Teaching Spoken English: Annotated References on Interactive Grammar
Reference 1 | Reference 2 | Reference 3 | Reference 4 | Reference 5
Reference:
Ulichny, Polly (1996). Performed conversations in an ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 30(4), 739-762.
Summary:
Her study focuses on the problem that ESL teachers have teaching spoken/conversation
English to their ESL classes. Ulichny believes that most L2 students have
a strong grasp on English grammar, but have had limited opportunity to
use their English. Because of this, teachers try to increase students'
confidence in speaking English through various speech related events. She
doesn't feel that the way these speech events are carried out benefit the
students as much as they should. Teachers often encounter the problem of
trying to provide authentic language experiences and structured grammar
and vocabulary within a single classroom speech exercise. Ulichny says
that,
" ESL classes often combine students and teachers from a variety of
language and cultural backgrounds. This makes the attention to meaning-making
by its participants particularly important. Along with the unique nature
of the L2 classrooms comes a dilemma for teaching and learning in them."
(p.740) The goal of her study is to
For her study, Ulichny microanalyzed a segment of adult ESL classroom interaction. Her study was carried out in a noncredit university class. There were 18 students in the class, ranging in age from 18-50, and coming from various different countries. She attended classes weekly for a period of six weeks and tape recorded most of the sessions. She made transcripts of each class, and used this information to study the effectiveness of this particular teacher's speech events.
She went into detail about one particular day in the classroom. On this day, while the students were settling in, the teacher asked a particular student what she did over the weekend. The student began explaining what she had done. The teacher ignored any mistakes that were made at this time. Once the class had settled in, however, whenever the student made a mistake, the teacher would interrupt the girl's narration, and explain to the whole class what the error was. When she did this, the teacher changed her intonation and personality. She was therefore switching from conversation, "the type of everyday talk that normally occurs in casual settings among participants who know each other," (p. 744) to performed conversation, "a stretch of lesson discourse, having a particular topic, and involving the participants in the class in a distinctive configuration of roles, linguistic and organizational." (p. 739) By interrupting the student and explaining each grammatical error, the teacher was putting the conversation on hold. The student narrating became very annoyed, and answered with a reply "implying irritation at having to repeat the same information" (p. 753) rather than tell her story. Because the student was not able to tell her story without being interrupted, "she participates marginally in offering details, and the teacher elicits the grammatically correct form. The student is virtually silent in the telling of her story." (p. 754) This same student complained outside of class, that, "the students aren't given enough opportunity to talk." (p. 754)
Her conclusions included the following:
* "The lack of shared language among the class members; the heterogenity of the students' English language ability and communication skills; and the teacher's desire to encourage authentic language use, to explicitly teach about the language and language skills, and to ensure participation from each of the class members all contribute to the production of this discourse structure." (p. 759)
* Even though the feature of interrupting an ongoing activity to focus on the language form that students produce is common in ESL classrooms, the correction activity interrupts the conversation at hand, and causes the students to give less detail and participate less. Because of this, students only benefit moderately from the conversation exercises.
* This type of activity may help students better as a listening activity because the rest of the class benefits more from hearing the mistakes than does the person speaking. The person speaking becomes annoyed and less willing to participate.
Notes:
At the time of publication, Polly Ulichny was Assistant Professor of Education at Boston College. She has done research on ethnography and discourse analysis especially applied to educational contexts in which participants do not share the same languages or cultures.
Another article one may read on this topic, that Ulichny used as a reference is:
Allwright, D. (1984). The importance of interaction in classroom language learning. Applied Linguistics, 5, 156-171.
Quotation of Particular Value:
In this quote, Ulichny is expressing her view that very little is known about how effective correction is in a classroom. From the one particular study she did, she did not find that correction during conversation benefitted the students. She does realize, however, that much more research must be done in order to form a firm conclusion on the issue.
Reference:
Ford, Cecilia. (1993). Grammar in interaction: Adverbial clauses in American English conversations. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Summary:
Ford's study focuses on the roles of adverbial clauses in spoken American English. She explores patterns of interclausal relations as they are used in naturally occurring language. She "is interested in observing grammar in it's natural habitat; connected and contextualized" (p.1). Because adverbial clauses are used frequently in spoken American English, and numerous studies have detailed their functions in discourse, she has chosen these clauses for the focus of her study.
In addition to the focus on adverbial clauses, Ford briefly mentions various other types of clauses, and what their roles are in conversation. She also discusses the turn-taking system we use when speaking in English. This is the way we know when it is our turn to speak. American English speakers rarely overlap each other in conversation, because we are accustomed to the various intonations, nonverbal cues, grammatical stuctures, and phrases that tell us someone is about to finish his/her part of the conversation. These cues also tell us that it is our turn to respond. "It seems self evident, but people need to know when it is their turn to talk to achieve a minimum of overlap. It is crucial to the turn-taking system, that interactants share an understanding of the grammatical and intonational resources of their language" (p. 5). Different cultures have different cues, and this is why Ford chose only native American English speakers for her study.
Her study was comprised of 13 naturally occurring telephone, face to face, two party, and multi party conversations. Ford taped and transcribed all of the conversations. She analyzed the intonation in each instance of an adverbial clause. All of the conversations were between adults in casual settings, i.e. at a picnic, after a movie, over beer. 33 different speakers were involved, 20 being women, and 13 men. Most were of college age. They were all native American English speakers. The three requirements for a grammatical unit to be considered an adverbial clause were: 1) the grammatical unit had to have a subject and verb, 2) it had to be introduced by an adverbial conjunction, and 3) it could not be functioning as a subject or object in the main clause verb.
In analyzing her conversation samples, Ford found 194 adverbial clauses. All but 3 of these were either temporal (before, after, since, when, while, whenever, every time), conditional (if), or causal (because, since). The 3 exceptions were concessives (although, even though). 63 were temporal clauses, 52 were conditional clauses, and 76 were causal. Of the 194, 48 (25%) were initial sentence clauses, 135 (69%) were final sentence clauses, and 11 (6%) had no main clause. All of the initial sentence clauses involved intonation telling the listener that there was more to come.
Her conclusions about adverbial clause use in spoken American English include the following:
* In conversation, when an initial temporal clause marks the beginning of a narrative, other participants modify their talk in order to accommodate a longer turn by the speaker.
* Initial conditional clauses presenting options may serve as vehicles for offers, and may also introduce delicate information in a backgrounded or softened way.
* "Attention to the operation of the turn-taking elucidates the distribution of temporal and conditional clauses in initial vs. final positions." (p. 146)
* " What we see then in the general picture of adverbial clause usage in conversation, is a range of functions that are specifically emergent from the demands on conversational interaction. In conversation, speakers organize the presentation of information, and also manage their roles in the ongoing interaction. This interactional work is associated with a richly varied significance for the use of grammatical structures such as adverbial clauses" (p. 148).
Notes:
CA has been criticized for being heavily English-based. This is not a drawback to Ford's study, as her database is strictly English.
A book that Ford used as a reference that would be beneficial in the study of interactional grammar and spoken English is:
Leech, Geoffrey and Jan Svartvik.(1975). A communicative grammar of English. London: Longman.
Quotation of Particular Value:
I like this quote, because Ford is acknowledging the fact that many outside, nonverbal issues effect they way we converse. Some of the intonations and clauses used themselves may be the result of cognitive processes, nonverbal cues, or other non-conversational factors.
Reference:
Lofty, John S. (1996). More than lipservice: Oracy's coming of age in Britain's national curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, (28)1, pp. 4-35.
Summary:
He has had experience teaching in both Britain and the U.S., and his study focuses on the fact that in Britain, schools focus more on teaching talk than on teaching writing. Teachers and schools in the U.S. in his opinion, however, focus more on teaching writing than on teaching students to talk. Teaching to talk is referred to in Lofty's study as "oracy," which is the name given to the multiple roles that talk serves in language learning" (p. 4). Oracy is not characterized as a subject, but as, "a condition of learning in all subjects, that it was not merely a 'skill' but the essential instrument in the 'humanizing of the species'; that is was a fit object of educational knowledge or 'awareness'; that it arose as a natural response to circumstance, rather than being 'taught'; that it was essentially interrelated with literacy, and that it was suscepticle of evaluation" (p. 4). His purpose in the article is to
In addition to providing the reader with probable obstacles in promoting teaching to talk versus teaching to write, Lofty also explains the National Curriculum in Britain itself, and debates around the issue that students learn standard English as applied both to talk and to writing from the first grades. In the early 1980's, "the widespread but very questionable public belief that academic standards in Britain had fallen led to the Conservative Government's 1988 Reform Act. The act fulfilled a campaign promise to raise educational standards by launching an exhaustive curriculum review" (p. 6). The Cox report, which detailed every competency that students needed to attain in areas of speaking/listening, reading and writing, was relied on heavily.
Teachers in Britain had a particularly hard time accepting the studies and the revised curriculum because they felt that the conclusions were made in haste. In the U.S., however, collaborative planning over three years was allowed to revise the curriculum. One educator in the U.S. stated that "Not only are our standards being written by classroom teachers, they have been scrutinized throughout their development by groups of teachers and other educators, parents and community and politcal leaders" (p.8).
Lofty argues that language is power, and "if pupils do not have access to Standard English, then many important opportunities are closed to them, in cultural activities, in further and higher education, and in industry, commerce and the professions. Those educators who deny children these opportunities are confining them to the ghetto, to a restricted discourse which will close them to access not only to the professions but also to leadership in national politics. In our democracy, Standard English confers power on its users, power to explain political issues and to persuade on a national and international stage. This right should not be denied to any child" (p. 11). He continues to say that, "language reveals and conceals much about human relationships. There are intimate connections, for example, between language and social power, language and culture, and language and gender" (p. 11).
According to Lofty, the best way to teach to talk is to "create an environment that allows their students to explore different purposes for speech" (p. 12). They must also consider the learning environment, the task at hand, the organizing of groups, types of talk, ground rules for talk, the role of the teacher, and reflection.
In the U.S., when teachers want students to stop talking and get on with writing, Lofty has heard some say, "Talk is cheap." He feels that these sentiments undercut the powerful roles of talk in language learning. He wants teachers in the U.S. to be as enthusiastic as teachers in Britain were to enforce teaching to speak. Teaching to talk "must be regarded as enrichment work, not for some, but for all of our students" (p. 21).
Notes:
John Lofty has had experience teaching both in the U.S. and in Britain.
An interesting reference he used in his article is:
Britton, J. (1970). Language and learning. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
Quotation of Particular Value:
I find this quote interesting, because Lofty is wondering what effect the Standard English Only movement will have on attempts to establish linguistic norms for U.S. school children. He understands that different social classes and cultures speak in different forms of English, but that it is also important for everyone to have access to the teaching of Standard English.
Reference:
Ferris, Dana and Tagg, Tracy. (1996) Academic listening/speaking tools for ESL students: Problems, suggestions, and implications. TESOL Quarterly, (30)2, 297-316.
Summary:
In their study, Ferris and Tagg investigate college and university professors' views on ESL students' difficulties with listening/speaking tasks. They concentrate on determining what it is professors actually require in speaking/listening from their ESL students, in an attempt to help ESL teachers prepare their students better. In their investigation, they ask professors "what sorts of communicative activities cause ESL students the most difficulty and what advice the instructors would give to ESL teachers who are preparing students for U.S. academic requirements" (p.297). They focus on answering the following two questions:
Ferris and Tagg believe that ESL students feel much more proficient at everyday listening and conversation than they do at lecture listening and class participation. "ESL college/university students are often intimidated by academic speaking tasks, including both formal presentations and participation in large or small group class discussions. Reasons for this hesitation appear to stem from insecurity about linguistic competency and differences between the native and L2 culture with regard to classroom discourse" (p. 300). They hypothesize that "students' speaking skills, including both formal presentation skills and class participation, are of concern to their content area professors" (p. 300).
In their study, Ferris and Tagg find that most college and university professors think that receptive skills, such as reading and listening, are more important for ESL students than productive skills, such as writing and speaking are. They also feel that "some activities used in ESL classes are not specific and practical enough to prepare students for pursuing their majors" (p. 300). The depth of speaking and listening skills, according to the two, vary significantly across academic disciplines, institutions, and class types.
For their study, ESL coordinators at four universities were contacted and asked to provide a list of the most popular majors of ESL students on their campuses. Surveys were sent to 946 full-time professors in the topics with high concentrations of ESL students. Ferris and Tagg then analyzed their responses, and drew several conclusions. Some of the findings and conclusions include:
* In all academic disciplines, professors feel that general listening comprehension should be a higher priority for ESL teachers than lecture note taking.
* Many professors feel that, "communication with professors is more crucial than communication with peers"(p. 304), and therefore ESL teachers should expect their students to speak in a more fomal manner than they would with their peers.
* Pronunciation, "which is often emphasized in ESL listening/speaking courses," (p. 304) is not of particular concern to university professors regarding their ESL students.
* Professors in the business area feel that presentation skills are fundamental, and should be taught by ESL teachers.
* Some professors feel that writing skills have a higher priority than speaking skills do.
* A suggestion was made by one professor to "have subject-matter college professors come and address ESL students about their expectations of their own students, perhaps even providing demonstrations of the type of give and take they might allow or expect from their students" (p. 312).
Notes:
At the time of publication, Dana Ferris was Assistant Professor in the English Department at California State University, Sacramento. She is coordinator of the MA TESOL program there. At the time of publication, Tracy Tagg was an MA candidate in TESOL at California State University, Sacramento.
A reference used in their study that would be interesting to read is:
Horowitz, D.M. (1986). What professors actually require: Academic tasks for the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 445-461.
Quotation of Particular Value:
This quote interests me because it is one of the major debates regarding the relevance and importance of oral skills in the teaching of our ESL students. It also questions one of the issues that many university professors are concerned with: should ESL teachers be teaching English by using authentic academic text books and lectures.
Reference:
Eble, Connie.(1996). Slang and sociability. Chapel Hill: Chapel Hill University Press.
Summary:
Her book focuses on an issue that most ESL students come into contact with during their studies of English, as well as during their study at the university level. This issue is American English slang. Eble chose to study the slang of one particular community, college students at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She realizes that the dictionary of slang her students provided her with is part of a "shared culture on the UNC Chapel Hill campus" (p. 2), but she is not focusing on the words in general, but rather the "fundamental characteristics of form and effect that is common among any group that chooses to use a distinctive vocabulary as a means of social solidarity" (p. 2). The goal of her book is to:
Eble's definition of slang is, " an ever changing set of colloquial words and phrases that speakers use to establish or reinforce social identity or cohesiveness within a group or with a trend or fashion in society at large" (p. 12). "It consists of words and phrases that fit into the established grammatical patterns of the English language." She stresses that because slang is part of colloquial or spoken English, sentence structure and punctuation do not play an important role in defining it.
Her data group consisted of undergraduate students enrolled in introductory English linguistics courses at UNC Chapel Hill over a period of two decades, from 1972 to 1993. Most of the students in these classes were residents of North Carolina, between the ages of nineteen and twenty-three, white, female, and seeking certification as teachers. Students were asked to bring to class a list of ten words or phrases that they considered examples of good, current slang. She compared each entry to previous lists to see if they were new words, or if they were recurring slang terms. Eble stresses that " it is important to realize the limited variety of people that participated in the study. They were all members of the collegiate environment. They were in part conditioned by the characteristics of the university that they chose to attend" (p. 6).
Eble developed a dictionary of the slang her students brought in, which is available in the appendix section of her book. From her studies, she found that slang affects or is affected by many of the aesthetic, sociological, and psychological variables that shape human language. It is a constantly changing set of vocabulary common only to those with enough experience and familiarity in the user group to understand the meaning of the words. Some of the words are common among various groups, but these slang terms usually only enjoy brief popularity.
According to Eble, "language is the coming together of form and meaning" (p. 25). Slang can occur at almost any point in a sentence--as the subject, or the predicate, or as a modifier. To non-native speakers of English, a conversation that incorporates more than one item of unfamiliar slang, may seem that to be a conversation in a different language. Using slang does not change the structure of the sentence, and therefore, once the meaning of the slang term is revealed, the sentence is easily understood. Eble goes on to give conversation samples using slang to prove this point.
She discusses the use, form, meaning, effects, and lastly the culture of slang in her book. Through her conversations and observations with users of slang, she concludes that:
* She feels that her studies, "confirm the essentially social function of slang: slang items occur most frequently in talk about social life and at the margins of conversation where the imparting or exchange of new information is not the mail goal - for example, as nouns of address, icebreakers, feedback signals, and topic shifters" (p. 115).
* Slang deals with and is formed by words rather than by sentence structure. Because of this, slang is not an anomaly, but part of the common core of English.
* "Slang is sometimes disparaged for lacking in meaning and indicating a shallow mind" (p. 97).
* "The forms of slang result from the same ordinary word-building processes that produce the general vocabulary of English" (p. 48).
* If one is unaware of the "in" term or phrase used in a particular group, which is often the case with non-native speakers, a conversation using slang can be completely uncomprehendable.
Notes:
Some of the slang terms collected at UNC Chapel Hill were compared with surveys from students at Auburn University.
A reference cited in Ebles book that would be interesting to read is:
Bolton, W.F.(1982). A living language. New York: Random House.
Quotation of Particular Value:
This quote in interesting to me because it deals with an association we deal with every day. It also shows that a slang term, once it is described in a particular semantic field, can be related to a variety of other words in that field. The semantic field provides an established framework for slang words.