October 30, 2017 | Author: Anonymous | Category: N/A
Mitchell; Florence Myles; David Nunan; Jacl< c' .. Rosamond Mitchell and Florence Mvles for'Second lan ......
.=-.8
in its socialGontext Teaching EnglishLanguage
s o c i o l i n g u i s tei ct h, n o g r a p h iacn, d _ - r l l i s hL a n g u a gTee a c h i ni gn i t s s o c i a lc o n t e x t o f f e r s o sn T E S 0 L t e a c h i n ga n d l e a r n i n ga n d i n t r o d u c etsh e , , , a l - p s y c h o l o g i cpaelr s p e c t i v e . . = . a n tl i t e r a t u r e o n s e c o n dl a n g u a gaec q u i s i t i o nI t. p r e s e n tEs n g l i s hl a n g u a gtee a c h i n g i cn dc u l t u r acl o n t e x t s ' , ographa . . a r i e t yo f s p e c i fc i n s t i t u t i o n agl e p i e c e -s h a v eb e e n . : . : i c l e s- w h i c hi n c l u d eb o t hc l a s s i ca n d s p e c i a l lcyo m m i s s i o n e d teaching' - _ .. . , y c h o s e n a n o e d i t e dt o p r e s e ntth e m a i np r i n c i p l eosf E n g l i s hl a n g u a g e i n d i v i d u a l i toyf t h e r e c o g n i s e snd learners, : , 3 c u so n t h e r o l e sp l a y e db y t e a c h e r a g u i d a n c ef o r s t u d e n t s ' j . a g e l e a r n e r ss, u p p o r t e a c h e r si n t h e p r o v i s i o no f a c t i v e betweenlearners interaction and examinebothpositiveand negativepatternsof =-.- r1g, :-,rteacherS.
-
of - -ls u n f a m i l i awr i t h r e s e a r cihn t h i sf i e l da n o v e r a lul n d e r s t a n d i n g R e a d eor f f e r sp e o p l e g h i l ea l l o w i n tgh em o r ee x p e r i e n c e d . = . ui s s u eisn c o n t e m p o r a E r yn g l i s hl a n g u a gtee a c h i nw presented' .=aderthe o p p o r t u n i ttyo r e l a t eh i so r h e re x p e r i e n c teost h et h e o r i e s ; od J '; l ( e i t hc h i c l < R ; n n eB u r n s ;A . S u r e s hc a n a g a r a j a h l . B r e e nA A r t i c l e sb y : M i c h a e P l ' ; a t s yM . L i g h t b o w nA;n g e lM . Y ' L i n ; M i c h a eH G i b b o n sP; a u ll ( n i g h t P illls; Pauline e y l e s ;D a v i dN u n a nJ; a c l > l ) r O f o't l l e l n s t r u c -
Lv-LUrrrLruLLr",",_}Sjlljlatrrt\D(j\lcrsdIlQfllnoers f'^o!tr61'\fr" r*{ 1+J.+ I
Ff-$I"; ,=..*-
do**
/-f\ )-
\
\_./
'
:H+lo"t +1:'t'"'tional con\Ittlg! Hgf":T"$,1t-*:'^':j l.!)nrp and Gallimore 1988),especiallvif suchrecommendali6i-sare 1-#-
discusseflfr\r lhglperspectile of critical pedagogr-(Darder 1991; Shor 1992)?I explore . )Or 'different though related angles.
t'ygotsky's calfotding
\.f)'
6J proximal developmentand the notion oJ pedagogical
rv
LevVygotsk discussesthe range of activitiesa learner can accomplishr,viththe assistance LevVygotskv of a more capableperson, such as . t"u.h.r. activities(skills ations,etc.) are rvithin the learner'scompitence (this miqht be cali"d areaofse|l-regulation),otherscanbeu..o-pl.i-'h"do''l''''itffiu.1 re entrrelv outs earner s scope.I he mrddle activit\.. which is naturdllr -,---#the tocus o agoglcal acrton. ls relerred to b\. V\-gotskr as th.e zone of and Cole), a teacher develops strategies fo. uGting th. l.o.-ffih. affie-whichguidealearnerintoanactivitr.thatinitiallvistoocoffi
,r*io*
kinds of
-
(Bruner scarrororng catlolding (Dru I 983;. -\
-i-J
The inlT-iationrecitation and displav,can be re cognitive structures in
k exchan l
-
, at least rvhen it moves beyond mere
scaffolding i".trygro",a w.ayof developing .:.--oe\elopment. o r a u ' a v o l a sslstrng s s l s t t n qlearners to
a platform of shared knor,vledge that rvill facilitate the introduction and integration of new know.ledge. IRF used in several steps in a iesson or during one activitl. am-ongother activities(seeWelis|993),..al.onceithasserved its purpose, it vields to other lvals of stiucturing ucrurlng participation. PartlclPatlon. Scaffoldi be oftrue I benefit, must be temporarv. The scaffold must be t-allr dismantled as rner shorrs sjpil handling more of tl task in question. This over,(BruneFT9S 3 I . and lr.ithout it scaffoldin,, -t tt =-| | i -\4'OUlClSlmDh' breed ' l e s s n e s sl .t i s u n c l e a r u ' h e t h e r I R F h a s i n i t s structure the flexibilitv to effect handover. I suspect that, for handover to be possible, IRF must be a ned at some point to make place lor autonomour l.urn"rffirre. This switch from IRF to more o scoursestructures mav be a crucia slon
point, and researchshouldTocuson ii cloiJr..
U..a-SVtd
tto"*e/V
tc '&
o
C O N S T R A I N T S A N D R E S O U R C E SI N C L A S S R O O M T A L I ( 9 7
Co'^,*f!ffi,^r,,
Intrinsic motivation and learner autonomv
-/'/'can be defined ast1rehuman response p.t64!9 needsforr
,,^^-o\vq,,tl
t*
competence,
@r'(DeciandRr'an1992;Deci,!u1G6d,R.II"ti".,u.'dRy""199D It expressesitself as a here-and-nor,r'interest in col.dircting an activitv for its orvn sake,for lv the pleasure,stimulation, o. challengethe acti,i ing able to chg/le and of being somehow in contrp4 of orre s ated to the perceptlon ieduce actionf.Acti6-nsthat are perceir-edasbei (see aise or criticism rat-ibffAtdo extri nsic reu intil nft6ffi
N+
Ju.Sutrg
onged al or praisein the third turn) a extrinsic ren'ards( in the form of teachera u_s e o f t h e l R F f o r m a t m a v h a r e a n_e s a t i v e e f l e c t o n i n t r i n s i c m o t i v a t i o n a n d c a u s e a d e c rrl rtex,a, sne in levels of attention and involr.ement. IRF exchangesare like discoursal traininq w In bicycle riding the training rvheels must eventuallv come off, and liker,visein interaction v ^.. ' Qi, I R F m u s t b e , e p l a c e db r f r e e s o c i a li n t e r a c t i o n . a t i o n ( s e e \ . a n L i e r 1 9 9 6 a ) ,p e C l g o e r c a . L A l actionmustbeorie@ve]sofintrinsicmotivationu,'dffiffid/r\rl iftreasingseIf-regulationandautonom\..IRFmustA\ \{ : ,, :: :i:ii : i ---T--j--, , patterns, ones that allou' student initiative and choice to develop. FffiiFffi"
Transformation; or, chang ing educational reality through inte raction \(
"ll
C r i t i c a l p e d a g o g vs e e k st o t r a n s f o r m e x i s t i n gs t r u c t u r e so f c o n t r o l a n d i n e q u a l i t r ' ( Y o u n g 1992: Darder 1991) and to allorv studentsto frnd voicesof their ou-n and become critical o.".JEqili6l1iG and autonomous learne.r f-lourish in a climate of equalit)' Paulo Freire ( 1972), can only *hich, according to fialogu-, among_pgrticipants.Freire maintains th"t di dialosue there is no communication, and rvithout cqlnm
participation in its cons-ructio
t o b e r e a l i z e d ,d i s c o u r s em u s t m o \ 1 ef r o m t
WDPK (What do pupilsknorv?)and
t t e r n sR ; S e r t T o n n s t 1 9 9 ) t a p t l r c a l l s
1G,.rs'rthat teacherthink;1fr more discursivi
hou IRF itself m@stigate irauirr'. lt thus patterns mar be from discourse forms can tra\zuitions IRFto other and ho'"v transformed can.--be
Equality and symmetrv
6.eTs
The IRF structure is clearlv a sisnificantadvanceoter the ritual m
@r&ss@
isterial
involves studentsand asks themTil"CixiTii6trt€-Iffiit-hillomeone olvever, in terms of communicatio-,
control-tnitiative,
rformances ince at least it
else's agenda.
meaning areatlon anilIregotratlon,
messageelaboration, and a number of other features characteristic of social interaction, the learner's side of the IRF interaction is seriouslvcurtailed.
.
98
LEO VAN LIER
It is therefore useful to consider other forms of interaction, including conversational (such as learner-learner interactions) and see n'hat characteristicsthel' have that might be relevant to languagelearning. For a general examination ofinteraction, I suggestthat there a r e t w o m a i n g r o u p so f i s s u e s : thinks tn anv
a less
Issuesof negotiation and the joint construction of talk. This relates to shared rights and 'r, duties of icipation, that is, i interactional ,)'ory,.1 Such svmmetr.)', most clearly visible participation, 'inconr.ersationamonq"quul,,ffiu.hi.*].fbrIesspi.fi.ie'-tspeakErs. ,in conversationamong equ4-s,E-aF the con€rsatfonEetu.een conversattonbetu-eent$-o as tle quoted above tu-o ESL ESLstudents studentscuoted abovedemonstrates, demonstrates. bv no no it is by ffBqI as ,fry
-*"r
b'v
,,eq,t{c" impossible.\,r/1,r,ft ,o.uLt Ul^ak a^-+ "eq,'Jc".).)'*"* -'{--_
-_
--
..f1 '
J'+-,t4-
a'tro
F'
6 3
can be said to be the current dominant :r-rmunicati has not been u'here e sector. m-ost CLT Even in countries " " " -adopted . . " r ' - -in" t """;-''-". _ - _ > . " of v ,education ' ' " ' : ' appear -.,rrstries direction. Manv of its in its mor-ing to be practitioners, -. '.\ever, would espouseit on intuitive rather than theoretical grounds. Ithas become an practlces.lvlany teacher traiffig tralnlng A4anI teggher ul classroom classroom practices. u'rde range ranpt -f .r.ichcovers covers a u,ide -nbrella term which
[email protected]
T
.l br.i. 'JrilTt
CLT which is original; many of the classroom practices with rvhich it is associatedare A und elsewhere(seeFigure 8.3 for example). j--_ r -L:- ^L _. ,r^lJ,Az-D _:-,-If rve look at the questions asked at the beginning of this chapter, we can answer the
..:.t.aboutthedesiredoutcome,bvsayingthatforcI-rt@ :rner can communicate successfullvin the target languagein real situati,ons,raiFi-I
. rc rvhichconsiderslanguage ratherdpn asan abstractsvstem.Theconcept asit is used is the kev to this (Widdowson 1978,Hymes 1971,Canale , ".r1."l""1..,fG-."*p.*d -.-.; ,iwain 19801.A thEEiidlmodel of languagewas developedto include ideasabout
ftrr
' '.' languageis actually used to communicate in real life situations. Chomsky had alreadl' -.- , r.\A -
-
.EG-"rbe4PK{
- .p.aker le-.
5 0 5 2 a / 5 3 1k c s Motor repairs
Exp. On Jaguars Despite their limited proficiencv in English, the group employed a wide range of strategiesduring the joint construction activitv. The following extract illustrates how they collaborated to produce their text:
Classroom transcript 2 Su: Ka: Zo: Su: Zo: Su: Ka: Zo: Su: Zo: Ka:
I am writing to applv . . . (w-riting) O f t h ej " b . . . Excuseme About thejob . . . Of ? Of the job? About About. . .about. . .of. . .of. . . No . . .forthe . . . forthejob For the j"b . . . 1u'riting) Of ... Motor mechanic
(Susannawrites, then reads aloud) Su: I am u'riting to apply for the job . . . (compares with model) in the CES todav . . . Ka: In the service station . . . in the nel4'sPaPer. . . Spanish. . . new-sPaPer
6
:r
206
ANNE BURNS
In the CES
Su: Oh (laughs) . . . (looks at job advertisement) Ka: (watchesas Susannawrites)C . . . E . . . S .
C...(writes)
This extract illustrates how the learners: referred to the model ext of their own transferred language fro --text +# oFferedsuggestionsfor constructing the text collaborated to produce what they believed to be correct versions ofthe text monitored what was being written used the model to check their version of the text read aloud to'trv out' the text on each other used each other as resources for writing ocial context of the i"fo.*utior exchanged .Ior*:ylt".ul The final version of the letter by this group of learners is reproduced below and is representative of similar texts completed by other groups in the classduring this activity.
Text 4: Jointly negotiated letter of application Z/fl7 ea.ec PeReD€ ' .rQzoulQqlosf
P.A T TH€ HAOECE? te\ytc€ .fTBT/dl./
ADotzss Deap,,rB/ ua)a// , R€: aoroQ ,E1*411
JOt
'1'
.
t o. -")fi?
o, -fuf
-.chant4r1.,6
/"
?ryo? lhe
ter /he7ob
C.€.f.
tc4r.
a.r elo? {o, .t!- ha-ve vork4 taeclauL ',o 4 getn.rmczl tcrrtZ? tja/rba. fQrt
f fflffE"arinuis q*'aio,h
f
d
(teqo,pe.j) a.,a
ovzt'/ttt'e cune& od ]inz cott -o.L-('/l ttSrzlf amotf q,d o,glQf 1-rrrA . f, ce'tlr'd'cr .torhb/o'-vfnbaal €.r lhe2ob , ht/ tt; {.o-, / hor< c-nc/otc4 a.oferencc 7.b, o{ . ' , ij ilf ,, ,' ?lc.,pcoatt.:c,l ne
cn sef,c rz ,#. on rr ( f,43 .f'arr
or )n iAo
"n"ri;--i*
V nn,
GENRE-BASED APPROACHESTO WRITING 207 h.. It can be observed that the learners hut'. dtu*l tPon th. *od.l ptot Uygl*and oveEU-Pls!]3nIation.ln addition terms text a texlapplggiarQ\'in the the gf ^ structure structure to ro
thev ha
, *,i* fi"-$ ' ' ' (monkeYs! monkeysl monkevs!) Ss {speakingup in their seats}: +87 (That grour .f88T: Mo.,ievslYesl {T writes the rvord "monkey" on the blackboard} that group . . . monkev-men that is, monkey-men that is, the. of *o.rl.v-*en, took them to an island), w'hat is the na::me of this island?Can you spell th'
4 7 8B . 479T:
+9) - f9 2 . 5T : +92.8 193T:
+9+.3 494.5T
+9s 4 9 5 . 5T : +98 4 9 8 . 3T : 4 9 8. 5 4 9 8 . 8T : +99 499.5T. 500 L 5 0 0 . 5T :
rvord? { Another girl raisesher hand } Yes, Girl 2 {standsup and speaks}: Z-u-g . . .
z-u'!, . . Girl 2 {standing up}: (d) (How No, b, b for bori { T rvrites the word "Zugb" on the board } A verv uglv plice.> Some Ss {speakingin their seats} : Zugbl
to read it;
Z::ugb'.
Ss {repeating in their seats} : ZUGB!! I ZugalAu uglv place for the uglv men. (An ugly place for those ugi'. men to live in.Those monkevs brought them there for what>? Bov {speaking in his seat}: l { Another boy raisesLu. hand) Yes, Bov 2: ? Another bov {speakingin his seat}: ! ! { s t a n d su p a n d s p e a k s } : G i a n t . Giantl Verv goodlYesl { T rvrites the w'ord "giant" on board }
ttr..,.".tr.t a:ry+l],h In theexcerptabove,
i"t
lh'
storr about Sinbadsailingin a boat.The teacherthen asksthe studentswhere Slnbadls salun:----+---:i---'-:--6 l c k t o l l a s t t h r e e l i n e si n t u r n [ 4 6 9 1 1 . The teacher gir,esnegatjve feedbacllo a student's answer in turn ItZ8.5] Some othe: speak out their ansrversfrom their seats(turn [478.8]).The teache: students i-rrildl"t.lu signalsto a bov to speak.The boy standsup from his seatand gives his answer (turn [479. i; Bia-Gaak-Daaht).We see that in this rvav, the teacher maintains the practice of having : r-accepts"
ence to a student response.
correct (turn [479J]:B-fr:GaIR:Daaht).Theteache: This time th" rtnd"trEiiilEiis slt: it and immediatelvinitiatesanotherquestionin the feedback-cum-initiation reDeats == It seemqto belongto a ditterenttyPeol questr,: (tfi-1 [479.8| l. TliS!-uestionis interesting. from the first question she asks (see last line in turn [469]: Sinbad . . . sailing bac.
D OI N G- E N G L I S H - L E S S ON S 2 8 1 to u,here?>). Instead of follou'ing the storvline and asking about r,vhathappens to Sinbad next, the second question requires the students to give the spelling of the English version of the name of the place, "Baa-Gaak-Daaht",rvhich has been offered bv a student as a responseand acknorviedgedand repeatedbv the teacher (turns [479.51,[+79.81).lt seems to be a question that requires the students to focus on the linguistic aspectsof the storv. 'fhev have read the English text (pp. +0 +2 of their storvbook), and the Engiish text is no\,v laid out on their desks before them. The question requires them to shift their focus from , t n c c o n t e n t o t t n e s t o r l J o r a u n r l et o c o n c e n t r a t eo n t n e t a n g u a g el n \ \ ' n r c nt t u s c o n t e n l t s 6iTE6T6icher as an acceptablfnal ansrr'er.Theteacher'sfollow'-up question on the eliclted ans\,'er would have the effect of getting the students to reformulate the answer into an (the- woiiliTh-et-GacEer uses in her fbllor.v-up ormat - "in i n i t i a t i o n ;s e el i n e 2 i n t u r n [ 4 7 9 . 8 ] ) . We seein turns [481.5] and [483] that the teacherultimately gets the L2 formulation of the answer -"Baqhdad", and she lvrites it on the blackboard. Only L2 ans\,versare w.ritten on the blackboard. It seems that the teacher's act of lr.riting the student's resoonse on the ;fi;l-anslver status on the response of the student blackboard has the .ff".tiFI.,f"r.l.rg I 9 B H e l m a n , 3 ; . l ------.-tu UnlikeTeJcher C, r,vhooften does her initiations in an L2 (Question) L1 (Annotation of Ouestion ) sequence.Teacher D often starts r'r'ithL 1 to initiate a question about the storv. |,"' IRF formats Teacher TeacherD seems seemsto be be usinq using a couplet couplet of IRF formats to do do consecutivelv different consecutivelvtr.l.o tr.l.odifferent
k/-' I I?F storl'1e.g.,turns [469]-[479.8]).The{ocus5 on the.o.,i".rt of th.ffi -from the storl'linelThesilond IRF format (e.g., J 0 r askedin the initiationslotsfollow natura-llv is used to get the students to reformulat" i" EfrE-iE'-eriefitonese turns [479.8]-t483]) st IRF format. The secon
ormat mav
.5f-""t"d to get the studentsto locus o" th. Ii"gffilipects of the final L2 answer.For in turns[483],[483.8],[484]to getthe students example,the secondIRFformatis repeated ' ro sa\- t'agnoao ln Engilsn brmat immediatelv followed bvv th tne the teacher cah-set students to reformulate the their earlier L1 o fonseilhto tFaEnguapfihat ther"aresupposedto be learning in the lesson:English.This specral use of t Ftandsin contrast wi use of the IRF format inTeacher C's class.fForinstance,TeacherC alrvavsstarts with L2 texts o RF format. Shethen usesthe L2-Ll Annotation format quesuonsrn in the same initiation slot to annotate the L2 text or cuestion. Students usuallv resoond irr / A r /( Ll.Then the teacherherself reformulates the students'L1 resoonseinto L2 and confers on >6). risinq- , verv
briefly,SLA rFsearg\tellsus a great deal about the learneras bei
to to be the catalvstsfor languagelearningJhe accommodation bv @ the learner of language data is tvpified bv the learner's creativ n of interlanguagesu'hich sent sradual approximations to the ies and communicative strategies are ed bv learnersin order to make their interpretative and acco co-nstructsof the learner lvhich we can deduce from the researcffiibute significantly to an of language is LU 4 t r sexplanation ^pr4rr4ltvrr v r lhovl' ruv! rdrr5u45E 1 ) liearned. E4l llcu. aA However, this explanati.onrvill remain partial if much of plnl-."r"urch persists in d e c o n t e x t u a l i s i n Ige a r n e rc o n t r i b u t i o n s t. h e l e a r n i n qD r o c e s sa. n l M r n i n s o u t c o m e sf r o n , the location in which these three tnree fadtors ractors are realised. Mainstream SLATEseirch, SL,t rer"ur.n- in rn locusing locusrnq xi l ^ : 'upon the relationshipbetu een the learnErn-n-d1ii$rage data.is conductedand reported on y::
iri *uv, thatappear t'oou..lookthesocial,"utitui.,"rri"J ,h...r.u..h i, Uvacllc enco-
/
".i""rir. "i"d".;.d
\ o u n g r e a r n e r s o r D e t \ \ ' e e n n a t l \ e s p e a k err
..r"r..h.., and non-native speakinginformants, eiperimental situationsusing elicitation techniques, quasi-experimentainegotiation tasks undertaken bv non-natir.espeakers,or observedinteractionsduring lessonsare never sociallvneutrai activities.Toreduce the data s t o d i s l o c a t et h e m from their intersubjective nature. The evidence '"veobtain from anv learning event, even in a quasi-experimentalsetting, is significantlvshapedbv the social situation and the social relations within that event. If lr'e used Ellis'srecent verv comprehensiverevieu-of SLA resear@ Ellis, t 99+\ an
indicatorof the major focusof SiR ."."u..hers to the presentti-., *'.1--iTTmrno--i-tirun two thirds of the chapters in his account refer to x'ork u.hich assumesthat the interaction betw'een the learner's mental resources and features of linguistic input will provide a sufficientlv adequate explanation for language learning. Eliis fairlv reflects current SLA research in devoting just over a quarter of his revieu- to more recent studies which locate the interaction betrveen learner and lansu ,it been delined o. f.u..r"d i.r particular lvays It is addressed in a fragmentarv ro'-ay as a diversitv of"socialiactors"- from ffir.urch. identification by the learner rvith the target languagegroup to the possibleeffectsofdifferent types of languageprograms or as the specific features of classroom interaction, or as the possibleimpact of formal instruction. Ellis himself concludes that"the relationship between social factors and L2 achievementis an indirect rather than a direct one" (1994:239). In referring to classroom interaction studies, he concludes that thev have "contributed little hovr'interactionaffectsacquisition"Ug;+:607). And he deduces to our ""a@&"f that formal ins cihtating natural language development"in terms of increasedaccuracvand acceleratedprogress(1994: 659).
.-l A.
I ^ - - ^I
___t?_u ,f'' _ g _0- -
3OB MICHAEL P. BREEN ''Ll achievement","acquisition"or The apparentassumptionin thesedeductionsis that ,,natural lu.rgrrug"d".,,.lop-".t" can somehou- occur almost regardless of contextual closely atthe variables.In"thif chapter,'horu"r-".,I rvant to suggestthat, iiu-e look more classroom as context, such a focus u'ill reveal that the interaction be oulded and and the differential outcomes from this tntetuctio" t , .^/ .;; arytffiwema\.deducefromcurrentSLAresearchasoptimaIfor r --:ll ^.:ll l:ff^-^-+:^11,. ^^L;^,'^ Tl"-....'ill nnnfinrre to leern rnostlv languagelearning,Iearnerslr'illstilIdifferentia1lvu.hie""@{
,itq TryM
7"**. "fy'
"?h:"*::::$
ffi-o diu".titr- in the contributions of the learners to the process. But variation rvill also have to be explained rvith reference to the particular in r,vhich the learning occurred so that input, Process,and outcomes are seen as "on,"*, functionsofholvtheiearneisvariouslvd.fi"@Ifweare of ittittss in languagelearning in the the interaction betrveen classroom, ther'tovene-edto take a sociulWn learner and data. In order to lustifi---uch- claim, I $ ill begin bv offering mv interpretation of the context of learning.
Second Language Acquisition in context dow'n by There is little doubt that th6 historv of SLA not onlv gre\\' out of the roots put up its own studies offirst languageacquisition and has, over the last tlventv years or so, sent of influences the on Building research. of this area shoots and bra.rche, in the shadorv of signilicant is a there (1986t sociolinguistics, discourse analvsisand the *,o.koffig@ l e"plicitlY.ecogni rvhich research acquisition bodv oifirst Ianguage of l.tttrrut" d"*loPmeht coniext og 1.u.rrin, u, ,h. .rrr.ibl" of ,h. *'hol".Uro..r. 1 c k 1 9 8 0 ,S c f into SLA and 1985, Foster 1990, tntera/ia). Evelvn Hatch brought this kind of perspectir"e of the basis the on repertoires their extend grammatical researchin revealing holv learners 1978 .o""'..i3!q!L(H{ch "scaffolding" p.otid-ed for them by profrcient speakersdttt"g in SLA ce uPon those arr durin8 modifications sPeech eing in se perspectir,e "56gi6l interactionist" researchr,vhoclaim n achersa@ communicatio'b"to
P
complex recentlv have a number of SLA researchersreturned t(fygotskf -ffi:\€rv ial activitr" ideas r,vhichinsist on i"^.
pleoiVra^These ttit-' is 1994)'Sucha perspective (Lffipel "ro.io.tltrrrul" .',^,40,^6;lo'*;.."ni.dp".rp..tit" u1l iT:3-yth'jogtd a" a. sar".lgerli?g br: Leont'evrvho,likevvgotskr', undertaking betrveen those in societv lvho havemastered knolvle
ffi'.--ffi;rins
such kno*'ledqeor derel
ilities. Leont'ev identified
ersocialactivitiesinthew.idirworldsuchaswork,or various evervdav situations and institutional settings. For in o. lif", participation familv the L"o.ri'.t, ,r-h"r, or.. ,"ud text, Iisten to music, or paint a picture, even when not in " constructed: is sociallv that presenceof others, we are participating in a process if rve removed human activitv from the svstem of social relationships and social life, it w.ould not exist and lvould har.eno structure. With all its varied forms, the human
NAVIGATING THE DISCOURSE 309 individual's activitv is a svstem in the svstem of social relations. It does not exist u'ithout these relations.The specificform in u'hich it exists is determined bv the forms and means of material and mental socialinteraction. (Leont'ev 1981 471
b
is, bv its nature. a andi-ulturalconstruct.@uppo., ru.[ a c l a i m i - nr e v e a l i n st h a t s o c i a ls t r u c t u r m may be seen to eate the rvhole (Halli*r, 1978)Jhis perspective implies that the interpretative,@) texture of alaiTia-anguage
-4@"t"2-"TL€-nd
strategidSlorkof learnersasrevealedbv mainstreamItR reiEii6Fis no@ t that i t is situltaneor.l.Ful*-,iil. tf r,6learn a h;-g""g" i" fie companvof others ln u 6llffiL-en the nature of this socialaction is not merelv a superficialframe for our '"vorkon languagedata. Social t.
relationshipsin the classroom orchestrate lr'hat is made availablefor learning, how'learning is-tlone,anilwhat we achieve,l'heserelationshipsand the purposelul socialaction of teaching and learning are directlv realised through the discourse in rvhich r,r'eparticipate during
lessons. The datamade availableto iearnersare sociallvfiltered throughthe particular ,
'.-. o l s c o u r s eo I t n e C l a S s r O Oam n o . I n e r e D \ .r e n o e r e oO l S t l n c t l vter o m \ - h a t\ v e m l g h t d e s c r t b e 2-snarura l madeavarlabletolearnerstnaclassroomareaJ@ctr,r.ithlvhichteacherand3. learners interact activelv as both creators and interpreters. becauseu'hat Iearners actuallo l e a r n T r o m t h e c l a s s r o o mi s s o c i a l l rr a t h e r t h a n i n d i v i d u a l l vc o n s t r u c t e d .a n v e x p l a n a t i o n o l n o w l a n g u a g el s l e a r n e c n g u a g el e s s o n s . This implies that language iearners need not onlv be interpretative, accommodating, and strategic as SLA research suggests,but also active practitioners r,vithin the discourse of the learning contexlrn wblqh tfr."y}"a *"i t w i l l p r o r i d e v e r ) ' p a r t i c u l a ro p p o r t u n i t i e sf o r a n d s p e c i f i cc o n s t r a i n t su p o n l a n g u a q e c { . learning.These oppdlrrnities and constraints can be identified in the discourse of language lessonsand a crucial variable which can contribute to our understanding of the relative successor failure of learners is holv thev themselvesare obliged to navigate within it. We can expressthis central irsue i.r terms of a questioi: Does a l3ur.r.r', successin learning languagein a classr d upon the learner's successfulnar is;ii6n-;TT6-e Qj'
prevailing features of classroom discourse. I rvill addressthe question r,vith reference to a number of findings from SLA research.
Dimensions of discourse Discourseis a diffrcult concept because,like SLA research,discourseanalysisis a relatively v o u n gd i s c i p l i n ea n d t h e r e a r e s e v e r acl o n f l i c t i n ga n d o v e r l a p p i n gd e f i n i t i o n sd e r i v i n gf r o m ranse of th.o..ti.ul vanDijk a range theoretical and undu."lt' anah'ticalpositions (van Diik 1 1985, 98 5 . Macdonneil 198CI:E;alt ). Larly work ,pattern and rn drscourseanalvslssought uncover pattern and system ught to uncover syste i a highe ystem at gher level of organisation iesof dialo than the sentenceand acts,turn taking, topicalisation, and so on. Descriptir.'ediscourse analvsisrvas also undertaken in relation=16 ffiediscoursessuchasmediadiscourse'medicaldiscourse,orlegal
3IO
MICHAEL P. BREEN
discourse. More recentiv, the ideas of social theorists such asrf-ouffirt11972 and 1984) and .B'di?fEIh( 1991 t har-eled to an extension of such '"vork to refer to how human knowledge \-{.r... I r r .. -t r =)-:)-:=-anoCaPaDrlIueSanoevervdar.socialpracticesed throuqh discourse. F=-g__- orientedresearch error feedback', in Classroom M. Long (eds).Rou'levMass:Neu'burv House. 'Adult acquisitionof Englishas a secondlanguageunder different conditions of Pica,T. (1933) e x P o s u r e. L a n g u a gLee a r n t n )g1 . + 6 5 - 9 1. Pica,T., Doughtv, C., andYoung,D. (1985)'Making input comprehensible:do interactional '7 modificationshelp? InternationalRevtewoJAppliedLinBuistics2 . | 25 . Pica,T.,Young,R., and Doughtr-,C. (1987)'The impact of interactionon comPrehension' 21. 1 3l-58. TESOLQgarterlv'
322
MICHAEL P. BREEN
Piough, I. and Gass,S. (1993)'lnterlocutor and task familiaritv: effects on interactiona G. Crookesand S. andpractice, andlanguagelearning:integratingtheory structure', in Iasfrs Matters. N{ultilingual Gass(eds).Clevedon: politzer,R., Ramirez,A., and Leu'is,S. (1981)'TeachingstandardEnglishin the third grade I l. l7l ql. l u n c t i o n so l l a n g u a g e.' L a n g u a gLee a r n i n g classroom Rampton, B. (1987)'stvlistic variabilitv and not speaking"normal" English: some PostLabovian approachesand their implications for the studv of interlanguage', in Secon: R. Eliis (ed ). London: PrenticeHall Internationai. in context, languageacqujsition languagi. in communicative interaction: someproblems in classroom networks Rilev, P. (1911) Discourse Universitvof Nanc-v:CRAPEL. MelangesPedagogiques. rcachinB. comPetencc yf communicative Schiefelbusch,R. and Pickar, J. (eds) (1984t The acquisition BaltimoreMD.: UniversitvPark Press. . LanguaS: Schmidt,M. (1980)'Coordinatestructuresand languageuniversalsin interlanguage' Learning30. 397--+16. Seliger,H. (1917)'Does practice make perfect?A studv of interaction Patterns and Ll g1 . 2 6 3 - 1 8 . c o m p e t e n c e. 'L a n g u a gLee a r n i n 2 Oxford: Oxford Universitr oJdiscourse. an anal,vsis Sinclair,J. and Coulthard,N,I.( 1975) Towards Press. 'The role of topicalisationin classroomlanguagelearning'. System1, Slimani..\. (1989)
2 2 33 + .
languageacquisittor,( 1992y'Evaluationof classroominteraction', in Evaluatingsecond Press. J. AldersonandA. Beretta(eds).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity M. (1982)'school age secondlanguagelearners'accesst'Snoll.,C. and Hoefnagel-Hciirle,
-
Learning32. +11 30. simplifiedlinguisticinput'. Language differencesand iearning outcomes:" instructional Spada,N. (1987)'Relationshipsbetu-een process-product studv of communicative language teaching'. Applied Linguistics> 18 1 - 9 9 . 'social styles and second language acquisition of spanish-speakir:. Strong, M. (1983) IESOI kindergarteners'. Qgarteill'1l . 2+1-\8. languageacquisition causeor result of successful motivation: Strong,M. (19S+)'lntegrative Learnlng3+. 1-1+. Language Su,ain,M. (1985)'Communicative competence:some roles of comprehensibleinput anc S. Ga-'. language acquisition, output in its development',in lnput in second comprehensible and C. Madden (eds).Rou'levMass:Nel'burv House. Swain, M. (1995)'Three functions of output in second languagelearning', in For H.e Widdowson: principlesand practicein the studvoJlanguage,G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer(eds Oxford: Oxford Universitl' Press. 'The langua:': influenceof listener on L2 speech',rn Variationin second T. (1989) Takahashi, issues, S. Gass.,C. Madden,D. Preston,and L. Selinke: vol II:Ps,vcholinguistic acquisition, (eds).Clevedon:Multilingual Matters. 'Politeness: some problems for Japaneselearners of Engiish'. JALTJournal" Tanaka,N. ( 199 1) 81-102. London: Edward Arnold. Tarone, E. ( 198 8) Variationin interlanguage. 1 '1. London:AcademicPress. analysis,lbls oJdiscourse Van Dijk,T. (1935) Handbook learner.London: Longman. andthelanguage Van Lier, L. (1988) The clasvoom edition, A. Kozulin (ed)). Cambridge,Mass language (nerv Vygotskv,L. (1986) Thoughtand MIT Press. Language at hor.: development. studyoJlanguage Wells, G. (1981) Learningtfuoughinteraction:the Cambridge:CambridgeUniversitv Press. and school:1. at homeandschool:2.Cambridg. in thepreschool development I 9 8 5 . Language l ears.Language CambridgeUniversitvPress.
Chapter 20
JoanSwann RECORDING AND TRANSCRIBING TALI( IN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS
Introduction r f . l H I S C H A P T E R P R o v I D E S G U I D A N C E F o R t h o s eu ' h o w i s h t o c a r r yo u t I an investigation into aspectsof spoken language. It is designed mainlv for use in educational settings, and u'ill probablv be particularlv appropri.t" fo. teacheis and other educationists engaged on small-sbaleresearch projects. Manv of the techniques and principles it discusses,however, applv equallv well to investigations of spoken languagein non-educationalcontexts. I shall discussfactors to take into account r,vhenmaking audio and video recordings of spoken language, then look at different r,l-aysof making a rvritten transcript fro- ttese recordings.The article does not pror,'idedeiailed guidan"ceon analysis,but i shall refer to other chapters in this volume that serve as examples of different ways of analvsingtalk.
Preliminaries: deciding what information you need and how to collect this I am assumingthat, asa reader of this chapter, vou rvill alreadt'har.ein mind a clear purpose for recording and analvsing spoken language- that vou w-ill have identified certain issues to focus on, perhaps specified, in a formal project, as a set of researchquestions.These questions w'ill affect the setting in rvhich vou carrv out your research,the people and events you decide to observe and record, the stance vou adopt tolvards others involved in _vour research, the particular types of recording vou make and holr. -voutranscribe and u.rilyr" these.
Selecting a sample oJ people and events Since you cannot, and u-ill not rvish to record er.ervthing that is going on you will need to select people and events to focus on. If vour interest is in aspectsof claisroom talk, 1.oumav wish to focus on talk between the teacher (vourself or u .olleug.r"; and pupiis, or ietoueen different pupils, or both.You mav be interested in u.hole-classdiscussionor small-group talk.You ma1'rvish to compare contributions from a small number of pupils in diflerent contexts, or to monitor one child closelvin a range of activities.
324
JOAN SWANN
you r,vill also need to think about the representativenessof the tvpes of talk you wish record to examine. For instance,holv are vou seiecting the tvpes of activitv that vou wish to are you and analvse?Do these cor,er the full range of activities normalh' encountered? Or r'vay? contrasting contexts you think are distinctive in some If you'are carrying out a small-scale investigation focusing on talk in one or tw'o talk vou conte*is, there are trvJ important points to bear in mind about the samples of eventuallv come up rvith:
#
your observationsmav provide great insightsinto peoples' conversationalstrategies. the wav thev manaqe certain activities or their understanding of certain concePts but vou cannot *-uk" b.oud qeneralizations on the basis of a sma]l-nunqLer of
utio", of p.opies' behaviourin one set of contexts
obr.ffi.t
fffi oip-todA;evid ence of hor'r-thev' gen erallv' b ehave. inferencesabout people's abilities A relatedpoint is that there ar:!Igbkl[-1! o. undersiandingon the basisof $ hat thev happentoFo u hen .'ou are re
r . studentsmav derelop ioping strategiesthat e.'rdo.
theitln-T a
Adopting a reseatcher stance *d A distinction is commonl,v made in research be.tween Pg:lN, ""-!""1'!t= the evenishe or he .: in observation.A participant observer is someone lvho takes part observing; a non-participant observer does not take part.There are practical dif{icultrt' with this distinction: for instance,bv virtue of being in a classroom(or meeting' etc-)' :: br settingup recordinq equipment, )ou are to some e .*d tjy:--Ut:-' ' identitied l'. what what l,= identitied Labov linguist The behaviour. language people's on effect an tq have i 1970) that the mere act of observing peopl . ' '-4:--_'.-
l".rg,rug"b&-,ri.;-(;f;
of their behaviour)tt4.h:9,.*thatiratter, otheraspects
thaibJhavlour. Different effects are likeh'to be produced bv differenf observers (it m:' an observer is female or male, or perceived as relativel)' senior or junior rffi*tretter Man' linguistic researchers(such as Labov himself) have attemPted, in various wavs':: minimiselhe intrusion of their observationsin order to obtain more'authentic' data' Oth.:' har.eargued that such detachment is not a reasonableresearch goal: We inevitablv bring our biographies and our subjectivities to every stage -: the research process, and this influences the questions lve ask and the lvays in lr-hi;:we try to fini ans\irrrs. b" ,".r, as a regrettable disturbancebut as one element in the human interactio:-i research subjects themselves are actli: that comprise our obiect o fJimiliifv, beings-;ho hu,= insights into their situationsand experienc.' Fffii" They cannot be observed as if thel' rvere asteroids, inanimate lumps of matter:.th. har,eto be interacted rvith. (Cameron, Frazer, Hart'ev, Rampton and Richardsc:1992,p.5) For educationistsresearchingin their ow'n institutions, or institutions r,vithwhich ther-ha'a close association,it rvill probably be impossibleto act as a completely detachedobserr': It will be impossible, for instance, to maintain a strict separation between your role a' -: -' usual role as a teacher or a colleague.When interpreting the talk observer u.i "orr.
RECORDINGAND TRANSCRIBING TALI< 325 .r'ill need to take t of the effect vour o\\'n presence.and the lvav vou .: rhe obserr,ations.mav have had on vour data. tionship 'ou have, or that vou u ith those r,vhoparticipate in vour research and allou' vou to observe their . chaviour. I have used the term to refer to this more general @t@ . .^l the *'av a researcherbehavestow'ards the people and events she or he is ' r d n 1 € r o hF, r a z e r H , a r \ . e r 'R . a m p t o na n d R i c h a r d s o nt 1 9 9 2 1 d i s t i n g u i sbhe t u ' e e n - I r e l a t r o n s n r Do.r r e s e a r c n e sr t a n c e : r,vhicha researcher bears in mind the interests of resear-ch rants e.g.minimising anv inconveniencecaused,protectingprivac,!'- but still {lut fe esearcherwho sets the
:, feSeafC - -i:<
1) .. not other researchparticipants; in lvhich researcherscarrv out research on andJor participants - e.g. -:.ir, -. :-n_gthemselvesas accountableto participants and being r,villingto use their : .lnou-ledgeon participants'behalf (rvhen required b1'participantsto do so); - '.\!.rinq research' in r'vhichresearcherscarrv out research on,Jorand ra'ithother , , - - :ants e.g.being completelv open about the aims and methods of the research, participants ::..!rng the importance of participants' orvn agendas,empor,r.ering knou'ledge. - .r-.
