2nd Test Flashcards
Unplanned public talk
Spoken interactions that take place in our everday life with people we do not know well as we go to work, shop, visit the doctor, etc.
-It is mainly transactional, though there might be elements of interactional nature.
-It takes place in worlds of education, business, media and other professional contexts.
-With a range of different audiences
-The spoken genres of public talk contain characteristic structural features that we recognise from previous experience in the public domain.
We will concentrate on classroom interaction
Planned public talk
Can be characterised as planned or unplanned. (eg. service encounters, classroom interaction, court-room language, media talk, public info language)-
We will concentrate on academic lectures.
Classroom interaction Sinclair and Coulthard´s analysis
The exchange structural approach was a foundational work. In the 1970’s they provided us with a definition of classroom interaction that we still keep today of what the genre is.
Classroom talk is a type of interaction that is characterised by its educational purpose or function containing a structured pattern that can be described as constituted by a nested hierarchy of categories. (nested: a pattern with embedded elements with different categories and functions that operate as subcategories and subfunctions within a main function which is an educational one). They identified:
Lesson
Transaction: moments
Exchange: opening, answering, follow-up
Move: a set of at least 2 acts realised by 2 participants
Act: sentence with function
Classroom interactions: Seedhouse’s main notions on classroom interaction
Key goal of a genre: the t will teach the learners the L2. This core institutional goal remains the same whenever the L2 lesson takes place and whatever pedagogical framework the teacher is working in. It remains the same if the teacher teaches in a learner-centered classroom or l-autonomy approach.
Consequences: which affect the way in which L2 interaction is accomplished. This goal will have consequences in the structure of interaction. Among the consequences, seedhouse observes 3 interactional properties:
1. lg is both the vehicle and object of instruction
2. there is a reflexive relationship b/ pedagogy and interaction and interactants constantly display their analysis of the evolving relationship b/ pedagogy and interaction.
3. the linguistic forms and patterns of interaction which the learners produce in the L2 are potentially subject to evaluation by the teacher in some way.
The basic sequence organisation that applies to all L2 classroom interaction from a conversation analysis perspective:
1. a pedagogical focus is introduced by the teacher but it may be nominated by learners. eg. when learners ask questions
2. at least 2 persons speak in the L2 in normative orientation to the pedagogical focus. They are speaking a second lg bearing in mind the rule of the second lg as a focus.
3. In all instances, the interaction involves participants analysing the pedagogical focus and performing turns in the l2 which display their analysis of normative orientation to this focus in relation to the interaction.
This main focus on the lg which is established by the teacher through some times also introduced by the ss has the typical characteristics of being focused on the interaction primarily and secondarily on the lg itself, on the structure of the lg, on this normative orientation which is part of the task of learning it.
5 separate though related simultaneous concerns of the teacher:
1. controls the overall topic whilst allowing the learners some interactional space to develop their own sub-topics. The teacher has to orient, then, to an overall pedagogica plan. (T in control of overall topic and sub topics)
2. responds to the idea and personal mgs which the learner chooses to share and does so successfully in that he/she develops the sub-topic introduced by the learner. (t takes up what ss say and makes comments or expands)
3. responds to linguistic incorrectness in the individual learner’s utterances and conducts embedded repair on them when incorrect.
4. orients to the other learners in the class when ss produce answers inaudible to other ss.
5. maintains a simulaneous dual focus on both form and mg.
Socially distributed cognition: the organization of sequence, turn-taking and repair are employed by interactants in order to display not only their social actions but also their understandings of the other’s social actions to each other. These organisations constitute part of the architecture of intersubjectivity, or how people understand each other in classroom interaction.
Seedhouse’s conversation anylysis portrays and eplicates the progress of intersubjectivity or socially distributed cognition as made evident in the interaction we have just seen. He shows us how conversation analysis rises to identify ways in which participants themselves orient to display and make sense of one another’s cognitive state among other things.
The interactants in the examples of classroom lg that we have just seen are displaying to each other and to the rest of the class their understanding of each-others’ utterances by means of and and the organization of turn-taking sequence and repair. This demonstrates the embeddedness, the inextricable intertwininness of cognition and in the action. How does learning progress in classroom interaction? 3 questions come to our minds with reference to learning:
1. From the learner’s perspective. It is not just a matter of understanding the propositional conent of what T says in the L2. It is also a matter
Classroom interactions: Willis´ inner and outer structures of classroom interaction
Willis distinguishes between outer and inner lg to refer to the two uses of lg in the classroom.
▶The outer structure lg: provides the framework of the lesson, the lg used to socialize, organize, explain and check, and generally to enable the pedagogic activities to take place. Mechanism for controlling and stimulating utterances in the inner structure which gives formal practice in the foreign lg.
▶The inner structure lg consists of the target forms of the lg that the teacher has selected as learning goals. These are generally phrases, clauses or sentences, presented as target forms, quoted as examples, repeated and drilled or otherwise practised by the class, often as discrete items, the sequence of utterances bearing little or no resemblance to possible sequences in “normal” discourse in some cases, whereas in other cases, it is possible to find highly interacting chunks of lg.
In any case, this is part of the lg rehearsal that ss need in order to acquire the lg.
Two types of inner structure:
1. Dependent: there’s teacher intervention
2. Independent: no teacher intervention
Is there any moment in which the ss an interact without the outer structure?
There are certain activities, like role-plays, in which there is a higher level of independence of inner structure from outer structure. When this pseudo interaction is actually in progress, it can be temporarily independent of the outer structure. eg. in a role play with a classmate sitting next to me. The 2 ss can complete the activity without teacher intervention until they finish. Then, the teacher’s follow-up move takes the discourse back to the outer structure.
So: independent and dependent use with reference to the outer structure.
How do ss tell inner from outer?
1. Most teachers use explicit boundary exchanges followed by a series of direct and inform exchanges, which tell ss what to do and how to do it. In the lg classroom, they are often explicitly given the words to do it with.
2. Ss may deduce from the preceding series of exchanges, paying special attention to the teacher’s follow-up moves, how they are to respond.
Unless the teacher signals in some way that it is not; eg, by adding the word “really” to the question and changing the stress.
3. The structure and length of the initiating move itself is revealing, and likely to make ss pay more attention to form.
4. Paralinguistic features, intonation and kinesics can give a lot of clues. If a teacher says sth slowly and deliberately, it is likely to be inner.
Ss may first recognise the role of the teacher (eg. the teacher encouraging an open discussion). If the teacher is in the role of instructor, the likelyhood is that of an inner requirement, so probably it will immediately recognise and (see point 1)
2. If there are no explicit boundaries exchanges, see 2
4. This often involves a teacher breaking up an utterance into more (tone?) units than would usually in normal conversation and using a different stress.
✓When ss interact among themselves: inner independent
✓When t controls: inner dependent
Changes from outer to inner are given by words, the ways in which t marks and signals the way in which ss have to behave and pay attention to specific linguistic items. They use certain key phrases that would operate a boundary signal.
When examining utterances that occur in the inner, and comparing them with utterances on the outer, there are striking differences, both in exchange structure and move structure.
A great proportion of classroom interaction is of the outer and inner dependent lg structure with few instances of the inner independent lg taking place in classroom which prepare ss for authentic lg use outside the classroom.
We should revise the current teaching methods.
What is the impact of so much teacher control?
How does this affect lg acquisition?
In what ways can research help develop more autonomous driven lg use in class?
Classroom interactions: Hewing´s intonation and feedback analysis in classroom interaction.
Problems faced by students in lectures
Problems encountered by the students (nonnatives) were speed of delivery, excessive load of new terminology and concepts, and difficulties in concentrating . Strategies used to help comprehension were pre- and post-reading of the set text, peer help, lecturer/tutor help, highlighting relevant sections of the set text duringthe lecture, note-taking, and efforts to concentrate harder.
Listening cues in lectures
Webpage
Another lecture-oriented input study investigated the effect on comprehension of pragmatic
signalling devices, or discourse markers (Chaudron and Richards, 1986) . Chaudron and Richards
(1986) presented subjects with the same lecture with and without discourse markers. On testing
subjects after listening, Chaudron and Richards found that “macro-markers” (higher-order markers marking major transitions) had a greater effect on recall than did “micro-markers” (lower-order
markers linking clauses and sentences) .
Stating the topic
(What) I’d like to…
What I’m going to look at/talk about…
Today I’ll be talking about…
I want to talk about…
Giving the structure
I’m going to look at/talk about three main areas…
There are four areas I want to look at…
In particular I want to talk about…
Transition cues
I. Phrases
Let’s now move on to/turn to…
I now want to go on to…
This leads/brings me to my next point, which is…
I’d now like to move on to/turn to….
So far we have looked at… Now I’d like to …
II. Words
OK…
Well…
So…
All right…
Right…
Now…
Good…
III. Questions
What are the reasons for this?
Concluding cues
So…
So, to sum up…
Thus…
Therefore…
To recap…
Giving examples
Let me give you an example…
such as…
for instance …
A good example of… is …
Addition
In addition…
Moreover…
Another point…
Not only… but also…
Contrasting
But…
However…
On the other hand…
In contrast to this…
Listing
First…/The first…
Next…
Another…
A final…
Distinctive features of listening comprehension: differences in degree (b/ conversation and lecture listening)
One difference that is a matter of degree is the type of background knowledge required. In a lecture listeners are likely to require a knowledge of the specialist subject matter, while in conversation necessary background knowledge will be more general. Another difference in degree is the ability to distinguish between what is relevant and what is not relevant. While in all comprehension there
is a need to be able to understand what is relevant (Grice,1975 ; Sperber and Wilson, 1988), the ability to distinguish between what is relevant to the main purpose and what is less relevant (digressions, asides, jokes, etc.) is paramount in lectures, though perhaps less important in conversation . A third difference of degree between academic and conversational listening is in the application of the turn taking conventions. In conversation, turn-taking is obviously essential, while in lectures turn-taking conventions will only be required if questions are allowed from the audience or come from the lecturer. A fourth difference of degree between academic and conversational listening is in the amount of implied meaning or indirect speech acts. The emphasis in lectures is generally assumed to be on the information to be conveyed, on propositional meaning, while in conversation interpersonal, or illocutionary meaning is more important (Brown and Yule, 1983).
Distinctive features of lecture comprehension: differences in kind (b/ conversation and lecture listening)
Turning now to differences that are a matter of kind, a number of particular skills are associated with lectures. The first of these is the requirement to be able to concentrate on and understand long stretches of talk without the opportunity of engaging in the facilitating functions of interactive discourse, such as asking for repetition, negotiating meaning, using repair strategies, etc. A second difference of kind is note-taking. James (1977) sees lecture comprehension as a five stage process which culminates in the note-taking process: decode, comprehend, identify main points, decide when to record these, write quickly and clearly. Another skill related to the lecture comprehension process and not found in conversation is the ability to integrate the incoming message with information derived from other media. These other media may take the form of handouts given out at the start
of the lecture, the textbook which forms the basic reading for the course, or visually displayed materials presented on a blackboard, overhead projector or by some other means.
Lecture discourse: Lecturing styles
A number of different styles have been identified for delivering lectures. Morrison (1974, reported in Jordan, 1989 :153) divided science lectures into two kinds: formal (“close to spoken prose”) and informal (“high informational content, but not necessarily in highly formal register”). DudleyEvans andJohns (1981) distinguish three styles oflecturing : “reading style”, where the speaker reads or speaks as if reading from notes; “conversational style”, where the speaker speaks informally, with
or without notes; and “rhetorical style”, where the speaker presents him/herself as a “performer”, using a wide intonational range and making frequent digressions, marked by shifts of key and tempo.
Goffman (1981) recognizes three modes of lecture: “memorization”, “aloud reading” and “fresh talk” . In keeping with modern trends in teaching and a greater encouragement of student participation, Frederick (1986, cited in Benson, 1989) refers also to the “participatory lecture”, which is closer to discussion.
Extrapolating from these various approaches, the key parameters in characterizing lecture styles would seem to be 1. whether the lecture is processed by the speaker in real time or is read and 2. whether it allows for any spoken interaction with the audience or is pure monologue. Although there is no published survey of the relative frequency of types of lecture style, the general consensus is that the informal, conversational style, based on notes or handouts, is probably the predominant mode
of lecture presentation, to both native and non-native audiences (McDonough,1978; DeCarrico and Nattinger, 1988; Dudley-Evans, personal communication) .
Lecture: metapragmatic signalling
*Reference was made in the previous section to Coulthard and Montgomery’s distinction between the
“main discourse”, or informative level, and the “subsidiary discourse”, or metapragmatic level in
lectures. The importance of metapragmatic signalling devices in facilitating comprehension has
been recognised by a number of researchers (Chaudron and Richards, 1986; DeCarrico and
Nattinger, 1988; Rounds, 1987 ; Tyler et al., 1988) and writers of ESL texts (Dunkel and Pialorsi,
1982; Mason, 1983 ; Ruetten, 1986) . Coulthard and Montgomery (1981) make the interesting
speculation that what makes “reading style” lectures difficult to follow is the very lack of such
devices.
DeCarrico and Nattinger (1988) analysed “macro-organisers” occurring in lectures from a variety
of disciplines . They set up eight main categories of “lexical phrase”, as they refer to these devices,
according to their various functions (e .g . “lemme start with . . . “ (topic marker), “so let’s turn to . . .
“ (topic shifter), “to tie this up . . . “ (summarizer) . The assumption is that these markers will aid
comprehension. Empirical testing of the hypothesis that metapragmatic signals aid comprehension
is reviewed later in this paper in the section on lecture input variables .
Lecture: discourse structure
Although lectures are basically monologue, unlike school lessons, which are dialogue, Murphy andCandlin (1977) are able to provide a range of examples to show how a number of the interactive acts from the Sinclair and Coulthard model occur also in lectures.
Another feature in common with classroom discourse is the rank scale of discourse units . Cooke,
for example, adapted Sinclair and Coulthard’s rank scale for primary classroom discourse ofLesson,
Transaction, Exchange, Move, and Act, to propose for lectures the following ranks: Lecture,
Exposition, Episode, Move and Act. Starting at the top of the hierarchy, each level is made up of
elements at the rank below. Thus a “lecture” is made up of various classes of “exposition”, an
“exposition” is made up of different classes of “episode”, etc . However, Cooke is only able to
describe the boundaries of these units and is unable to say much about their internal structure (there
is the same problem in Sinclair and Coulthard, 1975). Coulthard and Montgomery (1981), in their
application of the Sinclair and Coulthard model to lectures, offer a framework consisting ofjust four
ranks - Lecture, Transaction, Sequence, Member - where Transaction is characterized by its
focussing boundaries, Sequence by phonological means (the use of high pitch), and Member
syntactically (it consists of a free clause) . Coulthard and Montgomery, distinguish two types of
Member: those Members whose activity functions on a “main discourse” (informative) level and
those which function on a “subsidiary discourse” (metapragmatic) level .
An inability to recognize macro-structure is seen by a number of applied linguists as one of the main
problems of non-native speakers in understanding lectures (Wijasuriya, 1982; Lebauer, 1984;
Chaudron and Richards, 1986). In a study of comprehension of engineering lectures by non-native
speakers, Olsen and Huckin (1990) claimed that although students may understand all the words of
a lecture, they may still fail to understand the main points and logical argument. This lack of
understanding Olsen and Huckin attribute to a failure to employ knowledge of the overall discourse
structure (as well as backgroundknowledge). Dudley-Evans (manuscript) is in broad agreement that
a knowledge of macro-structure is likely to aid comprehension. However, he notes that, based on
contrasts between Olsen and Huckin’s findings for Engineering lectures and his own for Plant
Biology and Highway Engineering, frameworks will vary according to discipline.
This variation across discipline pointed to by Dudley-Evans (manuscript) might explain the opinion
concerning macro-structure of Strodt-Lopez (1991), who found that her corpus ofHumanities and Social Science lectures did not exhibit the hierarchical structuring identified in the sort of research
described above:
The work on discourse structures and interpretive frames suggests that aprofessor should adhere to
a conventional lecture structure, thereby maintaining topicality and evoking in students at least a
partiallypre-existing frame to reinforce the intended interpretation . This is not, however, what
professors do. Rather, they develop topics from many angles and evoke numerous interpretiveframes.
(Strodt-Lopez, 1991 :118)
Lecture: interpersonal features
Increasingly, researchers are becoming aware that a lecture is not merely a medium for conveying
information, but also for relating to the audience and conveying attitudes and opinions. A number
of studies have alerted applied linguists to this dimension of lectures. In a series of papers analyzing
definitions in science lectures, Flowerdew (1991a, 1992a, 1992b) showed how definitions, which
might be thought of as an informative speech act par excellence, are hedged with all sorts of
pragmatic features to do with how the speaker relates to the audience, how the definitions fit into
the overall discourse, the attitude of the speaker to the definition, the amount of emphasis to be put
on the definition, and so on. Strodt-Lopez (1989, 1991) analyzed two interpersonal features of
lectures - anecdotes and asides - showing how both contribute to the global coherence of lectures in
conveying speakers attitudes and opinions.
Working within a broader framework - that of providing non-native teaching assistants with a
characterization of what constitues communicatively competent teaching discourse - Rounds has
provided a description of a number of interpersonal features of Mathematics lectures. Ofparticular
interest in Rounds’s analysis is the emphasis put on the ability ofcompetent lecturers to develop “an
atmosphere of cooperative interaction and consensus - a sense of working together to achieve a
common goal” (p.666). This Rounds calls “elaboration”, as opposed to the mere transmission of
information. “Elaborative” features of discourse indentified by Rounds include the following:
a. naming processes
b. overtly marking major points, both to evaluate and reinforce student achievement
c. developing cohesion and continuity within and between classes by repetition and “linking talk”
d. explicitly organizing topics and marking topic change
e. stating the scope of the students’ responsibility
f. using questions in a timely fashion
g. using persuasive techniques
Lecture: Lexico grammatical features
Kelly (1991), based on an empirical study oflearner’s lexical errors, or”misperceptions”, has argued
that lexical ignorance is the main obstacle to listening comprehension with advanced learners. Only
a few studies have been published on the lexis of academic lectures. Johns and Dudley-Evans (1980)
analysed the lexis of lectures in the two very different areas of Transportation and Plant Biology
into three categories : technical, semi-technical and colloquial, identifying the particular problems
encountered by students with each type. In a computerized analysis of a corpus of Biology lectures
given to non-natives, Flowerdew (1991b) noted the very restricted lexical range of these lectures,
arguing that teaching materials derived from such a corpus wouldhave a very manageable set oflexis.
Turning now to syntax, lectures, as a type of spoken text, might be thought to be characterised by
those syntactic features which are typical of spoken, as opposed to written, language (Tannen,1982;
Halliday,1985/89 ; Horowitz and Samuels, 1987) . However, as Biber (1988) points out, there is no
single parameter of linguistic variation that distinguishes spoken and written texts . Instead, there are
what he refers to as dimensions, i .e . clusterings of features which work together to fulfil some
underlying function within the various spoken and written genres, e.g . formal /informal, restricted
/elaborated, contextualized/decontextualized, involved /detached. On these parameters spoken text
will in general tend to be informal, restricted, contextualized and involved. However, different types
of spoken texts may vary in their characteristics. Thus lectures, as relatively literate, planned
artefacts, are likely to share many of the features of written texts, although the extent to which they
manifest this trait will again be subject to variation . Aread lecture, for example, is likely to be more
formal, elaborated, decontextualized and detached than a more spontaneously produced one.
In general, spoken text is characterized by a high incidence of the following linguistic features:that' clauses, subordinate cause clauses, subordinate conditional clauses, first person
pronouns, second person pronouns, contractions, pronoun it’
Written text, on the other hand, exhibits a high frequency of the following items :
nominalizations, prepositions, specific conjuncts, agentless passives, low type/token ratio
(Biber, 1988)
No research has been published specifically analyzing lectures to examine to what extent they do or
do not exhibit the above features (although see Tyler et al (1988) for information on some of these
features in lectures) .
