C O R R E S P O N D E N T E . C A N C O M M U N I C A T I V E C L A I M S BE MET IN T E A C H I N G M A T E R I A L S ? T H E C A S E OF "OUR TURN". P O R J O S * E N D O E N P A M A R T I N S D i s s e r t a ç ã o s u b m e t i d a à U n i v e r s i d a d e F e d e r a l de S a n t a C a t a r i n a para o b t e n ç S o do grau de M E S T R E E M LETRAS. F L O R I A N O P O L I S M A R Ç O - 1991
Esta dissertação foi julgada adequada e aprouada em sua forma final pelo programa de Pós -Graduaç3o em Inglês para a obtenção do grau de
MESTRE EM LETRAS
OpçSo Inglês e Literatura Co rrespondente
P r o f a „ D r a. Bernadete Pasold COORDENADORA
Prof^-Dr. Hilário I. Bohn ORIENTADOR
BANCA EXAMINADORA:,
Pro-K. Dr__ Hilário I. Bohn
Prof. Dr. José Luiz Meurer
Pr ofa. Dra. Carmen R. C. Coulthard
i v
AGRADECIMENTOS
Ao Professor Hilário I. B o h n , dedicado e incansável orientador e amigo.
A Professora Cynthia Toniolli e alunos da Escola Básica Prof. Carlos Techentin onde o trabalho de campo foi realizado.
A Rosemari Penzlien pelo estafante trabalho de digitaç&o.
Ao Prof. Édiitio Rudolf pelo empréstimo do micro c o m p u t a d o r .
Aos professores, á administração, e aos alunos do Programa de Pós-GraduçSo em Língua Inglesa e Literatura Correspondente da Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina pelo constante apoio e elevada estima.
Aos dirigentes e funcionários do Laboratório de Informática da Universidade de Blumenau
pela orient açã o técnica, e constantes
A B S T R A C T
The present thesis is a critical study of the application of the communicative language teaching principles
as described by specialists like L ittlewood (1981),
Larsen-Freeman (1986), Canale (1983) and others, for the
analysis of teaching materials. The study uses the
Conversational Analysis model developed by Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974) to critically analyse the linguistic
content, exercises and more specifically the dialogues
presented in the Teaching Materials 'Our Turn', and compares the structures of the dialogues with the ones produced by learners using the materials for their routine learning activities at school.
It was assumed that the dialogues suggested in the teaching materials would embody linguistic features
similar to the communicative ones occuring in natural
conversations and, as a result, they would enhance the development of communicative competence in the learners.
The qualitative analysis of the teaching
materials and the study of the dialogues sug gested by the authors in the books revealed, however, that the materials lack communicative qualities shown in co mmunicative events. The analysis also shows that the dialogues produced by the
learners are heavily molded on the structural characteristics of the dialogues presented in the materials, but on the other hand the dialogues produced by the learners also reveal some of the qualities of natural c o n v e r s a t i o n s . It seems, however, that the qualities of the language produced by the learners cannot be traced to the grammar of the m ate rials but rather to the communicative capacity of the conversatio nal ist s in their mother tongue.
R E S U M O
Esta dissertação é um estudo crítico da
aplicação da Abordagem C o m u n i c a t i v a , descrito por
es pecialistas como Littleuood (1981), Larsen Freeman (1986), Canale (1983) e outros, para analisar materiais de ensino. 0 estudo usa o modelo da Análise da Conversação desenvolvido por Sacks, Schegloff e Jefferson (1974) para criticamente
analisar o conteúdo linguistico, exercícios e mais
e s p e c i f icamente os diálogos inseridos nos materiais de
ensino 'Our Turn', e comparar os diálogos produzidos pelos alunos que usam os materiais nas suas atividades rotineiras de apr endizagem na escola com as estruturas dos diálogos dos materiais.
Assumiu-se que os diálogos dos materiais
apresentar iam qualidades comunicativas semelhantes às que
ocorrem em conversaçOes naturais e, em conseqüência,
permitiriam o des envolvimento da competência comunicativa nos alunos,
A análise qualitativa dos materiais de ensino e o estudo dos diálogos sugeridos pelos autores nos livros mostram que os materiais carecem das qualidades comunicativas mostradas em eventos comunicativos. F'or outro, lado apesar de os diálogos produzidos pelos alunos revelarem algumas das
importantes qualidades comunicativas das conversações
naturais, eles também apresentam c a r a c t e r 1st icas estruturais dos modelos apr esentados nos materiais e, outrossim, os valores comunic ati vos dos diálogos produzidos pelos alunos n3o podem ser atribuídos aos materiais, mas à capacidade comunicativa dos falantes em sua língua materna.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER 1 - COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING
1.1. The Communicative View of Language
Acquisition
1.2. Communicat ion/Communicative 1.3 C o n v e r s a t i o n a 1 Analysis
1.3.1. The Cooperative Principle 1.3.2. C o n v e r s a t i o n a 1 Structure
1.3.2.1. Turn Taking
1.3.2.2. Openings and Closings 1.3.2.3. Topic
1.3.2.4. Repairs
CHAPTER 2 - METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNICATIVE 30 TEACHING
2.1. Pre-Communicative Activities 30
2.2. Communicative Activities 34
2.3. The Role of the Teacher 37
CHAPTER 3 - METHODOLOGY 42 3.1. The School 42 3.2. The Subjects 42 3.3. The Materials 43 3.4. Data Collection 43 3.4.1. Transfer-Dialogues 44
3.4.2. Free Conversation -Di alo gue s 45
3.5. Transcription of Data 46
3.6. Data Analysis 46
CHAPTER 4 - THE TEACHING MATERIALS IN 'OUR TURN' 48
4.1. Introduction 48 5 5 7 12 14 17 1? o oCj tit
Viii
4.2. Lesson Plan 48
* 4.3. C o m m u n icative Learning and Teaching
Claims in the Materials 51
4.4. Writing 52
4.5. Reading 53
4.6. Target 54
4.7. Speaking 55
V- 4.7.1. Methodological Framework for Speaking 60
4.7.1.1. Pr e-Communicative Activities 60 i 4.7.1.1.1. Presentation Stage 61 4.7.1.1.2. Dialogue Stage 64 4.7.1.1.3. Transfer Stage 66 4.7.1.2. Communicative Activities 67 4.7.1.2.1. Dramatization Stage 67
CHAPTER 5 - DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ON OPENING S 72
5.1. Introduction 72
5.2. Openings in the Teaching MateriaIs 73
5.3. Openings Produced by Learners 77
5.3.1. Openings in the Transfer Dialogues 77
5.3.1.1. Comments and Conclusions on Openings in the Transfer
Dialogues 86
5.3.2. Openings in the Free Dialogues 88
5.3.2.1. General Comments and
Conclusions on Openings in the Free
Dialogues 99
5.3.3. Comparison of the Openings Provided by the Materials and the Openings
i Produced by Learners 101
CHAPTER 6 - DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ON CLOSINGS 112
6.1. Introduction 112
^ 6.3. Closings Produced by Learners 114
6.3.1. Closings in the Transfer Dialogues 114
6.3.1.1. General Comments On Closings
in the Transfer Dialogues 120
6.3.2. Closings in the Free Dialogues 123
6.3.2.1. General Comments on Closings in
the Free Dialogues 133
6.3.3. General Conclusions on Closings 137
CHAPTER 7 - C ONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 138
Appendix I- Language of the Tables Appendix II - Lesson 9 - Book I Bibliography
142 175 183
X
K E Y TO T R A N S C R I P T I O N
1. Simultaneous Talk: L 3.
2. Pauses/Silences: For short pauses/silences ( + ), for those longer than 1.5 second (2.5).
3. Hesitations are si gnaled with the
transcription of sounds which represent the hesitations ( for example, eh...uhn... ,etc. ).
4. Portuguese Words/S ent enc es are inserted in
parentheses ( ).
5. Laughter, or Voice are marked as
( l a u g h t e r s ) and ( voices).
6. Repetitions are marked with the duplication
of the repeated letter or syllable. For example, 'at.,
at...at..', 'i t ... i t ...'.
7. Unclear Utterances are signaled with the word ( IN COMPREHENSIBLE ) inserted in the place where the unclear uttera nce s occurred.
8. Turn Moves are marked with the letters A, B , C ____
TABLE 1 - Summary of forms and number of openings in Book One.
TABLE 2 - Summary of forms and number of openings in Book Two.
TABLE 3 - Summary of forms and number of openings of Transfer Dialogues in 3a. série.
TABLE 4 - Summary of forms and number of openings of Transfer Dialogues in 6a. série.
TABLE 3 - Summary of forms and number of openings of Transfer Dialogues in 7a. série.
TABLE 6 - Summary of forms and number of openings of Transfer Dialogues in 8a. série.
TABLE 7 - Summary of forms and number of openings of Free Dialogues in 3a. série.
TABLE 8 - Summary of forms and number of openings of Free Dialogues in 6a. série.
TABLE 9 - Summary of forms and number of openings of Free Dialogues in 7a. série.
73/4 73 78/9 80 82/3 85 89/1 93/4 95/6
TABLE 10 - Summary of forms and number of openings
TABLE 1 TABLE 2 TABLE 3 ' TABLE 4 TABLE 5 TABLE 6 TABLE 7 L I S T OF T A B L E S F O R C L O S I N G S X ii
Summary of forms and number of closings
in Transfer Dialogues in 5a. série. 115
Summary of forms and number of closings
in Transfer Dialogues in 6a. série. 116
Summary of forms and number of closings
in Transfer Dialogues in 7a. série. 118
Summary of forms and number of closings
in Transfer Dia logues in 8a. série. 119
Summary of forms and number of closings
in Free Dialogues in 5a. série. 123/4
Summary of forms and number of closings
in Free Dialogues in 6a. série. 126/7
Summary of forms and number of closings
in Free Dialogues in 7a. série. 129/0
TABLE 8 - Summary of forms and number of closings
For decades the psycholi ngu ist ic and sociolinguistic aspects related to language teaching/learning were neglected in the foreign language classroom to favour methodological concerns related to teacher-centeredness, many
times leading to classroom activities of tedious and
mechanical repetition of patterns and emphasizing automatic learning.
In the last two decades, however, interest in the psycho'linguistic processes involved in foreign/second language acquisition has grown and re searchers have shown special interest in the study of the processes and strategies used in second language development. Chomsky's (1957 and 1965) linguistic theory and his mentalistic view of language have influenced a great deal the field of language research and have brought new and important insights into the process of language learning/ acquisition.
On the other hand, linguists like Halliday (1973), Hymes (1972), Labov (1966) have co nce ntr ate d their studies on meaning and how language relates to the social
rules of society. They, in opposition to Chomsky who
considered language as a finite set of rules, see language both as a formal and a social system and as an i n t e r a c t i o n a 1
a c t i v i t y .
Hymes' (1972) proposal to relate linguistic
rules to social rules gave origin to the notion of
communic ati ve competence, and Widdowson's (1978) suggestion to center language te aching/learning on its use rather than on its usage have had a deep impact on the field of language
teaching. As a consequence of these proposals, several
le a r n i n g / a c q u i s i t i o n a 1 theories have been suggested. Selinker's (1972) Inter language Theory, Schuma nn's ( 1978)
Monitor Theory are some of the roost relevant examples.
The theories mentioned above all share some
basic characteristicsS they are all learner-centered,
emphasize the acquisitional processes in language
development, and reinforce the fundamental communicative
values of language. According to these views the
co mmu nic ativ e values of language, in opposition to rule knowledge, seems to play a crucial role in the language ac qui sit ion al process.
It seems important here to define the terms
'communication' and 'communicative' since the concepts
underlying them will be of special concern in my work.
Communication is a complex concept and its definition or characterization cannot be exhaustive. An
attempt to characterize communication is presented by
Canale (1983). He supports his characterization on Morrow (1977) Widdowson (1978), and Breen and Candlin (1983 ) and summarizes what can be called the nature of communication.
According to Canale's (1983) study,
communication is understood to have the following
characteristics:
a ) It is a form of social interaction,
normally acquired and used in social interaction; b) it is highly unpredictable, creative in form and message; c) it occurs in dis course and sociocultural contexts which provide co nst rai nts on appropriate language use and also clues to correct interpretations of utterances; d) it is carried out
under limiting psychological conditions such as memory
constraints, fatigue and distraction; e) it always has a purpose (that is, to establish social relations, to persuade,
e t c . ); f ) it involves authentic as opposed to
t e x t b o o k - c o n t r i v e d language; and g) it is judged as success ful or not on the basis of actual outcomes .
communication may be understood as the exchange, evaluation
and negotiation of information between, at least, two
individuals through the use of verbal and non-verbal symbols, oral and w r i t t e n / v i s u a 1 modes, and production and
comprehension processes. Information, by its turn, consists
of conceptual, sociocultural, affective and other content,
which is constantly changing and qualified by further
! information, choice of language forms, and non-verbal
behaviour.
Communication takes place mainly through
conversation which is an effective communicative task
involving speakers in language use, value and meaning through an interactive process. The analysis of language teaching materials undertaken in this thesis will emphasize the c o n v e r s a t i o n a 1 aspect, i. ©., the dialogues suggested by the designers of the materials to be used by the teachers to
develop in the learners communic ati ve abilities.
The definition of communication and the
ch ara cteristics outlined by Canale (ibid) will be one of the main f oundations of my work. These characteristics will be matched against the commu nic ati ve claims, exercises and activities presented in the teaching materials "Our Turn" edited by Y&zigi and widely used in the Brazilian elementary and secondary school system.
In this thesis I am primarily interested in
checking if the communicative claims forwarded by the
designers of "Our Turn" can be upheld. I am also interested in che cking if the written dialogues have the same structural 1 pro per tie s of real interaction according to Sacks, Schegloff
and Jefferso n' s (1974) analysis. Finally, I am interested to
see if learners exposed to the materials develop
communi cat ive language abilities.
In order to a ccomplish the above activities I present a careful analysis of the teaching materials and an
4
analysis of the students" dialogues re corded in the
classrooms of the State School Prof. Carlos Techentin, located in Blumenau, an industrial touin in Southern Brazil. In the dialogues the analysis will specially emphasize Openings and Closings. They will be analysed in terms of their presence x absence, type and structure.
The reasons for choosing the "Our Turn" m a terials to be analysed are related to my experience in using them in the classroom and in training teachers how to deal with them. The contact with the ma ter ial s and with people who apply them in their everyda y/c las sro om activity led me to research their com municative qua lities and to
evaluate their effectiveness in terms of developing
c o m m u nic ati ve competence in the learners.
Organizationally this thesis presents in
Chapter 1 the review of literature on co mmunicative language teaching, and on c o n v e r s a t i o n a 1 analysis; Chapter 2 describes the me thodological framework for the com municative language teaching; Chapter 3 describes the methodology used in the analysis of the materials, data collection and data analysis; Chapter 4 is a study of the content of the materials for their Speaking section (exercises and activities - transfer and d r a m a t i z a t i o n ); Chapter 5 presents the results of the analysis of Openings in the dialogues in the m ate ria ls and in the dialogues produced by learners; Chapter 6 deals with Closings, and finally Chapter 7 presents conclusions and r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s .
T h i s c h a p t e r i n t e n d s to d e s c r i b e the main g u i d e l i n e s of c o m m u n i c a t i v e lan gu age t e a c h i n g . T h e s e g u i d e l i n e s i n c l u d e a short d e s c r i p t i o n of the c o m m u n i c a t i v e v i e w of l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n , the d e f i n i t i o n of c o m m u n i c a t i o n / c o m m u n i c a t i v e , the c o n v e r s a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s w h i c h i n c l u d e s t h e d e f i n i t i o n and d e s c r i p t i o n of the c o n c e p t s of c o n v e r s a t i o n , t h e idea of the c o o p e r a t i v e p r i n c i p l e and the s t r u c t u r e of c o n v e r s a t i o n . 1.1. T H E C O M M U N I C A T I V E V I E W O F L A N G U A G E A C Q U I S I T I O N L a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n is a s u b c o n s c i o u s p r o c e s s that d e p e n d s on an i n n u m e r a b l e set of v a r i a b l e s , s o m e of w h i c h r e l a t e to t h e learner h i m s e l f , s u c h as m o t i v a t i o n , n e e d s and i n t e r e s t s , oth e rs, s uc h as t h e m a t e r i a l s , t e a c h i n g e n v i r o n m e n t a n d t e a c h e r ' s r o l e s are e x t e r n a l t o him. T h e t h e o r y u n d e r l y i n g a c o m m u n i c a t i v e v i e w of la ng u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n , as s u g g e s t e d by e x p e r t s in the f i e l d like W i d d o w s o n ( 1 9 7 8 ) , L i t t l e w o o d ( 1 9 8 1 ) and others, is that l i n g u i s t i c c o m p e t e n c e is d e v e l o p e d in a s o c i a l and i n t e r a c t i v e c o n t e x t , and e m b o d i e s two a s p e c t s : (1) l an gu ag e k n o w l e d g e an d ( 2 ) c o m m u n i c a t i v e ab ility. 1. L a n g u a g e K n o w l e d g e is t h e learners' m a s t ery of the s t r u c t u r a l e l e m e n t s of language. T h i s m a s te ry is u n d e r s t o o d to b e a c h i e v e d t h r o u g h t h e p r a c t i c e of p i e c e s of language, h o w e v e r t h i s k n o w l e d g e , a l t h o u g h n e c e s s a r y , is not s u f f i c i e n t for t h e l e a r n e r s to b e h a v e a p p ^ o p r i a t e l y when they wa nt to c o m m u n i c a t e .
2. C o m m u n i c a t i v e Abil i t y i5 t h e s e c o n d ability the learner w i l l h a v e to de ve l o p to b e c o m e l i n g u i s t i c a l l y c o m p e t e n t , i. e., h e has to learn when, w h e r e an d w h o m to
6
a d d r e s s t h e g r a m m a t i c a l l y c o r r e c t s e n t e n c e s .
T h e a b i l i t y to use- g r a m m a t i c a l l y c o r re ct s e n t e n c e s is n o r m a l l y d e v e l o p e d t h r o u g h s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s in w h i c h l a n g u a g e is p r e s e n t e d to t h e learner and, then, p r a c t i c e d by him. T h e s e are, a c c o r d i n g to L i t t l e w o o d ( 1 9 81 ), t h e p r e - c o m m u n i c a t i v e a c t i v i t i e s w h i c h f o c u s on the s t r u c t u r a l e l e m e n t s of language. On th e other hand, t h e a b i li ty to c o r r e c t l y u s e when, w h e r e or to w h o m to d i r e c t s u c h s e n t e n c e s is d e v e l o p e d t h r o u g h i n t e r a c t i v e a c t i v i t i e s like games, r o l e - p l a y s , d i a l o g u e s , etc. In L i t t l e w o o d ' s ( i b i d ) m o d e l t h e s e are the c o m m u n i c a t i v e a c t i v i t i e s a nd e m p h a s i z e m e a n i n g a n d c o m m u n i c a t i o n , r a t he r than l i n g u i s t i c s t r u c t u r e s . A l t h o u g h in a c o m m u n i c a t i v e v i e w of l anguage a c q u i s i t i o n the t e a ch e r t r i e s to d e v e l o p the le ar n e r ' s c o m m u n i c a t i v e a b i li t y , h e / s h e d o e s this, at least, initially, as o u t l i n e d a b o v e and, a c c o r d i n g to L i t t l e w o o d ' s p r o p o s a l w h i c h I w i l l o u t l i n e in th e next chap t e r , t h r o u g h the ma st e r y of s t r u c t u r a l e l e m e n t s of langua ge , which, in my o p i n i o n , s o m e h o w u n d e r m i n e its own c o m m u n i c a t i v e p r o p o s a l , i.e., the f o c u s f r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g is not on m e a n i n g but on th e m a s t e r y of s p e c i f i c s t r u c t u r e s . But t h e l i t e r a t u r e s h o w s o t he r a t t e m p t s to i m p l e m e n t c o m m u n i c a t i v e m e t h o d o l o g i e s in the c l a s s r o o m . P r a b h u ( 1 9 8 7 ) , for e x a m p l e , h a s s u g g e s t e d a m e t h o d o l o g y w h i c h s t a r t s f r o m t h e learner f o c u s i n g on m e a n i n g . His c l a i m is th at l i n g u i s t i c c o m p e t e n c e is best d e v e l o p e d when, f r o m the very b e g i n n i n g , t h e learner f o c u s e s on m e a n i n g rat her th an form, for only t h en t h i s c o m p t e n c e t o b e d e p l o y e d in c o m m u n i c a t i o n . A c c o r d i n g to t h i s view, g r a m m a t i c a l c o m p e t e n c e is d e v e l o p e d t h r o u g h m e a n i n g - f o c u s e d a c t i v i t i e s , a n d is an i n t e r n a l s e l f - r e g u l a t i n g p r o c e s s w h i c h r e s p o n d s to learners' n e e d to c o n v e y m e a n i n g .
c o m p e t e n c e r e q u i r e s a p p r o p r i a t e c o n d i t i o n s for c o p i n<9 w i t h m e a n i n g in the* c l a s s r o o m a n d r e j e c t s any d e l i b e r a t e r e g u l a t i o n for d e v e l o p m e n t or a s i m u l a t i o n of l a n g u a g e b e h a v i o u r <p. 2).
P r a b h u < i b i d > p r o p o s e s the use of a p r o c e d u r a l s y l l a b u s to i m p l e m e n t the l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s and s u g g e s t s that t h i s can be d o n e t h r o u g h the p e r f o r m a n c e of i n d i v i d u a l and m e a n i n g ~ f o c u s e d tasks.
In short, c o m m u n i c a t i v e l ang u a g e t e a c h i n g as v i e w e d by L i t t l e w o o d ( 1 9 8 1 ) and P r ab hu ( 1 9 8 7 ) b o t h a im at d e v e l o p i n g c o m m u n i c a t i v e la ng u a g e c o m p e t e n c e but f o l l o w d i f f e r e n t r o u t e s to a c h i e v e it. That is, w h i l e for L i t t l e w o o d t h e p r a c t i c e of s t r u c t u r a l e l e m e n t s e q u i p s t he learner for c o m m u n i c a t i o n , Pra b hu s u g g e s t s that m e a n i n g - f o c u s e d a c t i v i t i e s ar e better to d e v e l o p such a c o m p e t e n c e . M e t h o d o l o g i s t s d e a l i n g w i th 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 h a v e t h e r e f o r e d i f f e r e n t v i e w s of how it can be i m p l e m e n t e d . In th is study I wi l l f o l l o w L i t t l e w o o d ' s ( 1 9 8 1 ) work s i nc e it fits b e tt er the m a t e r i a l s under a n a l y s i s , as o u t l i n e d and j u s t i f i e d in Cha p t e r 2. For a f u l l u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the c o m m u n i c a t i v e l an g u a g e t e a c h i n g it is n e c e s s a r y to d i s c u s s th e n o t i o n of c o m m u n i c a t i o n / c o m m u n i c a t i v e w h i c h is t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r of t h e next s e ct i o n. 1.2. - C O M M U N I C A T I O N / C O M M U N I C A T I V E When w e c o m m u n i c a t e , w e u s e l a n g u a g e to a c c o m p l i s h a n u mb e r of f u n c t i o n s w i t h i n a s o c i a l c o n t e x t t h r o u g h a p r o c e s s of m e a n i n g n e g o t i a t i o n . It is t h r o u g h t h e i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n s p e a k e r a n d l is tener that m e a n i n g b e c o m e s c l e a r . For L a r s e n - F r e e m a n ( 1 9 8 6 : 1 3 2 ) a t ruly c o m m u n i c a t i v e a c t i v i t y s h o w s t h e f o l l o w i n g f e a t u r e s : 1. i n f o r m a t i o n gap - w h i c h e x i s t s if o n e part
8
knows something the other does not;
2. choice - which allows the
part
to select
what he will say and how he will say it?
3* feedback - which offers the
speaker a
chance to evaluate whether or not his
purpose
has been
achieved based upon the information he receives
from his
listener«
The ideas presented above coincide with the
concept of 'communicative competence
',
first
p r o p o s e d
by
Hymes <1972). Larsen-Freeman <1986)
offers
the following
contribution to clarify this concept:
C o m m u n i c a t i u e
competence involves
being
a b l e to use the language appropriate to a
g i v e n social context. To do this students
need k n o w l e d g e of the linguistic forms,
meanings,, and functions. They
need to
k n o w that many different forms can be
used to perform a function and also that
a single form can often serue a variety
of functions. They must be able to choose
from among these the roost appropriate
form, giuen the social context and the
roles of the interlocutors. They must
also be able to manage the process of
negotiating
meaning
with
their
interlocutors
( P . 1 3 1 ) . T h i s s e e m s t o m e a n that 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 v o l v e s for t h e l e a r n e r to d e v e l o p : k n o w l e d g e on g r a m m a r a n d v o c a b u l a r y ; a b i l i t y to u se r u l e s of s p e a k i n g , i. e. , t o s t a r t , d e v e l o p a n d e n d c o n v e r s a t i o n s a d e q u a t e l y , toetc, and finally to the perception of the social setting in which the speech event takes place, i. e„, the relationship between speaker and i n t e r l o c u t o r .
Canale <1983) di stinguishes "communicative competence' from "actual communication' by emphasizing that the former becomes an essential part of the latter. For him,
'communicative competence' refers to both knowledge and skill in using this knowledge when interacting in 'actual communication'.
Canale's < i b i d > view forwarded above is very similar to Prabhu"s (ibid), in the sense that Prabhu suggests that linguistic competence is acquired if the learner focuses on meaning from the very beginning and, then, deploys it in c o m m u n i c a t i o n .
For the clarification of the notion of
'communicative competence' Canale <1983) has a framework which includes four areas of knowledge and skill:
a. Grammatical Competence. This concerns the
language knowledge and skill required to understand and express accurately the literal meaning of utterances;
b. Sociolinguistic Competence. This regards the rules through which utterances are produced appropriately in different sociolinguistic contexts;
c. Discourse Competence. This concerns
speakers' mastery of how to combine grammatical forms and meanings to achieve a cohesive and coherent spoken or uritten type of text;
d. Strategic Competence. This refers to the mastery of verbal and non-verbal communication strategies to be put into action <1 ) to compensate for breakdowns in communication, and < 2) to improve the effectiveness of communicat i o n .
For Canale < ibid ) linguistic communicative competence interacts with other systems of knowledge and
10
skill (e.g., world knowledge, communicative strategies, etc.) and with a theory of human action (dealing with such factors as volition and personality ).
Similarly to Canale's contribution to the
concept of 7communic ati ve competence', Widdowson's ( 1978)
no tions of usage and use have greatly contributed to the
ch ara cterization of the "communicative teaching". In order to clearly characte riz e these two notions Widdowson initially introduces two other elements: correctness and appropriacy. The first deals with the learners' ability to produce correct sentences; the second with the learners' ability to use sentences for communicative effect. Based on these concepts, Widdowson (1978) defines usage as the ability to co mpose correct sentences, which depends upon the knowledge of the gra mma tic al rules of the language being learned; and use as the aspect of performance which shows the learner's ability to use his linguistic knowledge for "effective c o m m u n i c a t i o n " .
In Widdowson's (ibid) perspective speakers do not simply manifest the abstract linguistic system when they
use the language (usage) but they realize the language
system as meaningful communicative behaviour (use).
For Widdowson (ibid) 'usage' and 'use' are
aspects of Chomsky's notion of performance which is the
actual use of language. That is to say, on the one hand,
'usage' is one aspect of performance because it is that aspect which makes evident the extent to which the language user demonstr ate s his knowledge of linguistic rules. On the other hand, 'use' is another aspect of performance because it e v idences the language learner's ability to use his knowled ge
of linguistic rules for effective communication., For
speakers, 'usage' and 'use' are simultaneous manifestations of language and are inseparable when people are engaged in real c o n v e r s a t i o n .
A n o t h e r a b i l i t y l e a r n e r s must d e v e l o p in t heir l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n p r o c e s s is t h e ab il it y to i n t e r p r e t s p e e c h / o r w r i t t e n l a n g u a g e in its t o t a l co nt ex t, i. e„, l e a r n e r s must d e v e l o p t h e a b i l i t y to u n d e r s t a n d an d b u i l d " t exts", o r a l or w r i t t e n that h a v e c e r t a i n q u a l i t i e s . For e x a m p l e , the inner e l e m e n t s / s e n t e n c e s of a tex t m u st be s t r u n g t o g e t h e r c o h e s i v e l y a n d in t e r m s of m e a n i n g they c a n n o t c o n t r a d i c t t h e m e n t a l s c h e m a t a a n d t h e s c r i p t s a l r e a d y s t o r e d in th e l e a r n e r s 7 memo ry . In t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e it is w o r t h w h i l e to b r i e f l y look at t he s t a n d a r d s of t e x t u a l i t y s u g g e s t e d by B e a u g r a n d e and D r e s s i e r < 19 81 ) s i n c e I am g o i n g to look c r i t i c a l l y at th e d i a l o g u e s p r e s e n t e d in th e t e a c h i n g m a t e r i a l s and p r o d u c e d by the learners.
B e a u g r a n d e and D r e s s i e r ( 1 9 8 1 ) d e f i n e a text a s a " c o m m u n i c a t i v e o c c u r r e n c e w h i c h m e e t s seven s t a n d a r d s of t e x t u a l i t y " (p.3 ) . A c c o r d i n g to them, "if any of t h e s e s t a n d a r d s is not c o n s i d e r e d to h a v e been s a t i s f i e d the text w i l l not be c o m m u n i c a t i v e . N o n ~ c o m m u n i c a t i v e t e x t s a r e t r e a t e d as n o n - t e x t s " (p.3 ). T h e a u t h o r s s u g ge st s even s t a n d a r d s of t e x t u a l i t y : 1) C o h e s i o n , w h i c h s u g g e s t s the t i e s and c o n n e c t i o n s t h e w o r d s s h o w w i t h i n texts. It " r e s t s upon g r a m m a t i c a l d e p e n d e n c i e s " <p: 3> . 2 ) C o h e r e n c e , w h i c h r e g a r d s t h e w a y s p e o p l e m a k e s e n s e of what they r e a d or hear t h r o u g h c o n c e p t s an d r e l a t i o n s . C o n c e p t s a r e k n o w l e d g e and r e l a t i o n s a r e the c o n n e c t i o n s b e t w e e n c o n c e p t s in t h e t e x t u a l e n v i r o n m e n t . S o m e r e l a t i o n s a r e c a s u a l i t y , e n a b l e m e n t , reason, pu rp os e, time, etc. 3) I n t e n t i o n a l i t y , w h i c h c o n c e r n s w r i t e r ' s d e c i s i o n to c r e a t e a c o h e s i v e a n d c o h e r e n t text w h i c h w i l l p r o v i d e the r e a d e r w i t h k n o w l e d g e , or w il l r e a c h an o b j e c t i v e p r e v i o u s l y p l a n n e d .
12
4) Acceptabi l i t y , which deals with the* text receiver's intention in detecting, in the text, some use or relevan ce for himself, e.g., to attain kno wledge or to offer co-participation in a plan.
5) I n f o r m a t i v i t y , which is concerned with the amount and quality of information which is delivered to the r e c e i v e r .
6) S i t u a t i o n a l i t y , which regards the elements which give to a text a certain relevance in a specific situat i o n .
7) Finally, I n t e r t e x t u a l i t y , which concerns the features which make one text dependent upon and connected to knowledge of other texts.
These standards forwarded above work as
constitutive principles of actual communication. Beaugrande and Dressier <1981:11) also suggest the existance of 3 regulative principles which guarantee communication in texts:
Efficiency, Effecti ven ess and Appropriacy. Efficiency
guarantees the maximum communication with a minimum effort by th e participants; Effectiveness concerns the creation of special conditions for reaching an objective; Appropriateness s u ggests the existence of agreement between the textual setting and the standards of textuality. These principles
were developed in relation to written texts but are
applicable to spoken texts as well.
So far I have characterized the communicative
view of language acquisition, and I have discussed the
no tio ns of communication/communicative. They are both
important aspects for my discussion of the communicative v alues of the teaching materials to be analysed in Chapter 4.
1.3. CONVERSA TIO NAL ANALYSIS
b e c a u s e c o n v e r s a t i o n a 1 r u l e s are an i n t r i n s i c part of c o m m u n i c a t i v e a c t i v i t i e s and b e c a u s e of th e e m p h a s i s of my work on t he s t r u c t u r e of d i a l o g u e s / c o n v e r s a t i o n s .
W h i l e for most h um an b e i n g s c o n v e r s a t i o n s are a m o n g their most c o m m o n d a ily a c t i v i t i e s , for r e s e a r c h e r s t h e s t r u c t u r e and r u l e s of c o n v e r s a t i o n h a v e b e c o m e an o b j e c t of i n t r i g u i n g i n q ui r y . L i n g u i s t s a n d s o c i o l o g i s t s h a v e g r e a t l y c o n t r i b u t e d to t h e s t r u c t u r a l d e s c r i p t i o n , u n d e r s t a n d i n g , and c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of c o n v e r s a t i o n , s p e c i a l l y in the area of d i s c o u r s e a n a l y s i s . S o c i o l o g i s t s and e t h n o m e t h o d o l o g i s t s h a v e i n t e r p r e t e d c o n v e r s a t i o n , in general, as s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n , a n d h a v e g r e a t l y i n f l u e n c e d c o n v e r s a t i o n a 1 stu d ies . E t h n o m e t h o d o l o g i s t s ' i n t e r e s t is in p e o p l e ' s e v e r y d a y s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s and, as R i c h a r d s and S c h m i d t ( 1 9 8 3 ) h a v e p o i n t e d out, t heir c o n c e r n h a s g iven o p p o r t u n i t y for a gr eat n u m b e r of s t u d i e s on n a t u r a l c o n v e r s a t i o n s . The a u t h o r s c e n t e r e d their a t t e n t i o n on s o m e of the most r e l e v a n t f e a t u r e s of talk, a n d on t h e c o m pl e x c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of its o r g a n i z a t i o n .
For R i c h a r d s a n d S c h m i d t ( 1 9 8 3 ) and H y m e s ( 1 9 7 2 ) c o n v e r s a t i o n is seen as a s p e e c h eve nt , that is, an a c t i v i t y d i r e c t l y c o n t r o l l e d by r u l e s for t h e u s e of s p e e ch . A s a s p e e c h event, c o n v e r s a t i o n can be d i s t i n g u i s h e d f ro m o ther k i n d s of s p e e c h e v e n t s as lectures, d i s c u s s i o n s , s e r m o n s , c o u r t r o o m tr ials, i n t e r v i e w s , d e b a t e s an d m e e t i n g s . E a c h of t h e s e e v e n t s d i f f e r in t h e n u m b e r of p a r t i c i p a n t s , in t h e t y p e and am ou n t of t a l k i n g of the p a r t i c i p a n t s , s e t t i n g , key, p u r p o s e a n d o t h e r s. M o r e o v e r , s p e e c h e v e n t s h a v e s p e c i f i c n o r m s for b e g i n n i n g s , m i d d l e s and ends, a n d “v i o l a t i o n s of t h e s e are n o t i c e a b l e a n d r e p o r t a b l e " < p : l l 9 ) . R i c h a r d s a n d S c h m i d t ( i b i d ) a r g u e t h at when p e o p l e talk they not only e x c h a n g e in f o r m a t i o n , but a l s o b r i n g to t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n " s h a r e d a s s u m p t i o n s and e x p e c t a t i o n s a b o u t what c o n v e r s a t i o n is, h o w c o n v e r s a t i o n
14 is, h o w c o n v e r s a t i o n d e v e l o p s , a n d t h e sort of c o n t r i b u t i o n t h e y a r e e x p e c t e d to m a k e " ( p :11 9- 12 0 >. When p e o p l e are t a l k i n g t h e y u s e c o m m o n p r i n c i p l e s t h a t a l l o w t h e m to i n t e r p r e t e a c h o t h e r ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o c o n v e r s a t i o n . Z o r n i g ( 1 9 8 7 ) p o i n t s out t h a t p e o p l e ' s i n t e r a c t i o n d o e s not c o n si st of r a n d o m u t t e r a n c e s , r a t h e r s p e a k e r s r e c o g n i z e a c o m m o n p u r p o s e a n d try to b u i l d t h e i r u t t e r a n c e s i nt o c o o p e r a t i v e e f f o r t s . W e can a s s u m e t h a t t h e p r o p e r t i e s and c o n v e n t i o n s of c o n v e r s a t i o n a r e l e a r n a b l e by l a n g u a g e learn e rs , e i t h e r by s i m p l e e x p o s u r e in a n a t u r a l a c q u i s i t i o n s e t t i n g or by l e a r n i n g in a f o r m a l c l a s s r o o m s i t u a t i o n . In t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e we can e x p e c t that t h e l ang u a g e < th e d i a l o g u e s ) p r o d u c e d by our f o r e i g n l a n g u a g e c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i s t s w i l l s h o w s o m e or all of t he p r o p e r t i e s and c o n v e n t i o n s of c o n v e r s a t i o n . T h i s leads us to a m o r e c a r e f u l a n a l y s i s of t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of c o n v e r s a t i o n , that is, t he n o t i o n of c o o p e r a t i o n a n d s t r u c t u r e in c o n v e r s â t i o n . T h e f irst co nc ep t, c o o p e r a t i o n , is i m p o r t a n t in my work b e c a u s e in t h e next s e c t i o n of t h i s study, I w i l l b e m a k i n g a q u a l i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s of th e d i a l o g u e s p r o d u c e d by t h e learners. 1.3.1. TH E C O O P E R A T I V E P R I N C I P L E Th i s p r i n c i p l e w a s s u g g e s t e d by G r i c e ( 1 9 7 5 ) a n d r e g u l a t e s p e o p l e ' s talk e x c h a n g e s . He b e l i e v e s that p e o p l e ' s talk 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 c o o p e r a t i v e e f f o r t s in w h i c h e a c h p a r t i c i p a n t r e c o g n i z e s common p u r p o s e s or m u t u a l l y a c c e p t e d d i r e c t i o n s . T h e s e p u r p o s e s or d i r e c t i o n s a r e not s t r i c t l y fixed, but may be f i x e d p r e v i o u s l y at the b e g i n n i n g of c o n v e r s a t i o n , or d u r i n g the e x ch an ge . G r i c e d e f i n e s h i s ' c o o p e r a t i v e p r i n c i p l e " : "make your c o n v e r s â t iona 1 c o n t r i b u t i o n s u c h as is re qu i r e d , at the
s t a g e at w h i c h it o ccurs, by t h e a c c e p t e d p u r p o s e or d i r e c t i o n of the talk e x c h a n g e in w h i c h you are e n g a g e d " < 1 9 7 5 : 4 5 ) , f r o m w h i c h the f o l l o w i n g m a x i m s are d e r i v e d :
a. M a x i m of Q u a n t i t y : t h e s p e a k e r s h o u l d m a k e h i s c o n t r i b u i t i o n as i n f o r m a t i v e as r e q u i r e d , but no m o r e t h a n that;
b. M a x i m of Q u a l i t y : t h e s p e a k e r s h o u l d speak t h e truth, i.e., h e s h o u l d not say a n y t h i n g he b e l i e v e s u n t r u e or lacks e v i d e n c e for;
c. M a x i m of R e l a t i o n : th e s p e a k e r s h o u l d m ak e h i s c o n t r i b u i t i o n r e l e v a n t to t h e p u r p o s e of c o n v e r s a t i o n ;
d. M a x i m of M a n ner: th e s p ea k e r s h o u l d a v o i d o b s c u r i t y , a m b i g u i t y , d i s o r d e r l i n e s s and w o r d i n e s s in his use of language, i.e., he s h o u l d b e clear;
C o m m e n t i n g on G r i c e ' s < 1 9 7 5 ) p r o p o s a l in r e l a t i o n to t h e m axims, C o u l t h a r d ( 1 9 7 7 ) states: It is i m p o r t a n t to r e a l i z e t ha t t h e s e m a x i m s do not r e p r e s e n t a d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t e m e n t of h o w c o n v e r s a t i o n a 1 c o n t r i b u i t i o n s are: firstly, t h e r e w i l l a l w a y s be o c c a s i o n s when a s p e a k e r d e c i d e s to " qu ietly and u n o s t e n t a t i o u s l y V I O L A T E a maxim' - he may lie, h e may not g i v e as m u c h of the r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n as he could, or h e may, like t he D e l p h i c or ac le , offer u t t e r a n c e s w h i c h a r e only later seen to be a m bi g u o u s ; seco n d l y , and m u c h m o r e i m p o r t a n t l y , t h e r e w i l l be o c c a s i o n s when a sp e a k e r is seen to b reak a m a x i m e i t h e r b e c a u s e he ha s been f a c e d u i t h C L A S H b e t w e e n t w o maxims, m a k i n g it i m p o s s i b l e , for insta nc e, for h i m to be
16
as specific as he ought to be and still
to say nothing for which he lacks
a deq uat e evidence,- or because he has chosen to FLOUT a m a x i m , 'that is to say, he may blantantly fail to fulfil it. In such instances the c o n v e r s a t i o n a 1 maxims pr ovide a basis for the listener to infer what is being conversationally implicated < p:31 ).
Zo rni g (1987) says that when people speak they are assumed to be working with reference to Grice's (1975) "cooperative principle". For Fraser ( 1980), Grice's maxims imply the notion of c o n v e r s a t i o n a 1 implicature which suggests that the speaker is cooperative in c o n v e r s a t i o n , that is, he attempts to make the required conversation contribution when appropri ate and in an appropriate way.
Thus whenever there is a failure in observing a maxim the hearer has to determine what the speaker is a i m i n g at.
Fraser exemplifies:
Su ppose I ask you for your opinion of
Jones, your student, who is applying for
a position, and you reply, 'Hr. Jones
d r ess es very carefully and comes to class on time'. Now, if I assume you are still
cooperating, I must conclude you have a
reason for your failure to provide relevant information. I might conclude that you are
attempt ing to 'tell' me that Jones does
not have your r e c o m m e n d a t i o n , perhaps 'Jones isn't the right person'
In t h e s a m p l e of l a n g u a g e I w i l l analyse, if I a s s u m e th e c h i l d r e n p r o d u c i n g t h e d i a l o g u e s a r e c o o p e r a t i v e , but t he l a n g u a g e u s e d is not a p p r o p r i a t e , I c o u l d p o s s i b l y c o n c l u d e that t h e r e w e r e c o m m u n i c a t i o n or l i n g u i s t i c p r o b l e m s t h at m a d e t h e c h i l d r e n ' s / lea rners' c o n t r i b u t i o n l i n g u i s t i c a l l y ( f o r m ) or c o m m u n i c a t i v e l y ( s o c i a l l y ) i n a p p r o p r i a t e . In o t h e r words, w i l l i n g n e s s to c o o p e r a t e is not a s u f f i c i e n t p r e - r e q u i s i t e for l a n g u a g e l e a r n e r s t o p r o d u c e a p p r o p r i a t e c o n v e r s a t i o n . T h e r e are a l so s t r u c t u r a l n o r m s w h i c h must b e f o l l o w e d . 1.3.2. C O N V E R S A T I O N A L S T R U C T U R E R e s e a r c h e r s like M a r c u s c h i ( 1 9 8 6 ) a d v o c a t e that c o n v e r s a t i o n is t h e first of l i n g u i s t i c f o r m s to w h i c h we are e x p o s e d and p r o b a b l y th e only o n e of w h i c h we h a v e not a b d i c a t e d d u r i n g life. For him, c o n v e r s a t i o n , as a c u l t u r a l l y m a r k e d s ystem, p r e s e n t s r u l e s of u s e w h i c h o v e r c o m e the r ul es of language. For S a c k s ( a p u d C o u l t h a r d , 19 7 7 : 6 9 ) c o n v e r s a t i o n is a s t r i n g of at least t w o tur ns , t h e A D J A C E N C Y PAIRS, w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g f e a t u r e s :
a. T h e y are t w o u t t e r a n c e s long.
b . T h e u t t e r a n c e s a r e p r o d u c e d s u c c e s s i v e l y by d i f f e r e n t spea k e r s .
c . T h e u t t e r a n c e s a r e or d e r e d , that is, the f i r s t u t t e r a n c e is s a i d by t h e c l a s s of f i r s t pair part s, a n d the s e c o n d one is a s s u m e d by the c l a s s of s e c o n d pair parts.
18 Ex a m p l i f i c a t i o n S A: Hi, Maristela. B; Hi, Nivea. < TD : 145 ) and ASBye-Bye B n Bye-Bye ( FD S169 ) According to Coulthard (1977),
A class of first parts includes Questions,
Greetings, Challenges, Offers, Requests,
Complaints, Invitations, Announcements;
for some first pair parts the second pair part is reciprocal ( G r e e t i n g - G r e e t i n g >,
for some there is only one appropriate
second ( Q u e s t i o n - A n s w e r >, for some more than one < Complain-apol ogy /ju sti fic ati on ) (P .69).
As basic structural units in c o n v e r s a t i o n ,
Adjacency Pairs are used for opening and closing
c o n v e r s a t i o n , and also for enabling the speakers to avoid both gap and overlap. The final part of dialogue (FD:166) b e l o w shows a pre-closing (PC) and closing (C ) S
PC - Bn What time is it ? Cs It's 2 o'clock. B: Thank you.
A/B: It's late.
C - Bye-Bye.
C: Bye-Bye. < F D : 1 6 6 >
1 .3 . 2 . 1 . T U R N T A K I N G
Adjacency Pairs are made of turns for which Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson's (1974) model presents the fo llowing features:
a. Speaker change overwhelmingly recurs and at least occurs.
b. Ove rwhelmingly one party talks at a time. c. Oc cur en ces of more than one at a time are
common, but brief.
d. Transiti ons from one turn to a next with no gap and no overlap are common.
e. Turn order is not fixed, but varies. f. Turn size is not fixed, but varies.
g. Length of conversation is not specified in advance.
h. What parties say is not fixed or specified in advance.
i. R elative distribuition of turns is not fixed, but varies.
j. The number of parties to a conversation can c h a n g e .
k. Conversation can be continuous or
discontinuous.
1. Turn-allocation techniques are used.
m. Various t u r n - c o n s t r u c t i o n a 1 units are em plo yed for the production of the talk that occupies the turn; that is to say, sentential, clausal, phrasal, and lexical
20
units.
n. Repair
mechanisms for
dealing
with
turn-taking errors and violation obviously
are available for use <p.!0 - li ).
Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974) have
s uggested a
simplified
systematics for the turn-taking
organization of conversation. A basic rule for turn taking
tells that each speaker speaks at a time. This means that
neither all speakers speak at the same time nor one speaker
speaks all the time.
The turn taking system includes rules and
techniques suggested
by Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson
< i b i d > uhich are summarized by Ma r c u s c h i - < 1986 >. They are:
Tech n i qu e I - the current speaker chooses the
next
speaker who takes the
floor and starts the next turn.
Techn iq u e II - the current speaker stops and
the next speaker takes the
•floor for his/her own choice.
T echniques I and II include tuo basic rules:
Rule 1 - For each turn, the first exchange of
speaker may occur if;
(la): the current s p e a k e r , C> chooses the
next speaker, N, according to the
techn i q ue I;
(lb): the current s p e a k e r , C , does not
follow the technique I to choose the
next
speaker,
H.
Thus,
any
- but not necessarily - choose hi mse lf/herself as the next speaker, ac cor din g to the t ech niq ue II;
(lc): the current speaker, C , does not choose the next speaker, N , and not
any other speaker c hoo ses
h imse lf / h e r s e l f , th us the current speaker, C , may go on with the t u r n .
Rul e 2 - If in the re levant occasion for the turn e x c h a n g e neither (la) nor (lb) oc c u r s but (lc), in w hic h the current speaker, C , goes on with th e turn , then the r u l e s (la), (lb) and (lc) are o b e y e d in the next first re lev ant o cca s i o n for the turn
exchange. A nd if this does not
ha ppe n the p r o c e d u r e will be the same, r e c u r s i v e l y , un til th e e x c h a n g e t a k e s p l a c e (p. 19-21 ).
R i c h a r d s and Sch m i d t ( 1 9 8 3 ) a l s o e m p h a s i z e that the t u r n s are not at r a n d o m d i s t r i b u i t e d a m o n g the p a r t i c i p a n t s , but r u l e d by no r m s w h i c h i n d i c a t e "who talks, when, a nd or for how long" (p :l41). G o o d c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i s t s , they argue, m a n a g e t u r n - t a k i n g r u l e s w e l l and c o n t r i b u t e to p o s i t i v e e v a l u a t i o n , w h i l e poor c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i s t s may cau se a c o n v e r s a t i o n to " a r o u s e n e g a t i v e e v a l u a t i o n s or may m a k e t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n to t e r m i n a t e a b r u p t l y " ( ibi d). They d e f e n d t h e idea that " p a r t i c i p a n t s in c o n v e r s a t i o n are i n v o l v e d in o n g o i n g e v a l u a t i o n of e a c h o t h e r ' s u t t e r a n c e s , to judge a p p r o p r i a t e p l a c e s to t a k e up the turn to t a l k " < i b i d ). T he n o t i o n of tur n t a k i n g w ill be e s p e c i a l l y u s e f u l for the a n a l y s i s of th e d i a l o g u e s p r o d u c e d by t h e c h i l d r e n .
1 . 3 .2.2. O P E N I N G S A N D C L O S I N G S
Conversa tio ns begin, develop and end.
Openings, de velopments and closings are explicitly organized by conversationalists. For Richards and Schmidt <1983) they are not only c o n v e r s a t ion -sp eci fic but also speech event-specific. These authors suggest that for many speech events there is an initial summons (the ringing of a bell),
or a setting (a church), or a specific number of
p a rticipants (for a lecture). Some speech events may open as soon as the required persons are assembled, others ask for formal markers before the event properly initiates (a person saying ' r i g h t 7 >.
Different from many other speech events,
Richards and Schmidt (1983) emphasize, a conversation does not require proper setting, time or place, does not have roles other than persons, does not necessarily present agenda, and asks for a quorum of simply two or more. " C o n v e r s â t ions normally open with an adjacency pair' such as, for example, G r e e t i n g - G r e e t i n g , R e q u e s t - O r a n t , Q u e s t i o n - A n s w e r , or S tat ement-Response" (p:l33>. Bearing the f o llowing samples of openings in mind,
a. A: Good Morning. B: Hi. ( p . 133 ) b. As Got a match ? B: Sure. (p .134 )
c. A: Ho w do you like our sh ow ?
B: You h a v e son«? b e a u t i f u l p a i n t i n g s here. ( p . 134 >
d. A: That was a t e r r i b l e lecture.
B: Yeah, I w i s h he c o u l d speak in n o r m a l En g l i s h . ( P . 1 3 4 ) R i c h a r d s and S c h m i d t ( 1 9 8 3 ) state: S u c h a d j a c e n c y p a i r s p r o v i d e for the i m m e d i a t e p a r t i c i p a t i o n of b o t h p a r t i e s to a c o n v e r s a t i o n and a ls o a l l o w for th e p o s s i b i l i t y of f ur t h e r talk (e.g., q u e s t i o n e r s h a v e t h e right to ask a no t h e r q u e s t i o n ) but n on e of the e x a m p l e s a b o v e c o n s i s t of o p e n e r s that must i n e v i t a b l y lead to a full c o n v e r s a t i o n (p. 134). As far as c l o s i n g s a re c o n c e r n e d , R i c h a r d and S c h m i d t ( i b i d ) c l a i m that they do not s i m pl y h a p p e n , but a r e o r g a n i z e d and c o o r d i n a t e d by a ct s of t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i s t s . S c h e g l o f f and S a c k s ( A p u d C o u l t h a r d : 9 1 ) a l s o e m p h a s i z e that r e a l c o n v e r s a t i o n s m u s t b e c l o s e d by p a r t i c i p a n t s in su ch a way that o ne s p e a k e r ' s c o m p l e t i o n w i l l not o c c a s i o n a n o t h e r s p e a k e r ' s talk, an d that c o m p l e t i o n w i l l not b e h e a r d as some s p e a k e r ' s sil e n c e . For c l o s i n g s t h e e a s i e s t s o l u t i o n is t h e u s e of an e x c h a n g e of g o o d b y e s . S o m e t i m e s c l o s i n g s are p r e c e d e d by p r e - c l o s i n g s s u c h as 'well', 'ok...', 'Soo-oo'. P r e - c l o s i n g s n o r m a l l y lead t o a t e r m i n a l e x c h a n g e . H owe v er, s o m e t i m e s , p r e - c l o s i n g s do not lead t o c l o s i n g of c o n v e r s a t i o n but to t o p i c clos i n g s . R i c h a r d s and Sc h m i d t ( i b i d ) in th e f o l l o w i n g p a r a g r a p h p r e s e n t s e v e r a l w a y s
24
closings can be introduced. They state:
Conversa tio nas lis ts may set up for
closing by referring to their own
interests ( 'Well I gotta go' > or to the other party's interests ('Well, I don't want to keep you any longer.'). The routine questions that often occur at the be gin nin gs of conversations < 'what are you doing ?') can provide material for moves towards conclusion < 'so, I guess I'll let you get back to your books.' ) Re inv oki ng the reason for entering a conversation < 'so, well, I just wanted to know how you were doing.'), and making
ar ran gem ent s for future conversation
< 'Yeah, Ok, so we should get together soon') are among the resources available for making conversations reach closure smoothly (p:l34)„
The literature shows that it is not only person to person c onversations that open and close. Marcuschi
(1986), for example, looks at Schegloff's (1972) model for
telephone co nve rsa tio ns and suggests that telephone
conversa tio ns also present openings, d evelopments and
closings. Coulthard (1977) had already suggested that it is a ge neral rule that telephne conversations are structurally very similar to daily c o n v e r s a t i o n s .
In this section I have covered some of the literature related to openings and closings and attempted to
point out their relevance for good conversationalists.
which constitutes the 'developments' in c o n v e r s a t i o n , i. e., the subject matter <s> c onv ersa tionalists talk about. This is
not a major interest in my thesis but a short
ch ara cterization of topic seems necessary to make the
connection between openings and closings in c o n v e r s a t i o n .
1.3.2.3. TOPIC
Coulthard <1977:79) starts the discussion on Topic by asking what sort of things can and do form topics in c o n v e r s a t i o n . His own answer is that "some topics are not relevant to particular con versations and the suitability of other topics depends on the person one is talking to". For Courlthard (ibid), people " e x p e r i e n c e , see, hear about events all the time, of which some are tellable to everyone,
some have a restricted audience, some must be told
immediately, some can wait and still retain their interest" ( P .79 ).
For Marcuschi (1986), developments in
conversation may include one or several topics. Topics constitute an essential feature of a conversation. When people talk they tend to respect norms concerning the choice of topics. Richards and Schmidt (1983) assume that the way topics are chosen for discussion, and the strategies speakers use to initiate, develop, or move away from topics in a c o n v e r s a t i o n , compose a relevant aspect of the c o n v e r s a t i o n a 1 f o r m a t .
Another point concerning topics is that they depend heavily on cultural norms. Topics are restricted to the speech events or activity in which talk happens. Thus, topics which may be part of a meeting are limited and may be
agreed on in advance. On the other hand, ordinary
conversation allows for unlimited possibilities for topics.
26
u n d e r stan di ng among the parties. Richards and Schmidt (1983) state in this respect:
Norms for how one conducts oneself
vis-a-vis specific categories of persons are still in effect, and not only are we constrained from talking about certain things with certain people, there may also be requirements about what we should talk about (p:136).
The authors also advocate that sequences such as adjacency pairs and openings give talkers an apportunity to initiate the first topic and to position topics within c o n v e r s a t i o n . For them, the participants choose a topic as first topic through a process of negotiation, but the "first topic may also be held until the conversation develops to a point it can be appropriately introduced" (p:l37). The e x ample below is one way of how a conversation may open:
A: What's up ?
B: Not much. What's up with you ? A: Nothing ( p . 137).
Later, after several acts, one of the
p a rt i c i p a n t s may wish to initiate a topic as, for example, his job, travelling plans, etc.
Richards and Schmidt (ibid) clarify that
longer forms of speech are functionally strung together in th e adjacency pair fashion, consisting of two uterances, each spoken by a different speaker. They explain:
An adjacency pair Criticize~Apology has
Forgive. A Request that is •followed by a Reject may precipitate a Repeat Request,
which could again be rejected,
side-stepped, ignored, etc. A Question may not be followed immediately by its ex pected second pair of Answer, but may
be a nswered by another Question,
re sulting in embedding:
A: Can you come by for dinner tonight ? B: What time ?
A: About 7.
B: Sure, love to (p:l37).
The authors defend the existence of an
hierarchical nature of conversation. For example, a question may not be answered with a single utterance but rather with a long story. This may in turn initiate other turns through which speakers will deal with topics. Winskowski (1977, 1978) alludes to top icalizing behavior by which he means initiating topics, reacting to other people's topics, refering to or
avoiding the reference to something, leading the talk one
step further - that is, the manipulation of topic in the conversat i o n . And he concludes:
With this focus on topic as process, we
can see that topic behavour often
consists of rounds of topical turns which are reciprocally addressed and replied to, as in the following example:
A: Oh nothing, we're just cleaning, we had dinner. What's new ?
28
A: Oh, has it improved at all hopefully. B: Yeah, it's gotten better, it's gotten
b e t t e r .
It'll be all right tomorrow. It better because I'm going out tomorrow <p. 86).
Winskowski (1977) is retaken by Marcuschi <1986) who emphas ize s that topical coherence is not in the
individual production but it is on the alternate
participation of the speakers involved in the c o n v e r s a t i o n . For Richards and Schmidt <1983) while topics
may be negotiated by conversatio nal ist s extensively or
briefly and show levels of complexity, this negotiation
requires features like topic nomination, ratification
< acceptance ), elaboration and comment <by the hearer). These four elements are also found in both children's riddles and adult brief mentions as well.
1 .3 . 2 . 4 . R E P A I R S
C o n v e r s a t i o n a 1 monitoring aims at ensuring
that messages have been properly negotiated by
c o n v e r s â t i o n a l i s t s . It often includes correction of inappropr iate attemps to communicate. The term '‘r e p a i r 11 alludes to efforts by participants to eliminate problems in conversât i o n . Repairs may be initiated by either the speaker or by the hearer.
Tarone <1977) has suggested that the concept of repair in second language communication may include communication strategies. These strategies are self-initiated m onitoring and may be, for example, requests for assistance, which happen when the speaker is making e fforts to deal with concepts for which he is lacking vocabulary in the target language. Some of these strategies are: a p p r o x i m a t i o n , word
coinage, c i r c u m l o c u t i o n , borrowing, mime, topic shift, topic avoidance, etc.
So far, in this chapter, I have studied the
relevant literature for the characterization of
c o m m un ica tiv e language teaching, with special emphasis on the
notion of communication, and definition and structure of
conversation. I have discussed the notions of cooperative
principle, adjacency pair, turn-taking, topics
(developments), closings and openings, and repairs.
In the next chapter I will present a
me tho d o l o g i c a l framework of how the communicative language teaching can be implemented. The proposal is based on L i t t l e woo d's (1981) work.
