Foreign Language Teaching in Asia and Beyond: Current Perspectives and Future Directions (Studies in Second and Foreign Language Education)

Foreign Language Teaching in Asia and Beyond Studies in Second and Foreign Language Education 3 Editors Anna Uhl Cha...

Author: Wai Meng Chan | Kwee Nyet Chin | Titima Suthiwan

24 downloads 830 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Foreign Language Teaching in Asia and Beyond

Studies in Second and Foreign Language Education 3

Editors

Anna Uhl Chamot Wai Meng Chan

De Gruyter Mouton

Foreign Language Teaching in Asia and Beyond Current Perspectives and Future Directions

edited by

Wai Meng Chan Kwee Nyet Chin Titima Suthiwan

De Gruyter Mouton

ISBN 978-1-61451-000-0 e-ISBN 978-1-61451-016-1 ISSN 2192-0982 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Foreign language teaching in Asia and beyond : current perspectives and future directions / edited by Wai Meng Chan, Kwee Nyet Chin and Titima Suthiwa. p. cm. ⫺ (Studies in second and foreign language education; 3) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-61451-000-0 (alk. paper) 1. Language and languages ⫺ Study and teaching. 2. Second language acquisition. I. Chan, Wai Meng, 1962⫺ II. Chin, Kwee Nyet. III. Titima Suthiwan. P53.F599 2011 418.0071105⫺dc23 2011020141

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. ” 2011 Walter de Gruyter, Inc., Boston Cover image: Creatas/Thinkstock Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ⬁ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface

Chapter 1 Foreign language teaching in Asia and beyond: An introduction to the book Wai Meng Chan, Kwee Nyet Chin and Titima Suthiwan

vii

1

Part 1: Theoretical foundation and research Chapter 2 Preparing language teachers to teach learning strategies Anna Uhl Chamot

29

Chapter 3 Discourse Politeness Theory and second language acquisition Mayumi Usami

45

Chapter 4 Integrating general purpose and vocationally-oriented language learning (VOLL) – New goals for language and teacher training Christina Kuhn

71

Chapter 5 Pragmatics in foreign language teaching and learning: Reflections on the teaching of Chinese in China Hong Wang

93

Chapter 6 Development of a foreign language anxiety model Yujia Zhou

109

Chapter 7 Facilitating students’ understanding of English news: Peer scaffolding in an EFL listening classroom Danli Li

135

vi

Table of Contents

Chapter 8 Vocabulary learning strategies among adult foreign language learners Shameem Rafik-Galea and Bee Eng Wong

145

Part 2: Classroom practice and evaluation studies Chapter 9 Technology in the service of constructivist pedagogy: Network-based applications and knowledge construction Wai Meng Chan and Ing Ru Chen

191

Chapter 10 Pedagogical concerns: Some common features of content-based instruction, task-based learning and business case study, and their roles in an EBP class Wenhua Hsu

217

Chapter 11 Memorizing dialogues: The case for “Performative Exercises” Izumi Walker and Tomoko Utsumi

243

Chapter 12 The whole world communicates in English, do you? — Educational drama as an alternative approach to teaching English language in Japan Naoko Araki-Metcalfe

271

Chapter 13 From oral interview test to oral communication test: Alleviating students’ anxiety Satomi Chiba and Yoko Morikawa

289

Authors and their affiliations

315

Index

317

PREFACE

In December 2004, the Centre for Language Studies of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at the National University of Singapore, held its inaugural Centre for Language Studies International Conference or CLaSIC 2004. The three-day conference brought together over 200 academics, researchers, practitioners and other professionals from Asia and beyond for a productive and rewarding exchange of insights, experiences, views and perspectives on current and future developments in foreign language education and the important feeder disciplines of second language acquisition and linguistics. It also provided an avenue for the discussion and critical examination of new and innovative concepts and approaches expected to have an impact on future practices. In all, some 140 papers and posters were presented, twelve of which have been selected for publication in this book by the editors following reviews by a Scientific Committee, consisting of Anna Uhl Chamot (The George Washington University), Stephen Culhane (Kagoshima University), Hermann Funk (University of Jena), Yoshiko Kawamura (Tokyo International University), Brian Tomlinson (Leeds Metropolitan University), Mayumi Usami (Tokyo University of Foreign Studies) and Wu Weiping (Chinese University of Hong Kong). There are many to whom we owe a debt of gratitude for the success of CLaSIC 2004 and the publication of this book. In particular, we would like to thank the following persons and organisations: the Guest-of-Honour and Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Associate Professor Tan Tai Yong, for opening the conference; Professor Peter Reeves, then Director of the Centre, for having believed in and supported the conference from the onset; members of the Scientific Committee for the selection of papers for this book; the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences for a generous research grant (Academic Research Fund Project No. R-127-000-005-112) in support of the conference and this publication; our other sponsors, including the Lee Foundation, the Goethe-Institut Singapore, 3A Corporation, NUS Extensions and the Chinese Language Teaching and Research Fund administered jointly by the Centre and the Department of Chinese Studies; and Lionel Lye for his invaluable help in proof-reading and formatting the manuscript. Last but certainly not least, we feel compelled to convey our sincere thanks to the colleagues on the Organising Committee of the conference and in the Centre’s administrative support

viii

Preface

team, whose dedication and tireless efforts provided the basis for the resounding success of CLaSIC 2004.

Wai Meng Chan, Kwee Nyet Chin and Titima Suthiwan, Singapore, June 2006

1 FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHING IN ASIA AND BEYOND: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK

Wai Meng Chan, Kwee Nyet Chin and Titima Suthiwan

1 The spread of foreign language learning and its significance Given the spread of foreign language learning around the world today, it may come as a surprise to many that “futurologists” of the 19th century had actually failed to predict the importance of foreign language learning and its unprecedented growth since the second half of the 20th century (Graddol, 1997/2000). After all, the European Union (EU) has identified proficiency in foreign languages as one of several key competencies “considered vital for a lifetime of successful participation in society” (Eurydice, 2002, p. 3). In fact, it justifies this view by citing several benefits which foreign language proficiency can provide: Competence in foreign languages has long been recognised as an indispensable economic and social resource within a culturally and linguistically diverse Europe and beyond. Competence in foreign languages is not limited to technical skill in a particular language but also includes openness to different cultures and respect for others and their competence and achievements. Learning other languages promotes an extended sense of identity, making people feel part of more than one linguistic and cultural community. It also increases people’s employment, education and leisure options, which in turn may generate a whole range of personal, social and workplace competencies. (Eurydice, 2002, p. 17)

Earlier, in 2000, the Lisbon European Council had called for the establishment of a framework to provide EU citizens with five basic skills: IT skills, technological culture, entrepreneurship, social skills and foreign languages (European Council [EC], 2000). The Barcelona European Council in 2002 recommended the learning of at least two foreign languages from a very early age. Certainly, countries in the EU have made much progress in the realisation of these goals, as data from 2002/2003 reveal that, in almost all EU countries, pupils have to learn a foreign language from primary school on-

2

W. M. Chan, K. N. Chin & T. Suthiwan

wards, with pupils in Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands and Norway starting as young as 5 or 6 (see Eurydice, 2005). In thirteen of the surveyed countries, 50% or more of primary school pupils learned at least one foreign language in 2001/2002, while at least 50% of upper secondary pupils learn at least two foreign languages in fifteen countries in the same time period (Eurydice, 2005). Across the Atlantic, in the United States, a Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies came to the conclusion in 1978 that Americans’ lack of foreign language proficiency threatens to compromise the country’s security and could have an adverse effect on its economic growth (Crystal, 1995). Efforts have been undertaken since then to improve the status and availability of foreign language learning both in schools and colleges in the U.S. Moderate success was achieved as foreign language enrolments almost doubled in U.S. public high schools, rising from 23% of the student population in 1978 to 44% in 2002 1 . Despite this almost twofold increase in enrolments, the American administration argues that much more needs to be done and cites the following statistics (see U.S. Department of Education [USDE], 2006) as cause for serious concern: 1) Only 31% of American elementary schools and 24% of public elementary schools report teaching foreign languages; 2) Of these schools, 79% provide no more than introductory exposure; 3) Of the 44% of high school students enrolled in foreign language classes in 2002, 69% are enrolled in Spanish and 18% in French; 4) Less than 1% of high school students combined study Arabic, Chinese, Farsi, Japanese, Korean, Russian or Urdu; and 5) Less than 8% of undergraduates in the U.S. take foreign language courses, and less than 2% study abroad in any given year. To counter these trends, the U.S. Department of Education will be proposing a sum of 57 million U.S. dollars in its budget for financial year 2007, representing an increase of 35 million U.S. dollars over the previous financial year, to fund various initiatives to educate students, teachers and government workers in critical need foreign languages such as Arabic, Chinese, Japanese and Korean, and to increase the number of advanced level speakers in these and other languages. Myriam Met (n.d.) of the National Foreign Language Center in Maryland provides two main reasons why more Americans should bother to learn foreign languages. First, she believes that foreign language proficiency will im1

Data collected by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (Draper & Hicks, 2002) show that foreign language enrolments in US public high schools rose from 23% in 1978 to 43.8% in 2000. U.S. Department of Education figures place the percentage of American high school students enrolled in foreign language classes at 44% (U.S. Department of Education, 2006).

Foreign Language Teaching in Asia and Beyond: An Introduction to the Book

3

prove the United States’ competitiveness in a globalised world and aid its increasingly service-based economy in securing business volume. As an essentially monolingual society, the U.S. would otherwise concede significant ground in international trade to multilingual countries. Second, the lack of foreign language skills would severely hinder its efforts to ensure its national security and defend itself against terrorism, as intelligence gathered is unlikely to be in clear, comprehensible English. If the U.S. are to continue to “make progress toward achieving humanitarian goals and promoting prosperity and democracy around the world” (Met, n.d., paragraph 4), then the country must pay far greater attention to foreign language learning. This view is echoed by the U.S. Department of Education, which — in justifying its intended injection of 57 million U.S. dollars — cites the same two reasons of security and competitiveness (USDE, 2006). There can be little doubt that globalization as well as the economic conditions and opportunities it has created have greatly influenced the way foreign languages are viewed and valued — in particular those languages which are considered of greater economic value. In 1997, the United Nations published two rankings of languages according to their relative economic strength. To arrive at the first of these lists, the educational consultancy and research firm, The English Company (UK) Ltd (henceforth: engco), uses the GDP of countries in which major languages are spoken to calculate a Gross Language Product (GLP) for these languages. Table 1 shows this ranking of languages by GLP. Table 1. Estimates of Gross Language Product (GLP) of major languages in $billion (source: Graddol, 1997/2000, p. 29)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

English Japanese German Spanish French Chinese Portuguese Arabic Russian Hindi/Urdu Italian Malay Bengali

7,815 4,240 2,455 1,789 1,557 985 611 408 363 114 111 79 32

4


A different calculation model, which uses the relative international trading volume of countries where these languages are spoken, leads to a different ranking, reproduced in Table 2. Table 2. Major languages by traded GLP in $billion (source: Graddol, 1997/2000, p. 29)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

English German French Chinese Japanese Spanish Italian Portuguese Malay Arabic Russian Hindi/Urdu Bengali

2,338 1,196 803 803 700 610 488 138 118 85 73 25 9

Interestingly, the relative popularity of foreign languages studied by students at the Centre for Language Studies (CLS) of the National University of Singapore, to which the editors of this book are affiliated, seems to bear out the predictive value of these models. The languages with the highest enrolments in the last few years have been Japanese (with an enrolment of approximately 1520 over two semesters in the academic year 2005/2006), German (850), French (780) and Chinese (730) 2 , all placed within the top six of both rankings. Overall, foreign language courses at the CLS have gained considerably in popularity among students, who read them mainly as free electives, with the total enrolments for all languages growing by 40% from approximately 3,600 in 2001/2002 to 5,150 in 2005/2006. Educational policy in other Asian countries seems also to reflect engco’s estimates of the languages’ economic strength. A recent survey of language education policy and trends in China (Lam, 2005) reveals that English is undoubtedly the most important and most learned foreign language in Chinese universities. There exists in fact a requirement for students to study College English in the first two years of the four-year undergraduate programme (with four hours of instruction per week) and Subject Based English in the next two 2

English, which is not a foreign language in Singapore, and Spanish are not taught at the CLS. The nine languages offered at the CLS are Chinese, French, German, Indonesian, Japanese, Malay, Tamil, Thai and Vietnamese.


5

(with two hours per week). The surveyed universities reported that, besides English, the foreign languages attracting the largest enrolments are Japanese, French, German, Russian and Spanish, most of which are placed high in the rankings cited above. Indeed, globalization and the perception held by individuals, society and the state that foreign languages are necessary and valuable assets in today’s competitive economies are apparently the driving forces behind Asian governments’ efforts to promote foreign language learning in their respective countries and to enable students to acquire communicative competence in at least one foreign language; invariably, English has been chosen as the required foreign language by most Asian countries, including the main economic powerhouses, Japan, China, South Korea and Taiwan. In introducing his country’s action plan to cultivate “Japanese with English abilities”, the Japanese Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) sums up the new challenges and opportunities created by globalization, which necessitate an adequate grasp of the English language: Recently, globalization in various fields of the economy and society has advanced rapidly. Transfers of information and capital across national borders as well as the movement of people and products have increased. Thus, international interdependency has deepened. At the same time, international economic competition has intensified entering a so-called period of “mega-competition”. Much effort is necessary to meet such challenges. […] Globalization extends to various activities of individuals as well as to the business world. Each individual has increasing opportunities to come in contact with the global market and services, and participate in international activities. It has become possible for anyone to become active on a world level. Furthermore, due to progress in the information technology revolution, a wide range of activities, from daily life to economic activities, are being influenced by the movement to a knowledge-based society driven by the forces of knowledge and information. Thus, there is a strong demand for the abilities to obtain and understand knowledge and information as well as the abilities to transmit information and to engage in communication. In such a situation, English has played a central role as the common international language in linking people who have different mother tongues. For children living in the 21st century, it is essential for them to acquire communication abilities in English as a common international language. (MEXT, 2003)

While enrolment statistics and curricular descriptions for foreign language courses at institutions of higher education in these countries are difficult to come by, such information is more readily available for primary and secondary education. Such data as well as the respective governments’ policy statements provide a clear indication of the growing importance of foreign lan-

6


guage education, especially the learning of English as a foreign language. Besides making College English a curricular requirement in universities, the Chinese government requires primary schools to introduce English lessons latest by Primary 3, with no less than four lessons a week. English language learning is to continue through all twelve years of school education from the primary to the upper secondary level (Ministry of Education, People Republic of China [MOEPRC], 2001). In Japan, English language teaching was introduced in primary schools in 2002 as part of the state’s plans to promote international understanding and, ultimately, to advance the internationalisation of Japanese schools and local communities. Pupils are exposed to the English language within the subject of Integrated Studies from Primary 3 onwards, with the emphasis on learning conversation through appropriate hands-on activities (MEXT, 1998; see also Araki-Metcalfe in this book, chap. 12). As prescribed by MEXT’s Course of Study for lower and upper secondary schools, implemented in 2003, foreign language learning remains a compulsory component of the school curricula at these levels (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology [MEXT], 2003). At upper secondary level, students may also opt to learn other foreign languages, including major languages such as French, German, Spanish and Chinese, depending on the availability of teaching resources. In South Korea, starting from 1997, English has become a part of the regular curriculum, with one hour of instruction per week in Primary 3 and 4, and two hours per week in Primary 5 and 6 (see Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development [MOEHRD], n.d.). It remains a compulsory subject for students through all three years of lower secondary education, with a total of 340 hours of instruction from years 1 to 3. While English is required only in year 1 of the upper secondary level, it is in fact taught in most upper secondary schools for all three years. However, students do have the option of learning a second foreign language in addition to or in place of English at designated foreign language high schools, established in the 1990s to “provide students with the skills needed to be internationally competitive and communicatively competent in foreign languages” (Murdoch, 2002, p. 1). The languages available to students in these schools are — besides English — Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Japanese, Russian and Spanish. Following experiments with the teaching of English in selected primary schools in the latter part of the 1990s, the Taiwanese Ministry of Education introduced it in 2002 as a required subject in schools for five out of the nine years of compulsory education. English language teaching commences in Primary 5 and continues till the end of lower secondary education (Ministry of


7

Education, Republic of Taiwan [MOEROC], 2003). Students advancing to upper secondary education are expected to study English throughout the three years at this level. Besides promoting English, which the Taiwanese government has designated a quasi-official language, it has sought to stimulate greater interest in a second foreign language among upper secondary students by implementing a five-year programme for the promotion of a second foreign language in 1999 (Government Information Office [GIO], 2005). Schools started teaching Japanese, French, German and Spanish, and by 2005, one year after the conclusion of the programme, 138 schools offered Japanese to 19,877 students, 50 offered French to 3,274 students, 16 offered German to 765 students, 17 offered Spanish to 581 students, and 2 offered Korean to 42 students (MOEROC, n.d.). The Taiwanese government had in fact achieved a more than twofold increase in total enrolments in these second foreign languages from 11,500 in 1999, when the programme was launched, to 24,539 in 2005. It would appear apparent that a common pattern is emerging among Asian countries in their efforts to promote foreign language learning and to ensure that their people will partake in international communities and the economic activities of an increasingly globalised world. First, English — as the lingua franca of the financial, academic and technological sectors — has been firmly installed as the first and most significant foreign language taught in schools and universities, which is not surprising considering that it easily topped the two rankings of major languages based on their economic value (see pp. 3–4). Second, education ministries have all chosen to give their students an early start to English language learning, beginning as early as Primary 3 in most cases. Third, the teaching of English is sustained thereafter through primary and lower secondary education till at least the first year of upper secondary education. Fourth, students are increasingly being encouraged to learn a second foreign language at the upper secondary level. Fifth, there are unmistakable parallels in the goals of the foreign language curricula implemented by the various governments. For one, the main goal of these curricula is to develop students’ ability to communicate effective and appropriately in the foreign language. Emphasis is given, particularly at the lower levels, to speaking and listening. Another notable parallel is the goal of fostering a better understanding of the cultures of the target languages and thus greater openness to international exchanges through exposure to foreign languages. Lastly, there is the intercultural goal, namely that students will — in the process of learning about a foreign culture — gain a keener awareness and appreciation

8


of their own native cultures (see e.g. Lam, 2005; MOEROC, 2003; MEXT, 2003). While there is no denying that English is the single most important foreign language in Asia (and around the world) and that European languages figure prominently among the second foreign languages taught from the upper secondary level onwards, major Asian languages are by no means marginalized or run the risk of becoming irrelevant in the future as foreign languages. In fact, the engco forecasting model predicts that, while English will most probably retain its significance as the global lingua franca in the latter stages of the 21st century, it is unlikely that it will command a monopolistic position (Graddol, 1997/2000). Rather it expects an “oligopoly” of world languages to emerge, each potentially with its own sphere of influence. Among the languages expected to join English in the top league are — based on current demographic and economic trends — three Asian languages: Chinese, Hindi/Urdu and Arabic. Asian states are also not sparing any efforts to ensure that their respective languages remain relevant and are learned around the world. Japan, South Korea and China have all founded institutions similar to the more established European institutions of British Council (UK), Alliance Française (France) and Goethe-Institut (Germany) to promote the study of their respective countries and the Japanese, Korean and Chinese languages. The first of these institutions to be founded, in 1972, the Japan Foundation (JF) aims to promote the study of Japan and the Japanese language as well as to facilitate intellectual, cultural and arts exchange between Japan and the world. While Japanese has not been predicted in the engco report to be among the world languages of the future, official Japanese statistics reveal that the number of learners of Japanese as a second or foreign language has risen significantly in the last two decades. In a survey conducted in 2003 (see JF, n.d.), it found that there were 2.35 million learners of Japanese as a foreign language in 127 countries, a substantial increase from approximately 127,000 in 1979 and approximately 981,000 in 1990. 60% of these learners are to be found in East Asia and up to 90% in Asia and Oceania together. At the same time, true to its intention to internationalise and to attract more overseas students to its universities, Japan has been working at providing greater financial aid for international students, encouraging greater student exchange between Japanese and international universities, improving the admission system for international students, and promoting the teaching of Japanese as a second language (JSL) for international students. The latter move has seen the num-


9

ber of JSL learners in Japan grow from 69,950 in 1992 to over 95,000 in 2000, according to figures released by MEXT (n.d.). Unlike JF and the Korea Foundation (KF), established in 1991, the Confucius Institute conducts its own Chinese language courses. Set up only in 2005 by China’s National Office for Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language (NOTCFL), it has quickly expanded its operations worldwide, and there are currently 71 institutes in Asia, Africa, Australia, Europe and the United States, with the number expected to hit 100 by the end of 2006 (Leong, 2006). The pace of its expansion may appear phenomenal, but this may have been precipitated by a remarkable surge in worldwide interest in the Chinese language, underlining perhaps engco’s prediction that Chinese would be a world language to rival English by 2050. According to figures released by the NOTCFL and cited by the People’s Daily Online, there were more than 30 million non-native learners of Chinese worldwide in 2005, while more than 90,000 people took the Chinese Proficiency Test (HSK) — the equivalent of the English TOEFL — in 2004 (“Chinese teaching to match nation's clout”, 2005). While there are apparently no statistics on the number of Korean language learners around the world, it is unlikely that the Korean language would enjoy the same level of popularity as Chinese or Japanese. In institutions of higher education in the US, Korean ranks 15th of 162 foreign languages taught and accounts for only about 5,100 learners or 0.4% of all modern foreign language students (Welles, 2004, cited by Lee, 2006). However, Welles observed that the figures had doubled between 1990 and 2002, which is consistent with KF’s claim “that an increasing number of non-Koreans are also choosing to study Korean as a foreign language to gain a better understanding of Korean culture and society” (“Major programs for 2005”, 2005), attributing the increase to a growing international interest in Korean popular culture. According to figures provided by KF, there were, in 2002, more than 370 universities in 54 countries outside of Korea offering Korean language courses (“KF's support for Korean language”, 2002). The information above on language education policies, foreign language curricula and enrolment figures in various states reveals an unmistakably positive trend in foreign language learning in Asia and beyond. The main reasons for this trend as well as the governments’ intensive promotion of foreign language learning are most likely to be found in 1) the perceived opportunities and needs arising from the process of globalisation, 2) the intention to increase international exposure and exchange, and 3) security concerns (particularly in the case of the U.S.). There may however be another reason for this

10


upward trend — one that augurs well for the future of foreign language teaching in Asia. Gone are the days when, for a lack of qualified teachers and teacher preparation programmes, anyone with a reasonable grasp of the target language was considered qualified to teach it. Proficiency in the target language is but one of many criteria which a good language teacher must fulfil. The increasing professionalism in and the scientific grounding of foreign language teaching have, in the last decades, led to significant improvements in teaching and facilitated more effective and enjoyable learning. The science behind foreign language teaching today is turning it into a more refined art, making language learning a motivating and rewarding experience for students. 2 The science behind the art of foreign language teaching As Ornstein and Lasley (2000) remark, “good teachers use and combine a variety of technical skills in ways that create fluid opportunities for learning” (p. 1). Indeed, looking at the teacher behaviours which educationists have found to have a positive influence on learning outcomes, one comes to realise what intricate skills a good teacher must possess. In investigating teacher effects on student achievement, Gage (1978, cited in Ornstein & Lasley, 2000) contends that the following three clusters of teacher behaviour have a positive effect on learning outcomes: 1) teacher indirectness, the willingness of the teacher to accept student ideas and feelings, and the ability to provide a healthy emotional climate; 2) teacher praise, support, and encouragement, use of humour to release tensions, and attention to students’ needs; and 3) teacher acceptance, clarifying, building, and developing students’ ideas. On the other hand, teacher criticism, reprimanding students and justifying authority have been identified as behaviours which are negatively correlated to student achievement. Brophy and Good (1986) point to a number of principles of teaching which one would have to adhere to to ensure good learning outcomes. For instance, they assert that a good teacher should ensure that learning activities are of an appropriate difficulty level and suited to learners’ current achievement levels and needs, be aware of what is going on in the classroom and be alert to the progress of classroom activities, be able to sustain an activity while doing something else at the same time, be able to sustain proper lesson pacing and group momentum, monitor students’ performance and provide immediate help where necessary, and give appropriate feedback and praise. It would appear from the above that good teaching — and likewise good language teaching — would involve a host of personal attributes on the part of


11

the teacher, including personality, intuition, a propensity for self-reflection, the ability to communicate and express oneself, creativity, enthusiasm, empathy or simply a good sense of judgement. However, the truth is, good teaching is not just an art, but also a science. It is built as much on these qualities as on a vast body of scientific research and knowledge. Ornstein and Lasley sum this up in the following words: In essence, good teaching is neither exclusively art nor essentially science, but rather a combination of both. Good teachers do things well and know conceptually why they do them well — they have an explanation for what grounds their practices. (Ornstein & Lasley, 2000, p. 5)

Educationists (e.g. Gage, 1978; Ornstein & Lasley, 2000) thus see a scientific basis to the art of teaching. Foreign language teachers and educationists may have encountered the mistaken notion that foreign language pedagogy is an essentially applied discipline devoid of its own theories. Nothing can be further from the truth, for the construction of pedagogical theories is very much at the heart of this discipline and has led to the formulation of influential methods and approaches to teaching such as the audiolingual method or communicative language teaching. Research in foreign language education deals with issues related to the teaching and learning of foreign languages with the ultimate aim of informing curricular and teaching practice (cf. Weskamp, 2001). In arguing how pedagogical theories should inform and impact practice, Ur (1996) has this to say: Good theories generate practice; hence Kurt Lewin’s famous dictum: ‘There is nothing so practical as a good theory.’ […] Theory on its own is even more useless. A statement like ‘Language is communication’, for example, is meaningful only if we can envisage its implementation in practice. (p. 4)

Foreign language education is itself informed by a number of feeder disciplines. For Stern (1983), five areas which language education draws on for its fundamental concepts are the history of language teaching, linguistics, sociology, psychology and education. In a more recent publication, Weskamp (2001) identifies linguistics, psychology, philosophy, education, sociology, cultural studies and literature as feeder disciplines for English language teaching. Linguistics is undoubtedly a primary feeder discipline of foreign language teaching. Communicative language teaching, probably the pedagogical approach which most foreign language teachers and institutions subscribe to today, has its roots in pragmalinguistics and the speech act theory, which look at

12


language more as a means to fulfil pragmatic intentions than as a mere system of structures and lexis, and have caused the focus of language teaching to shift from the mastery of grammar for its own sake to the ability to use grammar functionally for the purpose of communication (Neuner & Hunfeld, 1993; Savignon, 2005). The ability to do so is commonly referred to as communicative competence, a term which originates from the work of the sociologists, Habermas (1970) and Hymes (1971). Another branch of linguistics, sociolinguistics, delivers insights into “the relationship between language use and social factors” (McKay, 2005, p. 281) which can influence important curricular processes such as syllabus design, materials development and assessment. An example is the impact of sociolinguistic research into linguistic variation due to differences in geographical region, social class, gender or ethnicity on the choice of curricular contents and the selection/development of materials (McKay, 2005). Take the case of the Japanese language, which is highly sensitive to the social context of its use and the relative status of its speakers: research into keigo, or honorific language, is reshaping the pedagogy of Japanese as a foreign language as researchers, curriculum planners and teachers begin to take into account the importance of the appropriate use of keigo, deeply rooted in Japanese tradition, for smooth and socially appropriate communication (Wetzel, 2004). The influence of psychology, another primary feeder discipline, on foreign language methodologies is all too apparent (see Neuner & Hunfeld, 1993; Richards & Rodgers, 2001). For instance, the audiolingual method is built upon the basis of behaviourism and its theory of learning. The cognitive revolution that displaced the behaviouristic paradigm led to the intensive study of learners’ cognitive processes and individual characteristics. This paradigm shift in the 1950s and 1960s paved the way for the study and application of pedagogical constructs such as learner-centredness, task-based learning, learner autonomy and learning strategy instruction in foreign language teaching. Of particular interest in recent times are also impulses from research in motivational and behavioural psychology for the study of the impact of motivational and affective factors (e.g. anxiety) on foreign language learning processes and outcomes (see e.g. Arnold, 1999; Dörnyei, 2001; MacIntyre, 1999; Young, 1999). Philosophy contributed the epistemological theory of constructivism, which has had a telling impact on education in general. Consistent with such concepts as learner autonomy and learner-centredness as well as findings from cognitive psychology, constructivist pedagogy views learning as an active and subjective process for the construction of meanings and knowledge (Müller,


13

2000). The learner interprets and attempts to make sense of newly received information on the basis of pre-existing cognitive structures, including his/her current knowledge and personal experiences, and creates new and meaningful knowledge in this process (see Chan & Chen, chap. 8 in this book). The constructivist view of learning has found resonance among language educationists and provides the theoretical basis for recent approaches and practices in foreign language teaching, including the currently much studied area of computer assisted language learning (see e.g. Chun & Plass, 2000; Rüschoff, 1999; Wendt, 2000; Wolff, 1994). One discipline which has not been included in either Stern’s or Weskamp’s list of feeder disciplines is second language acquisition (SLA), whose main scientific interest lies in the study of “how people learn language” (Cook, 1996, p. 5). For Ellis, it is not the task of SLA to seek and transform such knowledge “into a form applicable to language pedagogy” (1994, p. 4). Ellis views it at best as a “source discipline” (p. 4), whose findings are however of obvious relevance for foreign language teaching. An example is the contribution of the Interlanguage Hypothesis (Selinker, 1972), which was one of the first SLA theories to focus on learners’ psycholinguistic processes for language acquisition, including language transfer from the first to the second language, overgeneralization, and learning and communication strategies. It was thus arguably a decisive precursor to subsequent research on learners’ language learning strategies, culminating in the widespread adoption of learning strategy instruction in the foreign language classroom. The natural proximity between both disciplines is perhaps best demonstrated by the input hypothesis put forward by Krashen (1981, 1985). Krashen himself followed up on it in collaboration with Terrell by proposing the natural approach to language teaching (Krashen & Terrell, 1983), based naturally on the assumptions of his own acquisition theory. 3 The structure and contents of this book This book, comprising two parts, is concerned with both the science and the art of foreign language teaching. Under the theme of “Theoretical foundation and research”, Part 1 of this book informs the readers about recent efforts in theoretical and empirical research which have had a telling impact on foreign language teaching or promise to yield results that will potentially shape its future. These studies, not just from the domain of foreign language teaching but also from its primary feeder disciplines of linguistics and SLA, thus deliv-

14


er the necessary theoretical and conceptual foundation for both current and future research and practice. As its theme “Classroom practice and evaluation studies” suggests, Part 2 focuses on new and innovative developments in curricular and classroom practice, all built upon insights from research in the above-mentioned disciplines and possibly poised to become standard practices in the not too distant future. It has not been easy deciding on the component chapters that make up Part 2, for all the projects included here are quite obviously theory-driven and draw on a large body of previous research in various areas, such as constructivist pedagogy, computer and multimedia assisted language learning, foreign language anxiety, automaticity, and information processing models of language acquisition. In fact, a good number of these projects incorporated qualitative and quantitative measures to evaluate their respective pedagogical initiatives and to gather student feedback. In some instances, the data and insights attained are expected to contribute to the refinement and continued development of the projects’ underlying theoretical concepts. Nevertheless, common to the chapters in Part 2 is their reference to practical curricular and classroom projects which have been implemented or are now proposed for implementation. 3.1 Part 1: Theoretical foundation and research In Chapter 2, “Preparing language teachers to teach learning strategies”, the first of seven chapters in Part 1, Anna Uhl Chamot provides a comprehensive review of research into language learners’ learning strategy use and language learning strategy instruction. While language learning strategy research can be traced back to Selinker’s work in SLA on the Interlanguage Hypothesis and studies on the “good language learner” (e.g. Naiman, Fröhlich, Stern & Todesco, 1978; Rubin, 1975; Stern, 1975) in the 1970s, it remains today a most influential area of study which has yielded an immense body of literature and has led to the development and implementation of numerous approaches to learning strategy instruction around the world. Its impact has transcended the dominant areas of ESL and EFL and strategy instruction is increasingly finding its way into curricula and teaching/learning materials for other languages as well. Drawing on findings from recent research, including a substantial number of studies in languages other than English as well as ones conducted in Asia, Chamot concludes that “instruction in learning strategies will assume a greater role in teacher preparation and curriculum design” (p. 40 in this book) and calls for future research to focus more on the development of lan-


15

guage teacher expertise in learning strategy instruction. Chamot herself provides guidelines and an instructional framework (Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach or CALLA) which will serve as points of orientation both for language teachers in the implementation of learning strategy instruction as well as for teacher educators in planning appropriate teacher preparation programmes. With the advent of pragmatically oriented and communication-based language teaching approaches, discourse analysis in linguistics has gained greater prominence in foreign language teaching methodology, syllabus design, materials development and assessment. A discourse-based approach to foreign language teaching is consistent with communicative language teaching which emphasises the development of discourse competence and sociocultural competence as vital and necessary components of overall communicative competence (cf. Canale, 1983; Canale & Swain, 1980). Celce-Murcia and Olshtain (2005) in fact propose making discourse analysis an integral part of needs assessment for developing language curricula, including teaching materials, curriculum content, instructional procedures and assessment. Chapter 3, “Discourse Politeness Theory and second language acquisition”, provides an example of the promise which sociolinguistics and discourse analysis hold for future pedagogical developments in second and foreign language teaching. In it, Mayumi Usami introduces a preliminary framework for a universal theory of Discourse Politeness (DP), which has been developed on the basis of a series of empirical studies on discourse behaviour. She distances herself from the concept of absolute politeness, which involves the labelling of “particular linguistic forms or strategies as being intrinsically more polite than others” (p. 53). Instead the Discourse Politeness Theory (DPT) proposed by her embraces a more dynamic concept, that of relative politeness, which allows for the consideration of factors such as the specific discourse situation, the sociocultural context, and the relationship between the discourse participants as defined by social status, age and social distance. Relative politeness is determined by the movement toward and away from the DP default of a given discourse. The DP default denotes the discourse behaviour which is considered appropriate for a given discourse and which would be unconsciously expected of the discourse participants. Usami argues that identifying the appropriate DP defaults would be of vital significance to smooth intercultural and interpersonal communication and that second language learners should be taught the appropriate use of linguistic forms (such as honorifics in Japanese) and conversational strategies to achieve the DP defaults of the various discourse situations.

16


In Chapter 4, “Integrating general purpose and vocationally-oriented language learning (VOLL) — New goals for language and teacher training”, Christina Kuhn’s pedagogical model, which seeks to address the rapidly changing needs of foreign language learners in a globalizing world, represents an example of theoretical conceptualization in foreign language education. As mentioned previously in this chapter (see section 1), globalization and the spread of digital communication technologies have changed the nature of professional work and created the need for working professionals to communicate and work — physically and virtually — in an international environment. In response to this situation and the increased demand for foreign language competence, Kuhn puts forward a case for an integrated curriculum which incorporates both general and vocationally-oriented goals in a single course. She provides suggestions for integrating themes from private and professional communication and identifies important instruments for the planning of such a curriculum, such as the “Common European Framework of Reference for Language Learning and Teaching” and “Profile Deutsch” which is targeted specifically at developers of German as a foreign language courses. Kuhn argues further that such integrated courses would necessitate changes to language teacher education programmes which should be directed at helping teachers develop certain key qualifications, including competencies in needs analyses, curriculum planning, quality management, use of media and the promotion of learner autonomy. To round off the chapter, she presents a training model, which employs both online and offline modes of learning, for the preparation of teachers for integrated language teaching. In Chapter 5, “Pragmatics in foreign language teaching and learning: Reflections on the teaching of Chinese in China”, Hong Wang provides a review of the development of teaching of Chinese as a foreign language (TCFL) in China as well as a critique of the curricular practices and teaching methodology prevalent in TCFL classrooms in the country. She laments that TCFL has continued to emphasise the development of linguistic accuracy as the main curricular goal rather than to promote learners’ pragmatic competence. While pragmatics, central to the evolution of communicative language teaching since the 1980s (see section 2), is now being increasingly researched by Chinese linguists and is making an impact on the teaching of foreign languages to Chinese learners, it has thus far had little telling influence on TCFL. In fact, Wang sees a mismatch between the current curricular content and methodology in TCFL, and the needs of students who are now in China to learn the Chinese language for communication, mostly for non-academic purposes. For this situation to be resolved, Wang asserts that TCFL scholars and teachers must


17

realise the importance of pragmatics in language use and understand that the teaching of language is mainly the teaching of language use. Lastly, she puts forward an instructional framework for a pragmatically oriented TCFL classroom for further discussion. Chapter 6, “Development of a foreign language anxiety model”, attests to the significant contribution of research in psychology to foreign language teaching, as outlined in section 2 of this chapter. In her bid to develop a theoretical model to shed light on the sources of foreign language anxiety, Yujia Zhou draws heavily on psychological research both for the study’s hypothesis construction and its research methodology. Using the psychometric method of structural equation modelling, Zhou explores the interrelationships between language anxiety and three potential personal sources, namely self-esteem in language learning, self-perception of speaking proficiency, and learners’ beliefs about language learning. The results suggest that self-esteem in language learning and learners’ beliefs about language learning may have a direct effect on foreign language anxiety. In addition, it would appear that self-esteem in language learning mediates the influence of learners’ beliefs about language learning and their self-perception of speaking proficiency on language anxiety. While Zhou concedes that there are some limitations to her study (e.g. only three indicators were adopted to represent the latent variables in her hypothesized models), it has nevertheless yielded a model which, if refined and validated through further research, could serve as a theoretical basis for systematic classroom interventions to control and alleviate students’ anxiety. In Chapter 7, “Facilitating students’ understanding of English news: Peer scaffolding in an EFL listening classroom”, Danli Li presents the results of her study of peer collaboration in an EFL listening classroom in China. The theoretical foundation for this study was provided by Vygotsky’s (1978) highly influential sociocultural theory of learning, which states that cognitive development and learning take place as a result of social interaction in which the child (or learner) learns how to complete a task by sharing responsibility for that task with an expert or a more competent peer. The supportive interaction provided by the expert for the completion of the task is termed scaffolding, which can be effective only if it is appropriate to the learner’s current and potential level of development — or, in Vygotskian terms, the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978). The purpose of Li’s study was to investigate the features of peer scaffolding and its contribution to the process of language learning, in particular in the negotiation of meaning and form. A microgenetic approach was used to analyse the interactions generated by the subjects, eight intermediate students working collaboratively on five pieces of English news.

18


From the study, it was found that 1) peer scaffolding generally create opportunities for students to participate in meaning-focused communication tasks, 2) peer scaffolding may be mutual, and 3) it could facilitate the development of second language acquisition in the negotiation of meaning and linguistic forms of the target language. As pointed out above, the interest in learners’ learning strategies remains strong among SLA researchers and foreign language educationists. This is so because there remain a considerable number of areas which are still largely unexplored. Shameem Rafik-Galea and Bee Eng Wong identify vocabulary learning strategies as one of these areas, despite the fact that the importance of vocabulary in foreign language learning has, in recent years, been emphasised by researchers such as Laufer (2003) and Tschirner (2004). Tschirner laments that “modern notions of the importance of frequency in vocabulary learning and of special vocabularies such as the academic word list (AWL) as well as of the importance of vocabulary learning strategies often have not yet found their way into education ministries, curriculum boards, teachers and teacher trainers” (2004, p. 38). In Chapter 8, “Vocabulary learning strategies among adult foreign language learners”, Rafik-Galea and Wong report on the results of a questionnaire study of the vocabulary learning strategy preferences of foreign language learners in multi-racial Malaysia. The study reveals that the surveyed students of different ethnic groups seem to choose direct strategies (memory, cognitive and compensation strategies) far more frequently than indirect strategies (social and metacognitive strategies) to aid their vocabulary learning. In conclusion, the authors call for the development of more and a greater variety of language tasks which incorporate activities for the acquisition and use of vocabulary learning strategies. 3.2 Part 2: Classroom practice and evaluation studies Part 2 opens with a chapter which documents the impact of the constructivist view of learning as an active and subjective process of knowledge construction on foreign language learning. In Chapter 9, “Technology in the service of constructivist pedagogy: Network-based applications and knowledge construction”, Wai Meng Chan and Ing Ru Chen distill four essential principles of constructivist pedagogy from the considerable literature which has appeared since the early 1990s. These are: 1) learning requires the active participation of the learner; 2) process-oriented and reflective learning should be promoted; 3) learning should be situated in authentic contexts; and 4) learning tasks should be open-ended. In arguing that computer media and network


19

technologies can make a telling contribution towards constructivist learning and the realisation of theses essential principles, Chan and Chen point especially to the element of interactivity, probably the single most significant attribute of computer media, which provides a means for the active involvement of learners and for providing learning support for the complex process of knowledge construction. To illustrate their point, they present three networkbased applications, “My Vocab Book”, “Interactive Situation Simulation” and “Movie Studio”, the design of which is underpinned by the above-stated principles and which enable learners to take control of their learning and task processing. Though content-based instruction (CBI) and task-based learning (TBL) are no longer novelties in foreign language teaching as both have been discussed in research and implemented in practice since about two decades ago (for a review of literature on these approaches, see Snow, 2005; Richards & Rodgers, 2001), they have apparently not lost any of their relevance and continue to generate intensive research and practice. As Wesche and Skehan (2002) point out, both approaches share the common feature that they enable learners to develop both content knowledge as well as language proficiency. Both approaches are thus compatible with communicative language teaching as they allow learners to use the learned language to meet authentic needs. Chapter 10, “Pedagogical concerns: Some common features of content-based instruction, task-based learning and business case study, and their roles in an EBP class”, Wenhua Hsu describes an English for Business Purposes course in Taiwan which applies the principles of CBI, TBL and business case study (BCS) in a single course to help students acquire subject-matter knowledge, linguistic knowledge and knowledge of a disciplinary approach (that of BCS). In an evaluation of this 3-in-1 instructional framework, she comes to the conclusion that the CBI and TBL approaches help students to improve on their performance in the business case studies undertaken, both in terms of the content and the language. Among other findings was the indication that languageoriented pre-tasks based on the TBL approach can boost students’ language performance and enhance the learning outcome of the CBI course components. Students also found CBI and BCS tasks, which provided them with immediate opportunities to apply their content knowledge, to be useful and indicated that these tasks stimulated their interest. Probably because of its close association with the audiolingual method and its unrelenting drills, memorization has gained a somewhat negative connotation in foreign language learning. In Chapter 11, “Memorizing dialogue: The case for ‘Performative Exercises’ ”, Izumi Walker and Tomoko Utsumi seek

20


to dispel such negative views of memorization, citing in support research in cognitive psychology and SLA which sees memorization as a key step towards achieving automaticity and fluency in language production. They also report on an innovative sequence of role-play activities for the development of discourse competence, termed performative exercises. Fundamental to this pedagogical concept is the memorization of model dialogues, which are transferred subsequently to other similar situations and extended successively in the process. An evaluation study was conducted by Walker and Utsumi to explore students’ perceptions of the usefulness of memorizing dialogues and to gather feedback for the further development of their pedagogical concept. The study reveals 89% of the respondents believe that it was useful to memorize dialogues for the following reasons: 1) the dialogues provide a basis for communication; 2) the dialogues can be applied to similar real-life situations; 3) memorizing dialogues helps to develop fluency; and 4) memorizing dialogues helps in the understanding of grammar and structure. Walker and Utsumi conclude by pointing to the potential of performative exercises to help learners develop automaticity which will enable them to focus more on the processing of meaning. The place of literature in the foreign language classroom has been debated since more traditional methods like the grammar translation method have been displaced by situation-based and communicative approaches to language teaching (see e.g. Brumfit & Carter, 1986). However, while questions have been asked about the relevance of literary texts for the communicative needs of learners, literature continues to be a frequent source of texts for textbooks and other teaching materials. In Chapter 12, “The whole world communicates in English, do you? — Educational drama as an alternative approach to teaching English language in Japan”, Naoko Araki-Metcalfe discusses how a literary genre, drama, has been adapted for use in general education to provide students with the opportunity to use “the body in time and space to explore issues, questions, perspectives or ideas” (Ewing & Simons, 2004, p. 3). ArakiMetcalfe believes that educational drama, as this method and type of activity is called, can be applied to good effect to foreign language teaching and will allow learners to develop not just linguistic skills but communicative abilities in a broader sense, including kinaesthetic functions such as facial expressions, hand gestures and other body movements. Having herself tested this method in the Japanese primary school context, Araki-Metcalfe asserts that educational drama will help achieve the goals set out for English language teaching under the subject of Integrated Studies, namely: 1) developing a positive attitude among students toward communication with others; 2) enhancing their abili-


21

ties in self-expression; and 3) developing an interest in and understanding for the culture and lifestyle of other countries. As mentioned previously in this introduction, research into motivational factors, including students’ anxiety in learning and using foreign languages, has received much attention in recent years, as documented, for instance, by Zhou’s efforts in developing a theoretical model of foreign language anxiety (see Zhou, chap. 6 in this book). The last chapter of the book, Chapter 13, “From oral interview test to oral communication test: Alleviating student’s anxiety”, reports on a formative research project by Satomi Chiba and Yoko Morikawa to develop an oral test form which is intended to address the problem of anxiety and make a contribution towards achieving humanistic communication. Chiba and Morikawa devised the oral communication test and used this new test form over two semesters with the essentially same group of students in two successive beginning Japanese courses (Japanese 1 and Japanese 2). The new test format represents a departure from the traditional oneon-one test format involving just the examiner and the student. Instead, it allows students to prepare and play a conversation on a topic of their choice with a peer partner, and incorporates an element of self-evaluation by the students themselves. On the basis of students’ self-evaluative reports, teachers provide constructive feedback to guide students to improve on their oral performance. These self-evaluative reports as well as students’ comments and suggestions pertaining to the test format and video recordings of the test performances provided useful data for the authors to refine the test format, assessment criteria and rating scale. Their analysis of the data led them to the conclusion that students felt considerably less anxiety in the second semester than in the first, and that they seemed more prepared to pro-actively seek means of reducing their anxiety. References Arnold, J. (Ed.). (1999). Affect in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brophy, J., & Good, T.L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 328–375). New York: MacMillan. Brumfit, C.J., & Carter, R.A. (1986). Literature and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. Richards & R. Schimdt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2–27). London: Longman.

22


Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47. Celce-Murcia, M., & Olshtain, E. (2005). Discourse-based approaches: A new framework for second language teaching and learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 729–741). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Chinese teaching to match nation's clout. (2005, July 20). People’s Daily Online. Retrieved June 14, 2006, from http://english.people.com.cn/200507/20/ eng20050720_197263. html Chun, D.M., & Plass, J.L. (2000). Networked multimedia environments for second language acquisition. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 151–170). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cook, V. (1996). Second language learning and language teaching (2nd ed.). London: Arnold. Crystal, D. (1995). Die Cambridge Enzyklopädie der Sprache. Frankfurt am Main, New York: Campus. Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Draper, J.B., & Hicks, J.H. (2002). Foreign language enrollments in public secondary schools, Fall 2000. Summary report. Alexandria, VA: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. European Council. (2000). Lisbon European Council 23 and 24 March 2000. Presidency conclusions. Press Release: Lisbon (24-3-2000), Nr: 100/1/00. Brussels: European Council. Eurydice. (2002). Key competencies. A developing concept in general compulsory education. Brussels: Eurydice. Eurydice. (2005). Key data on teaching languages at school in Europe. 2005 edition. Brussels: Eurydice. Ewing, R., & Simons, J. (2004). Beyond the script: Take two: Drama in classroom. Newtown: Primary English Teaching Association.

Gage, N.L. (1978). The scientific basis of the art of teaching. New York: Teachers College Press. Government Information Office. (2005). The Republic of China yearbook 2005. Taipei: Government Information Office. Graddol, D. (2000). The future of English? A guide to forecasting the popularity of the English language in the 21st century. London: The British Council. (First published in 1997) Habermas, J. (1970). Toward a theory of communicative competence. Inquiry, 13, 360–375. Hymes, D. (1971). Competence and performance in linguistic theory. In R. Huxley & E. Ingram (Eds.), Language acquisition: Models and methods (pp. 3–28). London: Academic Press.


23

Japan Foundation. (n.d.). Outline of the results of the "2003 overseas Japanese language education organization survey". Retrieved June 13, 2006, from http://www.jpf.go.jp/e/japan/ news/0407/07_01.html KF's support for Korean language. (2002). Retrieved June 24, 2006, from http://www.kf.or.kr:8080/eng/notice/newsView.jsp?boardIdx=166 Krashen, S.D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon. Krashen, S.D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman. Krashen, S.D., & Terrell, T.D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Oxford: Pergamon. Lam, A.S.L. (2005). Language education in China. Policy and experience from 1949. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Laufer, B. (2003). Vocabulary acquisition in a second language: Do learners really acquire most vocabulary by reading? Some empirical evidence. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 567–587. Lee, J. (2006). Exploring the heritage status of Korean language learners. The International Journal of Language, Society and Culture, 16, Retrieved June 24, 2006, from http://www.educ.utas.edu.au/users/tle/JOURNAL/ARTICLES/2006/162.htm Leong, W.K. (2006, June 16). Chinese culture centre set to expand. The Straits Times. Retrieved June 18, 2006, from http://global.factiva.com.libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/ha/ default.aspx MacIntyre, P.D. (1999). Language Anxiety: A review of the research for language teachers. In D.J. Young (Ed.), Affect in foreign language and second language learning (pp. 24–45). Boston: McGraw Hill. Major programs for 2005. (2005). Korea Foundation Newsletter, 14(1). Retrieved June 24, 2006, from http://newsletter.kf.or.kr/english/contents.asp?vol=51&no= 544&lang=English&key=korean%20language%20learners McKay, S.L. (2005). Sociolinguistics and second language learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 281–299). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Met, M. (n.d.). Improving students’ capacity in foreign languages. Retrieved June 13, 2006, from http://www.internationaled.org/PDKmet.htm Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development, South Korea. (n.d.). National basic curriculum. Retrieved June 21, 2006 from http://english.moe.go.kr/ html/education/?menuno=03 Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan. (2003). The course of study for foreign languages. Retrieved June 21, 2006, from http://www.mext.go.jp/english/shotou/030301.htm Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan. (n.d.). International exchange and cooperation. Promotion of Japanese language teaching for foreigners. Retrieved June 14, 2006, from http://www.mext.go.jp/english/ org/exchange/67a.htm Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan. (1998). Synopsis of the report on “National curriculum standards reform for kindergarten,

24


elementary school, lower and upper secondary school and schools for the visually disabled, the hearing impaired and the otherwise disabled”. Retrieved June 23, 2006, from http://www.mext.go.jp/mews/1998/07/980712.htm Ministry of Education, People Republic of China. (2001). Yingyu kecheng biaozhun: shiyan gao [Standards for the English curriculum: Pilot version]. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press. Ministry of Education, Republic of China. (2003). Guomin zhongxiaoxue jiunian yiguan kecheng gangyao [General guidelines of elementary and junior high school curriculum for grades 1-9]. Retrieved June 20, 2006, from http://www.edu.tw/EDU_WEB/EDU_MGT/EJE/EDU5147002/9CC/9CC.html? TYPE=1&UNITID=225&CATEGORYID=0&FILEID=124759&open Ministry of Education, Republic of China. (n.d.). Gaozhong dierwaiyu banli chengxiao [Results of the implementation of the programme for the promotion of second foreign languages in senior high school]. Retrieved June 20, 2006, from http://www.edu.tw/EDU_WEB/EDU_MGT/ACCOUNTING/ EDUTING001/acc/HIGH-SCHOOL/money/ doc/unit93-002.doc Müller, K. (2000). Constructivism in education. In M. Wendt (Ed.), Konstruktion statt Instruktion. Neue Zugänge zu Sprache und Kultur im Fremdsprachenunterricht (pp. 43–54). Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang. Murdoch, Y.D. (2002). Evaluation of the foreign language high school language programme in South Korea. Unpublished M.A. dissertation, University of Birmingham, UK. Naiman, N., Fröhlich, M., Stern, H.H., & Todesco, A. (1978). The good language learner. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Neuner, G., & Hunfeld, H. (1993). Methoden des fremdsprachlichen Deutschunterrichts. Eine Einführung. Berlin: Langenscheidt. Ornstein, A.C., & Lasley, T.J. (2000). Strategies for effective teaching (3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill. Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can tell us. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 41–51. Rüschoff, B. (1999). Wissenskonstruktion als Grundlage fremdsprachlichen Lernens. Fremdsprachen lehren und lernen, 28, 32–43. Savignon, S.J. (2005). Communicative language teaching: Strategies and goals. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 635–651). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209-231. Snow, M.A. (2005). A model of academic literacy for integrated language and content instruction. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 693–712). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Stern, H.H. (1975). What we can learn from the good language learner. Canadian Modern Language Review, 31, 304–318. Stern, H.H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


25

Tschirner, E. (2004). Breadth of vocabulary and advanced English study: An empirical investigation. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1(1), 27– 39. Retrieved June 25, 2006, from http://e-flt.nus.edu.sg/v1n12004/tschirner.htm U.S. Department of Education (2006). Teaching Language for National Security and American Competitiveness. Retrieved June 17, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/ teachers/how/academic/foreign-language/teaching-language.html Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Welles, E. B. (2004). Foreign language enrollments in United States institutions of higher education, Fall 2002. ADFL Bulletin, 35(2–3). Retrieved from http://www.adfl.org/projects/index.htm Wendt, M. (2000). Konstruktion statt Instruktion. Neue Zugänge zu Sprache und Kultur im Fremdspachenunterricht. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Wesche, M.B., & Skehan, P. (2002). Communicative, task-based and content-based language instruction. In R.B. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 207–228). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Weskamp, R. (2001). Fachdidaktik: Grundlagen und Konzepte. Berlin: Cornelsen. Wetzel, P.J. (2004). Keigo in modern Japan. Polite language from Meiji to the present. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Wolff, D. (1994). Der Konstruktivismus: Ein neues Paradigma in der Fremdsprachendidaktik? Die neueren Sprachen, 93, 407–429. Young, D.J. (Ed.). (1999). Affect in foreign language and second language learning. Boston: McGraw Hill.

PART 1 THEORETICAL FOUNDATION AND RESEARCH

2 PREPARING LANGUAGE TEACHERS TO TEACH LEARNING STRATEGIES

Anna Uhl Chamot

1 Introduction Learning strategies are thoughts and actions used by students to assist their own learning; they are techniques for accomplishing specific tasks. Learning strategies are usually explicit, conscious, and goal-driven, especially when learners are in the process of trying out a new strategy. Researchers in general education, special education, and second language acquisition have found that more expert learners are able to use various strategies flexibly and effectively when they wish to complete a challenging task. Learning strategies are sensitive to the learning context and to the learner’s understanding of the task. If learners perceive, for example, that a grammar task requires completing sentences with the correct verb form, they will likely decide to use a memorization strategy. Which memorization strategy they choose will depend on their understanding of their own learning processes and what strategies have been successful in the past. A different task, such as being able to understand a reading text will require strategies different from memorization — such as making predictions based on prior knowledge and making inferences about the author’s intended meaning. Learners’ strategies may also change as they develop greater proficiency in the language. Research into language learning strategies is important because less successful language learners can be taught new learning strategies, thus helping them become better language learners (Grenfell & Harris, 1999). Numerous descriptive studies have sought to identify differences in learning strategy use between more and less effective learners. However, there have been fewer studies focusing on attempts to teach language learning strategies in classroom settings.

30

A. U. Chamot

2 Identifying learners’ strategies Learning strategies are identified through various self-report procedures. Although self-report is always subject to error, no better way has yet been devised for identifying learners’ mental processes and techniques for completing a learning task. Learning strategies are for the most part unobservable, though some may be associated with an observable behavior. For example, a student reading an information text may use selective attention (unobservable) to focus on the main ideas and might then decide to take notes (observable) on these main ideas. The only way to find out whether students are using selective attention while reading is to ask them to describe their thinking processes. Self-reports have been made through retrospective interviews, stimulated recall interviews, questionnaires, written diaries and journals, and think-aloud protocols concurrent with a learning task. Each of these methods has limitations, but at the present time the only way to gain any insight at all into the unobservable mental learning strategies of learners is by asking them to reveal their thinking processes. 3 Descriptive studies Studies using these self-report methods have identified characteristics of good language learners and compared the strategies of more effective and less effective language learners. The identification and classification of language learners’ strategies have helped us understand how strategies are actually used in the learning process. This understanding has in turn guided instructional studies that have taught learning strategies to language learners. Language learning strategies research began in the 1970s with the seminal work of Joan Rubin, who suggested that a model of “the good language learner” could be identified by looking at special strategies used by students who were successful in their second language learning (Rubin, 1975). Other researchers followed with descriptions of learner characteristics and strategic techniques associated with effective second and foreign language learning (Hosenfeld, 1976; Naiman, Fröhlich, Stern & Todesco, 1978, 1996; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Stern, 1975). These studies identified the good language learner as one who is a mentally active learner, monitors language comprehension and production, practices communicating in the language, makes use of prior linguistic and general knowledge, uses various memorization techniques, and asks questions for clarification. Other studies comparing more and less effective language students have revealed a recurring finding that less successful learners do use learning strat-

Preparing Language Teachers to Teach Learning Strategies

31

egies, sometimes even as frequently as their more successful peers, but that the strategies are used differently (Abraham & Vann, 1987; Chamot, Barnhardt, El-Dinary, Carbonaro & Robbins, 1993; Chamot & El-Dinary, 1999; Khaldieh, 2000; Vandergrift, 1997a, 1997b; Vann & Abraham, 1990). A recent Canadian study comparing the listening comprehension strategies of more and less skilled middle school students of French found that more skilled listeners used more metacognitive strategies, especially comprehension monitoring, than did their less skilled peers (Vandergrift, 2003). Another study of secondary students of French conducted in the United Kingdom found that less successful students did not seem to be aware of the potential role of learning strategies in improving their language performance (Graham, 2004). These studies confirmed that good language learners were skilled at matching strategies to the task they were working on, while the less successful language learners did not have the metacognitive knowledge about task requirements needed to select appropriate strategies. This trend was apparent with English-speaking children in foreign language immersion classrooms (Chamot & El-Dinary, 1999), high school ESL students (Chamot & Keatley, 2003), and American university students of Arabic (Keatley, Chamot, Spokane & Greenstreet, 2004). 4 Language learning strategy instruction Increasingly, researchers are turning to intervention studies in language learning strategy research in order to investigate the teachability of strategies and their effect on learners. The effects investigated include performance on language tests, increase in reported use of learning strategies, attitudes, motivation, and self-efficacy. Instructional studies have been experimental, quasi-experimental, and case and individual studies that focused on one or more modalities, including listening comprehension, reading, vocabulary, speaking, and writing. In general, these studies have shown that language learners can acquire new learning strategies and that these strategies can increase their achievement in the language class (Chamot & Keatley, 2003; Cohen, 1998; Grenfell & Harris, 1999; Macaro, 2001; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990). For example, the listening comprehension strategies of students of English in a Japanese women’s college were first identified, then those used least frequently became the focus of strategy instruction (Ozeki, 2000). The sequence of instruction was as follows: a preparation stage in which students were ex-

32

A. U. Chamot

plicitly taught a new strategy and earlier strategies were reviewed; and a lesson stage in which students practiced the strategies with listening comprehension tasks. Pretest and posttest scores were compared to evaluate the effects of learning strategy instruction, and improvement in the treatment group was noted in the following dimensions: development of listening comprehension ability; increased use of learning strategies (including some not explicitly taught); positive attitudes towards strategy instruction; transfer of strategies to new tasks; and durability of strategy use after the completion of strategy instruction. Another recent study of learning strategy instruction investigated the listening comprehension strategies of French as a second language university students in Canada (Vandergrift, 2003). After being told the topic of the listening task, students completed a column on a worksheet in which they listed (in French and/or in English) their predictions about information they might hear. Then they listened to the text, checking off predictions and vocabulary they had anticipated and adding new information. Next, they worked in pairs to compare and discuss what they had understood. A second listening to the text allowed students to fill in additional information comprehended and this was followed by a class discussion in which students shared the strategies they had used to comprehend the text. After a third listening, students wrote a personal reflection on what they had learned about their own listening processes and what strategies they might use in future to improve their listening comprehension. Students’ written reflections revealed positive reactions to the strategies, increased motivation, and understanding of their own thinking processes during listening tasks. The speaking strategies of foreign language (French and Norwegian) students were investigated during ten weeks of instruction (Cohen, 1998; Cohen, Weaver & Li, 1998). The intervention groups received instruction in learning strategies for speaking tasks. Students were pre- and post-tested on speaking tasks and on the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) (Oxford, 1990). In addition, a sample of students provided think-aloud data as they were completing task checklists. The results indicated that integrating strategies instruction into the language course was beneficial to students, though the relationship of reported strategy use to performance was complex. A recent study investigated the English oral communication strategies of students at a Japanese women’s college (Nakatani, 2005). Students in the intervention group received metacognitive awareness-raising training and were taught communication strategies that could help students learn more of the language such as asking for clarification, checking for comprehension, and


33

paraphrasing, rather than communication strategies without a direct influence on learning, such as abandoning a message or reverting to the L1. Results showed that students taught to use strategies showed significant improvement on their oral proficiency tests. Instruction in reading comprehension strategies was studied with high school ESL students having low literacy in their native language (Chamot & Keatley, 2003). Approximately half of the teachers provided initial strategy instruction in the students’ L1, then asked students to use the same strategies when reading in English and these teachers reported success in having students use the strategies. However, the remaining teachers who attempted to teach the strategies only in English were less successful and in some cases abandoned the attempt. During think-aloud interviews with students, those who were more able to verbalize their thinking processes (in L1) displayed greater comprehension of the L2 text than those unable to describe their thoughts. Another recent study of reading comprehension investigated the effects of strategy instruction on lower and higher proficiency levels and also assessed students’ continuing use of strategies after the conclusion of instruction (Ikeda & Takeuchi, 2003). The experimental groups received explicit reading strategy instruction integrated into their regular class over an eight week period. The results indicated that the strategy instruction affected the frequency of students’ use of the strategies only for the high proficiency level group. The authors felt that this was likely due to the fact that most of the strategies taught involved top-down processing and that what the low proficiency group probably needed was a focus on bottom-up processing strategies. After the first post-test at the end of the instruction period, students were tested again three months and five months later to see to what degree they continued to use the instructed strategies. An encouraging finding was that students retained their use of learning strategies for reading five months after the conclusion of instruction. Another recently completed study built on Ikeda and Takeuchi’s (2003) work to further explore the effects of task difficulty in reading comprehension and use of strategies (Oxford et al., 2004). ESL college students completed two reading tasks (one easy, one difficult). There was little difference in strategy use on the easy readings between the two groups (high and low proficiency). However, for the more difficult reading, lower proficiency students used more strategies than their higher proficient peers. The authors attributed this finding to the fact that the “difficult” reading was actually not difficult for the higher proficiency students, and thus they did not need to use many learning

34

A. U. Chamot

strategies. This finding underlines the importance of selecting challenging tasks for learning strategy practice. A recent descriptive vocabulary study of Hong Kong university students learning English found important implications for strategy instruction (Fan, 2003). For example, when students perceived that a strategy was useful, they used it more often than strategies they did not perceive as useful. An implication is that students might use more learning strategies if teachers were to first convince them of their usefulness. This approach was taken in a series of case studies in the United Kingdom in which the researchers worked closely with five secondary teachers of modern languages as they experimented with learning strategy instruction for a variety of tasks (Grenfell & Harris, 1999). Three of the teachers focused on teaching memorization strategies for vocabulary. The instruction was generally explicit and students’ metacognition was developed through a variety of consciousness-raising activities. Most students were willing to adopt the new strategies and performance on tests indicated that the memorization strategies had been helpful for many in learning new vocabulary. A study of writing strategies instruction was recently conducted in the United Kingdom with six classes of secondary students of French (Macaro, 2001). In this Oxford Writing Project pre- and post-tests included questionnaires, writing tasks, and think-aloud interviews during a writing task. Students in the experimental groups received about five months of learning strategy instruction. At post-test, the experimental groups had made significant gains in the grammatical accuracy of their writing. In addition, they changed their approach to writing, becoming less reliant on the teacher, more selective in their use of the dictionary, and more careful about their written work. 5 Instructional models A number of models for teaching learning strategies in both first and second language contexts have been developed (see, for example, Chamot, Barnhardt, El-Dinary & Robbins, 1999; Cohen, 1998; Graham & Harris, 2000; Grenfell & Harris, 1999; Harris, 2003; Macaro, 2001; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990; Pressley, El-Dinary, Gaskins, Schuder, Bergman, Almasi & Brown, 1992). These instructional models share many features. All agree on the importance of developing students’ metacognitive understanding of the value of learning strategies and suggest that this is facilitated through teacher demonstration and modeling. All emphasize the importance of providing multiple practice opportunities with the strategies so that students can use them


35

autonomously. All suggest that students should evaluate how well a strategy has worked, choose strategies for a task, and actively transfer strategies to new tasks. The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) is one such model designed to increase the school achievement of students who are learning through the medium of a second language. The CALLA model fosters language and cognitive development by integrating content, language, and learning strategies instruction (Chamot, 2005, forthcoming; Chamot & O'Malley, 1994). School districts in the United States that have implemented the CALLA model have focused on preparing and encouraging teachers to teach learning strategies to their students. Learning strategy instruction should be scaffolded, beginning with extensive teacher support that is gradually lessened so that students eventually assume responsibility for using the strategies independently (Chamot et al., 1999). Early on in teaching a strategy, teachers provide more guidance in strategy use than they do as students become more adept at using a strategy. The teacher initially provides sufficient instructional supports to ensure that the students are learning to use the strategy effectively. 6 Issues in teaching language learning strategies A number of researchers have worked closely with teachers to guide them in incorporating learning strategy instruction into their language classes. Even with close collaboration, there have been differences in the degree to which teachers have been able to provide explicit learning strategy instruction (Chamot & Keatley, 2003; Grenfell & Harris, 1999; Macaro, 2001; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990). Some of the factors that may explain why some teachers take to this innovation readily and others do not are the teacher’s teaching style and disposition, classroom organization, curriculum objectives, and language of instruction. The teacher’s personal approach can affect every aspect of instruction. For example, teachers who practice a transmission type of teaching may simply tell students to use certain strategies without investigating student preferences and prior knowledge about strategies. Some teachers may mention strategies but fail to teach them explicitly. Explicit instruction includes the development of students’ awareness of their strategies, teacher modeling of strategic thinking, identifying the strategies by name, and providing opportunities for practice and self-evaluation. Researchers in both first language contexts and second language acquisition agree that explicit instruction is far more effec-

36

A. U. Chamot

tive than simply asking students to use one or more strategies. Explicit instruction also fosters metacognition, students’ ability to understand their own thinking and learning processes (Anderson, 2005; Carrier, 2003; Chamot, 2004, 2005; Chamot et al., 1999; Cohen, 1998; Graham & Harris, 2000; National Reading Panel, 2000; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford & Leaver, 1996; Pressley, 2000; Shen, 2003). Finally, if teachers do not believe in learner autonomy, they will not be comfortable in having students take more responsibility for their own learning — a major goal of learning strategy instruction. Related to a teacher’s disposition is his or her type of classroom organization. Teacher-fronted classrooms provide few opportunities for students to work collaboratively to explore each others’ learning strategies. For effective learning strategy instruction, teachers need to provide time for students to experiment with different strategies and reflect on the results, eventually choosing their personal repertoire of strategies. The objectives of the curriculum may determine how much time teachers are willing to spend on learning strategy instruction. Curricula with very specific standards and high stakes assessments of these standards can make the teacher feel that there is no time to spare for “extras” like teaching learning strategies. In addition, the curriculum effectively dictates the types of tasks undertaken in the language classroom. Tasks differ depending on whether the context is a second language or foreign language setting and whether the learner’s goal is to acquire social or academic language or both (Chamot, 2004; Cohen, 2003; Cummins, 2000; Oxford et al., 2004). Differences in strategy use also vary according to proficiency level. Takeuchi’s (2003) multiple case studies of learner journals found that learners reported shifting their use of strategies as they advanced to higher proficiency levels. Similarly, a recent reading study found that perceived difficulty of the task impacted the use of learning strategies, which were used on more challenging tasks (Oxford et al., 2004). The learner’s goals, the context of the learning situation, and the cultural values of the learner’s society can be expected to have a strong influence on choice and acceptability of language learning strategies. For example, in a culture that prizes individual competition and has organized its educational system around competitive tasks, successful language learners may prefer strategies that allow them to work alone rather than social strategies that call for collaboration with others. Two descriptive learning strategy studies illustrate some of the learning strategy preferences reported by students in different cultural contexts. In a


37

study of ethnically Chinese, bilingual Singaporean university students studying a foreign language (French or Japanese), students reported a preference for social strategies and an unwillingness to use affective strategies (Wharton, 2000). Another study looked at the language learning strategies of students in a university advanced Spanish writing class and compared achievement on a writing sample between those students speaking Spanish as a first or heritage language and those learning Spanish as a foreign language (Olivares-Cuhat, 2002). As could be expected, students with a Spanish language background were graded higher on their writing samples than the other students, but they also showed a greater preference for affective and memory strategies and these latter were highly correlated with writing achievement. Preliminary findings of a current study of learning strategies used by university students of less commonly taught languages indicate that both heritage speakers of Arabic and students of Arabic as a foreign language share many of the same challenges and consequent learning strategies for learning Modern Standard Arabic (MSA), but also demonstrate differences (Keatley, Chamot, Spokane & Greenstreet, 2004). For instance, heritage speakers reported using metacognitive strategies to overcome interference from their Arabic dialects when they attempted to speak MSA, but, unlike the foreign language students, had no difficulty in discriminating Arabic sounds and hence did not report any learning strategies for listening comprehension. The implications for teaching are that language teachers need to find out what learning strategies students are already using for the different tasks they undertake in the language classroom. Exploring with students the reasons why they use particular strategies can help teachers understand cultural and contextual factors that may be influencing their students. This can lead to clarification of the task’s demands where there is a mismatch with students’ current learning strategies. By understanding the task more clearly, students will probably be more motivated to try new strategies. Finally, the language of instruction can pose a hurdle for many language teachers. This issue is particular to teaching learning strategies to language learners. In first language contexts, strategies are taught through a language medium in which students are proficient, but in second or foreign language contexts, this is not necessarily so. Beginning level students, in particular, do not have the L2 proficiency to understand explanations of why and how to use learning strategies, yet postponing learning strategy instruction until intermediate or advanced level courses deprives beginners of tools that can enhance their language learning and increase their motivation for further study. It is

38

A. U. Chamot

probably not possible to avoid using the first language during strategy instruction for beginning to low intermediate level students (Macaro, 2001). Suggestions have been made to initially teach the learning strategies in the students’ native language, assuming it is the same for all students and that the teacher knows the language; alternatively, teachers have been urged to give the strategy a target language name, explain how to use it in simple language, and model the strategy repeatedly (Chamot et al., 1999). This section has outlined some of the obstacles to teaching learning strategies in the language classroom. The next section suggests ways to overcome these obstacles. 7 Guidelines for teaching language learning strategies The first step in teaching learning strategies is to help students become aware of what strategies are and what strategies they are already using (Chamot, 2004; Chamot et al., 1999; Cohen, 1998; Grenfell & Harris, 1999; Macaro, 2001). This consciousness-raising helps students begin to think about their own learning processes. Teachers should also model how the strategy can be used for a particular task. Often the teacher modeling takes the form of the teacher thinking aloud while engaged in a language learning task. After modeling, teachers should name the strategy. Too often strategies are identified by describing an action such as, “When I’m reading I like to visualize what is happening in the story.” The teacher needs to add to this statement a further explanation such as, “Visualizing is a learning strategy. It helps me make sense of a story. If I visualize an event in the story that doesn’t make sense, then I know that I need to check what I just read, because I probably misread something” (Chamot, forthcoming). In this way, students can attach a name to a strategy and can understand when, why, and how it is used. In addition to frequent teacher modeling, students also need extensive practice opportunities. Learning strategies are part of procedural knowledge and thus need as much practice as any other procedure or skill. In the beginning stages of practice, teachers usually need to remind students to use the new strategies. However, as students become more familiar with the strategies, teachers need to fade their cues so that gradually the students themselves assume responsibility for using the strategies. After all, a learning strategy is truly a learning strategy only when the learner uses it independently!


39

8 A framework for teaching language learning strategies The instructional sequence devised for the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) has proved to be a useful approach to teaching learning strategies for language as well as for content (Chamot, 2005; Chamot & O’Malley, 1994; Chamot et al., 1999). The framework developed for CALLA instruction is task-based and consists of five phases in a lesson or series of lessons. Each of the five phases combines the three components of content, language, and learning strategies. In the first phase of Preparation, teachers focus on eliciting students’ prior knowledge about the content and language needed, developing vocabulary, and assessing students’ current learning strategies for the particular type of task. This phase includes discussions about students’ current learning strategies, trials of a challenging task with and without strategies, diaries and learning logs, and think-aloud interviews with individual students in which the student describes his or her thoughts while working on a task. In the second phase, Presentation, teachers make new information and skills accessible and comprehensible to students through a variety of techniques, such as demonstrations, modeling, and visual support. In this phase teachers model a new learning strategy, give it a name in the target language, and explain when, why, and how to use it. The teacher also asks students to provide examples of when they have used the strategy and how it has worked for them. In other words, the teacher does not assume that any particular learning strategy is unknown to students. Some students might not know the strategy while others may already be using it. The focus is on naming the strategy and discussing how it can be used for language learning tasks. The Presentation phase is followed by or integrated with the third phase, Practice, in which students use the new information and skills (including learning strategies) in activities that involve collaboration, problem-solving, inquiry, and hands-on experiences. In practicing learning strategies, the teacher needs to choose a challenging task for students. If the task is too easy, students will be able to complete it without recourse to learning strategies; on the other hand, if the task is too difficult the learning strategies may not be effective, and students can become discouraged from using the strategies. The teacher should provide multiple practice opportunities, and should scaffold the instruction by gradually fading cues to use the strategies. The fourth phase of the CALLA instructional design sequence is Selfevaluation, in which students assess their own understanding and proficiency with the content, language, and learning strategies they have been practicing. Students may evaluate the learning strategies they have been practicing

40

A. U. Chamot

through class discussion, writing learning logs, completing checklists, or keeping a learning strategy diary. This phase is especially important in developing students’ ability to reflect on their own learning and metacognition. In the fifth phase, Expansion, students engage in activities that apply what they have learned to their own lives, including other classes at school, families and community, and their cultural and linguistic background. In this phase the learning strategy goal is to help students transfer the strategies they have been practicing to new tasks and situations. Teachers may ask students to use the strategies in a different class, to teach the strategies to a friend or sibling, and to develop a class book on learning strategy tips for other students. Finally, teachers assess what students have learned through a combination of formal and performance assessments tied directly to the content, language, and learning strategy objectives identified for the lesson or unit. Teachers need to assess whether students are actually using the instructed strategies and also try to ascertain whether the use of strategies is improving their achievement. The CALLA instructional framework emphasizes explicitness, metacognitive knowledge, and scaffolded support as the teacher and students work through these phases. The five phases are recursive, so that teachers can move between phases as needed to help students understand concepts and develop skills. The recursive nature of the CALLA instructional framework provides flexibility in planning language lessons that integrate content, language, and learning strategies that help students master both language and new content. 9 Directions for future research Future studies of language learning strategies will continue to identify the strategies used by different learners learning a variety of languages as researchers seek to understand different learner characteristics and the complex cognitive, social, and affective processes involved in processing language input and using the language for a variety of purposes. Likewise, language educators and methodologists will continue their quest for more effective instructional approaches, and, with the increasing emphasis on learner-centered instruction and learner empowerment in all areas of education, instruction in learning strategies will assume a greater role in teacher preparation and curriculum design. Classroom intervention studies could provide information about the effects of learning strategy instruction on achievement and language proficiency. Such studies need to be conducted with many different types of language stu-


41

dents, including children in foreign language immersion and non-immersion programs, school-aged students in bilingual and second language programs, older students with differing educational levels in their native languages, and students in learning contexts in a variety of countries and cultures. An important area for future research is in the development of language teacher expertise in learning strategy instruction. The evaluation of different models for teacher preparation in learning strategies instruction could lead to refining and improving current models. In addition, studies need to be undertaken to identify the relationship of effective learning strategy instruction to teacher characteristics such as teaching approach, attitude, and teacher beliefs, as it seems probable that effective learning strategy instruction is closely tied to specific teacher characteristics. In addition, the effectiveness of learning strategy instructional practice needs to be related to the amount and type of pre-service and/or in-service preparation in learning strategies instruction, and years of teaching experience and length of time teaching learning strategies. While the research to date has shown that language learning strategy instruction can contribute to the development of more effective language learning, additional research in specific language learning contexts is essential to realizing its potential to enhance second language acquisition and instruction. The research on developing language teacher expertise in learning strategy instruction is sparse and much remains to be done in this area. 10 Conclusion This chapter has provided a rationale for teaching learning strategies in the language classroom. A brief overview of research into the descriptive and intervention research on language learning strategies was followed by a discussion of instructional models and issues in the teaching of language learning strategies. Finally, guidelines and an instructional framework were provided to help language teachers incorporate explicit learning strategy instruction into their classrooms. References Abraham, R.G., & Vann, R.J. (1987). Strategies of two language learners: A case study. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning, pp. 85–102. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Anderson, N.J. (2005). L2 learning strategies. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Carrier, K.A. (2003). Improving high school English language learners’ second language listening through strategy instruction. Bilingual Research Journal, 27, 383–408.

42

A. U. Chamot

Chamot, A.U. (2004). Issues in language learning strategy research and teaching. Electronic Journal of Foreign language Teaching, 1(1), 12–25. Chamot, A.U. (2005). The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA): An update. In P.A. Richard-Amato & M.A. Snow (Eds.), Academic success for English language learners: Strategies for K-12 mainstream teachers (pp. 87–101). White Plains, NY: Longman. Chamot, A.U. (Forthcoming). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman. Chamot, A.U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P.B., Carbonaro, G., & Robbins, J. (1993). Methods for teaching learning strategies in the foreign language classroom and assessment of language skills for instruction. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED365157) Chamot, A.U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P.B., & Robbins, J. (1999). The learning strategies handbook. White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman. Chamot, A.U., & El-Dinary, P.B. (1999). Children’s learning strategies in immersion classrooms. The Modern Language Journal, 83(3), 319–341. Chamot, A.U., & Keatley, C.W. (2003). Learning strategies of adolescent low-literacy Hispanic ESL students. Paper presented at the 2003 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Chamot, A.U., & O'Malley, J.M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach. White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman. Cohen, A.D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London: Longman. Cohen, A.D. (2003). The learner’s side of foreign language learning: Where do style, strategies, and tasks meet? International Review of Applied Linguistics, 41, 279–291. Cohen, A.D., Weaver, S., & Li, T-Y. (1998). The impact of strategies-based instruction on speaking a foreign language. In A.D. Cohen (Ed.), Strategies in learning and using a second language (pp. 107–156). London: Longman. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Fan, M.Y. (2003). Frequency of use, perceived usefulness, and actual usefulness of second language vocabulary strategies: A study of Hong Kong learners. Modern Language Journal, 87(ii), 222–241. Graham, S.J. (2004). Giving up on modern foreign languages? Students’ perceptions of learning French. Modern Language Journal, 33(ii), 171–191. Graham, S., & Harris, K.R. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 3–12. Grenfell, M., & Harris, V. (1999). Modern languages and learning strategies: In theory and practice. London: Routledge. Harris, V. (2003). Adapting classroom-based strategy instruction to a distance learning context. TESL-EJ, 7(2). Retrieved from http://cwp60.berkeley.edu:16080/TESL-EJ/ej26/al.html Hosenfeld, C. (1976). Learning about learning: Discovering our students' strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 9, 117–129. Ikeda, M., & Takeuchi, O. (2003). Can strategy instruction help EFL learners to improve their reading ability?: An empirical study. JACET Bulletin, 37, 49–60. Keatley, C., Chamot, A.U., Spokane, A., & Greenstreet, S. (2004). Learning strategies of students of Arabic. The Language Resource, 8(4). Retrieved from http://www.nclrc.org/nectfl04ls.pdf


43

Khaldieh, S.A. (2000). Learning strategies and writing processes of proficient vs. lessproficient learners of Arabic. Foreign Language Annals, 33(5), 522–533. Macaro, E. (2001). Learning strategies in foreign and second language classrooms. London: Continuum. Naiman, N., Fröhlich, M., Stern, H.H., & Todesco, A. (1978). The good language learner. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Naiman, N., Fröhlich, M., Stern, H.H., & Todesco, A. (1996). The good language learner. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Nakatani, Y. (2005). The effects of awareness-raising training on oral communication strategy use. Modern Language Journal, 89(I), 76–91. National Reading Panel (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read. Retrieved from http:/www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/smallbook.htm Olivares-Cuhat, G. (2002). Learning strategies and achievement in the Spanish writing classroom: A case study. Foreign Language Annals, 35(5), 561–570. O’Malley, J.M., & Chamot, A.U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Oxford, R.L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House. Oxford, R.L., Cho, Y., Leung, S., & Kim, H-J. (2004). Effect of the presence and difficulty of task on strategy use: An exploratory study. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 42, 1–47. Oxford, R.L., & Leaver, B.L. (1996). A synthesis of strategy instruction for foreign language learners. In R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies around the world: Crosscultural perspectives (pp. 227–246). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press. Ozeki, N. (2000). Listening strategy instruction for female EFL college students in Japan. Tokyo: Macmillan Language House. Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Volume III (pp. 545–561). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P.B., Gaskins, I., Schuder, T., Bergman, J.L., Almasi, J., & Brown, R. (1992). Beyond direct explanation: Transactional instruction of reading comprehension strategies. Elementary School Journal, 92(5), 513–555. Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 41–51. Shen, H-J. (2003). The role of explicit instruction in ESL/EFL reading. Foreign Language Annals, 36(3), 424–433. Stern, H.H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian Modern Language Review, 31, 304–318. Takeuchi, O. (2003). What can we learn from good language learners: A qualitative study in the Japanese foreign language context. System, 31, 385–392. Vandergrift, L. (1997a). The comprehension strategies of second language (French) Listeners: A descriptive study. Foreign Language Annals, 30(3), 387–409. Vandergrift, L. (1997b). The Cinderella of communication strategies: Reception strategies in interactive listening. Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 494–505. Vandergrift, L. (2003). From prediction to reflection: Guiding students through the process of L2 listening. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 425–440.

44

A. U. Chamot

Vann, R.J., & Abraham, R.G. (1990). Strategies of unsuccessful language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 177–198. Wharton, G. (2000). Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language learners in Singapore. Language Learning, 50(2), 203–243.

3 DISCOURSE POLITENESS THEORY AND SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION 1

Mayumi Usami

1 Introduction In this chapter, I introduce a preliminary framework for a “Discourse Politeness Theory” (hereafter: DPT), which has been developed based on the results of a series of empirical studies on discourse behavior (for a review, see Usami, 1993d, 1998b, 2001a, 2002a, 2002b). This approach is an attempt to enable researchers to contrast politeness behavior in different languages with and without honorifics within the same framework while minimizing cultural biases and develop a more comprehensive universal theory of politeness at the discourse level. This proposal also aims to broaden politeness research to encompass the concept of “relative politeness” in addition to “absolute politeness”, which has thus far been studied within the field of pragmatics (e.g. Leech, 1983). This is because the notion of relative politeness permits the construction of a universal theory of “Discourse Politeness” (DP) as both a system of the principles of motivations that induce politeness strategies and a system of the interpretations of politeness in verbal interactions. The DPT and second language acquisition are closely related. This is because in cross-cultural interactions, language learners have to identify the “DP defaults” (see section 3.1.2) of the target language and culture and learn these in order to achieve smooth communication with others from the target language and culture. In this chapter, therefore, I will present a more detailed 1 This chapter is a revised version of the following paper, which is based on a plenary lecture at CLaSIC 2004, The Inaugural CLS International Conference, held at the National University of Singapore: Usami, M. (2004). Discourse politeness theory and second language acquisition. In Proceedings of CLaSIC 2004, The Inaugural CLS International Conference (pp. 719–737). Singapore: Centre for Language Studies. A similar version of this chapter, entitled “Discourse Politeness Theory and cross-cultural pragmatics” (Usami, 2006), is included in the following publication: Yoshitomi, A., Umino, T., & Negishi, J. (Eds.). (2006). Readings in second language pedagogy and second language acquisition: In Japanese context (UBLI Series No. 4). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

46

M. Usami

explanation of the relationship between the DPT and cross-cultural pragmatics by using examples from cross-cultural studies that can be explicated within the framework of the DPT. Finally, I will discuss the different ways in which this theory can contribute to finding solutions to problems created by the transfer of politeness strategies from one’s first language to one’s second language in actual cross-cultural exchanges and the manner in which language teachers can integrate the perspectives of the DPT into their teaching. 2 Basic definition In the following subsections, I will first define the terms that are crucial for a discussion on “politeness” and “politeness theory”. 2.1 Politeness Both Western politeness research and Japanese honorifics research have merely presented a vague definition of the term “politeness”; moreover, these research studies do not clearly differentiate politeness from other terms such as “deference”, “respect”, and “formality”, which are occasionally used interchangeably. In this chapter, the term “politeness” is understood in two contexts. In a broad context, it refers to all the different approaches and perspectives of the various theories of politeness. On the other hand, in a narrow or specific context, it refers to the politeness strategies defined by Brown and Levinson (1987) (hereafter: B&L), i.e. the choice of linguistic strategies to minimize the “Face Threat” of a particular act (for a review, see Usami, 2002a, 2002b). 2.2 Normative politeness and pragmatic politeness I also differentiate between the concepts of normative politeness, which refers to the traditional understanding of the degree of politeness intrinsic to “linguistic expressions”, and pragmatic politeness, which is defined as the “functions of language manipulation that work to maintain smooth human relationships” (Usami, 2001a, 2002a). In other words, pragmatic politeness not only comprises politeness resulting from linguistic forms and expressions (i.e. normative) but also comprises discourse behavior, such as topic initiation and the appropriate use of back-channels, speech-level shifts, incomplete utterances, context-dependent use of particles, appropriate frequency of the use of particles (Usami, 1992, 1993a, 1993b, 1993c, 1994a, 1994b, 1994c, 1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1998a, 1999c, 1999d, 2000a, 2000b, 2000c, 2000d), requestive

Discourse Politeness Theory and Second Language Acquisition

47

speech acts, such as prefacing before making a request (Kashiwazaki, 1995; Xie, 2000), compliment-reply discourses (Kim, 2000), utterances that do not possess linguistic politeness markers (Usami & Lee, 2003), metalanguage behavior (Sugito, 1983, 1993, 1998), and so on. Thus, in addition to the sentence-level politeness of linguistic forms, discourse-level phenomena also play an important role in pragmatic politeness. In this study, I primarily focus on pragmatic politeness, which can be understood as one of the effects of interactions on verbal behavior. 2.3 Language use according to social norms and strategic language use In this chapter, I employ the notion of “language behavior that conforms to sociolinguistic norms and conventions” to refer to all the literal, normative, and conventional language use that exist in the language of a society. In Japanese, these are not only limited to the use of honorifics, as mentioned in Ide (1982, 1989), but also include such behavior as the non-use of honorifics with close friends and the appropriate use of back-channels. Similarly, in English, it refers to the norms and conventions constraining linguistic behavior, such as the avoidance of slang in formal situations or the appropriate use of address terms. On the other hand, “strategic language use” refers to voluntary linguistic behavior based on individual choice that shows consideration toward positive and negative face, as defined by B&L (see section 3.3), irrespective of honorific system in the language concerned. For example, while communicating in Japanese, a speaker may strategically or unconsciously increase the frequency of the use of back-channels in order to indicate his/her interest (i.e. addressing positive face) in the interlocutor. In B&L’s politeness theory, the term “strategic language use” encompasses potentially unconscious language use, such as an increase in the frequency of the use of back-channels and speech-level shifts while communicating in Japanese, and such behavior as code-switching and the use of joking in both English and Japanese. 3 Discourse Politeness Theory In this section, I will introduce the six key concepts of a DPT, which has been developed on the basis of the results of a series of empirical studies on discourse behavior (for a review of previous studies on politeness theory, see Usami, 1993d, 1998b, 2001a, 2002a, 2002b).

48

M. Usami

3.1 Basic concepts Essentially, there are six key concepts in a DPT: (1) DP default, (2) marked and unmarked behavior, (3) marked and unmarked politeness, (4) discrepancy in the estimations of the degree of Face Threat (De value), (5) three types of politeness effects, and (6) relative and absolute politeness. Before explaining these concepts, I will first explain the term “Discourse Politeness.” 3.1.1 Discourse Politeness While there have been a number of researchers who have discussed discourselevel factors, such as metalanguage behavior or utterance organization (e.g. Blum-Kulka, 1990; Kasper, 1990; Leech, 1983; Sugito, 1983; Thomas, 1995), no actual attempts have been made to integrate these phenomena into a politeness theory. Therefore, according to the results of my previous empirical studies (Usami, 1993a, 1993b, 1993c, 1993d, 1994a, 1994b, 1994c, 1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1998a), in addition to the sentence-level politeness of linguistic forms, I introduce the concept of DP based on the opinion that discourse-level phenomena play an important role in pragmatic politeness. DP is defined as “the functional dynamic whole of factors of both linguistic forms and discourse-level phenomena that play a part in the pragmatic politeness of a discourse” (Usami, 1998b, 2001a, 2002a, 2002b, 2003). Basically, DP can be used in two ways. Its first use is when referring to “pragmatic politeness” that can only be interpreted at the discourse level. However, DP is also used to refer to the “DP default” (see section 3.1.2) of a certain discourse, which is understood to be the dynamic whole of the elements functioning for the pragmatic politeness of that particular discourse. The DPT involves language use that conforms to social norms and conventions and an individual speaker’s strategic language use as well as the interaction between these two. This applies to both honorific and non-honorific languages such as Japanese and English, respectively. I contend that the individual elements in DP, such as the frequency of topic initiation and speech-level shifts as well as DP itself as the functional dynamic whole of various elements are more appropriate focal points for studies that compare pragmatic politeness across languages with differing grammatical structures. Accordingly, the examination of these topics would contribute to the development of a comprehensive universal theory of politeness.


49

3.1.2 Discourse Politeness default The notion of “DP default” is fundamental to the DPT and can be illustrated with an example from the Japanese language: Focusing on speech levels in Japanese, any utterance is classified as containing polite forms (P), non-polite forms (N), or containing no politeness markers that are described as non-marked utterances (NM) (e.g. incomplete utterances and back-channels). By calculating the frequency of the occurrence of each speech level within a specific discourse, it is possible to determine the overall ratios of the speech levels. This indicates the DP default for the speech levels within that discourse, and the speech level with the highest frequency is referred to as the “dominant speech level”. For example, in a study of sentence-final speech levels (Usami, 2001b), the average ratio of P, N, and NM was 6:1:3. This can be concluded to be indicative of the DP default of the discourse in question. In this case, the P is the dominant or unmarked speech level (i.e. occurring in more than 50% of the utterances); therefore, using the N becomes marked behavior (see section 3.1.3) and gives rise to particular politeness effects, such as expressing empathy with the interlocutor(s), i.e. positive politeness. It is important to note that there exists a general “DP default of the discourse” that is “unmarked” in each specific discourse. Further, there are individual DP defaults for each individual element that contributes to DP in that discourse. In other words, there are two types of DP defaults: (1) the DP defaults of the discourse as a whole and (2) the DP defaults of individual elements within the discourse that constitute DP, such as speech levels and sentence-final particles. The DP defaults of the discourse as whole are considered as “unmarked discourse”, and the DP defaults of individual elements such as sentence-final particles are considered as “unmarked discourse elements”. The average frequency of the occurrence of various elements, such as speech-level shifts and back-channels, and the ratio of these elements relative to the structure of the discourse and their distribution within a particular discourse — which constitute a part of the DP of that discourse — are treated as one variable, i.e. as one of the DP defaults for the unmarked discourse elements. The concept of DP default as a dynamic whole is vital to the DPT. This is because it becomes a base parameter for calculating a relative politeness function, which is distinct from the politeness functions of its individual elements.

50

M. Usami

3.1.3 Marked and unmarked behavior In the DPT, identifying the DP defaults of specific types of discourses is the first step in understanding the relative nature of politeness. A systematic investigation of relative politeness can be conducted by examining the movements toward and away from those DP defaults. Linguistic behavior that is consistent with those DP defaults is termed as “unmarked behavior”, while that which deviates from those defaults is termed as “marked behavior”. Marked behavior does not necessarily give rise to marked politeness (see section 3.1.4) because both of these are distinct notions in the DPT. On the other hand, behavior consistent with DP defaults is always considered to be unmarked politeness. It is assumed that the elements comprising these DP defaults form DP as unmarked politeness, which is expected but unnoticed. However, if a hearer notices that something is either excessive or lacking with regard to these DP defaults, he/she might regard the speaker’s behavior as impolite (for further explanation, see section 3.1.4). 3.1.4 Marked and unmarked politeness In B&L’s politeness theory, politeness is understood as a strategy whereby one redresses “Face Threatening Acts” (FTAs), such as requests which infringe upon another person’s face. However, it has been pointed out that in this approach, one cannot adequately explain politeness that arises in ordinary conversations where FTAs do not seem to occur. In fact, a different type of politeness that does not involve redressing Face Threats can be found in an ordinary conversation. This type of politeness is associated with expected behavior, which is only noticed if it does not occur and generates perceptions of impoliteness. In the DPT, this is termed “unmarked politeness”. This type of politeness is contrasted with “marked politeness”, which encompasses B&L’s notion of politeness as linguistic strategies for redressing Face Threats. In the DPT, unmarked politeness refers to both the state of the discourse as a whole and the language behavior that is unconsciously expected. When those linguistic behaviors do not occur as expected, the discourse or utterance is considered impolite. When a speaker behaves according to implicit expectations or the DP default in a given situation, he/she displays unmarked behavior, which constitutes unmarked politeness. In contrast, unlike unmarked behavior, marked behavior that deviates from the expected norm or DP default does not necessarily give rise to marked politeness. Marked and un-


51

marked politeness can be distinguished in terms of the ways in which they are recognized. B&L’s politeness theory is considered to be a theory of marked politeness because it primarily focuses on linguistic politeness strategies that can be used to redress Face Threats in situations where one cannot help but commit an FTA. In general, politeness theory should systematically address both marked and unmarked politeness within a single framework, rather than merely focus on marked politeness, as is the case in B&L’s politeness theory (see Usami, 2001a, 2002a, 2002b). Although Fraser (1990) mentioned this type of unmarked politeness in his framework of “conversational contract” and Watts (1992) discussed the same type of behavior in a wider context of “politic behavior”, it can be said that neither of them fully developed a comprehensive theory of DP. The DPT attempts to systematically address both marked and unmarked politeness and consider both the speaker’s and the hearer’s points of view within a single framework. 3.1.5 Discrepancy in estimation value In the DPT, the “politeness strategy” is determined based on the speaker’s estimation of the degree of the Face Threat of his/her act, and the actual “politeness effect” is determined by the discrepancy between the speaker’s and hearer’s estimations of the degree of the Face Threat of the speaker’s act from the hearer’s point of view. I term the latter “politeness effect” and distinguish it from the “politeness strategy” in B&L's politeness theory. The De value as an index of the actual politeness effect is calculated by comparing the speaker’s and hearer’s estimations of the degree of the Face Threat of the speaker’s act. The “De value” is the value assigned to this discrepancy between the speaker’s and hearer’s estimations of the degree of the Face Threat. A De value cannot be an absolute numerical value, but rather is represented symbolically as distributed along a scale from –1 to 1. This is illustrated in Fig. 1 below. For example, minus-politeness effects include so-called “polite insolence” (inginburei); here, the hearer experiences unpleasant feelings despite the speaker’s use of polite forms. In the DPT, from the hearer’s perspective, polite insolence — which has thus far received little attention in honorifics research in Japanese — can be regarded as the result of a speaker’s excessive use of polite expressions that extend beyond the acceptable variation (+Į) defined in the “De value scale” illustrated in Fig. 1. In other words, the linguistic

52

M. Usami

expressions employed by the speaker in a particular situation are excessively polite and go beyond the acceptable difference as compared with the hearer’s expectation regarding the appropriate linguistic behavior in that situation. -1

-Į

凢

+Į

+1

(De value scale)

Degree of discrepancy in estimations of the degree of the Face Threat (De value) Appropriateness of Behavior

-1 䵐 De < 0 - Į

0 – Į 䵐 De 䵐 0 + Į

0 + Į 凮 De 䵐 + 1

Insufficient behavior Appropriate behavior Excessive behavior (impolite) (polite) (polite insolence)

Politeness effects Minus effects Neutral effects

Plus effects

Minus effects

Discrepancy in estimations凬 De = Se – He De: The degree of discrepancy between speaker’s and hearer’s estimation of the degree of the Face Threat of the speaker’s act. Se: Speaker’s estimation of the degree of the Face Threat of his/her act; Expressed as a value between 0 and 1 He: Hearer’s estimation of the degree of the Face Threat of the speaker’s act; Expressed as a value between 0 and 1 Į凬 Acceptable difference between the speaker’s and hearer’s estimation of the degree of the Face Threat of the speaker’s act from the viewpoint of the hearer. Fig. 1. Discrepancy in estimations (De value), appropriateness of behavior and politeness effects

3.1.6 The three types of politeness effects In the DPT, face redressing acts are considered to be a type of marked behavior. Three types of effects can arise from marked behavior: (1) pluspoliteness effects, (2) neutral-politeness effects, and (3) minus-politeness effects. These effects essentially result in pleasantness, neutral effects (neither pleasant nor unpleasant), or unpleasantness, respectively. The neutralpoliteness effects at the discourse level are not addressed in B&L’s politeness theory, since a notion of unmarked politeness would be necessary in order to examine these effects. Moreover, B&L’s politeness theory does not systematically treat the minus-politeness effects, which are produced by either making


53

no effort to reduce the degree of threat to the hearer’s face or by using excessive polite forms. Thus, the DPT expanded B&L’s politeness theory in scope. This is because, in addition to plus-politeness effects, it encompasses the neutral- and minus-politeness effects within a unified theoretical framework. Moreover, the neutral- and minus-politeness effects are systematically explained by introducing the concept of the degree of discrepancy between the speaker’s and hearer’s estimations of the degree of the Face Threat of the act in question. The discrepancy between these estimations, i.e. the De value, is represented by a symbolic numerical continuum, as explained above. Thus, the minuspoliteness effects (or unpleasantness), including both polite insolence and rudeness, can be explained by an integrated theory of politeness, namely the DPT. 3.1.7 Absolute and relative politeness A final distinction to be made with regard to the DPT is between “absolute” and “relative politeness”. The former involves labeling particular linguistic forms or strategies as being intrinsically more polite than others, for example, the Japanese honorific verb irassharu (“go-Hon”) is considered to be inherently more polite than its non-honorific equivalent iku (“go”). However, if one uses honorifics while conversing with someone with whom one usually speaks to rather casually (the DP default of that discourse is casual speech), it could be implied as sarcasm rather than politeness. Similarly, even if one uses non-polite expressions in situations where the DP default is polite forms, depending on the context, the effect could be an increase in the feeling of solidarity rather than an implication of impoliteness. Thus, in the DPT, politeness effects are considered to not be produced by merely using polite expressions in an absolute sense, but rather to be relatively produced by the “movement” toward and away from the DP defaults of the discourse in question. I term this type of politeness as “relative politeness”. It is important that the DPT includes both the concepts of De value (discrepancy between the speaker’s and hearer’s estimations of the degree of the Face Threat) and DP default as a base parameter for calculating relative politeness effects. Thus, the DPT integrates the interactive and relative aspects of politeness effects by including the above-mentioned concept of “relative politeness”. It is important to include these three concepts within a theory of politeness; thus, these three constitute the fundamental aspects of the DPT.

54

M. Usami

3.2 Politeness effects arising from deviated behavior from the DP default: Examples from Japanese and English DP is defined as “the functional dynamic whole of factors of both linguistic forms and discourse-level phenomena that play a part in the pragmatic politeness of a discourse” (Usami, 1998c, 2001a, 2002a, 2002b, 2003). 3.2.1 Speech-level shifts in Japanese conversations Japanese conversations have numerous elements that constitute DP; however, for the sake of brevity, I will only focus on speech levels as an example of an element of DP. I will explain the relative nature of the politeness effects with the help of Fig. 2. In Fig. 2, the largest circle represents a set of functions of various elements in DP as a whole. The small circles inside the larger ones represent a set of functions of each element in DP, which is hypothesized to be factors such as the frequency of back-channels, topic introduction, and speech levels. The number of elements is not limited to five as shown in the large circles above. The circles from which the arrows are pointing outward represent the “unmarked speech levels” as the DP defaults of the respective discourses. In the example in Fig. 2, the speech level that deviates from the “unmarked dominant speech level” as the DP default becomes “marked behavior” at the utterance level (N in conversations between people meeting for the first time, and P in conversation between friends). As illustrated by the diagram on the left-hand side of the figure, in the case of a conversation between unacquainted people, P (polite forms) is the dominant, unmarked speech level as the DP default of the discourse. Therefore, the continued use of P maintains unmarked politeness, while the use of N (nonpolite forms) becomes marked, giving rise to certain special functions or effects, such as showing empathy and indicating a topic change (Usami, 1995). On the other hand, as illustrated on the right-hand side of the figure, in the case of a conversation between friends or married couples, the DP default or unmarked speech level is contrary to the previous case, i.e. N. Accordingly, in this discourse, the use of N constitutes the DP default as unmarked politeness and can be considered as sufficiently polite. Thus, the use of P in this discourse becomes marked behavior, and contrary to the view of politeness as the “politeness level of linguistic forms”, a failure to conform to the DP default by the use of a P may result in the minus-politeness effect, i.e., sarcasm or impoliteness. This might be understood intuitively in terms of everyday observations.


DP defaults of conversations between people meeting for the first time

DP defaults of conversations between friends or married couples

(Unmarked speech level = P: polite forms)

(Unmarked speech level = N: non-polite forms)

P

55

N N

P

Deviation from the unmarked speech level (marked behavior) Marked behavior gives rise to particular functions (“plus-politeness effects”, “neutral-politeness effects” or “minus-politeness effects”)

Fig. 2. DP defaults and marked behavior in specific activity types

According to the DPT, marked behavior gives rise to one of the following three types of politeness effects: (1) plus-politeness effects (e.g. expressions of familiarity or closeness), (2) neutral-politeness effects (e.g. changing topic), or (3) minus-politeness effects (e.g. sarcasm or impoliteness). Accordingly, we notice that P can be used either when arguing or to express sarcasm in conversations where N is the unmarked speech level of the discourse. In other words, in conversations where N is unmarked, the use of P, which constitutes marked behavior, can also give rise to the three effects mentioned above including minus-politeness effect, despite the fact that P itself is a “polite form”. These examples indicate that, essentially, it is the “dynamics” of language use — in a specific situation where the speaker deviates from and returns to the DP defaults as unmarked politeness — and not the absolute politeness level of the linguistic form that is responsible for occurrence of pragmatic politeness effects (Usami, 2001a, 2002a, 2002b).

56

M. Usami

3.2.2 The switching of the absolute politeness level of linguistic expressions in conversations between English-speaking couples The same phenomenon can be observed in English and can also be explained by using the notion of the DP default given in the DPT; this indicates that it is possible to interpret pragmatic politeness in different languages within the same framework. The following example is taken from Thomas (1995, p. 156). (1) [Taken from a short story by James Thurber]2 A married couple is trying to decide on a restaurant. The husband says: “You choose.”

Thomas maintains that although this utterance is a direct imperative, it would normally be seen as perfectly polite because the speech act is what Leech (1983, pp. 107–108) terms as “costly to the speaker” or (better in this case) “beneficial to the hearer” (Thomas, 1995, p. 156). This explanation is applicable to English; however, it cannot be used to explain a Japanese translation of this example (“Kimi, erabe yo”). Irrespective of the utterance’s “benefit to the hearer”, if the hearer is of a higher social status than the speaker or the hearer is someone the speaker has met for the first time, it is impossible for such an utterance to be understood as polite. The alternative translation “Erande kudasai” has the minimum appropriate amount of politeness; however, as compared with the original, it has a higher “politeness level” in terms of linguistic form. Further, it is not a direct imperative; it is in the form of a request. Therefore, Thomas’s argument does not hold for this example in Japanese, and we can conclude that one cannot translate the politeness effects in English directly into Japanese. What this example does show is that due to the strong influence of the various structures and characteristics of different languages, it is impossible to present a consistent explanation of politeness across languages at the utterance level. Thomas (1995) further discusses her claim that there is no necessary connection between the politeness level of linguistic forms and the politeness (effect) arising from those forms with the following example (p. 156) in which a married couple is becoming irritated with each another: 2 Thurber, J. (1963). A couple of hamburgers. In J. Thurber, Vintage Thurber: A collection, in two volumes, of the best writings and drawings of James Thurber with an introduction by Helen Thurber (p. 103). London: Hamilton.


57

(2) “Will you be kind enough to tell me what time it is?” [and later]: “If you’ll be kind enough to speed up a little.”

Thomas explains that in the context of an intimate relationship, these utterances “appear inappropriately indirect” (p. 156). However, while Leech’s politeness maxims can explain why the utterance in example (1) is regarded as polite, they cannot explain why the utterances in example (2) cannot be regarded as polite, despite the use of indirect expressions. Thomas comments that only “… in the context of an intimate relationship they appear inappropriately indirect …” (p. 156); however, she does not explain why one would interpret it in this way. In the DPT, both examples (1) and (2) can be interpreted by adopting a common principle. Direct expressions can be assumed to be the unmarked politeness or DP default between English-speaking couples. Therefore, the direct “You choose” in example (1) constitutes unmarked politeness and is thus sufficiently polite (or perhaps it would be more appropriate to suggest that it is not rude/impolite). On the other hand, in example (2), since direct expressions are the DP default, the wife’s use of so-called “polite expressions” became a marked behavior and produced a minus-politeness effect (i.e. sarcasm or impoliteness).

3.3 Determining DP defaults for research in cross-cultural pragmatics According to the DPT, after identifying the DP default as unmarked politeness for each individual conversation or discourse, one can examine the politeness effects arising from the marked behaviors in that discourse interaction. Accordingly, one can interpret the pragmatic politeness effects arising in a specific conversation in a relative manner, even if there are variations in the discourse content, use of linguistic forms, and relationships between the interlocutors in the absolute sense. The determination of the DP default of a discourse — which is an amalgamation of various elements — includes the determination of the DP default of the overall discourse and individual elements, such as speech level default, back-channel frequency default, default for the frequency of topic initiation by each interlocutor, default for the request sequence pattern, and so on. Thus, it is necessary to identify the elements that give rise to important functions in the DP of representative activity-types in various languages and cultures. It is

58

M. Usami

then necessary to identify the DP defaults of both the discourse as a whole and the crucial elements within the discourse. Identifying the DP defaults of each element in particular activity-types in different languages and cultures is a relatively simple starting point and is a topic of significant interest. However, strict adherence to the process of determining the DP default of the overall discourse and each activity-type within the discourse and then identifying the individual marked behaviors that deviate from these DP defaults using the newly collected data requires considerable time and effort. Thus, in order to simplify this process, one can use the approximate tendencies that emerged in similar activity-types from the results of previous studies as the DP defaults for a specific discourse or activity-type. For example, with regard to the discourse between married couples, there exists considerable data proving that “direct expressions” are unmarked in English. In this way, the abovementioned utterance (“Will you be kind enough to tell what time it is?”) in the conversation between the married couple can be interpreted to be an example of sarcasm rather than politeness. 3.4 The DPT and associated research A number of empirical research studies have pursued various interests in pragmatics from the perspective of DP. These studies have identified the DP defaults of crucial elements in the various activity-types of a discourse as the basis of the research. For example, the DP defaults for the frequency of topic initiation, distributions of speech levels, and frequency of the speech-level shift have been identified for conversations between Japanese adults meeting for the first time (Usami, 1996a, 1996b, 1998c, 2001a, 2002a). Otsuka (2004) has analyzed the effects of changes in speech style in TV debates utilizing the DPT framework. Case study findings have also identified tentative DP defaults for the use of back-channels at the beginning and the end of conversations between Japanese adults meeting for the first time (Usami, 1993a, 1993b, 1993c, 1993d, 1994a, 1995). DP defaults for the frequency of the use of the particle ne in casual conversation between colleagues and in meetings have also been examined (Usami, 1997). Kiyama (2005) has identified that there are different DP defaults for “substantive disagreement” and “courtesy disagreement” in Japanese conversations between friends and strangers. Xie (2000) has identified the DP defaults in Chinese and Japanese for sequence patterns in request discourses. Olivieri (1999) has identified the DP defaults of speech levels in conversations between Japanese and those between Japanese and Italians


59

meeting for the first time; Usami and Lee (2003) have identified the DP defaults of speech levels and their distribution in conversations between Japanese and those between Koreans. In addition, although not planned specifically from the perspective of DP, the ways in which the DP defaults for the Japanese with regard to the conversations between newly acquainted Japanese and Koreans changed over time were also investigated on four different occasions over a set period of time (Oyanagi, 2000). 4 The application of the DPT to cross-cultural pragmatics and second language acquisition In this section, I will first discuss the relationship between the DPT and crosscultural pragmatics research and second language acquisition. Then I will describe the implications of DPT for second language acquisition and intercultural communication by explaining some examples. 4.1 The relationship between the DPT and cross-cultural pragmatics research The DPT is intended to be a universal theory of politeness. However, at the same time, the theory integrates the factors that are related to cultural norms and customs in speech acts and discourse behaviors by introducing the concept of relative politeness, which is based on the DP default as unmarked politeness. Therefore, the first step in applying the DPT is to identify the main elements/factors that constitute DP defaults and conduct comparative studies on the defaults of these elements with regard to DP in various languages and cultures. The important constituents for DP may be different in each language and culture; moreover, even if the same constituents are important, the DP defaults of those constituents may differ for each language and culture. In this sense, although investigating the DP defaults for each main activity-type in various languages and cultures seems to be an investigation of the typology of linguistic behavior patterns, from the perspective of the DPT, it also means identifying the DP default as unmarked politeness in various languages and cultures in order to analyze the effects of marked behavior. For example, if the differences in request or refusal behaviors among various cultures are examined from the perspective of the DPT, the different DP defaults for request or refusal discourses in each culture can be regarded as the basis for identifying marked behaviors, which basically produce politeness

60

M. Usami

effects in each language and culture. Based on this, one can regard such studies as those that do not simply describe cultural differences from a crosscultural perspective, but rather identify the DP defaults of specific verbal behaviors in various languages and cultures from the perspective of the DPT. In this case, one can utilize the DP defaults as the basis for the different perceptions and impressions of specific verbal behaviors in each culture. Thus, the DPT can be applied to find ways to solve intercultural miscommunication. Furthermore, these findings allow a universal explanation of the motivations and mechanisms that give rise to politeness strategies and the effects that underlie the identified culture-specific behaviors in various languages and cultures. For example, Xie (2000) examined request discourse in Japanese and Chinese based on the data from the discourse completion tests (DCT) and the recordings of actual conversations. In the case of the former, an analysis of the utterance-level responses showed no differences between requests in Chinese and Japanese. However, in the case of the latter, she found that in Japanese it was common for there to be a sequence of (1) attention-getter, (2) checking the possibility of compliance, (3) supportive strategies (explanation for the request) etc., before the appearance of the request utterance itself. However, in Chinese, the request utterance followed immediately after the attentiongetter, thus suggesting a difference in sequence patterns between the two languages. If we interpret these results in terms of DP, we can observe that the DP default as unmarked politeness with regard to the request discourse is different in Japanese and Chinese. In Japanese, going through the elaborate sequence before making a request constitutes unmarked politeness; however, in Chinese, the short sequence, i.e. an attention-getter, followed by a request utterance constitutes unmarked politeness. Based on these results, if learners of Japanese who are native speakers of Chinese transfer the utterance sequence that constitutes unmarked politeness in Chinese to Japanese, their Japanese interlocutors may feel that their requests are either abrupt or rude. This might be the case even if the politeness level of the linguistic forms in their requests is appropriate at the utterance level. On the other hand, if one follows the Japanese request sequence pattern to make a request in Chinese, this marked behavior may be viewed as being cold and distant or as harboring some ulterior motive. Thus, if we consider the differences in the DP defaults across various languages and cultures, the identification of the DP defaults going beyond the utterance level for specific “activity-types” can be useful in facilitating smoother intercultural communication


61

and clarifying the causes of intercultural miscommunication with regard to politeness. Similarly, by analyzing the differences in the DP defaults of important speech acts in various languages and cultures, one can focus on the interactions between native and non-native speakers. This leads to a richer understanding of the reasons for intercultural miscommunication at the discourse level, moving beyond a focus on grammatical errors and the use of honorifics at the sentence/utterance level. Ultimately, this understanding may be applied to facilitate smoother intercultural communication. DPT and second language acquisition (language learning) are closely related. This is because in terms of cross-cultural interaction, language learners have to identify the DP defaults and learn them in order to achieve smooth communication with others in the target language and culture. Some studies have already begun to analyze natural conversation data and conversation teaching materials in order to compile language teaching materials with the view to utilize the framework of the DPT (Usami, 2005; Suzuki et al., 2005; Xie et al., 2003). 4.2 Implications for second language acquisition and intercultural communication In addition to bringing together discourse-level phenomena and politeness theory, the DPT draws on literature concerned with conversational strategies and the teaching of second or foreign languages. Hymes (1972) expanded on the notion of linguistic competence with his term “communicative competence”, meaning the speaker’s knowledge of the abstract rules of a language’s use. Since then, the importance of discourse phenomena has been emphasized in second language teaching. Many researchers have claimed that accuracy of grammar at the sentence level is not enough to enable one to speak a second language properly (Beebe, 1988; Brumfit & Johnson, 1979; Widdowson, 1978; Wolfson, 1989). “Conversational strategy”, including both communicative effectiveness and social appropriateness, is defined as “a verbal behavior that functions to facilitate a smooth, harmonious conversation” (Hata, 1988). However, the exact nature and the rules governing the appropriate use of conversational strategies in Japanese have not yet been clarified. “Politeness” is one aspect of language use that most reflects different cultural perspectives. Thus polite expressions in the first language may not simply translate to the second language, and so their use can be considered to be a

62

M. Usami

kind of conversational strategy. For example, in the Japanese culture, frequent “back-channels” are considered polite, since they indicate that the hearer is paying attention to the speaker. Failure to use back-channels often enough may cause the speaker anxiety and may even be considered impolite. Thus, speakers ensure they are being polite by using both sentence-level features (e.g. honorifics) and discourse-level features (e.g. back-channels and interruptions). Mizutani (1985) points out that the appropriate use of back-channels in Japanese is one of the most difficult things to acquire for most non-native speakers of Japanese. Americans use fewer back-channels than Japanese (Maynard, 1989), probably because American culture considers them interruptions. Japanese speakers, however, sometimes feel Americans are not listening to them because they are not hearing enough of the expected backchannels. Japanese speakers who are not aware that English typically uses fewer back-channels may think that the American speaker is impolite. This kind of misunderstanding, however, can be minimized if Japanese conversational strategies are systematically taught to international students. Appropriate language use in Japanese requires assessing factors such as the interlocutors’ social status, age and social distance as part of the social context. It is necessary for both control of honorifics and for conversational strategies such as topic management. For example, Japanese speakers must carefully consider the appropriate frequency of topic initiation, especially when talking with a superior. A younger person who initiates topics more frequently than an older one might be considered pushy and impolite. The situationally appropriate use of rules, such as those for topic management, downshifts of politeness level of linguistic form, and back-channeling, may be among the most difficult aspects of Japanese for non-native speakers to acquire. In addition, speakers must understand discourse-level phenomena. Such phenomena include rules for turn-taking, rules of topic initiation and development, and narrative structure, many of which cannot simply be transferred from the first to the second language. There is a need to teach socio-cultural aspects of language, such as “communicative effectiveness” and “social appropriateness”, which can be fully understood only by examining discourselevel practices (Brumfit, 1984; Corder, 1983; Hata, 1988; Okada, 1992; Omaggio, 1986; Snow, 1989). There are countless combinations of relationships among the factors “power”, “social distance” and “degree of imposition”, but it is almost impossible to manipulate one of these without affecting the others. However, a major


63

problem in Japanese language instruction has been the failure to try to sort out these complex factors. In the teaching of honorific use, it is emphasized that one should manipulate honorifics depending on the effects of the configuration of these three factors. It is clearly difficult for non-native speakers of Japanese to learn the appropriate use of honorifics based on such vague instruction. In order to incorporate the use of such conversational strategies into the teaching of second languages, it is necessary to examine three issues: (1) conversational strategies used in Japanese conversational discourse; (2) rules governing the appropriate use of conversational strategies; and (3) the relationship of conversational strategies to politeness. The DPT should help develop a set of rules for the appropriate use of discourse-politeness strategies, and thus contribute to the teaching of Japanese as a second language. 5 Future issues with regard to the DPT Future work on the DPT will focus both on validating its assumptions through empirical research and further development of the theory itself. Validating the DPT involves identifying the DP defaults as unmarked politeness for various activity-types or discourse in different languages. The DP defaults for a particular type of discourse are identified by examining the typical examples of that discourse. Thus, identifying these DP defaults is somewhat similar to clarifying the sociolinguistic norms and customs in language use at the discourse level. However, the aim of this research is not to establish model examples of discourse, as such, but rather to focus on the deviations from the DP defaults in order to develop a better understanding of the relative politeness phenomena associated with these DP defaults. Further, the theoretical development of the DPT will focus on predicting, interpreting, and explaining how politeness functions in human interactions. It is necessary to further clarify how the content of the utterances and the speaker’s intentions are related to their various effects, such as expressing empathy with others, picking fights, or simply emphasizing the prepositional content of the utterances. The issues that need to be further studied can be summarized under the following four main themes: (1) Systematizing the relationship of the interactional politeness effects between the utterance content and the politeness level of its linguistic forms. (2) Systematizing the process of identifying and predicting the polite-

64

M. Usami

ness effects (plus- , neutral- , and minus-politeness effects) arising from a marked behavior. (3) Systematizing the politeness effects associated with the utterance sequences. (4) Theorizing about the speaker’s “intentionality” of committing (or not committing) FTAs. 6 The DPT as a theory of interpersonal communication The ultimate aim of the DPT is to establish a universal theory to investigate and compare politeness effects in languages with and without honorifics, such as Japanese and English. The DPT has a number of innovative aspects including expanding the scope of research beyond that encompassed by B&L’s politeness theory to the discourse level and defining the term “politeness” operationally as a relative phenomenon involving the interaction from both the speaker’s and hearer’s perspectives. The DPT also introduces the notion of relative politeness by incorporating the notion of the DP defaults of particular activity-types or discourses as unmarked politeness; this enables the DP default to serve as the basis for an analysis through which deviations as marked behavior become apparent, thereby generating actual politeness effects. The DPT differs from B&L’s politeness theory, which emphasizes the speaker’s estimation of the degree of the Face Threat. In other words, when considering the actual politeness effects, the DPT incorporates not only the use of the speaker’s politeness strategies based on his/her estimation of the degree of the Face Threat of the act in question but also the discrepancy between the speaker’s and hearer’s estimations of the degree of the Face Threat of the speaker’s act. Hence, as shown in Fig. 1, when the discrepancy between the speaker’s and hearer’s estimations of the degree of the Face Threat of the speaker’s act is approximately zero or within acceptable variations (0 ± Į), it is regarded as appropriate behavior, regardless of the politeness level of the linguistic forms themselves. In other words, it is assumed that the actual politeness effects are assumed to arise from the discrepancy between the speaker’s and hearer’s estimations of the degree of the Face Threat of the speaker’s act 3 . Furthermore, in the DPT, the differences in their perceptions of the prototypical patterns or schemata of specific activity-types are also regarded as the DP defaults of those activity-types and assume an important role in the 3

It is assumed that the speaker acts on the basis of his/her own estimation of the degree of the Face Threat. Cases in which the speaker intentionally threatens the face of the hearer through linguistic behavior are treated separately.


65

overall theoretical focus. The above discussion implies that the hearer’s perspective and the discourse-based perceptions of both the speakers and hearers are given more weight in the explanation of pragmatic politeness. Thus, this approach incorporates the discourse-based relative perception of human interaction as a key aspect and is the first to systemize politeness at the discourse level. This is the primary reason for terming this framework the DPT. In the DPT, politeness is a general term encompassing not only absolute politeness, or the speaker’s politeness strategies, but also the relative politeness effects arising through deviated behaviors from the DP defaults of various activity-types of discourses. The aim of the DPT is to investigate the universality of the mechanisms underlying these types of discourse behaviors as well as culture-specific politeness strategies that arise out of the universal motivations for smooth human relations and interpersonal communication. In this sense, this theory can be regarded as a theory of interpersonal communication. 7 Conclusion In this chapter, I have discussed the key aspects of the DPT by focusing on the concept of relative politeness and the interactive and dynamic nature of politeness strategies and politeness effects. Several other issues are being examined within the framework of the DPT and its connection to second language acquisition. Further, there remain a number of unresolved issues that have been mentioned in this chapter. These issues, although related to the DPT, are also important aspects for future research in the fields of crosscultural pragmatics, interpersonal communication, and second language acquisition. In other words, all these issues are related to our approach to systematize the functions of interactivity, dynamics, and relativity in interpersonal communication. The further development of this theory will not only lead to a more comprehensive theory of politeness but may also contribute to the further development of theories of cross-cultural pragmatics and interpersonal communication as well as the application of this theory to second language acquisition. References Beebe, L. (1988). Issues in second language acquisition. New York: Newbury House Publishers. Blum-Kulka, S. (1990). You don’t touch lettuce with your fingers: Parental politeness in family discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 259–288.

66

M. Usami

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brumfit, C. (1984). Communicative methodology in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brumfit, C., & Johnson, K. (1979). The communicative approach to language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Corder, S.P. (1983). Strategies of communication. In C. Færch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 15–19). London; New York: Longman. Fraser, B. (1990). Perspective on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 1, 219–236. Hata, H. (1988). Gaikokujin no tame no nihongo kaiwa no strategy to sono kyoiku [Japanese conversational strategies for foreigners and teaching methods]. Nihongo gaku, 7, 100– 117. Hymes, D. (1972). Toward ethnographies of communication: The analysis of communicative events. In P. Giglioli (Ed.), Language and social context (pp. 21–43). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Ide, S. (1982). Japanese sociolinguistics: Politeness and women's language. Lingua, 57, 357– 385. Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua, 8, 223–248. Kashiwazaki, H. (1995). Danwa level de toraeru teineisa — danwa tenkai ga teineido hyôtei ni ataeru eikyô [Politeness at the discourse level — the influence of discourse development on politeness level]. Nihon Bunka Kenkyûjo Kiyô, 1, 61–73. Kasper, G. (1990). Linguistic politeness: Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 193–218. Kim, K. (2000). Home ni taisuru hentô no nikkan taishô kenkyû [A comparative study of ‘return to compliments’ in Korean and Japanese]. Gengo Chiikibunka Kenkyû, 8, 179–196. Kiyama, S. (2005). Disagreement in the Japanese small talk — in respect to politeness. In Japanese Studies: Research and education annual report 9 (pp. 27–48). Tokyo: Department of Japanese studies and Student Exchange Division, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. New York: Longman. Maynard, S.K. (1989). Japanese conversation. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Mizutani, N. (1985). Hanashi kotoba no bunpo [Colloquial grammar]. Tokyo: Kurosio Shuppan. Okada, Y. (1992). Communication noryoku kaihatsu no tameno danwa-bunseki to kyoiku [Discourse analysis of the development of communication skills and teaching methods]. In R. Tajima & K. Niwa (Eds.), Nihongo Ronkyu 1: Gengogaku to sono shuhen (pp. 227–237). Tokyo: Izumi Shoin. Olivieri, C. (1999). Italia-jin gakushûsha no nihongo ni okeru speech-level shift [Speech-level shift in the Japanese of Italian learners]. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Japan. Omaggio, A.C. (1986). Teaching language in context: Proficiency-oriented instruction. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Otsuka, Y. (2004). Terebi tôron bangumi ni okeru buntai kirikae no kôka [Effects of change in speech style in TV debates — In terms of politeness theory]. Gifu Shôtoku gakuen daigaku kiyô Gaikokugo gakubu, 43, 111–124.


67

Oyanagi, M. (2000). Nishakan kaiwa ni okeru kyori o chijimeru strategy [Distance minimizing strategies in dyadic conversation]. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Japan. Snow, C.E. (1989). Understanding social interaction and language acquisition: Sentences are not enough. In M.H. Bornstein & J.S. Bruner (Eds.), Interaction in human development (pp. 83–103). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. Sugito, S. (1983). Taigû hyôgen to shite no gengo kôdô – “chûshaku” to iu shiten [Speech acts as “taigû hyôgen” – views on “notation”]. Nihongogaku 2(7), 32–42. Sugito, S. (1993). Keigo [Honorifics]. Kokubungaku 38(12), 38–42. Sugito, S. (1998). Meta-gengo kôdô hyôgen no kinô: taijinsei no mechanism [The function of meta-expressions of linguistic acts: The mechanism of interpersonal communication]. Nihongogaku — fukuzatsuka shakai no communication, 17(11), 168–177. Suzuki, T., Matsumoto, K., & Usami, M. (2005). An analysis of teaching materials based on New Zealand English conversation in natural settings: Implications for the development of conversation teaching materials. In Y. Kawaguchi, S. Zaima, T. Takagaki, K. Shibano & M. Usami (Eds.), Linguistic informatics — State of the art and the future (pp. 295– 315). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. New York: Longman. Thurber, J. (1963). Vintage Thurber: A collection, in two volumes, of the best writings and drawings of James Thurber with an introduction by Helen Thurber. London: Hamilton. Usami, M. (1992). Speech-level shift in Japanese discourse. In Proceedings of the conference of the Society for Teaching Japanese as a Foreign Language (pp. 19–24). Tokyo: Society for Teaching Japanese as a Foreign Language. Usami, M. (1993a). Shotaimen nishakan kaiwa ni okeru kaiwa no strategy no bunseki. [Analysis of discourse strategies in dyadic conversation between unacquainted people]. Gakuen, 647, 37–47. Usami, M. (1993b). Shotaimen nishakan no kaiwa no kôzô to washa ni yoru kaiwa no strategy. [Discourse structure and strategies in dyadic conversations between unacquainted people]. Human Communication Studies, 21, 25–39. Usami, M. (1993c). Politeness in Japanese dyadic conversations between unacquainted people: The influence of power asymmetry. Paper presented at the 10th World Congress of Applied Linguistics, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 8–14 August 1993. Usami, M. (1993d). Danwa level kara mita “politeness”: “Politeness theory” no fuhenriron kakuritsu no tameni [“Politeness” in discourse: Towards the construction of a universal theory of “politeness”]. Kotoba, 14, 20–29. Usami, M. (1994a). Politeness and Japanese conversational strategies: Implications for the teaching of Japanese. Unpublished qualifying paper submitted to Harvard University. Usami, M. (1994b). Gengo-kôdô ni okeru “politeness” no nichibei hikaku [A comparative study of polite language behavior in Japan and the United States]. Speech Communication Education, 7, 30–41. Usami, Ma. (1994c). Seisa ka chikara no sa ka: shotaimen nishakan no kaiwa ni okeru wadaidônyû no hindo to keishiki no bunseki yori [Power or gender? From the analysis of frequencies and forms of topic initiations in dyadic conversations between unacquainted people]. Kotoba, 15, 53–69.

68

M. Usami

Usami, M. (1995). Danwa level kara mita keigo shiyô: speech-level shift seiki no jôken to kinô [Conditions for speech-level shift occurrence in Japanese discourse]. Gakuen, 662, 27– 42. Usami, M. (1996a). Discourse Politeness in Japanese conversation: From the results of speech-level shifts and topic management strategies. Paper presented in special sessions: Round table “Culture-specific behaviors and language teaching: Across disciplinary discussions”, at the 11th World Congress of Applied Linguistics, Jyvaskyla, Finland. Usami, M. (1996b). Shotaimen nishakan-kaiwa ni okeru wadai-dônyû no hindo to taiwa aite no nenrei, shakaitekichii, sei no kankei ni tsuite [The interrelationship between frequency of topic initiation and age, social status, and gender in dyadic conversations between newly acquainted people]. Kotoba, 17, 44–57. Usami, M. (1997). “Ne” no communication kinô to “Discourse Politeness” [“Discourse Politeness” and the communicative functions of the sentence-final particle “ne”]. In Gendai Nihongo Kenkyukai (Eds.), Josei no kotoba shokuba hen [Research on female speech in the workplace] (pp. 241–268). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobô. Usami, M. (1998a). “Discourse Politeness strategy” to shite no “speech-level shift” [Speechlevel shift as a Discourse Politeness strategy]. In Heisei 10 nendo, Nihongo kyôiku gakkai shûki taikai yokôshû [Proceedings of the Fall Conference of the Society for Teaching Japanese as a Foreign Language], (p. 110–115). Tokyo: Society for Teaching Japanese as a Foreign Language. Usami, M. (1998b). Politeness’ riron no tenkai: “Discourse Politeness” to iu toraekata [On the notion of “Discourse Politeness”: Towards the development of a universal theory of politeness]. Department of Japanese Studies annual report 1997, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, 49–61. Usami, M. (1998c). Shotaimen nishakan kaiwa ni okeru “Discourse Politeness” [Discourse Politeness in dyadic conversation between newly acquainted people]. Human Communication Studies, 26, 60–67. Usami, M. (1999a). Shiten to shite no nihongo kyôikugaku [Perspectives on Japanese pedagogy]. Gengo, 4, 19–24. Usami, M. (1999b). Danwa no teiryôteki bunseki: gengo-shakaishinrigaku-teki approach [Quantitative analysis of discourse: A social psychological approach]. Nihongogaku, 10, 40–56. Usami, M. (1999c). Discourse Politeness in Japanese conversation: Some implications for a Universal Theory of Politeness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Harvard University. Usami, M. (1999d). On the notion of “Discourse Politeness”: Based on the analyzes of Japanese conversations. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Linguistic Politeness: Theoretical Approaches and Intercultural Perspectives (ISLP 99). Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. Usami, M. (2000a). Topic management strategy in “Discourse Politeness”. Paper presented at the SIETAR Europe 10th Annual Congress, Brussels, Belgium. Usami, M. (2000b). Honorific use as a stylistic marker and speech-level shift as a Discourse Politeness strategy. Paper presented at the Sociolinguistics Symposium 2000, Bristol, England. Usami, M. (2000c). Discourse Politeness in Japanese conversation: Some implications for a Universal Theory of Politeness. Poster presented at the 7th International Pragmatics Association Conference, Budapest, Hungary.


69

Usami, M. (2000d). Functions of honorifics and topic management in “Discourse Politeness” as unmarked politeness: From the analysis of Japanese conversations. Poster presented at the 10th Annual Meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse, Lyon, France. Usami, M. (2001a). Danwa no politeness: Politeness no danwa riron kôsô [Discourse Politeness: Discourse theory of politeness — A Preliminary Framework]. In Danwa no politeness (Dai 7 kai kokuritsu kokugo kenkyûjo kokusai symposium hôkokusho) [Discourse Politeness (Proceedings of the National Language Research Institute Seventh International Symposium)] (pp. 9–58). Bonjinsha: Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyûjo. Usami, M. (2001b). Discourse Politeness to iu kanten kara mita Keigo Shiyô no Kinô — Keigo Shiyô no atarashii toraekata ga Politeness no danwariron ni shisasuru koto [How manipulation of honorific use functions in “Discourse Politeness” in Japanese conversation: Some implications for a universal theory of Discourse Politeness]. Gogakukenkyûjo Ronshû, 6, 1–29,. Usami, M. (2002a). Discourse Politeness in Japanese conversation: Some implications for a Universal Theory of Politeness. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobô. Usami, M. (2002b). Politeness riron no tenkai (1–12) [Development of theories of politeness]. Gengo, 31, 1–5, 7–13.. Usami, M. (2003). Ibunka sesshoku to politeness: Discourse Politeness riron no kanten kara. [Cross cultural contact and politeness: From the viewpoint of Discourse Politeness Theory]. Japanese Linguistics, 54(3), 117–132. Usami, M. (2004). Discourse Politeness and second language acquisition. In Proceedings of CLaSIC 2004, The Inaugural CLS International Conference (pp. 719–737). Singapore: Centre for Language Studies. Usami, M. (2005). Why do we need to analyze natural conversation data in developing conversation teaching materials? — Some implications for developing TUFS language modules. In Y. Kawaguchi, S. Zaima, T. Takagaki, K. Shibano & M. Usami (Eds.), Linguistic informatics — State of the art and the future (pp. 279–294). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Usami, M. (2006). Discourse Politeness Theory and cross-cultural pragmatics. In A. Yoshitomi, T. Umino, & J. Negishi (Eds.), Readings in second language pedagogy and second language acquisition: In Japanese context (UBLI Series No. 4) (pp. 19–41). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Usami, M. & Lee, E.M. (2003). A comparative study of “utterances without politeness markers” in conversations in both Japanese and Korean between interactants meeting for the first time. In Proceedings of the Conference of the Japanese Language and Literature Association of Korea (pp. 99–106). Jeonju: The Japanese Language and Literature Association of Korea. Watts, R.C. (1992). Linguistic politeness politic verbal behavior: Reconsidering claims for universality. In R.J. Watts, S. Ide & K. Ehlich (Eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice (pp. 43–69). Berlin, New York: Mouton De Gruyter. Widdowson, H.G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Cambridge, New York: Newbury House. Xie, Y. (2000). Irai kôi no nicchû taishô kenkyû [A contrastive study of Japanese and Chinese requests]. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Japan.

70

M. Usami

Xie, Y., Kibayashi, R., Kiyama, S., Shih, H.-Y., Lee, E.M., Kim, K., Matsumoto, K., & Usami, M. (2003). A comparative analysis of discourse behaviors in Japanese natural conversation and the Japanese skits of the TUFS dialogue modules: Implications for the development of conversation teaching materials. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Linguistic Informatics (pp. 219–233). Tokyo: Center of Usage-Based Linguistic Informatics, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.

4 INTEGRATING GENERAL PURPOSE AND VOCATIONALLY-ORIENTED LANGUAGE LEARNING (VOLL) – NEW GOALS FOR LANGUAGE AND TEACHER TRAINING

Christina Kuhn

1 Introduction The communicative requirements of the world of work have fundamentally changed. The use of information and communication technologies (ICT) has expanded to nearly all areas of the work world. The service and informationbased economy makes increasing demands on the language skills of workers, and the access to new technologies and media changes the cultural landscape. New communication technologies enable individuals to have regular exchanges with distant others. “Globalization”, which is one of the most discussed keywords in both academic and popular discourse of economy, technology, society and culture, has had an impact on language policies and practices around the world as well. Globalization is understood as “the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa” (Giddens, 1990, p. 64). Due to ICT-developments, language, rather than distance, has become an issue of importance. Language is the primary medium of human social interaction, and social relations are constructed and maintained through interaction. The intensification of worldwide social relations increases the need for members of the work world to develop competence in additional languages, and to master new ways of using the languages they already know. These developments have an effect on the conditions in which languages are learned and taught. This raises important questions about communication and the learning and teaching of languages, as well as how one learns to teach languages in a way which the world of work requires.

72

C. Kuhn

2 The communicative requirements of the working world Many studies show an increase in the need for foreign languages at all levels of companies (e.g. for Europe: Vandermeeren, 1998, p. 148) and employees are sometimes required to use their knowledge of a foreign language at their place of employment in order to advance in their careers. The following is an example of the communicative requirements of the working world: As an SAP 1 -consultant in a management consulting enterprise, a friend of mine is a “project-oriented” worker. This means that he works for a certain length of time in different places in Europe, as well as in various project teams. During the last five years these teams have become noticeably more and more international and now include specialists from Turkey, France and Germany. Depending on the current project, the team’s languages were German and/or English. When researching in the Internet, all team members must be able to read websites in German, English and French. Spanish is also sometimes needed for “small talk” with clients in certain situations. Are skills in speaking, reading and writing in more than one or two foreign languages the exception, or is this the avantgarde in the working world? Trade and exchange of goods and services, as well as knowledge and information, are based on social interaction. Language and communication are the basis for social interaction. During the last fifty years a necessary change has taken place in which more than one language is being used in communicative interactions. This change can be witnessed in at least the “globalized” parts of the world (cf. Rivière, 2003, p. 10; Scheer, 2003, p. 7). While much professional interaction still occurs within local networks, an increasing number of people participate in “global” networks. Digital communication technologies, such as e-mail or the Internet, allow individuals to participate in regular exchanges with others whom they have never met in person, or give them the chance to take part in social and cultural events in other countries, e.g. via satellite television (cf. Block & Cameron, 2002). Communication has not only increased in the virtual realm, but also in the physical realm. An example of this can be seen in the effort the European Union has made to create a common market. It has not only attempted to remove barriers between its member states to enable better mobility of goods and capital, but also to remove barriers in the area of service and labor as well. This has had an effect on vocational mobility which creates the need for foreign language and intercultural knowledge, including the ability to adapt to different cultural conditions. 1

SAP is a multinational corporation based in Germany, specializing in software development.

Integrating General Purpose and Vocationally-Oriented Language Learning

73

The knowledge of foreign languages now plays a vital role in career preparation, employment opportunities and job advancement. For example, working with various international groups or with different international clients increases the need to use the native language of potential customers. This is especially important in service areas such as consulting or in software development, as well as in sales. As members of the so-called “information society”, a growing number of employees use the Internet to search for information from various sources and they must be able to understand a variety of languages. The ability to analyze and pass on information in a foreign language is a key qualification which one should be able to employ in professional contexts. Globalization, computerization, economic and technological changes all have an increasing influence on the world of work. As job profiles rapidly change, one may also find oneself in periods of unemployment. Lifelong employment at one company will gradually become the exception. In the past, people have always learned languages for economic or professional reasons, but today the communication skills of workers at all levels, from “the gatekeeper to the top-management”, take on new importance, which means a new form of literacy (e.g. e-mail, SMS) becomes necessary due to new technologies. This means that qualified employees will now not only need a very high level of professional knowledge, but will also need certain key qualifications, such as the ability to work in teams, the competence to search for information from different sources, and communicative and intercultural competences in more than one language and culture. International mobility improves career chances. Professional success is becoming increasingly dependent upon qualities such as flexibility and adaptability. The purposeful use of learning strategies, as well as autonomous learning will help to meet the demands of one’s present and future jobs. These aspects should be taken into account while planning new language curricula and courses for adult learners. 3 Changes in curriculum and course design, lesson planning and initiating learning processes There is a growing need for languages in the work world (cf. Schöpper-Grabe & Weiß, 2000, p. 257). The knowledge of foreign languages can be a competitive advantage for employees, as well as for companies, in order to assist in their worldwide search for new clients and markets. A quick glance at a list of employment advertisements reveals that knowing a foreign language can in

74

C. Kuhn

some cases be an obligatory requirement. For example, in many job announcements employers consciously search for employees with knowledge of English, and knowledge of a second modern language 2 is of even more value. Because of this, there are a growing number of adult learners who are acquiring a foreign language for vocational purposes. This demand for knowledge of a foreign language in the work world is also becoming the most frequent reason students cite for learning a foreign language. 3.1 The learners Language courses for adults are often very heterogeneous in nature: e.g. vocational students are grouped together with job trainees or students of various professions attend the same language courses. Most of them are not typical “business language learners”. They belong to a wider category, and are more accurately referred to as “adult professional learners”. This category encompasses all learners who currently have, or expect to have, a job requiring a foreign language. For most of them it is useless to learn a language for a specific purpose because of four reasons: 1. Learning languages for the work world is often a form of “prospective” learning. Some learners may have yet to decide which specific profession they will choose. And in a rapidly changing world, the places of work, the employers, and the professions as well, might also be changing in the near future. These students need strong communicative competences, which will empower them in their interactions, as well as learning strategies. Such competences will prepare them to meet the future demands of different jobs in the areas of language and communication. 2. Language learning for specific or special academic purposes requires much time for the learning of technical terms which may become obsolete due the rapid changes in technology and research. 3. It is almost impossible to give specific reasons for the selection of specific vocabulary for a profession or target group. 4. Vocabulary for specific purposes plays a minor role in language production in comparison to the role it plays in language reception. For this reason, reading skills and vocabulary-deducing skills are more

2

Cf. http://www.arbeitsmarktforschung.ch/zusammenfassung.html. A research project of the University ETH Zurich discovered that the number of job announcements requiring the knowledge of foreign languages has grown remarkably between 1950 and 2000.


75

important than the accumulation of vocabulary for specific purposes, which may, in fact, never be used in future vocational situations. Designers of curricula and courses must take into consideration that competence in communication and key qualifications, such as information processing and the ability to work in teams, are becoming more and more essential in meeting the changing requirements of the work world. Figure 1 shows different goals oriented to the learners needs and relevant to their current or future vocational situation. pre-vocational preparation • vocationally-oriented contents in general FL-learning instruction for beginners (e.g. at schools, in private / public educational institutions )

simultaneous vocational preparation • language instruction which accompanies vocational training • on the job training

• language preparation for a concrete professional qualification or educational goal

• language instruction for the mastery of concrete occupational requirements

goal general language preparation for vocational requirements

vocational preparation for qualification / certification

goal improvement of different language requirements in a profession

goal completed requirements for professional certification

Fig. 1. The learners (source: Funk, 2003a, p. 176; translation by the author)

3.2 Curriculum and course design Although there is a growing number of adult learners acquiring a foreign language for vocational purposes, language courses are still divided into general purpose and vocationally-oriented courses. In most cases, at the beginning of a general purpose course, a learner will spend a large amount of time working on themes which have nothing to do with the work world. Such themes would include talking about activities done in their spare time, parties, holidays, celebrations and ceremonies. These beginning courses are usually a pre-requisite for vocationally-oriented courses attended by pre-employed or vocational students. This type of course design is based on the assumption that there is a special language for one’s work life and another for one’s private life. But this categorization neither corresponds to the special needs and motivation of adult

76

C. Kuhn

learners, nor to the principles of effectiveness and efficiency which learners expect from language courses. Adult professional language learners could be rapidly demotivated if the theme “working world” does not play any role in the language course. Learners may feel that they are losing precious time by first having to take general purpose courses which do not yet deal with communicative contents which would be more relevant to their situation. Instead, these learners need a language knowledge base which can be put into immediate, effective use in daily work contexts. They also need to know how to interact in a foreign language inside and outside work — e.g. for socializing or traveling. In addition, most of the communicative acts in professional everyday life consist of both (specifically) professional and general purpose elements of speech, e.g.: Table 1. Verbal requirements of the working world (examples) information participation

gathering, processing, presenting and exchanging argumentation, making one’s point of view clear to colleagues, looking after one’s own interests, convincing others leading a conversa- starting, keeping up and ending a conversation/discussion, tion summarizing the results (self-)evaluation thinking about one’s own action and behavior

The communicative competence of a foreign language learner is by definition indivisible, and using labels such as “general purpose” and “vocational purpose” to describe communicative competence is misleading. The world of work can and should be integrated into language courses for beginners from day one. It is not a matter of designing specialized courses, but rather gearing courses towards learners’ needs and motivation. In some instances, teachers will only need to partially modify some “traditional” contexts or situations to integrate vocational aspects. In the following are some examples. A language course almost always begins by teaching students how to greet others and introduce oneself in the context of a very “informal atmosphere”. This narrow view of how to greet someone in the target culture does not take into account the more formalized linguistic and cultural rituals used to greet someone or introduce oneself. An example of this would be the act of handing out a business card during an interaction in the work world. Textbooks for general purpose courses also seldom take into consideration such formalized acts. In “studio d”, an A1-textbook of German as a Foreign Language (GFL), we find an example for such a “modified” situation (see Fig.


77

2). Students learn to introduce themselves and exchange their own (handmade) business cards in class. Afterwards they make an intercultural comparison between different formalized forms of exchanging business cards (e.g. in Europe and in Asia). In most textbooks, there are examples of informal encounters which can lead to a theater or party visit, or even to a swimming date, but there are usually no examples of formal invitations to professional meetings or conferences. In both types of situations the speech acts used are nearly the same, but the setting of the first example does not fit the expectations and needs of the vocationally-oriented learners. If the majority of adult foreign language learners have a professional interest in using the language, it is essential to make them aware of how to use general purpose speech acts for vocational purposes right from the start. Using typical scenarios from the work world can also increase the student’s knowledge of other key elements of foreign language learning such as non-verbal communication or intercultural understanding or sensitivity, which are important parts of a rich language learning environment.

Fig. 2. Example: “Exchange of Business Cards”, GFL-Textbook “studio d A1” (Funk, Kuhn & Demme, 2005, p. 115)

Adults in language courses also need more skill training, e.g. in searching for, processing, presenting and exchanging information in the foreign language. Such themes for classroom discussions could be taken directly from the work world as well. This will help students develop an awareness of, for

78

C. Kuhn

example, how to bring certain topics into a (professional) discussion, how to properly contribute to a discussion and, finally, how to summarize the results. Thus, an integrated language learning program would not only include general language learning aspects but vocationally-oriented language aspects as well. This type of program is very pragmatic and learner-oriented as it takes into account the vocational needs and expectations of adult learners (cf. Funk, 2003a, p. 175). A needs analysis at the beginning of the course which considers the future vocational requirements in the foreign language can help teachers design curricula and plan lessons. An integrated program works with the communicative content of the work world, but it is not a type of specialized foreign language training. As such, it follows the state-of-the-art in language learning and teaching research and pedagogy (cf. Funk, 2003a, p. 175). 3.3 Lesson planning An integrated program includes vocationally-oriented language learning right at the beginning as well as scenarios and situations directly from the work world. Task-based and content-based, as well as action-oriented language learning are supported and fostered by using content that fits into a wide range of different types of work. Language teaching should be built upon students’ previous and (likely) future experiences (cf. Larsen-Freeman, 2003, p. 140) such as planning business travel, making appointments by phone, engaging in small talk, taking business partners to or from the airport, or descriptions of products or working processes. Although the integration of vocational aspects of language into courses may seem difficult, there are now new planning aids which could be very valuable for the language teacher. 3.3.1 New planning aids for language curricula, courses, lessons and materials Up until now there have only been incomplete and inconsistent ways of assessing language skills. Language trainers, and employers as well, could only guess from statements such as “English: fluent; French: written and spoken; German: very good” just how well the applicant would be able to cope with the language demands of his or her work environment. Today, the “Common European Framework of Reference for Language Learning and Teaching” (CEF), developed by The European Council for Cultural Cooperation (CDCC), provides a common basis for the planning and elaboration of language syllabuses, curriculum guidelines, examinations, language courses, and learning materials across Europe. The CEF describes what language learners


79

must learn to do in order to use a language for communicative purposes and what knowledge and skills they must develop to act effectively, e.g. in the work world. The description also takes into account the cultural context in which the language is set and it defines levels of proficiency which allow learners’ progress to be measured at each stage of learning and on a life-long basis (CEF, chap. 1.1). 3.3.1.1 The Common European Framework of Reference For language learning and teaching in Europe, the CEF provides support for the planning of an integrated course as well as for quality management. It provides a basis for the mutual recognition of language qualifications to facilitate educational and occupational mobility. The CEF is designed as a descriptive framework, not as “a set of suggestions, recommendations, or guidelines” (Morrow, 2004, p. 7). It is an instrument to set up validation systems for language competences, using the description of six proficiency levels (A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2) from “breakthrough” to “mastery”. It also uses a classification based mainly on the four language skills and language activities of interaction, reception, production and mediation. At all levels, language proficiency is formulated in terms of what the learners can do (“can do statements”). Figure 3 shows an example. C2 … …

B1

…

A1

Can summarize information from different spoken and written sources, reconstructing arguments and accounts in a coherent presentation. Can understand the main points of clear standard input on familiar matters regularly encountered in work, school, leisure etc. Can introduce him/herself and others and can ask and answer questions about personal details such as where he/she lives, people he/she knows and things he/she has.

Fig 3. Common reference levels: Global scale (CEF, chap. 3.3)

80

C. Kuhn

The CEF defines language competences as “the sum of knowledge, skills and characteristics that allow a person to perform actions” (CEF, chap. 2.1) and it describes the competences necessary for communication, the related knowledge and skills as well as the situations and domains of communication. Its language approach is action-oriented, and the CEF views users and learners of a language “primarily as ‘social agents’, i.e. members of society who have tasks (not exclusively language-related) to accomplish in a given set of circumstances, in a specific environment and within a particular field of action” (CEF, chap. 2.1). Language users and learners as “social agents” “draw on the competences at their disposal in various contexts under various conditions and under various constraints to engage in language activities involving language processes to produce and/or receive texts in relation to themes in specific domains, activating those strategies which seem most appropriate for carrying out the tasks to be accomplished. The monitoring of these actions by the participants leads to the reinforcement or modification of their competences” (CEF, chap. 2.1). Language activities are contextualised within domains. The domains refer to the broad sectors of social life in which people operate as social agents. The CEF distinguishes between educational, occupational, public and personal domains. “The occupational domain embraces everything concerned with a person’s activities and relations in the exercise of his or her occupation” (CEF, chap. 2.1.4), whereas the public domain, for example, refers to everything connected with ordinary social interaction (business and administrative bodies, public services, cultural and leisure activities of a public nature, relations with the media etc.). With the acknowledgement of the occupational domain as an equally important sector of social life, the distinction between general purpose and vocationally-oriented language courses becomes obsolete. The CEF itself promotes an integrated learning and teaching program. By using the CEF to plan a course curriculum and language lessons, it is possible to build up a language profile for each learner depending on his or her occupational needs and expectations. The language needs can be related to the contents of the language course, thus making teaching and learning more work-related. If, for instance, a language learner wants to work as a sales representative, he/she must be able to understand written messages, to describe products or production processes, and to build up social relations with customers. The rules of business correspondence are less important for him/her than they would be for learners who want to work in the marketing department of a company. So some advantages of the CEF are its focus on situational and functional language (cf. Keddle,


81

2004, p. 43) and on the strategies learners need for general and occupational purposes, for example, interaction strategies like asking/giving clarification or identifying information/opinion gaps (CEF, chap. 4.4.3.5). 3.3.1.2 “CEF in Action”: The brochure “Working in Europe” The German Chamber of Industry and Commerce (GCIC), the Federal Association of German Private Schools and Weiterbildungs-Testsysteme GmbH (WBT), the examining body for The European Language Certificates, published the brochure “Working in Europe”. They intend to give examples of how the CEF can be used especially for the description and evaluation of communicative situations at work and for the assessment of the employees’ language competences. Therefore, the CEF descriptions “have been adapted to show how they fit in with language skills in work-related contexts” (Working in Europe, p. 3; see Table 2). By choosing typical situations at work (e.g. talking on the telephone, giving presentations, taking part in meetings) and relating them to the CEF levels and skills, the brochure offers another useful instrument for the course and lesson planning, and, in particular, for the arrangement of different work-related scenarios which the students could act out in class. Table 2. “Focus: Speaking” in “Working in Europe” (Working in Europe, p. 10) CEF A2

understand and complete simple information

presentation/ meeting/discussion Ask and answer simple questions about own area of work using familiar language structures

The employee can manage the following Can welcome colleagues/ customers and exchange simple forms of social chit-chat with them, e.g. as a reaction to invitations/apologies. Can make arrangements concerning meeting point/date/time and get information concerning arrival and departure […].

Make short and simple statements concerning persons/area of work using familiar language structures

Can use simple phrases and sentences to describe who he/she is and what his/her job is. Can ask and answer simple questions about own person/area of work, e.g. name, residence, location, products. Can react to instructions in the foreign language when they are given clearly and slowly […].

-basic userA1

82

C. Kuhn

3.3.1.3 “Profile deutsch” — a planning instrument for GFL-courses With the CD-ROM “Profile deutsch”, GFL teachers have been provided with another very useful and practical instrument for planning language curricula, courses and lessons, and for the development of learning and teaching materials. “Profile deutsch” presents a CEF-oriented collection of vocabulary, cando-statements and grammar descriptions for the six language levels. It specifies the global and detailed can-do-statements of the CEF and shows actionoriented examples of how the can-do-statements can be used in speech acts for different language purposes (see Fig. 4). The vocabulary is sub-divided according to themes (e.g. living, traveling and traffic, food, job and profession), speech acts (e.g. welcoming somebody, emotional expressions like apologies or astonishment) and general concepts (e.g. the concept of time). In addition, the CD-ROM presents a sample of different texts classified by formal, structural and linguistic aspects (e.g. letters, newspaper articles, reports, forms of greetings in a business letter). As a CD-ROM, “Profile deutsch” offers a useful tool for searching and combining language materials, situations and scenarios, oriented towards the levels of the CEF and the learners’ needs.

Fig. 4. “Profile deutsch“ — can-do-statements with VOLL-aspects, level A1, oral production

3.3.2 Initiating learning processes: Acting within a language scenario Scenarios can be defined as “predictable sequences of communication which acquire their coherence from shared schematic knowledge” (Mader, 1998, p. 23). They are using “real” language in socially and culturally conventiona-


83

lized sequences. Working in scenarios, students complete tasks and play specific roles in authentic contexts. However, such scenarios are closer to communicative reality than, for example, isolated speech acts or functions. Learning languages in a situation or scenario, taken, for example, from the work world, supports integrated and action-oriented learning from the beginning, and it especially meets the needs and expectations of adult learners. Using “real” tasks and contents within a scenario in the language classroom will take planning and preparation. Nodari’s integrated planning framework (1996, p. 8), which deduces different language skills and abilities from one speech act, could be useful as a model and a checklist for the planning of action-oriented and vocationallyoriented language lessons. The model concretely sets out the speech acts described in the CEF and in “Profile deutsch”. For example, the work-related scenario “business lunch” requires some key qualifications like communication, planning and cooperation. By acting within this special scenario, students plan and prepare a lunch for some foreign “business associates”. In the model in Fig. 5 are examples of different communicative acts for students to perform in class when preparing for a business lunch as well as various learning goals.

Fig. 5. Example “Business Lunch” (Nodari, 1996, p. 8; translation and examples by author)

84

C. Kuhn

In a scenario, the learners have the chance to act as themselves. They use different strategies, skills and their language knowledge to solve tasks and problems which occur while acting out the scene. This initiates learning processes which go far beyond the language classroom and which will be helpful in coping with the changing requirements of the world of work. The integration of scenarios in the language classroom offers a wide range of vocationally-oriented training possibilities, but it also requires strong planning competence on the part of the language teacher. Important aspects of a teacher’s scenario planning for different language classes are: selection of a scenario

• participants • vocational relevance/ framework of action • plurilingual/ pluricultural competences • time

progression

definition of learning goals

• degree of difficulty • language for occupational a) pre-vocational purposes b) in service • for special • subject-oriented purposes • language-oriented • general • key qualie.g. a) making an appointment over the fications

communi- learning/ cative com- teaching petencies material

• receptive • different • productive kinds of • mediative authentic • oral oral / • written written texts

phone and making a note in a diary b) written confirmation of an oral appointment

Fig. 6. Planning of scenarios

4 Professional competencies and qualifications of teachers of an integrated course First and foremost, teachers of an integrated course are language teachers (cf. Funk, 2003a, p. 175) who need all the language competences, teaching and (strategy) training methods which teachers of a general language course would need. But, because of the heterogeneous nature of the learners with their various expectations, needs and previous experiences in different vocational areas, and possible knowledge of other foreign languages, teachers in an integrated course also need strong diagnostic and analytical abilities. In order to make informed decisions regarding a needs-oriented and subjectoriented course and for lesson planning, they should carry out a needs analysis


85

before, or at the start of, the language course. Therefore, teachers should choose suitable instruments, e.g. questionnaires (cf. Weber, Becker & Laue, 2000, p. 51) and/or interviews, and they must analyze this information gathered from the learners. Furthermore, a needs-oriented course design and the development of learning and teaching materials require competence in planning and developing different course subjects, and in planning language progression and learning sequences (cf. Woodward, 2001). They need competence in the use of planning and (quality) assessment instruments like the CEF as well. Unmediated input is often incomprehensible to learners, because it does not function as “intake” and, therefore, it does not result in learning. The mediation and presentation of new materials in an effective, learner-oriented and motivating way is one of the most important key qualifications of a teacher (cf. Hedge, 2002; Ur, 1996). Furthermore, he or she needs competence in learning management in order to initiate and support (social) learning processes. Another very important qualification is a strong media competence. This would not only include the ability to use different kinds of media for learning and teaching purposes, but also to aid the instruction of the learners in order to promote their own media competence. This can be accomplished by using different types of media in the classroom which would also be relevant in the work world. Examples include: use of the Internet for research or using email to contact others beyond the classroom. Learners in compact courses may especially need special guidance as to how they can continue their autonomous language learning. The teacher’s ability to guide learners would not only be helpful in finding suitable ways for them to learn autonomously, but could also be helpful in assisting the learner to define learning goals, and to choose learning strategies, activities and media (cf. Brammerts & Kleppin, 2001). And finally, Funk emphasizes the ability to cooperate with learners and with other teachers as another key qualification for language teachers (2003b, p. 177). Table 3. Teacher qualifications planning

diagnosis / analysis

guidance counseling

learning management

integrated language program: teacher qualifications presentation

quality management

media

cooperation

86

C. Kuhn

In view of these qualifications, teacher training for integrated courses requires not only knowledge-based training in learning and teaching processes or work-related topics, but practical training to achieve these teacher qualifications as well. Up until now, teacher training at the university level in Germany — if existent at all — has been more or less a philologically-oriented course of study, combining linguistic and literary aspects. It has focused more on preparing teachers for language teaching in schools, with the introduction of some pedagogical, psychological and sociological aspects. In most teacher training curricula, vocationally-oriented language learning plays a minor role. However, most language teachers are not prepared for the growing market of vocationally-oriented language teaching for adult learners, e.g. at private language schools or in companies with their own language departments. To increase the employment prospects of language students at universities, it would be worthwhile considering integrating vocationally-oriented teaching aspects in the teacher education curricula. VOLL aspects could also be part of in-service training for teachers who work with adult learners. The use of the Internet for further teacher education also offers new learning possibilities. 5 Integrating aspects of vocationally-oriented language learning (VOLL) in an online/offline language teacher training programme — some implications There are still conflicting views as to how much specialized and/or workrelated knowledge teachers would need for an integrated course which takes into account general and vocationally-oriented requirements. First and foremost, a language teacher should teach the foreign language. It is not the goal here to turn language teachers into experts in a professional field. The emphasis of the training is on language teaching, rather than special content in a professional field. Thus, developing a teacher’s general knowledge of the changing world of work and especially of the related communicative requirements is a very important aspect of a teacher training program. The teaching approach in integrated courses is a communicative and learner-centered one. The teacher is the language expert, but the students bring their professional expertise — at whatever level this may be — to the class. Their level of professional expertise could very well be superior to that of the teacher. It is important that course design is based on the present and future needs of the learners. Thus, the importance of taking into account the needs of the


87

learners must be emphasized throughout the teacher training programme. Teachers of integrated courses should be able to take this information and develop language profiles for the learners. Therefore, they need to be able to utilize different kinds of needs analysis and planning aids, as mentioned above, as a basis for course planning and material development. Teachers should also be introduced to the concept of work-related communicative “core areas”. These areas consist of skills and activities which are important in most professions. They are therefore useful for the majority of language learners, regardless of the special career areas in which they (will) work and apply the foreign language. These areas would include e.g. strategies to infer the meaning of vocabulary in texts, the management of information, telephoning or aspects of socializing. Socializing is an especially important aspect because learners also need the foreign language in contexts of a less professional and more social nature, e.g. when they apologize, ask for or confirm information, or engage in small talk. When learners have an immediate application for the foreign language, they will need to practice using the language in meaningful and realistic contexts. It should be communicated to teacher trainees that they need to create activities for learners to practice the language. These activities range from controlled language practice to role plays or acting within scenarios, where learners take part in real-life professional situations. Such situations might include e.g. applying for a job, being in charge of a group of visitors, or organizing business travel. Teachers should also be able to build up a repertoire of different types of activities which can be used in integrated courses, and they should be familiar with how to change general language purpose scenarios, techniques and activities to fit work-related requirements. Special modules which address a particular situation, e.g. in-company classes or one-on-one training, can be added to the program for teachers who want to work within these classes or special teaching situations. Thus, during the course of their university studies, prospective teachers will already be able to build up a teaching profile of their own. The role that cultural differences may play in the world of work should be a recurring theme throughout the whole training program. Above all, the acquisition of the above-mentioned qualifications for teachers requires practice and reflection. There are certain advantages in presenting most of the course content in modules and via the Internet. Modules are variable and can be a part of foreign language teacher education at universities, as well as a training supple-

88

C. Kuhn

ment for in-field educators. The combination of online learning on a learning platform via the Internet with face-to-face learning in part-time seminars would help future teachers to learn to work at their own pace (with online tutoring where appropriate), and would also take into consideration the “human factor” in learning (for an example, see Fig. 7). By studying the content of a VOLL-course in different online-modules, teacher trainees will also have the chance to build up their own “blend” of learning materials and of vocationally-oriented knowledge. seminar: introduction, competence training

online: knowledge

seminar:

online: knowledge

competence training

modules (examples)

working in a world of change

adult learners: experiences, needs and expectations needs analysis and course planning

learning processes, autonomy …

material development and presentation

working with authentic written texts in an integrated language course

intercultural learning for VOLL

working with authentic oral texts in an integrated language course

…

seminar : competence training, assessment

…

basics

general

advanced

Fig. 7. Model of a modularized VOLL teacher training

Because the content is presented in different digital forms, e.g. DVD, videotapes, powerpoint presentations or hypertexts, teacher trainees are able to benefit from a wide range of media, which will be tailored to their own learning styles and will strengthen their media competence. The challenge for teacher trainers and software developers is to make products and services available which can be used to teach future teachers and meet their needs effectively. It is essential to include a social experience, including a “human factor” in the online aspect as well. This can be achieved by initiating cooperative tele-learning, working in learning groups via the Internet or working together in virtual classrooms. Online learning could play a very powerful role in the future of teacher training but it should not be seen as an alternative to face-to-face interaction or to various other methods. The use of rich media content in a learning environment through forms of e-learning will likely enrich the learning expe-


89

rience. It can also be used as a resource for teacher trainees and in-service teachers for individual learning, e.g. in the area of knowledge. Building up knowledge via the Internet could provide more time in face-to-face seminars for an intensive training of the different competences and key qualifications teachers need. 6 Conclusion Due to globalization and developments in ICT, the communicative requirements of the world of work have changed fundamentally. A growing number of adult learners are acquiring a foreign language for vocational purposes. Due to this fact, there needs to be a course design which eliminates the division between general purpose and vocationally-oriented courses. Such integrated course design would address the needs and motivation of learners better and adhere to the principles of effectiveness and efficiency. In order to make informed decisions with regard to needs-oriented and subject-oriented course and curriculum planning, language teachers of integrated courses should be able to carry out a needs analysis before, or right at the beginning, of the language course. In doing so, they will be able to analyze learner issues and develop language profiles for the learners. Furthermore, a needs-oriented course design, as well as the development of learning and teaching materials, requires a keen competence in the planning and developing of different course subjects, language progression and learning sequences, and in the use of planning and (quality) assessment instruments like the CEF. Therefore, teacher training at the university level should integrate a special key qualifications training, as well as VOLL aspects, with an emphasis on language teaching, rather than on the special contents of a professional field. A modularized blended learning program would meet to the needs of future language teachers in integrated courses especially well and provide support in building up a teaching profile of their own. References Block, D., & Cameron, D. (Eds.). (2002). Globalization and language teaching. London: Routledge. Brammerts, H., & Kleppin, K. (2001). Selbstgesteuertes Sprachenlernen im Tandem. Ein Handbuch. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (2000). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved October 25, 2004, from

90

C. Kuhn

http://culture2.coe.int/portfolio/inc.asp?L=E&M=$t/208-1-0-1/main_pages/../documents_ intro/common_framework.html. Funk, H. (2003a). Berufsbezogener Fremdsprachenunterricht. In K.-R. Bausch, H. Christ, H.J. Krumm (Eds.), Handbuch Fremdsprachenunterricht (4th ed.). Tübingen & Basel: Franke, pp. 175–179. Funk, H. (2003b). Deutsch als Fremdsprache — Berufsbezogen lernen und studieren. In G. Schneider & M. Clalüna (Eds.), MehrSprache — mehrsprachig mit Deutsch. Didaktische und politische Perspektiven. München: Iudicium, pp. 165–180. Funk, H., Kuhn, C., & Demme, S. (2005). studio d — A1 Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Kurs- und Übungsbuch. Berlin: Cornelsen. Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Glaboniat, M., Müller, M., Rusch, P., Schmitz, H., & Wertenschlag, L. (2002). Profile deutsch. Gemeinsamer europäischer Referenzrahmen — Lernzielbestimmungen, Kannbeschreibungen, Kommunikative Mittel — Niveau A1, A2, B1, B2. Berlin: Langenscheidt. Hedge, T. (2002). Teaching and learning in the language classroom (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Keddle, J.S. (2004). The CEF and the secondary school syllabus. In K. Morrow (Ed.), Insights from the Common European Framework (pp. 43–54). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Techniques and principles in language teaching (7th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mader, J. (Ed.). (1998). Learning objectives and test format. Frankfurt am Main: WBT Weiterbildungs-Testsysteme GmbH. Morrow, K. (2004). Background to the CEF. In K. Morrow (Ed.), Insights from the Common European Framework (pp. 3–11). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nodari, C. (1996). Autonomie und Fremdsprachenlernen. Fremdsprache Deutsch, Sondernummer 1996, 4–10. Rivière, P. (2003). Vernetzte Welt im Kommunikationszeitalter. In Le Monde diplomatique (Ed.), Atlas der Globalisierung (pp. 10–11). Berlin: Le Monde diplomatique/taz. Scheer, H. (2003). Globalisierung. Zur ideologischen Transformation eines Schlüsselbegriffs. In Le Monde diplomatique (Ed.), Atlas der Globalisierung (pp. 6–8). Berlin: Le Monde diplomatique/taz. Schöpper-Grabe, S., & Weiß, R. (2000). Lernziel: Internationale Kommunikation — Fremdsprachentraining in der betrieblichen Aus- und Weiterbildung. In K.D. Baumann, H. Kalverkämper & K. Steinberg-Rahal (Eds.), Sprachen im Beruf. Stand — Probleme — Perspektiven (pp. 255-–282). Tübingen: G. Narr. Universität/ETH Zürich (2000). Wandel der Arbeitswelt im Spiegel von Stelleninseraten von 1950 bis zum Jahre 2000. Retrieved October 25, 2004, from http://www.arbeitsmarktforschung.ch/zusammenfassung.html. Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching. practice and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vandermeeren, S. (1998). Fremdsprachen in europäischen Unternehmen. Untersuchungen zu Bestand und Bedarf im Geschäftsalltag mit Empfehlungen für Sprachenpolitik und Sprachunterricht. Waldsteinberg: Heidrun Popp. Weber, H., Becker, M., & Laue, B. (2000). Fremdsprachen im Beruf. Diskursorientierte Bedarfsanalysen und ihre Didaktisierung. Aachen: Shaker.


91

Woodward, T. (2001). Planning lessons and courses. Designing sequences of work for the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Working in Europe. A new means of assessing professional language competence. A common European framework of reference for language learning and teaching (CEF). (2002). Berlin: Deutscher Industrie- und Handelskammertag.

5 PRAGMATICS IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING: REFLECTIONS ON THE TEACHING OF CHINESE IN CHINA

Hong Wang

1 Introduction It is recognized, at least among some scholars, that the acquisition of a second language necessarily involves gaining mastery over the sociolinguistic and pragmatic rules of the target language (Canale & Swain, 1980; Paulston, 1975; among others). For learners of a foreign language, while linguistic forms are important aspects of learning, functional abilities in the target language in real-life communication are the ultimate goals. However, the general situation of language teaching in China does not seem to reflect this recognition. In this chapter I will review the situation. Focusing on the teaching of the Chinese language to foreign learners (henceforth TCFL), we find that distressingly little has been done in the teaching of the pragmatics of the language. Not only is its teaching neglected, research on the pragmatics of the Chinese language is also found to be at low priority in China. This is apparently in aberrance with the daily-increasing demands of the learning of the language for practical purposes. Now, tens of thousands of people come to China every year to learn the language, mainly for communicative needs. Teaching the language while ignoring its pragmatics creates a big mismatch with the demands of the current student population. As a good sign, some authors have since pointed out that the teaching of pragmatics is a new area and a new challenge in TCFL (Chen, 1997; Lin, 1996; Lü, 1994; among others). In practice, some teachers also attempted the discussion of the rules of language use with specific communicative functions (e.g. Chen, 1997; Cui, 1997; Lin, 1996; Lü, 1994). Even form-centered teaching began to gain aspects of pragmatics (e.g. Chen, 1997; Cui, 1997; Lin, 1996; Lü, 1994). However, the overall situation is still far from satisfactory. Not only has the teaching of pragmatics fallen behind, the research on the so-

94

H. Wang

ciopragmatics of Chinese per se is neglected by Chinese linguists, the majority of whom are interested in the analyses of classic writings or the formal categories of grammar. This chapter hopes to add to the advocacy of researching and teaching of the pragmatics of the Chinese language. The chapter is divided into the following three parts: a) pragmatics and the teaching and learning of a foreign language, b) an overview of TCFL in China, and c) the need to raise the awareness of pragmatics in China. 2 Pragmatics and the teaching and learning of a foreign language Pragmatics is defined by Leech (1983) as including “pragmalinguistics” and “sociopragmatics”. Pragmalinguistics is related to grammar and is concerned with “the particular resources which a given language provides for conveying particular illocutions” (Leech, 1983, pp. 10–11). Sociopragmatics, on the other hand, is “sociological interface of pragmatics” (Leech, 1983, pp. 10–11). Two examples are given below to illustrate the two different types of pragmatic content respectively. The first example shows some pragmalinguistic differences between two languages, in this case, between English and Chinese. It is a contextuallyconfined bit of grammar. For the question Haven’t you been to Shanghai? an English speaker would answer No, I haven’t (in the case that he/she has not been there); or Yes, I have (in the case that he/she has been there). For the Chinese equivalent of the question Ni mei quguo Shanghai ba?” (Haven’t you been to Shanghai ?), the answer to it would be Dui (yes), wo mei quguo (I haven’t been (there)) meaning No, I haven’t; while the meaning of Yes, I have is expressed by Budui (no), wo quguole (I have been (there)), with the negative interjection used at the beginning of the sentence. Apparently this can cause confusion for learners of either language. A common error for a Chinese learner of English would be to say Yes while meaning No, (I haven’t); and an error for an English learner of Chinese would be to say Bu (no) while an affirmative form is expected. In essence, the negation in English refers to the content of the statement (the referential meaning), while in Chinese an interjection at the beginning of the sentence is a metalinguistic comment to the content of the rest of the sentence (whether it is a statement of a positive or negative assertion). The above would be defined by Leech as a pragmalinguistic problem. It should be dealt with in language learning and teaching. The use of a wrong pragmalinguistic form is commonly regarded as a grammatical error, although

Pragmatics in Foreign Language Teaching and Learning

95

it is not about the well-formedness of sentences1. However, sometimes we have problems which do not stem from any part of grammar, but originate with how the grammatically error-free utterances are used in communication. It has to do with communicative conventions of specific speech communities. In the speech community, certain linguistic forms are associated with given communicative conventions. In such case, the misuse of forms results not because the linguistic forms themselves are wrong (whether contextuallydefined or not), but because it is socially inappropriate. This leads us to “sociopragmatics”. Sociopragmatics is also called “the pragmatic competence” in the field of second language acquisition (Kasper, 1997; Rose, 1997). As such, it is among the abilities that students are expected to develop with the help of instruction. Although the term “pragmatic competence” has not been used widely, similar ideas are entertained by many language teachers. In their teaching practice they follow intuitively the idea that appropriate linguistic behavior in a given context or culture should be learned and, importantly, be taught, too. As Thomas (1983) observes, non-native speakers are often perceived to display inappropriate language behaviors and are often not even aware that they do. She cautions that sociopragmatic failures lead to violations of cultural norms, communication breakdowns, and the stereotyping of non-native speakers. Hence, instruction on the sociolinguistic and pragmatic rules seems to be essential if language students are to become competent social interactants in a second or foreign culture. Sociopragmatic failures happen when pragmatic and sociolinguistic rules are not shared between participants of an interaction. An often quoted example is the misunderstanding of a given Chinese way of greeting. In many parts of China, when two people meet, one would ask the other “Chi le ma?” (Have you eaten?/Have you had your lunch/supper?). This is a form of greeting and it functions quite similarly as the English greeting “How are you?”. For the Chinese greeting question, it would not matter whether the answer is “yes” or “no” and a brief answer is normally expected. After the short exchange, the two persons would part with no further intentions. But for many English speakers, the question in its form would be construed to an invitation. When they are asked the question and are not invited to meals, they may get the im1

An anonymous reviewer of this chapter points out rightly that the line between grammar and pragmatics is somehow obscured here. The phenomenon may fall in the intermediate area between the purely context-free grammatical rules and the social rules of language use. Although it is somewhat arbitrary, we follow Leech and the reviewer and regard it basically as belonging to pragmatics.

96

H. Wang

pression that the Chinese persons are rude or insincere. This may happen in two ways: Chinese learners of English misuse the Chinese type of greeting in English communication; and English learners of Chinese misunderstand the Chinese greeting. To overcome pragmatic misinterpretation, applied linguists and teachers have made efforts in the research and teaching of pragmatic competence (Kasper, 1997; Rose, 1994, 1995, 1997). For instance, Judd (1999) introduced certain techniques for developing pragmatic awareness in the language classroom. He proposed a framework for the teaching of speech acts. The teaching would prepare the students to avoid pitfalls and possible negative consequences that can result from inappropriate pragmalinguistic forms or sociopragmatic failures. There will be further discussion of Judd’s techniques in section 4. 3 An overview of TCFL in China 3.1 A brief history of Chinese language teaching According to historical records, the earliest practice of Chinese teaching to foreigners can be traced as far back as 2,500–2,600 years ago. Ever since the Dynasty of East Han (25–220 A.D), there has been a continuous flow of foreigners coming to learn the Chinese language for various purposes. The prosperous periods of Chinese language teaching to foreigners extended to the Dynasties of Tang (618–907 A.D.), Ming (1368–1644) and Qing (1644– 1911). However, the TCFL became a university subject in China only in the 1950s (Zhang, 2000). According to Zhang (2000), TCFL in the People’s Republic of China can be roughly divided into two periods. The first period is from the 1950s to the 1970s, during which a tertiary educational institution, Beijing Language College, was set up specifically for the purpose of teaching Chinese to international students. Subsequently the faculty of TCFL found its way into the Chinese Departments of over a dozen of universities across the county. During that period, some 5,000~6,000 students came in batches from Vietnam, Africa and some Eastern European countries to study Chinese, mainly for political purposes. One case of the language study involved a construction project in two African countries. During that time, China helped to build the railway that linked Tanzania to Zambia. It was for this purpose that several hundreds of African youth came to learn the Chinese language ahead of their technical training in railway engineering by the Chinese staff.


97

The second period of TCFL started in 1980s when the Chinese government implemented the policies of economic reform and opening up for foreign investment and international trade. With the rapid economic development in the ensuing years, its entry into WTO, and its rising importance in all fronts of international affairs, China is now attracting the attention of the world more than ever before. There has been an increasing demand to know about China and to communicate with its nationals. This has boosted TCFL. From 1991 to 2002, the number of international students in China increased from 10,000 in to 80,000, among which 60,000 majored in the Chinese language (Lu, 2004). During the same time we saw the expansion of teaching facilities and faculties for TCFL. From only one college specializing in TCFL (Beijing Language University) in the 1960s it has increased now to nearly 400 colleges and universities offering the major across the country (Lu, 2004). By now TCFL has developed into a major industry in the field of education in China. It also plays an important role in China’s connections with the world. Therefore, it is of significance to scrutinize its content and to evaluate its effectiveness. 3.2 The debate over what to teach The teaching and learning of grammar became the preoccupation of the teachers and learners of TCFL in China since the 1950s. Traditionally, Chinese education was conceived mainly as literacy; and language and script tended to be regarded as inseparable entities. Consequently, it was believed that the teaching and learning of Chinese characters was first and foremost in the teaching of the Chinese language. However, when TCFL was made a university subject, the old notion was severely criticized. Among the critics was Zhou Zumo, an influential Chinese linguist, who pointed out as early as in 1953 that the basic principle of Chinese language teaching was the teaching of vocabulary and grammar if learners wanted to have a full command of the Chinese language (Zhou, 2000). Zhou’s advocacy has had a great impact on TCFL up to today. On the official website of TCFL run by the government agency at the national level, Zhou’s words on the content of TCFL are still displayed prominently. The emphasis on the content of teaching is also reflected in the compilation of teaching materials. The first set of teaching materials for TCFL was Hanyu Jiaokeshu (Chinese Language Teaching Course Book) which was published in 1958 by Shidai Chubanshe (Times Press). The compilation of the textbook was guided by Zhou’s (1953) viewpoints, which are summarized in

98

H. Wang

the article entitled Jiao Feihanyu Xuesheng Xuexi Hanyu de Yixie Wenti (Some Issues in Teaching Chinese to Non-Han Nationality Students). In the article, Zhou pointed out that grammatical elements must be sequentially organized, and then imparted to language learners. Moreover, the teaching contents were to be strictly arranged around linguistic forms. The emphasis on grammar teaching in TCFL has also resisted the influence from some newer theories of language teaching. From the 1960s onwards, many Western theories of language learning and teaching have been introduced in China and have influenced language teaching practices in foreign language education to Chinese students. In the teaching of English and other foreign languages, the grammar-focused teaching current at that time was then mingled with elements from Direct Method, Audio-lingual Method and Functional Method. However, this has not made much impact on TCFL in China. For instance, a new textbook Hanyu Jiaocheng (Chinese Course for Freshman), which started to be used by Beijing Language University as late as in 2000, still emphasizes that teaching should be focused on grammatical structures. Generally speaking, grammatical structure has always occupied a central position in textbook compilation in TCFL. Meanwhile the textbook compilers have been reluctant to absorb new research results in grammatical studies. Lü Wenhua (1994) points out that practically all the textbooks then adopted the aspectual system established by Hanyu Jiaokeshu (Chinese Language Teaching Course Book) in 1958, ignoring a great wealth of research results accumulated on the aspectual systems of Chinese over the decades. Similarly, Wang (2003) points out that most of the teaching materials share some common weaknesses: uninteresting texts; exercises without variety; lack of creativity in organizing and sequencing the teaching content. Zhao (1998) also states that there are two major complaints for present teaching materials: one is the uninteresting content; the other is the excessively large vocabulary2. Leading authorities in the field have never been ambivalent about the content of teaching. Lu Jianmin, who is currently the President of the Internation2 While this paper concentrates on TCFL in China, the textbook situation in Chinese teaching outside of China is not much better. In 2002, an international conference of Chinese teaching development was held in Beijing. Chinese language experts from 34 universities in 15 countries came and talked about their perplexity over the teaching materials. They believed that the textbooks had become hurdles for the development of Chinese language teaching. The books they had been using were published in the 1930s–40s with outdated vocabulary and contexts which scared away many beginners who had previously been enthusiastic about learning the language (Li, 2002).


99

al Society for Chinese Language Teaching and a very influential figure in the field of TCFL, makes explicit statements about the content of TCFL (Lu, 1998). He affirms that vocabulary is the most important aspect of the five components of the language teaching, which include phonetics, characters, vocabulary, grammar and culture. Lu notes that at the elementary level, grammar should not be over-emphasized and grammatical rules should not be taught directly, and that at the advanced level culture teaching should not be over-emphasized (Lu, 1998). In a more recent article, he (Lu, 2004) suggests 14 aspects of the content of TCFL, most of which still focus on the forms of the language. Under these guidelines advocated by authorities in the field, language forms naturally become the major concern of Chinese language teachers and researchers. To summarize, while there have been enduring debates over what to teach and what to put into the teaching materials, the issues are mainly around the emphases on different aspects of language forms. Apart from this main line of debate, we see some undercurrents in TCFL: some scholars raise the question of cultural context of teaching and learning, which is the topic of next section. 3.3 The awareness about cultural content in TCFL As early as in 1980, Lü Shuxiang (1904–1998), a well-known Chinese linguist, pointed out that language learners should be taught language use instead of only language forms. Referring to TCFL, Lü said that both learners and teachers knew that language was a tool for communication. However, Lü added, in the classroom teachers tended to teach only about the components of this tool, not how to use the tool (Lü, S., 1980). Lü’s metaphor made a vivid description of the language teaching situation in China. Similarly, Lü Bisong, a TCFL specialist, who is also a former president of Beijing Language University, also remarked that the purpose of teaching language forms was not the ultimate goal. He emphasized that the teaching and learning of grammar in TCFL was totally different from linguistics studies of Chinese (Lü, B., 1992). However, the efforts of putting the above thinking into practice were late in coming. Research papers on the relation between culture and language only began to appear in language teaching journals in the 1990s. Among them, Zhang and Bi (1991) proposed a model of introducing cultural elements in Chinese language teaching. Wei and Bian (1992) suggested a teaching program of cultural contents. Lin (1996) classified 21 different kinds of Chinese thinking and national psychology. In classroom practice, some teachers attempted discussing and introducing the rules of language use related to com-

100

H. Wang

municative functions such as addressing, greeting and leave-taking. The formcentered teaching was also gaining some aspects of pragmatics. For instance, the proper usage of yes-no questions, demonstrative pronouns as communicative strategies in interactions, words showing respect and modesty, appropriate compliments and the reactions to compliments, expressions of gratitude and apologies etc. were introduced in textbooks and classrooms (Chui, 1997; Lü, W., 1994). However, these researchers and teachers constituted but a small voice in the academic and teaching field in China. A bigger voice was heard that cultural factors should not be over-emphasized in TCFL (Lu, 1998). Therefore, it is said that the teaching of pragmatic competence meant a new orientation as well as a big challenge in the TCFL (Lü, W., 1994). Criticism has been directed at the existing textbooks also in the cultural perspective. It is observed that in the textbooks many of the expressions and concepts included have no parallels in other cultures and that the texts are “too dull” and contain “too many new words” (Zhao, 1998, p. 10). The guideline for material selection was different from the communicative teaching principles. The concept of material authenticity has not been fully understood. For instance, in EFL/ESL, authentic materials refer to the materials written for native speakers to read, or spoken for native speakers to comprehend (Gu, 1998, p. 66). In other words, the teaching materials should come from real life communication in the target language. In TCFL, it should come from the everyday life of the common people in China, not from some linguists’ wild imagination or deliberate grammatical arrangement. The reality of TCFL has just been the opposite (Guo, 1998, p. 21–22; Lü, W., 2002, p. 86; Zhao, 1998, p. 6). To summarize, in the academic field there have been discussions on the purpose of teaching and learning a language. Some agreement seemed to have been reached in China that language teaching was to facilitate students’ learning of language skills for the purpose of communication (Guo, 1998, p. 20; Lü, B., 1992; Lü, S., 1980; Lü, W., 1999; among others). However, little has been done in research and teaching to reach the goal. 4 The need to raise awareness of pragmatics in language teaching 4.1 The lack of pragmatics competence If the teaching materials are one of the obstacles of learning, the teaching itself may be another reason for students to withdraw from the language course. An often-observed situation in Chinese language learning was that many freshmen were enthusiastic about learning the language but soon dropped out


101

when they found the learning was too difficult and the teaching was ineffective (Bian, 1999). The over-emphasis on the academic and form-oriented content does not match learners’ goal of learning a practical skill. In other words, what learners learn in class does not help them function efficiently and appropriately in everyday communication. An investigation of the pragmatic competence of Chinese as a Second Language (CSL) learners was carried out at Peking University (Liu & Tian, 1999). Among the findings of the investigation, the following three should alert us on the missing link in TCFL: Firstly, students’ linguistic competence alone cannot guarantee their pragmatic competence. In other words, socially appropriate use of language requires specific instructions. Secondly, for many who participated in the investigation, the learners’ first language pragmatic reaction would often be transferred to the target language, which echoes Thomas’ (1983, 1984) observation that pragmalinguistic errors occur when word semantics are transferred from one language to another while communicative functions of the speech act are distinct in the two languages. Thirdly, some learners who have a moderate command of the pragmatic rules in Chinese language tend to be confused when those rules are to be applied in the communicative situations somewhat different from what they are familiar with. The results of the investigation show that the CSL learners lacked the pragmatic competence in Chinese in one way or the other. The motivation and purpose of the learners of Chinese have changed greatly over time. In the past, people came to learn Chinese because of their interests in the ancient Chinese language, the Chinese literature and the several thousand year-old Chinese culture. At present, the reasons for learning the language are varied and are mostly practically oriented. The ability to read and analyze classical Chinese literature or appreciate Chinese calligraphy is no longer the priority of the majority of the present language learners. They want to acquire pragmatic skills to communicate with the people for trade, business, friendship or various aspects of cultural exchanges. To help these learners, Chinese language teachers must “develop ways of heightening and refining students’ metapragmatic awareness, so that they are able to express themselves as they choose” (Thomas, 1983, p. 91). Without the help needed, pragmatic competence is slow to develop. Protracted learning of the language without the gratification of using it effectively in communication is disheartening. This becomes more distressing when the learners find themselves in the seas of communication in the natural environment of the language, i.e. while living in the country of the target language. It is thus no wonder that many long-term learners of the language develop nega-

102

H. Wang

tive attitudes towards the language in comparison to the mid-term learners, including among them those who came to China after some term of learning in their home countries (Ni, Wang, Wang & Jiang, 2004). 4.2 Pragmatics in China In the field of TCFL, the teaching of pragmatics has not received the attention it should have from researchers and language teachers. To this day, formcentered teaching dominates the nation’s classrooms. Not surprisingly, the research on TCFL is also dominated by the so-called “noumenon research”. In the most recent academic conference for TCFL at the highest level in the country, “The Academic Conference on the Teaching of Chinese as a Foreign Language”, held in Beijing in November 2004, the conference themes were: 1. Research on language noumenon to teach Chinese as a foreign language: phonetics, characters, semantics and grammar; 2. Second language acquisition and cognition research on the Chinese language; 3. Research on teaching Chinese as a second language: teaching materials compiling, methods of teaching language items and Chinese language testing theories; 4. Research on and application of modern educational technology used in Chinese language teaching. Nowhere is the research on the teaching of pragmatics mentioned. By emphasizing that research on TCFL is research on the “noumenon” of the Chinese language, the acquisition and learning aspects of language, as well as teaching methodology, are marginalized. Moreover, language use becomes totally out of place in the research of TCFL. This is also evidenced by the 2004 Annual Report of the Research Center on Teaching Chinese as a Second/Foreign Language, Beijing Language University, which includes practically only studies of linguistic forms and none on their use. Pragmatics as an academic discipline has been introduced to China for over twenty years. It has made little impact on TCFL, while there has been some impact on the teaching of foreign languages to Chinese students. Pragmatics study in China has two streams. One is with the foreign language faculty, and the other with the Chinese language faculty. The foreign language faculty plays an important role in introducing the concepts and theories of pragmatics, and attends to its relations and implications for foreign language teaching and learning. In contrast, Chinese language faculty whose research interests involve pragmatics concentrates more on pragmalinguistics and pays little attention to language teaching. In the field of applied linguistics, Chinese linguists make use of concepts from the western theories of pragmatics in the analyses of syntax and semantics (Yan & Gao, 2003). The grammar-oriented


103

pragmatics studies were well-represented at “The 8th Pragmatics conference of China”, held in Guangzhou in 2003. Of the 186 papers presented at the conference, 12 papers were from the Chinese language faculty and naturally they addressed issues in the pragmatics of the Chinese language. However, none of them touches on aspects of language teaching. Pragmatics occupies a very small place in Chinese linguistics as a whole. Four Chinese linguistics journals are examined in the following paragraphs for their pragmatics content. These are among the most prestigious journals in Chinese linguistics circles. They are: Zhongguo Yuwen (Chinese Language), Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue (Teaching Chinese in the World), Yuyan Jiaoxue yu Yanjiu (Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies) and Yuyan Wenzi Yinyong (Applied Linguistics). All the articles published in the journals in 2003 were counted. Zhongguo Yuwen (Chinese Language) is the most prestigious journal among the Chinese language faculty. In the 2003 index, there were in total 92 articles, under sections classified as grammar, phonetics, dialects, word semantics and “sociolinguistics and applied linguistics”. Among them, 36 papers are about grammar and 25 are about word semantics. No paper was published on pragmatics or its relevance to language teaching. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue (Teaching Chinese in the World) is a journal dedicated to TCFL. There were 72 papers published in 2003. Among them, 30 articles were about grammar, word semantics and Chinese characters, six articles were on Chinese language teaching methodology but pragmatics teaching was not mentioned. However, there was one article on cross-cultural competence and the teaching of culture. Yuyan Jiaoxue yu Yanjiu (Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies) is published by Beijing Language University, the only university for TCFL. Of the 61 papers listed in its 2003 index, 19 were on teaching Chinese to speakers of other languages. None gave any consideration to pragmatics in language teaching. In Yuyan Wenzi Yinyong’s (Applied Linguistics) 2003 index, there were 83 papers listed and arranged in 15 sections of linguistics and “Chinese language teaching”. The special feature of this journal is that it includes Yuyong Yanjiu (Pragmatics Research) as a separate section. This section includes 10 papers of pragmatic analysis of the Chinese language. All of them are of a pragmalinguistic nature. Sociopragmatics was not addressed in any of them. To summarize, while pragmatics as a whole is marginalized in Chinese linguistics, sociopragmatics is completely ignored by pragmatics researchers in China. Consequently, it cannot be expected to be applied in TCFL.

H. Wang

104

4.3 What is to be done It is beyond the scope of this chapter to present an overall solution to the lack of awareness of pragmatics in language teaching in China. In fact it is impossible for any individual researcher to reverse the trends in TCFL in China. The modest attempt of the present author is no more than to point out the general neglect of pragmatics in TCFL in China, which is generally unacknowledged in China, and the situation is also little known out of China. While the first step is to acknowledge the fact and to know the problem, some suggestions for its resolution may aid in the understanding of the nature of the problem as well as in raising hopes of making progress. As mentioned above, there has been some research in TCFL in the right directions. For instance, there has been research on cultural elements in Chinese language teaching. Specific cultural items were identified and culturallydefined speech acts were classified, and there were even descriptions of national psychological notions (Chen 1997; Lin 1996; Wei & Bian, 1992; among others). Apart from the above, conscientious attempts at directly promoting pragmatic awareness in language learning have also been made. Although this did not come from the teaching of Chinese, it may well be introduced to the field. Rose (1999), in particular, creates a pragmatic consciousness-raising method in a language classroom with university students in Hong Kong. In Rose’s class, students became the pragmatic rule finders. They collected data on the possible pragmatic focuses of learning from their mother tongue. In analyzing the data they collected, students discovered the essence of certain pragmatic rules so that the awareness was raised in the learning of the corresponding rules in the target language. Being inspired by Rose’s practice, and modeling on Judd’s (1999) framework for the teaching of speech acts, I propose the following set of procedures for the TCFL classroom: (1) Speech act identification. Teacher identifies a particular speech act in Chinese and explains its functions. At the same time learners’ attention can be drawn on the social traits of the speakers like age, gender, social status, and the social relationships between the speakers. Learners will also be asked to perform this speech act in their mother tongue so that a comparison could be made between languages. (2) Analysis of the speech act. Teacher presents materials concerning the speech act and explains the examples. By analyzing the formal structure of the speech act, teachers help learners to develop an under-


105

standing of the linguistic components as well as their pragmatic features. (3) Conscious learning of the Chinese speech act. Learners are asked to identify the particular Chinese speech act among others by comparing different pieces of authentic materials of language use. Learners study and analyze the linguistic differences among the different examples for pragmatic consequences and sociolinguistic subtleties. Clips from Chinese films, radio and television programs can be collected and brought into the classroom for the purpose. (4) Controlled Practice. Teacher uses cloze exercises, cued dialogues or role plays to consolidate learners’ mastery of the taught speech act. Authentic materials of this speech act are presented to the learners to practice with and learners practice under Teacher’s guidance. (5) Free practice. Social activities are arranged in and out of the classroom with Chinese cultural events. Learners attend different social functions during a term period. In these activities learners are expected to employ the learnt speech acts in social interactions. At this stage Teacher recedes to the background but provides help when necessary while learners step forward and perform the speech acts as required by their social roles. The above tentative proposal represents not more than one suggestion among the many possible routes towards the teaching and fostering of pragmatic competence for foreign language students. More substantial research on the pragmatics of the Chinese language as well as its application to teaching in TCFL has to be done before the situation can improve. 4.4 Summary Although the teaching of pragmatics rules in the target language has made substantial progress in the international scene, the teaching of Chinese to foreign learners in China has been devoid of such content. Initial attempts have been made to introduce it in the classroom, but the predominant advocacy in the field of Chinese teaching as a foreign language has been the emphasis on accuracy in producing linguistic forms in classroom settings. This methodology in teaching does not meet the demands of students who are now in China to learn to use the language for communication, mostly for non-academic purposes. To address the situation, first and foremost, Chinese linguists and applied linguists must realize the importance of pragmatics in language use and realize that the teaching of language is mainly the teaching of language use.

106

H. Wang

References Bian, J. (1999). Hanzi jiaoxue: jiaoshenme? zhenme jiao? [Teaching Chinese characters: What to teach? How to teach?]. Yuyan Wenzi Yingyong, 29(1), 71–76. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47. Chen, G. (1997). Guanyu duiwai hanyukezhong de wenhua jiaoxue wenti [On issues of culture teaching in teaching Chinese to speakers of other languages]. Yuyan Wenzi Yingyong, 21(1), 23–26. Cui, Y. (1997). Cihui, wenzi yanjiu yu duiwai hanyu jiaoxue [Research on vocabulary, characters and teaching Chinese to foreign learners]. Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture University Press. Gu, Y. (1998). English language teaching methodology (Part 1). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Guo, Z. (1998). Duiwai hanyu jiaoxuezhong de jige wenti [Some issues in teaching Chinese to speakers of other languages]. Yuyan Wenzi Yingyong, 28(4), 20–23. Judd, Elliot L. (1999). Some issues in the teaching of pragmatic competence. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 152–166). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. Leech, G. (1983). The principles of pragmatics. London: Longman. Li, W. (2002, August 1). Laokeben xiapao guigu laowai, laowai xuehanyu jixu xinjiaocai [Old textbooks scared away foreign learners; Learners of Chinese language need new teaching materials urgently]. Zhongguo Qinnian Bao. Retrieved from http://www.cyol.net/gb/zqb/ 2002-08/01/content_503343.htm. Lin, G. (1996). Duiwai hanyu jiaoxuezhong wenhua yinsu de dingxing, dingwei yu dingliang wenti chuyi [A tentative attempt on cultural factors in teaching Chinese to speakers of other languages: the issues of quality, quantity and orientation in teaching these factors]. Yuyan Jiaoxue Yu Yanjiu, 67(1), 100–107. Liu, S, & Tian, J. (1999). Liuxuesheng hanyu yuyong diaocha [An analysis of an investigation of CSL learners’ pragmatic competence]. Yuyan Wenzi Yingyong, 29(1), 85–92. Lu, J. (1998). Duiwai hanyu jiaoxuezhong jingchang yao sikao de wenti [Questions frequently considered in teaching Chinese as a foreign language — Why? What? How?]. Yuyan Wenzi Yingyong, 28(4), 5–13. Lu, J. (2004). Zhenqiang xueke yishi, fazhan duiwai hanyu jiaoxue [Enhance subject awareness; Develop Chinese language teaching as a second language]. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue, 68(1), 7–12. Lü, Bisong. (1992). Huayu jiaoxue jiangxi [Lectures on Chinese language teaching]. Beijing: Beijing Language Institute Press. Lü, Shuxiang. (1980). Yuyan zuowei yizhong shehui xianxiang [Language as a social phenomenon]. Dushu, 13(4). Lü, Wenhua. (1994). Duiwai hanyu jiaoxue yufa tansuo [Grammar exploration in Chinese language teaching]. Beijing: Chinese Language Press. Lü, Wenhua. (2002). Duiwai hanyu jiaocai yufa xiangmu paixu de yuanze ji chelue [Principles and strategy for arranging grammar items in Chinese textbooks]. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue, 62(4).


107

Ni, C., Wang, Z., Wang, J., & Jiang, M. (2004). Waiguo liuxuesheng de hanyu taidu diaocha [Investigation of the attitudes towards Chinese of foreign students learning Chinese as a second language]. Yuyan Jiaoxue Yu Yanjiu, 108(4). Paulston, C. (1975). Linguistic and communicative competence in the ESOL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 8(3), 347–362. Rose, K. (1994). Pragmatic consciousness-raising in an EFL context. In L.F. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (pp. 2–63). Urbanana-Champaign: University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Rose, K. (1995). Nonnative-speaking teachers and the teaching of pragmatics. Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Teacher Education in Second Language Teaching, City University of Hong Kong, March. Rose, K. (1997). Pragmatics in the classroom: Theoretical concerns and practical possibilities. In L.F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and language learning (pp. 267–295). Urbana- Champaign: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Rose, K. (1999). Teachers and students learning about requests in Hong Kong. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 167–180). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 91–112. Thomas, J. (1984). Cross-cultural discourse as “unequal encounter”: Toward a pragmatic analysis. Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 226–235. Wang, H. (2003). Zhongguo dalu hanyu jiaocai chuban de chengjiu yu buzu [The achievements and weaknesses of Chinese language teaching materials published in China]. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue, 63(1), 100–106+6. Wei, C. & Bian, J. (1992). Jichu hanyu jiaoxue jieduan wenhua daoru neirong chutan [Cultural contents in fundamental Chinese language teaching]. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue, 19(1). Yan, C., & Gao, H. (2003). Yuyongxue zai zhongguo ershinian [Pragmatics in China — a twenty-year overview]. Paper presented at the 8th pragmatic conference of China, Guangzhou Foreign Language and Foreign Trade University, December. Zhang, Z., & Bi, J. (1991). Ruhe lijie he jieshi duiwai hanyu jiaoxuezhong de wenhua yinsu [How to understand and reveal the cultural factors in teaching Chinese to speakers of other languages]. Yuyan Jiaoxue Yu Yanjiu, 50(4). Zhang, D. (2000). Duiwai hanyu jiaoxue wushinian — shijizhijiao de huimo yu sikao [Five decades of Chinese teaching as a foreign language — review and thoughts at the transit of the century]. Yuyan wenzi yingyong, 33(1), 51–61. Zhao, J. (1998). Lun duiwai hanyu jiaocai pinggu [Evaluation on the Chinese language teaching materials]. Yuyan Jiaoxue yu Yanjiu, 77(3), 4–19. Zhou, S. (2000). Zhou Zumo yuyan wenzi lunji [Collection of Zhou Zumo’s works on language and characters]. Beijing: Beijing People’s Education Press. Zhou, Z. (1953). Jiao feihanyu xuesheng xuexi hanyu de yixie wenti [Some issues in teaching Chinese to non-Han nationality students]. Zhongguo Yuwen, 13(7).

DEVELOPMENT OF A FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANXIETY MODEL

Yujia Zhou

1 Introduction In the last two decades, many studies have reported that students in foreign language classrooms experience a considerable amount of foreign language anxiety compared with other classes. Language anxiety that has developed from an unpleasant learning experience affects language learning in various ways. Many anxious students achieve lower grades (Aida, 1994), engage in over-study without better results (Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope, 1986), and have more trouble taking in information in the foreign language, processing that information, and displaying their L2 abilities (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991). Moreover, language anxiety influences language students’ participation in classroom activities (Ely, 1986) and their willingness to communicate (MacIntyre & Charos, 1996), and influences the quality of performance tasks (Steinberg & Horwitz, 1986). Therefore, in the days when communicative competence has become a common goal of language teaching, greater effort is needed to further our understanding of sources of language anxiety in order to help learners feel less stressed about engaging in communication in class. Young (1991) summarized the sources of language anxiety in the classroom into six categories: personal and interpersonal anxieties, learner beliefs about language learning, instructor beliefs about language learning, instructorlearner interactions, classroom procedures, and testing. Of theses sources, Young argued that personal issues have been the most cited ones. Similarly, Aida (1994) emphasized the need for more studies examining the relationship between anxiety and learner characteristics. She concluded that “these studies would help us increase our understanding of language learning from the learner’s perspective and provide a wider range of insights” (p. 165). Methodologically, most evidence of personal sources has been cited from qualitative studies mainly based on a small number of subjects. Only a few

110

Y. Zhou

research studies have used quantitative research methods. The results of these studies gave supportive evidence for qualitative studies. However they provided little information about the associations among the examined factors and language anxiety. How personal variables are interrelated in arousing foreign language anxiety is still unknown. Therefore, the current study is an attempt to investigate interrelationships between language anxiety and selected potential personal sources during speaking activities in the foreign language classroom. The personal variables addressed in the present study are self-esteem in language learning, selfperception of speaking ability, and learners’ beliefs about language learning. 2 Literature review 2.1 Foreign language anxiety Foreign language anxiety is a complex, multi-dimensional phenomenon (Young, 1991). Horwitz et al. (1986) defined foreign language anxiety as “a distinct complex of self-perceptions, beliefs, feelings and behaviors related to classroom language learning arising from the uniqueness of the language learning process” (p. 31). In their theory of conceptualization of foreign language anxiety, three kinds of related anxiety are included, namely: 1) communication apprehension, 2) fear of negative evaluation, and 3) test anxiety. McCroskey (1977) defined communication apprehension as “an individual’s level of fear or anxiety associated with either real or anticipated communication” (p. 78). MacIntyre and Gardner (1991) argue that foreign language learners feel communication apprehension, due to their metacognitive awareness that they will have certain difficulty understanding others and making themselves understood. The fear of negative evaluation involves apprehension about others’ evaluation, avoidance of evaluative situations, and the expectation that others will evaluate oneself negatively (Watson & Friend, 1969). In a foreign language class, the students are constantly put on the spot and evaluated. Teachers and peers seem to be ready to correct every mistake in the speakers’ utterances (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991). According to Horwitz et al. (1986), both real and imagined critical evaluation by either the teacher or peers can provoke anxious feelings. Sarason (1978) defined test anxiety as “the tendency to view with alarm the consequences of inadequate performance in an evaluative situation” (p. 214). Horwitz et al. posited that learning a foreign language in an academic setting might evoke test anxiety as evaluation is an ongoing process in the classroom.

Development of a Foreign Language Anxiety Model

111

Based on this theory, Horwitz et al. (1986) developed the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) to capture the multi-dimensional nature of language anxiety. The three-factor structure of language anxiety has been validated by Horwitz (1986), which found significant correlations between the total score of FLCAS and general scales in these three factors. It is also worthwhile to note that through factor analysis of FLCAS, Aida (1994) found that fear of negative evaluation and communication apprehension seem to be more related to language anxiety. 2.2 Personal sources of foreign language anxiety 2.2.1 Self-esteem in language learning Similar to anxiety, self-esteem is also a multi-dimensional term. Heyde (1983) examined three kinds of self-esteem: global self-esteem, task self-esteem, and specific self-esteem. She defined specific self-esteem in language learning as “evaluations subjects consciously make of their worthiness in situations where they are using foreign language and evaluations they make of individual aspects of self-esteem such as language learning ability, educational selfesteem, and intellectual self-esteem” (p. 176). In general psychology, Greenberg et al. (1992) posited a terror management theory to the effect that people with high self-esteem are less likely to be anxious and that threats to self-esteem cause anxiety. Horwitz et al. (1986) were concerned that foreign language learning can deprive learners of their normal means of communication, their freedom to make errors, and their ability to behave like normal people, which may lead to lower self-esteem. In an interview with Young (1992), Krashen indicated that people with low selfesteem worry about what their peers think and they are concerned with pleasing others, which has a great deal to do with anxiety. So far no empirical study has directly examined the relationship between language anxiety and the construct of self-esteem in language learning. However, evidence can be found in Onwuegbuzie, Bailey and Daley (1999), who investigated perceived scholastic competence and perceived self-worth along with other factors in predicting foreign language anxiety for 210 university students. Their results showed significant correlation for perceived intellectual ability (r=-.36) and perceived scholastic competence (r=-.39). Furthermore, multiple regression analysis indicated that both were predictors of language anxiety, explaining 5% of the variance respectively. That is, when students who were good at other subjects could not work well in the subject of English,

112

Y. Zhou

their self-satisfaction in learning and intellectual ability could be affected, which may cause learner to feel anxiety when they use the foreign language. 2.2.2 Self-perception of speaking proficiency Self-perception of speaking proficiency refers to self-judgment about speaking ability level compared with others. Young (1991) considered that students who start out with a self-perceived low ability level in a foreign language or second language are the most likely to be anxious in the classroom. Similarly, Foss and Reitzel (1988) discussed the need for an anxiety model that includes learners’ self-perception. In her interviews with ten anxious French learners in college courses, Price (1991) found that many of her anxious participants believed that other students were better at learning foreign languages. This study also showed that foreign language learners compared their ability in the target language with that of native speakers of the target language. Specifically, the students who were afraid of making errors believed that they were not pronouncing words as native speakers would and felt embarrassed by their inability to pronounce correctly. Kitano (2001) investigated the relationship between self-perception of Japanese speaking ability and language anxiety with 212 university students in Japanese courses. This study found that the lower students perceived their ability to be, in comparison to their peers and native speakers, the greater was their level of anxiety, measured with a revised version of FLCAS (Horwitz et al., 1986). For the measure of self-perception of Japanese speaking ability, this study used three separate ratings, namely: self-rating for the current level of study, self-rating expected perception by Japanese, and self-rating can-do scale. Significant correlations with language anxiety were found for selfrating for the current level of study (r=-.509) and the self-rating expected perception by Japanese (r=-.389). Through regression analysis, Kitano attributed the non-significant correlation between self-rating can-do scale to the unequal numbers of male and female students, and the low score of one specific group of students. 2.2.3 Learners’ beliefs about language learning Learners’ beliefs about language learning refer to students’ opinions and perceptions on various issues related to language learning. Horwitz (1987) developed the Belief About Language Learning Inventory (BALLI), in which learners’ beliefs about language learning are categorized into five major areas: 1) difficulty of language learning, 2) foreign language aptitude, 3) nature of


113

language learning, 4) learning and communication strategies, and 5) motivations and expectations. The first three aspects seem to be most related to language anxiety. Price (1991) revealed through interviews that the majority of ten anxious students with high levels of foreign language anxiety found their language course difficult. Many subjects complained that, compared with their other classes, they could not do well in their language classes even though they worked hard. Furthermore, the highly anxious subjects in Price’s study believed that learning a foreign language required a special aptitude that they did not possess. Peacock (1998) found through a questionnaire that 71% of students believed in the existence of foreign language aptitude, though only 14% believed that they had that aptitude. Also, anxious students tended to consider the nature of language learning in terms of pronunciation, and overemphasized the accuracy. Price’s subjects were concerned that they were not pronouncing words like a native French speaker and expressed great embarrassment at their unsatisfactory pronunciation. Some learners seemed to believe that the target language should not be attempted unless accuracy was maintained, and that they should not guess an unknown foreign language word (Horwitz, 1988). All the above beliefs about language learning are unrealistic to some extent and are very likely to increase learners’ anxiety level when they clash with reality. Wang (2005) provided empirical support for the negative influence of learners’ beliefs on language anxiety. She administered FLCAS and BALLI to 175 Chinese EFL university learners to investigate the relationship between language anxiety and their beliefs about language learning. Two BALLI factors that were found to be significantly correlated with foreign language anxiety were the difficulty of language learning (r = .54), and beliefs about foreign language aptitude (r = -.26). This suggested that Chinese EFL students who believed English was a difficult language and perceived themselves as having lower language aptitude in language learning tended to have higher levels of language anxiety 2.2.4 The mediational role of self-esteem in language learning During the process of arousing language anxiety, the relationship between the three personal variables and language anxiety might not be straightforward. They are likely to be interrelated with each other. Self-esteem seems to mediate the influence of the other two personal sources, learners’ beliefs on language learning and self-perception of their speaking ability on language anxiety.

114

Y. Zhou

Oh (1996) found that American university Japanese learners were quite anxious about speaking Japanese in the classroom. However, the results did not indicate that the level of language anxiety was strongly related to language learning beliefs. In conclusion, she suggested that certain beliefs might affect language learners’ self-esteem, which in turn, affects the levels of anxiety students experience in the classroom. She explained this further by stating that belief in the difficulty of learning Japanese language may evoke insecurities about their language learning ability, which in turn intensifies anxious feelings. That is to say, apart from engendering anxious feeling in language learners directly, learners’ language learning beliefs are also likely to affect language anxiety indirectly through mediation of self-esteem in language learning. It is also possible that self-perception of speaking proficiency influences language anxiety indirectly by affecting self-esteem in language learning, which in turn has a direct influence on language anxiety. In general psychology, Marsh (1986) developed the internal/external frame of reference (I/E) model in attempting to explain the distinction between the construct of math self-concept and the construct of verbal self-concept. According to the I/E model, math and verbal self-concept are influenced both by external and internal comparisons. The external frame of reference involves comparing the students’ perceived academic ability with the abilities of other students in a specific environment (e.g. school, peer group). The internal frame of reference refers to the students’ comparison of perceived ability in one subject domain with their perceived ability in another subject domain. Considering that the concept of self-esteem is very similar to that of self-concept, self-esteem in language learning might be influenced by a subject’s self-perceived speaking competence when compared with classmates and native speakers in a foreign language learning context. In summary, during classroom activities involving speaking in the target language, self-esteem in language learning, self-perception of speaking proficiency, and learners’ beliefs about language learning seem to be explanatory factors of language anxiety. However, research examining only their direct relationship has not always been able to get the consistent results. It is also likely that instead of straightforward relationships, these factors might be interrelated, with self-esteem as the mediator. Students’ lower level of selfperception compared with classmates or native speakers and stronger beliefs in certain aspects of language learning tend to lower their self-esteem in language learning, which in turn leads to a higher level of language anxiety.


115

2.3 Significance of structural equation modeling for the present study So far, in the few quantitative studies that have investigated the relationship between personal sources and language anxiety, most (Kitano, 2001; Onwuegbuzie et al., 1999; Wang, 2005) have used simple correlation in data analysis. While only Onwuegbuzie et al. used multi-regression approach, the researchers did not explore further the interaction among the variables examined. These approaches were not able to reveal the indirect effects, which might exist among the personal factors in the complex process. Furthermore, the personal variables in question, as well as the construct of language anxiety, are multi-dimensional in nature. However, the previous studies treated the sub-dimensions of personal sources separately in investigating their influence on language anxiety. Therefore, more complex multivariate modeling is needed to address this problem by examining latent variables with several sub-dimensions simultaneously. To overcome the limitations of the correlation and multiple regression approach in modeling research, the present study uses the structural equation modeling (SEM) approach to examine the interrelationships between the explanatory and the dependent variables. SEM uses multiple indicators, which adequately represent such multi-faceted, abstract and theoretical constructs as language anxiety and its personal sources. Moreover, SEM allows a separate estimation of the direct and indirect effects of the explanatory variables on the dependent variable. Since the early 1980s, the field of applied linguistics has witnessed a substantial increase in the use of structural equation modeling. For example, SEM has been used in research to investigate the influence of affective individual differences, such as motivation, aptitude and attitude, on second language acquisition (Ely, 1986; Gardner, 1988; Yashima, 2002). 3 Development of proposed models A review of literature on foreign language anxiety revealed that self-esteem in language learning, self-perception of speaking proficiency, and learners’ beliefs about language learning are not only potential predictors of language anxiety, but are also interrelated during this prediction process. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to test these hypotheses and to examine the relative importance of these factors in influencing language anxiety, and the nature of their effects. In order to achieve the research objective, four models are proposed. All the proposed models are made up of four latent constructs. Language anxiety is represented by (a) communication anxiety and (b) fear of negative evalua-

116

Y. Zhou

tion. Self-esteem in language learning includes two dimensions: (a) language self-esteem and (b) learning self-esteem. Self-perception of speaking proficiency is represented by two types of comparison: (a) self-perceived speaking proficiency, compared with classmates, and (b) self-perceived speaking proficiency, compared with native speakers. Finally, learners’ beliefs about language learning include three types of language learning beliefs: (a) learners’ beliefs about foreign language aptitude, (b) learners’ beliefs about the difficulty of language learning and (c) learners’ beliefs about the nature of language learning. Each proposed model incorporates specific hypotheses concerning the causal relations among the above four constructs. Model 1 (see Fig. 1) represents a model in which each of the three personal sources is specified to be directly associated with language anxiety. Furthermore, self-perception of speaking proficiency and learners’ beliefs about language learning also affect language anxiety indirectly through mediation of language learning selfesteem. It is proposed that students would feel a higher level of language anxiety when they experience lower self-confidence in language learning, when they perceive their speaking competence as poor, compared with classmates or native speakers, and when they hold certain stronger beliefs about language learning. It is further proposed that students who have lower perception of their own speaking ability or hold certain stronger beliefs about language learning would also feel lower levels of self-esteem in language learning. Figure 2 depicts Model 2, in which self-perception of speaking proficiency and learners’ beliefs about language learning are specified to have direct effects on self-esteem in language learning, which in turn influences language anxiety. Model 3 in Figure 3 posits that the relationships between selfperception of speaking proficiency, learners’ beliefs about language learning, and language anxiety are mediated by self-esteem in language learning. Furthermore, a direct effect would presumably exist between self-perception of speaking proficiency and language anxiety. Finally, in Model 4 (see Fig. 4), self-esteem in language learning affects language anxiety directly and also mediates the influences of self-perception of speaking proficiency and learners’ beliefs about language learning on language anxiety. In addition, a direct link is also hypothesized to exist between learners’ beliefs about language learning and language anxiety.


117

Self-perception of speaking proficiency

Self-esteem in language learning

Language anxiety

Learners’ beliefs about language learning

Fig. 1. Proposed Model 1 Self-perception of speaking proficiency


Language anxiety




Language anxiety



Self-esteem in language learning Learners’ beliefs about language learning

Fig. 4. Proposed Model 4

Language anxiety

118

Y. Zhou

4 Method 4.1 Participants The participants in this study consisted of 253 EFL university students in northeastern China. The students had studied English as a school subject for six years at junior and senior high schools. For structural equation modeling, data from 230 students with no missing values were used. There were 124 male students (53.9%) and 106 female students (46.1%). A total of 59 (25.7%) students were in their first year and 171 (74.3%) students were in their second year. The students are major students of Public Administration (28.7%), Information Administration (34.8%), Finance (13.0%) and International Economy (23.5%). 4.2 Procedure Questionnaires in Chinese translated from an English version by the researcher were administered to the participants. These contain questions on demographic measures and measures of language anxiety, self-esteem in language learning, self-perception of speaking proficiency, and learners’ beliefs about language learning. Participating in the study involved completing the questionnaire after class and returning it to the instructors. 4.3 Measures Appendix A shows the measurement for each latent variable, which are described in this section in detail. A language anxiety scale was created for this study to measure students’ anxiety level during oral practice in the foreign language class. Items in this scale were adapted from the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (Horwitz et al., 1986) and grouped into two subscales. The first subscale with four items measured students’ degree of fear of negative evaluation from teacher and classmates (e.g. “I am afraid that the other students will laugh at me when I speak English in my English class”). The second subscale with four items was designed to assess students’ level of communication apprehension in English class (e.g. “I get nervous when I know that I’m going to be called on in my English class”). Students indicated their anxiety level on a 5point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly disagree) for each item. The reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) of the language anxiety scale was .86.


119

A language learning self-esteem scale was developed for this study to evaluate students’ level of self-esteem in language learning as defined by Heyde (1983). It is composed of three items on language self-esteem and three items on learning self-esteem. Included in the language self-esteem measures are two life situation statements pertaining to language use and one statement related to language ability. Included in learning self-esteem are two statements related to intellectual ability, and one related to educational ability. Examples are: “I have the language learning ability” for language self-esteem and “I am an intelligent person” for learning self-esteem. Students were to evaluate their language learning self-esteem on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The alpha reliability of this scale was .73. A self-perception of speaking proficiency scale was modified from the Self-Rating Speaking Proficiency measure developed in Kitano (2001). It measured judgment of participants’ speaking proficiency by themselves in the areas of pronunciation, fluency, grammatical accuracy, and overall speaking ability respectively. Four indicators reflected students’ self-perception of these aspects compared with classmates (e.g. “For my current level of study in English, compared with my classmates, I think my English pronunciation is”) and four indicators for comparison with native speakers (e.g. “if I were to go to an English-speaking country, I think my English fluency would be perceived by a native speaker as”). Students rated their self-perception of specific aspects of speaking proficiency on a 5-point scale from 1 (very bad) to 5 (very good). The alpha reliability of the self-perception of speaking proficiency scale was .87. The measure of learners’ beliefs about language learning was adapted from Horwitz’s (1987) Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory (BALLI). The scale with a total of 11 items assesses students’ orientation toward some beliefs about language learning in three subscales. The first subscale including three items measures learners’ beliefs about the importance of foreign language aptitude (e.g. “someone is born with a special ability for learning foreign languages”). The second subscale including five items was designed to measure learners’ beliefs about the difficulty of language learning (e.g. “English grammatical rules are very complex and confusing”). The third subscale including three items assessed learners’ beliefs about the nature of language learning (e.g. “You should not say anything in English until you can say it correctly”). All these items, except X30, were to be rated on 5-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Item X30 was assessed from 1 (less than 1 year) to 5 (more than 10 years). The alpha reliability of the self-perception of speaking proficiency scale of eight items was .66, which is

120

Y. Zhou

not quite satisfactory but considered to be at an acceptable level. This construct was thought to be different from the other three in that it was designed to measure learners’ beliefs about general language learning rather than to evaluate their own feelings as the other three constructs did. Therefore, composite scores were to be calculated for the items representing each subscale. 4.4 Statistical analysis Descriptive statistics including means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis were examined for the normality of score distribution of each variable. Two confirmatory factor analyses were performed to assess the measurement model with Amos 4.0 (Arbuckle, 1995). The first confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to choose three items with large path coefficient values for three latent variables of language anxiety, self-esteem in language learning, and self-perception of speaking proficiency respectively. Then a second confirmatory factor analysis was run to evaluate the adequacy of the proposed four factor measurement model with nine items obtained from the first confirmatory factor analysis and three composite scores for each subscale of learners’ beliefs about language learning. To evaluate the fitness of the measurement model with a total of 12 indicators, chi-square value (Ȥ2), Goodness of Fitness (GFI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and Residue Mean Square Error Approximation (RMSEA) were used as fit indices. A non-significant chi-square value indicates that the model is an adequate representation of the sample data. However, because the chi-square statistic is a poor estimate when the sample is large (Toyoda, 1998), as in this study, the ratio of chi-square to degrees of freedom (Ȥ2/df) was used, for which value of 5 or lower is considered adequate (Wheaton, Muthen, Alwin & Summers, 1977). For GFI and CFI, values of .90 or greater were considered adequate. For RMSEA, values of approximately .08 or less indicate adequate model fit (Brown & Cudeck, 1989). Once the measurement model was confirmed, the four proposed models were tested with structural equation modeling (maximum likelihood method) with Amos 4.0. To evaluate the overall fit of a particular model with the sample data, five types of fit indices were used: the chi-square statistic, Ȥ2/df, GFI, CFI, and RMSEA. The criteria for the acceptable values of these fit indices were the same as those of confirmatory factor analysis described in the preceding section. The criterion for choosing one model over another was based on the difference of fit indices, particularly the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) value, for which the smaller one indicates a better model (Toyoda,


121

1998). Finally, only those models that contained significant path should be considered appropriate. 5 Results 5.1 Preliminary analyses Table 1 describes the descriptive statistics of all the 33 items, which revealed that the data were normally distributed with values for the skewness and kurtosis within an acceptable range of -1 to +1, except item 33, which had skewness of -1.60 and kurtosis of 3.06. For this reason, X33 was excluded from further analysis. Appendix B shows all correlations among all the observed variables. Table 1. Descriptive statistics No. X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13 X14 X15 X16 X17 X18 X19 X20 X21 X22 X23 X24 X25 X26 X27 X28 X29 X30 X31 X32 X33

M 2.83 2.53 3.13 2.12 2.60 3.03 3.26 3.15 3.07 3.15 2.94 3.01 2.77 3.33 3.15 2.90 2.89 2.88 2.71 2.44 2.73 2.58 3.57 3.04 2.80 2.59 2.65 3.65 3.07 2.39 2.67 3.53 4.25

SD 0.99 1.10 1.09 0.99 1.01 1.03 1.07 1.02 0.98 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.80 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.98 0.86 0.95 0.90 1.01 1.07 1.08 1.01 1.09 0.96 1.07 1.12 1.04 1.07 0.89

Skewness Kurtosis 0.16 -0.97 0.26 -0.97 -0.43 -0.75 0.79 0.11 0.31 -0.74 -0.18 -0.64 -0.53 -0.62 -0.40 -0.74 0.25 -0.57 0.08 -0.62 0.25 -0.09 0.19 -0.33 0.29 0.22 0.09 -0.12 0.06 -0.33 0.32 -0.22 -0.03 -0.17 0.27 -0.14 0.24 -0.34 0.47 0.08 0.15 -0.48 0.29 -0.07 -0.65 -0.11 -0.07 -0.56 0.16 -0.70 0.41 -0.51 0.31 -0.55 -0.82 0.50 0.16 -0.87 0.63 -0.22 0.30 -0.92 -0.52 -0.53 -1.60 3.06

Y. Zhou

122

5.2 Measurement model From the first confirmatory factor analysis conducted with all the measures of language anxiety, self-esteem in language learning, and self-perception of speaking proficiency, the following indicators with large path coefficient values were obtained for each of the three latent variables. The indicators of X6 with path coefficient value of 0.72, X7 (0.72), and X2 (0.68) were the three best ones for language anxiety; X18 (0.77), X17 (0.64), and X19 (0.62) were best for self-esteem in language learning; X10 (0.79), X16 (0.78), and X12 (0.78) were best for self-perception of speaking proficiency. They were all found to be statistically significant. Table 2. Standardized path coefficients from confirmatory factor analysis with 12 observed variables Latent variables and observed variables Language Anxiety V1 I am afraid that the other students will language at me when I speak English in my English class. V2 I get nervous when I know that I' m going to be called on in my English class. V3 I start to panic when I have to speak without preparation in my English class. Self-Esteem in Language Learning V4 I have the language learning ability. V5 I have confidence in using English in my English class. V6 I am confident to communicate with others in English outside of the calss. Self-Perception of Speaking Proficiency V7 If I were to go to an English-speaking country (such as U.S.A), I think my overall speaking ability would be perceived by the native speaker as: V8 For my current level of study in English compared with my classmates, I think my English fluency is: V9 For my current level of study in English compared with my classmates, I think my overall speaking ability is: Learners' Belief about Language Learning V10 The importance of foreign language aptitude V11 The difficulty of language learning V12 Nature of language learning

Path coefficient**

No.

0.66

X2

0.72

X6

0.73

X7

0.61 0.65 0.74

X11 X9 X10

0.72

X22

0.80

X16

0.81

X18

0.39 0.59 0.55

X23-X25 X26-X30 X31-X32

Note. **p

Foreign Language Teaching in Asia and Beyond: Current Perspectives and Future Directions (Studies in Second and Foreign Language Education)

Cultural studies in foreign language education

First Language Use in Second and Foreign Language Learning

Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching (Language Learning & Language Teaching)

Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching (Language Learning & Language Teaching)

Dyslexia and Foreign Language Learning

Foreign Language and Mother Tongue

Foreign Language and Mother Tongue

The Future of Foreign Language Education in the United States

Second Language Acquisition - Foreign Language Learning

The Elements of Foreign Language Teaching (Modern Language in Practice)

Speaking and Instructed Foreign Language Acquisition (Second Language Acquisition)

Content-Based Instruction in Foreign Language Education: Models and Methods

Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Foreign Language Acquisition (Second Language Acquisition)

Learning Strategies in Foreign and Second Language Classrooms

Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching and Testing (Second Language Acquisition)

Writing in Foreign Language Contexts: Learning, Teaching, and Research (Second Language Acquisition)

Cross-linguistic Similarity in Foreign Language Learning (Second Language Acquisition)

New Perspectives in Language, Discourse and Translation Studies (Second Language Learning and Teaching)

Dyslexia in the Foreign Language Classroom (Second Language Acquisition)

Cultural Studies in Foreign Language Education (Multilingual Matters 46)

Dictionary Use in Foreign Language Writing Exams: Impact and implications (Language Learning & Language Teaching)

Expertise in Second Language Teaching and Learning

Sociolinguistics and Language Education (New Perspectives on Language and Education)

Vocabulary in Language Teaching (Cambridge Language Education)

Pedagogical Norms for Second and Foreign Language Learning and Teaching Studies: Studies in Honor of Albert Valdman (Language Learning & Language Teaching)

Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms (Cambridge Language Education)

Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms (Cambridge Language Education)

Studies In French Applied Linguistics (Language Learning and Language Teaching)

Foreign Language Acquisition Research and the Classroom (Series on Foreign Language Acquisition Research and Instruct)

Foreign Language Teaching in Asia and Beyond: Current Perspectives and Future Directions (Studies in Second and Foreign Language Education)

Cultural studies in foreign language education

First Language Use in Second and Foreign Language Learning

Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching (Language Learning & Language Teaching)

Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching (Language Learning & Language Teaching)

Dyslexia and Foreign Language Learning

Foreign Language and Mother Tongue

Foreign Language and Mother Tongue

The Future of Foreign Language Education in the United States

Second Language Acquisition - Foreign Language Learning

The Elements of Foreign Language Teaching (Modern Language in Practice)

Speaking and Instructed Foreign Language Acquisition (Second Language Acquisition)

Content-Based Instruction in Foreign Language Education: Models and Methods

Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Foreign Language Acquisition (Second Language Acquisition)

Learning Strategies in Foreign and Second Language Classrooms

Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching and Testing (Second Language Acquisition)

Writing in Foreign Language Contexts: Learning, Teaching, and Research (Second Language Acquisition)

Cross-linguistic Similarity in Foreign Language Learning (Second Language Acquisition)

New Perspectives in Language, Discourse and Translation Studies (Second Language Learning and Teaching)

Dyslexia in the Foreign Language Classroom (Second Language Acquisition)

Cultural Studies in Foreign Language Education (Multilingual Matters 46)

Dictionary Use in Foreign Language Writing Exams: Impact and implications (Language Learning & Language Teaching)

Expertise in Second Language Teaching and Learning

Sociolinguistics and Language Education (New Perspectives on Language and Education)

Vocabulary in Language Teaching (Cambridge Language Education)

Pedagogical Norms for Second and Foreign Language Learning and Teaching Studies: Studies in Honor of Albert Valdman (Language Learning & Language Teaching)

Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms (Cambridge Language Education)

Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms (Cambridge Language Education)

Studies In French Applied Linguistics (Language Learning and Language Teaching)

Foreign Language Acquisition Research and the Classroom (Series on Foreign Language Acquisition Research and Instruct)

Recommend Documents