992).

Many c r i t i c a l discourse analysts believe t h a t educ ation i n g e n e r a l and foreign a n d sec ond l a n g u a g e education i n p a r t i c u l a r a r e ideological and p o l i t i c a l , b u t t h a t most l a n g u a g e teachers a r e u n a w a r e of t h i s . T h e y a r g u e t h a t discourse i n t h e language classroom a s w e l l a s t h e discourse of l a n g u a g e textbooks and teaching materials a r e a l l i n n e e d of c r i t i c a l e x a m i n a t i o n t o ensure t h a t discourse t h a t i s discriminatory and t h a t reinforces s o c i a l inequality be avoided t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h i s i s p o s s i b l e , o r — e x p l i c i t l y and c r i t i c a l l y discussed i f i t comes u p .

a t t h e very

least —

I n o u r experience, l a n g u a g e teachers who a r e e x p o s e d t o t h e writings and i d e a s of c r i t i c a l discourse analysts tend e i t h e r t o r e l a t e strongly t o t h i s t h e o r e t i c a l a n d a n a l y t i c a l

approach o r t o be q u i t e put o f f by i t s i n c e i t represents a s o c i o p o l i t i c a l

 

Introduction t o Discourse Analysis

perspective o n l a n g u a g e and education. We b e l i e v e i t i s important t h a t t e a c h e r s under stand what c r i t i c a l discourse analysis i s a n d t h a t they a r e a t t h e v e r y l e a s t s e n s i t i z e d t o t h e potent i a l l y discriminatory and d e m e a n i n g discourse t h a t may a r i s e i n t h e classroom a n d i n teaching materials and be p r e p a r e d t o d e a l with i t constructively ( i . e . , t o u s e such instances of discourse a s opportunities f o r discussions and a c t i v i t i e s t h a t c a n m a k e t h e l a n g u a g e

( o r ideological)

classroom a more democratic and o p e n discourse c ommuni t y ) . A b o v e a l l , l a n g u a g e t e a c h e r s should be s e n s i t i v e t o and a w a r e of p o t e n t i a l reactions t o what they s a y i n c l a s s — p o t e n t i a l reactions from t h e whole g r o u p o r from individual students — a s w e l l a s reactions t o what they w r i t e o n student p a p e r s . I t m a y be u s e f u l f o r teachers t o ask themselves i f a c r i t i c a l discourse analyst might f i n d anything they have s a i d o r w r i t t e n t o be pr oblematic or o f f e nsi ve .

WHAT

Is CONTEXT?

The term c ontext i n discourse analysis r e f e r s t o a l l t h e f a c t o r s and elements t h a t a r e nonlinguistic and nontextual b u t which a f f e c t s p o k e n o r w r i t t e n c o m m u n i c a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n . Halliday (1991:5) describes context a s “ t h e events t h a t a r e g o i n g o n a r o u n d w h e n p e o p l e s p e a k (and w r i t e ) . ” As ment i oned previously, discourse m a y d e p e n d primarily o n contextual f e a t u r e s found i n t h e i m m e d i a t e e n v i r o n m e n t and be referred t o a s contextembedded; o r i t m a y be r e l a t i v e l y i n d e p e n d e n t of context ( c o n t e x t - r e d u c e d o r d e c o n textualized) and d e p e n d more o n t h e f e a t u r e s of t h e l i n g u i s t i c c ode and t h e forms of t h e discourse i t s e l f . C ontext e n t a i l s t h e s i t u a t i o n within which t h e c o m m u n i c a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n t a k e s p l a c e . Discourse analysis of context e n t a i l s t h e l i n g u i s t i c and cognitive choices m a d e relevant t o t h e i n t e r a c t i o n a t hand. I n c o n t r a s t , p r a g m a t i c analysis of context and contextual description r e l a t e s t o t h e participants taking p a r t i n t h e i n t e r a c t i o n , t h e sociocultural b a c k g r o u n d t h a t i s r e l e v a n t , a n d a n y physical-situational elements t h a t m a y have some b earing o n t h e e x c h a n g e . Human c o m m u n i c a t i o n r e l i e s quite heavily o n context and o n t h e shared k n o w l e d g e t h a t t h e i n t e r a c t a n t s have with respect t o a v a r i e t y of contextua l f e a t u r e s . These i s s u e s a r e d e a l t with i n Chapter 2 .

SHARED

KNOWLEDGE

I n a c o m m u n i c a t i v e e x c h a n g e both i n t e r a c t a n t s r e l y o n t h e i r prior k now l edge, which m a y o r m a y n o t be s h a r e d . Shared k n o w l e d g e i s per haps most impor tant f o r e v e r y d a y communicative exchanges. When such e x c h a n g e s t a k e pla c e b e t w e e n participants who a r e familiar with each o t h e r , they r e l y on t h e i r shared k n o w l e d g e . Thus, i n t h e following e x c h a n g e b e t w e e n h u s b a n d a n d wife t h e discourse i s m e a n i n g f u l t o both b ecause they

share k n o w l e d g e o n which t h e e x c h a n g e i s based:

Wife: Husband:

The reception i s i n t h e garden. (implies t h a t i t w i l l be cool) I’m w e a r i n g t h e br ow n j a c k e t . (implies t h a t he has taken t h e proper precautions)

A n outsider m a y n o t necessarily get t h e implied m e a n i n g s from simply l i s t e n i n g t o t h e e x c h a n g e . When a c o m m u n i c a t i v e e x c h a n g e occurs among s t r a n g e r s , t h e physical e n v i r o n m e n t o f t e n supplies t h e contextual f a c t o r s t h a t m a y be necessary, such a s i n t h e follow ing e x c h a n g e a t a n a i r p o r t : Traveler: Attendant:

I a m looking f o r my bags; I j u s t got o f f t h i s f l i g h t . B a g g a g e Claim i s one f l i g h t down. Y o u c a n t a k e t h e e l e v a t o r .

 

12

Background

For discourse where context i s n o t r e a d i l y available ( w r i t t e n t e x t o r formal speeches), t h o s e i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e discourse have t o r e l y more heavily o n t h e t e x t i t s e l f and o n t h e i r

p r i o r k n o w l e d g e . Relevant p r i o r k n o w l e d g e c a n c r e a t e t h e appropriate context within which i t i s possible t o under stand and properly i n t e r p r e t t h e discourse. I n t h e l a n g u a g e classroom, c ontext-r educ ed discourse i s n o t alw ays presented t o s t u d e n t s along with t h e b a c k g r o u n d they need t o be a b l e t o i n t e r p r e t i t . Thus, l e t u s imagine t h a t i n a n English-as-a-for eign-language classroom, so mew here i n a non-English-speaking c o u n t r y , t h e teacher introduces t h e “Gettysburg Address” a s a reading passage. I f t h e s t u dents a r e n o t f a m i l i a r with t h e h i s t o r y of t h e United S t a t e s and with t h e b a c k g r o u n d of t h e C i v i l War, and t h e conditions u n d e r which President Linc oln delivered t h i s speech, they w i l l have a d i f f i c u l t time understanding t h e t e x t . A g r e a t d e a l of b a c k g r o u n d k n o w l e d g e i s n e e d e d i n order t o c r e a t e t h e global context within which t h e t e x t c a n be understood. Some sections of t h i s book w i l l address t h e n e e d t o c r e a t e a m e a n i n g f u l context within t h e

l a n g u a g e c l a s s r o o m s o that (a) difficult t e x t s c a n b e p r o p e r l y i n t e r p r e t e d a n d (b) students c a n l e a r n and b e c o m e enriched by t h e content and information t h a t they encounter, t h u s enabling r e a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n t o t a k e p l a c e . C ontextualized and i n t e r a c t i v e u s e s of l a n g u a g e c a n be ac quir ed r e l a t i v e l y quickly (two t o t h r e e years) g i v e n t h e r i g h t type of l a n g u a g e i n s t r u c t i o n and/or t h e r i g h t learning environment; however, master ing dec ontextualized and impersonal forms of l a n g u a g e along with r e l a t e d l i t e r a c y s k i l l s requires a much higher l e v e l of proficiency i n t h e t a r g e t l a n g u a g e and normally t a k e s a t l e a s t f i v e t o seven years e v e n u n d e r t h e b e s t of conditions

(Cummins, 1979; C o l l i e r , 1 9 8 9 ) . School l i t e r a c y requires l e a r n e r s t o u s e l a n g u a g e i n such d e c o n t e x t u a l i z e d s i t u a t i o n s , a n d second l a n g u a g e l e a r n e r s o f t e n e n c o u n t e r d i f f i c u l t i e s i n g e n e r a l scholastic p e r f o r m a n c e d u e t o a l a c k of t h e appropriate type of l i n g u i s t i c p r o f i ciency. For more a d v a n c e d l a n g u a g e l e a r n e r s , i t i s o f t e n necessary t o d e v e l o p s t r a t e g i e s f o r dealing with e v e n l e s s contextualized genres of l a n g u a g e such a s published a r t i c l e s , l e g a l documents, research r e p o r t s , and t e c h n i c a l manuals.

T Y P E S OF CONTEXT Duranti a n d Goodwin ( 1 9 9 2 ) pr opose f o u r types of c o n t e x t : ©

s e t t i n g (physical and i n t e r a c t i o n a l )

b.

b e ha v i or a l environment ( n o n v e r b a l a n d k i n e t i c ) l a n g u a g e ( c o - t e x t and reflexive u s e of l a n g u a g e ) e x t r a s i t u a t i o n a l (social, political, cultural, a n d the like)

c.

d.

For o u r s p e c i f i c purposes, two of t h e s e types of context a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y important, c o r r e s p o n d i n g r oughly t o Duranti a n d G o o d w in ’s ( a ) and ( c ) respectively: ( 1 ) t h e s i t u a t i o n a l context — i . e . , t h e purpose, t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s , and t h e physical and tempor al s e t t i n g where c o m m u n i c a t i o n i s taking place ( i . e . , a n a l y z e d a s pr agmatic s) and ( 2 ) t h e discourse context ( o r c o - t e x t ) , t h e stream of p r i o r and s u b s e q u e n t l a n g u a g e i n which a l a n g u a g e s e g m e n t o r a n e x c h a n g e occurs ( i . e . , a n a l y z e d a s discourse). For example, i f s o m e o n e encounters a f r i e n d and s a y s “Hello,” t h e person expects some s o r t of o r a l response. Or, i f one h e a r s a n utterance such a s “Who e l s e was there?” one looks t o p r i o r discourse about t h e p e o p l e present a t some event i n order t o i n t e r p r e t t h e u t t e r a n c e . I n w r i t t e n t e x t s we c a n o f t e n m a k e s e n s e of t h e message and under stand t h e m e a n i n g thanks t o t h e c o - t e x t , t h e l a n g u a g e material i n a n y p a r t i c u l a r piece of discourse. I n t h e following passage, exc er pted fr om t h e middle of a n a r t i c l e i n Time m a g a z i n e on t h e National Cherry F e s t i v a l i n t h e United S t a t e s , i t bec omes c l e a r how important c o - t e x t i s i n t h e process of interpreting t h e w r i t t e n t e x t :

 

Introduction

t o Discourse Analysis

13

Indeed, t h e victory f o r vendor s and consumers could w e l l be t h e f e s t i v a l ’ s l o s s . The 6,000 Sa r a L e e s l i c e s t y p i c a l l y s o l d a t t h e f e s t i v a l a r e d o n a t e d by t h e c omp any , with pr oc eeds f u n n e l e d back t o t h e f e s t i v a l organization. (Time, July 1998:4) I n t h i s piece of discourse, i n order t o under stand w hat “victory” t h e w r i t e r i s t a l k i n g about, w e n e e d t o h a v e r e a d the earlier sections o f the a r t i c l e . T o u n d e r s t a n d why t h i s i s t h e “ f e s t i v a l ’ s l o s s ” we n e e d t o read o n and f i n d o u t t h a t t h e r e used t o be a donation (which w i l l n o longer e x i s t ) t h a t e v e r y o n e attending m a d e t o t h e f e s t i v a l organization. A n d i f t h e reader does n o t k n o w (from p r i o r k n o w l e d g e ) who o r what Sa r a L e e i s , s / h e m a y f i n d o u t v i a cataphoric reference w h e n “ t h e company” i s mentioned. A l l t h e cohesive devices and t h e coherence organization elements w o r k within t h e wider c o - t e x t and need t o be prope r l y i d e n t i f i e d by a n y o n e t r y i n g t o i n t e r p r e t t h e m e a n i n g of t h e t e x t .

THE ORGANIZATION OF THIS BOOK I n P a r t 1 of t h i s book we present t h e o r e t i c a l b a c k g r o u n d information. Chapter 1 provides a n introduction t o discourse and discourse a n a l y s i s , whereas C hapter 2 (Pr agmatic s i n Discourse Analysis) provides f u r t h e r b a c k g r o u n d o n t h e i m p o r t a n c e of context and shared k n o w l e d g e f o r appropriate pr oduc tion and a d e q u a t e interpretation of discourse.

There a r e two b a s i c f r a m e w o r ks t h a t underlie t h e a p p r o a c h p r o p o s e d i n t h i s book and guide i t s organization ( 1 . e . , a l a n g u a g e k n o w l e d g e f r a m e w o r k and a discourse pr oc essing fr amew or k ) . We a r e using t h e term “ k n o w l e d g e ” t o r e f e r t o what cognitive psychologists (Anderson, 1985) c a l l d e c l a r a t i v e k n o w l e d g e , which r e f e r s t o things such a s f a c t s , r u l e s , a n d images t h a t one i s a b l e t o describe e x p l i c i t l y . I n terms of learning a l a n g u a g e , t h i s ty pe of k n o w l e d g e r e f e r s t o things such a s k n o w i n g t h e g r a m m a r r u l e s and word m e a n i n g s ‘ e x p l i c i t l y and being a b l e t o - s t a t e them. We a r e using t h e term “pr oc essing” t o r e f e r t o what t h e same cognitive psychologists c a l l p r o c e d u r a l k n o w l e d g e , which i s t h e a b i l i t y t o apply c o m p l e x cognitive s k i l l s automatically i n appropriate ways without even thinking about them. This a b i l i t y enables l a n g u a g e u s e r s t o p r o d u c e and i n t e r p r e t written and s p o k e n discourse e f f e c t i v e l y . I n P a r t 2 of t h i s book we consider t h e t h r e e l a n g u a g e resources (phonology, gr ammar , a n d vocabulary) t h a t a r e p a r t of t h e l a n g u a g e k n o w l e d g e framework, which we present i n F igur e 1 . 1 o n t h e next page, a n d w i l l discuss i n greater d e t a i l l a t e r . This d i a g r a m i l l u s t r a t e s how pragmatic k n o w l e d g e ( s e e Chapter 2) overlays and influences l a n g u a g e k n o w l e d g e a n d how discourse draws o n both l a n g u a g e k n o w l e d g e (phonology, g r a m m a r , voc abular y) and pr agmatic s w h e n l a n g u a g e u s e r s c ommuni c at e, both a s receivers a n d producers. D e p e n d i n g on t h e type a n d e x t e n t of k n o w l e d g e and e x p e r i e n c e a e a r n e r h a s , d i f f e r e n t pr oc essing s t r a t e g i e s f o r interpreting and p r o d u c i n g discourse w i l l be activated o r d e v e l o p e d . N o n n a t i v e l a n g u a g e u s e r s o f t e n l a c k t h e proficiency t h a t w oul d allow them t o process e a s i l y t h e s p o k e n and written discourse t o which they a r e e x p o s e d i n a sec ond l a n g u a g e . A n impor tant w a y i n which they c a n c o m p e n s a t e f o r t h e i r l a c k of k n o w l e d g e i s f o r them t o r e l y heavily o n contextual f e a t u r e s and p r i o r k n o w l e d g e t o process n e w information. This i s r e f e r r e d t o a s t o p - d o w n o r k n o w l e d g e - d r i v e n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . For e x a m p l e , w h e n r eading a i f f i c u l t a r t i c l e , t h e reader might consider where t h e a r t i c l e appear ed, who wrote i t , a n d what t h e title i s i n order t o f a c i l i t a t e interpretation of a l i n g u i s t i c a l l y d i f f i c u l t text. I n c o n t r a s t , l a n g u a g e pr oc essing t h a t r e l i e s heavily o n l i n g u i s t i c f e a t u r e s such a s spelling p a t t e r n s , g r a m m a t i c a l i n f l e c t i o n s , a n d word choices i s r e f e r r e d t o a s b o t t o m - u p o r d a t a - d r i v e n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , which i n some c a s e s i s f a c i l i t a t e d by n o n v e r b a l cues

 

14

B ack gro und

Top-down Pr o c e ssi n g

Written and S p o k e n Di sc o u r se

Phonology

Vocabulary

Bottom-up P r o c e s s i n g

F i g u r e 1 . 1 L a n g u a g e Knowledge Framework

such a s g e s t u r e s , i l l u s t r a t i o n s , and s o o n . Effective l a n g u a g e u s e r s a r e a b l e t o c o m b in e

t op - dow n a n d bottom-up processing i n arriving a t a r easonable interpretation of what t h e

speaker/writer intended. F igur e 1 . 2 presents a n integrated picture of t h e discourse processing framework. When t op - dow n processing i s a c t i v a t e d , l a n g u a g e u s e r s c o m b in e t h e i r pr ior k n o w l e d g e (content schemata) and sociocultural a n d discourse knowledge (formal schemata) with t h e i r assessment of pragmatic and contextual f e a t u r e s relevant t o the t a s k a t hand. A l l t h e s e elements a r e channeled through p r a g m a t i c considerations i n order t o p r o d u c e and i n t e r p r e t discourse. When bottom-up processing o c c u r s , l a n g u a g e u s e r s c o m b i n e l a n g u a g e k n o w l e d g e with s p e c i f i c and l o c a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n f e a t u r e s i n order t o p r o d u c e o r i n t e r p r e t discourse. S o m e tim e s t op - dow n processing t a k e s p r i o r i t y ; a t other times bottom-up c onc er ns require more a t t e n t i o n , b u t i d e a l l y t h e r e i s pur poseful integration of both types of processing. Successful discourse processing a l s o requires m e t a c o g n i t i v e awareness, which enables l a n g u a g e u s e r s t o fine-tune t h e i r production/interpretation process. I d e a l l y , discourse processing involves automatic pr oc edur al k n o w l e d g e ; however, i n some c a s e s , i t i s u s e f u l and necessary t o a c t i v a t e n o n a u t o m a t i c declarative k n o w l e d g e t o c o r r e c t e r r o r s a n d t o resolve ambiguities o r contradictions i n t h e pr oduc tion o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of discourse. I n Figures 1.1 and 1 . 2 , k n o w l e d g e c o m p o n e n t s a p p e a r i n s i d e o v a l s : content knowledge, discourse k n o w l e d g e , a n d l a n g u a g e k n o w l e d g e . Pr oc essing elements a p p e a r i n s i d e t r i a n g l e s : assessment of contextual f e a t u r e s , consideration of pragmatic f e a t u r e s , a n d p r o cessing s t r a t e g i e s ; metacognition i s i n s i d e a diamond, and s p o k e n o r w r i t t e n discourse

 

Introduction t o Discourse Analysis

Top-down Processing

Prior knowledge

and

e xp e r i e n c e ( c o n t e n t schemata)

Discourse k n o w l e d g e , sociocultural k n o w l e d g e and awareness

Assessment of con te x t,

(for mal schemata)

p u r p o s e , a n d in te ra ction

H

;

In te rp re ta tio n /P ro d u ctio n of Written and S p o k e n Discourse

L a n g u a g e knowledge: syntax, mo r p ho l o g y, ph onology , vocabulary,

M etacognition

Specific c o m m u n i c a t i o n f e a t u r e s of c o n t e x t : s i t u a t i o n a l context, participant c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , verbal/nonverbal cues

cohesion, s p e l l i n g , and t h e l i k e .

B ot t om -up Processing

F i g u r e 1 . 2 Discourse Processing Framework

(product o r t e x t ) i s always represented i n s i d e t h e c e n t r a l r e c ta n g u la r box. Discourse and pr agmatic s a r e sometimes represented with two shapes simultaneously s i n c e t h e s e two a r e a s c a n r e f l e c t both k n o w l e d g e a n d processing. Thus t h e term “discourse” m a y occur i n a rectangle and/or a n o v a l , a n d t h e term “pragmatics” m a y occur i n s i d e a r i a n g l e o r i n s i d e a n o v a l and a t r i a n g l e simultaneously. These v i s u a l shapes w i l l be used consistently i n t h e s p e c i f i c adaptations of t h e s e two figures t h a t we present i n each chapter throughout t h e book. Effective l a n g u a g e u s e r s s h i f t e a s i l y from one discourse processing m o d e t o t h e o t h e r ,

d e p e n d i n g on t h e requirements of t h e production/interpretation t a s k . For example, t h e reader e n c o u n t e r i n g a n unfamiliar w o r d i n a t e x t w i l l u s e t h e word’s syntactic position a n d morphological endings ( i . e . , bottom-up processing) t o f a c i l i t a t e interpretation of t h e unfamiliar l e x i c a l item b u t w i l l a l s o u s e c l u e s i n t h e p r e c e d i n g and sub sequent discourse (co-text) a n d the situational c o n t e x t ( i . e . , top-down p r oc e ssi n g ) t o arrive a t a n interpretation.

I n P a r t 3 of t h i s book we t r e a t t h e four l a n g u a g e s k i l l s ( l i s t e n i n g , reading, w r i t i n g , a n d

speaking) i n terms of o u r greater d e t a i l l a t e r .

discourse

processing

framework,

which

we

will

discuss

in

 

Background

o n both t h e l a n g u a g e k n o w l e d g e fr amew or k and t h e d i s course processing fr amew or k t h a t we have introduced h e r e , we w i l l e n d e a v o r t o m a k e o u r a p p r o a c h t o l a n g u a g e teaching p r a c t i c a l by suggesting throughout t h e t e x t p e d a g o g i c a l applications t h a t we believe a r e consistent with a discourse perspective o n l a n g u a g e and I n addition

t o elaborating

l a n g u a g e teaching. The discussion questions and a c t i v i t i e s a t t h e end of each chapter a r e d e s i g n e d t o f a c i l i t a t e understanding and application of t h e a p p r o a c h we a r e proposing. The suggestions f o r f u r t h e r reading a r e intended t o stimulate additional thinking of t h e t o p i c s a n d i s s u e s we r a i s e .

A PEDAGOGICAL

PERSPECTIVE ON COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE

The major goal of taking a l a n g u a g e course i s t o enable students t o develop communicat i v e c o m p e t e n c e . T h e term “ c o m m u n i c a t i v e c o m p e t e n c e ” was f i r s t coined by D e l l Hymes (1967, 1972) and h i s colleagues (anthropological l i n g u i s t s , sociolinguists, and functional l i n g u i s t s ) , who a r g u e d t h a t l a n g u a g e c o m p e t e n c e c o n s i s t s n o t only of Chomsky’s ( 1 9 5 7 , 1965) g r a m m a t i c a l c o m p e t e n c e b u t a l s o of sociolinguistic o r pr agmatic c o m p e t e n c e , which covers a l l s i t u a t e d aspects of l a n g u a g e u s e and r e l a t e d i s s u e s of appropriacy: t h e speaker ( a n d , i f d i f f e r e n t , t h e o r i g i n a l a u t h o r ) , t h e addressee(s), t h e message, t h e s e t t i n g o r e v e n t , t h e a c t i v i t y , t h e r e g i s t e r , and s o f o r t h . H ymes’ term “ c o m m u n i c a t i v e c o m p e t e n c e ” was taken u p by those l a n g u a g e methodo l o g i s t s who contributed t o t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of C o m m u n i c a t i v e L a n g u a g e T e a c h i n g ( e . g . , Wilkins, 1 9 7 6 ; W id d ow s on , 1 9 7 8 ) . H ow ev er , a p e d a g o g i c a l f r a m e w o r k based e x p l i c i t l y o n t h e notion of c o m m u n i c a t i v e c o m p e t e n c e was f i r s t p r o p o s e d by C a n a l e a n d S w a i n (1980) and C a n a l e ( 1 9 8 3 ) , 4 who a r g u e d t h a t c o m m u n i c a t i v e c o m p e t e n c e could be described a s consisting of a t l e a s t f o u r c o m p o n e n t s : 1.

Linguistic o r g r a m m a t i c a l c o m p e t e n c e , w h i c h c o n s i s t s of t h e b a s i c elements o f communication: s e n t e n c e patterns, morphological inflections, lexical resources,

and phonologic al o r orthographic systems. 2.

Sociolinguistic c o m p e t e n c e , which c o n s i s t s of t h e s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l k n o w l e d g e r e qu ir e d t o u s e l a n g u a g e appropriately with r e fe r e n c e t o formality, p o l i t e n e s s , and other contextually defined choices.

3.

Disc our se competence, which involves t h e s e l e c t i o n , sequenc ing, and a r r a n g e m e n t of words, s t r u c t u r e s , and sentences/utterances t o achieve a unified s p o k e n o r w r i t t e n whole with reference t o a p a r t i c u l a r mes s age a n d c o n t e x t .

4.

Strategic c o m p e t e n c e , which includes t h e s t r a t e g i e s and procedures relevant t o l a n g u a g e l e a r n i n g , l a n g u a g e processing, and l a n g u a g e production. I t a c t i v a t e s k n o w l e d g e of t h e other c o m p e t e n c i e s a n d helps l a n g u a g e u s e r s c o m p e n s a t e f o r gaps o r deficiencies i n k n o w l e d g e w h e n they c o m m u n i c a t e .

I n o u r opinion, t h e c o r e o r c e n t r a l c o m p e t e n c y

i n t h e C a n a l e and S w a i n f r a m e w o r k i s d i s -

course c o m p e t e n c e s i n c e t h i s i s where ever ything e l s e comes t o g e t h e r : I t i s i n discourse a n d through discourse t h a t a l l of t h e other c o m p e t e n c i e s a r e r e a l i z e d . A n d i t i s i n discourse and through discourse t h a t t h e manifestation of t h e other c o m p e t e n c i e s c a n b e s t be observed, res earch ed , and assessed.

 

Introduction t o Discourse Analysis

THE DiscOURSE APPROACH T O LANGUAGE TEACHIN TEACHING: G: New ROLES FOR TEACHERS, LEARNERS, ND MATERIALS I n t h e m o d e r n school s e t t i n g and t h e c h a n g i n g l earni ng e n v i r o n m e n t with high-tech a c c e s s i b i l i t y t o l i b r a r i e s , c omp ut er networks, and o t h e r r e s o u r c e s , t h e r o l e s of t e a c h e r s , l e a r n e r s , and materials i s constantly c hanging. A discourse perspective o n l a n g u a g e teaching a n d

l a n g u a g e l earni ng c a n be helpful i n redefining such r o l e s . T eac her s i n t h e n e w learning s e t t i n g s a r e e x p e c t e d t o b e c o m e r e f l e c t i v e researchers who e v a lu a te and rethink t h e i r approaches, a t t i t u d e s , and methods of presenting n e w subject matter t o s t u d e n t s , a t e v e r y s t a g e i n t h e teaching/learning p r o c e s s . T h e y a r e n o longer t h e only decision m a k e r i n t h i s process s i n c e l e a r n e r s share and b e c o m e partners i n t h e process; t e a c h e r s , however, have a n e w and very important r o l e t o pla y by b e c o m i n g personal mentors f o r individual s t u d e n t s , c o a c h i n g and g u i d i n g them t o b e c o m e autonomous learners. Lear ner s a r e n o longer passive r e c i p i e n t s of t h e teaching p r o c e s s . T h e y a r e e x p e c t e d t o be more i n d e p e n d e n t , t o m a k e choices, and t o i n i t i a t e learning a c t i v i t i e s . T h ey a r e e x p e c t e d t o t a k e responsibility f o r t h e i r ow n learning and b e c o m e a w a r e of t h e i r ow n s t r a t e g i e s and t a c t i c s , using m e t a c o g n i t i o n t o a s s i s t them i n i m p r o v i n g t h e i r ow n learning endeavor s. T h e y a r e a l s o o f t e n e n c o u r a g e d t o c a r r y o u t self-evaluation i n order t o f u r t h e r t h e i r le a r n in g and t o develop metacognitive awareness i n order t o pla n a n d regulate t h e i r l a n g u a g e le a r n in g a n d l a n g u a g e using s k i l l s . Discourse elements a n d routines a r e very impor tant t o o l s i n helping a u t o n o m o u s l e a r n e r s t o b e c o m e successful. Materials used i n t h e learning/teaching process must allow t h e a u t o n o m o u s l e a r n e r a n d t h e f a c i l i t a t i n g teacher t o m a k e choices, consider a l t e r n a t i v e s , and plan f o r s p e c i f i c needs. O nl y materials t h a t a r e f l e x i b l e e n o u g h t o allow f o r and e n c o u r a g e such t a c t i c s c a n ensure t h e personal growth of both teachers a n d l e a r n e r s . Chapter 12 addresses m a n y of t h e i s s u e s we have r a i s e d here r egar ding t h e n e w r o l e s o f teachers, learners, a n d materials.

CONCLUSION

Two impor tant influences i n l a n g u a g e teaching m e th o d o lo g y over t h e p a s t two dec ades h a v e b e e n ( 1 ) t h e a r g u m e n t s f o r m a k i n g formal l a n g u a g e le a r n in g a s “natural” a s possible (Krashen a n d T e r r e l l , 1983) a n d ( 2 ) t h e i m p o r t a n c e of using “authentic” materials i n t h e l a n g u a g e classroom ( U r , 1 9 8 4 ) . T h e a p p r o a c h we present i n t h i s book allows f o r a p r i n c i pled response t o t h e s e c onc er ns i n t h a t l a n g u a g e resources and discourse pr oc essing a r e pr esented i n a n i n t e r a c t i v e and integrated m a n n e r t h a t e n c o u r a g e s both principled u s e of authentic discourse samples a n d simulation of n a t u r a l l a n g u a g e processing. I n P a r t 1 we present t h e t h e o r e t i c a l b a c k g r o u n d f o r subsequent chapters. This chapter provides a n introduction t o discourse a n a l y s i s , whereas Chapter 2 (Pr agmatic s i n Discourse Analysis) provides b a c k g r o u n d o n t h e i m p o r t a n c e of context f o r t h e appropriate pr oduc tion a n d t h e a d e q u a t e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of discourse. We discuss t h e l a n g u a g e resources u n d e r l y i n g

discourse k n o w l e d g e

i n P a r t 2 and t h e l a n g u a g e s k i l l s involved

i n discourse processing

i n P a r t 3 . I n P a r t 4 we t r e a t impor tant i s s u e s i n implementation with respect t o teaching l a n g u a g e through discourse: Chapter 10 d e a l s with c ur r ic ulum d e v e l o p m e n t , Chapter 1 1 explores l a n g u a g e assessment, and C hapter 12 t r e a t s t h e t r a i n i n g of teachers and l e a r n e r s .

 

B ack gro und

AUDIENCE AND

GOALS

a u d i e n c e f o r t h i s book i s l a n g u a g e teachers who a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n incorporating i n s i g h t s from r e l e v a n t work i n discourse analysis and pr agmatic s ( i . e . , how l a n g u a g e i s used i n context t o achieve d i f f e r e n t purposes) i n t o t h e i r teaching. U n d e r s t a n d i n g discourse should help l a n g u a g e teachers t o m a k e decisions f o r classroom a c t i v i t i e s and t o f a c i l i t a t e t h e l earni ng process i n t h e classroom. T o t h i s end, we g iv e b a c k g r o u n d and ex amp l es from m a n y i n t e r r e l a t e d a r e a s without c laiming t o be exhaustive i n o u r c o v e r a g e of discourse. The s e l e c t i o n of t h e items we present i s based o n t h e i r s u i t a b i l i t y f o r demonstration purposes and p e d a g o g i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n . The assumption u n d e r l y i n g t h i s book i s t h a t t h e c o m m u n i c a t i v e functions and u s e s of l a n g u a g e c a n be b e s t understood by focusing o n and gaining a n appreciation f o r t h e d i s course l e v e l of language, i . e . , l a n g u a g e i n u s e , without neglecting t h e l i n g u i s t i c resources t h a t a r e used t o c r e a t e discourse and t h e l a n g u a g e s k i l l s t h a t a r e used t o process discourse.

The

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION 1.

Why a r e both discourse analysis and pr agmatic s impor tant i n teaching l a n g u a g e for communication?

2.

How d o t op - dow n and bottom-up processing c o m p l e m e n t each other i n interpreting a n d p r o d u c i n g c o m m u n i c a t i v e discourse?

3.

I n what ways might l a n g u a g e teachers be empowered by u n d e r s t a n d i n g and e m p l o y i n g discourse a s a major focus i n t h e i r l a n g u a g e teaching?

4.

Why does “shared k n o w l e d g e ” pla y such a i t a l r o l e i n c o m m u n i c a t i o n ?

S u g g e s t i o n s for F u r t h e r Reading Brown, G . , & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse a n a l y s i s . Cambr i dge: C a m b r i d g e University P r e s s . Cook, G. (1989). Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University P r e s s . Nunan, D . (1993). An i nt ro d uct i o n

t o di sc ou r se analysis. Harmondsworth,

England: Penguin. P a l t r i d g e , B . (2000). M a k i n g sense o f discourse a n a l y s i s . Gold Coast, A u s t r a l i a : A n t i p o d e a n Educ ational Enterprises.

Endnotes

‘

S e e S c h i f f r i n (1994) f o r a d e t a i l e d overview of various approaches t o discourse a n a l y s i s . 2 Other terms t h a t occur i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e a r e discourse l i n g u i s t i c s , o r simply discourse.

discourse s t u d i e s ,

3 I n l i t e r a t u r e reference i s o f t e n m a d e t o d i f f e r e n t genres such a s p o e t r y , drama, and p r o s e . Genres t y p i c a l l y have subgenr es ( e . g . , i n l i t e r a t u r e , prose c a n be f i c t i o n o r nonfiction; exposition c a n be divided i n t o e s s a y s , a r t i c l e s , r e p o r t s , b r i e f s , and s o o n ) . 4 S u b s e qu e n t models of c o m m u n i c a t i v e c o m p e t e n c e have been proposed ( e . g . , Bachman, 1990 a n d Bachman a n d P al m er, 1996), but these a r e hierarchical models with discrete c o m p e t e n c i e s t h a t have been d e v e l o p e d f o r doing research i n l a n g u a g e assessment

r a t h e r t h a n f o r p e d a g o g i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n . I n terms of p e d a g o g i c a l applications, t h e Canale and Swain model h a s had t h e g r e a t e s t i n f l u e n c e . Celce-Murcia, Dér nyei, and Thurrell ( 1 9 9 5 ) provide a p e d a g o g i c a l l y motivated elaboration of t h e C a n a l e and S w a i n model.

 

P r a g m a t i c s i n Discourse Analysis “Pragmatics i s the study of how l a n g u a g e i s used i n c o m m u n i c a t i o n . ”

(Ellis, 1995:719) “ Th e pragmatics of l a n g u a g e i s c o n c e r n e d with a u d i e n c e -d i r e c t e d intention — how the s p e a k e r o r writer intends the u t t e r a n c e t o be t a k e n . ” (Olson, 1994:119)

INTRODUCTION

Traditional l a n g u a g e analysis c o n t r a s t s pragmatics with syntax and semantics ( s e e Widdowson, 1996, f o r a g e n e r a l introduction t o l i n g u i s t i c s ) . S y n t a x i s t h e a r e a of l a n g u a g e analysis t h a t describes relationships b e t w e e n l i n g u i s t i c forms, how they a r e a r r a n g e d i n sequenc e, and which sequences a r e w e l l formed and therefore g r a m m a t i c a l l y acceptable. C hapter 4 focuses o n t h i s type of l i n g u i s t i c k n o w l e d g e and i t s r e l a t i o n t o discourse. S e m a n t i c s i s t h e a r e a of l a n g u a g e analysis t h a t describes how m e a n i n g i s e n c o d e d i n t h e l a n g u a g e and i s therefore c o n c e r n e d mainly with t h e m e a n i n g of l e x i c a l i t e m s . Semantics i s a l s o c o n c e r n e d with t h e study of relationships b e t w e e n l a n g u a g e forms and e n t i t i e s i n r e a l o r i m a g i n a r y worlds ( Y u l e , 1996). C hapter 5 focuses o n vocabulary and t h u s deals with some a r e a s of semantics i n r e l a t i o n t o discourse.

W h e r e a s formal analyses of syntax and semantics do n o t consider t h e u s e r s of t h e l i n g u i s t i c forms t h a t they describe and analyze, p r a g m a t i c s d e a l s very e x p l i c i t l y with t h e study of relationships holding b e t w e e n l i n g u i s t i c forms and t h e h u m a n beings who u s e t h e s e forms. As s u c h , pr agmatic s i s c o n c e r n e d with people’s i n t e n t i o n s , assumptions, b e l i e f s , g o a l s , a n d t h e kinds of a c t i o n s they perform while using language. Pr agmatic s i s a l s o c o n c e r n e d with c o n t e x t s , s i t u a t i o n s , and s e t t i n g s within which such l a n g u a g e u s e s o c c u r . A l a n g u a g e u s e r ’ s l e x i c o g r a m m a t i c a l c o m p e t e n c e i s h i s / h e r k n o w l e d g e of syntax and l e x i c a l semantics i n t h e t a r g e t l a n g u a g e . I n describing such c o m p e t e n c e we n e e d t o present t h e r u l e s t h a t ac c ount f o r t h e l e a r n e r ’ s implicit formal k n o w l e d g e of g r a m m a r and vocab ulary. P r a g m a t i c c o m p e t e n c e , o n t h e o t h e r hand, i s a s e t of internalized r u l e s of

 

20

Background

how t o u s e l a n g u a g e i n socioculturally appropriate ways, taking i n t o account t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s i n a c o m m u n i c a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n and f e a t u r e s of t h e context within which t h e i n t e r action takes place.

While

lexicogrammatical

c o m p e t e n c e c a n be described i n formal t e r m s , pragmatic

c o m p e t e n c e i s a t present a m u c h l e s s formalized a n d structured a r e a of i n q u i r y . Sin c e pr agmatic s d e a l s with h u m a n elements, i t i s l e s s objective a n d more d i f f i c u l t t o describe; t h u s formal l a n g u a g e analysis t e n d s t o exc lude pragmatics. I n r e c e n t y e a r s , however, more a t t e n t i o n h a s b een directed tow ar d pragmatic c o m p e t e n c e and e v e n i n t e r l a n g u a g e pr agmatic s f o r L 2 l e a r n e r s ( Bl um- Kul k a, e t a l . , 1989; K a s p e r and Bl um- Kul k a, 1993), which i s t h e l e a r n e r ’ s d e v e l o p i n g p r a g m a t i c c o m p e t e n c e i n t h e t a r g e t language.

WHat

Does PRAGMATICS

ENTAIL?

A c c or di ng t o Yu le (1996), t h e a r e a of pr agmatic s d e a l s with s p e a k e r meaning and c o n t e x t u a l m e a n i n g . S p e a k e r m e a n i n g i s c o n c e r n e d with t h e analysis of what p e o p l e m e a n by t h e i r utterances r a t h e r t h a n what t h e words and phrases i n those utterances might m e a n i n and of themselves. Thus w h en a p e a k e r s a y s “ I a m hungr y,” t h e semantic meaning of t h i s utterance i s t h a t t h e speaker f e e l s pangs of hunger. Pr agmatic ally view ed, i f t h e sentence i s p r o d u c e d by a youngster who has c o m e back from school a t n o o n s p e a k i n g t o h i s mother i n t h e kitchen, i t pr obably functions a s a request f o r l u n c h . Alternatively, i f i t i s p r o d u c e d by t h e same youngster a f t e r having c omp l et ed lunch, i t could function a s a complaint expr essing t h e opinion t h a t t h e r e h a s n ’ t been e n o u g h food t o e a t f o r lunch, o r per haps t h e c h i l d intends i t a s a request f o r a d e s s e r t . S p e a k e r m e a n i n g , r a t h e r than s e n tence m e a n i n g , c a n only b egin t o be under stood w h e n context i s taken i n t o consideration. Any u t t e r a n c e , t h e r e f o r e , c a n t a k e o n various m e a n i n g s d e p e n d i n g o n who p r o d u c e d i t a n d u n d e r what circumstances. Pragmatics s t u d i e s t h e context within which a n i n t e r a c t i o n occurs a s w e l l a s t h e i n t e n t i o n of t h e l a n g u a g e u s e r . Who a r e t h e addressees, what i s t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n speakers/writers and hearers/readers, w h en and where does t h e speech e v e n t occur? a n d s o o n . Thus, t h e same utterance “ I a m h u n g r y ” w h e n p r o d u c e d by a s t r e e t b e g g a r a n d addressed t o a passerby w o u l d be generally p e r c e i v e d a s a request f o r money r a t h e r than f o r food s i n c e shared k n o w l e d g e — i n t h i s c a s e — l e a d s t o t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Pragmatics a l s o explores how l i s t e n e r s and readers c a n m a k e inferences about what i s s a i d o r written i n order t o a r r i v e a t a n interpretation of t h e u s e r ’ s intended m e a n i n g . Obviously, t h e emphasis i n t h i s kind of exploration must be plac ed n o t only on what i s a c t u a l l y s a i d but a l s o o n what i s n o t being s a i d e x p l i c i t l y b u t r e c o g n i z e d i m p l i c i t l y a s p a r t

of t h e c o m m u n i c a t i v e exchange, such a s presupposition, implication, shared k n o w l e d g e , and circumstantial evidence. ; F r o m t h e ab ove description of pragmatics, i t m a y seem t o t h e reader t h a t t h i s i s a n impossible a r e a of c o m m u n i c a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n t o a n a l y z e s i n c e i t seems s o d i f f i c u l t t o predict what d i f f e r e n t p e o p l e might be intending. What mak es human c o m m u n i c a t i o n possible, however, i s t h e f a c t t h a t pragmatic c o m p e t e n c e r e l i e s very heavily o n c o n v e n t i o n a l , c u l t u r a l l y appropriate, and s o c i a l l y acceptab le ways of i n t e r a c t i n g . These r u l e s of a p p r o p r i a c y r e s u l t i n regular and e x p e c t e d behaviors i n l a n g u a g e u s e . I t i s g e n e r a lly under stood t h a t within a g i v e n s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l group, p e o p l e usually k n o w what i s e x p e c t e d and what i s c onsider ed appropriate behavior, and t h i s k n o w l e d g e enables them t o i n t e r p r e t t h e l a n g u a g e u s e s th they ey encounter. F ur ther mor e, language forms a r e s e l e c t e d o r preferred by i n t e r a c t a n t s s o a s t o accommodate and strengthen some of t h e shared and mutually per c eived s i t u a t i o n a l p h e n o m e n a . Two a r e a s of l a n g u a g e a n a l y s i s t h a t have looked a t what allows t h e l i s t e n e r o r reader t o m a k e inferences based o n what i s s a i d o r w r i t t e n a r e p r e s u p p o s i t i o n and implication.

 

Pragmatics i n Discourse Analysis

When a roposition i s presupposed, i t cannot be denied o r c a l l e d i n t o q u e s t i o n . For e x a m p l e : A:

I s n ’ t i t o d d t h a t J ohn didn’t come?

B:

No, i t ’ s not o d d a t a l l .

I n t h i s b r i e f e x c h a n g e both speaker A and speaker B s h a r e t h e presupposition “John d i d n ’ t come.” T h e interlocutors i n t h i s e x c h a n g e chose l i n g u i s t i c forms t h a t enable them t o s h a r e t h e presupposition. Notice t h a t n o t a l l verbs o r predicate adjectives have t h i s p r o p e r t y . I f we c h a n g e “odd” t o “ t r u e , ” t h e r e would be n o constant presupposition s i n c e t h e t r u t h

v a lu e of “John d i d n ’ t c o m e ” changes from one syntactic e n v i r o n m e n t t o t h e n e x t w h e n t h e proposition i s denied o r questioned: 1.

Itis true that J ohn didn’t c o m e .

2.

I t i s n ’ t true that J ohn didn’t c o m e .

3.

I s n ’ t i t true that J ohn didn’t come?

It is a combined

k n o w l e d g e of pragmatics and l i n g u i s t i c s t h a t enables interlocutors t o be

e f f e c t i v e u s e r s of presupposition. I n t h e c a s e of implication, t h e hearer/listener i s a b l e t o m a k e c e r t a i n inferences based o n what i s s a i d o r w r i t t e n . These inferences g o b e y o n d t h e words themselves, yet a r e gene r a l l y predictable from t h e l i n g u i s t i c forms chosen. For e x a m p l e , i f s o m e o n e s a y s “Jane w i l l support Bob. After a l l , she i s h i s s i s t e r , ” we know t h a t t h e speaker i s n o t only giving a reas o n in the s e c o n d c l a u s e for Jane’s behavior, which i s de sc r i b e d in the f i r s t clause; through h i s u s e of t h e c o n n e c t o r “ a f t e r a l l , ” t h e speaker i s a l s o indicating t h a t he believes both he and t h e l i s t e n e r share some obvious p r i o r k n o w l e d g e ( i . e . , J ane i s Bob’s s i s t e r ) . H e r e a g a i n we s e e how t h e choice of l i n g u i s t i c forms r e f l e c t s t h e k n o w l e d g e shared by t h e i n t e r l oocc u t o r s . F r o m t h e ex amp l es g i v e n above, i t seems obvious t h a t a very impor tant f a c t o r f a c i l i t a t i n g both s p o k e n and written c o m m u n i c a t i o n i s shared k n o w l e d g e . As we have s e e n ,

l a n g u a g e u s e r s m a k e l i n g u i s t i c decisions a n d choices based o n c e r t a i n presuppositions with respect t o t h e s i t u a t i o n and t h e participants i n t h e c o m m u n i c a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n . Such decisions a r e based primarily o n what i s p e r c e i v e d a s shared k n o w l e d g e . Obviously, w h e n we misjudge shared k n o w l e d g e o r t h e perceptions of t h e other participants i n t h e i n t e r a c t i o n we might c r e a t e a n instance of m is c o m m u n ic a tio n . This c a n h a p p e n among speakers of t h e s a m e l a n g u a g e a n d within t h e same sociocultural s e t t i n g ,

21

as will become

obvious from t h e follow ing e x c h a n g e b e t w e e n a university student a n d a c l e r k i n a departmental o f f i c e a t a university i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s ; both were n a t i v e speakers of English: Woman ( s t u d e n t ) :

Cler k: Woman:

Cler k: Woman:

Cler k: Woman: Clerk:

Excuse me, where c a n I make some Xerox c o p i e s ?

For? (silence)

Are y o u a n i n s t r u c t o r ? No, a student. We c a n only m a k e X e r o x copies f o r i n s t r u c t o r s . Well, 1... OK. B u t where c a n I find a [pay] Xerox machine? (the original intention) Oh, I s e e . Up the s t a i r s , past the bookstore.

I n t h e above e x c h a n g e t h e r e was obviously a b r e a k d o w n i n c o m m u n i c a t i o n s i n c e t h e f i r s t u t t e r a n c e , which wa s a n i n f o r m a t i o n qu e s t i o n , was misunderstood by the c l e r k a s a r e q u e s t ; t h e c l e r k then applied t o t h i s s i t u a t i o n n o n r e l e v a n t prior k n o w l e d g e t h a t was

unshared by t h e s t u d e n t .

 

22

Background I n e x c h a n g e s t h a t t a k e place b e t w e e n l a n g u a g e u s e r s from d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l o r c u l t u r a l groups o r d i f f e r e n t l i n g u i s t i c groups, m i s c o m m u n i c a t i o n c a n r e s u l t from l a c k of shared

k n o w l e d g e of t h e world and of t h e appropriate t a r g e t behavior. I n o u r attempt t o l e a d t h e L 2 l e a r n e r t o c o m m u n i c a t i v e c o m p e t e n c e , which goes f a r b e y o n d l i n g u i s t i c c o m p e t e n c e , pr agmatic s must be taken i n t o account. While d e v e l o p i n g k n o w l e d g e and understanding of how t h e n e w l a n g u a g e works, t h e l e a r n e r must a l s o develop awareness and s e n s i t i v i t y t o sociocultural p a t t e r n s of behavior. I t i s only s k i l l f u l l y c o m b in e d l i n g u i s t i c and pragmatic k n o w l e d g e t h a t c a n l e a d t o c o m m u n i c a t i v e c o m p e t e n c e i n t h e sec ond language.

COOPERATION

AND

IMPLICATURE

Human communication i s b a se d on the fact t h a t , a s a r u l e , human b e i n g s w a n t t o com-

municate with one another successfully and w ant t o maintain s o c i a l h a r m o n y while d o i n g s o. I t stands t o r e a s o n , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t during routine c o m m u n i c a t i o n t h e participants involved i n t h e i n t e r a c t i o n a r e willing and per haps e v e n eager t o c ooper ate s o a s t o ensure successful c ommuni c at i on. I t seems t h a t most e x c h a n g e s a r e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y , t o some e x t e n t , c ooper ative e f f o r t s , a n d each participant tends t o r ec ognize some common purpose. On t h i s premise, Grice (1975) d e v e l o p e d t h e c o o p e r a t i v e p r i n c i p l e f o r convers a t i o n . This r a t h e r g e n e r a l principle maintains t h e following: “ M a k e your conversational contribution such a s i s required, a t t h e stage a t which i t occurs, by t h e a c c e p t e d purpose o r d i r e c t i o n of t h e t a l k e x c h a n g e i n which y o u a r e e n g a g e d . ” I t seems t h a t i n t e r a c t a n t s base t h e i r expectations o n t h e c ooper ative principle a n d o n other relevant contextual f e a t u r e s . Grice’s c ooper ative principle consists of four maxims: 1.

THE MAXIM OF Q U A N T I T Y Make your contribution a s informative a s required. D o n o t m a k e your contribution more informative than required.

The mutual expectation o f t h e interactants i s t h a t quantitatively t h e speaker’s contribution i s just r i g h t for t h e interaction a t hand.

M o r e w o u l d be t o o much a n d l e s s would be t o o l i t t l e for successful c o m m u n i c a t i o n t o t a k e place. 2.

THE MAXIM OF QUALITY

T r y t o m a k e your contribution one t h a t 1 s t r u e . a . D o n o t s a y what y o u believe t o be f a l s e . b . D o n o t s a y t h a t f o r which y o u l a c k a d e q u a t e evidence. The mutual expectation o f t h e interactants i s t h a t t h e s p e a k e r makes propositions o r pr ovides infor mation t h a t s / h e believes t o be t r u e . 3.

THE MAXIM OF RELATION

Be r e l e v a n t .

The mutual expectation o f t h e interactants i s t h a t t h e s p e a k e r makes a contribution t o t h e c o m m u n i c a t i v e e x c h a n g e t h a t i s relevant t o t h e topic a n d t h e s i t u a t i o n o f t h i s exc hange. 4.

T H E MAXIM OF MANNER

avoid obscurity b . avoid amb iguity c . be b r i e f d . be orderly >

 

Pragmatics i n Discourse Analysis

The mutual expectation o f t h e interactants i s t h a t t h e speaker makes his/her contribution a s clear a n d a s c o m p r e h e n s i b l e a s p o s s i b l e , a n d t h a t while doing s o , s / h e t a k e s a l l precautions t o ensure such c l a r i t y i n terms o f p e r f o r m a n c e a n d d e l i v e r y .

These max i ms c a n be c onsider ed b a s i c assumptions t h a t p e o p l e follow i n t h e i r commun i c a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n s ; however, i t must be a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t they assume AngloA m e r i c a n c u l t u r e . We believe t h e max i ms g e t reinterpreted w h en applied t o other c u l t u r e s . I n most c u l t u r e s , i t i s g e n e r a lly t h e c a s e t h a t p e o p l e provide j u s t t h e appropriate a m o u n t of information f o r t h e other p a r t y t o be a b l e t o i n t e r p r e t t h e i n t e n t i o n . We c a n usually assume t h a t p e o p l e t e l l t h e t r u t h ( o r t h e t r u t h a s b e s t k n o w n t o them), t h a t t h e i r contribut i o n s a r e relevant t o t h e discussion a t hand, and t h a t they t r y t o be a s c l e a r a s they c a n . Whenever a speaker i s a w a r e of having unintentionally violated a maxim, s / h e w i l l immed i a t e l y t r y t o adjust and m a k e corrections i n order t o r e s t o r e a d h e r e n c e t o t h e maxims. I t i s o f t e n t h e apologetic additions t h a t m a k e i t obvious t h a t a speaker i s self-correcting v i o lations o f t h i s kind. Thus, for instance, i f a s p e a k e r told u s a story with too many details

(perhaps m a k i n g t h e w r o n g assumptions about what t h e hearer already knows), s / h e might apologize by saying: “ Y o u pr obably k n o w a l l t h i s , s o l e t me g e t t o t h e m a i n p o i n t . ” Or i n t h e opposite s i t u a t i o n , where s o m e o n e ( a t a n information c ou n te r perhaps) m a y n o t have g i v e n u s e n o u g h information about something, s / h e m a y simply add s u p p l e m e n t a r y i n f o r mation u p o n r e a l i z i n g t h e confused look o n t h e h e a r e r ’ s f a c e . I t i s quite c l e a r t h a t commun i c a t o r s a r e very a w a r e of t h e n e e d t o c ooper ate i n terms of qua ntity of information i n order t o allow t h e other p a r t y t o m a k e t h e proper inferences a n d t o g e t t o t h e i n t e n t i o n of th e language user. S i m i l a r l y , w h e n one i s n o t c ompletely s u r e t h a t one h a s pr ope r e v i d e n c e f o r t h e s t a t e ments one makes, i t i s possible t o u s e various hedges i n order n o t t o t a k e f u l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for t h e q u a l i t y o f a n u t t e r a n c e . As speakers i n t h i s c a s e , we m a y add qualifying openers such a s : As far a s I know; I a m n o t q u i t e s u r e b u t I b e l i e v e that... ; I t h i n k that... The a d d i -

t i o n of such openings t o a n utterance r e l e a s e s speakers from t h e n e e d t o adhere f u l l y t o t h e

maxim of q u a l i t y and allows them t o s t a t e b e l i e f s o r opinions r a t h e r t h a n f a c t s . T h e maxim of r e l a t i o n (or relevance) plays a very impor tant r o l e i n m a i n t a i n i n g t h e topic of a conversation. As soon a s we w ant t o c h a n g e t h e t o p i c , we c a n d o s o by using some introductory o r o p e n i n g phrase such a s “On another matter altogether . . . , ” b u t we can a l s o d o s o by p r o d u c i n g a n utterance t h a t i s n o longer relevant a n d t h u s m o v e t h e c onver sation toward a n e w t o p i c . The added infor mation being c o n v e y e d here i s t h a t I w oul d r a t h e r speak about something e l s e . This c a n a l s o be done e x p l i c i t l y , a s i t o f t e n i s , b y p e o p l e l i k e diplomats o r p o l i t i c i a n s w h e n they answer a prob lematic question with t h e

phrase “ N o c o m m e n t.” I t i s , therefore, g e n e r a l l y assumed that communication i s successful

b e c a u s e interac-

t a n t s adher e t o t h e c ooper ative maxims. When they d o n ’ t , t h e assumption m a y be t h a t they deliberately v i o l a t e a maxim i n order t o c o n v e y additional ( i m p l i c i t ) information

special m e a n i n g , i . e . , implicature, b e y o n d what i s actually s a i d . Thus, t h e p o l i t i c i a n who answers a r e p o r t e r ’ s question with “No comment” leaves deliberate room f o r implicature and interpretation o n t h e p a r t of t h e h e a r e r . I n some c a s e s , t h e reporter might simply s a y l a t e r , “so and s o was unwilling t o c o m m e n t , ” which i s a w a y f o r t h e reporter t o ignore t h e implicature. Alternatively, t h e reporter m a y present some speculat i o n r e l a t e d t o t h e f a c t t h a t a t t h i s point t h e speaker d i d n o t disclose a l l t h e d e t a i l s . Within each c u l t u r e t h e r e a r e acceptab le ways t o “deliberately” v i o l a t e maxims. For i n s t a n c e , w h e n c o m p l i m e n t i n g a person, one i s n o t e x p e c t e d t o adhere f u l l y t o t h e maxim of q u a l i t y . Similarly, w h e n thanking s o m e o n e f o r a n unusually n i c e g i f t , t h e receiver might deliberately v i o l a t e t h e maxim of quantity a n d s a y more than necessary i n order t o express o r add some

 

24

Background

of g r a t i t u d e . Since such a “violation” i s usually r e c o g n i z e d by both i n t e r a c t a n t s , i t h a s added c o m m u n i c a t i v e v a l u e . a deeper s e n s e

When c o m m u n i c a t i o n t a k e s place b e t w e e n two i n t e r a c t a n t s who d o n o t s h a r e t h e s a m e l a n g u a g e o r t h e same c u l t u r e , u n i n t e n d e d v i o l a t i o n s of t h e max i ms c a n e a s i l y o c c u r . H er e we assume t h a t t h e f o u r m a x im s apply t o a ll c u l t u r e s b u t t h a t t h e i r interpretation m a y be q u i t e d i f f e r e n t . B e i n g informative o r r e l e v a n t i n some c u l t u r e s m a y sound crude and inappropriate i n o t h e r s , b u t t h e r e would s t i l l be some mutual expectation with respect t o the maxims that would make communication m o r e o r l e s s successful. F u r t h e r m o r e , the value r e l a t e d t o each maxim might be q u i t e d i f f e r e n t i n d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r e s . Thus, quantity m a y be d i f f e r e n t l y per c eived by speakers of d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r e s . O n e e x a m p l e of such d i f ferences i s t h e a m o u n t of information per c eived a s appropriate w h en giving s o m e o n e d i r e c t i o n s i n response t o a r e q u e s t . I n some c u l t u r e s t h e appropriate answer would be b r i e f and informative. I n o t h e r s i t would be lengthy and contain some digressions from t h e main p o i n t . I f a speaker fr om t h e f i r s t c u l t u r e d i r e c t l y t r a n s l a t e s t h e directions s / h e gives i n t o t h e l a n g u a g e of t h e o t h e r c u l t u r e , t h e speaker m a y sound s o m e w h a t d i s i n t e r e s t e d o r rudely t e r s e . I f , however, a speaker from t h e l a t t e r c u l t u r e does t h e same thing w h en functioning

s / h e m a y sound overly verbose and perhaps e v e n annoying. I n other words, such p r a g m a t i c transfer might r e s u l t i n t h e v i o l a t i o n of a maxim i n t h e n e w l a n g u a g e and c u l t u r e . When such c r o s s - c u l t u r a l v i o l a t i o ns n s t a k e p l a c e , t h e speakers m a y n o t be aw ar e of t h e n e e d t o c a r r y o u t a correction and m a y therefore leave t h e impression of b eing impolite o r even aggressive, w h e n t h i s was n o t a t a l l t h e speaker’s i n t e n t i o n . i n t h e former o n e ,

SPEECH ACTS SERVE SOCIAL FUNCTIONS As w e have s e e n , successful c o m m u n i c a t i o n t a k e s pla c e w h e n speakers share k now l edge,

b e l i e f s , a n d assumptions and w h e n they adhere t o s i m i l a r r u l e s of c ooper ative i n t e r a c t i o n .

however, i s n o t only a vehicle t o e x c h a n g e thoughts and i d e a s ; we o f t e n u s e utterances i n order t o perform s o c i a l a c t i o n s o r f u n c t i o n s . I f a teacher i n a t r a d i t i o n a l c l a s s room t e l l s a s t u d e n t , “ I w i l l have t o inform your parents about your behavior,” i t usually i s n o t only a statement t h a t imparts information s i n c e i t m a y a l s o have t h e p o w e r of a t h r e a t with d i r e consequences. By m a k i n g t h i s statement, t h e teacher m a y a l s o have p e r formed a hreatening a c t . S i m i l a r l y , w h e n one f r i e n d t e l l s another, “ Y o u look g r e a t today,” t h i s utterance s e r v e s n o t only a s a description b u t functions mainly a s a “ c o m p l i m e n t ” and a s such f u l f i l l s a s o c i a l f u n c t i o n . Social a c t i o n s p e r f o r m e d v i a utterances a r e g e n e r a lly c a l l e d speech a c t s . A l l c u l t u r e s u s e speec h a c t s i n order t o perform s o c i a l functions and i n most languages t h e r e a r e some p e r f o r m a t i v e verbs t h a t d i r e c t l y represent t h e speech a c t s (Austin, 1975) such a s : apologize, complain, compliment, r e q u e s t , promise, a n d s o f o r t h . Although these

Language,

per for mative verbs c a r r y t h e l e x i c a l m e a n i n g of t h e speec h a c t they convey, they a r e n o t always t h e most common r e a l i z a t i o n of t h e speech a c t i n normal conversation. Thus, w hen apologizing i n a s p o k e n s i t u a t i o n , English speakers tend t o u s e t h e expression “I’m sorry” m u c h more o f t e n than t h e more formal “ I apologize.” A speec h a c t i s usually p e r f o r m e d within a s i t u a t i o n t h a t provides contextual elements t h a t help i n t e r p r e t t h e speaker’s i n t e n t i o n . Thus i f a person says “ I t ’ s r e a l l y cold i n here” in aroom where there i s a n o p e n window a n d the a ddr e sse e

i s n e a r the window, t h i s u t t e r -

ance c a n e a s i l y be interpreted a s a request f o r t h e interlocutor t o c l o s e t h e window. Contextual and s o c i a l information m a k e i t possible f o r i n t e r a c t a n t s t o i n t e r p r e t each o t h e r ’ s i n t e n t i o n s even when t h e s e i n t e n t i o n s are not e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e d . When a peec h a c t i s u t t e r e d , t h e utterance c a r r i e s l o c u t i o n a r y meaning based o n t h e m e a n i n g of t h e l i n g u i s t i c expressions. Thus, o u r e a r l i e r e x a m p l e “ I a m h u n g r y ” i s a b a s i c

description of t h e speaker’s s t a t e . However, i t t a k e s o n illoc utionar y force w h e n i t a c t s a s  

Pragmatics i n Discourse Analysis

a request and t h e illocutionary

f o r c e h a s t h e intended m e a n i n g

of “please give me

some

“‘suffers the food.” Furthermore, s i n c e a speech a c t i s directed tow ar d a n addressee ffect the act h a s c o n s e q u e n c e s ” of t h e a c t , i t a l s o has p e r l o c u t i o n a r y f o r c e , which i s t h e ewho o n t h e addressee. E v e r y r e a l i z a t i o n of a speech a c t h a s therefore t h r e e dimensions: l o c u tionary m e a n i n g , illocutionary f o r c e , and perlocutionary e f f e c t . S p e e c h a c t s c a n be c l a s s i f i e d a c c o r d i n g t o how they a f f e c t t h e s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n speakers and h e a r e r s . T h e most b a s i c categorization ( S e a r l e , 1969) c o n s i s t s of f i v e d i f f e r e n t types of speech a c t s : declaratives, representatives, expressives, d i r e c t i v e s , a n d commissives. Declaratives ( a l s o c a l l e d p e r f o r m a t i v e s ) a r e speech a c t s t h a t “ c h a n g e t h e world” a s a r e s u l t of h a v i n g b een perfomed. Some good ex amp l es of such declarative speec h a c t s a r e w h e n t h e ju r y f o r e m a n announces, “ W e f i n d t h e d e f e n d a n t n o t g u i l t y ” and w h e n t h e j u s t i c e of t h e p e a c e s a y s , “ I now p r o n o u n c e y o u m a n and w i f e . ” R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a r e speec h a c t s t h a t enable t h e speaker t o express f e e l i n g s , b e l i e f s , a s s e r t i o n s , i l l u s t r a t i o n s , and t h e l i k e . A n e x a m p l e of such a representative speech a c t w oul d be a statement m a d e by a speaker a t a n a g r i c u l t u r a l c o n v e n t i o n such a s “Today, tomatoes c a n be g r o w n i n t h e d e s e r t . ” Expressives a r e among t h e most impor tant speec h a c t s f o r l e a r n e r s of a sec ond o r a foreign l a n g u a g e . These speec h a c t s express psyc hologic al s t a t e s of t h e speaker o r t h e h e a r e r . Apologizing, complaining, c o m p l i m e n t i n g , a n d congratulating a r e ex amp l es of

expressives. Directives a r e speech a c t s t h a t enable speakers t o impose some a c t i o n o n t h e h e a r e r . T h r o u g h d i r e c t i v e s t h e speaker can express what s / h e wants and then expect t h e hearer t o

25

comply. Inherently, these a r e face- threatening a c t s tow ar d t h e hearer s i n c e they usually impose o n the hearer. Commands,

orders, a n d r e qu e s t s are examples of directives.

Commissives a r e speech a c t s t h a t enable speakers t o c o m m it themselves t o f u t u r e a c t i o n s . Promises a n d r e f u s a l s a r e commissives. By d e f i n i t i o n t h e s e a r e speech a c t s w h e r e b y t h e speaker t a k e s o n o r refuses some responsibility o r t a s k and a r e , t h e r e f o r e , face- threatening t o t h e speaker, o r i m p o s i n g o n t h e speaker. The u s e of per for mative verbs makes such speech a c t s more e x p l i c i t . I n t h e c a s e of a promise, t h e choice of t h e verb “promi s e ” makes t h e statement a stronger commitment, which i s more c o s t l y t o t h e speaker b u t advantageous to the hearer. In the case o f refusals, o n the other hand, the use o f the v e r b “refuse” strengthens t h e d e n i a l of c o m p l i a n c e and c a n l e a d t o c o n f l i c t o r t o a c l a s h between the interlocutors.

Although i t seems t h a t a l l l a n g u a g e s share a s i m i l a r inventory of speec h a c t s , t h e r e a l i z a t i o n s a n d t h e circumstances t h a t a r e appropriate f o r each speech a c t m a y be quite d i f f e r e n t i n d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r e s , and a learner needs t o acquire speec h a c t k n o w l e d g e a s p a r t of l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n . This i s what C elce-Murcia, Dér nyei, a n d Thurrell (1995) r e f e r t o a s actional

c o m p e t e n c e i n t h e i r model of c o m m u n i c a t i o n c o m p e t e n c e , which — a m o n g other things — extends t h e model of C a n a l e a n d S w a i n (1980) and C a n a l e (1983) t o include speech a c t s . C hapter 9 , which d e a l s with t h e speaking s k i l l , makes suggestions f o r t h e teaching of speech a c t s .

POLITENESS Since c o m m u n i c a t i o n for language us e, it is i n which t o i mp r ov e mote s o c i a l harmony.

c a n be v i e w e d a s t h e primary and most inclusive s o c i a l f r a m e w o r k l o g i c a l t o e x p e c t a l l speech c ommuni t i es t o d e v e l o p r u l e s and ways and accommodate c o m m u n i c a t i v e a c t s i n order t o ensure and p r o T h e a r e a e f politeness deals with perceptions, expectations, a n d

t r a t e g i e s which enhance s o c i a l harmony. I n cacquiring o n v e n t i o n aone’s l r e a lf ii rzsatt ilo an ns g u of n i c a t i avles o s acquires a g e c, o ma m uperson t h e s e r u l e s of politen ess a s p a r t of

 

26

B ack gro und

o n e ’ s sociocultural and pragmatic c o m p e t e n c e . When learning a sec ond language, one needs t o a c qu ir e t h e n e w c u l t u r e ’ s politeness framework, which o f t e n i s very d i f f e r e n t from t h a t of o n e ’ s ow n c u l t u r e . Perhaps a g o o d e x a m p l e of o p p o s i n g cross-cultural p e r ceptions of politeness i s t h e following i n c i d e n t , which took place i n t h e United S t a t e s , where a J a p a n e s e - b o r n daughter -in-law c a m e b y u n e x p e c t e d l y t o v i s i t h e r A mer i c anJewish mother-in-law during lunchtime. The daughter -in-law had stopped e a r l i e r a t a snack shop t o b u y a sandwich t o e a t while v i s i t i n g h e r mother-in-law. The Japanese r u l e s

of p oliteness d i c t a t e d both t h a t she n o t impose o n h e r mother-in-law i n a n y w ay and t h a t s h e should demonstrate t h a t s h e stopped by only t o e n j o y h e r c omp any . On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e Jewish mother-in-law was shocked a n d q u i t e offended t h a t her daughter -in-law d i d n o t f e e l t h a t s h e could c o m e over a t any time and expect t o g e t a sandwich o r some simple lunch from h e r mother-in-law. I n both c a s e s , t h e r e a r e important c u l t u r a l expectations of “what i s p o l i t e , ” b u t t h e s e perceptions c l a s h i n terms of c u l t u r a l presuppositions: i n t h e i t i s most important t o maintain respect f o r t h e f r e e d o m of choice of t h e o t h e r person and t o avoid imposition a t a l l c o s t s . I n t h e Jewish t r a d i t i o n , feelings of

Japanese

case,

s o l i d a r i t y and h o s p i t a l i t y override any question of imposition, and s o i t i s e x p e c t e d t h a t s o m e o n e who i s c l o s e t o you w i l l “impose” from time t o time a s . a normal p a r t of t h e s o c i a l relationship. This e x a m p l e i s a l s o a g o o d i l l u s t r a t i o n of n e g a t i v e versus positive politeness i n Brown a n d Levinson’s (1978) t e r m s . N e g a t i v e politeness avoids imposition whereas positive politeness expects imposition. The J a p a n e s e c u l t u r e i s more n e g a t i v e politeness

oriented i n t h a t m a i n t a i n i n g s o c i a l distance i s highly valued, whereas t h e A m e r i c a n Jewish c u l t u r e places higher v a lu e o n l a c k of s o c i a l distance and focuses o n g r o u p s o l i d a r i t y and positive politeness a s more appropriate values f o r family i n t e r a c t i o n s . I n t h e e x a m p l e described h e r e , positive politeness ranks g r o u p s o l i d a r i t y a s having very high value i n t h e one c u l t u r e , whereas i n t h e other c u l t u r e n e g a t i v e politeness i s primarily c o n c e r n e d with m a i n t a i n i n g t h e other p a r t y ’ s “ f r e e d o m of action” and avoiding impos imposition ition a t a l l c o s t s . When one moves from on e c u l t u r e t o another, i t m a y t a k e a long time t o b e c o m e f u l l y s e n s i t i v e t o t h e s u b t l e t i e s of a n e w s e t of politeness r u l e s . L e e c h (1983) adds t h e politeness principle ( P P ) t o Grice’s ( 1 9 7 5 ) more g e n e r a l coope r a t i v e p r i n c i p l e (CP) i n order t o “minimize t h e expression of impolite b e l i e f s and [maximize the e xp r e ssi on o f polite beliefs]” (81). The es s ence o f L e e c h ’ s PP i s t o minimize

unfavor able behavior towards t h e hearer o r a t h i r d p a r t y while attempting t o increase f a v o r a b l e consequences. L e e c h suggests a cost-benefit s c a l e where t h e claim i s t h a t w h e n t h e speaker i s i m p o l i t e , t h e r e i s a higher c o s t f o r t h e h e a r e r . Conversely, w h e n t h e speaker i s p o l i t e , t h e r e i s g r e a t e r b e n e f i t f o r t h e h e a r e r . T o be p o l i t e , t h e r e f o r e , m e a n s t o minimize c o s t t o t h e hearer and t o be impolite i s t o m a x im ize i t . T h e following d e f i n i t i o n s a n d e x a m p l e m a y help c l a r i f y t h i s : Cost t o H e a r e r

=

speaker i s i m p o l i t e , inconsiderate, a n d does n o t value hearer’s well-being

Benefit t o H e a r e r

=

s p e a k e r i s p o l i t e a n d considerate o f t h e hear er even a t his/her own expense

E x a m p l e : a s i t u a t i o n where a n insurance agent i s asked t o help t h e customer with a n unusual c l a i m , which t u r n s o u t n o t t o be c over ed by t h e p o l i c y , a n d t h e c u s tomer complains b i t t e r l y . I f h e agent chooses t o be i m p o l i t e , s / h e might say something l i k e , “If you don’t l i k e our p o l i c y , t a k e y o u r business elsewhere.” But if / h e chooses t o be p o l i t e , t h e agent might s a y , “We a r e v e r y sorry t h a t o u r policy doesn’t cover your c l a i m , but I a m s u r e another agency might be mor e a c c o m m o d a t i n g i n f u t u r e . Would you l i k e me t o r e c o m m e n d some other a g e n c i e s ? ”

 

Pragmatics i n Discourse Analysis

I n t h e first c a s e , (hearer’s) benefit, tance, s/he is still Each c u l t u r e considerations of

t h e a g e n t who responds impolitely does n o t consider t h e customer’s while i n t h e sec ond c a s e , although t h e agent cannot o f f e r d i r e c t a s s i s very considerate of t h e customer’s needs (low er ing t h e h e a r e r ’ s c o s t s ) . m a y have r a t h e r d i f f e r e n t norms with r e s p e c t t o t h e e x p e c t e d politeness “cost-benefit.” As we have s e e n from t h e e a r l i e r e x a m p l e about t h e J a p a n e s e daughter -in-law and t h e Je w is h - A m e r ic a n mother-in-law, t h e J a p a n e s e pe r c e pt i o n of politeness and “benefit t o t h e hearer” e n t a i l e d t h e notion of “ m i n i m i z i n g imposit i o n , ” whereas t h e Jewish expectation was “ t o accept and appreciate family h o s p i t a l i t y . ” Consequently, we s e e t h a t r u l e s of politeness cannot be t r a n s l a t e d d i r e c t l y from one c u l t u r e to a n o t h e r . L e e c h (1983) suggests t h a t t h e s e politeness principles a r e inherent i n t h e categorizat i o n of speech a c t s a s w e l l a s i n t h e r e a l i z a t i o n of each speech a c t . Therefore, he c l a s s i f i e s illocutionary functions i n terms of how they i n t e r a c t with t h e goal of ac hieving s o c i a l

h ar mony : competitive: convivial:

t h e illocutionary goal c omp et es with t h e s o c i a l g oa l ( e . g . , ordering, requesting, d e m a n d i n g , b e g g i n g ) t h e illocutionary goal coincides with t h e s o c i a l goal ( e . g . , o f f e r i n g , i n v i t i n g , greeting, thanking, congratulating)

27

neutr al:? conflictive:

t h e illocutionary goal i s i n d i f f e r e n t t o t h e s o c i a l goal ( e . g . , a s s e r t i n g , reporting, a n n o u n c i n g , i n s t r u c t i n g ) t h e illocutionary goal c o n f l i c t s with t h e s o c i a l g oa l ( e . g . , threatening, accusing, cursing, r e p r i m a n d i n g )

(Leech, 1983:104)

Considerations of politeness o f t e n r e l a t e t o t h e d e g r e e of directness expr essed i n speech a c t s . When talking about Leech’s c o m p e t i t i v e speec h a c t s o r Brown and Levinson’s f a c e - t h r e a t e n i n g speech a c t s , t h e r e i s implied imposition on t h e hearer i n t h e a c t u a l p e r f o r m a n c e of t h e speech a c t . I n order t o l e s s e n t h e f o r c e of t h e imposition, a l l l a n g u a g e s seem t o have c o n v e n t i o n a l i z e d l e s s d i r e c t ( o r indirect) r e a l i z a t i o n s of such speech a c t s . Instead of saying t o t h e h e a r e r , “Close t h e door,” we might prefer a n i n d i r e c t version, e . g . , “ I t ’ s cold in here.” However, i t should also be r e c o g n i z e d that a n indirect speech a c t i s o f t e n harder t o i n t e r p r e t a n d s o speakers of l a n g u a g e s o f t e n d e v e l o p c o n v e n t i o n a l l y indirect r e a l i z a t i o n patterns which enable u s t o m a k e i n d i r e c t requests t h a t a r e nonetheless u n a m b i g u o u s such a s “Could y o u c l o s e t h e door ?” o r “ D o y o u w ant t o o p e n t h e door ?” — t h e former i s more p o l i t e and formal; t h e l a t t e r i s more casual and f a m i l i a r . B e i n g c o n v e n t i o n a l l y r e c o g n i z e d request forms, such questions should n o t be a n s w e r e d l i t e r a l l y but according t o t h e i r illocutionary f o r c e . H ow ev er , t h i s f a c t i s n o t

always obvious t o sec ond l a n g u a g e l e a r n e r s , who have ac quir ed d i f f e r e n t ways of exp ressing conventionalized i n d i r e c t speech a c t s i n t h e i r f i r s t l a n g u a g e . A l l c u l t u r e s a r e c o n c e r n e d with maintaining s o c i a l harmony, and therefore we f i n d r u l e s of politeness inc or por ated i n t h e r u l e s o f speech t h a t one has t o acquire a s p a r t of l a n g u a g e l e a r n i n g . Each l a n g u a g e , accordingly, has d e v e l o p e d a repertoire of speech a c t r e a l i z a t i o n s t h a t enab le t h e l a n g u a g e u s e r t o be a “polite” i n t e r a c t a n t a n d a n accurate i n t e r p r e t e r of discourse. I n most c u l t u r e s t h e s e r u l e s of l i n g u i s t i c behavior a r e a l s o accomp a n i e d b y appropriate e y e g a z e , body l a n g u a g e , a n d g e s t u r e s . When learning a n e w l a n g u a g e , t h e l e a r n e r cannot possibly e x p e c t t o acquire c o m p l e t e pragmatic c o m p e t e n c e , y e t i t i s possible t o incorporate t h e study of a m a n a g e a b l e a m o u n t of p r a g m a t i c informat i o n i n t o a l a n g u a g e p r o g r a m and t o include a c t i v i t i e s which m a k e t h e l e a r n e r a w a r e of and s e n s i t i v e t o t h e m a j o r features of politeness a n d common variations o n expr essing politeness i n t h e n e w l a n g u a g e . However, a s Beebe (1996) has p o i n t e d out on several occasions, w e d o not recommend teaching sec ond l a n g u a g e l e a r n e r s always and only t o be p o l i t e s i n c e t h e r e a r e occasions a n d circumstances i n which u s e r s of t h e t a r g e t l a n g u a g e w i l l behave rudely o r offensively  

28

Background

speakers. On such occasions, l a n g u a g e l e a r n e r s should be a b l e t o r e c o g n i z e t h e rude o r offensive behavior and t o kn o w t h a t they may respond i n ways t h a t a r e l e s s t h a n p o l i t e . T h ey should a l s o be aware of expressions a n d resources they c a n u s e t o c o n v e y t h e i r displeasure w i t h i n t e r l o c u t o r s who a r e being rude t o them. i n t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h nonnative

CONCLUSION This chapter h a s surveyed some of t h e most important f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g l a n g u a g e u s e r s ’ choices of l i n g u i s t i c form. With reference t o sociocultural a p p r o p r i a c y and presupposit i o n , we have e x a m i n e d t h e c o n t e x t - e m b e d d e d n a t u r e of speaker m e a n i n g and i n t e n t i o n and how t h e hearer i s a b l e t o deter mine t h e s e by relying o n shared k n o w l e d g e , c o n t e x t , a n d c o n v e n t i o n a l expressions. Grice’s C o o p e r a t i v e Principle, Leec h’s Politeness P r i n c i p l e , and Austin and S e a r l e ’ s S p e e c h Act T h e o r y have been e x a m i n e d c r o s s - c u l t u r a l l y t o show t h a t each speec h c o m m u n i t y i s pr agmatic ally a s w e l l a s g r a m m a t i c a l l y unique. I n terms of c o m p r e h e n d i n g and p r o d u c i n g discourse c o m p e t e n t l y i n t h e t a r g e t language, i t i s a s important t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e pr agmatic s of t h e t a r g e t c u l t u r e a s i t i s t o under stand t h e

g r a m m a r and v o c a b u l a r y of t h e t a r g e t language.

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION 1.

2.

What k i n d o f c o n t e x t

a n u t t e r a n c e like (a) “Yes, he did,”

and one l i k e ( b ) “Why don’t you put the flowers over there?” Comment o n t h e following speec h e x c h a n g e with reference t o Grice’s max i ms ( i t occurred b e t w e e n two n a t i v e English speakers): A: Can y o u p a s s t h e s a l t ? B:

3.

i s needed t o u n d e r s t a n d

I can, but I won’t.

Which of t h e t h r e e following requests i s most p o l i t e , and w hy? a . O p e n t h e window. b . Could y o u o p e n t h e w i n d o w ? c . I ' d l i k e y o u t o o p e n t h e window.

4.

5.

Come u p with a n e x a m p l e from your ow n e x p e r i e n c e t h a t i l l u s t r a t e s e i t h e r negative f a c e (emphasis o n s o c i a l distance) o r positive f a c e (emphasis o n in- group s o l i d a r i t y ) with reference t o p o l i t e n e s s . When a n s w e r i n g t h e telephone, i t i s c u s t o m a r y f o r I t a l i a n speakers t o pick up t h e recei ver and s a y , “Pr onto” ( l i t e r a l l y , “I’m ready”). What do you t h i n k m i g h t h a p p e n interactionally i f a n I t a l i a n — n e w l y arrived i n t h e United S t a t e s and s p e a k i n g f l u e n t English — w er e t o answer t h e p h one i n h i s / h e r h o t e l room a n d s a y , “I’m ready.”?

S u g g e s t i o n s for F u r t h e r Reading

'

B l a k e m o r e , D. (1992). U n d e r s t a n d i n g utterances: A n introduction t o pr agmatic s. Oxford: Blackwell. Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles o f pragmatics. L o n d o n : L o n g m a n . Levinson, S . C . (1983). Pr agmatic s. Cambr i dge: C a m b r i d g e University P r e s s . Y u l e , G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University P r e s s .

Endnotes '

E x a m p l e presented by a tudent i n a course o n cross-cultural i n t e r a c t i o n , TESOL Summer I n s t i t u t e 1990, M i c h i gan S t a t e University.

2 Leech

(1983) u s e s t h e term c ollabor ative where we have substituted t h e term n e u t r a l s i n c e o u r students found Leec h’s term confusing and misleading, g i v e n h i s description of t h i s category.

 

-

 

LQ

e l

erens

=

ic Foxes D R

Phonology

¥

|i

@

ie

“ A short term pronunciation course should focus f i r s t and foremost on s u p r a s e g m e n t a l s a s they have the greatest impact on the comprehensibility of the l e a r n e r ’ s English.e have found t h a t g i v i n g p r i o r i t y t o the s up ras egm ent al aspects of E n g l i s h not only i m p r o v e s l e a r n e r s ’ comprehensibility but i s a l s o l e s s frustrating f o r students because g r e a t e r c h a n g e c a n be e f f e c t e d . ” (McNerney and Mend el s o h n,

|1987:132)

INTRODUCTION

P h onol ogy , t h e l i n g u i s t i c study of sound systems, gives u s d i f f e r e n t types of infor mation t h a t i s helpful f o r b e t t e r understanding what spoken discourse sounds l i k e , and t h i s i n f o r mation w i l l be o u r focus h e r e . H ow ev er , we w i l l a l s o s a y something about t h e relationship of p h onol ogy t o t h e w r i t t e n l a n g u a g e l a t e r i n t h e chapter w h e n we b r i e f l y discuss t h e r e l a tionship b e t w e e n p u n c t u a t i o n and pronunciation. I n t h i s c h a p t e r , o u r focus i s o n t h e i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y of a speaker’s o r a l discourse. A threshold-level a b i l i t y i s n e e d e d s o t h a t l e a r n e r s c a n c o m p r e h e n d speec h and be c o m p r e h e n d e d . Our treatment of English p h onol ogy

i s n o t c o m p r e h e n s i v e b u t r a t h e r i s intended t o s p o t s . T h e n o r m presented i s North A m e r i c a n

s e n s i t i z e t h e teacher t o t y p i c a l trouble English; however, o t h e r major d i a l e c t s have s i m i l a r trouble s p o t s , a n d u s e r s of those d i a l e c t s c a n m a k e t h e necessary adaptations. The notational system we u s e f o r m a r k i n g intonation i s t h e Fries-Pike system ( s e e P i k e , 1 9 4 5 ) , which superimposes intonation a s a l i n e dr aw n over t h e sentence o r u t t e r a n c e : When t h e l i n e i s d i r e c t l y u n d e r t h e words, t h i s s i g n a l s mid-level p i t c h , whereas w h e n t h e l i n e i s j u s t above t h e words, i t signals high p i t c h ; w h en so mew hat below t h e words, t h e l i n e s i g n a l s low p i t c h , and w h e n t h e l i n e i s one space above t h e words, i t s i g n a l s e x t r a high p i t c h .

Example:

This i s how t h e system JOpks. (mid > high > low)

Later we w i l l s e e t h a t a speaker c a n e i t h e r g l i d e o r s t e p from one p i t c h l e v e l t o a n o t h e r . Other n o t a t i o n a l systems c a n be used i n s t e a d t o s i g n a l intonation i f t h e teacher wishes.

30

 

P h o no l o gy

T h e p h onol ogy of a l a n g u a g e i s o f t e n described by l i n g u i s t s i n terms of s e g m e n t a l and s u p r a s e g m e n t a l systems, where “segmental” r e f e r s t o t h e individual vowel and consonant sounds and t h e i r d i s t r i b u t i o n , while “ s u p r a s e g m e n t a l ” r e f e r s t o t h e p a t t e r n s of rhythm ( i . e . , t h e timing of s y l l a b l e l e n g t h , s y l l a b l e s t r e s s , and pauses) and t h e intonation contours ( i . e . , p i t c h p a t t e r n s ) t h a t a c c o m p a n y sound sequenc es w h en l a n g u a g e i s used f o r o r a l c ommuni c at i on. These suprasegmental f e a t u r e s a r e collectively r e f e r r e d t o a s prosody. Prosody i s extremely impor tant i n properly c o n v e y i n g t h e speaker’s message and i n t e n t i o n t o t h e l i s t e n e r . I n f a c t , t h e r e i s e v i d e n c e t h a t children acquiring t h e i r f i r s t

31

l a n g u a g e master prosody before segmentals. For example, children c a n u n d e r s t a n d t h a t they a r e being scolded o r being asked t o m a k e a choice based o n prosody before they c a n r e c o g n i z e words o r produce sound segments. Different types of processing seem t o be involved i n t h e acquisition of prosody and of o t h e r aspects of t h e sound system: Gestalt o r h o l i s t i c processing i s used i n t h e acquisition of prosody; however, a n a l y t i c a l processing occurs i n t h e acquisition of segmentals (Bloom, 1970; P e t e r s , 1 9 7 7 ) . For a d u l t s speaking a sec ond language, a b i l i t y t o process and t o a p p r o x i m a t e t h e t a r g e t prosody contributes g r e a t l y t o negotiation of a h o l i s t i c s i g n a l t h a t c a n guide t h e l i s t e n e r ’ s understanding of what t h e speaker i s t r y i n g t o convey. For example, a t o u r i s t speaking v e r y l i t t l e of t h e t a r g e t l a n g u a g e c a n o f t e n under stand t h e g i s t of a n utterance r e l a t e d t o a buying-selling transaction merely from t h e prosody: [|~\__~ ] , meaning, “ I s t h i s o k a y ? ” u t t e r e d by t h e salesperson who has j u s t w r a p p e d a a r c e l . I n t h e p a s t , p r o n u n c i a t i o n i n s t r u c t i o n has o f t e n o v e r e m p h a s i z e d segmental d i s t i n c t i o n s ( e . g . , [Look a t t h e ] ship/sheep). Like McNerney and M e n d e l s o h n (1987), whom we

quoted a t t h e s t a r t of t h i s chapter, we t a k e t h e position t h a t e f f e c t i v e o r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n requires c o n t r o l of prosody per haps a s much a s ( i f n o t more than) c o n t r o l of t h e t a r g e t l a n g u a g e ’ s vowel a n d c o n s o n a n t sounds. T h e acceptability of s u p r a s e g m e n t a l p h o n o l o g y i n o r a l discourse m a y w e l l in flu e n c e t h e effectiveness of any i n t e r a c t i o n bec ause i t a f f e c t s t h e speaker’s c onver sational s t y l e and t h e l i s t e n e r ’ s a b i l i t y t o m a k e inferences. I t c o l o r s t h e speaker’s l e v e l of politeness, of c u l t u r a l appropriacy, and c o m p l i a n c e with s o c i a l r u l e s . I n a speaker’s c onver sational p e r f o r m a n c e , matters such a s relinquishing t h e f l o o r t o another speaker, ta kin g a t u r n , interrupting, o r asking a c onfir mation question a s op p os ed t o m a k i n g a statement a r e a l l things t h a t a r e o f t e n signaled by prosodic f e a t u r e s r a t h e r than by sound segments o r b y syntactic o r l e x i c a l elements (Dalton and Seidlhofer, 1994).

WHERE THINGS CAN GO WRONG Inappr opr iate prosody can involve quite s u b t l e types of m is c o m m u n ic a tio n , types t h a t a r e n o t a s obvious a s a c onfusion a t t h e segmental l e v e l , which t h e l i s t e n e r i s t y p i c a l l y a b l e t o c o r r e c t by using context o r k n o w l e d g e of t h e world ( e . g . , I had r i c e / l i c e f o r d i n n e r ) . I t i s t h u s o f t e n d i f f i c u l t t o d e t e c t prosodic problems a s “ e r r o r s , ” and they e a s i l y g e t misconstrued by t h e l i s t e n e r a s u n i n t e n d e d messages o r inappropriate behaviors. INTONATION

For e x a m p l e , o n e of t h e authors, while teaching i n Nigeria, noticed t h a t m a n y n a t i v e speakers of Y o r u b a tended t o s up er i mp os e t h e vowel length a n d t h e f a l l i n g - r i s i n g p a t t e r n f o r t h e i r word beeni ( t h e equivalent of “yes”) o n t h e English w o r d y e s . This frequently oc c ur r ed i n interactions where, i n response t o a question i n English such a s “Are y o u comi n g t o o u r supper p a r t y o n Satur day?”, t h e Y o r u b a speaker u t t e r e d a long drawn-out “Yes” utterance t h a t b e g a n high, then f e l l , and then r o s e a g a i n :

Yee  

32

Language

K n owl e dg e

Several n a t i v e English speakers — both B r i t i s h a n d North A m e r i c a n — who had n o knowle d g e of Y o r u b a c a m e t o a s i m i l a r conclusion: T h ey t o l d t h e co-author t h a t they f e l t Yorubas were wishy-washy people, unable t o respond w i t h a decisive “yes” o r “no” w h e n asked a simple question. Another s t r i k i n g e x a m p l e comes from t h e research of Argyres (1996), who studied

t h e intonation of yes/no questions i n t h e English p r o d u c e d b y two n a t i v e speakers of G r e e k i n c omp ar i s on with t h a t of two n a t i v e speakers of North A m e r i c a n English. The n a t i v e speakers of Greek, who were a d v a n c e d l e v e l a n d highly f l u e n t i n English, tended nonetheless t o s u p e r i m p o s e t h e f a l l i n g G r e e k intonation f o r yes/no questions onto t h e English yes/no questions they u t t e r e d :

Ar e you|COMing? This m a d e t h e Greeks seem impatient and rude t o t h e English speakers who evaluated t h e questions of a l l f o u r speakers. The n a t i v e English speakers’ i n t o n a t i o n , by c o n t r a s t , tended t o r i s e o n such questions:

Ar e you|COMing? s t u d y , n a t i v e English-speaking j u d g e s l i s t e n e d t o m a n y instances of t h e s e yes-no questions i n r a n d o m i z e d order o n a tape recording; they r a t e d t h e questions of t h e n a t i v e G r e e k speakers a s b eing s i g n i f i c a n t l y ruder and r a t e d t h e i r questions a s being m o r e I n Ar gyr es’

n e g a t i v e than those of t h e n a t i v e English speakers. Gumperz (1978) provides y e t another e x a m p l e , t h i s one involving Indian-English speakers w o r k i n g a s food s e r v e r s i n a c a f e t e r i a i n England. Their speech i s p e r c e i v e d by their British interlocutors ( i . e . , the c u s t o m e r s a t the cafeteria) a s “ i n s u l t i n g ” b e c a u s e o f inappropriate intonation and pausing, t h e r e s u l t of t r a n s f e r from t h e i r regional d i a l e c t of Indian English. Such m i s c o m m u n i c a t i o n problems a r e extremely insidious and hard t o explain t o both those who p r o d u c e them and those who m i s c o m p r e h e n d them. T h e existence of such problems, however, under sc or es t h e u r g e n c y of getting l a n g u a g e teachers t o u n d e r s t a n d how intonation functions i n o r a l discourse, a s well a s t h e necessity of helping them t o d e v e l o p some s t r a t e g i e s f o r teaching appropriate intonation t o n o n n a t i v e speakers. RHYTHM

When multisyllabic words a r e p r o n o u n c e d with a n incorrect rhythm, some s e r i o u s o r h u m o r o u s e r r o r s i n c o m p r e h e n s i o n m a y o c c u r . The l a t e D o n Bowen t o l d u s (personal c o m m u n i c a t i o n ) about a n a t i v e Spanish speaker who c a m e t o h i s o f f i c e quite distraught bec ause she k n e w she n e e d e d help with her pronunciation. She had b e e n t o a n A m e r i c a n drugstore, a l a r g e s t o r e with a food counter and o t h e r amenities i n addition t o a pharmacy. She had a bad headache, and w h en a n e l d e r l y g e n t l e m a n asked i f he could help h e r , she asked f o r some “ahs pee REEN.” A few mo ment s l a t e r t h e g e n t l e m a n returned with a d i s h of r i c e pudding, f o r t h i s i s what he had understood. The woman had w a n t e d some a s p i r i n . I n a n i n t e r a c t i o n t h a t one of t h e coauthors had with a n o n n a t i v e speaker, t h e speaker was t a l k i n g about a n “ex e CU t or. ” This sounded l i k e “exec utioner ” t o t h e coauthor, who was q u i t e befuddled u n t i l s u b s t a n t i a l a d d i t i o n a l c o - t e x t m a d e i t c l e a r t h a t t h e speaker was t a l k i n g about t h e “ex EC u t o r ” of a w i l l . Thus while intonation e r r o r s m i s c o m m u n i c a t e t h e speaker’s s t a n c e , p o l i t e n e s s , and intentions; errors in word s t r e s s a n d other aspects of rhythm often miscommunicate a n important piece of information i n t h e speaker’s message. Both a r e a s must be addressed i n t h e l a n g u a g e classroom.

 

P h o no l o gy

BACKGROUND

The discussion of what c a n g o w r o n g i n terms of intonation has n o t s o f a r c onsider ed t h e

33

c a n be c l a s s i f i e d a s e i t h e r ( a ) tone l a n g u a g e s o r ( b ) i n t o n a t i o n l a n g u a g e s . Some t o n e l a n g u a g e s a r e Asian l a n g u a g e s such a s Chinese, Thai, Vietnamese, o r African l a n g u a g e s such a s Yoruba, I b o , and Hausa. Many Indian l a n g u a g e s of t h e Americas such a s N a v a h o and Q u e c h u a a r e a l s o t o n e languages. I n t o n e languages, p i t c h applies l e x i c a l l y t o distinguish words. Thus t h e segmental sequence /ma/ “numb,” o r “ t o scold” ( a m o n g o t h e r t h i n g s ) — i n Chinese c a n m e a n “horse,” “ m o t h e r , ” f a c t t h a t most of t h e world’s l a n g u a g e s

99

66.

o n t h e t o n a l p a t t e r n of t h e word; and t h e segmental s e q u e n c e /oko/ i n Yoruba dc aenp e mn de ai nn g “hoe,” “vehicle,” o r “husband,” a g a in d e p e n d i n g o n t h e t o n a l p a t t e r n of t h e word. I n c o n t r a s t t o t h e s e t o n e languages, t h e r e a r e intonation l a n g u a g e s such a s Japanese, K o r e a n , English, F r e n c h, German, Sp a n i sh, Russian, Arabic, Hebrew, i . e . , virtually a l l E u r o p e a n and Middle Eastern languages. Intonation l a n g u a g e s apply p i t c h p a t t e r n s t o e n t i r e u t t e r a n c e s , n o t j u s t t o l e x i c a l items t h e w a y t o n e l a n g u a g e s d o . (To be f a i r , m a n y tone l a n g u a g e s a l s o have some intonational f e a t u r e s , and some intonation l a n g u a g e s have some word-level pitch-accents; nonetheless, t h e r e seems t o be a f u n d a m e n t a l difference i n t h e scope of p i t c h b e t w e e n t h e s e two types of languages.) I n general, i f l e a r n e r s speak a n intonation l a n g u a g e a s t h e i r f i r s t language, i t i s as s umed they w i l l l e a r n t h e intonation of another l a n g u a g e more e a s i l y than w i l l s o m e o n e who speaks a t o n e l a n g u a g e a s t h e i r f i r s t l a n g u a g e , o r v i c e v e r s a . H ow ev er , j u s t bec ause two l a n g u a g e s h a p p e n t o be intonation l a n g u a g e s does n o t m e a n t h a t t h e i r utterance-level pitch patterns w i l l be t h e same. T h e y r a r e l y a r e . For example, while English u s e s u p t o four pitch l e v e l s , Spanish u s e s only two o r a t most t h r e e , with t h e r e s u l t t h a t Spanish speakers seem t o have a so mew hat f l a t intonation i n English, which s i g n a l s d i s i n t e r e s t t o English l i s t e n e r s . And even though J a p a n e s e u s e s r i s i n g - f a l l i n g intonation on p r o m i n e n t s y l l a b l e s i n declarative utterances a s English does, pitch contours i n J a p a n e s e a r e more c o m p a c t a n d t h e f a l l and r i s e occur m u c h more quickly than i n English because Japanese does n o t distinguish s t r e s s e d a n d unstressed s y l l a b l e s : As T o d a k a (1990) shows, promin e n c e i n J a p a n e s e does n o t involve s t r e s s , p i t c h , and s y l l a b l e length t h e w ay i t does i n English. This per haps i n d i c a t e s t h a t teachers should n o t assume t o o much, g i v e n t h e f a c t t h a t t h e i r students a r e n a t i v e speakers of t o n e l a n g u a g e s o r intonation languages, w h en

teaching i n t o n a t i o n . I n order t o i l l u s t r a t e t h e i m p o r t a n c e of rhythm a n d intonation i n spoken English discourse, we f i r s t n e e d t o b r i e f l y discuss w or d-level s t r e s s patterns bec ause a n y m u l t i s y l l a b i c English w o r d has a d i s t i n c t s t r e s s p a t t e r n t h a t i n t e r a c t s with other prosodic f e a t u r e s . Word s t r e s s i s b a s i c t o prosody: With incorrect w o r d s t r e s s , m e a n i n g i s obscured ( a s we have pr eviously shown with what can g o w r o n g u n d e r “rhythm’’). With i n c o r r e c t word s t r e s s , t h e prosody of e n t i r e utterances can g o awry, a s we s h a l l demonstrate. I f we assume a t l e a s t two l e v e l s of s t r e s s f o r English s y l l a b l e s — stressed ( s t r o n g ) versus unstressed ( w e a k ) — words of two, t h r e e , o r four s y l l a b l e s e x h i b i t t h e following p a t t e r n s , g i v e n t h a t a n y English w or d of two o r more s y l l a b l e s tends t o have a t l e a s t one strongly s t r e s s e d s y l l a b l e :

mother séven circumstances pércolator

about refér

gradual similar extr émity invéterate

official

audition

understand apprehénd institution salutation

Other similar p a t t e r n s obtain f o r words with f i v e o r more s y l l a b l e s , some of which m a y have two s t r e s s e d s y l l a b l e s ( a p r i m a r y and a secondary).

 

34

Language

Knowledge

The main p o i n t i s t h a t new information, a s noted i n C hapter 1 , t y p i c a l l y occurs toward t h e end of a n utterance a n d t e n d s t o receive t h e g r e a t e s t p r o m i n e n c e ( i . e . , i t i s t h e most important s t r e s s e d e l e m e n t a t t h e utterance l e v e l ) . The p i t c h o r intonation contour of a n utterance u s e s a s a pivot t h e s t r e s s e d s y l l a b l e of t h e word t h a t c a r r i e s t h e n e w i n f o r mation and receives t h e prominence. Thus i n answer t o t h e question “ W h e r e have you been?” t h e person addressed might respond:2 (I’ve b e e n ) t o the BOOKftore.

H er e t h e n e w information i s “bookstore,” and i t i s t h e s t r e s s e d s y l l a b l e of t h i s w o r d t h a t i s spoken with p r o m i n e n c e and s e r v e s a s t h e f o c a l point f o r s t r e s s and intonation i n t h e u t t e r a n c e . Note t h a t i f t h e response had been “ I ’ v e b een t o t h e s t o r e , ” t h e new information would be “ s t o r e , ” a one-syllable word, which would c a r r y both t h e r i s e and f a l l of t h e intonation contour, r e s u l t i n g i n a g l i d e intonation r a t h e r t h a n t h e s t e p intonation contour shown i n t h e f i r s t e x a m p l e : ( I ’ v e b een) t o t h e STORE. However, b e c a u s e o f i nheren nheren t word stress on “ b o o k s t o r e ”

in t h i s context, i t would always

be inappropriate t o s a y “ I ’ v e been t o t h e bo bo k S TORE . ” T h e s e u t t e r a n c e s are examples o f n or m a l , unmarked d e c l a r a t i v e i n t o n a t i o n in N o rth A m e r i c a n English, which begins with a mid-level p i t c h and ends i n a i s e - f a l l p a t t e r n . T o describe English intonation properly, we n e e d t o r e f e r t o four l e v e l s of r e l a t i v e p i t c h : low, medium, h i g h , and e x t r a h i g h , which i s reserved f o r m a r k e d i n t e n s i t y of expression. The ab ove utterances have a medi um- hi gh- l o w contour, where “high” i n d i c a t e s t h e n e w information and “low” i n d i c a t e s t h e e n d of t h e u t t e r a n c e . I m a g i n e now t h a t t h e speaker who i n i t i a t e d t h e c onver sation ( i . e . , “ W h e r e h a v e y o u b e e n ? ’ ’ ) r esponds t o t h e utterance “ I ’ v e b e e n t o t h e bookstore” with t h e following yes/no qu e s t i o n :

Y o u ’ v e b e e n t o the [BOOKstore?

This i s n o t t h e most t y p i c a l yes/no question. I t has declarative w o r d o r d e r , a n d with t h e exc eption of c h a n g i n g t h e subject p r o n o u n t o maintain r e fe r e n c e t o t h e same person (1 > you), t h e question simply echoes t h e previous speaker’s a s s e r t i o n . I n t h i s sequential c o n t e x t , t h e declarative w o r d order with yes/no question intonation (medium-high-rise) does n o t m e a n “ H a v e you been t o t h e bookstore?” but r a t h e r “ H a v e I understood you correctly?” I f , f o r t h e same u t t e r a n c e , t h e speaker w er e t o r i s e t o e x t r a high p i t c h i n s t e a d of j u s t high p i t c h o n t h e f i r s t s y l l a b l e of “bookstore,” then t h e speaker’s mes s age w oul d be one of surprise o r d i s b e l i e f ( i . e . , “ I c a n ’ t believe you went t o t h e b o o k s t o r e ” ’ ) . I n other words, speakers have t h e option of using d i f f e r e n t intonation contours o n t h e same s t r i n g of words t o s i g n a l d i f f e r e n t meanings. O n e f i n a l pr eliminar y comment w e n e e d t o m a k e i s t h a t n o t e v e r y word i s s t r e s s e d i n English speech. I n u n m a r k e d u t t e r a n c e s , only those words t h a t c o n v e y t h e c o r e pr opos i t i o n a l infor mation ( t y p i c a l l y nouns, a d j e c t i v e s , and main verbs — sometimes adverbs) are

stressed. personal and helps ac c ount r e f e r r e d to as

 

infor mation ( e . g . , r e l a t i v e pr onouns, auxiliary v e r b s , conjunctions) t e n d f o r t h e t y p i c a l rhythm of English, which c o n s i s t s of a a “thought g r o u p ” — t h a t t e n d s t o have one p r o m i n e n t

Words

that

carry

grammatical

a r t i c l e s , prepositions, t o be unstressed. This

rhythm g r o u p — often s y lla b le. Over a e r i e s

P h o no l o gy

of thought groups, s t r e s s e d s y l l a b l e s t e n d t o occur a t regular i n t e r v a l s regardless o f t h e n u m b e r of s y l l a b l e s p e r thought group. The following t h r e e sentences i l l u s t r a t e t h i s p r i n c i p l e . I n terms of rhythm, t h e sentences a ll have t h r e e strong s t r e s s e s o r b e a t s and — i n a r e l a t i v e s e n s e — a r e s p o k e n using t h e same a m o u n t of time even though t h e f i r s t sentence has only t h r e e s y l l a b l e s and t h e t h i r d one h a s s e v e n : JACK/ SELLS/ CARS.

JACK / h a s SOLD/ some CARS. JACK/ has been S E L / l i n g some CARS.

This heavily stress-determined n a t u r e of English rhythm i s d i f f e r e n t from t h e rhythm i n m a n y other l a n g u a g e s i n which t h e n u m b e r of s y l l a b l e s i n a n utterance more closely determines i t s o v e r a l l l e n g t h . The c hallenge f o r t h e l e a r n e r — a s we show i n t h e n e x t section — i s t o put word s t r e s s , thought groups, utterance p r o m i n e n c e , and intonation together properly.

PROSODY IN CONTEXT I n s e v e r a l of t h e previous ex amp l es we looked a t how s t r e s s and intonation operate i n a particular c o n t e x t . This i s impor tant bec ause t h e l i n g u i s t i c and s o c i a l context establishes whether a n y piece of infor mation i n a n o n g o i n g c o m m u n i c a t i o n 1 s o l d o r n e w a n d whether or not it is r elev a n t. S p e r b e r and Wilson (1986:11) pr ovide u s with a n i c e e x a m p l e of relevance: When a host u s e s n o r m a l s t r e s s and intonation and asks a guest “ D o y o u k n o w what time i t i s ? ” t h e host i s e x p l i c i t l y asking f o r t h e time of d a y from t h e g u e s t . I n d i r e c t l y , t h e host could be suggesting t h a t i t i s time f o r t h e guest t o leave without being t o o obvious. H ow ev er , i f t h e host i s f e d u p a n d i s n o t t o o c o n c e r n e d about p o l i t e n e s s , s / h e might choose t o g iv e s p e c i a l p r o m i n e n c e t o t h e word t i m e , thereby expr essing some consternation a t t h e f a c t t h a t s / h e and h i s / h e r guest a r e s t i l l s i t t i n g and c h a t t i n g .

S u c h ex amp l es r e v e a l prosodic v a r i a t i o n and under sc or e t h e f a c t t h a t speakers have d i f f e r e n t prosodic a l t e r n a t i v e s available t o them. T h e choice m a d e usually c o m m u n i c a t e s t h e speaker’s i n t e n t i o n unless t h e speaker o r l i s t e n e r i s u n a w a r e of t h e r a n g e of possible t a r g e t - l a n g u a g e implications of using a given prosodic p a t t e r n and m i s c o m m u n i c a t e s o r misconstrues t h e p o i n t . We believe t h e f o r e g o i n g

introduction a n d b a c k g r o u n d m a k e i t c l e a r why we a r e d e v o t i n g a chapter t o p h o n o l o g y ( a s p a r t of l a n g u a g e k n o w l e d g e ) i n o u r discussion of discourse a n d context i n l a n g u a g e teaching. As shown i n F igur e 3 . 1 o n p a g e 36, a l l l a n g u a g e resources a r e necessary f o r successful c o m m u n i c a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n . This chapter focuses o n phonology, which i s k n o w l e d g e t h a t i s especially relevant f o r both l i s t e n i n g a n d speaking (see Chapters 6 and 9 respectively). Ph o n o lo g y i s t h e primary means through which o r a l l a n g u a g e processing of semantic m e a n i n g a n d p r a g m a t i c functions t a k e s p l a c e . Without sounds systems t h e r e w oul d be n o s p o k e n l a n g u a g e and n o o r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n ; t h u s l a n g u a g e teachers — from t h e b e g i n n i n g l e v e l o n — must ensure t h a t t h e i r l e a r n e r s have every oppor tunity t o d e v e l o p a n i n t e l l i g i b l e p r o n u n c i a t i o n a n d t o c o m p r e h e n d a ariety of speakers and d i a l e c t s (Eisenstein, 1983) i n t h e t a r g e t l a n g u a g e .

35

 

36

Language

Knowledge

T o p - d o w n Processing

S p o k e n Discourse

Phonology

Vocabulary

B o t t o m - u p Processing

F i g u r e 3 . 1 P h o n o l o g y and L a n g u a g e Knowledge

INFORMATION

MANAGEMENT

FUNCTIONS

OF PROSODY

Prosody performs two r e l a t e d information management functions i n English and m a n y o t h e r languages: f i r s t i t allows t h e speaker t o s e g m e n t information i n t o m e a n i n g f u l word groups (bottom-up processing i n Figure 3 . 1 ) , and sec ond i t helps t h e speaker s i g n a l n e w o r important information versus o l d o r l e s s important information (top-down processing i n Figure 3 . 1 ) . The l i s t e n e r , of c o u r s e , makes u s e of t h e same prosodic system t o s e g m e n t

speech i n t o thought gr oups and words and t o distinguish n e w from g i v e n information. The following two s e c t i o n s discuss t h e s e functions i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l .

 

P h o no l o gy

SEGMENTING

INFORMATION

INTO MEANINGFUL WORD

GROUPS

I n English, m e a n i n g f u l word gr oups t y p i c a l l y end with a pause, a c h a n g e i n p i t c h , and a l e n g t h e n i n g of t h e l a s t s t r e s s e d s y l l a b l e ( G i l b e r t , 1 9 8 3 ) . Such prosodic c l u e s from t h e speaker help t h e speaker p r o d u c e and t h e l i s t e n e r c o m p r e h e n d spoken English. Gumperz and Kal t man (1980:52, 62) describe t h e speaker’s u s e of prosody i n m a r k i n g m e a n i n g f u l

word gr oups a s follows: “ B y t o n e gr ouping, o r utterance c hunking, a speaker organizes n t o gr oups n i n t e g r a l p a r t of t h e therefore informationby i which c o m e s a cohesion, we s i g n a l Prosody processes information about b ethematic perspective, prominence. .” This c h u n k i n g function of prosody i n g r a m m a r i s n i c e l y i l l u s t r a t e d by paired such a s t h e following where t h e same words with d i f f e r e n t prosody express very meanings: a.

“Father,” said Mo th er, “ i s l a t e . ”

b.

Father s a i d , “Mother i s l a t e . ”

linguistic

message

examples different

c.

H a v e you met my brother Fred? d . H a v e y o u met my b r o t h e r , Fred? I n so mew hat l e s s extreme examples, we c a n observe t h a t t h e or ganizing function of prosody helps speaker s i g n a l (and t h e l i s t e n e r hear) t h e difference i n m e a n i n g b e t w e e n constructions such a e s t r i c t i v e and nonrestrictive r e l a t i v e c l a u s e :

e.

My s i s t e r who l i v e s i n T exas has t h r e e c h i l d r e n .

f.

My s i s t e r , who lives in Tex as , has three children.

or between a d e c l a r a t i v e u t t e r a n c e

g.

Wolverines f i g h t t o win.

h.

Wolver ines, f i g h t t o win

a n d an exhortation:

A t t h e discourse l e v e l a g r a m m a t i c a l l y inappropriate prosodic segmentation c a n mislead the listener a n d c a u s e c o n f u s i o n

about, i f not m i s i nt erp ret at i o n of, a l o n g e r stretch o f dis-

c o u r s e . T o give a r e a l example, i n response t o t h e question “How long does i t generally t a k e t o p r o d u c e a n e w textbook (from i n i t i a l proposal t o finished product)? ” t h e speaker r esponded, “Four t o f i v e years,” b u t was understood a s saying “Forty-five y e a r s . ” I n t h i s c a s e t h e r e was a t e m p o r a r y c o m m u n i c a t i o n p r o b l e m u n t i l t h e intended n u m b e r of y e a r s

was sorted o u t . SIGNALING

NEW VERSUS

OLD INFORMATION

T h e other infor mation management function of prosody, i . e . , m a r k i n g n e w

versus o l d i n for m a t i on , has b e e n di sc u sse d by C h a f e (1980), who points out that within a t hou g ht group, words expr essing old o r given infor mation a r e g e n e r a lly s p o k e n with w e a k s t r e s s and low pitch whereas words expr essing n e w infor mation a r e s p o k e n with strong s t r e s s and high p i t c h . Allen (1971:77) provides some excellent ex amp l es of t h e prosodic r e g u l a r i t i e s t h a t Chafe has pointed o u t :

37

X:

I ’ v e l o s t a n umBREDJa.

x:

A|LAdy’s umb rella?

X:

YRS. One with|STARS|on i t . GREEN s t a r s .

 

38

Language

K n owl e dg e

t h e s y l l a b l e s i n c a p i t a l l e t t e r s a r e s t r e s s e d and s i g n a l t h a t t h e word containing t h e s t r e s s e d s y l l a b l e c o n v e y s n e w information. Each contour — o r intonation gr oup — contains one main piece of n e w information, and t h i s n e w information i s u t t e r e d with p r o m i n e n c e (strong s t r e s s , e x t r a l e n g t h , and high p i t c h ) . W h a t e v e r information i s n e w t e n d s t o receive s p e c i a l prosodic a t t e n t i o n ( i . e . , t h e word i s s t r e s s e d and t h e p i t c h I n t h i s exchange,

c hanges) a s indicated i n t h i s additional e x a m p l e : A:

C a n I}|HELP y o u ?

B : YRS, l e a s e . I ’ m l o o k i n g f o r a BLAfer. A:

S o m e t h i n g |CASual?

B : YES, something casual in/WQOL.

Note once again t h a t n e w information t e n d s t o c o m e tow ar d t h e e n d of t h e u t t e r a n c e .

SOME COMMUNICATIVE

FUNCTIONS

OF PROSODY

A s a l i e n t type of i n t e r a c t i o n management i s expr essed i n a c o n t r a s t . A c o n t r a s t i s being signaled e i t h e r bec ause t h e i n t e r l o c u t o r s h i f t s t h e focus of a t t e n t i o n o r bec ause t h e r e i s now a c o n t r a s t where t h e r e was none b e f o r e . Consider, f o r example, t h e following e x c h a n g e :

A:

H & l L@ . I ' d l i k e t o buy some f r e s h P E P p e r s .

B: Wo ul d y o u l i k e t h e } GREEN | o n e s of he EDpnes? A:

The|RED|ones.

Here S p e a k e r A makes a request f o r “peppers,” but S p e a k e r B needs c l a r i f i c a t i o n since both “ g r e e n ” and “red” pepper s a r e a v a i l a b l e . Thus t h e i n t e r a c t i o n a l focus s h i f t s from “peppers” t o t h e v a r i e t y ( i . e . , c o l o r ) of peppers t h a t A w oul d p r e f e r . Contexts i n which contradictions o r disagreements a r i s e a r e a l s o g o o d ex amp l es of i n t e r a c t i o n a l management where t h e s h i f t i n focus from one constituent t o another i s very c l e a r :

A : It’s|COLD. B: It’s|NOT|cold. A:

It}[S}cold.

B:

Comelon, i t ’ s not/THAT | c o l d .

H er e S p e a k e r A begins by describing t h e w eather o r e n v i r o n m e n t a s cold and e m p h a s i z e s t h e word c o l d ; S p e a k e r B disagrees by r e s t a t i n g t h e same utterance i n negative form and s t r e s s i n g t h e word n o t . S p e a k e r A responds by reasserting t h e o r i g i n a l proposition, t h i s time by emphasizing t h e verb BE, which i n i t s affirmative form c o n t r a s t s with S p e a k e r B’s p r i o r negation of t h e proposition. I n t h e f i n a l t u r n , S p e a k e r B t r i e s t o p e r s u a d e S p e a k e r A t o d o w n g r a d e t h e i n i t i a l assessment by e m p h a s i z i n g t h e d e g r e e modifier t h a t .

 

P h o no l o gy

speaker

a n ot he r (or i f o n e immediately corrects oneself), we have another type of i n t e r a c t i o n a l management t h a t c onver sation analysts c a l l r e p a i r . Correction i s o f t e n s i m i l a r t o d i s a g r e e m e n t from a prosodic point of view: When

one

corrects

A:

You’r e fr om LON(ion, R E n ’ t y o u ?

B:

Not|LONbon, DOvwer.

Lear ner s of English need a m p l e oppor tunity t o practice t h e prosodic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of such i n t e r a c t i o n a l management s t r a t e g i e s i n r e a l i s t i c dialogue sequences. I n f a c t , we should b r i e f l y reconsider word s t r e s s i n r e l a t i o n t o prosody. S o m e m u l t i s y l l a b i c words have more t h a n one s t r e s s e d s y l l a b l e . With such words, t h e p r o m i n e n c e may w e l l s h i f t d e p e n d i n g o n where t h e n e w information o r t h e c o n t r a s t f a l l s ( e . g . , f o r t y - f i v e ) : A:

Did y o u s a y f o r t y { F I V E o r f o r t y | S \ X ?

B: Did y o u s a y F O R Iy - f iv e o r FIFty-five? I n n o context, however, w oul d a n a t i v e speaker g iv e p r o m i n e n c e s y l l a b l e i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r word a n d s a y “forTY-five.”3

to

the

unstressed

INTONATION AND SENTENCE TYPES I n order t o deploy intonation effectively a t t h e l e v e l of discourse, l e a r n e r s n e e d b e c o m e a w a r e o f , understand, and practice t h e relationships b e t w e e n intonation, a n d context i n s p o k e n English. For each of t h e s i x syntactic p a t t e r n s t h a t we w i l l t h e r e i s a neutral ( o r u n m a r k e d ) intonation c ontour t h a t c a n e a s i l y be a l t e r e d by i n c o n t e x t . Without a grasp of t h e s e patterns a n d possible changes, t h e l e a r n e r

first to

syntax, discuss,

changes will not

be a b l e t o u s e intonation effectively a t t h e more global discourse l e v e l w h e n s p e a k i n g o r l i s t e n i n g . I t i s impor tant f o r t h e l e a r n e r t o u n d e r s t a n d t h a t g r a m m a t i c a l sentence t y p e s ( e . g . , declaratives) m a y d i f f e r from func tional u tte r a n c e types ( e . g . , statement/question) i n prosodic signaling o n l y . For a more d e t a i l e d presentation, s e e Celce-Murcia, Brinton, and Goodwin (1996). |.

DECLARATIVES

Unmarked o r n e u t r a l versions of most English declarative sentences have r i s i n g - f a l l i n g intonation a n d f a i r l y predictable p r o m i n e n c e o n t h e n e w infor mation occurring toward t h e e n d of t h e u t t e r a n c e :

39

Max writes PLAYS.

However,

in actual

use,

declaratives

are

sometimes

marked

such

that o n e

constituent

occurring e a r l i e r i n t h e u t t e r a n c e , f o r e x a m p l e t h e subject n o u n Max, i s singled o u t f o r s p e c i a l focus o r emphasis. I t would not, however, make sense

t o p res ent the unmarked a n d marked versions

of

sentences l i k e “Max w r i t e s plays” i n i s o l a t i o n a n d o u t of c o n t e x t . T eac her s and l e a r n e r s must understand t h a t one version i s appropriate i n one c o n t e x t , whereas t h e other i s appropriate i n a n o t h e r . For e x a m p l e , consider t h e following conversational e x c h a n g e :

 

40

Language

K n owl e dg e

A:

What does your neighbor Max peas ge o?

B:

Max/He ete

Such a context

P S S

is a n environment

i n which

the unmarked

version of t h e statement

would be used bec ause “ M a x ” i s o l d information a n d h i s occupation i s new information. On t h e o t h e r hand, g i v e n a context such a s t h e following: A:

I s i t t r u e t h a t Peter writes |PLAYS?

B : No. A X | w r i t e s

plays.

t h e m a r k e d version of t h e rejoinder i s appropriate s i n c e t h e f a l s e assumption ( i . e . , t h a t P e t e r w r i t e s plays) c a n be corrected simply by e m p h a s i z i n g i n t h e response t h e n a m e of t h e person who a c t u a l l y does w r i t e p l a y s , i 1 . e . , Max. 2 . IMPERATIVES AND

EXCLAMATIONS

Like declaratives, imperatives ( o f t e n r e f e r r e d t o a s commands o r d i r e c t i v e s w h e n v i e w e d pragmatically) g e n e r a lly t a k e t h e r i s e — f a l l intonation contour, b u t they a r e o f t e n more f o r c e f u l o r a f f e c t i v e l y loaded than declarative sentences and t h u s m a y m a k e u s e of l e v e l 4 ( e x t r a high p i t c h ) more o f t e n . English imperatives a r e s t r u c t u r a l l y simple: T h e y tend t o omit t h e subject n o u n (understood “ y o u ” ) and u s e uninflected verb forms: W r i t e more PLAYS

B u y me t h e/ NE W S ) p ap er . S o m e tim e s t h e verb receives p r o m i n e n c e instead of t h e object noun, e i t h e r because t h e r e i s n o object ( i . e . , t h e verb i s i n t r a n s i t i v e ) :

o r bec ause t h e verb i s signaling a c o n t r a s t o r n e w

diRECT|plays

information:

( i n s t e a d of writing them)

Another sentence type t h a t a l s o tends t o be potentially more a f f e c t i v e l y loaded and g e n e r a lly s h o r t e r than a declarative i s a n exc lamation. ‘

Good GRIRF NICE}one

L i k e d e c l a r a t i v e s a n d i m p erat i ves , e x c l a m a t i o n s also exhibit rising-falling intonation,

b u t they sometimes give p r o m i n e n c e t o two constituents r a t h e r than one and regularly m a k e u s e of e x t r a high p i t c h . WHAT

a per/FORImance

We mention

exclamations b r i e f l y bec ause t h e p o t e n t i a l u s e of e x t r a high pitch i n exclamations seems t o be s up er i mp os ed o n s e v e r a l of t h e following question t y p e s , which a l s o c a n t a k e o n exclamatory q ua lities .  

P h o no l o gy

3.

YES/NO QUESTIONS

The u n m a r k e d g r a m m a r f o r a n English yes/no question involves t h e inversion of t h e subject and t h e a u x i l i a r y verb ( o r t h e addition of do a s t h e a u x i l i a r y i n sentences t h a t have n o l e x i c a l a u x i l i a r y v e r b ) . When t h i s option conveys n o s p e c i a l presuppositions, i t i s

a c c o m p a n i e d by r i s i n g i n t o n a t i o n . However, s i n c e t h e intonation c a n r i s e o n whichever constituent i s i n f o c u s , t h i s intonation p a t t e r n o f t e n h a s two o r ( i f a b i t lon g e r and more c o m p l e x ) t h r e e possible r e a l i z a t i o n s of t h e r i s i n g c o n t o u r . For e x a m p l e : a.

Does Max w r i t e / P L A Y S ?

b.

Does|MAX w r i t e plays?

(focus of t h e question i s o n “ p l a y s ’ ’ ) (focus of t h e question i s o n “Max”’)

H ow ev er , i t i s a l s o possible w h en using t h i s same s y n t a c t i c option t h a t t h e speaker chooses a marked rising—falling intonation p a t t e r n . This pattern c a n signal a n inference ( o r g u e s s ) , o r i t may a l s o i n d i c a t e t h e speaker’s impatienc e with t h e i n t e r l o c u t o r . Again, d i f f e r e n t r e a l i z a t i o n s of t h e contour a r e possible d e p e n d i n g o n which constituent i s b eing emphasized. b.

Does Max w r i t e PLAYS?

b ' . Does|MAX

w r i t e plays?

A s ment i oned

previously, i n a n e v e n more highly m a r k e d version of t h i s yes/no question, t h e r e i s no inversion: i n terms of i t s syntax, t h e sentence i s a declarative, yet i t s t i l l functions a s a question bec ause of t h e r i s i n g i n t o n a t i o n . This uninver ted yes/no question form can a l s o t a k e d i f f e r e n t intonation contours. 4.

WH-QUESTIONS

Wh-questions a r e those questions where t h e constituent being q u e s t i o n e d appears i n t h e form of a w h- w o rd (what, who, w h en where, a n d t h e l i k e ) . T h e y follow t h e same r i s i n g f a l l i n g intonation a s declaratives w h e n they a r e u n m a r k e d . T h e y a r e designed t o e l i c i t rather than to s t a t e specific i nf o rm at i o n. As with declaratives, there are often t wo o r more

d i f f e r e n t r e a l i z a t i o n s of t h e contour d e p e n d i n g o n whether t h e r e s u l t of t h e a c t i o n o r t h e a g e n t of t h e a c t i o n i s i n f o c u s :

a . What does Max lw ITE? focus o n result/product)

41

a ’ . What does

MAX | w r i t e ? (focus o n agent)

S u c h r i s i n g - f a l l i n g intonation surprises some n o n n a t i v e speakers, who assume t h a t a l l questions — rega rdless of type — should be s p o k e n with r i s i n g i n t o n a t i o n . H ow ev er , w h e n wh-questions a r e s p o k e n with r i s i n g intonation, t h e prosody i s m a r k e d and s i g n a l s “ T d i d n ’ t hear ever ything y o u s a i d ; c l a r i f y o r rep eat what comes a f t e r t h e constituent I have e m p h a s i z e d ” : b. What d o es Max|WRITE?

(problem w o rd ( s ) : after “write’’)

b ’ . What does MAX do? (problem word(s): a f t e r “ M a x ” ) H e r e ( b ) m e a n s “ T e l l me more clearly exactly what Max writes” while ( b ' ) means “ T e l l m e a g a i n more c l e a r l y what Max i n p a r t i c u l a r does.” U s i n g t h i s m a r k e d prosody f o r

 

42

Language

K n owl e dg e

t h e mor e

r o u t i n e e l i c i t a t i o n of information highly inappropriate. 5.

t h a t i s signaled ab ove i n ( a ) o r ( a ' ) would be

QUESTION TAGS

Question t a g s follow d e c l a r a t i v e s . The declaratives themselves have r i s i n g - f a l l i n g i n t o n a t i o n , and s o do t h e question t a g s w h en they a r e used i n what B r o w n (1981) h a s described a s t h e i r two most fr e qu e n t f u n c t i o n s , i . e . , seeking c onfir mation a s i n ( a ) o r m a k i n g a point rhetorically a s in ( b ) :

a . I t ’ s a n i c e BY. S p ' t i t ? b . P e o p l e a r e worried about t h e C O N

RE}'t hey?

Although i n most other l a n g u a g e s question t a g s t e n d t o r i s e , i n English question t a g s have r i s i n g intonation only o n those occasions w h e n they a r e used m u c h l i k e u n m a r k e d yes/no questions: t o e l i c i t a “yes” o r “no” answer from t h e addressee, t o challenge t h e addressee’s b e c a u s e either the s p e a k e r i s u n s u r e o f the addressee’s claim o r t h e speaker simply doesn’t k n o w t h e answer: i nf o rm at i o n,

o r t o s e e k further

clarification

c . The h o m e - t e a m won, i d n / t they? d . Y o u d i d n ’ t f i n i s h the|CANdy, didfyou?

Note t h a t i n ex amp l es ( c ) and ( d ) t h e statement p r e c e d i n g t h e t a g tends n o t t o f a l l a s completely a s i t does i n ( a ) a n d ( b ) bec ause i t a n t i c i p a t e s t h e r e a l question signalled by t h e r i s e i n t h e t a g ’ s intonation.4

The r i s i n g - f a l l i n g p a t t e r n i l l u s t r a t e d i n ( a ) and ( b ) i s d e f i n i t e l y t h e more frequent contour f o r question t a g s i n English bec ause t a g s a r e used most fr e qu e n tly t o seek c o n f i r mation o r t o m a k e a p o i n t . This i s a p r obl em f o r n o n n a t i v e speakers s i n c e m a n y of them speak native l a n g u a g e s where a l l question t a g s have r i s i n g intonation regardless of d i s course f u n c t i o n . S u c h students must l e a r n t h a t i n English t h e speaker has a choice b e t w e e n using a t a g t o c onfir m a n assumption (using t h e r i s i n g - f a l l i n g p a t t e r n ) o r t o ask a n informal type of yes/no question (using r i s i n g i n t o n a t i o n ) .

6 . ALTERNATIVE

QUESTIONS

T r u e a l t e r n a t i v e questions generally show a i s e o n t h e f i r s t p a r t , a pause, and then a i s e f a l l o n t h e second p a r t :

a . Wo ul d y o u like|JUICE orfCOFfee? ragmatically from yes/no questions h a v i n g T h ey d i f f e r semantically, s y n t a c t i c a l l y , and p ragmatically o b j e c t s c onjoined b y or. These have r i s i n g intonation and do n o t f o r c e a c h o i c e : b . Wo ul d

y o u like|JUIC E o r C O F f e e ?

H e r e the t r u e , c l o s e d - c h o i c e alternative q u e s t i o n (a) means “make a c hoi c e a n d t e l l me whether y o u w ant juice o r whether y o u w ant c o f f e e . These a r e t h e two a l t e r n a t i v e s a v a i l a b l e . ” I t has a more f u l l y e x p a n d e d counterpart ( i . e . , Wo ul d y o u l i k e j u i c e , o r w oul d you l i k e c o f f e e ? ) . Many n o n n a t i v e speakers answer questions l i k e ( a ) with a “yes” o r “no,” which i s n o t appropriate and i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e addressee h a s n o t understood t h e m e a n i n g of t h e speaker’s intonation (and has n o t r e a l i z e d t h a t only one of t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s

 

P h o no l o gy

should be s e l e c t e d ) . E v e n a l t e r n a t i v e questions t h a t focus o n t h e affirmative o r n e g a tiv e value of a proposition ( e . g . , Ar e you c o m i n g o r n o t ? ) do n o t t y p i c a l l y e l i c i t “yes” o r “no” responses from n a t i v e speakers, who t e n d t o respond with a shortened o r c o m p l e t e response:

TAM. / ' m | C O M i n g .

OR

EmNOT./ i'm O T \ c o m i n g .

S e n t e n c e ( b ) o n p a g e 42, i n c o n t r a s t t o ( a ) , m e a n s more o r l e s s “ W o u ld y o u l i k e something t o drink? ( I n c i d e n t a l l y , I c a n o f f e r y o u jui ce o r c o f f e e . ) ” Such a question i s n o t a t r u e a l t e r n a t i v e question (however, i t i s sometimes c a l l e d a n open-choice question): There i s n o e x p a n d e d question form, a n d t h e addressee t y p i c a l l y answers with a “yes” o r “no” and then e x p a n d s t h e response a s appropriate: Yes, thanks. Some c o f f e e would be nice.

No, t ha n k you. (I ’m not t h i r s t y . )

n o n n a t i v e speakers m a k e intonation e r r o r s with t r u e a l t e r n a t i v e questions, sometimes a familiar context helps t h e l i s t e n e r disambiguate. This h a p p e n e d t o one of t h e authors w h e n a n o n n a t i v e - E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g waitress offered t h e p e o p l e a t her t a b l e t h r e e choices f o r s a l a d dressing with r i s i n g i n t o n a t i o n : When

Ranch, French, o r ItaliAN? ( a l s o incorrect s y l l a b i f i c a t i o n and w o r d s t r e s s ) I n t h i s context a native-English-speaking

waitress w oul d normally s a y :

When p e o p l e a r e c onver sing, t h e context i s n o t always t h i s e x p l i c i t , and i n instances where i t i s not, i n c o r r e c t prosody often co nt ri b ut es

t h e native-English-speaking

t o miscommunication.

In t h i s interaction, i f

l i s t e n e r s had taken t h e n o n n a t i v e - s p e a k i n g waitress l i t e r a l l y ,

43

they might have s a i d “yes” a n d e x p e c t e d t o get a t r a y with a l l t h r e e dressings. Since t h e native speakers c o m p e n s a t e d f o r t h e inappropriate i n t o n a t i o n , they a l l chose one of t h e t h r e e options. a n d intonation, we c o u l d also discuss common r e d u c t i o n s in c o n n e c t e d speech. We r e f e r t h e reader t o t h e s e c t i o n on teaching t h e c o m p r e h e n s io n of reduced speech i n C hapter 6 (Listening). The infor mation pr esented t h e r e could a l s o be Along

with

stress

used t o teach pr onunc iation.

APPLYING

KNOWLEDGE

OF SHORT

EXCHANGES TO LONGER SAMPLES

Although we believe t h a t l e a r n e r s n e e d t o d e v e l o p a sense of t a r g e t l a n g u a g e prosody from t h e very b e g i n n i n g l e v e l s (and we a l s o f e e l t h e b e s t w a y t o d o t h i s i s with s h o r t , w ell-c ontextualized e x c h a n g e s such a s those i l l u s t r a t e d above), teachers must a l s o pr ovide l e a r n e r s with opportunities t o a p p l y t h e s e p a t t e r n s over longer s t r e t c h e s of discourse t h a t resemble sustained authentic i n t e r a c t i o n . O n e resource t h a t we have used successfully f o r t h i s pur pose i s excerpts from m o d e r n drama. Consider, f o r example, t h e following passage from T e n n e s e e Williams’ p l a y , The Glass M e n a g e r i e , which incorporates most of t h e p a t t e r n s we have presented. (Amanda i s t h e mother of Tom and Laura; L a u r a i s shy and so mew hat physically h a n d i c a p p e d ) :

 

44

Language

K n owl e dg e

Amanda:

Tom:

You m e a n you have asked some n i c e y o u n g m a n t o c ome over? Yep. I ’ v e asked him t o d i n n e r .

IY o ui d r e a l l y d i d ? Amanda: You d i d , and d i d he — accept? Tom: He d i d Amanda: Tom:

Amanda:

Tom: Amanda:

Tom: Amanda:

Tom: Amanda:

Tom: Amanda:

Tom: Amanda:

Tom: Amanda: Tom:

Amanda:

Tom: Amanda:

Well, well — well

That’s — lovely

I hought you would be pleased. I t ’ s d e f i n i t e , then? Very d e f i n i t e . Soon? Very s o o n . For heaven’s s a k e , s t o p putting o n and t e l l me some t h i n g s , will you? W h a t things do you w ant me t o tell y o u ? Naturally, | would l i k e t o k n o w w h e n h e ’ s coming. He’s c o m i n g tomorrow.

Tomorrow? Yep. T o m o r r o w . But, Tom Yes, Mother?

Tomorrow gives me n o t i m e . T i me f o r what? Preparations

For practicing t h e o r a l interpretation of such a c r i p t , l e a r n e r s p e r f o r m b e s t w h e n they c a n l i s t e n a t w i l l t o a recording of professional a c t o r s r eading t h e i n t e r a c t i o n . Befor e they

d o t h i s , they should u s e t h e i r k n o w l e d g e

of s h o r t e x c h a n g e s

and sentence s t r u c t u r e t o

predict (and subsequently c onfir m o r r e v i s e ) t h e s t r e s s a n d intonation t h a t each utterance has i n such a n exchange. Learners c a n then practice i n gr oups of t h r e e : s o m e o n e t o read Amanda, someone t o r e a d Tom, a n d someone t o “ c o a c h ” the readers. The instructor c i r c u l a t e s t o give feedb ack and s e r v e a s a n e x t r a d r a m a coach. T h e t h r e e r o l e s should a l t e r n a t e regularly s o t h a t each gr oup member c a n practice each r o l e . When l e a r n e r s can give c o n v i n c i n g readings of well-selected dramatic excerpts l i k e t h i s o n e , they a r e well o n t h e w a y t o i m p r o v i n g t h e i r c o n t r o l of prosody. Despite o u r success with using such play-r eading a c t i v i t i e s i n t h e classroom, we k n o w t h a t some l a n g u a g e teaching professionals claim t h a t using excerpts from contemporary plays i s n o t r e a l l y “authentic” l a n g u a g e p r a c t i c e . A n a l t e r n a t i v e s t r a t e g y w oul d be t o record n a t i v e speakers c o n v e r s i n g and then transcribe t h e c onver sation — again m a k i n g t h e recording and t h e t r a n s c r i p t available t o t h e l e a r n e r s s o t h a t a p e d a g o g i c a l s t r a t e g y s i m i l a r t o t h e above one c a n be u s e d . I t would, however, be impor tant t o s e l e c t a n excerpt t h a t allow ed f o r practice of m a n y d i f f e r e n t s t r e s s and intonation patterns occurring with a v a r i e t y of sentence t y p e s . Another u s e f u l a c t i v i t y i s t o have a d v a n c e d l e a r n e r s record a c o n v e r s a t i o n (or a TV o r radio c o n v e r s a t i o n ) a n d then transcribe i t f o c u s i n g on s t r e s s , intonation, a n d r e d u c e d speech. natural

TEACHING YOUNGER LEARNERS

be especially c hallenging t o work o n p r o n u n c i a t i o n with y o u n g e r l e a r n e r s . O n e u s e f u l tec hnique i s t o u s e f i n g e r o r hand puppets t o present n a t u r a l i s t i c e x c h a n g e s t h a t focus o n pronunciation. H er e i s a n e x a m p l e of a dialog t h a t could be presented using two puppets s p e a k i n g i n t u r n :

It c a n

 

P h o no l o gy

Pl: P2 :

H i How ARE y o u ? F i n e . How a r e YOU?

P1: P2 : Pi: P2 :

D o y o u have rollerskates?

Yeah, s u r e ( D o you) w ant t o g o skating outside? Yes. Let’s get our skates

I n t h i s b r i e f exchange,

l e a r n e r s f i r s t hear t h e dialog and watch t h e puppets s e v e r a l t i m e s . T h en by voicing f o r t h e puppets, they practice t h e t y p i c a l s t r e s s and intonation f o r t h e “how a r e y o u ” s e q u e n c e and a l s o t h e r i s i n g intonation f o r yes/no questions i n c o n t r a s t t o t h e r i s i n g - f a l l i n g intonation of t h e statements and exclamations Another popular a c t i v i t y with y o u n g e r l e a r n e r s i s t o u s e C a r o l y n Graham’s (1978) ja zz chants o r o t h e r r e p e t i t i v e rhythm sequences t h a t a r e a d a p t e d t o help t h e l e a r n e r s practice e x c h a n g i n g relevant information while practicing word and utterance s t r e s s :

What’s your n a m e and how o l d a r e ‘What’s your n a m e and how o l d a r e My n a m e i s S a m and I’m eight My n a m e i s Sam and I’m eight

you? you? years o l d . years o l d .

T eac her s c a n g e t l e a r n e r s t o clap o u t t h e rhythm a s they practice such exc hanges.

PROSODY AND

PUNCTUATION

I n c e r t a i n c a s e s , t h e p u n c t u a t i o n f o u n d i n written English r e f l e c t s t h e intonation of spoken

45

English. For example, a period (or f u l l s t o p ) a t t h e e n d of a w r i t t e n signals r i s i n g - f a l l i n g intonation i n t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g s p o k e n u t t e r a n c e :

Writing

Ed is a tea c h er.

Spoken

[edizofi:ifor]

sentence

usually

At t h e e n d of a clause o r phrase, a comma o f t e n s i g n a l s l e v e l intonation o r a s l i g h t r i s e , follow ed by a ause, t o s i g n a l t h a t t h e speaker i s n o t yet a t t h e e n d of t h e utterance (hereafter we represent sound segments with c o n v e n t i o n a l spelling r a t h e r than p h o n e m i c notation f o r e a s e of reading). I n t h e follow ing ex amp l es t h e comma represents a l i g h t r i s e from low t o medium p i t c h , follow ed by a pause a f t e r t h e w o r d p r e c e d i n g t h e c o m m a : a.

Direct address

Joan, we’re|WAITling f o r y o u . b.

Listing nonfinal members of a series

(Who.came?)

Likew is e, there a r e written c o n v e n t i o n s for d i s t i ngui s h i ng n o n r e s t r i c t i v e (commas) fr om r e s t r i c t i v e (no commas) r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s , a n d two quite d i f f e r e n t prosodic p a t t e r n s should a l s o be used; i n t h i s c a s e t h e commas s i g n a l pauses and a separate lower intonation contour f o r t h e nonrestrictive clause r a t h e r than a simple r i s e .

 

46

Language

Knowledge

My|NEIGHkor,

who s e l l s CARS, _ s very/TALKiative.

My neighbor who sellsICARS

However,

i s very T A L K l a t i v e .

(1971) points o u t , t h e r e a r e a l s o c a s e s where a comma occurs i n writing without signaling a n y r i s e o r pause i n t h e corresponding spoken u t t e r a n c e . Thus i n t h e following examples, t h e comma does n o t equal a r i s e and pause ( o r a separate a s Allen

c o n t o u r ). a.

Place-name d iv is io ns

Joe l i v e s i n Springfield, Ohio. b.

Time d iv is io ns

Joe was born i n August, 1951.

c.

Straightforward y e s / n o r e s p o n s e s ( D i d y o u see i t ? ) Yes, I did.

Str ong

emotion

is often

signaled

by a n e x c l a m a t i o n

point i n writing

and

more

extreme pitch changes i n speech:

What a b a l l g a m e

(WHAT

a / B AL AL L | g a m e )

Likewise, i n yes/no questions t h a t r e f l e c t n o s p e c i a l presuppositions, t h e question mar k ( ? ) m a y correspond t o r i s i n g i n t o n a t i o n : Is Ed a/TEAcher?

H ow ev er , t h e question m a r k a t t h e e n d of wh-question t h a t e l i c i t s infor mation most t y p i c a l l y corresponds t o r i s i n g - f a l l i n g intonation i n speech: What’s your NAME? (Rising intonation on t h i s question w oul d mean,

“ R e p e a t your n a m e ; I d i d n ’ t hear i t . ” )

F i n a l l y , a s we have s e e n , English question t a g s m a y e i t h e r r i s e o r r i s e a n d f a l l , d e p e n d i n g o n t h e i r m e a n i n g . H ow ev er , w h e n they a p p e a r i n w r i t t e n form, a question m a r k usually occurs a t t h e end of both types regardless of i n t o n a t i o n . Thus students who a r e much more comfortable with w r i t t e n English than with spoken English w i l l have t o be warned, a s Allen (1971) suggests, t h a t p u n c t u a t i o n i s n o t a completely r e l i a b l e g u i d e t o i n t o n a t i o n . I n s t e a d , t h e s t r u c t u r e , m e a n i n g , and purpose

of t h e e n t i r e t e x t and each utterance a r e what must guide t h e choice of a s t r e s s p a t t e r n , pauses — i f a n y — a n d a p i t c h contour w h en a r i t t e n t e x t o r s c r i p t i s read aloud — o r w hen a speaker u t t e r s h i s o w n words

 

P h o no l o gy

SUMMARY OF TEACHING APPLICATIONS

T h e main point i n t h i s chapter c o n c e r n i n g t h e i n t e r a c t i o n of p h onol ogy a n d o r a l discourse i s t h a t t h e p h onol ogy — s p e c i f i c a l l y t h e prosodic o r s u p r a s e g m e n t a l elements — provides u s with a l l t h e possible rhythm and intonation combinations. The message and context (discourse and s i t u a t i o n ) , o n t h e other hand, i s what deter mines t h e most appropriate choice of prosody i n a n y g i v e n s i t u a t e d u t t e r a n c e . The g e n e r a l p r a g m a t i c s t r a t e g y used by English speakers i s t o emp h as i z e new o r contrastive information and t o d e - e m p h a s i z e g i v e n o r nonc ontr over sial infor mation (what i s already k n o w n o r s h a r e d ) . English speake r s u t i l i z e prosody f o r information management and i n t e r a c t i o n a l m a n a g e m e n t . I n o t h e r words, i n a n y l a n g u a g e c l a s s where o r a l s k i l l s a r e t a u g h t , t h e i n t e r a c t i o n of discourse and prosody must be highlighted and taught s i n c e contextually appropriate c o n t r o l of rhythm and intonation a r e a n e s s e n t i a l p a r t of o r a l c o m m u n i c a t i v e c o m p e t e n c e . While during t h e p a s t two dec ades increased a t t e n t i o n has b een g i v e n recently t o describing t h e i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n intonation and discourse i n English ( e . g . , B r a z i l , e t a l . , 1980), some of t h e most accessible p r a c t i c a l advice t o d a t e comes i n a h o r t a r t i c l e by A l l e n (1971); b a se d o n a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f s t u d e n t needs, she recommends that t e a c h e r s do t h e f o l l o w i n g ( p . 73): 1.

d i r e c t s t u d e n t s ’ a t t e n t i o n t o a few major p a t t e r n s ( f o r example, t h e intonation contours discussed i n t h i s chapter)

47

2.

a l e r t students t o differences b e t w e e n t h e p u n c t u a t i o n system and t h e intonation

system 3.

distinguish b e t w e e n i s o l a t e d sentences, which g e n e r a lly c a n t a k e s e v e r a l intonation contours, a n d t h e intonation of o n g o i n g discourse, i n which c a s e only on e intonation c ontour i s generally appropriate

4.

teach students s k i l l s s o they c a n m a k e r easonable guesses about t h e speaker’s intention i n any g i v e n speech s i t u a t i o n , based o n t h e speaker’s s t r e s s and intonation

T o t h i s l i s t we would a d d (5) u si n g the n o t i o n o f management o f ( i ) new a n d old information a n d of ( i i ) i n t e r a c t i o n a l moves involving c o n t r a s t , correction/repair, and c o n t r a d i c t i o n — t o explain s h i f t i n g focus i n o n g o i n g discourse — a n d ( 6 ) a l e r t i n g students t o s i m i l a r i t i e s a n d differences i n intonation b e t w e e n t h e i r n a t i v e l a n g u a g e and t h e t a r g e t l a n g u a g e — especially i n c l a s s e s where t h e students share t h e same native l a n g u a g e s i n c e research shows t h a t t r a n s f e r of intonation patterns appears t o be a common p r obl em contributing t o m is c o m m u n ic a tio n .®

When practicing d i a l o g s , r eading discourse excerpts, and doing more r e a l i s t i c r o l e plays a n d speech a c t simulations, t h e teacher must be s u r e t o spend time o n practicing rhythm and intonation a n d allow ing t h e l e a r n e r s t h e oppor tunity both t o ( 1 ) observe ( i d e a l l y on videotape) a n d monitor t h e i r p e r f o r m a n c e with respect t o prosody and ( 2 ) t o receive feedback o n repeated p e r f o r m a n c e s i n order t o i mp r ov e t h e i r speech production.

CONCLUSION I n t h i s o v e r v i e w of p h o n o l o g y a g e m e n t functions of prosody t o c onver sation management t o c ontinue o r i s r e a d y t o yield

and discourse w e have emp h as i z ed t h e information mani n o r a l discourse. T her e a r e a l s o obvious functions r e l a t e d w h e r e b y a speaker l e t s t h e l i s t e n e r k n o w i f s / h e wishes t h e f l o o r . Much more d i f f i c u l t t o describe and t e a c h , how-

e v e r , a r e t h e s o c i a l functions of intonation, which m a y r e v e a l things such a s t h e speaker’s d e g r e e of i n t e r e s t o r involvement, t h e speaker’s reticence o r assertiveness, t h e relationship

 

48

Language

b etween section

K n owl e dg e

speaker a n d h e a r e r ,

we

have

only touched

t h e speaker’s expression of sarcasm, a n d s o f o r t h . I n t h i s on some o f the m o r e salient e m o t i o n s such a s surprise,

d i s b e l i e f , a n d impatienc e with r e s p e c t t o how they a r e signaled through prosody. W i l l we e v e r be a b l e t o f u l l y under stand a n d t e a c h English prosody’s more s u b t l e s o c i a l and

emotional functions? This i s u n c le a r s i n c e some researchers ( C r y s t a l , 1 9 6 9 ) f e e l t h a t generalizab le descriptions a r e n o t possible bec ause t h e r e i s t o o m u c h v a r i a t i o n i n t h e expression of such s u b t l e t i e s e v e n a m o n g individuals speaking t h e same d i a l e c t .

QUESTIONS FOR D I S C U S S I O N ls

What a r e some s o c i a l contexts o r discourse contexts i n which appropriate prosody i s especially c r u c i a l ?

Why i s prosody such a i f f i c u l t l a n g u a g e a r e a f o r n o n n a t i v e speakers t o master?

H a v e y o u e v e r obser ved o r e x p e r i e n c e d a i t u a t i o n where s o m e o n e has b een misunderstood bec ause of inappropriate prosody? I f s o , s h a r e your e x p e r i e n c e with o t h e r s i n your class/group.

What would be a g o o d p e d a g o g i c a l s e q u e n c e f o r introducing intermediate l e v e l

EFL students t o prosody ( i n a n y l a n g u a g e ) ?

SUGGESTED ACTIVITIES

‘ i e Find some dialog ( e . g . , some transcribed speech, a comic s t r i p , a n e xc e r pt from a play) t h a t lends i t s e l f t o practice of prosody. Show how y o u might exploit t h i s kind of material i n t h e classroom. P r e p a r e t o discuss t h e following e x a m p l e sentences ( o r word s e q u e n c e s ) and show how differences i n prosody could s i g n a l differences i n m e a n i n g i n each c a s e :

a.

Mary teaches engineering.

b.

J a n i s Polish, i s n ’ t he?

c.

W o u l d y o u l i k e t o g o s e e a mov i e o r g e t something t o e a t ?

d.

M a r y s a i d Cathy i s l a t e .

Make up your ow n e x a m p l e of a s t r i n g of words t h a t could s i g n a l two d i f f e r e n t m e a n i n g s because of prosodic d i f f e r e n c e s .

How would y o u t u t o r a student of English whose native l a n g u a g e has a very staccato syllable-timed rhythm t o b e t t e r a p p r o x i m a t e t h e stress-determined rhythm of English?

D e v e l o p a mini-lesson using t h e following excerpt t o teach prosody t o n o n n a t i v e speakers; y o u c a n assume they have read and discussed t h e s h o r t s t o r y “ H i l l s Like White Elephants” by Ernest H e m i n g w a y , from which t h e dialog i s t a k e n :

“ A n d we could have a l l t h i s , ” s h e s a i d . “ A n d we could have ever ything and e v e r y d a y we m a k e i t more impossible.” “What d i d y o u say?” “ I s a i d we could have everything.”

“ W e c a n have everything.” “No, we c a n ’ t . ” “ W e c a n have t h e whole world.” “No, we c a n ’ t . ” “We c a n go everywhere.”

 

P h o no l o gy

“No, we c a n ’ t . I t i s n ’ t o u r s a n y more.” “Tt’s o u r s . ”

“No, i t i s n ’ t . A n d once they t a k e i t away, y o u never g e t i t back.” “But they haven’t taken i t away.” “We'll wait and s e e . ” “Come back i n t h e shade,” he s a i d . “ Y o u mustn’t f e e l t h a t w ay.” “ I d o n ’ t f e e l a n y way,” t h e g i r l s a i d . “ I j u s t k n o w t h i n g s . ” “ I don’t want y o u t o do anything t h a t you don’t want t o do—” “Nor t h a t i s n ’ t g o o d f o r me,” she s a i d . “ I know. Could we have another beer?” you’ee got t o r e a l i z e — ” “ A l l r i g h t . But you’ “ T r e a l i z e , ” t h e g i r l s a i d . “Can’t we m a y b e s t o p talking?”

S u g g e s t i o n s for F u r t h e r Reading Allen, V . F . (1971). T e a c h i n g i n t o n a t i o n :

F r o m theory t o p r a c t i c e . TESOL Quarterly,

49

5 ( 1 ) , 73-81. Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton,

D., & Goodwin, J . (1996). In T e a c h i n g p r o n u n c i a t i o n : A

r e fe r e n c e for teachers o f English t o speaker s o f other l a n g u a g e s ( p p . 131-220). New York: C a m b r i d g e University P r e s s . Dal t o n, C., & Seidlhofer, B. (1994). P r o n u n c i a t i o n .

O x f o r d : Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press.

McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis a n d p h o n o lloo g y . I n Discourse analysis for l a n g u a g e teachers ( p p . 88-117). Cambr i dge: C a m b r i d g e University P r e s s .

W o n g , R. (1988). T e a c h i n g p r o n u n c i a t i o n : Focus o n rhythm and i n t o n a t i o n . Washington, D C: Center f o r A p p l i e d Linguistics.

Endnotes Pronunciation dictionaries of English, such a s Jones (1991) f o r B r i t i s h English a n d Kenyon a n d Knott (1953) f o r A m e r i c a n English, w i l l i n d i c a t e sound segments, syllable s t r u c t u r e , and s t r e s s p a t t e r n s f o r English words. 2 A s e x p l a i n e d i n t h e introduction, we u s e t h e Fries-Pike notation system f o r North American i n t o n a t i o n (see Pike, 1945), where a line superimposed o v e r the u t t e r a n c e i n d i c a t e s t h e intonation r i s e s a n d f a l l s a s i n t h e w idely used textbook by Prator

and Robinett (1985). We u s e s o l i d c a p i t a l l e t t e r s t o i n d i c a t e p r o m i n e n t s y l l a b l e s . 3 There a r e , however, c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n s such a s t h e n u m b e r c o n t r a s t s involving multiples of t e n versus t e e n s where a speaker might s t r e s s a n unstressed s y l l a b l e t o c o r r e c t o r c l a r i f y , e . g . , “ I s a i d fifTY n o t fifTEEN.” Perhaps a b e t t e r s t r a t e g y t o teach n o n n a t i v e speakers i s t o g e t them t o say par aphr ases l i k e , “ I s a i d f i v e - 0 n o t one-five.” 4 The whole d o m a i n o f question t a g s i s complicated by t h e f a c t t h a t grammar c a n be m a r k e d a s w e l l a s intonation ( T h e y won, d i d they? I c a n ’ t , c a n ’ t I ? ) . We don’t g o i n t o t h i s here because we a r e foc using on phonological resources i n t h i s chapter, n o t o n a l l possible g r a m m a t i c a l and phonological combinations. For f u r t h e r discussion of t h e g r a m m a r of t a g questions, s e e Cel c e- M ur c i a a n d L a r s e n - F r e e m a n (1999). 5 T o i m p l e m e n t t h e s e suggestions teachers must of course be f u l l y a w a r e of t h e phonological resources of t h e t a r g e t l a n g u a g e . 6 Recommendation ( 6 ) assumes t h a t well-qualified teachers w i l l be a w a r e of major L 1 / L 2 differences i f they d e a l with a l i n g u i s t i c a l l y homogeneous g r o u p of l e a r n e r s .

 

Grammar

“ A discourse-oriented ap p ro ach t o grammar w o ul d suggest not only a g r e a t e r emphasis

on contexts l a r g e r than the sentence, but a l s o a reassessment of p r i o r i t i e s i n terms of what i s taught about such t h i n g s a s w o rd order, a r t i c l e s , e l l i p s i s , tense a n d aspect, a n d som e of the other categories.” “ . . . grammar i s seen t o have a d i r e c t r o l e i n welding c l a u s e s , turns and sentences

i n t o discourse

...”

(McCarthy, 1991:62)

INTRODUCTION

I n t h e p a s t m a n y ESL/EFL teachers have v i e w e d “ g r a m m a r ” from a n exclusively sentencel e v e l perspective. We h op e t o demonstrate i n t h i s chapter t h a t such a perspective, w h e n applied pedagogically, has had negative c o n s e q u e n c e s f o r t h e w a y i n which t h e g r a m m a r

of sec ond and foreign l a n g u a g e s has been taught and t e s t e d . A sentence-b ased view of g r a m m a r i s a l s o inconsistent with t h e notion of c o m m u n i c a t i v e competence, which — a s

m e n t i o n e d i n Chapter 1 — includes a t l e a s t four interacting competencies: l i n g u i s t i c ( o r “ g r a m m a t i c a l ” ) c o m p e t e n c e , sociolinguistic ( o r pr agmatic ) c o m p e t e n c e , discourse c o m p e t e n c e , and s t r a t e g i c c o m p e t e n c e (Canale, 1983). I n t h i s chapter we w i l l be exploring i n some d e t a i l t h e n a t u r e of t h e d y n a m i c relationship b e t w e e n g r a m m a r a n d discourse a s p a r t of l a n g u a g e k n o w l e d g e , t h a t i s , t h e relationship b e t w e e n t h e mor p h ol ogi c a l and syntactic aspects of l a n g u a g e k n o w l e d g e and some of t h e pragmatic aspects of l a n g u a g e k n o w l e d g e and discourse processing, both t op - dow n and bottom-up ( S e e F igur e 4 . 1 o n p a g e 5 1 ) . We w i l l a l s o suggest some new directions f o r t h e teaching and t e s t i n g of g r a m m a r . W h e r e a s t h e interrelationships b e t w e e n p h onol ogy and discourse, which we discussed i n t h e p r e c e d i n g chapter, applied primarily t o s p o k e n language, t h e interrelationships b etween g r a m m a r and discourse apply t o w r i t t e n discourse a s m u c h a s — i f n o t more than — we

have

spoken discourse. Furthermore, i n terms of o u r discourse processing framework, which was introduced i n Chapter | and which w i l l be elaborated i n P a r t 3 , we w i l l s e e t h a t grammatical k n o w l e d g e i s s o m e w h a t more c r i t i c a l f o r discourse production, i . e . , f o r writing 50  

Grammar

T o p - d o w n Processing

51

Written and S p o k e n Discourse

Phonology

Vocabulary

B o t t o m - u p Processing

F i g u r e 4 . 1 Grammar a n d L a n g u a g e Knowledge

(Chapter 8) and speaking (Chapter 9 ) , t h a n i t i s f o r discourse r e c e p t i o n , i . e . , l i s t e n i n g (Chapter 6) and reading (Chapter 7 ) . This i s bec ause l i s t e n i n g and reading c omp r eh ens i on draw heavily a n d simultaneously o n multiple sources f o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n including m e a n i n g o f v o c a b u l a r y items, content, a n d f o rm al s ch emata; s i t u a t i o n a l / c o n t e x t u a l i nf o rm at i o n; a n d

k n o w l e d g e of t h e world. Grammar t h u s tends t o have a subordinate r o l e f o r t h e receptive s k i l l s and t o be used o n a n “ ‘ a s n e e d e d ” b a s i s f o r resolving problems of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n r a t h e r t h a n b eing d e p l o y e d a s a primary r e s o u r c e . The study of g r a m m a r ( o r m o r p h o l o g y and syntax) i n formal l i n g u i s t i c s t e n d s t o be r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e sentence l e v e l ; moreover, m a n y formal l i n g u i s t s have a preference f o r l o o k in g a t g r a m m a r o r syntax a s a n i n n a t e , autonomous, and context-free system. The problem

 

52

L a n g u a g e K n owl e dg e

few grammar choices m a d e by speakers t h a t a r e s t r i c t l y sentence l e v e l a n d completely context-free. I n English, f o r example, we propose t h e following l i s t of context-free, sentence-based r u l e s : with t h i s or w r i t e r s ¢ ¢ *

*

perspective

is

that

there

are

determiner-noun agreement u s e of gerunds a f t e r prepositions r e f l e x i v e pronominalization within t h e clause? s o m e — a n y suppletion i n t h e e n v i r o n m e n t of negation?

These a r e t h e l o c a l a g r e e m e n t r u l e s t h a t operate within sentences i n i s o l a t i o n a s w e l l a s within sentences t h a t occur i n c o n t e x t . G e n d e r and n u m b e r a g r e e m e n t r u l e s i n l a n g u a g e s such a s French, Spanish, and German a r e a l s o ex amp l es of such mechanical l o c a l operations. I n c o n t r a s t t o t h i s s m a l l s e t of l o c a l a g r e e m e n t r u l e s , t h e v a s t majority of g r a m m a t i c a l choices t h a t a speaker/writer makes d e p e n d o n c e r t a i n conditions being met i n terms of m e a n i n g , situational context, a n d / o r discourse c o n t e x t ( i . e . , co-text). S u c h grammatical choices a r e c l e a r l y n o t c o n t e x t - f r e e . A l l l a n g u a g e s have c o n t e x t - d e p e n d e n t options i n g r a m m a r t h a t enable speakers and w r i t e r s t o accomplish s p e c i f i c pr agmatic a n d discourseforming f u n c t i o n s . U s i n g English a s o u r e x a m p l e language, we pr opose t h a t a l l of t h e following choices involving r u l e s of English g r a m m a r a r e s e n s i t i v e — a t l e a s t i n p a r t — t o discourse a n d co nt ex t (the l i s t i s far f r o m ex h aus t i ve) : * ¢ * ¢ ¢ ¢ * ¢ ¢ *

u s e of passive versus a c t i v e voice i n d i r e c t object a l t e r n a t i o n pronominalization (across clauses) article/determiner choice position of adverbials (phrases, clauses) i n sentences u s e of e x i s t e n t i a l t h e r e versus i t s non-use tense-aspec t-modality choice r i g h t / l e f t dislocation of constituents choice of l o g i c a l c o n n e c t o r u s e versus non-use of i t c l e f t s a n d wh-clefts

Similar l i s t s of context-sensitive gr ammat i c al choices can be g e n e r a t e d f o r a n y language. I n a l l such c a s e s , t h e speaker/writer’s a b i l i t y t o p r o d u c e t h e r e qu ir e d form o r c o n s t r u c t i o n i n a grammatically accurate w ay i s b u t p a r t of a much l a r g e r process i n which t h e semantic, pragmatic, and discourse appropriateness of t h e construction i t s e l f i s a l s o j u d g e d with respect t o t h e context i n which i t i s u s e d . While phrase structure rules m a y account f o r a l l t h e possible grammatical forms t h a t t h e s e s t r u c t u r e s have, i t i s pr agmatic r u l e s o r r u l e s of u s e ) t h a t deter mine which form works b e s t i n which context and why. Another problem with t r a d i t i o n a l sentence-based approaches t o analyzing and teaching g r a m m a r i s t h a t they have over looked m a n y fr e qu e n t and important forms. For example, Bolinger (1977) pointed o u t t h a t utterances l i k e e x a m p l e s ( a ) and ( b ) a r e fundamentally d i f f e r e n t from each o t h e r i n t h a t ( a ) could c onc eivably be used t o i n i t i a t e a n e x c h a n g e a m o n g i n t e r l o c u t o r s who were aw ar e t h a t a p a r t y had b een scheduled, whereas ( b ) could only be used n o n i n i t i a l l y by one of t h e i n t e r l o c u t o r s and t h e n only i f t h e r e i s p r i o r discourse e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t one o r more s p e c i f i c individuals had c ome t o t h e p a r t y .

a.

Did a n y o n e c o m e t o t h e party?

b.

Did a n y o n e e l s e c o m e t o t h e party?

Words such a s “ e l s e , ” which t y p i c a l l y require p r i o r discourse f o r t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , a r e

 

Grammar

g e n e r a lly ignored i n sentence-level grammars, which t r e a t t h e s t r u c t u r e of sentences l i k e e x a m p l e ( a ) b u t ignore those l i k e e x a m p l e ( b ) . Forms l i k e “ e l s e ” a r e , however, discussed i n functional o r discourse-based a p p r o a c h e s t o g r a m m a r such a s Halliday (1994) and Ha l l i da y a n d Hasan (1976, 1989), where interclausal c o h e s i v e t i e s ( i . e . , s e m a n t i c a n d syntactic t i e s t h a t c r o s s clause o r sentence boundaries) a r e i d e n t i f i e d and described.

53

TREATMENTS

OF GRAMMAR

IN DISCOURSE

Halliday and H a s a n (1976), who were a m o n g t h e f i r s t t o describe t h e grammatical and l e x i c a l r e l a t i o n s t h a t hold a c r o s s sentence o r clause boundaries, discuss f o u r types of cohesive t i e s i n English t h a t a r e r e l a t e d t o t h e grammar o f t e x t s , * a s previously m e n t i o n e d i n Chapter 1 . 1.

Ties of R e f e r e n c e

(pronouns, possessive forms, demonstratives, and t h e l i k e )

Pa u l bought a p e a r . He a t e i t .

Here “Paul” and “he” and a l s o “pear” and “ i t ” a r e coreferential ( i . e . , both forms i n each s e t r e f e r t o t h e same e n t i t y ) and form cohesive t i e s i n t h e t e x t . 2.

Ties o f S u b s t i t u t i o n ( e . g . , n o m i n a l

one(s), verbal do, clausal so)

A: Did Sally buy t h e blue ja c ke t? B:

No, she bought the red one.

Here “ o n e ” replaces “jacket,” and they form a t r u c t u r a l and lexical/semantic t i e and a r e c o c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a l ( i . e . , refer t o the s a m e class o f entities) but not coreferential.

3.

Ties of Ellipsis (or substitution by zero)

A:

Who wrote t h i s a r t i c l e ?

B:

Bill.

I n t h i s context

“Bill”

— standing alone without a predicate — functions e l l i p t i c a l l y t o

express t h e e n t i r e proposition, “ B i l l wrote t h e a r t i c l e . ” 4.

T i e s o f Co n ju n ctio n ? Christmas i s c o m i n g ; however, t h e w eather seems very un-Christmaslike.

H e r e t h e c onjunc tive adver b “ h ow ev er ” signals a t i e b e t w e e n t h e clause t h a t follows a n d t h e clause t h a t pr ec edes i t . I n t h i s c a s e i t m e a n s t h a t t h e two events/states a r e somehow i n c o n f l i c t o r s i g n a l a counter expectation — a t l e a s t i n t h e mi nd of t h e person who p r o d u c e d t h i s s h o r t piece of t e x t . L e t u s n o w consider how a l l four types of t i e s w oul d function simultaneously i n a piece of authentic o r a l discourse from a c onver sation b e t w e e n two y o u n g m e n attending university i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . Patr ic k:

John: Patr ic k: John: P atrick: John: P atrick:

Why w oul d I want t o b e a t u p Eddie? He’s one of t h e b e s t r o o m m a te s I ’ v e e v e r h a d . Oh, c o m p a r e d t o what — t o Dar r yl? Yeah, I’m s u r e he i s . No, c o m p a r e d t o a l l t h e o t h e r ones t o o . He’s one of t h e b e s t . What about C a r e y ? C a r e y was t h e b e s t , but I only had him f o r s i x weeks i n summer. Y o u d i d n ’ t have him long e n o u g h f o r him t o t u r n bad o n y o u . That’s t r u e , I g u e s s . (UCLA oral corpus, see e n d n o t e

11)

 

54

Language

K n owl e dg e

I n t h i s d i a l o g , t h e r e i s a cohesive r e f e r e n t i a l

“He.” I n John’s f i r s t t u r n , t h e r e f e r e n t i a l

first turn between

“Eddie” and and cohesive u s e of “he” r e f e r r i n g t o “Eddie” tie i n P a t r i c k ’ s

continues; e n c o d e d i n t u r n - f i n a l “ i s ” t h e r e i s a l s o e l l i p s i s of “one of t h e b e s t r o o m m a te s you’e e v e r had.” I n P a t r i c k ’ s sec ond t u r n , n o t only does t h e r e f e r e n t i a l and cohesive u s e of “he” p e r s i s t , b u t t h e phrase “ a l l t h e o t h e r ones t o o ” contains two r e f e r e n t i a l t i e s : “the” and “ o t h e r . ” P a t r i c k ’ s u s e of “ t h e ” suggests t h a t k n o w l e d g e of P a t r i c k ’ s p a s t r o o m m a te s i s information shared by John a n d P a t r i c k ; P a t r i c k ’ s u s e of “other” i s a s p e c i a l type of c o m p a r a t i v e reference t h a t forms a cohesive t i e with r e s p e c t t o “Dar r yl” ( o t h e r t h a n D a r r y l ) . The same phrase contains t h e nominal s u b s t i t u t e “ones,” which forms a cohesive t i e with “ r o o m m a te s ” and which makes i t possible f o r Patrick t o a v oid r e pe a tin g “roommates” h e r e . The u s e of “too” a t t h e end of t h e firs t clause would be c onsider ed a n a d d i t i v e cohesive c o n n e c t i v e b y m a n y analysts (paraphrasable with “ a l s o ” ’ ) . I n t h e same t u r n by P a t r i c k , we a l s o s e e e l l i p s i s i n t h e phrase “one of t h e b e s t , ” with omission of t h e n o u n “ r o o m m a te s ” a f t e r “ b e s t , ” t h u s using another device t o avoid r e p e t i t i o n . There a r e n o c ohe si v e t i e s in John’s s e c o n d turn, but Patrick’s third turn s t a r t s with “Carey was the b e s t , ” which again i s e l l i p t i c a l with cohesive omission of “ r o o m m a t e ” a f t e r “ b e s t . ” The c o n n e c t i v e “but” — c o m i n g b e t w e e n t h e two clauses i n t h i s t u r n by Patrick — expresses a cohesive t i e of c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n t h e c l a u s e s . I n t h e sec ond clause of t h i s t u r n “him” r e f e r s cohesively t o “Carey.” I n h i s t h i r d a n d f i n a l t u r n John a l s o u s e s “him” twice t o r e f e r cohes i v e l y t o “Carey.” P a t r i c k , i n h i s f i n a l t u r n , u s e s t h e r e f e r e n t i a l demonstrative “ t h a t ” t o r e f e r back cohesively t o t h e e n t i r e p r e c e d i n g sentence u t t e r e d by John, a practice sometimes r e f e r r e d t o a s “text r e f e r e n c e . ” Thus, while t h i s t e x t c o n t a i n e d a t least o n e example of each of t h e g r a m m a t i c a l cohesive devices described by Halliday and H as an ( 1 9 7 6 ) ,

t h e r e w er e m a n y more ex amp l es of reference (personal, c ompar ative, and demonstrative) t h a n t h e r e were of substitution o r conjunction. Several tokens of e l l i p s i s a l s o oc c ur r ed a n d were i n f a c t expected, given t h a t t h e e xc e r pt a n a l y z e d comes from a n informal c onver sation b e t w e e n two p e e r s . A l l l a n g u a g e s m a k e u s e of cohesive t i e s : The w ay i n which and t h e e x t e n t t o which a p a r t i c u l a r type of t i e i s preferred o r used, however, i s l a n g u a g e s p e c i f i c . For e x a m p l e , using contrastive analysis a s well a s m a k i n g u s e of p a r a l l e l w r i t t e n t e x t s i n English and Chinese, Wu (1982) shows t h a t both l a n g u a g e s have equally l a r g e inventories of l o g i c a l c onnec tor s o r conjunctives; however, i n w r i t t e n discourse English mak es significantly more frequent u s e of i t s stock of c o n j u n c t i o n - m a r k i n g words a n d phrases than does

Chinese. Also, Meepoe ( 1 9 9 7 ) r e p o r t s t h a t i n p a r a l l e l conversational data collected f o r English and Thai, Thai o f t e n prefers l e x i c a l r e p e t i t i o n ( i . e . , l e x i c a l cohesion) i n contexts where English prefers using e l l i p s i s o r r e f e r e n t i a l forms t o express such cohesive t i e s . The t y p o l o g y of cohesive devices was e x t e n d e d i n Halliday and H a s a n (1989) t o include other g r a m m a t i c a l phenomena s e n s i t i v e t o discourse l e v e l p a t t e r n i n g such a s structural parallelism, t h eme- r h eme development, and a d j a c e n c y pairs ( e . g . , a n i n v i t a t i o n followed by a n acceptance), discourse relationships t h a t n o t only English but other languages a l s o e x h i b i t .

PERSPECTIVES

IN ANALYZING

GRAMMAR AND

DISCOURSE

I n investigating t h e relationship b e t w e e n g r a m m a r a macropragmatic a p p r o a c h o r a m i c r o a n a l y t i c

a n d discourse, one can t a k e e i t h e r a p p r o a c h (both a r e necessary a n d r e l a t e t o each o t h e r ) . I n a m a c r o p r a g m a t i c a p p r o a c h ( e . g . , Levinson, 1983; Stubbs, 1983), one s t a r t s with a definable speech event o r a w r i t t e n o r o r a l genre such a s narration o r a r g u m e n t a t i o n and u s e s a relevant corpus t o characterize t h e o v e r a l l mac r ostr uc tur e i n terms of s t e p s , moves, o r episodes and t h e n r e l a t e s f e a t u r e s of t h e mac r ostr uc tur e t o microstructure t e x t u a l elements such a s reference conventions, t e n s e and aspect p a t t e r n s ,  

Grammar

55

u s e of a c t i v e versus passive v o i c e , a n d s o f o r t h . This i s t h e discourse a n a l y t i c a p p r o a c h t h a t one c a n most r e a d i l y r e l a t e t o t op - dow n l a n g u a g e processing. I n a mic r oanalytic a p p r o a c h ( e . g . , H a i m a n and T h o m p s o n , 1989; S c h i f f r i n , 1987) one begins with forms o r constructions of i n t e r e s t such a s tense-aspect forms o r discourse

markers and, based o n analysis of a corpus, pr oc eeds t o show what t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n and discourse functions of t h e t a r g e t forms a r e . Most functional g r a m m a r ia n s follow some version of t h e mic r oanalytic a p p r o a c h and have u n c o v e r e d much u s e f u l information t h a t contributes t o o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e i n t e r a c t i o n of g r a m m a r and discourse. This a p p r o a c h c a n be r e l a t e d most r e a d i l y t o bottom-up l a n g u a g e processing. Many sentence-level g r a m m a t i c a l r u l e s t h a t have b een as s umed t o be “context-free” c a n i n f a c t be s t a t e d more a c c u r a te ly i f researchers t a k e i n t o account authentic discourse a n d c o m m u n i c a t i v e contexts. For example, p e d a g o g i c a l g r a m m a r s t y p i c a l l y present and teach subject-verb a g r e e m e n t i n English a s a sentence-level r u l e ; however, Reid (1991) has a r g u e d c o m p e l l i n g l y against t h i s p o s i t i o n , and we t h u s d i d n o t include t h i s r u l e i n o u r l i s t of context-free r u l e s i n t h e introduction t o t h i s c h a p t e r . Especially i n t h e c a s e of c o l l e c t i v e n o u n s u b j e c t s , subject-verb a g r e e m e n t i n English c a n o f t e n be f l e x i b l e d e p e n d i n g o n t h e perspective of t h e speaker/writer, i . e . , t h e speaker o r w r i t e r has a choice (CelceMurcia a n d Larsen-Freeman, 1999).

a.

The g a n g was plotting a takeover.

b.

T h e g a n g w er e p l o t t i n g a takeover.

I f t h e speaker/writer views t h e g a n g a s a n i t , then t h e singular verb form i n ( a ) i s s e l e c t e d . H ow ev er , i f t h e speaker views t h e g a n g a s s e v e r a l i n d i v i d u a l s , t h e n t h e p l u r a l verb form

i n ( b ) may w e l l o c c u r . ® Similarly, L a g u n o f f (1992, 1997) e x a m i n e s c a s e s l i k e t h e following where they (or some form of t h e y : them, themselves, t h e i r ) i s used within t h e sentence a s a p r o n o u n r e f e r ring bac k t o a g r a m m a t i c a l l y singular form where prescriptive g r a m m a r would require a s i n g u l a r pronoun ( i . e . , he, him, himself, h i s ) .

E v e r y b o d y i s r e a d y now, a r e n ’ t they? Ne i t he r F r e d nor Harry h ad t o work l at e, did t h ey?

Someone has deliberately m a d e themselves homeless. Anyone r u n n i n g a business should e m p l o y their spouse. e s

Lagunoff’s e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e per vasiveness a n d naturalness of using they t o r e f e r t o singular antecedents i s , f i r s t of a l l , t h a t some subject nouns a r e g r a m m a t i c a l l y singular yet notionally p l u r a l , where t h e inherently p l u r a l sense e n c o u r a g e s t h e u s e of they a s a n anaphor ic p r o n o u n a s i n ( 1 ) a n d ( 2 ) . Secondly, other subject nouns a r e grammatically singular yet nonspecific and v a g u e i n t h e i r reference a s i n ( 3 ) and ( 4 ) , a n d t h i s a l s o encourages t h e anaphoric u s e of they-related forms.’ H alliday and H as an (1976, 1989) have provided u s with c o m p r e h e n s i v e w o r k i n g descriptions of reference, s u b s t i t u t i o n / e l l i p s i s , and c onjunc tion using English a s t h e l a n g u a g e of i l l u s t r a t i o n . These a r e a l l discourse-sensitive a r e a s of g r a m m a r which a r e commonly referred t o u n d e r t h e r u b r i c of “c ohesion” a n d f o r which we have provided examples. In t h e next p a r t of t h i s chapter we discuss a n d e x e m p l i f y t h r e e other a r e a s representing some g r a m m a t i c a l r u l e s and constructions t h a t we n o w u n d e r s t a n d much b e t t e r b ecause of discourse-based research: 1.

3.

W or d- or der choices Tense, a s p e c t , a n d modality M a r k e d constructions ( i . e . , constructions t h a t do n o t follow t h e normal subject-verb-object p a t t e r n )

 

56

Language

K n owl e dg e

WorD-ORDER

CHOICES

Thompson (1978) reminds u s t h a t some l a n g u a g e s ( e . g . , Chinese, Czech, L a t i n ) have a highly f l e x i b l e word o r d e r ; f o r such l a n g u a g e s word-order differences have a pragmatic b a s i s . Conversely, t h e r e a r e l a n g u a g e s with a a i r l y r i g i d o r f i x e d word order l i k e English o r French, and i n such l a n g u a g e s we s a y t h a t word order i s syntactically determined. However, e v e n i n a l a n g u a g e l i k e English where word order i s q u i t e predictable s y n t a c t i c a l l y , t h e r e a r e m a n y word-order v a r i a t i o n s t h a t a r e pr agmatic ally motivated and d e p e n d o n context f o r t h e i r explanation and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . I n t h i s s e c t i o n we s h a l l f i r s t discuss d a t i v e a l t e r n a t i o n i n English sentences with i n d i r e c t objects and t h e n discuss verb p a r t i c l e movement i n English sentences with separable

phrasal v e r b s . a n d writers.8

Other l a n g u a g e s

also offer similar

local

word-order choices t o speakers

DATIVE ALTERNATION

I n a sentence-level a p p r o a c h t o g r a m m a r we l e a r n t h a t t h e r e a r e o f t e n two equivalent ways of expressing ( i n a c t i v e voice) a proposition with a verb of t r a n s f e r l i k e give t h a t t a k e s t h r e e

under lying a r g u m e n t s o r p a r t i c i p a n t s ( a n a g e n t , a r e c i p i e n t , and what i s b eing t r a n s f e r r e d ) : 1.

Sid g a v e t h e c a r t o J i m .

2.

Sid gave Jim t h e c a r .

a p p r o a c h t o g r a m m a r ex amp l es ( 1 ) a n d ( 2 ) a r e v i e w e d a s n o n e q u i v a l e n t bec ause they occur i n d i f f e r e n t discourse c o n t e x t s . I n other words, i f Gladys ( S i d ’ s wife and Jim’s mother) comes home and s a y s , “Where’s Jim?,” Sid can answer, “ I g a v e him t h e c a r (and h e ’ s g o n e f o r t h e d a y ) . ” ’ but n o t “ T g a v e t h e c a r t o Jim.” H ow ev er , i f Gladys comes h o m e a n d s a y s t o S i d , “ I don’t s e e t h e c a r . W h e r e i s i t ? , ” Sid c a n respond, “ I g a v e t h e c a r / i t t o Jim” but he i s unlikely t o s a y , “ I gave Jim t h e c a r ” unless he gives e x t r a phonological p r o m i n e n c e t o “Jim” r a t h e r than “ t h e c a r ” w h e n he s a y s t h e l a t t e r sentence, t h u s using prosody t o override syntax i n ways t h a t we discussed i n Chapter 3 . These preferences i n w or d order show u s t h a t discourse i s s e n s i t i v e t o t h e ordering of o l d and n e w information, and t h a t n e w information g e n e r a lly occurs c l o s e r t o t h e end of t h e c l a u s e . Thompson and Koide (1987) and Williams (1994), using d a t a from n a t u r a l language, have demonstrated t h a t with verbs allow ing f o r two objects and f o r f l e x i b l e word order m a n y i f n o t most instances of d a t i v e a l t e r n a t i o n a r e i n f a c t d e t e r m i n e d a t t h e discourse l e v e l . ? I n a pragmatic

WORD ORDER

o r discourse-sensitive

VARIATION WITH SEPARABLE PHRASAL VERBS

English l a n g u a g e g r a m m a r i a n s have long debated what d i f f e r e n c e , i f a n y , x i s t s b e t w e e n t h e two possible word orders i n constructions c o m p o s e d of separable phrasal verbs a n d lex ical ( r a t h e r t h a n pronominal) d i r e c t o b j e c t s . 1.

E d w a r d g a v e u p h i s reward.

2.

Edward gave h i s reward u p .

For sentence-level formalists t h e s e sentences a r e equivalent. Bolinger (1971) was a m o n g t h e f i r s t t o suggest t h a t such sentences were n o t equivalent s i n c e t h e d e g r e e of newness o r i m p o r t a n c e of t h e d i r e c t object played a p r o m i n e n t r o l e i n determining t h e word o r d e r . T h e w o r d i n g p a r a l l e l t o ( 1 ) w o u l d be preferred i n contexts where t h e d i r e c t object ( i . e . , t h e

 

Grammar

r ew ar d) was t r u l y n e w o r specially emp h as i z ed information; t h e word order i n ( 2 ) would be preferred where t h e d i r e c t object had a lr e a d y b een m e n t i o n e d b u t was n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y r e c e n t o r w e l l established a s o l d information t o j u s t i f y t h e u s e of t h e p r o n o u n ( a s i n E d w a r d g a v e i t u p ) . With u s e of t h e p r o n o u n both t h e word order and t h e pronominalizat i o n s i g n a l t h e givenness and t o p i c a l i t y of t h e d i r e c t o b j e c t . This suggests t h a t with s e p a r a b l e t r a n s i t i v e phrasal verbs we have a thr ee-w ay d i s t i n c t i o n r a t h e r t h a n a binary choice: 1.

E d w a r d g a v e u p h i s reward.

( n e w o r emp h as i z ed i n f o . / o b j . )

2.

Edward gave h i s reward up.

( n e i t h e r new no r o l d info. / ob j. )

3.

Edward gave it up.

(old info./obj.)

Thus i n t h e context of a question such a s “What d i d E d w a r d response i s ( 1 ) , o r more l i k e l y ( 1 ' ) : (1')

g iv e u p ? ” t h e preferred

He g a v e u p his r e w a r d .

I n t h e context of a n even more s p e c i f i c q u e r y such a s “ W h a t reward?” the p r e f e r r e d r e s p o n s e i s ( 3 ) , o r more likely ( 3 ' ) :

d i d Edward

d o with h i s

( 3 ' ) He g a v e i t u p .

This l e a v e s a s e n t e n c e like ( 2 ) , o r ( 2 ' ) , for co nt ex t s where “reward” has a somewhat less r e c e n t mention, e . g . , “The r ew ar d — t h e whole s i t u a t i o n — i t ’ s very embarrassing, i s n ’ t i t ? What d i d poor E d w a r d decide t o do?” ( 2 ' ) He

g a v e t h e / h i s reward u p .

C h e n (1986) was a m o n g validity

of Bolinger’s

t h e f i r s t t o u s e analysis of discourse t o demonstrate t h e observations by t e s t i n g them against a l a r g e corpus of spoken

English d a t a . Two t e x t segments from Newsweek (August 26, 1996) i l l u s t r a t e Bolinger’s r u l e - o f thumb i n a c t i o n : 1.

Until now, Dole has faced n o t j u s t a g e n d e r g a p b u t a g e n d e r chasm. C a n he woo bac k GOP women? ( p . 28)

2.

...He [FDR] was a e a l i s t who understood t h a t t h e a p p e a r a n c e of optimism was c r u c i a l f o r morale; R o n a l d R e a g a n understood t h a t , t o o , and t h e pur pose of t h i s year’s R e p u b l i c a n c o n v e n t i o n was t o rekindle t h a t flame (and snatch t h e party back from t h e pinched h at emonger s of Houston). ( p . 29)

F r o m a g r a m m a t i c a l perspective t h e w r i t e r of t h e f i r s t t e x t could have asked, “ C a n he woo GOP women b ack?” H ow ev er , t h i s word order w oul d h a v e de- emp h as i z ed t h e d i r e c t object “GOP w o m e n , ” and t h i s w r i t e r i s emp h as i z i ng “GOP w o m e n . ” Thus t h e f i n a l p o s i t i o n of t h e d i r e c t object “GOP women” i s rhetorically e f f e c t i v e i n t h i s c o n t e x t . The w r i t e r of t h e sec ond t e x t could have pu t i n t h e parentheses “(and snatch back t h e

p a r t y . . . ) . ” This w or ding, however, w oul d emp h as i z e “ t h e [Republic an] party” — which i s a lr e a d y w e l l established by the p r e c e d i n g m e n t i o n of t h e “ R e p u b l i c a n c o n v e n t i o n ” — r a t h e r than t h e a c t i o n of “snatching bac k” t h a t t h e w r i t e r wishes t o emphasize. By putting t h e phrasal verb p a r t i c l e “bac k” i n ver b-phr ase f i n a l p o s i t i o n , t h e w r i t e r so mew hat d e emphasizes " t h e party" a n d emphasizes t h e a c t i o n of snatching back.

57

 

58

Language

K n owl e dg e

TENSE, ASPECT, AND

MODALITY

As m e n t i o n e d i n C hapter 1 , coherence r e f e r s t o t h e v i d u a l sentences i n discourse r e l a t e t o each o t h e r a n d modality system a s a source of coherence i n p r o m i n e n t t o p i c i n applied l i n g u i s t i c s bec ause of like

Wolfson

(1 98 2 )

and

d i s co urs e

analysts

like

unity i n discourse through which i n d i l o g i c a l l y . The u s e of t h e t e n s e , a s p e c t , discourse h a s b e c o m e a n increasingly t h e p i o n e e r i n g work of sociolinguists Schiffrin

(1981),

who

examined

the

systematic u s e of t h e h i s t o r i c a l present t e n s e and i t s v a r i a t i o n with t h e simple p a s t t e n s e i n o r a l n a r r a t i v e s of n a t i v e English speakers. I n t h i s s e c t i o n we s h a l l discuss p a s t h a b i t u a l narrative discourse o r g a n i z e d a r o u n d the use o f u se d t o a n d wouldX’d) a n d future scenarios or ganized ar ound t h e u s e of be g o i n g t o a n d w i l l / ’ 1 l ) .

USED T O -WOULD(’D) D r a w i n g o n t h e work of Mann and Thompson (1988), Suh (1992) demonstrates with episodes such a s t h e following t h a t used t o and would a r e o f t e n e m p l o y e d i n p a s t habitual o r a l n a r r a t i v e s where used t o t y p i c a l l y i n i t i a t e s a r h e t o r i c a l frame, and would ( o r i t s contracted form ‘ d ) i s used t o elaborate t h e discourse, a s i n t h i s discourse p r o d u c e d b y a y o u n g C h i c a n o farm worker: The bad thing was they used t o laugh a t u s , t h e A n g l o k i d s . T h e y w o u l d laugh bec ause we’d bring t o r t i l l a s and f r i j o l e s t o l u n c h . T h e y would have t h e i r n i c e l i t t l e c o m p a c t lunch boxes with cold milk i n t h e i r thermos and they’d laugh a t u s because a l l we had was d r i e d t o r t i l l a s . Not only w o u l d t h e y l a u g h a t u s , b u t t h e k i d s would p i c k f i g h t s . 0 Suh proposed t h a t t h e semantically more s a l i e n t form tends t o occur f i r s t t o frame t h e d i s course (used t o ) , whereas t h e m o r e a m b ig u o u s and contigent forms occur n o n i n i t i a l l y . Suh found m a n y tokens l i k e t h e one above where t h e r e would a l s o be occasional u s e of t h e simple p a s t t e n s e by t h e speaker i n t h e e x t e n d e d elaboration t o i n t e r j e c t a n e v a lu a tion o r some b a c k g r o u n d information i n t o t h e discourse. On t h e b a s i s of t h e m a n y p a s t h a b i t u a l episodes she found t h a t c o n f o r m e d t o t h i s p a t t e r n , Suh posited t h e “framework-elaboration hypothesis” and p r o c e e d e d t o look f o r o t h e r discourse phenomena of a r e l a t e d n a t u r e . BE GOING TO - WILL(’LL)

Suh (1992) then a l s o f o u n d m a n y ex amp l es of episodes where English speakers narrated o r a l f u t u r e scenarios t h a t b e g a n with be g o i n g t o and w er e then subsequently elaborated with w i l l o r i t s contracted form ’ / / . The following o r a l ac c ount by a medical i n t e r n of t h e g a s t r i c r e s t r i c t i o n p r o c e d u r e f o r t h e morbidly obese i s one such e x a m p l e : They’re going t o g o i n and have t h e i r gut s l i t open, t h e i r e x p o s e d and have i t stapled o f f s o t h a t t h e r e w i l l be two p o u c h i n t h e stomach which w i l l hold about two ounc es a l i t t l e hole r i g h t i n t h e middle of t h a t p o u c h where food

g r o u n d u p w i l l slowly go through. In these

future

scenarios

the

stomach p o u - , a n upper of food, i t ’ s got w h en i t ’ s f i n a l l y

( f r o m   UCL  o r   l c o r p u s )  

simple present t e n s e

i s sometimes

used

alongside

will

t o add some

minor descriptive d e t a i l s within t h e elaboration phase of t h e episode. Thus with authentic ex amp l es l i k e t h e s e we s e e t h a t tense-aspec t-modality sequences play

 

Grammar

a n important r o l e i n creating coherence

i d e n t i f i e d by Suh (1992) and o t h e r s should discourse and appropriate follow-up a c t i v i t i e s .

MARKED

and t h a t tendencies o f t h e t y p e be presented t o l e a r n e r s using authentic

in oral na r r a t i ve s

CON CONST STR RUCTIONS

S o m e tim e s l a n g u a g e s develop s p e c i a l constructions t o a c c o m m o d a t e t h e flow of informat i o n i n discourse o r f o r s p e c i a l r h e t o r i c a l

c o n t e x t s . I n English s t r u c t u r e s l i k e w h - c l e f t s , i t - c l e f t s , and sentences b e g i n n i n g with e x i s t e n t i a l t h e r e a r e e x a m p l e s of such constructions. Most p e d a g o g i c a l treatments f o r l a n g u a g e l e a r n e r s a r e pr oblematic i n t h a t they t r e a t such constructions a t t h e sentence l e v e l only and never g r o u n d t h e i r i n s t r u c t i o n i n authentic discourse. I n t h e s e c t i o n below we s h a l l discuss wh-clefts and e x i s t e n t i a l t h e r e . effect in certain

WH-CLEFTS

Kim (1 992 ) did a n e x t e n s i v e analysis of the use of wh-clefts (also known a s p s eud o - cl ef t s )

i n English conversation. He c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e i r g e n e r a l o r o v e r a r c h i n g function i s t o mar k a isjunction by t h e speaker with respect t o t h e p r e c e d i n g discourse — a disjunction t h a t allows t h e speaker t o g o back t o some previous utterance and address i t . Within t h i s

general view of w h - c l e f t s , Kim distinguished those wh-clefts t h a t a r e informational and mar k t h e g i s t of t h e t a l k ( i . e . , t h a t r e s t a t e , sum u p , o r refocus t h e t o p i c ) from those t h a t a r e i n t e r a c t i o n a l and respond t o a p r o b l e m ( a c hallenge from t h e interlocutor o r a per c eived

misunderstanding/miscommunication). T h e f i r s t ty pe of wh-cleft o f t e n occurs w h e n a speaker begins t o c o n c l u d e a a l k o r l e c t u r e , e . g . , “What I ’ v e t r i e d t o share with y o u t h i s m o r n i n g i s t e n impor tant i d e a s t h a t have c h a n g e d t h e w a y I each . ” ( D a v i d N u n a n , Braztesol C onference, Goiania, B r a z i l , J u l y , 1996). The follow ing conversational excerpt i s a n e x a m p l e of t h e sec ond type of wh-cleft ( i . e . , a response t o a problem). : A n ’ I was w o n d e r i n g i f y o u ’ d l e t me u s e your gun. : My g u n ? Yeah.

What g u n ? Don’t y o u have a b eeb ee g u n ? Yeah.

Oh i t ’ s — : Oh I have a o t of guns. : Y o u do?

P e> D: Yeah. What e I m e a n t was WHICH gun. ( K im, 1992:64, f r o m t e l e p h o n e d a t a c o l l e c t e d

a n d transcribed by I r e n e D a d e n )

59

I n t h e l a s t l i n e of t h i s episode S p e a k e r B u s e s t h e wh-cleft t o r e p a i r t h e a m b ig u o u s “what g u n ” t h a t he had u t t e r e d s i x t u r n s back. When S p e a k e r B a i d “what gun,” t h i s phrase was misinterpreted by h i s interlocutor ( S p e a k e r A ) a s expr essing a hallenge ( i . e . , “ I don’t have a n y g u n s ” r a t h e r than expr essing t h e n e u t r a l information question t h a t S p e a k e r B had intended w h e n he asked t h e question. O n c e S p e a k e r B r e a l i z e d what t h e problem was, he repaired h i s e a r l i e r question using a wh-cleft a n d t h e deter miner which.

 

60

Language

Knowledge

EXISTENTIAL “THERE”

analysis of sentences w i t h e x i s t e n t i a l t h e r e subjects i n spoken discourse, Sasaki ( 1 9 9 1 ) addresses t h e r o l e t h a t t h i s construction plays with r e g a r d t o t o p i c continuity i n o r a l discourse. For example, i n sentences l i k e t h e following: In an

“T her e a r e some s p e c i a l ways t o c u t t h e c limbing r o s e s . ” Sasaki s p e c i f i c a l l y looked a t t h e discourse function of t h e l o g i c a l subjects ( e . g . , “some s p e c i a l ways”) and t h e postmodifying elements ( e . g . , “ t o c u t t h e climbing r o s e s ” ) . She was a b l e t o demonstrate t h a t sentences i n h e r s p o k e n corpus with i n i t i a l nonreferential t h e r e functioned i n t h e following discourse-sensitive ways: e

The l o g i c a l subjects tend t o express n e w information and t o p e r s i s t a s t h e t o p i c s of subsequent c l a u s e s .

¢

The l o g i c a l subjects tend t o be e n t a i l e d ( 1 . e . , they a r e r e l a t e d t o something previously m e n t i o n e d ) and do n o t normally begin episodes.

¢

The postmodifying elements t h a t follow and modify t h e l o g i c a l subject have high t o p i c c o n t i n u i t y , i . e . , t h e i r r e f e r e n t s have previously been mentioned.

K e e p i n g t h i s i n mind, l e t ’ s e x a m i n e t h e longer s e g m e n t i n which t h e above e x a m p l e u t t e r ance with t h e r e occurs a s p a r t of a r a d i o t a l k show (GL=“Garden L a d y ” and C=“Caller’). GL:

C:

GL:

C: GL:

Hi, y o u ’ r e on the a i r .

Hi, I have a very o l d kind of a vine type r o s e I think t h a t grows ( . ) i t ’ s a c t u a l l y my next door neighbor’s v a c a n t y a r d a n d uhm I don’t r e a l l y k no w ho w t o p r u n e t h a t t h i n g . I t seems l i k e a floribunda t y p e , uhhum

a n d I’m n o t r e a l l y s u r e where t o c u t or... Yeah, t h e r e a r e some s p e c i a l ways t o c u t t h e climb ing r o s e s . Basically

what y o u a r e g o i n g t o d o i s pick o u t t h r e e a n d y o u a r e g o i n g t o leave those a n d then bac k t h e s i d e branches t o about s i x i n c h e s . with a n i c e s c a f f o l d a n i c e b a s i c layout o n against a wall? Or j u s t kind of ramb ling? C:

GL:

o r four of t h e biggest what y o u want t o d o A n d t h a t w ay y o u ’ r e your r o s e against t h e

canes

is you c u t

ending wall. I s it

c o m i n g a r o u n d u p over t h e top of a f e n c e . Yeah, w e l l y o u c a n t r i m i t back a t w i l l i f i t ’ s getting o u t of control It’s

(UCLA oral c o r p u s — see e n d n o t e 11) I n t h i s episode t h e four o p e n i n g t u r n s e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e c a l l e r wants t o f i n d o u t how she should prune a climbing r o s e . When t h e G a r d e n L a d y u s e s t h e e x i s t e n t i a l t h e r e c l a u s e , she introduces t h e subtopic “some s p e c i a l ways ( t o c u t ) ” and then continues t o focus

o n t h e “special w ay s ” f o r most of the r e m a i n i n g dialog with t h i s c a l l e r . I n other words, one important discourse function of t h e e x i s t e n t i a l t h e r e construction i s t o introduce f o r sub sequent d e v e l o p m e n t a s p e c i f i c subtopic of something more g e n e r a l than has already been established, along with t h e assumption t h a t t h i s subtopic w i l l be f u r t h e r d e v e l o p e d i n subsequent discourse.

 

Grammar

PEDAGOGY AND ASSESSMENT

At t h e present time few would disagree with t h e proposal t h a t EFL/ESL l e a r n e r s must be m a d e a w a r e of and given opportunities t o i n t e r p r e t and p r a c t i c e t h e u s e of cohesive devices t h a t s i g n a l reference, s u b s t i t u t i o n , e l l i p s i s , and c onjunc tion i n English. T her e a r e a l s o e n c o u r a g i n g signs t h a t l e a d e r s i n t h e l a n g u a g e teaching profession a r e b e g i n n i n g t o a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t t h e teaching of g r a m m a r t o ESL/EFL l e a r n e r s should be c a r r i e d o u t i n

context with discourse o r t e x t pr oviding t h e appropriate p e d a g o g i c a l fr ame ( c f . McCarthy, 1991; Wi ddo w so n, 1990). I n o t h e r words, t h e r e i s g r o w i n g a g r e e m e n t t h a t teaching grammar exclusively a t t h e sentence l e v e l with dec ontextualized a n d unrelated sentences, which has long been t h e t r a d i t i o n a l w a y t o t e a c h g r a m m a r , i s n o t l i k e l y t o p r o d u c e a n y r e a l l e a r n i n g . Likewise, i f w e w ant t o t e s t a l e a r n e r ’ s proficiency l e v e l with r e s p e c t t o grammar, sentence-level, d i s c r e t e point t e s t items a r e n o t l i k e l y t o be a g o o d w a y t o measure t h e grammar a e a r n e r c a n a c t u a l l y u s e w h e n s / h e speaks o r w r i t e s , i . e . , new t e s t i n g formats must c o m p l e m e n t t h e changes now u n d e r w a y i n teaching p r a c t i c e . (See C hapter 1 1 o n assessment). The biggest problem, however, i s t h a t t h e r e a r e very few materials currently available t h a t show t h e teacher how t o teach grammar using discourse-based and c ontext-based a c t i v i t i e s a n d formats. I n t h i s section of t h e chapter we would l i k e t o m a k e some concrete suggestions t h a t classroom teachers c a n adapt and extend f o r t h e i r ow n purposes w h e n teaching gr ammar . TEACHING YOUNGER LEARNERS I t i s generally a c c e p t e d t h a t y o u n g e r l e a r n e r s d o n o t b e n e f i t from formal g r a m m a r i n s t r u c -

t i o n , yet some

we suggest example if ex p os ed t o c a n address

focus o n form c a n be h e l p f u l . T o focus o n form i n a painless manner , using m e a n i n g f u l ex c h anges t h a t highlight u s e f u l g r a m m a t i c a l forms. For t h e grammar objective i s yes/no questions (“C an y o u . . ? ” ” ) , students could be a s e r i e s of questions about themselves. After a n s w e r i n g t h e s e questions, they them t o p e e r s :

a.

Answer t h e follow ing about yourself: C a n you r i d e a bicycle? C a n you e a t t e n cookies? C a n you p h o n e t h e principal?

b.

Ask a r i e n d : C a n y o u r i d e a bicycle? C a n you e a t t e n cookies? ( m a k e up your o w n questions)

61

I f they c a n d o t h e a c t i v i t y i n a e l a t i v e l y e r r o r - f r e e manner , they have prob ab ly i n t e r n a l -

ized s ome gr ammar . In order t o m a k e s u r e t h a t y o u n g l e a r n e r s u s e l a n g u a g e i n m e a n i n g f u l w a y s we must remember t o c o m b in e f o r m a n d c o n t e x t . For e x a m p l e , students c a n t e l l about personal e x p e r i e n c e s i n order t o u s e verbs i n t h e p a s t t e n s e . Students c a n t a l k about t h e i r plans t o u s e f u t u r e verb forms and f u t u r e time expressions. TEACHING BEGINNERS (OF ALL AGES) I t i s most c hallenging

discourse-based teaching techniques with beginner s s i n c e t h e i r k n o w l e d g e of t h e t a r g e t l a n g u a g e i s s o l i m i t e d . T h e teacher o f t e n has t o teach vocabulary a n d s t r u c t u r e s i n preparation f o r t h e c o m p r e h e n s io n a n d generation of discourse. Certainly Asher’s (1977) T o t a l Physical R es p ons e technique, which requires t h e l e a r n e r t o to u s e

 

62

Language Knowledge l i s t e n a n d respond a c t i v e l y t o c o m m a n d s ,

c a n be used a t t h i s l e v e l t o present g r a m m a r and t o p r a c t i c e t h e c o m p r e h e n s io n of g r a m m a r a t t h e discourse l e v e l i f a s e r i e s of coherent r e l a t e d sentences i s used f o r l i s t e n i n g and responding. With j u s t a few a r t i c l e s of clothing, f o r example, t h e teacher c a n u s e t h e TPR tec hnique t o introduce and p r a c t i c e two i n t r a n s i t i v e phrasal verbs (stand u p , s i t dow n) a n d two separable t r a n s i t i v e phrasal verbs (put o n , t a k e o f f ) . This type of a c t i v i t y , given t h e continuity and flow of speech from t h e

t e a c h e r , prepares t h e l e a r n e r f o r t h e sub sequent c o m p r e h e n s i o n and pr oduc tion of r e l a t e d n a r r a t i v e discourse ( e . g . , The boy stood up and put o n h i s h a t ) .

I

I

Il

Stand up

Stand up

Stand u p

Come here P u t the hat on

Come h e r e P u t the coat on

Come here P u t the scarf on

T a k e i t off Return t o your desk

T a k e i t off

T a k e i t off

Retur n t o your desk

Retur n t o your desk

Sit down

S i t down

Sit down

Each scenario can be repeated s e v e r a l t i m e s , especially t h e f i r s t o n e . T h e teacher should help t h e f i r s t few students i f they have d i f f i c u l t y and should repeat each scenario with s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t students u n t i l t h e whole c l a s s i s a b l e t o follow t h e instructions e a s i l y . When t h i s happens, t h e teacher c a n introduce t h e next n e w s c e n a r i o . B e g i n n e r s would n o t yet be r e a d y t o p r o d u c e t h e separable phrasal verbs with variable w o r d order a n d with p r o n o m i n a l o b j e c t s , b u t a c t i v i t i e s l i k e t h e s e s e t t h e scene f o r l a t e r r e l a t e d pr oduc tion a c t i v i t i e s . Also, even though only one student c a r r i e s o u t t h e commands a t a n y g i v e n m o m e n t, t h e e n t ir i r e c l a s s i s g e n e r a lly very a t t e n t i v e and i s learning by l i s t e n i n g and observing. T o involve t h e e nt n t i r e c l a s s i n a l i s t e n i n g a c t i v i t y t h a t focuses o n gr ammar , CelceM u r c i a a n d H i l l e s (1988:44) suggest listen-and-color e x e r c i s e s . For example, each student would receive a picture of a boy and.a g i r l w e a r i n g a e e s h i r t and pants and w a l k i n g a dog. The teacher gives — a s m a n y times a s n e e d e d — a e t of c o n n e c t e d instructions t h a t requires t h e students t o distinguish t h e possessive p r o n o u n s h i s and her ( a s w e l l a s recognizing vocab ulary dealing with c o l o r s , a r t i c l e s of clothing, and body p a r t s ) . Co lo r her hair red, color his hair yellow, color his p a n t s b r o w n , color her pants g r e e n , and color h i s d o g b l a c k , and s o f o r t h .

When

moving

on

t o beginning-level

activities

t h a t include

pr oduc tion

of simple

discourse, i t i s very impor tant t o spend time e l i c i t i n g o r learning t h e vocabulary r e l a t e d t o a p a r t i c u l a r t o p i c o r t a s k s o t h a t t h e wordstore c a n be used t o practice s t r u c t u r e s and t o perform a c t i v i t i e s relevant t o t h e t o p i c . For example, i n a beginning-level ESL/EFL c l a s s each l e a r n e r c a n generate a n u c le a r family t r e e i n d i a g r a m form (following a model from t h e t e a c h e r , who presents f i r s t , t h u s building u p t h e l e a r n e r s ’ receptive v o c a b u l a r y and g r a m m a r ). T h e n by learning a few kinship terms ( i n singular and p l u r a l form), t h e f i r s t - p e r s o n singular possessive adjective m y , a n d t h e t h r e e present-tense forms of t h e c o p u l a be (am, i s , a r e ) , l e a r n e r s should be a b l e t o present t h e i r family t r e e s a n d introduce t h e i r f a m i l i e s t o t h e c l a s s i n t h e form of a s h o r t discourse — n o t simply a s a e r i e s o f disjointed simple sentences: I a m Antonio. My f a t h e r i s José and m y mother i s Ana. My brother i s J o r g e , and my two s i s t e r s a r e Maria and A n i t a .

 

Grammar

D e p e n d i n g o n t h e a g e and needs of individual s t u d e n t s , i t may be necessary t o introduce a few more kinship terms s o t h a t they c a n introduce spouses, grandparents, o r o t h e r r e l a t i v e s who form p a r t of t h e i r immediate family u n i t . Such additional vocabulary c a n be intr oduc ed a s t h e n e e d a r i s e s . As individual students m a k e o r a l presentations, t h e c l a s s should l i s t e n and draw t h e family t r e e described. The t r e e s d r a w n b y t h e students l i s t e n ing and t h e t r e e s from which t h e speakers m a d e t h e i r o r a l presentations c a n t h e n be compar ed t o check f o r consistency and accuracy. Another pr oduc tive a c t i v i t y h a s t h e whole c l a s s w o r k i n g together t o generate master l i s t s u n d e r t h r e e a c t i v i t y headings:

1.

Things I l i k e t o do w h e n I have time

2.

Things I have t o d o every d a y

3.

Things I d o occasionally

T h e f i r s t heading e l i c i t s l e i s u r e a c t i v i t i e s , e . g . , g o t o t h e beach, play f o o t b a l l , watch TV. T h e sec ond heading includes things l i k e m a k e my bed, s t u d y , do t h e d i s h e s . T h e t h i r d w i l l contain a c t i v i t i e s l i k e v i s i t my grandmother, g o t o t h e movies, w r i t e a l e t t e r t o m y cousin. The teacher c a n help generate t h e v o c a b u l a r y f o r t h e l i s t s , a s needed, and c a n m a k e s u r e t h a t t h e s h o r t verb phrases w r i t t e n o n t h e chalkb oard o r t h e overhead projector a r e grammatically a n d l e x i c a l l y a c c u r a t e . At t h i s point each l e a r n e r w i l l be ready t o generate h i s / h e r o w n s h o r t l i s t , selecting a t l e a s t two items from each of t h e t h r e e master l i s t s created i n c l a s s b u t m a k i n g i t pertinent t o h i s o r her ow n r e a l i t y . W o r k i n g with a p a r t n e r , t h e learner w i l l write two conjoined sentences t h a t describe what he and h i s p art ner do every day, using t h e information i n t h e individually g e n e r a t e d l i s t s ( a n d , of c o u r s e , using t h e simple present t e n s e ) :

E v e r y day m a k e my bed, s t u d y , and do t h e d i s h e s , and Sergio walks h i s d o g a n d practices t h e piano. These s h o r t per sonalized t e x t s w i l l then be read aloud t o t h e c l a s s f o r c o m p r e h e n s io n and r e t e l l i n g o r s u m m a r i z a t i o n by o t h e r s . Similar a c t i v i t i e s w i l l be c a r r i e d o u t using t h e i n f o r mation g e n e r a t e d f o r t h e other two a c t i v i t y l i s t s t o f u r t h e r reinforce t h e simple present tense.

As a more c hallenging c o m m u n i c a t i v e a c t i v i t y , t h e l e a r n e r s c a n draw o n a l l t h e mate-

63

r i a l s they h a v e g e n e r a t e d f o r t h e i r family t r e e description a n d t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s

to w r i t e

a

simple l e t t e r introducing themselves t o a p e n pal ( i d e a l l y a r e a l person who w i l l respond), thus incorporating t h e t a r g e t s t r u c t u r e s a n d v o c a b u l a r y they have learned i n t o a l a r g e r piece of dis discourse course g e n e r a t e d f o r pur poses of c o m m u n i c a t i o n . This should not, h o w e v e r , be the e n d o f the u n i t . As a final step the t e a c h e r should present t o t h e c l a s s data t h a t t h e l e a r n e r s themselves have generated, with t h e data g r o u p e d , simple proeach s t dr iu rc et cutrse tbeing anouns). c c o r d i n The g t o teacher m e t ob esome kind present of g r a m mt eants ie ,c a lpersonal generalizah e l e a rtaught n e r s t o (cc oopula t i o n i n t h e i r ow n words about each s t r u c t u r e . F i n a l l y , t h e teacher gives them t h e formal r u l e f o r each s t r u c t u r e and g e t s them t o c o m p a r e i t with t h e r u l e they have g e n e r a te d . I f u s e f u l , t h e students can a l s o w o r k a t correcting some of t h e e r r o r s they have p r o d u c e d while c o v e r i n g t h e material i n t h e u n i t . TEACHING INTE INTERMED RMEDIATE IATE LEARNERS

For intermediate-level s t u d e n t s , s t o r i e s a r e often a n e n g a g i n g w a y t o c o m p r e h e n d and practice g r a m m a r and discourse. The follow ing f a b l e about t h e f o x and t h e crow, f o r example, can be used t o present o r t o reinforce ( o r t o t e s t ) one of t h e main conventions

 

64

Language

K n owl e dg e

g o v e r n i n g English a r t i c l e u s a g e . Learners should be asked t o u s e one a r t i c l e i n l i e u of each for f i r s t m e n t i o n

(or n e w

i nf o rm at i o n) , they should use the indefinite a r t i c l e ( a / a n ) with singular c ountable nouns; f o r sec ond o r sub sequent mentions ( i . e . , o l d i n f o r number;

mation), they should u s e t h e d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e ( t h e ) . T h e r e w as o nce ( 1 ) c r o w who stole ( 2 ) wedge of c he e se fr om (3 ) i t c h e n window. S h e flew off with ( 4 ) c he e se t o (5 ) n e a r b y t r e e . (6 ) o x saw w h at ( ) ro w ha d d o ne, a n d he walked o v e r t o ( ) r e e . “Oh, Mistress Crow, you have such lovely black f e a t h e r s , such s l e n d e r f e e t , such ( ) beautiful beak, and s uch fine black eyes Y o u m u st ha v e ( 10 ) eautiful voice. Would y o u sing for me?” ( 1 1 ) crow f e l t very proud. She o p e n e d h e r beak and sang “CAWCAW-CAW.” Of co urs e ( 12 ) he e se f e l l down a n d ( 3 ) o x sn a t c he d i t u p a n d a t e e v e r y bite. 2

t o u s e a / a n and t h e appropriately, t h e r u l e c a n be e x t e n d e d t o are When f i r s t mentions of p l u r a l countab le nouns and mass include l euasre n e rofs t h e z ae br lo e a r t i c l e before nouns ( t h e s e nouns a l s o t a k e t h e f o r sec ond mention a s i s i l l u s t r a t e d by t h e sub sequent m e n t i o n s o f c he e se in the fable). Much l i k e s t o r i e s , t h e l y r i c s t o songs c a n a l s o be used t o present and practice grammar i n discourse. For example, Pete Seeger’ s antiwar song “ W h e r e H a v e A l l t h e Flowers G o n e ? ” c a n be used a s a w a r m - u p a c t i v i t y t o prepare students t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n s h o r t e x c h a n g e s t h a t require wh-questions with t h e present perfect tens tensee 3 s i n c e i n t h i s song each stanza repeats t h e fr ame ( W h e r e have a l l t h e gone?). The construction practiced i n t h e song could then be e x t e n d e d t o t a l k about more concrete information f a m i l i a r t o c l a s s members. For e x a m p l e :

T:

S1: $2: T:

A m ir i s n ’ t i n c l a s s t o d a y .

W h e r e has he g o n e (instead of c o m i n g t o c l a s s ) ? I don’t know. ( M a y b e ) h e ’ s g o n e t o t h e beach. Maria you’r e l a t e t o d a y .

S1:

W h e r e have y o u been?

M:

I ’ v e been t o my s o n ’ s s c h o o l .

For intermediate-level students such u s e of t h e present perfect demonstrates how English speakers can t a l k about past events without ever l e a v i n g t h e e x t e n d e d present a s t h e fr ame of reference, which i s one of t h e most impor tant functions of t h e present perfect t e n s e . S i m i l a r l y , l i s t e n i n g t o and singing t h e l y r i c s of t h e w el l - k now n folk song “ I f I Ha d a Hammer” c a n be a w a r m - u p a c t i v i t y f o r practicing t h e present hypothetical u s e of conditionals i n d r i l l s such a s t h e following: T: S1: $2: S3:

What d o y o u wish you had nat o u don’t have)? A million d o l l a r s . A H ar ley Davidson. A Rolls Royce. Ete;

T: Sl:

S 1 , t e l l u s what you would d o i f y o u had a million d o l l a r s . ( I f I a d a million d o l l a r s , ) ’ ' d b u y a house f o r m y p a r e n t s , f o r myself, and f o r a l l m y brothers and s i s t e r s .

Et,

 

Grammar

S o m e tim e s

low intermediate and intermediate-level l e a r n e r s n e e d t o develop t h e i r a b i l i t y t o process g r a m m a r and i n t e r p r e t discourse t h a t they h e a r o r r e a d m u c h more t h a n they n e e d t o p r a c t i c e pr oduc tive u s e of discourse-level g r a m m a r . These students n e e d t h e i r foreign o r second l a n g u a g e t o r e a d textbooks and manuals o r perhaps t o l i s t e n t o l e c t u r e s o r t a l k s by experts o r t e a c h e r s . Such l e a r n e r s must be e x p o s e d t o spoken o r w r i t t e n discourse t h a t t r a i n s them t o r e c o g n i z e and c o m p r e h e n d t h e m e a n i n g and r o l e of c r u c i a l s t r u c t u r e s . For example, consider t h e following passage, which highlights t h e passive voice:

A m e r i c a n Film C l a s s i c s : A S u r v e y of 100 P e o p l e by Harold Smithers

O n e hundred A mer i c ans ( f i f t y i n New York and f i f t y i n Los Angeles) w er e asked t o i d e n t i f y t h e i r t h r e e f a v o r i t e c l a s s i c f i l m s . C a s a b l a n c a was mentioned most f r e qu e n t l y , then Citizen K a n e ,

a n d the third ch o i ce was

G o n e with t h e Wind. O n l y f o u r other movies w er e n a m e d more t h a n f i v e times each. They w e r e Ben Hu r , Th e Birth of N at i o n, S u n s e t B o u l e v a r d , and The T e n Commandments. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e t h a t while both t h e male and female r espondents m e n t i o n e d C a s a b l a n c a a s a f a v o r i t e c l a s s i c , G o n e With t h e Wind was suggested mainly by women a n d C i t i z e n K a n e m a i n l y by men.

Such a passage can be taped and played bac k a s a simulated r a d i o broadcast s e g m e n t b e g i n n i n g ( i n l i e u of t h e title a n d byline) with “This i s Harold Smithers reporting on a survey I c a r r i e d o u t o n A m e r i c a n c l a s s i c f i l m s . ” T h e c l a s s should l i s t e n once t o g e t t h e general idea (What i s t h e passage about?). T h en they c a n be asked t o l i s t e n again a n d jot down answers t o t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s :

1.

How m a n y p e o p l e w er e surveyed a n d w h e r e ?

65

2.

Which three films w e r e the favorites?

3.

What other films where mentioned more than five times?

4

Did men a n d women

like the same films?

I f t h e ab ove passage i s pr esented i n written form, t h e same c o m p r e h e n s i o n questions can be asked but t h e analysis of g r a m m a r i n discourse c a n be more rigorous. A s s u m i n g they a r e familiar with t h e necessary m e t a l a n g u a g e , t h e l e a r n e r s c a n be asked t o underl i n e a l l passive verb phrases, c i r c l e a l l subject n o u n phrases, and put boxes a r o u n d a n y e x p l i c i t a g e n t s . I n p a i r s o r gr oups t h e l e a r n e r s c a n discuss t h e i r answers t o questions such as these: 1.

Why i s t h e passive voice s o frequent i n t h i s t e x t ? Who i s / a r e t h e agent(s) i n sentences t h a t have n o expressed, e x p l i c i t a g e n t ?

3.

Could t h e passage have b e e n written o r s p o k e n using only t h e a c t i v e voice? If s o ,

a . W o u l d t h e t o n e of t h e reporter be t h e same? b . Wo ul d t h e r e be t h e same focus o n t h e films?

Similar exercises designed primarily f o r building up recognition and c o m p r e h e n s io n s k i l l s can a l s o be d e v e l o p e d f o r other s t r u c t u r e s such a s r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s , t e n s e and aspect s e q u e n c e s , a n d pronouns a n d other referential words. I t i s best i f a u t h e n t i c texts c a n serve

 

66

Language

Knowledge

a s t h e b a s i s f o r such a c t i v i t i e s . I f necessary, they c a n be simplified o r adapted f o r u s e w i t h

lower-level l e a r n e r s . For high intermediate-level students another t e x t u a l resource t h a t c a n be used t o p r e s i n context i s s h o r t poems. For example, teachers c a n u s e “The Night W i l l N e v e r Stay” by Eleanor Farjeon (1951) t o help contextualize t h e u s e of w i l l + VERB, where w i l l i s epistemic and compatible with a n interpretation of f u t u r e i n e v i t a b i l i t y r a t h e r t h a n a simple s p e c i f i c f u t u r e t i m e . I t c a n be pointed o u t t h a t o t h e r words i n t h e p o e m l i k e n e v e r , s t i l l , and though help reinforce t h i s interpretation of w i l l . ent grammar

T h e Night Will N e v e r S t a y The night w i l l n e v e r s t a y , The night w i l l s t i l l g o b y , T h o u g h with a million s t a r s Y o u pin i t t o t h e sky;

T h o u g h y o u bind i t with t h e blowing wind A n d buckle i t with t h e moon, The night w i l l s l i p a w a y Like sorrow o r a t u n e .

Eleanor F ar jeon After reading and discussing t h e p o e m (with a l l vocab ulary c l a r i f i e d a n d with focus o n t h e t a r g e t w i l l construction) t h e learners a r e ready individually o r i n gr oups t o m a k e u p t h e i r ow n p o e m about o t h e r exper ienc es t h a t inevitably c o m e t o a n e n d ( t h e rainbow, t h e s u n l i g h t , the rain, f i r s t love, a n d s o forth). Some students n e e d t o b e reas s ured that i f t he y

cannot g e n e r a t e a perfect r h y m e o r i f they u s e metric patterns t h a t d i f f e r from t h e model, t h e i r p o e m s w i l l s t i l l be acceptable. TEACHING ADVANCED LEARNERS

With a d v a n c e d l e a r n e r s one w a y t o p r o c e e d i s t o u s e a n inductive-analytic a p p r o a c h t o teaching g r a m m a r i n discourse ( s e e a l s o C hapter 1 2 , where we discuss t h e value of teaching l e a r n e r s t o d o discourse a n a l y s i s ) . For example, one c a n give a n a d v a n c e d c l a s s t h r e e authentic t e x t s using used t o and would ( d ) such a s t h e “ y o u n g Chicano far m w o r k e r ’ t e x t o n p a g e 58 and t h e following t w o :

Merchant Marine I used t o p h one my wife t h r e e , four times every t r i p . I n Calcutta I ' d wait f i v e hours t o get a p h one c a l l through. I f I d i d n ’ t get i t through one n i g h t , I ’ d c a l l a g a i n a n d wait t h r e e , f o u r s hours t h e n e x t morning. F i n a l l y , j u s t hearing her v o i c e , I ’ d stand and actually choke u p o n t h e

phone.4

Summers on the Farm I used t o spend t h e s u m m e r with my uncle Joe o n h i s farm. I ' d g e t u p a t t h e crack of d a w n and I ' d milk cows, bring i n t h e h a y , and f e e d t h e chickens. I ’ d c o m p l a i n l i k e h e l l about a l l t h e work, b u t i t r e a l l y was a g o o d experience. ( aut h o r data)

 

Grammar

The teacher c a n t h e n a s k t h e students t o give a description of t h e u s e of used t o and w ould(’d) i n t h e t h r e e t e x t s , a ll of which represent p a s t h a b i t s a n d experiences. I f t h e students n e e d some h e l p , g iv e them guiding questions (such a s t h e following) o n t h e chalkb oard o r t h e overhead p r o j e c t o r : 1.

W h e r e does used t o occur i n t h e s e t e x t s ?

2.

Where d o es w o u l d ( ’ d )

3.

Which form establishes a fr ame o r topic?

4.

Which form introduces suppor ting d e t a i l s ?

5

Which form expresses “past h a b i t s o r s t a t e s ” most clearly?

occur?

As a follow-up p r a c t i c e , suggest some t o p i c s , f o r e x a m p l e : ¢

Describe some p a s t h a b i t o r a c t i v i t y y o u d i d w h e n y o u were younger.

¢

Describe s o m e o n e

else’s past habits or activities.

Ask each student t o give a b r i e f o r a l presentation on one of t h e t o p i c s and then pr e pa r e a w r i t t e n version of h i s / h e r t a l k t o reinforce a t t h e discourse l e v e l t h e g r a m m a r they have practiced. Lear ner s who d o such a c t i v i t i e s c a n r e m e m b e r a n d a p p l y r easonably w e l l t h e g r a m m a r they l e a r n t h i s w a y s i n c e they have disc over ed h o w g r a m m a r i s a resource f o r t e l l i n g a s t o r y o r creating t e x t r a t h e r than g r a m m a r simply existing a s a s e t of a b s t r a c t sentence-level r u l e s .

67

TESTING GRAMMAR

Although discourse a n d language assessment a r e t r e a t e d more c omp r eh ens i v el y i n Ch ap t er 1 1 , we w oul d l i k e t o m e n t i o n here t h a t discourse-level t e s t i n g formats n e e d t o be used systematically ystematically t o t e s t l e a r n e r s ’ a b i l i t y t o u s e g r a m m a r i n c o n t e x t . T o accomplish t h i s , t e s t s w i l l very o f t e n look m u c h l i k e text-based practice a c t i v i t i e s . O n e discourse-based t e s t format i s t h e cloze pr oc edur e, which we i l l u s t r a t e d f o r practicing u s e of a r t i c l e s v i a t h e f a b l e about t h e fox a n d t h e crow. As a cloze t e s t t h i s passage c a n measure t h e e x t e n t t o which l e a r n e r s a r e a w a r e of t h e “ f i r s t m e n t i o n ” versus “ s e c o n d / s u b s e qu e n t m e n t i o n ” principle i n a r t i c l e usage. Other grammar points t h a t one could t e s t with cloze passages include prepositions, pronouns, demonstratives, and l o g i c a l connectors. U s i n g t e x t s with “gaps” ( i . e . , t e x t s with one t o f i v e words missing r a t h e r t h a n only t h e one- w or d blanks used i n a cloze- type t e s t ) on e c a n help students practice using o r c a n t e s t t h e i r k n o w l e d g e of s e v e r a l g r a m m a r p o i n t s : ¢ ¢

choice of tense-aspect forms order of d i r e c t a n d i n d i r e c t objects

¢

choice of i n f i n i t i v e versus g e r u n d

¢

choice of a c t i v e versus passive voice

O n e can a l s o ask l e a r n e r s t o c o m p l e t e s h o r t t e x t s t o t e s t t h e i r k n o w l e d g e of g r a m m a r a n d discourse. For example,

are

(1)

I'm g o i n g t o buy a boat so...

(2)

P h i l used t o l i v e i n Dover , b u t .

clauses

that are

c omp l et ed

in rather

predictable ways

by n a t i v e English speakers

( n o n n a t i v e speakers should be a b l e t o c o m p l e t e such t a s k s with s i m i l a r responses):

 

68

Language

(1')

Knowledge [so] I c a n go fishing. [so] I c a n s a i l t o Catalina.

(2')

[but] he doesn’t l i v e there anymore. [but] now he lives in London.

The t e s t i n g of g r a m m a r i n context i s a n a r e a where e v e n l e s s progress has b een m a d e t h a n i n teaching g r a m m a r through discourse; however, we expect t o s e e major dev el op ment s in th e future in this area.

CONCLUSION

As w e have demonstrated, m a n y i f n o t most of t h e choices we m a k e a m o n g a l l t h e grammatical options o p e n t o u s c a n usefully be r e - e x a m i n e d i n terms of t h e i r contextual o r pragmatic motivations and discourse f u n c t i o n ( s ) . O n c e t h i s i s accomplished, t h e teaching of g r a m m a r c a n be b e t t e r integrated with t h e teaching of t h e l a n g u a g e s k i l l s ( l i s t e n i n g , speaking, reading, writing) and with t h e goal of teaching l a n g u a g e a s c ommuni c at i on. Knowledge of g r a m m a r should include n o t only sentence-level ordering r u l e s a n d options b u t a l s o a n awareness t h a t phenomena such a s word-order choices, tense-aspect choices, and u s e of s p e c i a l grammatical constructions a r e i n f a c t pragmatic, discourse-level choices

t h a t speakers and w r i t e r s make. I t i s important t h a t we

reconceptualize such constructions i n r e l a t i o n t o discourse and c o m m u n i c a t i o n . For l a n g u a g e teaching purposes i t i s counterproductive t o view g r a m m a r a s a n a u t o n o m o u s sentence-level system, y e t t h i s has b een t h e perspective n o t only of formal l i n g u i s t s but a l s o of t r a d i t i o n a l l a n g u a g e teaching methods such a s g r a m m a r t r a n s l a t i o n and audiolingualism. Admittedly, t h e r e w i l l always be a few l o c a l and f a i r l y m e c h a n i c a l g r a m m a t i c a l r u l e s that learners n e e d t o practice, such a s basic word order, making sure d e t e r m i n e r s a n d their nouns a g r e e , selecting t h e c o r r e c t r e f l e x i v e p r o n o u n o b j e c t , and using gerunds a f t e r prepos i t i o n s . Such r u l e s must be learned and practiced a t t h e sentence l e v e l a n d t h e n e x t e n d e d t o automatic u s e i n discourse-level c o n t e x t s . M ec h ani c al r u l e s l i k e t h e s e a r e t h e except i o n s , how ever . Most of t h e “ r u l e s ” t h a t we t r a d i t i o n a l l y r e f e r t o a s t h e c o r e of “ g r a m m a r ” should be taught a s g r a m m a t i c a l choices m a d e a t t h e l e v e l of discourse. This i s t h e l e v e l a t which l e a r n e r s c a n b e s t process, understand, and a p p l y t h e conventions of g r a m m a r i n t h e i r sec ond o r foreign language. LANGUAGE VARIATION AT THE GRAMMATICAL LEVEL

As w e have s t a t e d , much of what might be c onsider ed g r a m m a t i c a l v a r i a t i o n a t t h e sentence l e v e l t u r n s o u t t o be a principled semantic o r pragmatic choice a t t h e discourse l e v e l , e . g . , t h e w ay we u s e a c t i v e and passive voice i n written t e x t s o r t h e w ay we order d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t objects i n o u r speech. There i s a l s o v a r i a t i o n i n g r a m m a r b e t w e e n formal w r i t t e n discourse and informal spoken discourse. Thus, we formally w r i t e : There a r e two l e t t e r s o n m y d e s k . This i s t h e premise o n which he based h i s ar gument. But we informally m a y s a y : There’s two l e t t e r s o n m y d e s k . This i s t h e premise he based h i s a r g u m e n t o n .

 

Grammar

However, t h e r e i s a l s o grammatical v a r i a t i o n between d i a l e c t s of a language. For e x a m p l e : G e o g r a p h i c a l variation Standard B ri t i s h :

H a v e you a pencil?

Standard American:

D o you have a encil?

Social/ethnic variation

Black English vernacular:

S t a n d a r d English:

I d i d n ’ t s a y nothing.

I d i d n ’ t s a y anything.

T o t h e e x t e n t t h a t each d i a l e c t consistently follows g r a m m a r r u l e s t h a t a r e d i f f e r e n t from the rules us ed in other dialects, w e c a n d es cri b e t h i s variation. I t i s useful for teachers a n d

learners

t o be aw ar e

of such g r a m m a t i c a l

v a r i a t i o n and t o u n d e r s t a n d n o n j u d g m e n t a l l y

what i t s i g n a l s i n terms of t h e u s e r ’ s pr obable nationality o r e t h n i c i d e n t i t y . I n most c a s e s , l a n g u a g e l e a r n e r s w a n t t o a c qu ir e t h e standard version of t h e geogr aphic al d i a l e c t most u s e f u l f o r t h e i r purposes. T h e following chapter w i l l discuss g r a m m a r ’s partner i n l a n g u a g e k n o w l e d g e a t t h e discourse l e v e l — vocabulary. Grammar needs v o c a b u l a r y f o r m e a n i n g , and vocab ulary needs grammar f o r s t r u c t u r e . Some l i n g u i s t s (Halliday, 1985) t a l k about g r a m m a r and

69

v o c a b u l a r y a s one e n t i t y : l e x i c o g r a m m a r . While t h i s i s a theoretically a p p e a l i n g n o t i o n , f o r p e d a g o g i c a l purposes we f e e l t h a t i t i s s t i l l u s e f u l t o maintain some d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n these two a r e a s of l a n g u a g e k now l edge, focusing o n t h e relationship t h a t each has t o discourse.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1.

Some ESL teachers believe t h a t well-selected comic s t r i p s o f f e r g o o d materials f o r teaching g r a m m a r i n c o n t e x t . D o y o u a g r e e ? Why o r why not? Are t h e r e other types of authentic materials t h a t y o u think teachers should consider using f o r teaching grammar through discourse and i n context?

2.

Some researchers claim t h a t e x p e r i m e n t s show t h a t sentence-level i n s t r u c t i o n i n grammar has n o e f f e c t o n a n ESL/EFL l e a r n e r ’ s a b i l i t y t o u s e grammar f o r communicative purposes. D o e s t h i s o u t c o m e surprise y o u ? Why do you t h i n k t h i s might

be t r u e ? D o you t h i n k t h a t discourse-based grammar instruction w oul d y i e l d d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s ? Why o r why not? 3.

Y o u have a student who objects t o your discourse-level a p p r o a c h t o teaching g r a m m a r . He wants t o study grammar a t t h e sentence l e v e l a s he has always done b e f o r e . What w i l l y o u say and do t o p e r s u a d e him o f t h e v a l i d i t y and necessity of w or k i ng with a discourse-based a p p r o a c h ?

4.

Many researchers f e e l t h a t t h e r e i s t o o m u c h emphasis on p r o d u c t i o n and t e s t i n g of grammar r a t h e r than a focus o n i t s c o m p r e h e n s i o n and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Many w oul d argue t h a t recognition and c o m p r e h e n s io n should p r e c e d e production. With a pa r tn e r discuss ways of creating discourse-based a c t i v i t i e s g e a r e d toward d e v e l o p i n g t h e l e a r n e r ’ s recognition g r a m m a r .

 

70

Language

Knowledge

SUGGESTED

Ife

ACTIVITIES

Find a sentence-level g r a m m a r e x e r c i s e i n a l a n g u a g e textbook. What i s t h e objective o f t h i s exercise? Think o f two d i f f e r e n t ways t o t e a c h t h i s objective through discourse i n s t e a d .

Consider t h e a c t i v e voice/passive voice d i s t i n c t i o n ( e . g . , L e o n a r d o d a Vinci painted t h e Mona Lisa/The Mona Lisa was painted by L e o n a r d o da V i n c i ) . What a r e two possible sentence-level teaching a c t i v i t i e s ? What a r e two possible discourse-based teaching a c t i v i t i e s ? Discuss t h e strength and weaknesses of t h e sentence-level and t h e discourse-level a c t i v i t i e s . Which do you t h i n k would be b e t t e r and w hy? Consider t h e two following t e x t s ; t h e n describe t h e i n t e r a c t i o n of t h e simple p a s t t e n s e and t h e under lined p a s t perfect t e n s e i n t h e organization of t h e s e t e x t s . I s t h i s p a t t e r n consistent with Suh’s frame-elaboration hypothesis o r not?

a.

The students s a t i n t h e bleachers of P a u l e y Pavilion watching t h e f a c u l t y e n t e r

i n t h e i r caps and gowns. Dignitaries c ontinued t o a r r i v e while t h e band played a festive melody for the o nl o o k ers . T o the c h e e r s o f the cro w d ,

P res i d ent

Clinton c a m e i n and took h i s assigned s e a t o n t h e podium. UCLA’s 75th anniver sar y celebration had begun. ( f ro m the UCLA D a i l y B rui n, May 25, 1994) b.

I n t h e 1980s researchers a t Stanford University were t r y i n g t o teach A m e r i c a n sign l a n g u a g e t o Koko, a g o r i l l a . K o k o was w e l l cared f o r and was surrounded by i n t e r e s t i n g o b j e c t s . Her caretakers continually e x p o s e d h e r t o signs f o r t h e

food items a n d t o y s i n her environment. Ko k o p a r t i c u l a r l y loved eating b ananas a n d p l a y i n g with k i t t e n s . O n e d a y she was h u n g r y b u t couldn’t f i n d any bananas. She w e n t t o t h e researcher and m a d e a g o o d a p p r o x i m a t i o n o f the s i g n for “ b a n a n a . ” Koko was rewarded with a b a n a n a , but e v e n more important, t h e research team k n e w t h a t Ko k o had m a d e t h e c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n a ign a n d t h e object i t represented. ( aut h o r d a t a ) 4.

What follows i s a paragraph from a book o n c u l t u r a l differences ( H a l l & H a l l , 1 9 9 0 : 3 - 4 ) . How might y o u exploit t h i s b i t of authentic discourse t o teach g r a m m a r i n context? C u l t u r e c a n b e l i k ened t o a giant, ex t rao rd i nari l y complex, a n d subtle

c omputer . I t s p r o g r a m s g u i d e t h e a c t i v i t i e s and responses of human beings i n every walk of l i f e . This process requires a t t e n t i o n t o ever ything people do — t o s u r v i v e , t o a d v a n c e i n t h e world, a n d t o gain s a t i s f a c t i o n from l i f e . Furthermore, c u l t u r a l p r o g r a m s w i l l n o t w o r k i f c r u c i a l s t e p s a r e omitted, which happens w h e n p e o p l e unconsciously a p p l y t h e i r ow n r u l e s t o another system. =}

I f you have y o u n g e r l e a r n e r s , develop a n a c t i v i t y involving m e a n i n g f u l e x c h a n g e

t h a t w i l l help them practice questions about h a b i t s and preferences ( i . e . , t h a t w i l l m a k e u s e of t h e auxiliary verb d o ) .

 

Grammar

S u g g e s t i o n s for F u r t h e r Reading Batstone, R . (1994). Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University P r e s s .

C elce-Murcia, M. (1991). Discourse analysis and g r a m m a r i n s t r u c t i o n . A n n u a l Review of A p p l i e d Linguistics, 1 1 , 135-151. C elce-Murcia, M., & H i l l e s , S . (1988). T ext-based exercises and a c t i v i t i e s . I n Techniques a n d resources i n teaching grammar ( p p . 149-168). Oxford: Oxford University P r e s s . C elce-Murcia, M., & Lar s en- F r eeman,

D. (1999). The tense-aspec t-modality system in discourse. In The:grammar b ook : An ESL/EFL t each ers course, 2 n d e d . , ( p p . 161-181). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Hatch, E . (1992). Discourse a n d l a n g u a g e education. New York: C a m b r i d g e University P r e s s . (See Chapters 209-290.)

6 , 7 , and 8 , p p .

especially

McCarthy, M. (1991). Disc our se analysis and grammar. I n Discourse analysis for l a n g u a g e teachers ( p p . 34-63). C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r id g e University P r e s s .

Endnotes C elce-Murcia, Dér nyei, and Thurrell (1995) f u r t h e r divide c o m m u n i c a t i v e c o m p e t e n c e i n t o l i n g u i s t i c , sociolinguistic, discourse, s t r a t e g i c , a n d a c t i o n a l competencies, where “actional c o m p e t e n c e ” r e f e r s t o more formulaic aspects of l a n g u a g e such a s t h e o r a l speech a c t s o r t h e w r i t t e n r h e t o r i c a l moves t h a t function a s p a r t of communicative competence. 2 This r u l e seems t o apply whether t h e r e f l e x i v e p r o n o u n i s a t r u e reflexive object (John s h ared himself.), a n emphatic (John himself did i t . ) , o r a n ad verb i al (J ohn l i v e s by h i m s e l f . ) . 3 R. Lakoff (1969) argues t h a t t h e “ s o m e - a n y ” r u l e does n o t e x i s t and t h a t t h e u s e of

these two determiners i s very semantically motivated. 4 H alliday and H as an (1976) a l s o discuss “ l e x i c a l cohesion,” but t h a t w i l l be p a r t of t h e follow ing chapter o n vocab ulary, t h u s we do n o t t a k e i t u p h e r e . 5 We note t h a t H alliday and H a s a n (1976) a c k n o w l e d g e

t h a t c o n j u n c t i o n i s a slippery

a r e a of c ohesion given t h a t c onjunc tions display both l e x i c a l a n d g r a m m a t i c a l behavior; however, they decide t o g r o u p i t with t h e g r a m m a t i c a l devices. We a g r e e

with t h i s decision. 6 Reid (1991) argues t h a t a l l nouns — n o t j u s t c o l l e c t i v e nouns — have s i m i l a r p o t e n t i a l f l e x i b i l i t y of number. We f e e l t h a t h i s extreme position r a i s e s some problems of i t s own. 7 Some m a y argue t h a t v a g u e n e s s of g e n d e r a s w e l l a s v a g u e n e s s of reference i s a t work i n ex amp l es such a s ( 4 ) ; however, n o t e t h a t t h e existence of more gender s p e c i f i c infor mation i n sentence ( 4 ) does n o t seem t o r u l e o u t t h e u s e of they forms: A n y o n e r u n n i n g a business should e m p l o y t h e i r w i f e . 8 For example, F r enc h o f f e r s a s i m i l a r but n o t i d e n t i c a l choice with regard t o dative

a l t e r n a t i o n w h e n t h e i n d i r e c t object i s a personal p r o n o u n : J ’ a i d o n n é l e l i v r e 4 ELLE ( p a s a L U I ) . [ c o n t r a s t i v e use o f e l l e ] ( I g a v e the book t o her [not t o him]) versus J e l u i a i d o n n é l e l i v r e . ( I gave him/her t h e book/ I g a v e t h e book t o him/her).

 

72

Language

Knowledge

For example, w h en t h e p r o n o u n i t functions a s t h e d i r e c t o b j e c t , t h e i n d i r e c t object never occurs before t h e d i r e c t object except f o r a v e r y small number of frozen a n d r e d u c e d oral f o r m u l a s ( w h e r e the indirect object functions a s a p r o n o m i n a l c l i t i c t h a t h a s attached t o t h e verb) ( c f . Gimme i t / G i v e me it/*Give M a r y i t ) .

° T her e a r e some constraints o n t h i s c h o i c e .

1 0 T e x t f r o m T e r k e l , 1 9 7 7 , p. 3 2 . ' l The UCLA o r a l corpus i s a n in-house informal and unedited d a t a base of transcribed speech t h a t M a r i a n n e C e l c e - M u r c i a and h e r students have assembled over t h e y e a r s ; i t was put o n l i n e by Fred Davidson. This exercise i s

f r o m Celce-Murcia

Hilles (1988:152).

version of

adapted

12

and

This

t h e text-based exercise focuses o n a / a n versus t h e . I t could a l s o be used t o practice t h e p r o n o u n s h e , s h e , and i t i n s t e a d of t h e a r t i c l e s a / a n and t h e .

1 3 I n N o r t h Am eri can E n g l i s h o n e c o u l d a l s o s a y “Where d i d a l l t h e f l o w e r s go?” without a s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n m e a n i n g . T h e present perfect w oul d be impossible i f some s p e c i f i c p a s t time had been m e n t i o n e d ( “ W h e r e d i d y o u g o last night?”’).

1 4 T h i s te x t i s adapted from T e r k e l , 1 9 7 7 , p . 2 6 7 .

 

Vocabulary

“Bringing a discourse dimension i n t o l a n g u a g e t e a c h i n g does not by any m eans imply a n abandonment of teaching vocabulary. V o c a b u l a r y w i l l s t i l l be the l a r g e s t s i n g l e el em ent i n t a c k l i n g a n e w l a n g u a g e f o r the learner a n d i t w o ul d be irresponsible t o suggest t h a t i t w i l l take c a r e of i t s e l f i n some i d e a l world whe r e l a n g u a g e teaching a n d learning a r e discourse d r i v e n . ”

(McCarthy, 1991:64) “Strategies which learners c a n u s e i n d e p e n d e n t l y of a teacher a r e the most i m p o r t a n t of a l l ways of learning vocabulary. For t h i s reason i t i s worthwhile ensuring t h a t learners a r e a b l e t o apply the strategies and t h a t they get plenty of help a n d e n c o u r a g e m e n t i n doing s o . By mastering a few strategies learners c a n c o p e with thousands of words.”

(Nation, 1990:174)

INTRODUCTION

Language

p e d a g o g y has v i e w e d a n d t r e a t e d v o c a b u l a r y i n very d i f f e r e n t ways over t h e y e a r s . I n t h e grammar-translation approach, which was codified by K a r l P l 6 t z i n t h e 1880s ( K e l l y , 1969), and i n t h e reading a p p r o a c h of t h e 1930s, word l i s t s were a c o r e element of t h e l a n g u a g e curriculum. I n c o n t r a s t , t h e audiolingual approach, d o m i n a n t from t h e 1940s through t h e 1960s, deliberately suppr essed t h e teaching of v o c a b u l a r y i n favor of teaching g r a m m a r and p ronunciation. I n c u r r e n t n a t u r a l i s t i c and c o m m u n i c a t i v e approaches, t h e r e i s a w idely shared assumption t h a t vocabulary w i l l be learned automatically and i n d i r e c t l y without any e x p l i c i t formal i n s t r u c t i o n , merely through e x p o s u r e t o and p r a c t i c e with t h e t a r g e t l a n g u a g e . Research i n second and foreign l a n g u a g e v o c a b u l a r y acquisition ( f o r a n o v e r v i e w s e e Coady, 1993) i n d i c a t e s t h a t formal i n s t r u c t i o n i s b e n e f i c i a l and suggests a mi x ed a p p r o a c h t o v o c a b u l a r y i n s t r u c t i o n i n which b a s i c o r c o r e vocabulary i s e x p l i c i t l y taught a l o n g with s t r a t e g i e s t h a t w i l l allow l e a r n e r s t o d e a l e f f e c t i v e l y with l e s s fr e qu e n t v o c a b u l a r y t h a t they e n c o u n t e r i n context s o t h a t such vocabulary c a n be learned w h en n e e d e d ( s e e C hapter 7 f o r a discussion of guessing word m e a n i n g s from c o n t e x t ) .

73  

74

L a n g u a g e K n owl e dg e

F or mal l i n g u i s t s have tended t o focus o n s y n t a x ; they have long m a i n t a i n e d t h a t a n y h u m a n l a n g u a g e i s a r u l e - g o v e r n e d i n n a t e system a n d t h a t t h o s e who have acquired a n a t u r a l l a n g u a g e apply i t s r u l e s i n o r i g i n a l and c r e a t i v e ways by p r o d u c i n g utterances they have never heard before (Chomsky, 1 9 6 5 ) . I n c o n t r a s t t o t h i s perspective, l i n g u i s t s who f o c u s o n v o c a b u l a r y r a t h e r t h a n g r a m m a r ( e . g . , Hoey, 1992; Nattinger and DeCarrico,

1992; S i n c l a i r , 1 9 6 6 ) believe t h a t a s i g n i f i c a n t proportion of s o c i a l , professional, a n d everyd a y l a n g u a g e u s e i s formulaic, r o u t i n e , a n d f a i r l y p r e d i c t a b l e . How c a n such d i f f e r e n t views of l a n g u a g e a n d l a n g u a g e u s e coexist? The f a c t t h a t formal l i n g u i s t s have focused o n context-free a s p e c t s of syntax and t h a t lexicographers have focused o n words, which derive m u c h of t h e i r m e a n i n g from c o n t e x t , i s p a r t of t h e explanation. The o t h e r p a r t of t h e difference l i e s i n t h e research methods t h a t formal syntacticians and c o n t e m p o r a r y l e x i c ogr apher s have u s e d . The syntacticians u s e l a r g e l y introspective methods and contrived d a t a a r i s i n g from native- speaker i n t u i t i o n t o support t h e i r hypotheses, whereas m o d e r n lexicographers u s e computer-assisted analyses of very l a r g e corpora — analyses i n which meanings, frequencies, and c o-oc c ur r enc es of words and phrases c a n be a n a l y z e d o n t h e b a s i s of a l a r g e n u m b e r of contextualized tokens f o r a n y g i v e n l e x i c a l i t e m . This new v i s i o n of v o c a b u l a r y ( o r l e x i s ) , where word m e a n i n g s a r e v i e w e d a s r e f l e c t ing u s e i n c o n t e x t , forms t h e b a s i s of t h i s c h a p t e r . I n i t we discuss t h e i m p o r t a n c e of discourse-grounded a c t i v i t i e s f o r l e a r n e r s who n e e d t o u s e L 2 vocab ulary productively i n t h e i r speech and w r i t i n g . We do n o t ignore t h e i m p o r t a n c e of receptive vocabulary f o r l i s t e n i n g and reading purposes; i n f a c t we discuss “ l e x i c a l a c c e s s i b i l i t y ” and r e l a t e d i s s u e s i n Chapter 7 o n reading. H ow ev er , here we give emphasis t o pr oduc tive u s e of vocab ulary

and ways of l earni ng a n d using n e w vocabulary bec ause we f e e l t h i s a r e a has been neglected and bec ause t h i s i s where i n s i g h t s from discourse analysis a r e most important f o r s u p p l e m e n t i n g what we already k n o w about L 2 vocabulary u s e and l e a r n i n g . (See Figure 5.1. o n page 7 5 . ) Like k n o w l e d g e of p h onol ogy a n d g r a m m a r , v o c a b u l a r y k n o w l e d g e can be v i e w e d i n ter ms of both t op - dow n and bottom-up s t r a t e g i e s . The t o p - d o w n pr agmatic ally driven s t r a t e g i e s include t h e speaker's b a c k g r o u n d k n o w l e d g e of t h e t o p i c o r speech s i t u a t i o n a t hand and t h e k n o w l e d g e shared with t h e i n t e r l o c u t o r . V o c a b u l a r y items tend o r o u p o r associate a r o u n d t o p i c s (Halliday and Hasan, [1976] c a l l t h i s “ l e x i c a l collocation” a t t h e t e x t u a l l e v e l ) . For example, i f we k n o w a reading passage o r a n o r a l discussion i s dealing with t h e t o p i c of “Art M u s e u m s , ” we c a n expect words l i k e painting(s), a r t i s t ( s ) , s c u l p t u r e / s c u l p t o r s ( s ), curator,

exhibit(s), a n d the like t o o c c u r

a s p a r t o f the discourse.

Likewise, i n a n y l a n g u a g e , speech a c t s a n d speech a c t i v i t i e s have describable mac r os t r uc t ur es with t y p i c a l s t e p s o r moves, o f t e n i n a predictable sequence, with highly c onventionalized words and phrases associated with each s t e p o r m o v e (Nattinger and D e Carrico, 1 9 9 2 ) . For e x a m p l e , w h e n English speakers apologize, i t i s very common t o hear something l i k e , “I’m ( r e a l l y / v e r y / t e r r i b l y ) sorry” from t h e person doing t h e apologizing. Knowing t h e v o c a b u l a r y and s e t phrases associated with a topic o r speech a c t i v i t y i s t h u s a l a r g e p a r t of b eing a b l e t o t a l k o r w r i t e about t h e t o p i c o r p e r f o r m t h e speech a c t i v i t y i n t h e t a r g e t language. B o tto m - u p s t r a t e g i e s r e l a t e d t o vocab ulary k n o w l e d g e a r e used w h e n l e a r n e r s don’t k n o w a word. F r o m a peec h pr oduc tion perspective, t h e L 2 speaker c a n ask interlocutors f o r assistance (“What’s t h e word f o r t h e thing t h a t ? ” ” ) o r u s e a circumlocution o r a g e s t u r e t o g e t t h e m e a n i n g of t h e t a r g e t word a c r o s s . L 2 w r i t e r s normally have more time than speakers, s o they c a n look u p t h e t a r g e t word i n t h e i r L 1 i n a bilingual dictionary and f i n d possible equivalents i n t h e L2. Here t h e t r i c k y p a r t involves selecting t h e b e s t e q u i v a l e n t f o r t h e c o n t e x t . Learners c a n ask a n a t i v e speaker — o r a more e x p e r i e n c e d l e a r n e r — f o r a s s i s t a n c e , i f such help i s a v a i l a b l e . Some e f f e c t i v e L 2 w r i t e r s simply generate a s m u c h t e x t a s they c a n i n t h e t a r g e t l a n g u a g e and l e a v e blanks f o r words they don’t k n o w o r c a n ’ t r e c a l l . T h ey l a t e r f i l l i n t h e s e missing words using bottom-up s t r a t e g i e s .

 

Vocabulary

Top-down P r oc es s i ng

75

Written and S p o k e n D i s c our s e

Phonology

Vocabulary

Bottom-up Processing

F i g u r e 5 . 1 V o c a b u l a r y a n d L a n g u a g e Knowledge

BACKGROUND xploree b e f o re we c a n t r e a t o u r t o p i c i n   d e t a i l   T h e s e Th e r e a r e   s e v e r a l   n o t i o n s w e   n e e d   t o e xplor t ent w o r d s   v er s u s l ary, c o n tent p r o d u c t i v e   v o c a b u lary, e e rsus eptive v incl u de a d i s c u s s i o n o f   re c eptiv ding,,   o n wo r d s , t h e d i f f er en c es   am o ng t h e l a n g u a g e s k i l l s   l i s t e n i n g ,   s p e a k i n g , re a ding f u n ct i on rativv e   v o c a b u l a r y ,   t h e l i t e r a l v e rsus f i g u rati iremee n t s ,  wr i t ing) i n terms   o f v o c a b u l a r y r e q u irem dist i n ct i o n ,

and

t he q u a l i t a t i v e

di f f erenc e s

  v o c a b u l a ry , tween een  be betw

gy   o n t h e o t h e r.   mm r and p h o n o l o gy gr mm

 

76

Language

K n owl e dg e

on

t he o n e

ha n d,

and

RECEPTIVE VERSUS

PRODUCTIVE VOCABULARY

versus p r o d u c t i v e v o c a b u l a r y i s very important. Users of a n y language, including both n a t i v e and nonnative speakers, have m u c h more receptive t h a n pr oduc tive vocabulary. English r e a d e r s m a y under stand — perhaps e v e n subconsciously — m a n y words l i k e a d u m b r a t e and a n e n t w h e n they e n c o u n t e r them i n a e x t , y e t they m a y w e l l be unlikely t o u s e t h e s e words i n t h e i r o w n speech o r w r i t i n g . This i s bec ause such readers have receptive b u t n o t productive c o n t r o l of t h e s e words; pr oduc tive c o n t r o l implies receptive c o n t r o l , b u t t h e r e v e r s e i s n o t necessarily t r u e . F i r s t , t h e notion of receptive

Some a pplie d l i n g u i s t s f e e l t h a t t h e major challenge i n teaching vocabulary i s t o teach receptive vocab ulary s o t h a t L 2 l e a r n e r s c a n b e c o m e more e f f i c i e n t readers ( s e e t h e v o l u m e o n sec ond l a n g u a g e reading and vocabulary learning e d i t e d by Huckin, Haynes, and Coady, 1 9 9 3 ) . This i s n o doubt bec ause t h e r e i s a n e n o r m o u s disc r epanc y i n t h e n u m b e r of words one needs t o k n o w i n English f o r e n g a g i n g i n e v e r y d a y c onver sation v e r s u s t h e n u m b e r of words needed f o r extensive a c a d e m i c reading. Some estimate t h a t pr oduc tive u s e of a s few a s t h r e e thousand words and phrases w i l l s u f f i c e f o r informal c o n v e r s a t i o n . In contrast, i t i s e st i m a t e d that a r e c e p t i v e v o c a b u l a r y of f e w e r than 10,000 words w i l l prevent a reader from c o m p r e h e n d i n g a l l b u t t h e most rudimentary w r i t t e n English t e x t s . Estimates i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e b e s t English L 1 college and university students have a receptive v o c a b u l a r y of a t l e a s t 100,000 words — some claim t h a t they c a n recogn i z e a s m a n y a s 200,000 words — and t h a t t h i s i s necessary t o ensure e f f i c i e n t reading of

more

exts sophisticated There d o t seem t o be ways of teaching l a r g e amounts of receptive vocab ulary f a i r l y quickly and e f f i c i e n t l y by having l e a r n e r s simply associate words with m e a n i n g s o u t o f c o n t e x t u s i n g word l i s t s , v o c a b u l a r y cards, a n d s o f o r t h . ( S ee N at i o n, 1990). Such s t r a t e g i e s , e v e n i f they t u r n o u t t o be e f f e c t i v e f o r i m p r o v i n g receptive k n o w l e d g e and reading c omp r eh ens i on, a r e n o t necessarily e f f e c t i v e f o r teaching pr oduc tive u s e of l e x i s ; however, i t must be a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t receptive k n o w l e d g e o f vocab ulary i s a i r s t s t e p tow ar d ac hieving pr oduc tive u s e , i . e . , toward l e a r n e r s ’ b e c o m i n g s k i l l f u l speakers a n d w r i t e r s i n t h e i r sec ond languages. L a c k of pr oduc tive v o c a b u l a r y and l a c k of word-assoc i a t e d g r a m m a t i c a l information a r e , i n f a c t , major f a c t o r s contributing t o t h e poor writing s k i l l s of m a n y university-level ESL students (Christine Holten, personal c o m m u n i c a t i o n ). In res earch r e l a t e d t o Holten's o b s ervat i o n, Sa n t os (1 98 8 ) f o u n d that su b je c t -m a t t e r university i n s t r u c t o r s who were asked t o respond t o L 2 student essays were more a n n o y e d by l e x i c a l e r r o r s than g r a m m a t i c a l e r r o r s i n t h e L 2 s t u d e n t s ’ w r i t i n g , indicating t h a t l a n g u a g e teachers should t a k e c a r e t o evaluate — and t o c o r r e c t i f n e e d e d — l e a r n e r s ’ l e x i c a l choices i n t h e i r w r i t t e n w o r k a s w e l l a s t h e i r a b i l i t y t o u s e l e x i c a l items i n g r a m m a t i c a l l y appropriate ways, e . g . , c o r r e c t p a r t of speech, c o r r e c t i n f l e c t i o n s , c o r r e c t a r t i c l e o r preposition, correct collocation, a n d the l i k e . } CONTEN ONTENT T WORDS VERSUS FUNCTION WORDS

The d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n c o n t e n t words and f u n c t i o n words i s a u s e f u l one i n a n a l y z i n g vocabulary. Most v o c a b u l a r y items a r e content words and b e l o n g t o t h e l a r g e , o p e n word c l a s s e s ( 1 . e . , w o r d c l a s s e s t h a t readily accept n e w : words a n d discard o l d ones t h a t a r e n o nouns, verbs, adjectives, a n d some adverbs). F u n c t i o n words a r e those v o c a b u l a r y items t h a t belong t o closed words c l a s s e s ( i . e . , word c l a s s e s t h a t d o n o t r e a d -

l o n g e r useful: i l y admit n e w

items o r l o s e o l d o n e s : pronouns, a u x i l i a r y v e r b s , prepositions, determine r s , and m a n y adverbs). C o n v e n t i o n a l wisdom suggests t h a t function words should be taught a s p a r t of g r a m m a r and content words a s p a r t of vocabulary, b u t t h i s a so mew hat spurious d i s t i n c t i o n s i n c e what i s handled by t h e g r a m m a r of one l a n g u a g e m a y be p a r t of t h e vocabulary of another — henc e we a r e a t t r a c t e d by Halliday’s composite term “ l e x i c o g r a m m a r , ” which we f i n d quite u s e f u l f o r describing a l a n g u a g e resource c o n t i n u u m :

 

Vocabulary

(The lexicogrammatical c o n t i n u u m ) ———————-]

lexis (words: N, V , A dj/ A dv )

(idioms)

(phrasal forms)

(function words)

grammar

( i n f l e c t i o n s a n d syntax)

A l o n g t h i s c o n t i n u u m more s t a b l e aspects of m e a n i n g t e n d t o be represented l e x i c a l l y whereas more f l u i d and c o m p l e x messages require g r a m m a r i n addition t o lexicon f o r t h e i r expression. HOW MUCH VOCABULARY FOR EACH S K I L L ?

With r e f e r e n c e t o the four l a n g u a g e s k i l l s , the f ew es t v o c a b u l a r y items a r e n e e d e d for speaking, while more words a r e n e e d e d f o r writing and f o r l i s t e n i n g c o m p r e h e n s i o n , with t h e l a r g e s t n u m b e r of words needed f o r reading. H ow ev er , while l i s t e n i n g and reading req ui re receptive understanding of vocabulary, s p e a k i n g and writing require pr oduc tive u s e of vocab ulary. I n other words, i n addition t o k n o w i n g t h e general m e a n i n g of words and phrases i n a t e x t — which i s o f t e n s u f f i c i e n t f o r t h e l i s t e n e r o r reader t o c o m p r e h e n d t h e g i s t of a m e s s a g e — t h e speaker o r w r i t e r must k n o w each w or d’s pr onunc iation o r s p e l l i n g , i t s p a r t of speech, i t s s y n t a c t i c r e s t r i c t i o n s , a n y morphological i r r e g u l a r i t i e s , i t s common co l l o cat i o ns (other words with which i t i s likely t o co - o ccur) , a n d i t s common co nt ex t s (texts in which i t i s likely t o occur). D IFFERENT IFFERENT MODALITY OR REGISTER, DIFFERENT IFFERENT

VOCABULARY

The v o c a b u l a r y used by s k i l l e d speakers a n d w r i t e r s changes a c c o r d i n g t o modality and r e g i s t e r . For some l a n g u a g e s such a s Arabic, modality differences m a y be highly m a r k e d since t h e v o c a b u l a r y of t h e l o c a l s p o k e n v a r i e t y and t h e v o c a b u l a r y of t h e more c l a s s i c a l written variety can be very d i f f e r e n t . This mak es learning t h e l i t e r a t e s k i l l s (r e a d in g and writing) m o r e of a c hallenge than i n a l a n g u a g e l i k e English where t h e r e i s s i g n i f i c a n t over lap b e t w e e n t h e vocab ulary of t h e spoken and t h e written variety — but where t h e v o c a b u l a r y of t h e written l a n g u a g e i s nonetheless m u c h more extensive. There i s another ty pe of c hallenge with a l a n g u a g e l i k e Chinese where t h e w r i t t e n characters have nothing t o d o with t h e sound segments o r s y l l a b l e s of t h e s p o k e n l a n g u a g e but d i r e c t l y represent i d e a s . I t t a k e s learners years t o l e a r n t h e thousands of characters f o r words and phrases t h a t a r e required f o r f l u e n t reading a n d writing i n such a l a n g u a g e , where few associations can be m a d e with t h e sound system. S p e a k e r s and w r i t e r s a l s o m a k e d i f f e r e n t l e x i c a l selections a c c o r d i n g t o how f o r m a l o r informal a n y a c t of c o m m u n i c a t i o n i s ; (modality and r e g i s t e r a r e n o t always t o t a l l y i n d e p e n d e n t f a c t o r s i n t h a t s p o k e n l a n g u a g e tends t o be more informal than w r i t t e n l a n guage). M o r e o v e r , i n one’s n a t i v e l a n g u a g e a s well a s i n functionally a c t i v e sec ond o r f o r eign languages, u s e r s d e v e l o p and enrich t h e i r vocab ulary throughout t h e i r l i v e s a s they a r e ex p os ed t o n e w concepts and n e w a r e a s of i n t e r e s t . E d u c a t e d native speakers of English have o v e r l a p p i n g but d i f f e r e n t vocab ularies f o r speaking a n d w r i t i n g . T h e y have d i f f e r e n t vocab ularies f o r g e n e r a l versus professional o r specialized c ommuni c at i on. A d v a n c e d L 2 u s e r s of English w i l l a l s o have some control of t h e s e d i f f e r e n t vocabularies. The main difference b e t w e e n L 1 and L 2 u s e r s seems t o be t h a t . . . words i n t h e L 2 a r e l e s s w e l l o r g a n i z e d a n d l e s s e a s i l y accessible

t h an those o f L1. However, these d i f f e r e n c e s seem t o d iminis h o v e r time with increased proficiency. S e m a n t i c d e v e l o p m e n t i n L 2 seems t o be a process of s t a r t i n g with a m a p p i n g of L 1 m e a n i n g s i n t o L 2 and

then gradually d e v e l o p i n g L 2 m e a n i n g s and m e a n i n g s t r u c t u r e s . The f i n a l r e s u l t i s two separate systems which a r e s t i l l highly i n t e r r e l a t e d . ( Co ad y ,

1993:15)

77

 

78

Language

K n owl e dg e

SOCIOCULTURAL VARIATION I N THE USE OF VOCABULARY

V o c a b u l a r y i s a n obvious a r e a f o r l a n g u a g e v a r i a t i o n (Eisenstein, 1 9 8 3 ) . Hatch and B r o w n (1995:307ff) point o u t t h a t one dimension along which vocabulary u s e t e n d s t o vary i s gender. I n English, women a r e s a i d t o u s e more elaborate color v o c a b u l a r y t h a n men, with women more frequently using highly s e l e c t i v e color terms such a s mauve, e c r u , aub ergine, and s o f o r t h . S i m i l a r l y , i n t h e United S t a t e s , t e e n a g e g i r l s — b u t l e s s o f t e n boys — u s e t o t a l l y a s a n i n t e n s i f i e r . Gender - bas ed choices a r e m a d e i n other l a n g u a g e s t o o . T o s a y “thank y o u ” i n Por tuguese, women s a y women u s e t h e utterance-final p a r t i c l e ne? more frequently t h a n men. English speakers of both gender s seem describe t h e same q u a l i t y , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e beautiful, pretty handsome,

virile

o b r i g a d a and men s a y obrigado. I n Japanese, (which i s a b i t l i k e a question t a g i n English) t o agree t h a t d i f f e r e n t terms should be used t o

g e n d e r of t h e person being described:

( t o describe women) (to d es cri b e men)

As Hatch and B r o w n observe, except f o r those gender-sensitive choices t h a t a r e t h e same f o r speakers of both s e x e s , i t i s n o t always c l e a r whether v a r i a t i o n i n l e x i c a l choice should be attributed t o g e n d e r o r t o d i f f e r e n c e s in status o r p o w e r ; h o w e v e r ,

the variations exist,

and awareness of them must be p a r t of vocabulary i n s t r u c t i o n — t h e exc eption being t h a t a c a d e m i c and technical writing a p p e a r t o be r e l a t i v e l y f r e e of gender-b ased preferences w h e n c o m p a r e d with informal s p o k e n l a n g u a g e . G e o g r a p h i c a l d i a l e c t s often r e f l e c t vocab ulary d i f f e r e n c e s . B r i t i s h a n d A m e r i c a n English a r e g o o d e x a m p l e s i n t h i s regard, with each n a t i o n a l g r o u p h a v i n g d e v e l o p e d some c u l t u r a l l y d i s t i n c t i v e voc abular y:

American

British t h e cinema a film

™

t h e movies a movie

a n elevator

a lift a boot (of a c a r )

a trunk

a flat a lorry

a n apartment a truck

Within each of t h e s e two countries, t h e r e m a y be f u r t h e r d i a l e c t d i s t i n c t i o n s among speake r s by region such t h a t i n d i f f e r e n t p a r t s of t h e United S t a t e s , s k i l l e t , frying pan, a n d spider a r e words used t o describe t h e same cooking implement. Some v o c a b u l a r y variation i s d u e t o t h e a g e of t h e speakers (Hatch and Br ow n, 1 9 9 5 : 309) such t h a t expressions of positive assessment by t h e speaker have c h a n g e d from generation to generation i n t h e United St a t e s . 1940s and 1950s — k e e n , i n t h e g r o o v e 1960s and 1970s — c o o l , g r o o v y . 1980s and 1990s — r a d , a w e s o m e Also, i n m a n y l a n g u a g e s a s p e c i a l vocab ulary g e t s used only with children o r by children; t h i s i s k n o w n a s “baby t a l k . ” For e x a m p l e :

English

French

g o potty (use t h e t o i l e t )

faire dodo (go t o s l e e p )

nounou (Teddy b e a r ) u n bobo (something t h a t h u r t s )

dudu ( f e c e s ) a n owie (something t h a t h u r t s )  

Vocabulary

The s e l e c t i o n of a euphemism ( i . e . , a word t h a t i s c onsider ed l e s s d i r e c t a n d t h u s l e s s d i s tasteful o r o f f e n s i v e ) often reflects o n e o r m o r e

where t h e t o i l e t i s , t h e r e a r e m a n y i n English: British:

of these factors. For e x a m p l e , when as k i ng

possible l e x i c a l

items one

can

use

as

euphemi sms

the l o o , the W.C. ( w a t e r closet)

American:

the john (informal), the bathroom ( g e n e r a l )

F e m a l e / u p p e r middle c l a s s : t h e p o w d e r room Children: t h e potty Pu b l i c establishments: the ladies’ room, the m e n ’ s r o o m THE UNIQUENESS OF VOCABULARY

We must a l s o r e c o g n i z e t h a t while v o c a b u l a r y does have m a n y formulaic and routinized aspects (Nattinger a n d DeC arrico, 1992), i t i s a l s o a u n i q u e a r e a of L 2 l a n g u a g e l e a r n i n g . W h e r e a s g r a m m a r and p h onol ogy / or t h ogr ap h y a r e g e n e r a lly systematic c o m p e t e n c i e s n e e d e d f o r a l l s p o k e n o r w r i t t e n c o m m u n i c a t i o n — and t h u s a r e c o m p e t e n c i e s which demonstrate p a t t e r n s of acquisition a c r o s s l e a r n e r s — v o c a b u l a r y acquisition and u s e c a n be q u i t e specific o n c e learners h a v e m a s t e r e d the 2,000—3,000 words that constitute the b a s i c e v e r y d a y vocabulary, t h e m a i n semantic categories of which f o l l o w : ¢

c a r d i n a l a n d o r d i n a l numbers (I t o 1,000) — with r e f e r e n c e t o addresses, phone

numbers, d a t e s , a n d common m e a s u r a b l e c onc epts such a s a g e , h e i g h t , weight, time, distance, money, quantity, a n d s o forth

*

common foods

¢

words f o r days of t h e week, months, and seasons

¢

a r t i c l e s of clothing

*

eating u t e n s i l s

*

body p a r t s

¢

furniture

¢

family relationships

* ¢

colors shapes and s i z e s

*

negative a n d positive evaluation

°

c i t i e s , countries, a n d co nt i nent s

¢

oceans, lakes, rivers, a n d mountains

*

common animals

*

common occupations

*

common actions/activities/experiences

Beginning-level l e a r n e r s w i l l probably n o t l e a r n a l l t h e i r b a s i c vocabulary through discourse-oriented a c t i v i t i e s , s o i t i s a g o o d i d e a f o r teachers of such students t o k e e p i n mi nd teaching techniques such a s t h e u s e of p i c t u r e s , picture d i c t i o n a r i e s , word l i s t s / c a r d s , a n d t h e “ k e y w or d” tec hnique t o a s s i s t students i n acquiring t h e b a s i c vocabulary they n e e d t o b e c o m e e f f e c t i v e a t a p p l y i n g more g e n e r a l discourse-based s t r a t e g i e s . Nation (1990:166—7) provides a g o o d e x a m p l e of t h e k e y w o r d technique: i f English speakers wish t o master t h e Thai phrase k haaw s a a n , m e a n i n g “ u n c o o k e d r i c e , ” they should t h i n k

79

of a n English w o r d t h a t sounds s i m i l a r t o t h e Thai phrase l i k e c o u n c i l , a n d t h e n form a mental i m a g e of a council, a g r o u p of people, s i t t i n g a r o u n d a t a b l e with a heap of u n c o o k e d r i c e o n i t . This i m a g e a n d t h e English word associated with i t w i l l help them r e m e m b e r t h e m e a n i n g of t h e Thai phrase.

 

80

Language

K n owl e dg e

Apart from t h e general b a s i c vocab ulary outlined above, vocab ulary acquisition o f t e n bec omes highly personal from a d e v e l o p m e n t a l perspective i n a w a y t h a t t h e acquisition of g r a m m a r and p h onol ogy do n o t . Learners i n t e r e s t e d i n s p o r t s w i l l l e a r n a very d i f f e r e n t vocab ulary from t h o s e i n t e r e s t e d i n music, who i n t u r n w i l l l e a r n a d i f f e r e n t voc abul a r y from those i n t e r e s t e d i n p o l i t i c s . This h a s b een n ote d e v e n i n c h i l d sec ond l a n g u a g e acquisition s t u d i e s where two y o u n g children a t t h e same s t a g e of d e v e l o p m e n t i n t h e i r

sec ond l a n g u a g e s already e x h i b i t noticeable differences i n vocab ulary d e v e l o p m e n t a n d s p e c i a l i z a t i o n : Miki, t h e J a p a n e s e boy learning English (Yoshida, 1977), acquired m a n y words f o r vehicles whereas Caroline, t h e A m e r i c a n g i r l learning F r enc h (C elce-Murcia, 1 9 7 7 ) , acquired m a n y words needed f o r playing house. LITERAL VERSUS FIGURATIVE U S E : A MATTER OF CONTEXT (OR CO-TEXT)

I n a d d i t i o n , vocab ulary c a n be l i t e r a l o r figurative (with f i g u r a t i v e l a n g u a g e including idiomatic and metaphor ic al u s e ; L a k o f f and J o h n s o n , 1980). For example, a sentence such a s “He got t h e a xe ” m a y m e a n l i t e r a l l y t h a t some male person w ent a n d fetched a o o l f o r chopping wood, o r i t m a y m e a n figuratively t h a t some male person was f i r e d from h i s job, t h a t i s , terminated. The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a t one a r r i v e s a t m a y d e p e n d o n t h e c o - t e x t . I f t h e

discourse continues, “ ‘ a n d he c h op p ed d o w n t h e t r e e , ” t h e l i t e r a l interpretation t a k e s h o l d . I f t h e sub sequent discourse i s “so now h e ’ s looking f o r another job,” t h e figurative i n t e r pretation i s t h e coherent o n e . The physical context c a n , of course, a l s o disambiguate. I f the interlocutors

a r e in a forest, the l i t e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

i s f a v o r e d , but i f t h ey are in an

o f f i c e , t h e f i g u r a t i v e reading i s .

Virtually a l l vocabulary has t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of being colored by t h e c o - t e x t a n d cont e x t i n which i t o c c u r s . A n o u n l i k e “stocking” might be defined i n a dictionary a s follows: [ n . a c l o s e - f i t t i n g covering, usually k n i t t e d , f o r t h e leg and f o o t ] However, a s C a r t e r a n d McCarthy (1988) p o i nt out, a word like “ s t o c k i n g ” has quite d i f -

f e r e n t m e a n i n g s and r e f e r e n t s i n d i f f e r e n t contexts:

¢

My mother s t i l l has s i l k stockings from World W a r I I .

¢

The stockings were h u n g by t h e c h im n e y with c a r e , i n hopes t h a t S a i n t Nicholas soon would be t h e r e .

I n t h e f i r s t c o n t e x t , s i l k stockings represent t h e hosiery once worn by well-dressed w o men, which a r e now m a d e of nylon r a t h e r t h a n s i l k . I n c o n t r a s t , t h e Christmas stockings r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e sec ond example, a n excerpt from Cl ement Clark Moore’s p o e m “The Night Before Christmas,” n o w tend t o be l a r g e , decorative, stocking-shaped containers t h a t children h a n g u p o n t h e c h i mney mantle ( i f t h e i r ho me has a f i r e p l a c e a n d c h i m n e y ) o r elsew her e i n t h e ho me o n Christmas E v e s o t h a t Santa Claus — o r h i s helpers — c a n f i l l them u p with g i f t s . N o one e v e r wears such a t y l i z e d Christmas stocking, which i s t y p i c a l l y m a d e of f e l t .

We c a n therefore b egin t o a ppr e c ia te t h a t a great d e a l of t h e m e a n i n g of a n y word comes from t h e l a r g e r c u l t u r a l context and/or t h e i m m e d i a t e c o - t e x t o r s i t u a t i o n a l context

i n which t h e word occurs n a t i v e speakers s h a r e .

as well

a s from t h e m a n y

associations f o r a word t h a t most

CREATING VOCABULARY

though m a n y l e x i c a l choices a r e very formulaic, words a r e a l s o formed almost a s creatively a s sentences a r e formed by syntactic r u l e s . I n f a c t , n e w words t h a t n o one has used before (and per haps n o one w i l l e v e r u s e again) c a n be invented f o r s p e c i f i c

Even

 

Vocabulary

c o m m u n i c a t i v e purposes. A n e x a m p l e of t h i s comes i n t h e following s t o r y r e l a t e d t o u s by S a n d r a Thompson (personal c ommuni c at i on) : Two busloads of college students were g o i n g back t o t h e i r university a f t e r a f o o t b a l l game. I t was t h e w e e k e n d before Halloween, and s e v e r a l students w a n t e d t o s t o p a t a farmer’s stand o n t h e w a y ho me t o buy p u m p k i n s t o carve i n t o jack-o’-lanterns; o t h e r students w a n t e d t o g e t h o m e a s quickly a s possible t o study and work o n assignments. O n e student s a i d , “OK, t h i s i s t h e pumpkin-bus. I f y o u w ant t o b u y a p ump k i n, r i d e o n t h i s b u s . The o t h e r bus i s t h e regular bus and w i l l g o r i g h t back t o campus, s o i f you don’t w ant a p ump k i n, r i d e t h a t b u s . ” The i n s t r u c t i o n s were understood by e v e r y o n e p r e s e n t , and y e t i t i s l i k e l y t h a t t h e spontaneously formed n o u n compound p u m p kin - b u s was used u n i q u e l y o n t h i s occasion; i t h a s n o t m a d e i t s w ay i n t o g e n e r a l English vocabulary. P e o p l e d o , however, m a k e u p new words a l l t h e time a n d survive. ( Fo r example, c o n s i d e r the word nerd, “a socially inept a n d physically unattractive b u t brainy person — t y p i c a l l y male - who specializes i n something s c i e n t i f i c o r t e c h n i c a l . ” E x a m p l e u s e : He’s a c o m p u t e r n e r d . ) . that catch on

V o c a b u l a r y c h a n g e s f a s t e r t h a n syntax o r phonology. I t i s t h e p a r t of l a n g u a g e t h a t c a n r e s p o n d immediately t o c h a n g e s in e n v i r o n m e n t , e x p e r i e n c e , o r culture. If something new i s d i s c o v e r e d o r i n v e n t e d , l a n g u a g e users will c r e a t e a new wor d, borrow a wor d, o r e x t e n d t h e m e a n i n g of a n e x i s t i n g word t o express t h e n e w p h e n o m e n o n . O n t h e o t h e r hand, words

expr essing objects o r i d e a s n o lon g e r i n u s e w i l l be discarded and f a l l o u t of u s e . PRODUCTIVE PROCESSES OF WORD FORMATION

E v e r y l a n g u a g e has one major o r s e v e r a l a l t e r n a t i v e ways of creating n e w words. Thus speakers of a n y l a n g u a g e c a n c r e a t e one-time c oinages t h a t d o n o t l a s t o r new words t h a t might be adopted and p r omot ed by agents of c h a n g e such a s t e l e v i s i o n o r r a d i o , t h e p r e s s , t h e e n t e r t a i n m e n t i n d u s t r y , and t h e l i k e . These agents of c h a n g e c a n be instrumental i n establishing and spr eading t h e u s e of a n e w w o r d o r expression, especially i f t h e n e w l e x i c a l item f a c i l i t a t e s c ommuni c at i on. I n English, f o r e x a m p l e , t h e r e a r e t h r e e pr oduc tive w or d for mation processes. ( S e e Adams [1973] f o r f u r t h e r discussion.) *

compounding ( e . g . , t h e p u m p kin - b u s e x a m p l e , where two nouns c o m e

together t o form o n e ) . Established compounds i l l u s t r a t i n g some of t h e f r e q u e n t pr oduc tive p a t t e r n s i n English include mailman, f i f t y - o n e , blackbird, a n d three-legged. ¢

a f f i x a t i o n ( i . c . , the a d d i t i o n o f p r e f i x e s or suffixes t o a stem t o c r e a t e d e r i v a t i v e words —

e . g . , r e wi n d,

unco o l , ant i - G i ngri ch , w et nes s , lobbyist,

a n d sisterhood.) *

c o n v e r s i o n ( i . e . , t y p i c a l l y t h e c onver sion of a n o u n o r a n adjective i n t o a verb without t h e addition of other elements). For e x a m p l e : I ’ d r a t h e r o f f i c e h e r e . (from t h e n o u n “ o f f i c e ’ ’ ) His g r a s s has greened. (from t h e adjective “ g r e e n ” ’ )

T h e second o r foreign l a n g u a g e l e a r n e r eventually has t o master t h e s e word pr oduc tion m e c h a n is m s i n t h e t a r g e t l a n g u a g e i n order t o t a k e f u l l a d v a n t a g e of t h e s e processes a s a s t r a t e g y f o r c o m p r e h e n d i n g a n d using vocabulary. I n f a c t Olshtain ( 1 9 8 7 ) found t h a t t h e master y of such w o r d pr oduc tion processes a r e one index of sec ond l a n g u a g e acquisition d e v e l o p m e n t i n t h a t i t i n d i c a t e s a gradual a p p r o x i m a t i o n of n a t i v e - l i k e pr oduc tive l e x i c a l k n o w l e d g e . ? Certainly awareness of such pr oduc tive processes i s a l s o helpful w h e n applying bottom-up processing s t r a t e g i e s t o e i t h e r pr oduc tive u s e o r receptive c omp r eh ens i on o f vocabulary.

 

82

L a n g u a g e K n owl e dg e In many

l a n g u a g e s t h e r e a r e a l s o l e s s pr oduc tive b u t nonetheless very fr e qu e n t and u s e f u l p a t t e r n s of u s e f o r stems o r r o o t s and a f f i x e s , k n o w l e d g e of which i s valuable t o L 2 l e a r n e r s who need t o do a c a d e m i c reading a n d w r i t i n g . For example, t h e a f f i x - i t y , although n o t pr oduc tive i n English, occurs i n m a n y a b s t r a c t nouns: s e r e n i t y , o p a c i t y , r e a l i t y , and t h e l i k e . Likewise; t h e stem t e l e - , which means “ f a r , d i s t a n t , ” occurs i n m a n y such a s telegraph, telephone, and t e l e v i s i o n . T her e a r e u s e f u l sources (such 1990, f o r English) t h a t t h e foreign o r sec ond l a n g u a g e teacher c a n consult i n d e v e l o p i n g materials t o help t h e l e a r n e r develop s t r a t e g i c awareness of u s e f u l r o o t s and a f f i x e s f o r d e v e l o p i n g e f f e c t i v e bottom-up word c o m p r e h e n s i o n s t r a t e g i e s and a s s i s t i n b e t t e r l e x i c a l s e l e c t i o n f o r pr oduc tive t a s k s .

words

a s Green,

LEXICAL BORROWING

Words a r e d i f f e r e n t from g r a m m a t i c a l and phonological systems i n one other very import a n t way: n a t i v e speakers of one l a n g u a g e c a n r e a d i l y borrow a word o r expression from another language, b u t they a r e m u c h l e s s l i k e l y t o borrow s t r u c t u r e s o r sounds from other languages.? Thus English has words t h a t r e f l e c t n o t only i t s n a t i v e G e r m a n i c o r i g i n s , i t also has th o us and s

of words borrowed f r o m Norman F r e n c h a n d l a t e r varieties o f F r e n c h,

some words bor r ow ed from L a t i n , some from Gr eek, and some from o t h e r languages. T h e b o r r o w i n g process works i n reverse a s w e l l . T o d a y l a n g u a g e s a s diverse a s French, Hebrew, and J a p a n e s e a r e b o r r o w i n g m a n y words from t h e English l a n g u a g e . H ow ev er , w h e n t h e speakers of t h e s e l a n g u a g e s borrow words, they o f t e n c h a n g e t h e m e a n i n g o r l i m i t t h e m e a n i n g i n i n t e r e s t i n g ways. For e x a m p l e , i n H e b r e w a a r , b u s , o r t r u c k c a n have both a r o n t “back axle” and a r e a r “bac k axle” s i n c e t h e term “bac k axle” was bor r ow ed from English ( p r o n o u n c e d “bekaks” i n He b r e w ) t o m e a n t h e a x l e o r rod t o which t h e wheels a r e attached, i n d e p e n d e n t of f r o n t o r b ack p o s i t i o n . Another e x a m p l e — i n colloquial H e b r e w t h e word “tape” i s routinely used t o m e a n “tape recorder” even though a H e b r e w word “rashamkol” ( l i t e r a l l y “voice recorder”) e x i s t s t o express t h e notion.

Words a r e s l i p p e r y : T h e y a r e c r e a t e d , they d i e o f f , they a r e borrowed, they c h a n g e m e a n i n g . Words constantly n e e d t o be interpreted and reinterpreted i n terms of t h e c u l t u r a l contexts and discourse contexts i n which they a r e being used a t any g i v e n point i n t i m e . For l a n g u a g e l e a r n e r s , v o c a b u l a r y i s a l s o l e s s s t a b l e than g r a m m a t i c a l o r phonological systems. I f g r a m m a t i c a l o r phonological systems have been r easonably w e l l acquired, they c a n be retained over long periods of time a n d c a n be revived and f a i r l y e a s i l y r e a c t i v a t e d i f t h ey h a v e fallen into disuse. Each w o rd , h o w e v e r , o n c e learned, then has the p o t e n t i a l t o be misused o r e v e n forgotten unless i t i s used a n d re-used o n a regular b a s i s .

VOCABULARY AND

Discourse ANALYSIS

I s s u e s of v o c a b u l a r y s e l e c t i o n w h e n generating discourse a r e ultimately t i e d u p with shared k n o w l e d g e about ( 1 ) what i s being said/written ( i . e . , t h e t o p i c ) , ( 2 ) how i t i s being said/written ( i . e , modality and g e n r e ) , a n d ( 3 ) who i s saying o r writing i t t o whom ( i . e . , r e g i s t e r , speec h c ommuni t y ) . These a r e some of the t o p i c s we explore i n t h i s s e c t i o n . TYPES OF VOCABULARY IN FIELDS OF SPECIALIZATION

A specialized f i e l d such a s a c o r e vocabulary it s h a r e s i t s own branch of s c i e n c e ; i n a s p e c i f i c subarea ( e . g . , c o n c o r d a n c e analysis ( 1 . e . ,

biology o r physics m a y w e l l have t h r e e types of vocab ulary: ( 1 ) with a l l sciences and technologies; ( 2 ) a s p e c i f i c vocab ulary f o r and ( 3 ) e v e n mor e s p e c i f i c v o c a b u l a r y k n o w n primarily t o those microbiology, plasma p h y s i c s ) . Discourse analysis a n d l e x i c a l having a c c e s s t o a l l tokens of a word form i n context f o r a g i v e n

 

Vocabulary

corpus) of a ppr opr ia te w r i t t e n corpora c a n i d e n t i f y v o c a b u l a r y items of each t y p e , which i n t u r n i s u s e f u l information f o r t h e l a n g u a g e teacher who i s p r e p a r i n g l e a r n e r s s p e c i a l i z ing i n a g i v e n a c a d e m i c o r professional f i e l d ( i . e . , l a n g u a g e learning f o r s p e c i f i c purposes). Such l e a r n e r s a r e o f t e n very e a g e r t o master t h e English voc abular y used i n t h e i r d i s c i p l i n e — p r e s u m a b l y t o have a c c e s s t o publications i n English, t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o n f e r e n c e s , a n d so forth.4 LEXICAL COLLOCATION AND LEXICAL COHESION

At t h e l e v e l of t h e sentence, words c o m e together t o form collocations, i . e . , they form semantic a n d s t r u c t u r a l bonds t h a t b e c o m e routines o r chunks t h a t n a t i v e speakers c a n access f o r c o m p r e h e n s io n o r production. Thus English L 1 u s e r s s a y and w r i t e t a l l b u i l d ing r a t h e r than high building o r s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r a t h e r t h a n s t a t i s t i c a l l y important, a n d s o o n . O r , i f asked t o pr ovide words f o r c o m p l e t i n g a sentence l i k e “John _ _ _ _ _ money ,” n a t i v e speakers w i l l s p o n t a n e o u s l y p r o d u c e verbs from a very small s e t : e a r n s , makes , saves, has, l i k e s , wants, spends, a n d n e e d s (Seal, 1981). S u c h co l l o cat i o ns reflect both l o c a l w o r d - c o m b i n i n g tendencies, which any l a n g u a g e h a s , and a l s o m o r e g e n e r a l content schemata o r information s t r u c t u r e s t h a t a l l L 1 English u s e r s share f o r a w o r d l i k e “money.” This i s the most common use o f the t erm “lexical c o l l o c a t i o n , ” a n d i t i s differe n t from Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) u s e of t h e term t o r e f e r t o v o c a b u l a r y items t h a t a r e l i k e l y t o a p p e a r i n t h e same t e x t bec ause of t o p i c association, a n d s o f o r t h . Ideally, w e w a n t L2 users t o f o r m the s a m e word combinations (or lexical c h u n k s ) a n d u t i l i z e t h e same schemata a s L 1 u s e r s , b u t o f t e n t h i s does n o t h a p p e n because of i n t e r fe r e n c e from t h e f i r s t l a n g u a g e o r bec ause of i n s u f f i c i e n t exposure and a t t e n t i o n t o t h e pertinent collocations i n t h e t a r g e t l a n g u a g e . For example, t h e n o n n a t i v e English speaker who says o r w r i t e s “b ridging t h e hole” i n s t e a d of “bridging t h e g a p ” m a y be understood by the the interactants; however, i f the interactants a r e n a t i v e sp e a k e r s o f Englis h o r advanced u s e r s of English, they a r e l i k e l y t o notice t h e collocation e r r o r t h a t was made. A t the level o f discourse, Hasan (1984; see also H a l l i d a y a n d Hasan 1976, 1989) has d o n e much t o shed l i g h t o n l e x i c a l relationships i n t e x t . She e x a m i n e s d i f f e r e n t types of l e x i c a l relationships i n discourse, which collectively c o n s t i t u t e l e x i c a l cohesion, for example:

*

repetition/reiteration:

a.

same word/stem minus i n f l e c t i o n s , p a r t of speech: tooth-teeth b . s y n o n y m : tooth-dental *

a n t o n y m : good/bad; black/white

¢

part-whole: room-house; steering w heel-c ar

83

¢

general-specific ( e i t h e r direction) animal-dog; c ity-Reno

¢

member of same s e t : dog-cat; g r e e n - y e l l o w

f u r t h e r qualifications should m a k e t o t h i s l i s t relationa r e two lexical of There we s h i p s . F i r s t , t h e whole notion of repetition o r reiteration d i f f e r s from one l a n g u a g e and c u l t u r e t o a n o t h e r . I n some l a n g u a g e s i t i s c onsider ed g o o d s t y l e t o simply rep eat t h e same word s e v e r a l times ( e . g . , Arabic, J a p a n e s e ) whereas i n other l a n g u a g e s ( e . g . , English) i t i s necessary t o vary r e p e t i t i o n s and u s e d i f f e r e n t s y n o n y m s o r appropriately r e l a t e d words i n order t o achieve g o o d s t y l e . Second, a l l l a n g u a g e s have a stock of g e n e r a l words ( i n English: person, p l a n t , animal, s t u f f , t h i n g , i d e a , t i m e , place, and s o f o r t h . ) t h a t seem t o be s o m e w h e r e b e t w e e n p r o n o u n s and f u l l y e x p l i c i t l e x i c a l items i n terms of m a r k i n g cohesion. These g e n e r a l words a r e highly frequent and a r e t h e most g e n e r a l of words o n t h e general-specific c o n t i n u u m f o r l e x i c a l m e a n i n g ; they tend t o occur more o f t e n i n informal s p o k e n discourse than elsewhere:

 

Language

K n owl e dg e

|eneral } “thing”

= book”

m e a n i n g o f VOCABULARY}———Specific | “novel”

“Russian novel”

“Anna Karenina”

O ne c a n e x a m i n e a n y g i v e n piece of discourse t o s e e what l e x i c a l chains occur i n order t o deter mine which l e x i c a l relationships a r e obtained. Usually t e x t s of s e v e r a l clauses have a t l e a s t two i n t e r a c t i n g l e x i c a l c h a i n s . Consider t h e following t e x t : 5

The town of S o n o m a , California, launc hed t h e Salute t o t h e A r t s i n 1986 a s a o n e - d a y event h e l d i n a s i n g l e q u a d r a n t of Sonoma Plaza w i t h some t h i r t y r e s t a u r a n t s and wineries, a few a r t d i s p l a y s , and one mariachi trio. T o d a y t h e f e s t i v a l i s a w ine country t r a d i t i o n consisting of a n opening-night gala and two f u l l days of f o o d , wine, and a r t featuring 100 restaurants, wineries, a n d a r t galleries. I t benefits s e v e n t e e n nonprofit a r t s , c u l t u r a l , and educational organizations. more than

In t h i s short t e x t there a r e several i n t e r r e l a t e d lexical chains: ¢ Salute t o t h e A r t s , f e s t i v a l , t r a d i t i o n , g a l a , b e n e f i t *

town, Sonoma, Sonoma Plaza, w i n e c o u n t r y , C al i f o rni a

e

1986 (one-day e v e n t ) , today (two f u l l days)

In addition, the “ S a l u t e t o the Arts” ch ai n has three subchains: ¢

food, restaurants

¢

w i ne, w i neri es

¢

a r t , a r t displays, a r t g a l l e r i e s

A n d “benefit(s)” i s a s e t with three types of nonprofit b e n e f i c i a r i e s : a r t s organizaa n d e d u c a t i o n a l o rgani z at i o ns . Without these cross-clausal l e x i c a l relationships t h e t e x t would n o t be a s cohesive and coherent a s i t i s . Each l e x i c a l chain c a n be f u r t h e r a n a l y z e d i n terms of t h e semantic relationships i n t h e c h a i n . For example, t h e l e x i c a l chain consisting of town, S onoma, Sonoma Plaza, a n d w ine country, California c a n be f u r t h e r a n a l y z e d i n t h a t town i s more g e n e r a l than S onoma, a s p e c i f i c tions, cultural

o rgani z at i o ns ,

town. Sonoma P l a z a i s one p a r t of t h e whole town, which i s t u r n i s p a r t of t h e w ine country, which i s i n California. L a n g u a g e teachers a n d l a n g u a g e l e a r n e r s n e e d t o be f u l l y a w a r e of t h e r o l e t h a t t h e lexicon plays i n forming cohesive and coherent discourse. ND INDIVIDUALS RHETORICAL DEMANDS, DISCOURSE COMMUNITIES,

b e c o m e aw ar e of t h e f a c t t h a t s p e c i f i c vocabu l a r y items t e n d t o be associated with c e r t a i n r h e t o r i c a l t e x t p a t t e r n s . For example, t h e problem-posing portion of a n expository t e x t i s l i k e l y t o contain words l i k e d i f f i c u l t y , h i n d e r , a n d h a m p e r while t h e s o l u t i o n / r e s u l t portion of t h e same t e x t w i l l contain words l i k e r e s o l v e , outcome, and address (McCarthy, 1 9 9 1 : 7 9 ) . Learners who a r e s t r a t e g i c a l l y a w a r e of such p a t t e r n s w i l l be more e f f e c t i v e r e a d e r s and w r i t e r s t h a n t h o s e who a r e n ot . S o m e tim e s vocabulary items used i n a particular w ay r e f l e c t a s p e c i f i c discipline and t h e preferences of i n s i d e r s of t h a t d i s c i p l i n e . I n f a c t , t h e specialized l e x i s t h a t develops a s a p a r t of specialized g e n r e s i s one of t h e defining t r a i t s of a n y discourse community. With t h i s i n mind, Leech (1995) assembled s i z a b l e databases of a r t i c l e s from four d i f f e r e n t a c a d e m i c journals (Memory a n d Cognition, Linguistic I n q u i r y , Human Organization, and Behaviour) i n a n attempt t o s e e i f he could d e t e c t lexical-choice differences a m o n g t h e f o u r discourse communities. Among t h e r e s u l t s he unc over ed, L e e c h found t h a t authors I t i s a l s o important t h a t teachers and l e a r n e r s

 

Vocabulary

publishing i n Memory a n d Cognition (M&C) and Linguistic I nquiry ( L I ) used d i f f e r e n t l e x i c a l phrases f o r what i s seemingly t h e same semantic purpose; namely, L e e c h found t h a t w h e n m a kin g o r r e j e c t i n g k n o w l e d g e claims e i t h e r by c i t i n g previous research o r by presenting one’s ow n research i n a n a r t i c l e , M&C authors tended t o u s e t h e verb “suggest” (prior research would suggest . ; t h e data we c i t e strongly suggest . . . ) whereas L I authors tended t o u s e t h e verb “explain” ( X ’ s ac c ount does/does n o t explain. . ; t h e r u l e presented above explains . ) . L e e c h accounts f o r t h i s l e x i c a l difference by r e f e r r i n g t o t h e d i s t i n c t research t r a d i t i o n s of t h e cognitive psychologists who submit manuscripts t o M&C and t h e formal MIT-school l i n g u i s t s who submit manuscripts t o L I . H ow ev er , what Leech’s research should s i g n a l t o l a n g u a g e teachers i s t h a t sec ond l a n g u a g e l e a r n e r s with a n a c a d e m i c major o r research specialization w i l l have t o master u s e s of seemingly nontec hnic al l e x i c a l items t h a t a r e used i n ways q u i t e s p e c i f i c t o t h e i r discipline and t o t h e discourse genres of t h e i r discipline i n order t o r e a d and w r i t e e f f e c t i v e l y a s a member of t h e discourse community w or k i ng i n t h a t d i s c i p l i n e . S o m e tim e s c e r t a i n l o w f r e q u e n c y words g e t associated with p a r t i c u l a r individuals who have a predisposition t o u s e them with unusual fr e qu e n c y . I n o t h e r words, t h e l e x i c a l items b e c o m e f e a t u r e s of a n individual’s s p e a k i n g o r writing s t y l e . For example, a w el l - k now n for mer professor of A m e r i c a n h i s t o r y a t t h e University of I l l i n o i s used t h e w o r d “prodigious” s e v e r a l times i n v i r t u a l l y e v e r y l e c t u r e he gave. I t was t h u s impossible f o r students in t h i s professor’s classes t o i g n o r e t h i s wor d, and, in f a c t , a s a n inside joke, some students

kept t r a c k of t h e n u m b e r of times t h e Professor s a i d t h e word “pr odigious” during each l e c t u r e . Needless t o s a y , e v e r y o n e i n t h e c l a s s learned t h e m e a n i n g of t h e word. M o r e t y p i c a l l y , such characteristic u s e of vocab ulary develops i n groups l i k e t h e cogn i t i v e psychologists o r formal l i n g u i s t s whose writings L e e c h studied and c o m p a r e d . Leech’s ex amp l es a r e n o t a matter of personal s t y l e (which i s something d i s t i n c t t h a t i s nonetheless accessible t o a l l o r most language u s e r s ) . I n s t e a d , such ex amp l es a r e a matter o f g r o u p membership, i . e . , one must belong t o t h e g r o u p t o f u l l y u n d e r s t a n d t h e u s e of t h e t e r m s . S u c h gr oups m a y be constituted i n d i f f e r e n t ways and a r e sometimes very small ( e . g . , i n extreme c a s e s , t w i n s , s i b l i n g s , o r a small g r o u p of f r i e n d s m a k e u p some of t h e i r o w n s e c r e t words a s a sign of g r o u p s o l i d a r i t y and i n s i d e r s t a t u s ) .

85

VOCABULARY ITEMS THAT NEED DISCOURSE TO BE COMPREHENDED AND LEARNED

Words t h a t s e r v e a discourse function r a t h e r t h a n expressing semantic content a r e much m o r e d e p e n d e n t o n context a n d c o - t e x t f o r t h e i r m e a n i n g and u s e . T h e y have been l a r g e l y ignor ed i n l a n g u a g e teaching approaches t h a t t r e a t g r a m m a r a t t h e sentence l e v e l and v o c a b u l a r y i n word l i s t s . We s h a l l discuss two such c a s e s ( e l s e and w e l l ) i n some d e t a i l t o illustrate this point.

Else

The English function word e l s e i s a u s e f u l and r e l a t i v e l y frequent l e x i c a l item (570th i n f r e quency, ac c or ding t o Francis and Kuc er a, 1 9 8 2 ) . Yet i t i s n o t w e l l t r e a t e d i n ESL/EFL t e x t books where sentence-level g r a m m a r and vocab ulary exercises a r e t h e n o r m bec ause l i k e other r e fe r e n c e words ( e . g . , personal pr onouns, demonstratives, and t h e l i k e ) i t requires some p r i o r discourse f o r i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .

 

86

Language

Knowledge restricted e n v i r o n m e n t s :

Else o c c u r s in five gram m at i cal l y

1.

a f t e r compound pronouns/adverbs:

someany-

every-

-one

it

no2.

-body

-thing -plac e/w her e

else

a f t e r wh-interrogatives: (who/what/when/where/why/how) + ( e v e r ) else

3,

afteror: o r else

4.

ina deter miner function ( a ) a f t e r c e r t a i n q u a n t i f i e r s : a l l / l i t t l e / ( n o t ) much else

o r ( b ) used alone l i k e a p r o n o u n

( now r a r e ) :

He c a n n o t d o e l s e .

5.

a s a pr emodifier of “where”

i n t h e adverbial expression:

“elsewhere”

A c c or di ng t o a data-based analysis by Y a p ( 1 9 9 4 ) , i n t h e position following t h e quantifiers all/little}not) much, “else” o ccurs a l m ost e xc l u si v e l y in written discourse. The a d v e r b i a l

form “elsewhere” occurs so mew hat more frequently i n written than i n spoken discourse. The other patterns with e / s e , however, a r e a l l m o r e f r e q u e n t in spoken than in written discourse. For both s p o k e n and written discourse “ e l s e ” occurs most fr e qu e n tly a f t e r compound p r o n o u n s / a d v e r b s , n e x t after wh-words, a n d then in the “or else” c o m b i n a t i o n . The com-

bination form “elsewhere” i s l e s s frequent, a n d t h e d e t e r m i n e r / p r o n o m i n a l uses of “ e l s e ” represent t h e l e a s t fr e qu e n tly occurring functions. I n Yap’s database, t h e most frequent m e a n i n g of “ e l s e ” i n discourse i s “other” (81 pe r c e n t o r h e r spoken tokens and 87 percent of her written o n e s ) :

. t h a t would be a s sensible a s a r g u i n g t h a t t h e price of crude o i l r e m a i n e d u n c h a n g e d through t h e 1970s while t h e value of ever ything e l s e declined by about 75 percent. (Heyne, 1983:296) '

(where “ever ything e l s e ” = “ a l l commodities

other than crude o i l ” )

T her e were, however, t h r e e o t h e r minor readings of “ e l s e ” t h a t Y a p i d e n t i f i e d (each of which i s heavily c o n t e x t - d e p e n d e n t ) :

I.

“more, additional” They w e r e

better trained, better l o o k i n g , better b u i l t , better disciplined,

and something e l s e — they were b e t t e r dancers.

( B r o w n c or p us — H obbi es 40 3 RB) (“something e l s e ” = “something more”’)

 

Vocabulary

2.

“alternative, o th erw is e”

stain t h e normal c e l l a c t i v i t y o r e l s e c o l o r s This only t h e o u ot fs it de en . disrupts

( B r o w n corpus — Hobbies 330 8 RB) ( “ o r e l s e ” = “ t h e other p o s s i b i l i t y ’ ) 3.

“ n e g a t i v e alternative, a b s e n c e o f other possibilities”

There w a s n o t h i n g e l s e I c o u l d d o . . . . ( B r o w n corpus — Belle L e t t r e s 300 5 RB) (“nothing e l s e ” = “no other a l t e r n a t i v e ’ ’ ) S e n t e n c e - l e v e l exercises cannot possibly c o n v e y t o n o n n a t i v e speakers t h e importance of t h e w o r d e l s e and t h e ways i n which i t i s used i n English. What i s n e e d e d a r e m a n y f u l l y contextualized ex amp l es (taken o r a d a p t e d from authentic materials) t o pr ovide l e a r n e r s with t h e necessary e x p o s u r e t o a n d practice with “ e l s e , ” a function w o r d t h a t i s both semantically a n d g r a m m a t i c a l l y complex. I t must a l s o be contrasted with “ m o r e ” a n d “(an)other,” words with which i t i s e a s i l y confused by L 2 l e a r n e r s .

Well S c h i f f r i n ( 1 9 8 7 ) and Kinsler (1987) have looked a t t h e discourse p a r t i c l e w e l l (which i s d i f f e r e n t from t h e adjective w e l l i n “I’m feeling well” o r t h e adver b w e l l i n “He d i d i t w e l l ” ) . The discourse m a r k e r w e l l i s interactionally very impor tant i n English conversation s i n c e

87

i t i s a m a r k e r speakers u s e t o s h i f t t h e orientation of t a l k i n some way. Kinsler d i d a d i s course analysis of almost 300 tokens of w e l l oc c ur r ing i n spontaneous conversations, and what follows a r e t h e s i x m a j o r “ s h i f t s ” t h a t p e o p l e m a r k e d with w e l l i n her d a t a . ® 1.

A s h i f t in the n e x t turn t o a comment, o p i ni o n, e v a l u a t i o n ,

or explanation

rather than facts, reports, d es cri p t i o ns (56 t o k ens )

A: B: 2.

I t ’ s l i k e one little g r o u p t h a t always s t a y s t o g e t h e r .

Well t h a t ’ s good.

A h i f t i n t h e next t u r n t o a disagr eement, reservation ( i . e . , a dispreferred response)

(48 tokens)

3.

with t h e c a n e , why don’t they give me t h e so-called r i g h t of w a y ?

A:

I f they s e e me

B:

Well they probably do, once they s e e i t .

Ashift by one speaker from narration o r description t o reported (quoted) speec h (41 tokens)

— Y ou know, they g a v e u s a room a n d they s a i d w e l l dur ing t h e d a y t h e room holds forty-eight people. 4.

A m o d i f i cat i o n, r e s t a r t , o r r e p a i r ( 3 9 t o k ens )

— He w- he had- w e l l he was tw enty years o l d w h e n he v o l u n t e e r e d f o r t h e paratroopers. 5.

A topic o p e n e r , introducer, s h i f t e r , res um er, r e s p o n s e ( 3 3 t o k ens )

A:

That doesn’t m a k e sense a s f a r a s br eeding g o e s .

B:

Weill, f i r s t o f a l l , I happen t o not h a v e a n a wfu l l o t t a faith in b reed i ng.

 

Language

6.

Knowledge

Aclosing, preclosing (10 tokens)

— Well a n y w a y l i s t e n . I g o t t a do a l o t of studying.’ S l i g h t l y over 1 0 p ercent of Kinsler’s d a t a had tokens of w e l l t h a t c o-oc c ur r ed with o t h e r words i n c l u s t e r s : w e l l n o w , w e l l t h e n , oh w e l l , w e l l l o o k / l i s t e n , and w e l l thank y o u . These collocates a l s o need t o be p a r t of a c o m p l e t e description of w e l l . A s part of her r e s e a r c h Kinsler (1987) conducted a related e x p e r i m e n t . S h e r e c o r d e d two discussion groups — one with n a t i v e speakers, t h e o t h e r w i t h f l u e n t n o n n a t i v e speake r s of d i f f e r e n t L 1 backgrounds. Both groups addressed s i m i l a r t o p i c s and spoke f o r about t h e same length of t i m e . O n l y one of t h e n o n n a t i v e speakers used t h e discourse p a r t i c l e w e l l . He used i t s i x t i m e s . A l l of t h e n a t i v e speakers used t h e discourse p a r t i c l e w e l l , and i t occurred a o t a l of sixty-eight times i n t h e i r discussion. Sin c e w e l l i s a l e x i c a l item t h a t i s p i v o t a l f o r n a t i v e speakers e n g a g e d i n informal s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n , i t i s important t o

musing a k e ilt .e a r n e r s a w a r e of i t s presence and of t h e appropriate discourse e n v i r o n m e n t s f o r

TEACHING VOCABULARY THROUGH DISCOURSE Several of t h e suggestions we m a d e i n Chapter 4 f o r teaching g r a m m a r could a l s o be used t o teach vocabulary. T h e difference would be one of f o c u s . For example, w h e n using t h e Family T r e e diagr am, t h e focus could be o n t h e teaching of kinship t e r m s . Likewise, w h e n using t h e f a b l e about t h e fox and t h e c r ow t h e focus could be o n t h e voc abular y: f o x ,

w ind o w , t r e e , crow, feathers, eyes, mouth, voice, a n d s o f o r t h . In f a c t , s t o r i e s a r e powerful contexts f o r teaching vocabulary. I f l e a r n e r s a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n a t o r y , they w i l l l e a r n t h e v o c a b u l a r y t h a t they n e e d t o know i n order t o u n d e r s t a n d and r e t e l l i t . cheese,

kitchen

I n t h e following we discuss some o t h e r discourse contexts f o r teaching vocabulary. Both children and a d u l t s seem t o respond positively t o learning v o c a b u l a r y through s t o r i e s a n d v i s u a l s (children — p i c t u r e s ; a d u l t s — c h a r t s / diagrams). USING INFORMATIVE TEXTS

O n e w a y t o present a n item l i k e e l s e i s t o s e l e c t excerpts from spoken o r written t e x t s where t h e t a r g e t word i s used i n a a r t i c u l a r l y s a l i e n t manner . Such t e x t s a r e a m e n a b l e t o comprehension

activities,

discussion,

and

analysis

t o he l p raise

learner

a wa r e n e ss.

The following p a r a g r a p h i s taken from a n introductory ec onomi c s textbook a n d w oul d be especially appropriate f o r u s e with a d v a n c e d l e a r n e r s who have a t l e a s t some b a s i c k n o w l e d g e of economics: Of course, ever ything i s f i n a l l y r e l a t i v e t o ever ything e l s e . I t ’ s l o g i c a l l y possible t o i n s i s t t h a t m o n e y has maintained a constant v a lu e i n r e c e n t years and ever ything e l s e has g o n e u p . But t h a t would be a s sensible a s a r g u i n g t h a t t h e price of a b a r r e l of crude o i l r e m a i n e d u n c h a n g e d through t h e 1970s while t h e value of ever ything e l s e declined b y about 75 p e r c e n t . When we f i n d o i l prices m o v i n g r e l a t i v e t o ever ything e l s e , common s e n s e t e l l s u s t o look f o r t h e explanation i n changes t h a t have occurred i n t h e conditions of supply o r d e m a n d f o r o i l — n o t f o r “ever ything e l s e . ” When we s e e m o n e y p r i c e s m o v i n g r e l a t i v e t o ever ything e l s e , common sense ought t o d i c t a t e t h e same course of i n q u i r y .

(Heyne, 1983:296)

 

Vocabulary

This t e x t i s very unusual i n having s i x tokens of everything e l s e . H ow ev er , t h i s unusual y e t authentic t e x t allows t h e teacher t o focus o n e l s e i n i t most fr e qu e n t and b a s i c s e n s e of “other” within t h e context of a m e a n i n g f u l a n a l o g y p r o v i d e d i n a n ec onomi c s textbook. C e r t a i n l y , i f students r e a d and c o m p r e h e n d t h i s t e x t , they w i l l gain considerable exposure t o , e x p e r i e n c e w i t h , and u n d e r s t a n d i n g of e l s e . USING CARTOONS

T h e following dialog from a Peanuts cartoon® provides one e x a m p l e of how t o teach a word l i k e w e l l . Sc e n e : At t h e beach, Linus h a s b u i l t a small sand c a s t l e and L u c y has b u i l t a l a r g e life-sized throne, which w e don’t see u n t i l the sixth a n d f i n a l f ram e, a t which p o i n t

L u c y i s s i t t i n g o n t h e throne a s she speaks; t h e cartoon’s dialog i s a s follows: Lucy:

That’s a n i c e looking c a s t l e .

Linus: Lucy:

This i s more than a a s t l e . This i s t h e King’s c a s t l e Well, t h a t ’ s almost a s g o o d ...

Linus:

Almost? Almost a s g o o d a s what?

Luc y :

A l mos t a s g o o d a s t h e Q u e e n ’ s t h r o n e .

I n addition t o t h e u s e of w e l l i n i t s highly frequent and u s e f u l d i s a g r e e m e n t function in L u c y ’ s s e c o n d turn, the cart o o n co nt ai ns four token s of almost, which i s a n ot he r word

89

l e x i c a l item s e n s i t i v e t o grammar and discourse. This cartoon could t h u s be used t o teach almost, t o o . O n c e c o m p r e h e n d e d , such a comic s t r i p c a n be used a s a template t o stimulate t h e creation of dialogs o r r o l e plays by students w o r k i n g i n p a i r s o r small groups. like else

or well

in that

it is a l s o

a frequent

F o r example,

A:

_ T h a t ’ s a n ic e looking c a r .

B:

This i s more than a c a r . This i s a M e r c e d e s

A

Well, t h a t ’ s almost a s g o o d . . .

B

Almost? Almost a s g o o d a s what?

A

Almost a s g o o d a s a Rolls R o y c e

USING INTERACTIVE ROLE PLAYS

Interactive r o l e plays a r e a n excellent vehicle f o r teaching and practicing t h e macrostruct u r e a n d v o c a b u l a r y of speech a c t s . Tamanaha (1998) asked native speakers of English and J a p a n e s e ( a l l college students) t o d o t h e same r o l e p l a y : You borrowed a comic book ( J a p a n e s e manga) f r o m a riend, but

your d o g t o r e a few pages o u t of i t . Y o u were unab le t o f i n d t h e same comic book a t t h e bookstores t o r e pla c e i t . Now y o u a r e m e e t i n g your f r i e n d a t t h e c a f e t e r i a t o r e t u r n i t . A p ol ogi z e t o h e r . (Tamanaha,

1998:7)

Tamanaha role- played t h e f r i e n d i n both t h e English and J a p a n e s e r o l e plays a n d found d e f i n i t e differences i n t h e w a y t h a t t h e English and J a p a n e s e speakers tended t o carry o u t t h e i r apologies. Overall t h e English speakers d e m o n s t r a t e d a greater variety of o p e n i n g s a n d of r emedial behaviors. I n addition t o saying “I’m s o r r y , ” t h e English speakers m a d e more o f f e r s of repair ( e . g . , “ I ' l l s t i l l t r y t o k e e p looking f o r i t ” ) , asked more

often about what t o d o a s a r e m e d y ( e . g . , “What c a n I d o t o m a k e i t u p t o you?”), and offered more comments o n t h e s i t u a t i o n ( e . g . , “ I shouldn’t have l e f t t h e book where m y

 

Language

K n owl e dg e

dog could g e t i t . ” ’ ) . I n c o n t r a s t , t h e J a p a n e s e speakers used mor e uniform account p r e f a c e s , o p e n i n g most frequently w i t h jitsuwa ( “ a c t u a l l y ” ) and they tended t o emphasize t h a t they would n o t r e p e a t a s i m i l a r offense i n f u t u r e a n d t o m a k e p l e a s f o r a c ontinued amic able r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e offended p a r t y . After t h e offended p a r t y o f f e r s forgiveness, English speakers t e n d t o accept t h e o f f e r a n d end t h e i r apology, whereas t h e J a p a n e s e speakers continue t o r e p e a t t h e i r a p o l o g y ( s umi mas en m e a n i n g “I’m sorry”) s e v e r a l times before they f e e l they c a n accept t h e offended p a r t y ’ s forgiveness. C o m p a r i n g i n t e r a c t i v e r o l e plays i n two l a n g u a g e s a s T a m a n a h a h a s d o n e i s a n e x c e l l e n t w a y t o discover l i n g u i s t i c and c u l t u r a l differences i n speech a c t behavior a s w e l l a s i d e n t i f y t h e t a r g e t l a n g u a g e v o c a b u l a r y n e e d e d t o c a r r y o u t t h e speec h a c t i n t h e L2. This descriptive information c a n then be applied p e d a g o g i c a l l y i n sec ond l a n g u a g e i n s t r u c t i o n . USING PROBLEM-SOLVING TASKS

Problem-solving t a s k s c a n a l s o be used t o introduce vocabulary f o r i m m e d i a t e u s e and p r a c t i c e a s c a n values c l a r i f i c a t i o n e x e r c i s e s . The following i s a n e x a m p l e of a problemsolving a c t i v i t y used t o practice vocab ulary ( C e l c e - M u r c i a and Rosensweig, 1979:250). Although t h e following exercise focuses o n “Desc r ibing Americans,” a s i m i l a r t a s k could

be created t o describe any n a t i o n a l o r e t h n i c group.

Describ ing A m e r ic a n s Many adjective have been used t o describe Americans. Some a r e c o m p l i m e n t a r y and o t h e r s a r e n o t . On t h e n e x t page, t h e r e i s a l i s t of s i x t e e n adjectives used by foreign students i n t h e United S t a t e s t o describe Americans. Y o u r t a s k i s t o rank t h e s e adjectives placing t h e n u m b e r | by t h e adjective t h a t y o u f e e l b e s t describes Americans, t h e n u m b e r 2 by t h e adjective t h a t y o u f e e l describes A mer i c ans second b e s t , and s o on through n u m b e r 16,-which i s your estimate of t h e adjective t h a t describes A mer i c ans l e a s t w e l l . Remember t h a t your r anking i s from a foreign s t u d e n t ' s viewpoint, and i t should be based o n your g e n e r a l o v e r a l l impressions of Americans, n o t o n a few s p e c i f i c ex amp l es o r exceptions.

D o t h i s r anking individually a t home. Then i n c l a s s y o u w i l l do i t i n small gr oups f o r twenty-five minutes. D o n o t forget t h a t i n t h e groups, you must reach a consensus on t h e rankings. E v e r y o n e must a g r e e o n t h e r anking t h a t your g r o u p gives t o each a d j e c t i v e . Discussion questions a n d suggested t o p i c s f o r writing should follow t h i s a c t i v i t y . I n a d j e c t i v e s . I n t h e course of t h e problem-solving a c t i v i t y , t h e students w i l l u s e t h e adjectives frequently, t h u s reinforcing t h e i r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of them. T h e n by using t h e adjectives i n follow-up discussions and essays pr oduc tive u s e c a n be acquired. A v a r i e t y of t e x t types such a s e s s a y s , songs, poems, f a b l e s , p l a y s , and s h o r t s t o r i e s c a n be used f i r s t t o practice d e c o d i n g of vocabulary i n context with sub sequent follow-up a c t i v i t i e s such a s r e t e l l i n g s , p r e p a r i n g summaries, p r e p a r i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s t o r i e s o r p l a y s , and s o f o r t h t o ensure u s e and r e u s e of t h e most u s e f u l n e w v o c a b u l a r y enc ounter ed. L a n g u a g e teachers must constantly look f o r t a s k s t h a t w i l l help t h e i r students r e v i e w a n d r e u s e n e w v o c a b u l a r y i n m e a n i n g f u l and contextualized p r a c t i c e , e . g . , writing l e t t e r s t o s o m e o n e w h o w i l l respond, o r p r e p a r i n g a c l a s s publication o f t h e e s s a y s , poems, a n d s t o r i e s t h e students have pr oduc ed. t h i s u n i t , t h e l e x i c a l focus i s o n

 

Vocabulary

RANKINGS INDIVIDUAL

GROUPS

A T HOME

I N SCHOOL

hurried talkative efficient

hospitable

outgoing

showy devious

traditional

punctual tolerant

pushy friendly frank

reserved

cosmopolitan

Use OF

DICTIONARIES

For b e g i n n i n g l e v e l l e a r n e r s and y o u n g l e a r n e r s who d o n o t y e t have a n extensive vocabulary i n t h e i r f i r s t l a n g u a g e , using pictures i n general and using picture dictionaries i n p a r t i c u l a r can be a n excellent w a y t o teach t h e semantically more c on c r e te items of b a s i c vocabulary. Research (Lotto and de Groot, 1998) shows, however, t h a t more sophisticated a d u l t l e a r n e r s master v o c a b u l a r y f a s t e r and b e t t e r b y associating a n L 2 w o r d with a n equiva l e n t word i n t h e L 1 r a t h e r than with a p i c t u r e . Thus using pictures i s n o t necessarily a n appropriate s t r a t e g y f o r a l l l e a r n e r s w h e n teaching and learning vocabulary. Many foreign l a n g u a g e teachers hold s t r o n g opinions regarding t h e type of d i c t i o n a r i e s t h e i r s t u d e n t s should u s e , and they o f t e n favor m o n o l i n g u a l d i c t i o n a r i e s and t r y t o d i s c o u r a g e t h e u s e of b i l i n g u a l d i c t i o n a r i e s b y l e a r n e r s . Traditional p e d a g o g y h a s long d i c t a t e d t h a t l e a r n e r s should f i r s t u s e m o n o l i n g u a l l e a r n e r ’ s d i c t i o n a r i e s a t t h e b e g i n n i n g s t a g e and t h e n standard L 1 d i c t i o n a r i e s f o r t h e intermediate and a d v a n c e d s t a g e s . However, b e g i n n i n g l e v e l l e a r n e r s m a y n o t be p r o f i c i e n t e n o u g h t o u s e anything b u t a b i l i n g u a l d i c t i o n a r y ; a l s o , t h e d i c t a t e s of t r a d i t i o n a l p e d a g o g y do n o t r e f l e c t what most p r o f i c i e n t l a n g u a g e l e a r n e r s seem to do. I n a c o m p a r a t i v e study of a d v a n c e d l e a r n e r s ’ u s e of bilingual and m o n o l i n g u a l d i c t i o n a r i e s , F r olova (1993) had twenty-six Russian l e a r n e r s of English a n d t w e n t y - o n e  

92

L a n g u a g e K n owl e dg e

American

l e a r n e r s of Russian c o m p l e t e a questionnaire t h a t prob ed t h e t y p e s of d i c t i o n a r i e s they used i n t h e i r foreign l a n g u a g e a n d f o r what purposes. She a l s o asked h e r consultants t o t e l l h e r about t h o s e aspects of t h e i r d i c t i o n a r i e s t h a t l e f t them d i s s a t i s f i e d . A l l of Frolova’s consultants were a d v a n c e d university-level l e a r n e r s who were s e r i -

ously t r y i n g t o master t h e foreign l a n g u a g e they were studying. A l l of them used both b i l i n g u a l and m o n o l i n g u a l dictionaries ( i . e . , they n e e d e d a s e t of s e v e r a l d i c t i o n a r i e s t o meet t h e i r purposes). Bilingual dictionaries had been most heavily used by t h e s e l e a r n e r s during t h e i r e a r l i e r periods of l a n g u a g e s t u d y ; however, they d i d n o t completely a b a n d o n t h e i r b i l i n g u a l d i c t i o n a r i e s a s they b e c a m e mor e p r o f i c i e n t . For example, w h en they n e e d e d t o f i n d a n unknown word i n t h e foreign l a n g u a g e f o r pr oduc tive purposes, t h e b i l i n g u a l dictionary was o f t e n where they had t o s t a r t by looking u p t h e equivalent w o r d i n t h e i r first language

t o f i n d candidates f o r t h e word they n e e d e d i n t h e foreign language. I n f a c t t h e majority of Frolova’s consultants preferred bilingual dictionaries t o m o n o l i n g u a l ones

regardless of t h e t a s k t h a t they w er e p e r f o r m i n g i n t h e i r foreign language. The Russian l e a r n e r s of English, however, tended t o u s e m o n o l i n g u a l English dictionaries mor e f r e quently t h a n t h e A mer i c ans used m o n o l i n g u a l Russian d i c t i o n a r i e s . F r olova speculates t h a t s i z e m a y be one of t h e reasons bec ause Russian m o n o l i n g u a l dictionaries a r e enormous, bulky, mul t i v ol ume a f f a i r s whereas m a n y g o o d single-volume m o n o l i n g u a l dictionaries a r e available f o r English. A l l of Frolova’s consultants r e por te d s i m i l a r complaints r e g a r d i n g t h e i r d i c t i o n a r i e s , s p e c i f i c a l l y i n s u f f i c i e n t a t t e n t i o n t o idioms, i n a d e q u a t e word d e f i n i t i o n s , l a c k of informat i o n o n collocations, and l a c k of authentic ex amp l es t o demonstrate c u r r e n t usage. She c onc ludes t h a t l a n g u a g e teachers should spend some time instructing t h e i r students on w h e n and how t o u s e both bilingual and m o n o l i n g u a l dictionaries e f f e c t i v e l y t o help them develop a s e n s e of which type of dictionary (or what combination of d i c t i o n a r i e s ) i s b e s t s u i t e d for a s p e c i f i c language task. B i l i ngual dictionaries, for example, a r e e x c e l l e n t res o urces for d o i n g e x e r c i s e s like t h e following, which a r e designed t o r a i s e l e a r n e r awareness o f l e x i c a l differences signaled by derivations i n a l a n g u a g e l i k e English.

YOUR LANGUAGE

ENGLISH

interesting interested

dependent dependable discriminating discriminatory (Adapted from F e u e r s t e i n

A combination

of m o n o l i n g u a l

exercises t h a t r a i s e awareness i n meaning.

a n d S c h c ol ni k, 1995 :43 )

and b i l i n g u a l dictionaries could be used t o c o m p l e t e

of how differences i n p a r t of speech r e l a t e t o differences

 

Vocabulary

Verbs

Nouns ENGLISH

YOUR LANGUAGE

ENGLISH

fly

fly

book

b ook

mark

mark

YOUR LANGUAGE

|

93

( A d ap t ed from Feuerstein and Schcolnik, 1995:30)

Another n e w e r option m a y be f o r l e a r n e r s t o consult t h e electronic dictionaries t h a t a r e p a r t of w o r d processing programs. Some teachers s a y t h a t t h e s e dictionaries a r e n o t very good now b u t t h a t they a r e constantly impr oving.

UsING COGNATES AND AVOIDING

FALSE COGNATES

C o g n a t e v o c a b u l a r y e x i s t s w h e n vocabulary items i n two l a n g u a g e s c a n be r e c o g n i z e d by most u s e r s a s being t h e same word (Holmes a n d Ramos, 1 9 9 3 ) . When t h e t a r g e t l a n g u a g e has a s i g n i f i c a n t a m o u n t of c o g n a t e vocabulary, Lotto and de Groot (1998) found t h a t t h e t a s k of v o c a b u l a r y learning i s m a d e e a s i e r . Here a r e some common cognates:

Hand (German)

hand (English)

progresso (Spanish a n d P o r t u g u e s e )

progress (English)

restaurant (French)

r e s t a u r a n t (English)

R e a d i n g c o m p r e h e n s io n

i n p a r t i c u l a r i s greatly enhanced,

especially f o r beginning-level

learners.

The other s i d e of t h e coin i s t h e existence of f a l s e cognates, which a r e words with t h e same etymological origin but with d i f f e r e n t m e a n i n g s : Gif t (German “poison’”’)

g i f t (English “‘ a present’)

m a r m e l a d a (Portuguese “a q u i n c e

m a r m a l a d e (English “ ‘ a n o r a n g e

desert’) l i b r a r i e (French “bookstore’’)

preserve’ ) l i b r a r y (English “a l a r g e book collection — e i t h e r personal o r i n s t i t u t i o n a l — o r t h e room o r building i n which such a ollection i s stored”)

H o l mes a n d Ramos (1993) c o n c l u d e from t h e i r study of English c ognate recognition by low-level P o r t u g u e s e L 1 readers of English t h a t c o g n a t e recognition i s a well-used s t r a t e g y t h a t l a n g u a g e teachers c a n e x p l o i t . H ow ev er , t h e r e a r e two sources of e r r o r they t e l l teachers t o watch o u t f o r : ( 1 ) g r a m m a t i c a l transpositions occur w h e r e b y verbs a r e read a s nouns, sometimes creating minor misreadings, and ( 2 ) reckless guessing i s d o n e with f a l s e cognates, t h e t e x t . When both a d v a nccognates e d and and properly sensitizedr e sPu ol rt itnugg u ei ns ea n lin e aarcnce ur rs a teof reading English of were rite asked t o wmore s ummar i es i n P o r t u g u e s e of English t e x t s and t h e n asked t o g o over t h e d r a f t s i n small gr oups t o p r o d u c e a collaborative summary, t h e r e s u l t was g o o d u s e of c o g n a t e vocab ulary - a n d n o s e m a n t i c i n a c c u r a c i e s d u e t o false c o g n a t e s (Holmes a n d Ramos, 1993).

 

94

Language Knowledge

However, t h e f a l s e c ognate problem reappears w h en intermediate and a d v a n c e d L 2 l e a r n e r s a r e speaking o r writing spontaneously. For example, t h e r e i s t h e English L 1 speaker who, w h en speaking French, sometimes s a y s “ l i b ra r a r i e ” i n s t e a d of “bibliotheque” f o r “library” — i n s p i t e of being f u l l y aw ar e of t h e f a l s e c o g n a t e and t h e appropriate equiva l e n c e s . Likewise, t h e r e i s t h e F r enc h speaker who, due t o L 1 i n t e r f e r e n c e , w r i t e s “ P h o t o g r a p h y passionates me” i n s t e a d of “ P h ot ogr ap h y i s m y passion.” I n other words, bec ause of d i r e c t t r a n s f e r from French, he u s e s t h e w r ong p a r t of speech i n English. D e b r a F r i e d m a n (personal c o m m u n i c a t i o n ) t e l l s u s of t h e Russian speaker who wrote “ m o d e r n

f a b r i c s ” i n a n essay w h e n what he intended was “‘modern f a c t o r i e s , ” 1 . e . , another e x a m p l e of a f a l s e c o g n a t e c ausing a n e r r o r . When L 2 u s e r s a r e focusing o n t h e i r message and t h e a c t of c ommuni c at i on, f a l s e c ognates and part-of-speech e r r o r s involving c ognates a r e n o t in fr e qu e n t i n spoken and w r i t t e n pr oduc tion — especially i f t h e r e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t time t o

monitor production.

REMARKS ON ACQUISITION AND ATTRITION ACQUISITION AND USE

O n e w ay t h a t both children and a d u l t s have been observed t o a c qu ir e a sec ond l a n g u a g e n a t u r a l i s t i c a l l y i s through a n i n i t i a l focus on words, formulaic language, r o u t i n e s , a n d l e x i c a l i z e d c hu n k s, which c a n

evolve

l a t e r be a n a l y z e d

( i . e . , p a t t e r n s c a n be broken d o w n

into s m al l er units s o that grammar c a n

and r ec ombi ned

with other p a t t e r n s ) .

This

i s o f t e n c a l l e d “ h o l i s t i c l e a r n i n g . ” We could a l s o c a l l i t a l e x i c a l approach t o sec ond l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n . I n f a c t , L a r s e n - F r e e m a n (1997:88) o f f e r s t h e following r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of

Chomsky’s position o n f i r s t l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n , which p u t s a g r e a t e r emphasis o n lexicon t h a n d i d h i s e a r l i e r work:

E v e n Chomsky, while s t i l l m a i n t a i n i n g t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n syntax and l e x i s i n h i s minimalist p o s i t i o n , a s s e r t s a m u c h m o r e p r o m i n e n t r o l e f o r t h e lexicon a n d claims t h a t k n o w l e d g e of a l a n g u a g e i s universal . g r a m m a r plus a language-spec ific lexicon; t h u s l a n g u a g e acquisition i s i n essence a matter of determining l e x i c a l idiosyncracies. Many s t u d i e s of L 2 v o c a b u l a r y learning a r e short-term experiments, n o t longitudinal so very a in nature, in l e a r n about p e o p l e we v o c a b u l a r y s t i l l k n o w l i t t l e how experl a n g u a g e and what works b e s t pedagogically. Some of t h e r e s u l t s reported i n such second iments a r e f a i r l y s e l f - e v i d e n t : . . . cognates and high f r e q u e n c y words were e a s i e r t o l e a r n than

n o n c o g n a t e s a n d low f r e q u e n c y words. (Lotto and de Groot, 1998:32)

Perhaps s t u d i e s dealing with more h o l i s t i c and task-based l a n g u a g e u s e w i l l ultimately provide more revealing i n s i g h t s about voc abular y acquisition and u s e . B urnet t (1998), for e x a m p l e , f o u n d that the ability t o effectively use i di om s such a s j u m p o n t h e bandwagon i n expository writing revealed a higher l e v e l of writing expertise a n d sophistication f o r both L 1 and L 2 w r i t e r s t h a n d i d simple g r a m m a t i c a l accuracy. This was based o n h e r analysis of m a n y essays w r i t t e n by L 1 and L 2 w r i t e r s taking t h e statewide University o f California Subject A Examination, a reading and writing t e s t t h a t a s s e s s e s t h e l i t e r a c y s k i l l s of entering freshmen. The essays had been g r a d e d i n d e p e n d e n t l y b y comp o s i t i o n experts before Burnett a n a l y z e d them. She found t h a t t h e highly r a t e d L 1 w r i t e r s

 

Vocabulary

used more L2 writers. L2 writers, both n a t i v e nonnatives

idioms and used them with g r e a t e r grammatical f l e x i b i l i t y t h a n t h e highly r a t e d Both highly r a t e d L 1 and L 2 w r i t e r s used more idioms t h a n low r a t e d L 1 and suggesting t h a t idiom u s e m a y be a s e f u l index of l i t e r a c y d e v e l o p m e n t f o r speakers and a d v a n c e d n o n n a t i v e speakers. (Burnett n o t e s t h a t l e s s a d v a n c e d who m a d e g r a m m a t i c a l e r r o r s d i d n o t u s e any idioms.)

95

ATTRITION

When l e x i c a l items i n a i r s t o r sec ond l a n g u a g e a r e n o longer u s e d , t h i s m a y l e a d t o r e t r i e v a l d i f f i c u l t i e s , which i n t u r n might i n t e r f e r e with fluency i n t h e s p o k e n l a n g u a g e i n p a r t i c u l a r . This process of pr oblematic r e t r i e v a l , w h e n i t eventually l e a d s t o f o r g e t t i n g , i s referred t o a s l a n g u a g e a t t r i t i o n . I t i s especially p r o n o u n c e d i n t h e a r e a of vocabulary. For e x a m p l e , bilingual a d u l t s whose f i r s t and d o m i n a n t l a n g u a g e i s English b u t who n o longer l i v e i n a n English-speaking e n v i r o n m e n t were found t o s u f f e r from r e t r i e v a l d i f f i c u l t i e s w h e n trying t o u s e l e s s frequent, content-specific words i n English (Olshtain a n d Ba r z i l a y , 1991). I n t h e Olshtain and Barzilay s t u d y , t h e native English-speaking consultants were asked t o tell a s t o r y from picture c u e s using t h e children’s book Frog, Where Are You?, which consists only of a s e r i e s of p i c t u r e s . There w er e a n u m b e r of l e x i c a l items t h a t c aused r e t r i e v a l d i f f i c u l t i e s f o r almost a l l t h e consultants: c l i f f , a n t l e r s , pond, a m o n g o t h e r s . I n t h e i r f r u s t r a t e d attempts t o r e t r i e v e t h e w o r d pond, t h e s e a t t r i t e r s follow ed a r e t r i e v a l path s t a r t i n g with a more general concept, then r e pla c in g i t with a more s p e c i f i c item — which was often n o t yet t h e c o r r e c t choice — eventually getting t o t h e intended word: ( 1 ) a body of water; ( 2 ) a s m a l l , shallow l a k e ; ( 3 ) a “pond.” This process closely mirrors t h e acquisition of s p e c i f i c v o c a b u l a r y items b y l e a r n e r s : The g e n e r a l c o n c e p t comes f i r s t , and i t then moves gradually toward t h e more s p e c i f i c i t e m .

CONCLUSION There i s m u c h more we could s a y about teaching vocab ulary through discourse. This chapter i s suggestive r a t h e r than exhaustive, and we encourage classroom teachers t o c o n t i n u e t o inform themselves about t h i s topic a n d t o involve t h e i r students i n e x p e r i m e n t s a n d projects t o discover what b e s t e n c o u r a g e s t h e i r l e a r n i n g , r e t e n t i o n , a n d appropriate u s e of vocab ulary. I t i s l i k e l y t h a t t h e r e a r e some highly individual a n d idiosyncratic s t r a t e g i e s r e l a t e d t o t h i s process. We c o n c l u d e t h i s chapter with a checklist of questions/reminders address before presenting any n e w l e x i c a l items t o t h e i r s t u d e n t s :

f o r teachers

to

Does t h e t a r g e t word h a v e a c l o s e e q u i v a l e n t i n t h e s t u d e n t ’ s L1? Is the use a n d distribution o f the words similar in the L 1 a n d L2?

3.

Does t h e n e w w or d present s p e c i f i c morphosyntactic d i f f i c u l t i e s i n usage ( e . g . , news i s a singular n o u n but looks p l u r a l ) ?

4.

D oes t h e n e w word present problems i n p r o n u n c i a t i o n ( i . e . , d i f f i c u l t sounds, problems with s t r e s s patterns o r r e d u c e d vowels i n words such a s comfortab le)?

5.

D oes t h e n e w word usually a p p e a r i n a collocation with other words? For example, l i e u i s usually p a r t of t h e fixed phrase i n l i e u o f and t h e adjective g r a d u a l i s often followed by a b s t r a c t nouns t h a t i n d i c a t e some type of process: change, development, growth, a n d t h e l i k e .

6.

I s t h e word a n o u n c o m p o u n d . o r verb-particle c o m b i n a t i o n ? ( I f s o , t h e s e m a y w e l l

n e e d special a t t e n t i o n . )

 

96

Language

Knowledge

Jk

Are t h e r e idiomatic o r metaphoric u s e s of t h e word t h a t a r e common and useful?

8.

What a r e some of t h e contexts and t e x t s i n which t h i s word i s most l i k e l y t o occur?

The answers t o t h e s e questions should help t h e teacher pr e pa r e more e f f e c t i v e vocabulary lessons.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS li:

Reflect o n your o w n L 2 l earni ng experiences. What problems and successes have you had i n l earni ng vocabulary? What s t r a t e g i e s have w or k ed b e s t f o r y o u ?

What reasons does t h i s chapter give t o support t h e notion t h a t learning vocab ulary i s d i f f e r e n t from learning g r a m m a r o r p r o n u n c i a t i o n i n a sec ond l a n g u a g e ? C a n y o u t h i n k of a n y o t h e r reasons?

What a r e t h e a d v a n t a g e s and disadvantages of learning vocab ulary i n word l i s t s versus learning vocab ulary through spoken discourse o r w r i t t e n t e x t s ? Could t h e s e a p p r o a c h e s be c o m p l e m e n t a r y ? What d o y o u u s e d i c t i o n a r i e s f o r i n your sec ond o r foreign l a n g u a g e ( s ) ? What kind of dictionary d o y o u prefer a n d why (bilingual-monolingual; learner- L1)? D o y o u have a n y complaints about t h e d i c t i o n a r i e s y o u use?

SUGGESTED ACTIVITIES le

Find a n e w s p a p e r a r t i c l e t h a t y o u could u s e t o teach vocabulary. Pick o u t t h e words t h a t you f e e l a r e c r u c i a l f o r understanding t h e t e x t a n d t h a t have e n o u g h contextual support t o allow t h e reader t o guess t h e m e a n i n g . Now ask a a r g e t learner t o r e a d the t e x t a n d then t e l l y o u ( a ) which words s/he d o es not know a t a l l , a n d ( b ) which words s / h e i s n o t s u r e of r e g a r d i n g m e a n i n g . F i n a l l y , c o m p a r e your o w n l i s t with t h e information you e l i c i t e d from t h e l e a r n e r . What a r e t h e s i m i l a r i t i e s and t h e differences? Which vocab ulary items w i l l y o u teach i n c o n j u n c t i o n with t h e t e x t and w h y ?

D e v e l o p a n a c t i v i t y y o u could d o with intermediate l e v e l l a n g u a g e l e a r n e r s t o increase t h e i r receptive vocabulary. Now d e v e l o p another a c t i v i t y t o teach t h e same l e a r n e r s some of t h e same words a s pr oduc tive vocabulary. What a r e t h e differences i n t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s i n terms of t h e l a n g u a g e s k i l l s needed, t h e n u m b e r of words you introduced, a n d t h e d e g r e e of c o m m u n i c a t i v e a c t i v i t y t h a t t a k e s place?

E x a m i n e a s t o r y o r essay w r i t t e n by a n intermediate l e v e l l a n g u a g e l e a r n e r . Are t h e r e any e r r o r s of l e x i c a l choice o r g r a m m a t i c a l e r r o r s associated with l e x i c a l r e s t r i c t i o n s ? Describe what you f i n d and suggest ways of deal ing with any such e r r o r s you i d e n t i f y .

W h a t vocabulary do you pr obably need t o teach low intermediate EFL l e a r n e r s f o r them t o be a b l e t o u n d e r s t a n d and r e t e l l t h e following story? How w i l l y o u teach t h e vocabulary? The Ant a n d t h e D o v e

( A d a p t e d from a f a b l e by A e s o p )

A d o v e saw a n a n t f a l l i n t o a brook. The a n t struggled t o reach t h e bank. I n p i t y , t h e d o v e d r o p p e d a piece of straw i n t o t h e brook beside t h e a n t . Clinging t o t h e s t r a w , t h e a n t f l o a t e d s a f e l y t o s h o r e .

 

Vocabulary

97

S o o n a f t e r , t h e a n t saw a m a n getting ready t o kill t h e dove with a s t o n e . But j u s t a s t h e m a n threw t h e s t o nnee , t h e a n t stung him i n t h e h e e l . The pa in m a d e t h e m a n miss t h e dove, and t h e s t a r t l e d b i r d flew to s a f e t y in a nearby tree. A kindness i s never wasted. 5.

With y o u n g e r l e a r n e r s , i t c a n be u s e f u l t o r e t e l l a w e l l - k n o w n t a l e (one you a r e s u r e they a r e familiar w i t h ) , e . g . , “ L i t t l e Red Riding Hood.” Begin with a m e a n i n g f u l c h a n g e such a s “She l i v e s i n Chicago.” Other changes w i l l f o l l o w , “Her mother sends h e r t o v i s i t h e r g r a n d m o t h e r o n t h e o t h e r s i d e of town. How w i l l she g o t h e r e ? W h a t should she be c a r e f u l o f ? Who might help h e r i f she g e t s l o s t ? ” T h e students c a n t e l l a m o d e r n version of t h e s t o r y w o r k i n g together i n groups and looking u p words t h a t they n e e d . I f y o u were t o do t h i s a c t i v i t y with y o u n g l e a r n e r s , what familiar s t o r y would y o u u s e , and what kind of a m o d e r n context would y o u s e t i t i n ?

S u g g e s t i o n s for F u r t h e r Reading For other discussions of v o c a b u l a r y i n discourse, s e e : C a r t e r , R . , & McCarthy, M. ( E d s . ) . ( 1 9 8 8 ) . V o c a b u l a r y a n d l a n g u a g e teaching.

London: Longman.

McCarthy, M. ( 1 9 9 1 ) . Discourse analysis for l a n g u a g e teachers (Chapter 3 ) . Cambr i dge: C a m b r i d g e University P r e s s . For u s e f u l teacher references/handb ooks, s e e : Gairns, R . , & R e d m a n , S . (1986). W o r k i n g with words. Cambr i dge: University P r e s s .

Cambridge

Hatch, E . , & Br ow n, C. ( 1 9 9 5 ) . Vocabulary, semantics, a n d l a n g u a g e education. New York: C a m b r i d g e University P r e s s .

M o r g a n , J . , & Rinvolucri, M. (1986). Vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University P r e s s . Nation, I . S . P . (1990). T e a c h i n g a n d l e a r n i n g voc abular y. New York: Newbury House.

For textbooks with m a n y exercises t h a t teach v o c a b u l a r y through discourse, s e e :

McCarthy, M., & O’Dell, F . , with Shaw, E . ( 1 9 9 7 ) . English v o c a b u l a r y i n u s e : U p p e r intermediate r e fe r e n c e a n d practice for students o f North A m e r i c a n English. New York: C a m b r i d g e University P r e s s . (T her e i s a l s o a 1999 B r i t i s h e d i t i o n of t h i s t e x t by M c C a r t h y and O’Dell, published b y C a m b r i d g e University P r e s s . ) Nation, I . S . P . ( 1 9 9 4 ) . New ways i n teac hing vocabulary. Alexandr ia, VA: TESOL. Seal, B. D . (1990). American vocabulary b ui l d er (Vols. 1, 2). New Y o r k :

Longman.

(T her e i s a l s o a 1987 e d i t i o n of t h e two volumes f o r B r i t i s h English published by Longman, L o n d o n . ) F or a useful l e a r n e r resource, s e e : Alexander, L . G. (1994). Right word, w r o n g word: Words a n d structures confused and misused by learners o f English. L o n d o n : L o n g m a n .

 

98

Language Knowledge

Endnotes We thank Mar jor ie Walsleben f o r h e r input i n t o t h i s l i s t of l e x i c a l c a t e g o r i e s .

based o n t h e e x a m i n a t i o n of word formation k n o w l e d g e exhibited by intermediate and a d v a n c e d l e a r n e r s of He b r e w a s a sec ond l a n g u a g e a s c o m p a r e d with n a t i v e H ebrew speakers.

2 Olshtain’s findings were

3 When l a n g u a g e s t o consolidate,

borrow sounds o r g r a m m a t i c a l p a t t e r n s , i t t a k e s centuries

e . g . , the borrowing o f the s o u n d /3/ f r o m F r e n c h

into English,

i n words such a s pleasur e o r b e i g e .

4 S p o k e n l a n g u a g e d i f f e r s from w r i t t e n l a n g u a g e i n t h a t i t c a n be characterized

by t h e frequent u s e of s e v e r a l very g e n e r a l words: t h i n g , person, s t u f f , t i m e , place, and s o f o r t h . 5 This t e x t i s adapted fr om t h e information

brochure f o r t h e 1995 Sonoma Salute

t o t h e A r t s , p. 1.

6 T h e e x a m p l e s a r e taken from Kinsler’s d a t a b u t edited so mew hat f o r brevity a n d e a s e of reading ( i . e . , c onver sation analysis conventions a r e n o t u s e d ) . 7 Obviously, o t h e r words such a s a n y w a y i s about t o c l o s e i n t h i s example.

and l i s t e n a l s o s i g n a l t h a t t h e c onver sation

8 The Peanuts cartoon c i t e d a p p e a r e d i n t h e Los Angeles Times comic s e c t i o n on J u l y 8, 1990.

 

EPILOGUE TO

PART 2 : INTERRELATIONSHIPS AMONG LANGUAGE RESOURCES

have discussed t h e resources of l a n g u a g e ( i . e . , phonology, g r a m m a r , and v o c a b u l a r y ) i n t h r e e separate chapters, which might suggest t h a t t h e s e resources function d i s c r e t e l y . This i s d e f i n i t e l y n o t t h e c a s e . We have discussed each l a n g u a g e resource separately f o r purposes of d r a w i n g a t t e n t i o n t o i t s s p e c i a l and t y p i c a l f e a t u r e s ; however, i n any t r u e instance of c ommuni c at i on, t h e s e resources overlap and i n t e r a c t i n ways t h a t manifest themselves through discourse ( 1 . e . , through a n o r a l o r w r i t t e n t e x t t h a t i s s i t uated i n a g i v e n context and t h a t s a t i s f i e s pragmatic expectations). As previously i l l u s t r a t e d i n Chapters 3 through 5 , we c a n visualize t h e s e integrated l a n g u a g e resources a s they function within t h e , l a n g u a g e k n o w l e d g e f r a m e w o r k ( s e e Figures 3 . 1 , 4 . 1 , and 5 . 1 ) . P h o n o l o g y and vocab ulary c a n i n t e r a c t a t t h e l e v e l of discourse i n a v a r i e t y of ways. Words t h a t a r e hard t o p r o n o u n c e tend t o be a v o i d e d by both f i r s t and sec ond l a n g u a g e l e a r n e r s while they a r e c o m m u n i c a t i n g , and words t h a t a r e s i m i l a r i n sound t e n d t o be confused. A n e x a m p l e of t h e f i r s t s t r a t e g y ( i . e . , a v o i d a n c e ) comes from t h e e a r l y speec h of a y o u n g c h i l d who had been e x p o s e d t o both English and F r enc h fr om b i r t h and could c o m p r e h e n d both l a n g u a g e s ; however, s h e i n i t i a l l y p r o d u c e d vocabulary items based o n what was e a s i e s t f o r h e r t o a r t i c u l a t e regardless of t h e source l a n g u a g e ( C e l c e - M u r c i a , 1977). For example, a t a g e two years and four months t h e c h i l d s a i d : I n P a r t 2 we

French:

f i l l e [ f i : ] a n d n e v e r E n g l i sh g i r l , but

English:

boy [boy] and n e v e r F r enc h gar c on

An e x a m p l e of t h e sec ond t e n d e n c y (confusion based o n s i m i l a r sounds) i s t h e f l u e n t b u t in a c c u r a te English speech of a t o u r g u i d e i n t h e Middle E a s t , who consistently confused t h e p r o n u n c i a t i o n of t h e words l e n t i l a n d l i n t e l . The English-speaking t o u r i s t s l i s t e n i n g t o him could g e n e r a lly figure o u t from context whether t h e g u i d e was r e f e r r i n g t o a h o r i zontal crosspiece ab ove a door o r window a t a n archeological s i t e o r t o t h e soup of t h e d a y a t t h e restaurant where t h e g r o u p w oul d s t o p f o r l u n c h . Ho w e v e r , t h e guide’s inconsistent pr oduc tion c aused i n i t i a l m o m e n t a r y c onfusion and then l a t e r b e c a m e a source of humo r once t h e t o u r i s t s figured o u t t h e guide’s c o m m u n i c a t i o n problem: “Ah, he means ‘ l i n t e l ’ not ‘lentil’

“1’m HUNegry. I wish we WERE talking about ‘ l e n t i l s ’ i n s t e a d of ‘ l i n t e l s ’ Grammar and p h onol ogy i n t e r a c t and overlap i n m a n y ways, some of which were i l l u s t r a t e d i n C hapter 3 , where we demonstrated, f o r e x a m p l e , t h a t intonation could o v e r r i d e syntax and m a k e a ormally declarative utterance function a s a question f o r t h e speake r a n d l i s t e n e r . Another e x a m p l e of t h e i n t e r a c t i o n of g r a m m a r a n d p h o n o l o g y comes i n t h e regular morphological e n d i n g s t h a t m a r k t h e simple p a s t t e n s e ( - e d ) a n d t h e simple present t e n s e - ( e ) s t h a t marks t h e t h i r d person singular only s i n c e t h e r e i s n o o v e r t i n f l e c t i o n elsewhere f o r verbs other than b e . Many f l u e n t but in a c c u r a te n o n n a t i v e speakers of English simply omit t h e s e morphological endings w h e n p r o d u c i n g c o n n e c t e d speech. I n most cases, the listener c a n d i s a m b i g u a t e ; h o w e v e r , the o mis s io n c a n c a u s e c o n f u s i o n when i t i s important

t o c o n t r a s t t h e u s e of t h e simple p a s t t e n s e t o s i g n a l s p e c i f i c e x a m p l e s with t h e u s e of t h e simple present t e n s e t o s i g n a l a s t a t e o r generalization. Consider, f o r

example, t h e telegraphic i n t e r l a n g u a g e of a n o n n a t i v e veterinary a s s i s t a n t : Cats c o n t r a c t feline l e u k e m i a . Not inoculate. C a t r e c o v e r .

99  

100

Language

K n owl e dg e

Despite g o o d contextual support, t h e above discourse i s much biguously t h a n t h e following: Cats contract feline l e u k e m i a

harder t o process u n a m -

i f not i n o c u l a t e d , but t h i s c a t r e c o v e r e d

well f ro m the disease.

I n t h i s example,

n o t only t h e verb t e n s e mar ker s b u t t h e c onnec tor s “ i f ” a n d “but” pla y a

r o l e i n disambiguating

t h e meaning.

Certainly g r a m m a r and vocabulary a l s o i n t e r a c t w h e n u s e r s of English a r e c o m m u n i c a t i n g . The problem t h a t m a n y n o n n a t i v e speakers have i n distinguishing t h e - i n g and - e n p a r t i c i p l e s t h a t derive from emotive verbs ( e . g . , s u r p r i s e , annoy, a m u s e ) r e s u l t s i n e r r o r s such a s : *I am interesting

in modern

art.

The d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e two forms requires t h a t u s e r s c ombi ne a casual/agentive s u b j e c t with a progressive p a r t i c i p l e o r a n a c t i v e v e r b :

M o d e r n a r t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o me/interests me. v e r s u s c o m b i n i n g a patient/affected subject with a passive p a r t i c i p l e o r passive v e r b : I a m i n t e r e s t e d i n m o d e r n art/b y modern

artists like Dali.

I n such c a s e s , t h e v o c a b u l a r y item selected must occur within a n appropriate g r a m m a t i c a l fr ame and c a r r y t h e appropriate morphological i n f l e c t i o n o r t h e r e c a n be c onfusion and mi s c ommuni c at i on. For example, a f t e r a r a t h e r chaotic verbal e x c h a n g e b e t w e e n a ative a n d a n o n n a t i v e s p e a k e r of English, t h e n o n n a t i v e s p e a k e r c omment s :

S o r r y , I’m confusing. (in te n d in g t o s a y “I’m confused”’)

T o which t h e n a t i v e speaker r e t o r t s : Yes, y o u c e r t a i n l y a r e I n such c a s e s , t h e context m a y help disamb iguate t h e message by appeal t o pragmatic information ( a s discussed i n Chapter 2 ) . I n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r example, pragmatic information contributes t o t h e sarcasm i n t h e n a t i v e speaker’s r e t o r t — sarcasm t h a t m a y n o t necessarily

have been f u l l y under stood by t h e n o n n a t i v e speaker, who m a y nonetheless t a k e offense from t h e t o n e of voice i n which t h e r e t o r t was u t t e r e d . I n most instances of c ommuni c at i on, a l l of t h e l a n g u a g e resources a r e d e p l o y e d simultaneously t o c r e a t e discourse. When l a n g u a g e inaccuracies o c c u r , the intended message m a y be c o m p r e h e n d e d bec ause t h e contextual support i s c l e a r and unambi guous . H ow ev er , t h e r e a r e m a n y segments i n o n g o i n g discourse without a d e q u a t e contextual support, which a r e not u n de r st ood, o r which a r e in fact m i s u n d e r s t o o d . Most commonly the s o urce of such a p r o b l e m i s inaccurate o r inappropriate d e p l o y m e n t of one o r more of t h e t h r e e

l a n g u a g e resources (phonology, g r a m m a r , vocab ulary) t h a t have contributed elements t o t h e creation of t h e discourse s e g m e n t i n question. Learners t h u s n e e d a m p l e opportunity both within and outside t h e classroom t o u s e a l l t h e i r l a n g u a g e resources t o p r o d u c e and i n t e r p r e t s i t u a t e d and purposeful purposeful discourse — a l l t h e

while d r a w i n g o n a l l t h e p r a g m a t i c information and s t r a t e g i e s a t t h e i r disposal t o g e t t h e i r intended messages a c r o s s o r t o figure o u t t h e speaker’s o r w r i t e r ’ s intended message.

 

Listening: “ I t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t we

ever achieve a n exact match b e t w e e n

i n t e n t i o n and interpretation, a n d we probably would not k n o w i t i f we d i d . We a r r i v e a t the d e g r e e of c o n v e r g e n c e necessary t o the p u r p o s e of interaction and no more. Comprehension i s n e v e r c o m p l e t e : i t i s always only a p p r o x i m a t e , and r e l a t i v e t o purpose.” (Widdowson, 1990:108)

“The u n d e r l y i n g p a r a d o x i n l i s t e n i n g research i s the routine u n c o n s c i o u s ease of l i s t e n i n g a n d the e x t r e m e d i f f i c u l t y of i n v e s t i g a t i n g i t , p a r t i c u l a r l y a s the process i t s e l f i s u n s e e n and i n a c c e s s i b l e . ” (Lynch, 1 9 9 8 : 6 )

INTRODUCTION

When p e o p l e l i s t e n — whether they a r e l i s t e n i n g t o a l e c t u r e , a news broadcast, o r a joke, o r a r e e n g a g i n g i n a c onver sation — they a r e l i s t e n i n g t o a s t r e t c h of discourse. I n f a c t , l i s t e n i n g i s t h e most fr e qu e n tly used l a n g u a g e s k i l l i n e v e r y d a y life. Researchers ( e . g . , M o r l e y , 1991; Rivers, 1981; Weaver, 1972) estimate that w e l i s t e n t o t w i c e a s much l a n g u a g e a s we speak, four times a s much a s we r e a d , a n d f i v e times a s much a s we w r i t e I t i s t h u s r e m a r k a b l e t h a t s e v e r a l of t h e otherwise excellent publications t h a t have a p p e a r e d over t h e p a s t s e v e r a l years with t h e pur pose of i n f o r m i n g l a n g u a g e teachers about discourse analysis and i t s p e d a g o g i c a l applications ( e . g . , Cook, 1989; McCarthy, 1991;

Hatch, 1992) have had l i t t l e t o s a y about t h e l i s t e n i n g p r o c e s s . Both L1 and L 2 models of t h e l i s t e n i n g process ( c f . A n d e r s o n and Lynch, 1988) a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t l i s t e n i n g h a s both t op - dow n and bottom-up a s p e c t s . T o p - d o w n l i s t e n i n g processes involve activation of schematic k n o w l e d g e and contextual k n o w l e d g e . S c h e m a t i c k n o w l e d g e i s generally thought of a s two types of p r i o r k n o w l e d g e ( C a r r e l l a n d Eisterhold, 1983): (1) c o n t e n t schemata, i . e . , background i n f o r m a t i o n o n the topic, a n d (2) formal schemata, which consist o f knowledge ab o ut how d i s co urs e i s o r g a n i z e d with r e s p e c t t o d i f f e r e n t g e n r e s , d i f f e r e n t t o p i c s , o r d i f f e r e n t purposes ( e . g . , t r a n s a c t i o n a l v e r s u s i n t e r a c t i o n a l ) , including r e l e v a n t sociocultural k n o w l e d g e . C o n t e x t u a l k n o w l e d g e involves a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e s p e c i f i c l i s t e n i n g s i t u a t i o n a t hand ( i . e . , l i s t e n e r s a s s e s s 102  

Listening

who t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s a r e , what t h e s e t t i n g i s , what t h e t o p i c and pur pose a r e ) . A l l of t h i s g e t s f i l t e r e d through p r a g m a t i c k n o w l e d g e t o a s s i s t i n t h e processing of o r a l discourse. I n a d d i t i o n , g o o d l i s t e n e r s m a k e u s e of t h e i r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e o n g o i n g discourse o r c o - t e x t ( i . e . , they a t t e n d t o what h a s already been s a i d a n d p r e d i c t what i s l i k e l y t o be s a i d n e x t ) . The bottom-up l e v e l of t h e l i s t e n i n g process involves p r i o r k n o w l e d g e of t h e l a n g u a g e system ( i . e . , phonology, g r a m m a r , vocabulary). Knowledge of t h e phonologic al system allows t h e l i s t e n e r t o s e g m e n t t h e acoustic s i g n a l s a s sounds t h a t form words, words and/or phrases t h a t form clauses o r utterances u n i f i e d by intonation contours having some k e y p r o m i n e n t element. Knowledge of vocab ulary allows t h e l i s t e n e r s t o r ec ognize words within phrases, and k n o w l e d g e of g r a m m a r allows f o r recognition of i n f l e c t i o n s o n words a s w e l l a s recognition of t h e phrases o r clauses t h a t function a s p a r t s of cohesive and coherent instances of t e x t . Thus a l l types of l a n g u a g e analysis c a n c o m e i n t o play a t t h e l e v e l of discourse w h e n l i s t e n i n g i s being done. The bottom-up pr oc essing of o r a l discourse i s where t h e physical s i g n a l s o r c l u e s c o m e from; however, i t i s g e n e r a lly a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t t h i s l e v e l cannot ope r a te with any a c c u r a c y o r efficiency o n i t s ow n and t h a t i t requires t h e b e n e f i t of and i n t e r a c t i o n with t op - dow n information t o m a k e discourse c o m p r e h e n s i b l e t o t h e l i s t e n e r . This i n t e r a c t i o n of t op - dow n and bottom-up pr oc essing i s c r u c i a l t o o u r S p e e c h R e c e p t i o n Framework pr esented i n Figure 6 . 1 o n t h e next page. For n a t i v e speakers and s k i l l e d L 2 speakers, bottom-up processing i s assumed t o be automatic, whereas i t i s n o t automatic and c a n be t h e source o f s e r i o u s problems f o r beginn i n g and l e s s t h a n expert L 2 l e a r n e r s . For example, a university l e c t u r e r s a i d “ c o m m o n e s t ” in o n e segment o f her lecture, a n d o n e o f the L2 listeners in the class w ro t e “Communist”

i n h i s n o t e s , t h u s indicating t h a t he had misunderstood i n a f u n d a m e n t a l w a y t h a t s e g m e n t o f the lecture (Ha r a da , 1998). T o help c o m p e n s a t e f o r l e s s than automatic

bottom-up processing, l e a r n e r s n e e d t o m a k e u s e of l i s t e n i n g s t r a t e g i e s and m e t a c o g n i t i o n (two c o m p o n e n t s i n F igur e 6 . 1 t h a t we have n o t yet discussed but s h a l l t a k e u p a t t h i s p o i n t ) . E x a m p l e s of l i s t e n i n g s t r a t e g i e s i n c l u d e : ( a ) e x t r a c t a n impor tant d e t a i l from o n g o i n g speech; ( b ) i d e n t i f y t h e g i s t of a s e g w i l l c o m e next i n a segment. ment;M e(ncd) e predict l s o h n what ( 1 9 9 5 , 1998) outlines how t o teach strategy-based L 2 l i s t e n i n g :

1.

Raise l e a r n e r awareness of t h e p o w e r a n d value of using s t r a t e g i e s

2.

U s e pre-listening a c t i v i t i e s t o a c t i v a t e l e a r n e r s ’ b a c k g r o u n d k n o w l e d g e

3.

Make c l e a r t o l e a r n e r s what they a r e g o i n g t o l i s t e n t o and why

4

Pr ovide guided l i s t e n i n g a c t i v i t i e s designed t o pr ovide a o t of practice i n using a particular strategy ( e . g . , l i s t e n i n g f o r n a m e s o r d a t e s ) using simplified data i n i t i a l l y , i f n e e d e d

mn

Practice t h e s t r a t e g y using r e a l data with focus o n content and m e a n i n g

103

6.

Use what has b een c o m p r e h e n d e d : t a k e n o t e s o n a l e c t u r e t o pr e pa r e a summary, f i l l i n a form t o gather d a t a , and s o f o r t h

7.

Allow for s el f - eval uat i o n

s o that learners

can assess how a c c u r a t e

a n d c o m p l e t e t h e i r l i s t e n i n g has b e e n (Vandergrift, i n p r e s s )

M e t a c o g n i t i o n i s a l s o a type o f s t r a t e g y t h a t l e a r n e r s c a n u s e t o e n h a n c e L 2 l i s t e n i n g . M e t a c o g n i t i o n involves t h e planning, r e g u l a t i n g , monitoring, and management of l i s t e n i n g a n d t h u s i s r e l a t e d t o s e v e r a l of t h e l i s t e n i n g s t r a t e g i e s l i s t e d , i n p a r t i c u l a r 1 , 2 , 3 , and 7 . M e t a c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g i e s give l e a r n e r s a n overview of t h e l i s t e n i n g p r o c e s s . T h e y allow f o r p r e d i c t i o n , f o r monitor ing of e r r o r s or breakdowns, and f o r evaluation ( V a n d e r g r i f t , 1 9 9 7 ) .

 

Language P r o c e s s i n g

104

Top-down Pr oc essing

Expectations based on prior knowledge ( co nt ent schemata)

Expectations based o n discourse a n d sociocultural k n o w l e d g e

Expectations based o n t h e assessment of c ontext/speaker ’s intention

(for m a l schemata)

e e n

Metacognition

Interpretation of S p o k e n Discourse (Input)

(phonology, vocabulary, g ra mma r)

istening strategies

B o tto m - u p Processing

Figure 6.1

S p e e c h R e c e p t i o n Framework

 

Listening

THE LISTENING AND

PROCESS:

RELEVANT

BACKGROUND

RESEARCH

BACKGROUND

I n t h e e a r l y 1980s i t was p o p u l a r t o assume t h a t only top-down s k i l l s n e e d e d t o be e n h a n c e d t o i m p r o v e L 2 l i s t e n i n g comprehension. However, i t i s n o w mor e generally a c k n o w l e d g e d ( c f . Peterson, 1991) t h a t both t o p - d o w n a n d b ottom-up l i s t e n i n g s k i l l s should be integrated and e x p l i c i t l y t r e a t e d pedagogic ally t o i m p r o v e L 2 l i s t e n i n g comprehension. The discourse l e v e l i s i n f a c t where t o p - d o w n and bottom-up l i s t e n i n g i n t e r s e c t and where c o m p l e x a n d simultaneous processing of b a c k g r o u n d information, contextual information, and l i n g u i s t i c information permit c omp r eh ens i on and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t o t a k e p l a c e . G i v e n t h e i n t e r a c t i v e model of t h e l i s t e n i n g process t h a t we describe i n t h i s c h a p t e r , we c a n s e e t h a t m a n y f a c t o r s r e l a t e d t o t h e L 2 l i s t e n e r a r e relevant t o h i s / h e r success o r f a i l u r e : a m o n g t h e s e a r e t h e l e a r n e r ’ s l a n g u a g e learning experience, i . e . , L 2 proficiency i n g e n e r a l and L 2 l i s t e n i n g a b i l i t y i n p a r t i c u l a r , including e x p e r i e n c e s with l i s t e n i n g t o a v a r i e t y of speakers who have d i f f e r e n t accents and who speak d i f f e r e n t d i a l e c t s while e n g a g i n g i n a v a r i e t y of speech s i t u a t i o n s ( l e c t u r e s , movies, face-to-face conversations, telephone conversations, and s o f o r t h . ) This exposes l e a r n e r s t o t h e r e a l i t y of l a n g u a g e v a r i a t i o n . Also relevant a r e f a c t o r s such a s t h e l i s t e n e r ’ s p r i o r k n o w l e d g e ( t o p i c , content s ch emata, s o c i o c u l t u r a l i nf o rm at i o n, a n d the l i k e ) , the listener’s memory a n d attention, and h i s / h e r g e n e r a l problem-solving a b i l i t y ( i . e . , a b i l i t y t o c o m e u p with t h e b e s t i n t e r pretation o u t of s e v e r a l possible ones i n a g i v e n context a s w e l l a s a n a b i l i t y t o predict what might c o m e n e x t o r l a t e r i n a g i v e n instance of o r a l discourse.) We must a l s o consider t h e c omp ens at or y s t r a t e g i e s ( i . e . , t h e l i s t e n i n g s t r a t e g i e s and metacognition we have discussed) and c o m m u n i c a t i o n s t r a t e g i e s , which g o o d L 2 l i s t e n e r s have a n d which w e a k ones l a c k : s t r a t e g i e s such a s asking questions of o n e ’ s i n t e r l o c u t o r , getting t h e other speaker t o slow down, tape recording and r e l i s t e n i n g t o a l e c t u r e , watchi n g a mov i e a second o r t h i r d t i m e , a n d various other s t r a t e g i e s . I n o n g o i n g conversations, g o o d l i s t e n e r s a r e a b l e t o r e c o g n i z e a p r obl em a n d t o a l e r t t h e interlocutor i n some approp r i a t e w a y i f they have n o t processed t h e input well e n o u g h t o m a k e a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ; they a r e t h u s i n a position t o negotiate a r e p e t i t i o n and/or c l a r i f i c a t i o n . Ability t o i m p l e m e n t such s t r a t e g i e s helps t h e l i s t e n e r whose l i s t e n i n g c o m p r e h e n s io n i s n o t y e t n a t i v e l i k e , and t h u s such s t r a t e g i e s should be p a r t of o r a l s k i l l s t r a i n i n g . There a r e of course a l s o situation-specific f a c t o r s external t o t h e l i s t e n e r : t h e quality

105

of t h e acoustic s i g n a l and t h e a m o u n t of b a c k g r o u n d n o i s e . Similarly, t h e r e a r e nonling u i s t i c situation-specific f a c t o r s such a s room temperature, d i s t r a c t i o n s , o r being i n a test-taking situation, a n d listener-internal factors such a s lack o f interest in the s p e a k e r o r t o p i c , l a c k of a t t e n t i o n , a n d s o f o r t h . I n any g i v e n s i t u a t i o n , these f a c t o r s m a y impair l i s t e n i n g c omp r eh ens i on, which i s something complex, dynamic, and r a t h e r f r a g i l e t o begin with bec ause of t h e t r a n s i t o r y n o n p e r m a n e n t nature of t h e speech s i g n a l . Our opening quote from Widdowson, which applies t o reading a s w e l l a s t o l i s t e n i n g , emphasizes t h e i n c o m p l e t e nature of and l a c k of precision inherent i n t h e c o m p r e h e n s io n process. A s L y n c h ( 1 9 9 8 ) points o u t , a l l l i s t e n i n g exper ienc es can be placed along a c o n t i n u u m from n o n r e c i p r o c a l ( e . g . , l i s t e n i n g t o a r a d i o news broadcast) t o reciprocal (face-to-face conversation). At t h e reciprocal end of t h e c o n t i n u u m t h e L 2 l i s t e n e r ’ s o r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s t r a t e g i e s already mentioned, a r e very important; however, a t t h e nonreciprocal end of t h e continuum, L 2 l i s t e n e r s must u s e t h e i r own t o p - d o w n and bottom-up processing s k i l l s w i t h o u t b e n e f i t of a n y i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h , o r feedbac k from, t h e speaker. L 2 l e a r n e r s generally agree t h a t nonreciprocal l i s t e n i n g t a s k s a r e more d i f f i c u l t t h a n reciprocal l i s t e n i n g t a s k s . Another very impor tant f a c t o r i n L 2 l i s t e n i n g i s t h e l e a r n e r ’ s t a s k f l e x i b i l i t y . As t h e s i t u a t i o n and t h e t a s k d e m a n d , can l i s t e n e r s g e t t h e o v e r a l l g i s t of a n o r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n ?

 

106

Language

Processing

C a n they accurately c o m p r e h e n d important d e t a i l s such a s names, numbers, t i m e s , a n d dates? I n o t h e r words, Nida’s (1953) notions of g e n e r a l v e r s u s s e l e c t i v e l i s t e n i n g a r e s t i l l v e r y relevant t o d a y . A g o o d l i s t e n e r i s a b l e t o d o t h e type of l i s t e n i n g needed. E i t h e r of both types of l i s t e n i n g c a n be important d e p e n d i n g o n t h e s i t u a t i o n o r t a s k . Teachers, t h e r e f o r e , must g iv e l e a r n e r s r e a l i s t i c opportunities t o e n g a g e i n both types of l i s t e n i n g . RESEARCH

Based o n t h e assumption t h a t one c a n discover m u c h about how a process works by e x a m i n i n g c a s e s of i t s malfunction, Garnes and B o n d (1980) a n a l y z e d a corpus of 890 “mishearings” c ommi t t ed by n a t i v e speakers of English while t h e speakers were e n g a g ing i n e v e r y d a y conversation. Based o n t h e i r analysis of t h e s e hearing e r r o r s , Garnes and B o n d proposed t h a t l i s t e n e r s process i n c o m i n g speech by e m p l o y i n g t h e following four microprocessing s t r a t e g i e s (holding t h e stream of speech i n short-term memory would, of course, u n d e r l i e a l l o f these): 1.

2. 3.

4.

attending t o s t r e s s and intonation and constructing a metrical template, o r p a t t e r n , t o fit t h e utterance attending t o s t r e s s e d vowels s e g m e n t i n g t h e speech stream i n t o words t h a t correspond t o t h e s t r e s s e d vowels and t h e i r adjacent consonants seeking a phrase — with g r a m m a r and m e a n i n g — compatib le with t h e metrical template i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e f i r s t strategy a n d t h e words i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e t h i r d

This i s primarily a bottom-up model. However, w h e n processing speech, i t i s possible t h a t l i s t e n e r s u s e c omp ens at or y s t r a t e g i e s t o o v e r c o m e deficiencies i n any of t h e s e s t e p s , which would bring i n t op - dow n processing t o o . I f we consider t h a t while t h e l i s t e n e r i s doing t h e f o u r s t e p s , s / h e i s a c t i v e l y attending t o context ( s i t u a t i o n a l and c o - t e x t u a l ) and c a l l i n g u p a l l r e l e v a n t content and formal schemata, then we c a n b egin t o s e e where t h i n g s might e a s i l y

break d o w n f o r t h e L 2 l i s t e n e r . Interference from t h e sound system of t h e n a t i v e language, which m a y w e l l favor a d i f f e r e n t processing pr oc edur e bec ause of differences i n rhythm and/or s y l l a b l e s t r u c t u r e , w i l l m a k e i t hard t o construct metrical templates a n d t o i d e n t i f y s t r e s s e d s y l l a b l e s a n d t h e i r vowel n u c l e i . L a c k of a l a r g e audio- receptive lexicon a n d l a c k

of k n o w l e d g e about common collocations w i l l i m p e d e segmentation of each intonation contour i n t o words o r chunks; l i k e w i s e , imperfect k n o w l e d g e of m o r p h o lo g y and syntax will make i t difficult t o identify wor d, phrase, o r clause b o u n d a r i e s a n d t o assign m e a n i n g s . A n e x a m i n a t i o n of written transcriptions of audio-r ec or ded speec h t h a t w er e p r e p a r e d by a d v a n c e d s e c o n d l a n g u a g e l e a r n e r s a t UCLA i n d i c a t e s t h a t verbs a r e commonly misheard ( e . g . , thought f o r fraught). Personal n a m e s a r e o f t e n n o t r e c o g n i z e d a s such ( e . g . , down the r e e d instead o f Donna R eed ) , a n d i di om s are often misheard ( e . g . , more s t u f f a n d barrel f o r l o c k , s t o c k , a n d b a r r e l ) ; both proper n a m e s a n d idioms i n f a c t a r e

prime candidates f o r mishearing e v e n a m o n g n a t i v e speakers (Celce-Murcia, 1980). These a r e some of t h e e r r o r s t h a t intermediate and a d v a n c e d L 2 l e a r n e r s m a k e d u e t o l a c k of l e x i c a l , grammatical, and c u l t u r a l k n o w l e d g e a s much a s t o d i f f i c u l t i e s with t h e L 2 sound system (See a l s o H ar ada, 1 9 9 8 ) . I n t h e i r attempts t o process o r a l discourse, low-level l e a r n e r s c a n even misconstrue t h e h e s i t a t i o n phenomena p r o d u c e d b y native sp e a k e r s a s words ( c f . Voss, 1979; Griffiths, 1991):

uh heard a s a

huh? heard a s u p ? hmm h eard a s him

 

Listening

Although some of t h e s e mishearings could c onc eivably be c l a r i f i e d by context a n d p r a g matic s u p p o r t , t h e r e a r e m a n y c a s e s where such information i s n o t accessible t o nonnative speakers. T o s e e what problems low-intermediate L 2 l i s t e n e r s have with a u r a l c omp r eh ens i on English, Martin (1982) asked f i v e n a t i v e speakers of Spanish t o l i s t e n t o s h o r t complete r a d i o broadcast segments a n d t h e n give immediate paraphrases ( i n English Spanish) of what they had h e a r d . Martin a l s o asked them t o i n t r o s p e c t a n d r e p o r t back t h e i r problems. H er e a r e two samples of h e r d a t a : 1.

Original radio segment: New York. A presidential e c o n o m i c expert s a y s t h e c u r r e n t recession w i l l l i n g e r f o r a t l e a s t a few more months. ( p . 78)

I...

Lear ner ’s r e p o r t : in relation

of but or

on

| understood something about one e x p e r t , e c o n o m y t o t h e p r e s i d e n t . I d i d n ’ t under stand t h a t very w e l l . ( p . 45)

2.

Original radio segment: Poland. The Communist g o v e r n m e n t denies

2'.

t h a t Solidarity l e a d e r L e c h Walesa w i l l soon be f r e e . ( p . 78) L e a r n e r ’ s r e p o r t : 1 missed t h e very b eginning. I don’t k n o w

what s a i d

t h a t . Someone i n Poland. ( p . 42)

Noting t h a t places where c o m p r e h e n s i o n broke d o w n s e e m e d t o y i e l d t h e b e s t information about t h e L 2 l e a r n e r s ’ l i s t e n i n g s t r a t e g i e s , Martin followed t h e same p r o c e d u r e b u t with longer segments and t h e n , i n e x a m i n i n g a l l her d a t a , she found t h a t her consultants had used two d i f f e r e n t s t r a t e g i e s : ( 1 ) bottom-up w o r d l e v e l s t r a t e g i e s (which associate meanings with s p e c i f i c words) a n d ( 2 ) t o p - d o w n i d e a l e v e l (which d e a l with establishment of a topic a n d help r e l a t e a l l subsequent m e a n i n g b i t s t o t h e main i d e a ) . Her d a t a indicated t h a t t h r e e progressive s t a g e s s eemed t o underlie t h e l i s t e n i n g process f o r t h e s e L 2 l e a r n e r s : 1.

A n i n i t i a l orientation p e r i o d w h e n t h e l i s t e n e r g e t s used t o t h e physical f e a t u r e s , i . e . , t h e speaker’s voice quality a n d pronunciation, r a t e of speech, and voc abular y;

107

t h i s v a r i e s i n length b u t t h e l i s t e n e r cannot process t h e discourse effectively u n t i l s / h e g e t s oriented t o t h e speech s i g n a l .

2.

A s e a r c h for a m a i n idea t h a t begins with t h e l i s t e n e r taking i n words, phrases, and/or c l a u s e s ; t h e s e c a n then be d e c o d e d and piec ed together t o form a e n t a t i v e mes s age based on t o p - d o w n s t r a t e g i e s .

3.

New i n c o m i n g infor mation i s mat c h ed against t h e p e r c e i v e d m a i n idea and/or t h e l i s t e n e r ’ s pr evious k n o w l e d g e ; adjustments a r e m a d e a n d problems of consistency a r e i d e n t i f i e d , r e f l e c t i n g t h e l i s t e n e r ’ s e f f o r t t o u s e both t op - dow n and bottom-up s t r a t e g i e s t o i n t e r p r e t t h e message.

Mar tin speculated t h a t t h e t op - dow n a n d bottom-up s t r a t e g i e s and t h e t h r e e s t a g e s i n t e r a c t e d and probably were o f t e n used simultaneously by her consultants. E v e n though t h e r e were tendencies t h a t a l l t h e l i s t e n e r s followed, t h e r e were a l s o i n t e r e s t i n g d i f f e r e n c e s . Each consultant a p p r o a c h e d l i s t e n i n g using somewhat d i f f e r e n t comb inations of t h e s t r a t e gies identified.

F r o m t h i s r eview of research o n l i s t e n i n g , i t seems t h a t l i s t e n e r s m a k e u s e of prosodic k n o w l e d g e — s p e c i f i c a l l y s t r e s s and intonation — i n combination with t op - dow n processing t o i d e n t i f y main i d e a s , while they u s e k n o w l e d g e of sound segments i n ways t h a t a r e more closely r e l a t e d t o bottom-up processing, e . g . , identifying words, phrases, o r grammatical i n f l e c t i o n s . T her e i s a l s o e x p e r i m e n t a l e v i d e n c e indicating t h a t l i s t e n i n g practice i s more important f o r o r a l s k i l l s d e v e l o p m e n t t h a n s p e a k i n g p r a c t i c e . A n d e r s o n and L y n c h

 

108

Language

Processing

(1988:16) show t h a t learners who h ave h ad sufficient and f o cus ed t as k - b as ed e x p e r i e n c e a s

l i s t e n e r s a r e b e t t e r a b l e a t some l a t e r time t o per for m a s i m i l a r o r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n t a s k t h a n are o ther

l e a r n e r s who had only b een given p r i o r speaking p r a c t i c e ( 1 . e . , giving l e a r n e r s p r a c t i c e only i n l i s t e n i n g was more e f f e c t i v e t h a n giving p r a c t i c e only i n speaking). O n e c a n s a f e l y assume t h a t giving p r a c t i c e w i t h b o t h s k i l l s — f i r s t l i s t e n i n g and t h e n speaking — would be t h e b e s t possible preparation, b u t i f t h e teacher doesn’t have time t o do b o t h , t h e n l i s t e n i n g p r a c t i c e (with aw ar eness r a i s i n g a n d a n a l y s i s ) should t a k e precedence.

TEACHING

LISTENING

FROM A DISCOURSE

PERSPECTIVE

TEACHING BOTTOM-UP STRATEGIES

What c a n be done by teachers t o e n c o u r a g e t h e i r students t o e n g a g e i n l i s t e n i n g practice a t t h e discourse l e v e l ? I n m a n y instances where r educ ed speec h o r imperfect acoustic processing might obscure a message, a n e f f e c t i v e l i s t e n e r i s a b l e t o u s e t h e s i t u a t i o n a l context and/or t h e p r e c e d i n g and following discourse ( c o - t e x t ) t o disambiguate o r t o decide o n t h e b e s t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . For example, i f t h e speaker s a y s “T’m l o o k i n ’ f e r Joe ‘n’ Barney. H a v e y a s e e n ’m?” t h e e f f e c t i v e l i s t e n e r w i l l process t h e f i n a l unstressed s y l l a b l e /1m/ a s them r a t h e r than him g i v e n t h e p r i o r mention of two people: Joe and Bar ney. Whether t h e speaker i s native o r nonnative, t h e r e must be s u f f i c i e n t information i n t h e s i t u a t i o n o r c o - t e x t t o process t h e acoustic s i g n a l p r o p e r l y . I f , f o r example, t h e l i s t e n e r kn o w s t h a t Joe and B a r n e y a r e t y p i c a l l y together t h i s could m a k e t h e processing e v e n e a s i e r f o r t h e l i s t e n e r . I n North A m e r i c a n English t h e r e d u c e d form w h adday a, 1 . e . , /wAdoyo/, can represent

e i t h e r “what d o y o u ” o r “what a r e you.” Again, t r a i n i n g t h e l i s t e n e r t o a t t e n d t o t h e d i s course context and t h e l o c a l g r a m m a r c a n help disamb iguate such a r e d u c e d form. Imagine, f o r example, a dialog b e t w e e n two s t u d e n t s :

A:

I dunno w h at classes t o take.

Whaddaya t h i n k I should take? I t a l l depends. Whaddaya g o n n a

B:

do a f t e r y o u f i n i s h school?

The f i r s t oc c ur r enc e of t h e r educ ed form corresponds t o “What d o y o u ” i n t h e e n v i r o n m e n t of t h e verb t h i n k . The second o c c u r r e n c e c or r esponds t o “What a r e y o u ” i n t h e e n v i r o n m e n t of t h e g o n n a d o ( i . e . , g o i n g t o d o ) . Eisenstein (1983:26) i n f a c t e n c o u r a g e s teachers t o expose l e a r n e r s t o such r educ ed speec h forms, which a r e g e n e r a lly n o t represented o r t h o g r a p h i c a l l y , t o e n h a n c e t h e i r l i s t e n i n g comprehension. S o m e tim e s t h e only difference b e t w e e n two possible interpretations i s a hard-to-hear unstressed s y l l a b l e . O n c e again t h e c o - t e x t , i n t h i s c a s e what comes a f t e r t h e pr oblematic sequence, c a n pr ovide t h e information n e e d e d t o choose c o r r e c t l y : 1.

M a r i a ( a . p r a i s e d / b . appraised) t h e v a s e . She s a i d i t was gorgeous.

2.

Jonathan ( a . steamed/b. esteemed) i t . He t o l d me how valuable i t was yesterday.

In the f i r s t example (a) i s selected by effective listeners, while (b) i s selected in the second.

G o o d l i s t e n e r s c a n s t o r e t h e speech s i g n a l i n memory long e n o u g h t o u s e t h e information given i n t h e subsequent intonation contour t o help disamb iguate t h e p o t e n t i a l l y prob lematic string.

 

Listening

Thus f a r we have discussed how problematic sounds o r sequences of sounds c a n be s e g m e n t e d and c o m p r e h e n d e d i f t h e l i s t e n e r makes e f f e c t i v e u s e of c o n t e x t . The same i s o f t e n t r u e i n c a s e s where s t r e s s o r intonation causes t h e d i f f e r e n c e . I n North A m e r i c a n English t h e modal a u x i l i a r y c a n and i t s negative contracted form c a n ’ t d i f f e r mainly with respect t o s t r e s s w h en they occur i n c o n t e x t . When spoken i n isolation, the v o w e l

sound

i s the s a m e

a n d the d i f f e r e n c e between a i n a l / n / a n d a f i n a l [ t ’ ] c a n be v i r t u a l l y imperceptib le:2

/ n / plus a n unr eleased c a n /keen/ c a n ’ t /keent/

because

uns t res s ed

and its v o w e l r e d u c e d t o schwa /kon/, while c a n ’ t i s stressed a n d retains i t s f u l l v o w e l s o u n d / k e e n t / . When we ask l i s t e n e r s t o match what they hear with t h e b e s t following c l a u s e , they However,

in c o n t e x t

the d i f f e r e n c e

i s clearer

can

i s usually

should p i c k (b) i f the s p e a k e r says (1) a n d p i c k (a) i f the s p e a k e r says ( 2 ) : 1 . / ay k ondt w i t / a . It’s il l eg a l . 2.

/aykéntduwit/

b. It’s e a s y .

For some compound words where more than one s y l l a b l e i s s t r e s s e d , p r o m i n e n c e can occur o n d i f f e r e n t s y l l a b l e s i n d i f f e r e n t contexts t o c o n v e y d i f f e r e n t meanings. For example, we have t h e follow ing contrasts a s p o s s i b i l i t i e s :

FIFty-one versus S I X t y - o n e

fifty-ONE versus f if ty - T W O

109

G i v e n t h e context “ Eis e n h o w e r

was elected president i n ‘ 5 2 n o t ‘ 5 1 , ” t h e p r o m i n e n c e

should f a l l on the “ t w o ” a n d the “ o n e ” not the “fifty.” However, in the context, “I c a n ’ t r e m e m b e r whether U n c l e Jack i s 51 o r 61,” t h e p r o m i n e n c e should f a l l o n t h e “ f i f t y ” and t h e “ s i x t y . ” This i s n o t a t a l l obvious t o m a n y sec ond l a n g u a g e l e a r n e r s , s o practice i n detecting p r o m i n e n c e and explaining i t s function i n discourse — i . e . , signaling n e w infor mation o r contrast — should be p a r t of i n s t r u c t i o n i n l i s t e n i n g . Like s t r e s s , intonation c a n help l i s t e n e r s c o m p r e h e n d a speaker’s m e a n i n g and i n t e n -

1990). The d i r e c t i o n of t h e speaker’s p i t c h a t t h e e n d of a n utterance c a n be p a r t i c u l a r l y c r u c i a l . With t h e same s t r i n g of words, intonation c a n s i g n a l t h e c e r t a i n t y of a declarative ( a ) v e r s u s t h e uncertainty of a n interrogative ( b ) : t i o n i f used alongside o t h e r cues ( R o s t ,

a . M a r s h a i s feeling BET}er. b. Marsha i s f e e l i n g BETter?

T h e terminal f a l l i n ( a ) s i g n a l s t h a t t h e speaker’s utterance i s declarative while t h e t e r m i n a l r i s e i n ( b ) s i g n a l s a n interrogative t h a t seeks confirmation. Any terminal pitch followed by a pause i s a n o p e n i n g f o r t h e l i s t e n e r t o respond, but t h e l i s t e n e r needs t o c o m p r e h e n d t h e m e a n i n g of t h e words a n d t h e g r a m m a r a s w e l l a s t h e intonation of a n utterance i n order t o r e s p o n d a p p r o p r i a t e l y . Thus (a) c o u l d be responded t o with ( a ' ) while for (b) the r e sp on se

i n ( b ' ) w oul d be more appropriate: ( a ' ) 'm g l a d t o h e a r t h a t .

( b ' ) Yes, i t ’ s a surprisingly quic k recovery.

 

Language

Processing

Using ( b ' ) a s a response t o ( a ) i s possible only i f t h e l i s t e n e r already knows t h e informat i o n i n ( a ) ; however, ( a ' ) would be a somewhat odd response t o ( b ) . T a g questions and “ o r ” questions a r e some of t h e o t h e r constructions i n English where intonation c a n be espec i a l l y c r u c i a l ( s e e Chapter 3 f o r f u r t h e r discussion).

These e x a m p l e s a r e a ll f a i r l y l o c a l . T h ey m a k e u s e of information i n t h e immediately sur r ounding discourse t o disamb iguate o r s e l e c t a reasonable i n t e r p r e t a t i o n f o r a prob lema t i c segment. E v e n i n t h e s e c a s e s , we c a n s t i l l f a i r l y confidently s a y t h a t t h e c o - t e x t i s helping t h e l i s t e n e r w i t h bottom-up, data-driven processing. We emphasize t h i s bec ause f o r m a n y p r a c t i t i o n e r s t h e assumption h a s b een t h a t discourse-level information a s s i s t s t h e l i s t e n e r only ( o r mainly) with t o p - d o w n processing, and indeed, t h e r e a r e m a n y c o n v i n c i n g e x a m p l e s of discourse-level information being v e r y h e l p f u l with t op - dow n processing. Our point i s t h a t both types of processing a r e u s e f u l and necessary f o r e f f e c t i v e l i s t e n i n g c omp r eh ens i on and t h a t they t y p i c a l l y i n t e r a c t . TEACHING TOP-DOWN AND INTEGRATED STRATEGIES Moving o n t o t op - dow n processing, we o f f e r t h e e x a m p l e of a university-level h i s t o r y professor who begins h i s l e c t u r e with t h e following statement, thereby pr oviding h i s l i s t e n e r s with a u s e f u l organizer:

T o d a y we’ re g o i n g t o consider t h r e e f o r c e s t h a t helped t o shape t h e Car olingian Empire. We’ll look a t r e l i g i o n , w e ' l l look a t t h e prevailing

social structure, a n d we’ll c on si de r economic factors.

With t h e s e o p e n i n g words, t h e professor has verbally established t h e topic o r m a i n id e a for his lecture:

Three f o r c e s helped shape t h e Car olingian Empire.

The professor then l i s t s t h e t h r e e forces-on t h e board — each of which we n o w k n o w w i l l be discussed during t h e l e c t u r e : 1.

religion

2.

social structure

3.

economic factors

The L 2 l i s t e n e r who h a s c o m p r e h e n d e d t h e o p e n i n g statement ( i . e . , t h e t o p i c ) and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e l i s t (which i s i n e f f e c t a n o u t l i n e of subtopics) i s i n a m u c h b e t t e r position t o under stand and t a k e n o t e s o n t h e l e c t u r e t h a n t h e L 2 l i s t e n e r who has missed t h e o p e n i n g information about t h e o v e r a l l t o p i c . S e c o n d l a n g u a g e l e a r n e r s i n English-for -ac ademic -pur poses programs c a n be t r a i n e d t o process such m a t e r i a l by l i s t e n i n g t o a v a r i e t y of l e c t u r e o p e n i n g s and b eing t o l d t o w r i t e d o w n t h e t o p i c and t o p r e d i c t what t h e l e c t u r e w i l l c o v e r . Th ei r written notes c a n then be c h e c k e d , a n d f e e d b a c k a n d clarification c a n be p r o v i d e d i f necessary. Learners c a n a l s o b e n e f i t from l i s t e n i n g t o long segments extracted from authentic l e c t u r e s and w o r k i n g a t getting t h e g i s t , i . e . , writing d o w n t h e main points o r t o p i c ( s ) . This global t a s k c a n be c o m p l e m e n t e d by subsequently r e l i s t e n i n g t o t h e same segments and j o t t i n g d o w n t h e d e t a i l s ( t h e f a c t s , d a t e s , names, r e s u l t s , a n d s o f o r t h ) . Learners c a n a l s o l i s t e n t o a l e c t u r e while looking a t a p a r t i a l o u t l i n e where they must f i l l i n t h e missing information. Such listening-related t a s k s a r e done s o t h a t t h e l e a r n e r s can event u a l l y b e c o m e more e f f e c t i v e a t using both t op - dow n and bottom-up l i s t e n i n g s t r a t e g i e s .

T o i n t e g r a t e p r a c t i c e i n l i s t e n i n g c omp r eh ens i on more f u l l y with o t h e r s k i l l s i n comm u n i c a t i v e l a n g u a g e teaching, Geddes and Sturtridge (1979) suggest t h e u s e of “jigsaw”

 

Listening

listening activities, s e v e r a l small of l e a r n e r s each l i s t e n t o a d i f f e r e n t p a r t of a l a r g e r piece of where discourse ( e . g . , a s t groups o r y , a r e c i p e , a mini-lecture, a news broadcast) and w r i t e d o w n t h e important p o i n t s . Later each g r o u p shares t h e i r information with another g r o u p and t h e n another s o t h a t each g r o u p c a n piece together gradually t h e l a r g e r discourse s e g m e n t and t h e n r e p o r t o n t h e i r o v e r a l l summary of t h e discourse. With such a n a c t i v i t y t h e r e should t h e n be a n opportunity a t t h e end f o r e v e r y o n e t o l i s t e n t o t h e e n t i r e piece of discourse t o decide whether t h e r e p o r t s and each group’s reconstruction h a s been a c c u r a t e .

TEACHING

USE OF THE TELEPHONE

VOICE MAIL AND ANSWERING MACHINES With t h e p r o l i f e r a t i o n of voice m a i l systems and telephone a n s w e r i n g

machines, second l a n g u a g e l i s t e n e r s should be e x p o s e d t o a v a r i e t y of authentic voice-mail messages; a f t e r each message they should w r i t e d o w n t h e e s s e n t i a l information s o t h a t they would be a b l e t o respond a ppr opr ia te ly t o t h e message had t h e c a l l been intended f o r them. For e x a m p l e :

H i , t h i s i s Judy. Uh. I t ’ s T u e s d a y afternoon and I’m c a l l i n g t o s e e i f y o u have n o t e s from t h e g e o g r a p h y l e c t u r e t o d a y . I missed i t bec ause of a d e n t a l a p p o i n t m e n t ; s o i f you have t h e n o t e s , j u s t bring them to m o r r o w s o I c a n borrow them. Hmm. I f n o t , c a l l me back a t 213-876-4201 tonight s o I c a n c a l l s o m e o n e e l s e . Okay, t h a n k s . Bye.

The l i s t e n e r s ( w o r k i n g individually o r i n small gr oups) should be asked t o reconstruct two possible scenarios i n terms of r e s p o n d i n g t o t h i s telephone message: S c e n a r i o 1 : ( I have t h e notes f o r t h e g e o g r a p h y l e c t u r e . ) J u d y wants them I ' l l bring them t o c l a s s to m o r r o w N o n e e d t o c a l l J u d y back S c e n a r i o 2 : ( I don’t have t h e notes f o r t h e g e o g r a p h y l e c t u r e . ) J u d y wants them I should c a l l J u d y a t 213-876-4201 I ' l l tell her I don’t have t h e n o t e s NONRECIPROCAL

TELEPHONE

LISTENING

T o d a y m a n y p h one messages a r e prerecorded a n d t h e l i s t e n e r cannot ask questions o r slow down t h e i n t e r l o c u t o r . Getting t h e r i g h t information d e p e n d s o n being a b l e t o under stand t h e r a n g e of options, t h e s p e c i f i c i n s t r u c t i o n s , and how t o respond by p e r f o r m i n g t h e p r o p e r a c t i o n o n t h e T o u c h - T o n e telephone. For e x a m p l e : ¢

I f you w ant t o k n o w

t h e locations of Weight Watcher m e e t i n g places i n your

a r e a , p unc h i n your zip c ode now

¢

I f you w ant t o k n o w

m e e t i n g times before 3 P . M. , p r e s s “one”

¢

I f you w ant t o k n o w

m e e t i n g times a f t e r 3 P . M . , p r e s s “two”

¢

— f you w ant t o k n o w

a l l t h e w e e k l y m e e t i n g times a t t h i s l o c a t i o n , p r e s s “ t h r e e . ”

This type of nonr ec ipr oc al telephone information message i s now used f o r a v a r i e t y of pur poses such a s activating c r e d i t c a r d s , giving information about airplane f l i g h t a r r i v a l

 

Language

Processing

a n d departure t i m e s , a n d g iv in g information about movies currently screening along with t h e a t e r s and show t i m e s , a n d s o f o r t h . Often such messages a r e s o c o m p l i c a t e d t h a t e v e n n a t i v e speakers must d i a l t h e telephone n u m b e r two o r more times t o u n d e r s t a n d a l l t h e desired information. I n some c a s e s , one must do t h i s s o r t of telephone l i s t e n i n g and p u n c h i n g i n of appropriate number s a s a preliminary t o a c t u a l l y t a l k i n g t o s o m e o n e ( e . g . , w h en t r y i n g t o follow u p o n a medical insurance c l a i m ) . Such l i s t e n i n g t a s k s c a n be quite d a u n t i n g f o r L 2 l e a r n e r s who have n o t b een properly prepared. TELEPHONE

USE:

EVERYDAY

CONVERSATION

I n e x p e r i e n c e i n d e a lin g with l i v e i n t e r a c t i v e telephone c onver sation i n t h e t a r g e t l a n g u a g e c a n a l s o be a s e r i o u s p r o b l e m f o r some sec ond l a n g u a g e l e a r n e r s . T h ey need opportunit i e s t o l i s t e n t o , i n t e r p r e t , and sum u p what they hear i n a s e r i e s of authentic r ec or ded p h o n e conversations. Their l i s t e n i n g s k i l l s c a n be g r e a t l y f a c i l i t a t e d i f they a r e e x p o s e d t o authentic telephone c onver sations and a l s o taught t h e c onver sational structures and options a s w e l l a s t h e formulaic expressions t h a t t h e work of Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974) have shown t y p i c a l l y manifest themselves i n informal telephone conver-

s a t i o n s a m o n g speakers of North A m e r i c a n English. T her e a r e of course s p e c i a l c o n v e n t i o n s associated with telephone c onver sation such t h a t e v e n a n a t i v e speaker unfamiliar with t h e s e conventions i n h i s ow n l a n g u a g e w o u l d have a i f f i c u l t time m a n a g i n g a e l e p h one conversation. Since t h e s e conventions vary from l a n g u a g e t o l a n g u a g e a n d d i a l e c t t o d i a l e c t , i t i s c e r t a i n t h a t n o n n a t i v e speakers who have n o t had a n y s p e c i a l i n s t r u c t i o n w i l l e x p e r i e n c e some d i f f i c u l t y . The g e n e r a l conversational s t r u c t u r e of a n informal telephone c onver sation i n North American E n g l i sh (Sa c k s e t a l . , 1974) i s a s follows:3

O p e n i n g segment Summons: _ h one r i n g s Answerer:

Caller:

Hello?

Hi,

am ak y

I speak w i t h

?

This i s : S / h e ’ s n o t h ere. Can I t a k e a message?

Answerer:

Wait a minute. I ' l l c a l l h i m s h e r .

Or t h e o p e n i n g a f t e r t h e p h one r i n g s m a y be a s follows: ( Ad d res s ee: Caller:

He l l o?) Hi,

This i s

:

The “How-Are-You” segment Addr essee: Hi, how ARE y o u ? Caller: Fine t h a n k s . A n d YOU? Addr essee: P r e t t y good./Just f i n e . Topic e s ta b lis h m e n t (Direct)

Caller:

I’m c a l l i n g bec aus e. . .

(Indirect)

Caller:

Ar e you f r e e Friday night?

( c a l l proceeds; t o p i c s a r e established; t o p i c s change)

 

Listening

Pr ec losing Addr essee:

Caller:

Closing Addr essee: Caller:

Addr essee:

Y o u know, I ' d l i k e t o t a l k a b i t l o n g e r , b u t ve got a calculus e x a m a t t e n o’clock tomorrow. C a n I c a l l you back t omor r ow afternoon? Oh s u r e . ‘Tal k to you later t h e n .

Yeah. Bye.

Good-bye.

Listening t o a n u m b e r of p h one conversations t h a t more o r l e s s follow t h i s p a t t e r n pr e pa r e s sec ond l a n g u a g e l e a r n e r s n o t only f o r informal telephone c onver sation b u t w i l l

113

a l s o a s s i s t them i n being more e f f e c t i v e i n face-to-face conversation. This i s important bec ause L 2 students have t o l d u s t h a t they o f t e n don’t k n o w how t o end a c onver sation o r t o decline a n i n v i t a t i o n p o l i t e l y , and s o they end up t a l k i n g much longer than they would l i k e t o , o r (even worse) they accept i n v i t a t i o n s they w oul d t r u l y r a t h e r d e c l i n e .

LISTENING TO SPEECH ACTIVITIES

The e n t i r e a r e a of s o c i a l functions o r speech a c t i v i t i e s c a n be c hallenging i n L 2 l i s t e n i n g a s well a s speaking ( s e e Chapter 9 ) . Olshtain and C o h e n (1991), f o r example, have found f o r “apologies” t h a t i f L 2 l i s t e n e r s hear sample apologies and g e t a sense of t h e o v e r a l l s t r u c t u r e of apologies i n English, they c a n then c o m p r e h e n d and a n a l y z e sub sequent instances of apologies t o s e e how minimal o r elaborate they a r e and t o j u d g e t h e i r o v e r a l l a p p r o p r i a c y i n terms of t h e context i n which they o c c u r . T o g i v e l e a r n e r s a sense of t h e o v e r a l l s t r u c t u r e of a speec h a c t l i k e a n apology, Olshtain a n d C o h e n m a k e u s e of t h e notion speech a c t s e t , which r e f e r s t o t h e routinized ways i n which a g i v e n speech a c t can p a t t e r n . Apologies d i f f e r a c c o r d i n g t o c u l t u r e with respect t o what members of t h e c u l t u r e w i l l apologize f o r and how they w i l l d o t h i s . I n a l l c u l t u r e s , however, t h e speaker’s aim i n u t t e r i n g a n a p o l o g y i s t o pr ovide support f o r and placate t h e addressee, who has been adversely affected by something t h a t t h e speaker i s a t l e a s t p a r t i a l l y responsible f o r . Olshtain a n d C o h e n report f i v e s t r a t e g i e s t h a t have been observed cross-culturally i n apologies:

G e n e r a l strategies m in im a lly n e c e s s a r y f o r a n a p o l o g y 1.

Explicit expression: E x c u s e m e / I ’ m sorry/l apologize.

2.

Admission of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y : / t ’ s my fault/I d i d n ’ t m e a n t o d o i t .

Situation-specific strategies; optional ways t o elab orate a n a p o l o g y 3.

A n e x c u s e / e x p l a n a t i o n : The bus was l a t e .

4.

A n o f f e r t o m a k e amends: /’/l buy y o u another v a s e .

5.

A promise of n o n r e c u r r e n c e : / t won’t h a p p e n again.

I n English, f o r example, i f s o m e o n e

f o r g e t s a m e e t i n g with h i s / h e r b o s s , a possible apology — with s t r a t e g y number s indicated — i s :

I’m r e a l l y very s o r r y . ( 1 ) I completely forgot about t h e meeting. ( 2 )

The alarm o n m y watch d i d n ’ t g o o f f . ( 3 )  

Language

Processing

C a n we m a k e another a p p o i n t m e n t o r meet n o w ? ( 4 ) This won’t h a p p e n a g a i n , you c a n be s u r e . ( 5 ) (fr om Olshtain and Cohen, 1991:156)

C o m p a r e t h i s r a t h e r s e r i o u s and elaborate a p o l o g y with a more casual a p o l o g y t h a t one student might m a k e t o another a f t e r k n o c k i n g over a c u p of c o f f e e : Sorry, Joe. (1) I didn’t mean

t o k n o c k your coffee o v e r .

Pll buy y o u ano t h er one. Want c r e a m

(2)

a n d s u g a r ? (4)

Other researchers ( e . g . , Hawkins, 1985) have found t h a t l e a r n e r s c a n i m p r o v e s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n t h e i r a b i l i t y t o process and p r o d u c e speech a c t s l i k e apologies and complaints w h e n they a r e thoroughly f a m i l i a r with t h e speec h a c t s e t and have been e x p o s e d t o and have a n a l y z e d m a n y authentic instances of t h e t a r g e t speec h a c t occurring i n d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t s . I n a d d i t i o n , Ha w kin s mentions t h a t l e a r n e r s r e p o r t g e n u i n e l y e n j o y i n g t h e process of learning about t h e s t r u c t u r e s and options used i n such s o c i a l interactions ( s e e C hapter 12 f o r a u n i t o n teaching complaints).

PEDAGOGICAL

STRATEGIES AND

PRIORITIES

What a r e some of t h e most u s e f u l exercises a n d a c t i v i t i e s f o r L 2 l i s t e n e r s ? Many teachers have r ec or ded s h o r t segments from r a d i o o r TV news broadcasts, which they then play s e v e r a l times i n c l a s s f o r t h e i r students t o g iv e them a n oppor tunity t o e x p e r i e n c e m u l t i ple l i s t e n i n g s and t o c a r r y o u t a v a r i e t y of t a s k s : *

e x t r a c t t o p i c / g i s t (first l i s t e n i n g )

*

g e t d e t a i l s of news item (sec ond l i s t e n i n g ) (who, what, when, w h e r e )

¢

e v a lu a te emotional impact of news items ( t h i r d l i s t e n i n g ) ( t h i s c a n vary b u t t h e l i s t e n e r should give reasons f o r t h e choice):

— — — — —

n e u t r a l r e p o r t of t h e information

information makes me happy/sad information worries/surprises me information annoys me other

a l s o be u s e f u l f o r sec ond l a n g u a g e l i s t e n e r s t o look a t a f a i t h f u l t r a n s c r i p t of a lecture o r a c o n v e r s a t i o n with a l l the pauses, false s t a r t s , i n c o m p l e t e s e n t e n c e s , a n d so f o r t h , represented. Access t o such t r a n s c r i p t s — along with appropriate g u i d a n c e f r o m t h e teacher — c a n m a k e l i s t e n e r s a w a r e of m a n y things (including t h e f a c t t h a t spontaneous It c a n

o r l i v e speech i s “messy” much

of t h e t i m e ) . M o r e s p e c i f i c a l l y , i t helps l e a r n e r s s e e t h e discourse function of items such a s t h e following: *

c u e words and discourse mar ker s t h a t s i g n a l what t h e main points a n d minor points a r e ( e . g . , sequential organizers such a s f i r s t , second, f i n a l l y )

*

l e x i c a l and s t r u c t u r a l c u e s including l e x i c a l routines and chunks t h a t s i g n a l a n e w term and/or a d e f i n i t i o n o r some other notional construct ( s e e Nattinger

a n d DeCar r ic o, 1 9 9 2 ) . For example, “ i n other words” s i g n a l s t h a t t h e speaker w i l l be par aphr asing o r f u r t h e r explaining what has immediately preceded.

 

Listening

*

k e y t e x t segments t h a t s e r v e a s higher order organizers ( l i k e t h e o p e n i n g s egment from t h e h i s t o r y professor’s l e c t u r e we quoted o n p a g e 1 1 0 ) .

Also important f o r c o m p r e h e n d i n g i n t e r a c t i v e reciprocal discourse a r e : ¢

words and phrases used t o o p e n o r c l o s e a t o p i c i n c onver sation

*

ways t o ask a question o r t o i n t e r r u p t t h e speaker

¢

ways t o ask f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n o r elaboration

His

I n order t o help y o u n g e r l e a r n e r s t o d e v e l o p g o o d l i s t e n i n g s t r a t e g i e s , teachers n e e d t o design a v a r i e t y of l i s t e n i n g t a s k s t h a t resemble games and a t t h e same time focus o n i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and recognition of s p o k e n sequences. The e a s i e r t a s k s m a y require simply t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of c e r t a i n key words such a s c o u n t i n g t h e n u m b e r of times t h e word “king” appears i n a t o r y a s t h e c l a s s l i s t e n s . M o r e c o m p l e x a c t i v i t i e s m a y require matching of a c t i o n s and personalities i n t h e s t o r y (Who played t h e g u i t a r ? ) o r even finding r e a s o n s f o r a c t i o n s (Why d i d they look f o r t h e l e a d e r of t h e group?). A f i n a l a c t i v i t y should

involve a collaborative r e t e l l i n g of t h e s t o r y by t h e whole c l a s s , which means t h a t t h e l e a r n e r s have t o l i s t e n c a r e f u l l y t o what t h e i r p e e r s contribute a s w e l l a s r e m e m b e r t h e s t o r y .

CONCLUSION I n t h i s chapter we h o p e we have demonstrated t h a t i n addition t o using acoustic informat i o n t o perceive and s e g m e n t t h e stream of speec h ( i . e . , t o do bottom-up processing) n a t i v e l i s t e n e r s — and e v e n more s o , n o n n a t i v e l i s t e n e r s — must a c t i v e l y u s e a v a r i e t y of schemata and contextual c l u e s , especially those c l u e s t h a t a r e available i n t h e o n g o i n g discourse, t o a c c u r a te ly i n t e r p r e t o r a l messages ( i . e . , t o d o t op - dow n processing). Phonologic al s i g n a l s such a s s t r e s s , pause, a n d i n t o n a t i o n ; l e x i c o - g r a m m a t i c a l signals such a s discourse m a r k e r s , l e x i c a l phrases, and w o r d o r d e r ; a n d higher-level organizing elements such a s t h e a d j a c e n c y p a i r s t h a t we f i n d i n conversational s t r u c t u r e a r e a l l c r i t i c a l i n signaling information t o t h e l i s t e n e r . Research findings have implications f o r l a n g u a g e p e d a g o g y i n t h a t they reinforce t h e notion t h a t l i s t e n i n g c o m p r e h e n s io n i s indeed t h e primary s k i l l i n d e v e l o p i n g o r a l c o m m u n i c a t i v e c o m p e t e n c e . T h e findings a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y relevant i n s e t t i n g s where t h e t a r g e t l a n g u a g e i s being used a s a medium of i n s t r u c t i o n f o r a c a d e m i c purposes. T h e y a l s o have implications f o r materials d e v e l o p m e n t i n terms of t h e type and r a n g e of p r a c t i c e

materials n e e d e d t o teach l i s t e n i n g c o m p r e h e n s io n e f f e c t i v e l y . I t i s appropriate t h a t we have discussed l i s t e n i n g f i r s t i n t h i s s e c t i o n dealing with how t h e four l a n g u a g e s k i l l s r e l a t e t o discourse processing and t o each o t h e r . I n f a c t , we s h a l l s e e i n t h e following chapter t h a t r e a d i n g mak es u s e of m a n y of t h e same t op - dow n p r o cessing s t r a t e g i e s and p r i o r k n o w l e d g e fr amew or k s t h a t l i s t e n i n g d o e s . I n a d d i t i o n , l i s t e n i n g , i n those c a s e s where i t i s i n t e r a c t i v e and r e c i p r o c a l , a l s o s h a r e s l a n g u a g e k n o w l e d g e and t op - dow n s t r a t e g i e s with speaking; e f f e c t i v e reciprocal l i s t e n i n g requires s p e c i a l s t r a t e g i e s t h a t d i r e c t l y involve s p e a k i n g ( e . g . , b a c k - c h a n n e l i n g with “uh-huh” o r some other m a r k e r t o l e t t h e speaker k n o w y o u a r e l i s t e n i n g , asking f o r r e p e t i t i o n o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n ) . This relationship w i l l c o m e u p a g a i n i n Chapter 9 , which d e a l s with speaking.

 

Language

Processing

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1.

Why i s c o n t e x t s o important f o r t h e teaching and l e a r n i n g o f l i s t e n i n g c omp r eh ens i on?

2.

Compare t h e l i s t e n i n g s t r a t e g i e s you u s e i n your f i r s t l a n g u a g e with those you u s e i n a second o r foreign language. What a r e t h e s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences?

3.

G i v e a n e x a m p l e of a s i t u a t i o n where l e a r n e r s would have t o u s e both t op - dow n a n d bottom-up l i s t e n i n g s t r a t e g i e s t o achieve c o m p r e h e n s i o n .

4.

C a n you r e c a l l a n instance where you misheard something i n your firs t l a n g u a g e o r a foreign l a n g u a g e ? What d i d y o u “hear”? What d i d t h e o t h e r speaker say?

W h a t m a y have c aused t h i s mishearing?

SUGGESTED A C T I V I T I E S 1.

Record a s h o r t s e g m e n t such a s a news item from r a d i o o r TV. D e s i g n two l i s t e n i n g t a s k s using t h i s s e g m e n t — one f o r n a t i v e speakers a n d one f o r n o n n a t i v e speakers. What d i d you d o t h a t was d i f f e r e n t ?

2.

Record s o m e o n e t e l l i n g a n a n e c d o t e o r a s t o r y t h a t i s completely n e w t o t h e nonnative speakers you a r e teaching o r t u t o r i n g . T h e n have t h e l e a r n e r s l i s t e n t o t h i s s t o r y one s e g m e n t a t a t i m e . After each s e g m e n t t h e c l a s s should r e t e l l (a) w h at t h ey h a v e h eard a n d (b) what t h ey think will be said in the n e x t s e g m e n t .

T h e n have them l i s t e n t o t h e n e x t s egment t o c hec k t h e i r predictions against what was a c t u a l l y s a i d . 3.

P r e p a r e a i s t e n i n g t a s k f o r a n intermediate l a n g u a g e c l a s s . I n addition t o t h e t a s k i t s e l f , incorporate aw ar eness-r aising by asking t h e l e a r n e r s t o r e f l e c t o n what they have done t o achieve c o m p r e h e n s io n and why t h e r e might be t r o u b l e s p o t s o r segments t h a t a r e n o t f u l l y comprehensib le. I f you a r e a b l e t o t r y o u t t h i s a c t i v i t y , be s u r e t o include time f o r t h e students t o discuss i n gr oups both what they c o m p r e h e n d e d and t h e i r s t r a t e g i e s f o r ac hieving c o m p r e h e n s i o n .

4.

P r e p a r e t h r e e d i f f e r e n t l i s t e n i n g t a s k s t h a t w oul d help y o u n g e r l e a r n e r s develop g o o d l i s t e n i n g s t r a t e g i e s . Discuss t h e i s s u e s r e l a t e d t o s o u n d - m e a n i n g c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s with your colleagues.

S u g g e s t i o n s for F u r t h e r Reading Anderson, A . , & Lynch, T . (1988). L i s t e n i n g . Oxford: Oxford University P r e s s . Dunkel, P . (1991). Listening i n t h e n a t i v e and s e c o n d / f o r e i g n l a n g u a g e : T o w a r d a n i n t e g r a t i o n o f r e s e a r c h a n d practice. TESOL Q uart erl y,

25(3), 431-457.

M endel s oh n, D. ( 1 9 9 8 ) . T e a c h i n g l i s t e n i n g . A n n u a l Review o f A p p l i e d L i n g u i s t i c s , 1 8 , 81-101. Morley, J . (1991). Listening c o m p r e h e n s io n i n sec ond/for eign l a n g u a g e i n s t r u c t i o n . I n M. C e l c e - M u r c i a ( E d . ) , Teaching English a s a second o r for eign language, 2 n d e d . ( p p . 81-106). Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Peterson, P . W. (1991). A synthesis of models f o r i n t e r a c t i v e l i s t e n i n g . I n Celce-Murcia, M. ( E d . ) , Teaching English a s a second o r foreign l a n g u a g e , 2 n d e d . ( p p . 106-122). Boston: Heinle & Heinle. R o s t , M. (1990). Listening i n l a n g u a g e learning. L o n d o n :

Longman.

 

Listening

Endnotes R a r l i e r versions of t h i s c h a p t e r , o r portions of i t , were published a s C e l c e - M u r c i a

117

(1 995a ) a n d a s Chapter 7 in Celce-Murcia, Br i n t o n , a n d Goodwin (1996). 2 There i s l e s s of a c o m p r e h e n s io n

p r o b l e m i n B r i t i s h English, where can i s p r o n o u n c e d / k z e n / and c a n ’ t i s p r o n o u n c e d / k a n t / .

3 H e n r y Widdowson

(personal c o m m u n i c a t i o n ) suggests t h a t t h e conversational conventions f o r informal p h o n e c a l l s a m o n g B r i t i s h English speakers would be quite d i f f e r e n t from what we present here f o r North A m e r i c a n English. I f a corpus of informal B r i t i s h English p h o n e c a l l s i s a v a i l a b l e , a s i m i l a r template could be p r e p a r e d f o r B r i t i s h English t h a t r e f l e c t s t h e mac r ostr uc tur e of informal p h one c onver sations i n t h a t d i a l e c t .

 

Reading “Texts, | o ul d s u g g e s t , d o not c o m m u n i c a t e : p e o p l e c o m m u n i c a t e by using t e x t s a s a device f o r mediating a discourse process. I t i s the process which i s the c om m u n i c a t i v e occurrence.” (Widdowson, |984:125)

“In o u r classrooms a n d o n o u r campuses, we should assist st u d e n t s to draw f r o m their past

s t r a t e g i e s and e x p e r i e n c e s and t o d e v e l o p n e w a p p r o a c h e s t o t e x t s and t a s k s . O u r classrooms

should e n c o u r a g e student research i n t o t h e i r own l i t e r a c y and t e x t h i s t o r i e s , i n t o current a p p r o a c h e s t o l i t e r a t e p r a c t i c e s , and i n t o s t r a t e g i e s t h a t w o r k i n a v a r i e t y of contexts.” ( J o h n s , 1997:19)

INTRODUCTION

E v e n i n t h i s m o d e r n a g e of multimedia and high-tech environments, i t i s s t i l l t h e c a s e t h a t most of u s r e l y o n o u r reading a b i l i t y i n order t o g a in information o r e x p a n d o u r k n o w l e d g e . Whether i t i s t h e s p o r t s f a n who rushes t o t h e s p o r t s p a g e of t h e new spaper , t h e investor who checks t h e f i n a n c i a l page, o r t h e t e n n i s i n s t r u c t o r who needs t o k n o w t h e w eather f o r e c a s t , information i s available t o a l l of them i n p r i n t and i t has t o be processed v i a reading. I n a l i t e r a t e s o c i e t y , s k i l l i n reading i s imperative s i n c e s o much of what one needs t o k n o w i s c o m m u n i c a t e d v i a w r i t t e n t e x t : i n s t r u c t i o n s o n how t o g e t o u t of a n u n d e r g r o u n d par king a r e a , i n s t r u c t i o n s o n how t o operate t h e p u m p i n a e l f - s e r v i c e gas s t a t i o n , o r t h e pr e c a u t i o n s one needs t o t a k e w h en t r y i n g o u t a new d r u g o r ointment. We could n o t function i n m o d e r n society without reading. Yet f o r some people t h i s i s n o t a n e a s i l y accessible s k i l l . I n a sec ond o r foreign language, reading c a r r i e s e v e n g r e a t e r p o t e n t i a l i m p o r t a n c e than i n t h e firs t l a n g u a g e s i n c e i t i s o f t e n t h e only r e a d i l y available e x p o s u r e t o t h e t a r g e t language. A l e a r n e r of another l a n g u a g e w i l l be a b l e t o r e t a i n some of t h e k n o w l e d g e g a i n e d i n a course of study by continuing t o r e a d i n t h a t l a n g u a g e f o r m a n y y e a r s a f t e r g r a d u a t i n g from t h e c o u r s e . For a n y o n e l earni ng t h e l a n g u a g e of a r emote country, reading opens u p a world of l i t e r a t u r e and c u l t u r e representing t h a t country i n a m a n n e r t h a t w o u l d n o t otherwise be p o s s i b l e .

 

Reading

When we t h i n k of English a s a world l a n g u a g e o r l a n g u a g e of wider c ommuni c at i on, reading t a k e s o n a very s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n most professions. S c i e n t i s t s k e e p a b r e a s t of t h e dev el op ment s i n t h e i r f i e l d s of study by reading s c i e n t i f i c journals i n English, l o v e r s of a r t subscribe t o a r t m a g a z i n e s i n English, and l o v e r s of n a t u r e subscribe t o n a t u r e m a g a z i n e s i n English. For t h o s e who a r e k e e n o n using t h e I n t e r n e t , reading i s a b a s i c s k i l l t h a t makes access t o c o m p u t e r s and t h e I n t e r n e t p o s s i b l e . This chapter d e a l s with t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e reading s k i l l i n a sec ond o r foreign l a n g u a g e and places p a r t i c u l a r emphasis o n t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s t h a t t h e nonnative speaker enc ounter s w h e n reading i n t h e

new language.

READING FOR COMMUNICATION THE INTERACTIVE

NATURE OF THE READING PROCESS

I n t h e process of t r y i n g t o under stand a w r i t t e n t e x t t h e reader h a s t o perform a n u m b e r of simultaneous t a s k s : d e c o d e t h e message by r ec ognizing t h e w r i t t e n s i g n s , i n t e r p r e t t h e mes s age by assigning m e a n i n g t o t h e s t r i n g of words, and f i n a l l y , understand what t h e a u t h o r ' s i n t e n t i o n w a s . I n t h i s process t h e r e a r e a t l e a s t t h r e e p a r t i c i p a n t s : t h e w r i t e r , t h e text, a n d t h e r e a d e r . The w r i t e r m a y be d i s t a n t i n time and space from t h e p a r t i c u l a r reader of t h e t e x t and from t h e a c t of readi ng; nonetheless, i t was a t t h e time of writing t h a t t h e author p r o d u c e d t h e t e x t with t h e i n t e n t i o n of transmitting a message t o a p o t e n t i a l reader, a n d therefore, the d i a l o g between r e a d e r a n d writer via the t e x t c a n take p l a c e a t any time a f t e r t h a t . R e a d i n g i s , t h e r e f o r e , inherently i n t e r a c t i v e , involving t h e t h r e e participants. The psycholinguistic-cognitive a p p r o a c h t o reading ( B a r n e t t , 1989) i s le a r n e r -c e n te r e d a n d places cognitive d e v e l o p m e n t and t e x t processing a t t h e c o r e of i t s view o n reading. P r i o r k n o w l e d g e t h a t individuals bring t o t h e reading o r writing s i t u a t i o n i s c e n t r a l i n t h i s appr oac h. An important term e m p l o y e d by t h e psycholinguistic-cognitive g r o u p i s s c h e m a ( s c h e m a ta i n t h e p l u r a l ) t o r e f e r t o p r i o r k n o w l e d g e . Many of t h e t h e o r i s t s belonging t o t h i s a p p r o a c h have been instrumental i n c h a n g i n g teaching methodologies from t h e t r a d i t i o n a l focus o n i s o l a t e d f e a t u r e s of t e x t s t o t h e i n t e r a c t i v e and collaborative view o f t h e c o m p o s i n g process ( S i l v a , 1990), which develops a s p a r t of r e a d e r - t e x t i n t e r a c t i o n . H i s t o r i c a l l y , two separate a p p r o a c h e s t o reading d e v e l o p e d i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e a n d research: bottom-up a p p r o a c h e s and t op - dow n approaches. B o tto m - u p a p p r o a c h e s view r eading a s “a s e r i e s of s t a g e s t h a t p r o c e e d i n a f i x e d order from sensory input t o c o m p r e hension” (Hudson, 1998:46). Gough (1972) i s one of t h e proponents of t h i s appr oac h. On t h e other hand, t op - dow n a p p r o a c h e s view t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n process a s a c o n t i n u u m of c h a n g i n g hypotheses about t h e i nc omi ng information. Smith (1971, 1988, 1994) and Goodman (1968, 1976) a r e major proponents of such a n approach. M o r e r e c e n t l y , a p p r o a c h e s t h a t t a k e a n i n t e r a c t i v e view of reading req ui re a n integration a n d c o m b i n a t i o n of both t op - dow n and bottom-up a p p r o a c h e s t o describe t h e reading p r o c e s s . The i n t e r a c t i v e nat ure of t h e reading process has been described and studied f o r t h e past tw o dec ades by m a n y researchers i n t h i s f i e l d (Rumelhart 1977, 1980, 1984; Rumelhart a n d McClelland, 1982; S t a n o v i c h 1980, 1981, 1986). Some o f the studies h a v e f o c u s e d on the writer, rather than on the features o f the t e x t ; others h a v e f o c u s e d o n the s t r a t e g i e s of interpretation e m p l o y e d b y t h e r e a d e r . Figure 7 . 1 o n p a g e 1 2 0 , presents o u r discourse processing model, f i r s t pr esented i n C hapter 1 , a s i t applies t o reading. Since t o p - d o w n a n d bottom-up processing t a k e place simultaneously — t h e reader needs t o r e c r u i t h i s o r her p r i o r k n o w l e d g e a n d p r i o r reading experience, apply k n o w l e d g e of writing c onventions, and consider t h e pur pose of reading i n order t o e n g a g e i n t o p d o w n processing. I n F igur e 7 . 1 t h e k n o w l e d g e c o m p o n e n t s a r e i n o v a l s , and t h e pur pose

119

 

  age ge  gua angu

12  12 

ro c es s in g  

Top-down Pr oc essing

Discourse k n o w l e d g e of writing conventions, genres, registers

Prior knowledge,

reading e x p e r i e n c e (content schemata)

P u r p o s e f o r reading

( f o rm al s c h e m a t a )

Metacognition

Interpretation/

U n d e r s t a n d i n g of Written Text ( D is co urs e L e v e l )

Language knowledge: (vocab ulary, gr ammar , punctuation, cohesion orthography)

Reading s t r a t e g i e s

B o tto m - u p Pr oc essing

Figure 7. 1 Reading:

Written Text R e c e p t i o n Framework

 

Reading

of reading i s i n a t r i a n g l e a s p a r t of t h e p r a g m a t i c considerations. At t h e same t i m e , t h e reader needs t o r e c r u i t h i s / h e r l i n g u i s t i c k n o w l e d g e and various reading s t r a t e g i e s i n order t o decode t h e w r i t t e n t e x t through bottom-up processing. I t i s t h e e f f e c t i v e i n t e g r a t i o n of t h e s e processes t h a t l e a d s t o t h e appropriate i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e w r i t t e n t e x t and c r e a t e s t h e i n t e r a c t i v e reading p r o c e s s . P r i o r k n o w l e d g e ( t h e firs t o v a l o n t h e t o p l e f t ) r e l a t e d t o reading includes content k n o w l e d g e a s w e l l a s e x p e r i e n c e i n reading. The sec ond c l u s t e r of k n o w l e d g e ( t h e second o v a l ) r e f e r s t o k n o w l e d g e of writing conventions, including g e n r e a n d r e g i s t e r s a s w e l l a s k n o w l e d g e of s o c i o c u l t u r a l a n d contextual background, which c a n be important i n f a c i l i t a t i n g t h e r e a d in g p r o c e s s . The pur pose of r e a d i n g , o n the other hand, i s m o r e closely related t o the i n d i v i d u a l n e e d s of the r e a d e r a n d t o the personal expectations t h a t s / h e has with r e s p e c t t o t h e given text. Different t e x t s m a y r e q u i r e d i f f e r e n t combinations of t h e elements presented i n Figure 7 . 1 , f o r t h e same r e a d e r . A l e s s f a m i l i a r t e x t , f o r i n s t a n c e , m a y require more t o p - d o w n evaluation, whereas a i n g u i s t i c a l l y more d i f f i c u l t t e x t may require more bottom-up considerations (such a s t h e m e a n i n g s of d i f f i c u l t words). S i m i l a r l y , t h e same t e x t m a y be processed d i f f e r e n t l y by d i f f e r e n t r e a d e r s , d e p e n d i n g o n t h e i r p r i o r k n o w l e d g e and t h e i r k n o w l e d g e of t h e t a r g e t language. Figure 7 . 1 i s i n m a n y respects s i m i l a r t o F igur e 6 . 1 ( s e e Chapter 6 , Listening) s i n c e i n both chapters we a r e c o n c e r n e d with interpretation of discourse. I n t h e context of l i s t e n i n g t h e assessment of t h e s i t u a t i o n within which t h e s p o k e n i n t e r a c t i o n occurs plays a c r u c i a l r o l e , and i t i s f i l t e r e d through p r a g m a t i c considerations. I n t h e context of r e a d i n g , t h e k n o w l e d g e of written conventions and t h e pur pose of reading w i l l determine t h e

a p p r o a c h and a t t i t u d e t h e reader w i l l have tow ar d t h e written t e x t . Linguistic k n o w l e d g e c o m b in e d with reading o r l i s t e n i n g s t r a t e g i e s w i l l enab le t h e i n t e r p r e t e r t o d o bottom-up processing i n order t o c o m p l e m e n t t h e t o p - d o w n processing. The reading t a s k requires readers t o choose and apply some of what they k n o w t o each n e w t e x t . I t seems t h a t “ g o o d ” readers do t h i s very e f f e c t i v e l y while poorer readers e n c o u n t e r a multitude of d i f f i c u l t i e s . This chapter i s c o n c e r n e d with discourse f e a t u r e s of t e x t s t h a t might enhance t h e reading and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a t e x t i f t h e reader c a n u s e them a s f a c i l i t a t i n g c l u e s , while t h e same discourse f e a t u r e s might i n t e r f e r e with t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n process i f unfamiliar t o t h e r e a d e r . T o p - d o w n processing i s o f t e n r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e k n o w l e d g e - d r i v e n o r c onc ept-dr iven a p p r o a c h t o a e x t , and i t consolidates a l l t h e elements t h a t t h e reader brings t o t h e r e a d in g p r o c e s s . I t i s , i n f a c t , a reader b o u n d a p p r o a c h t h a t r e l i e s heavily o n t h e r e a d e r ’ s global i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p r o c e s s . Let u s i m a g i n e t h a t a person comes a c r o s s a s c r a p of paper o n which t h e following s e c t i o n of a t e x t i s printed without a i t l e , without graphics o r any o t h e r indication a s t o where t h e t e x t might have a p p e a r e d o r i g i n a l l y , b y whom i t m a y have b een w r i t t e n , and f o r what purpose: On August 2 , 1939, Albert E i n s t e i n told the p res i d ent o f the U n i t e d States

t h a t h i s s c i e n t i f i c c olleagues had e v i d e n c e t o show t h a t a n atomic bomb

might be made. Any reader c o m i n g a c r o s s t h i s piece of t e x t might r e c r u i t a l l h i s / h e r k n o w l e d g e c o n c e r n i n g t h e atomic bomb, t h e t r a g i c h i s t o r y of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, t h e f i g h t against nuclear weapons, o r a n y other potentially r e l a t e d t o p i c t h a t seems r e l e v a n t . On t h e b a s i s of such “ b a c k g r o u n d ” o r “prior k now l edge,” t h e reader might construct some i n i t i a l hypotheses about t h e t e x t a n d ac c or dingly have expectations a s t o what might c o m e n e x t . The n e x t

sentence i n t h e g i v e n t e x t i s t h e following:

121

|

Six years l a t e r , i n F e b r u a r y 1945, Klaus Fuchs met a Russian agent whom he k n e w b y t h e c ode n a m e “Raymond” and passed o n t o him what he k n e w about m a k i n g t h e bomb.

 

122

Language

Processing

Our imaginary reader c a n now nar r ow d o w n a n d focus a t t e n t i o n more s p e c i f i c a l l y o n t h e i n i t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e atomic bomb i n t h e United S t a t e s a n d t h e transmission of t h i s s e c r e t information t o R u s s i a . Y e t , t h e reader s t i l l h a s t o o l i t t l e information about t h e t e x t i n order t o a n t i c i p a t e t h e aim o r message of t h e text. The n e x t b i t of t e x t might do t h e t r i c k f o r most r e a d e r s :

Was one of t h e s e m e n r i g h t t o disclose h i s t e r r i b l e k n o w l e d g e , and was t h e o t h e r w r o n g ? Or were they both w r o n g ? D o s c i e n t i s t s have a s e n s e of r i g h t and w r o n g ? At t h i s s t a g e most readers would r e a l i z e t h a t t h e t e x t i s c o n c e r n e d with questions of e t h i c s and t h e responsible c o n d u c t of s c i e n t i s t s . H ad t h e reader s e e n t h e t i t l e , “ A Moral f o r a n A g e of P lenty” (Bronowski, 1977:196) o r had s / h e k n o w n t h e n a m e of t h e a u t h o r , s / h e might have n a r r o w e d d o w n t h e expectations and hypotheses based o n t h e content of t h e t i t l e and/or t h e k n o w l e d g e t h e person might have about Bronowski a s a n author of a r t i c l e s r e l a t e d t o philosophic, s c i e n t i f i c , and moral i s s u e s . The top-down p r o c e s s i n g o f a t e x t , therefore, recruits the reader’s background k n o w l -

e d g e of both content and t e x t g e n r e , and h i s / h e r expectations and exper ienc es ( s e e Figure 7 . 1 ) , and applies them t o t h e interpretation of t h e t e x t , a s t h e reader moves along from one s e c t i o n t o t h e n e x t , within t h e t e x t . This type of processing i s e a s i e r and more e f f e c t i v e w h e n readers a r e familiar with t h e subject matter of t h e t e x t a n d i t becomes more d i f f i c u l t w h e n such preparatory information i s n o t a v a i l a b l e . Simultaneous with t h e t op - dow n processing, readers u t i l i z e a bottom-up appr oac h, a l s o k n o w n a s data-driven processing, which i s t e x t b o u n d a n d which r e l i e s heavily on linguistic i n f o r m a t i o n (both s e m a n t i c a n d syntactic in n a t u r e ) a v a i l a b l e in the t e x t . I t i s the

complementary

utilization

of t h e two types of processing

that make

t e x t interpretation

possible.

D u r i n g t h e 1980s a strongly c o m m u n i c a t i v e view of reading assigned more a t t e n t i o n t o t op - dow n processing, which a t t h e time was n e w a n d l e s s familiar t o teachers and l e a r n e r s t h a n bottom-up techniques, which had long been commonly practiced i n t hhee l a n g u a g e classroom. I n t h e l a t e 1980s and t h e b e g i n n i n g of t h e 1990s we s e e increasing a r g u m e n t s f o r v i e w i n g t h e two types of processing a s c o m p l e m e n t a r y and i n t e r a c t i v e Grabe (1988) emphasizes the n e e d t o allow for a l l subskills t o be a v a i l a b l e t o and he speaks i n favor of t h e I n t e r a c t i v e P a r a l l e l Pr oc essing models described and V a u g h n (1984) and Waltz and Pollack (1985). Furthermore, i t has been

in nature. the reader,

by G r i f f i n shown t h a t

g o o d readers have excellent d e c o d i n g s k i l l s a n d c a n d e c o d e l e t t e r s and words rapidly i n a bottom-up fashion (van Dijk and Kintsch, 1983). For ESL/EFL readers i t seems necessary t o d e v e l o p and p r o m o t e awareness of and s k i l l i n both types of processing s o t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l reader c a n f i n d individual c o m p e n s a t o r y tec hniques t o o v e r c o m e l i n g u i s t i c and content d e f i c i e n c i e s . I n t h e following paragraph, f o r i n s t a n c e , taken from a passage by A si mo y (1985) e n t i t l e d “ B a c k t o Basics,” t h e ESL/EFL reader must be a b l e t o r e c o g n i z e some of t h e k e y words and t h e i r e x a c t m e a n i n g s ( b r i t t l e , chipped, o e n order t o under stand t h e point

b eing m a d e by t h e a u t h o r :

But t h e n about 5000 years a g o , people b e g a n using m e t a l . I t had advantages. Whereas rock was b r i t t l e and had t o be chipped i n t o shape, metal was tough and could be beaten and bent i n t o shape.

(Asimoy, 1985:5) I f t h e readers of t h i s p a r a g r a p h d o n o t k n o w t h e t h r e e k e y words a n d t h e i r meanings, they w i l l have t o d e p e n d more heavily o n t op - dow n s t r a t e g i e s and m a k e u s e of t h e i r k n o w l e d g e

 

Reading

about materials i n order t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e paragraph. The problem i n d o i n g s o , however, i s t h a t rock c a n be both hard and b r i t t l e , and metal c a n be both tough and f l e x i b l e , and a reader who does n o t k n o w t h e accurate m e a n i n g s of t h e s e words might reach w r o n g conclusions about t h e mes s age of t h e t e x t . G o o d a n d e f f e c t i v e reading must, t h e r e f o r e , be viewed a s c ombi ni ng both rapid and accurate recognition and d e c o d i n g of l e t t e r s , words, collocations, and o t h e r s t r u c t u r a l cues with s e n s i b l e , global predictions r e l a t e d t o t h e t e x t a s a whole. I n o t h e r words, g o o d r e a d e r s constantly i n t e g r a t e t op - dow n and bottom-up processing techniques. I n order t o do s o , readers bring t h e i r p r i o r k n o w l e d g e and e x p e r i e n c e t o t h e reading process and a t t h e same time i n t e r a c t e f f e c t i v e l y with t h e t e x t by using t h e i r l i n g u i s t i c k n o w l e d g e and individual reading s t r a t e g i e s ( s e e F igur e 7 . 1 ) . This i s t h e i n t e r a c t i v e n a t u r e of t h e interpretation process. D u r i n g t h e l a s t d e c a d e n e w l i t e r a c y approaches have evolved. These c a n be v i e w e d within t h e s o c i o l i t e r a t e school of thought, which views reading a s a s o c i a l a n d c u l t u r a l event involving written l a n g u a g e . B l o o m e (1993), f o r i n s t a n c e , proposes v i e w i n g reading a s a s o c i a l process focusing o n author-reader i n t e r a c t i o n . A c c or di ng t o t h i s a p p r o a c h t o reading, t h e individual constructs t h e m e a n i n g of t h e t e x t within a c u l t u r e . This a p p r o a c h f u r t h e r emphasizes t h e context of t h e l i t e r a c y event and t h u s has affected classroom ped-

a g o g y through what has b e c o m e known a s t h e whole l a n g u a g e approach. I n philosophy, t h e whole l a n g u a g e a p p r o a c h seems quite compatib le with t h e c o m m u n i c a t i v e a p p r o a c h i n l a n g u a g e teaching s i n c e i t places t h e l e a r n e r a n d h i s / h e r needs i n t h e c e n t e r b u t within a s o c i a l context where c o m m u n i c a t i o n t a k e s pla c e a n d personal choices a r e m a d e i n a c c o r d a n c e with c u l t u r a l and s o c i a l perspectives. T a k e n t o t h e extreme, t h i s a p p r o a c h might inadvertently diminish t h e significance of t h e k n o w l e d g e c o m p o n e n t s . I t i s o u r position i n t h i s book t h a t l a n g u a g e k n o w l e d g e a n d discourse processing should i n t e r a c t i n any c o m m u n i c a t i v e e v e n t , especially w h e n sec ond o r foreign l a n g u a g e learning contexts a r e considered. Figure 7 . 1 p r e s e n t s , t h e r e f o r e , a p r a c t i c a l r e a l i z a t i o n of t h e reading process, e n c o m p a s s i n g t h e various a p p r o a c h e s t o reading we have discussed while s l i g h t l y simplifying t h e p i c t u r e .

THE EFFECTIVE READER What d o we k n o w about “ g o o d ” o r e f f e c t i v e readers? Perhaps t h e f i r s t impor tant study d o n e i n t h i s a r e a was t h e extensive research c a r r i e d o u t by Gibson and L e v i n (1975) with a d u l t s r eading i n t h e i r native l a n g u a g e . The most s i g n i f i c a n t finding indicated t h a t g o o d readers adjust t o t h e materials a t hand and quickly fit t h e i r “attack” s k i l l s t o t h e type of t e x t they a r e reading and t o t h e i r personal objective f o r reading. Furthermore, w h e n mismatches occur ( e . g . , b e t w e e n title and t e x t , b e t w e e n expectations a n d t e x t , b e t w e e n extratextual k n o w l e d g e and t e x t , b e t w e e n l i n g u i s t i c c o m p e t e n c e a n d t e x t ) g o o d readers know how t o a b a n d o n nonsuc c essful s t r a t e g i e s and s e l e c t n e w o n e s , how t o re- deploy old s t r a t e g i e s , a n d how t o c o m b in e those t h a t seem t o w o r k b e s t i n t h e p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r -

123

pretation process a t hand. A reader faced with a written t e x t usually goes through a quic k s e q u e n c e of mental questions: Should I read t h i s t e x t ? What d o I e x p e c t t o get o u t of i t ? What do I e x p e c t i t t o t e l l m e ? What d o I k n o w about t h e w r i t e r of t h e t e x t and t h e pur pose f o r which i t was w r i t t e n ? In mo s t cases r e a d e r s h a v e good reasons for r e a d i n g a c e r t a i n t e x t : curiosity, relevance t o personal concerns, pleasure, a c a d e m i c o r professional purposes, and s o f o r t h . T h e reason o r purpose f o r reading t h e t e x t w i l l g u i d e readers i n t h e i n t e n s i t y with which they w a n t t o read t h e t e x t and i n t h e s e l e c t i o n of appropriate reading s t r a t e g i e s . D u r i n g t h e reading process i t s e l f t h e o n g o i n g questions might b e : D o I under stand t h e author’s point? How carefully d o I n e e d t o read t h i s ? D o I under stand a l l t h e important

 

124

Language

Processing

words? D o I s e e where t h e a r g u m e n t seems t o be g o i n g ? I s t h i s worth t h e time and e f f o r t t h a t I a m devoting t o i t ? How c a n I r e a d t h i s f a s t e r and b e t t e r ? I t i s obvious t h a t t h e s e quest i o n s r e l a t e t o both t op - dow n a n d bottom-up processing of t h e t e x t , and t h a t they a r e a l s o r e l a t e d t o t h e r e a d e r ’ s pur pose and choice i n reading. Furthermore, t h e s e questions c o n c e r n i s s u e s r e l a t e d t o both t h e reader a n d t h e t e x t i n question. D u r i n g t h e r e a d e r ’ s processing of t h e t e x t , t h e reader moves along a decision-making c o n t i n u u m t h a t i s basically seeking answers t o such questions. When reading c o m p r e h e n s i o n 1 s e f f e c t i v e , t h e r e i s probably a c l o s e match between t h e r e a d e r ’ s expectations and t h e a c t u a l t e x t ; however, t h e r e a r e o f t e n s e r i o u s mismatches t h a t m a y l e a d t o d i f f i c u l t y i n p r o c e s s i n g . The e f f e c t i v e reader makes constant adjustments t o t h e t e x t by r e c r u i t i n g backg r o u n d k n o w l e d g e f o r t op - dow n processing and by c h a n g i n g s t r a t e g i e s t o f i t bottom-up d e c o d i n g of t h e p a r t i c u l a r t e x t . Such a reader t h u s combines top-down and bottom-up techniques i n t h e most e f f i c i e n t and most expedient w ay i n order t o under stand t h e t e x t . G o o d readers a r e n o t only e f f e c t i v e s t r a t e g y u s e r s , they a r e a l s o e f f e c t i v e dec oder s (van Dijk and Kintsch, 1983) who successfully e m p l o y accurate and automatic bottom-up techniques. T h e y a r e c apable of r e c o g n i z i n g words, expressions, and phrases quickly and e f f e c t i v e l y , even without r e l i a n c e o n context and therefore consciously u s e bottom-up mostly f o r c omp ens at i on w h e n t op - dow n s t r a t e g i e s i n d i c a t e a mismatch. R e a d i n g speed i n a sec ond l a n g u a g e c a n a l s o be a problem. I n English, research shows t h a t readers should process a t l e a s t two hundred words p e r minute t o r e a d e f f e c t i v e l y . Thus, i n some c a s e s i t m a y be nece ssary ssary t o help l e a r n e r s measure and increase t h e i r reading r a t e s i n order f o r them t o i m p r o v e t h e i r comprehension. S e e Fry (1975) f o r suggestions o n how t o increase reading r a t e s . Good readers a l s o m a k e e f f i c i e n t u s e of c o - t e x t — t h e information available i n t h e t e x t a t t h e l o c a l l e v e l . But perhaps most important, g o o d readers readjust constantly. T h e y c ontinuously match o l d a n d n e w infor mation and experience, both a t t h e global and l o c a l l e v e l , very m u c h l i k e g o o d l i s t e n e r s d o , a s described i n Chapter 6 . Furthermore, a s G r a b e (1991:381) s t a t e s i n h i s s u m m a r y of research o n g o o d r e a d e r s , “They a p p e a r t o m a k e b e t t e r d h e same u s e of t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n .. [ a n d ] w r i t e b e t t e r r e c a l l s by recognizing and e strategies

organizational s t r u c t u r e a s M t he e x t s t u d i e d . ” While t h e e f f e c t i v e r e a d e r n t h e f i r s t l a n g u a g e m a y be a n e f f i c i e n t i n t u i t i v e u s e r of t h e various processing techniques, t h e ESL/EFL reader m a y have t o be m a d e a w a r e of these s t r a t e g i e s i n order t o be a b l e t o u s e them consciously w h e n e v e r l i n g u i s t i c o r content d e f i ciencies c r e a t e d i f f i c u l t i e s i n reading. I t i s , t h e r e f o r e , important t o e n c o u r a g e t h e r e a d e r t o develop m e t a c o g n i t i v e awareness of t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n process and of individual p r o cessing s t r a t e g i e s . Such metacognitive awareness connects t op - dow n with bottom-up processing, a s indicated by t h e l i n e s connecting metacognition ( t h e di amond) with other e l e m e n t s n Figure 7 . 1 . A study c a r r i e d o u t by S c h o o n e n , H u l s t i j n , and Bossers (1998) shows t h a t m e t a c o g -