Methodological Developments in Teaching Spanish as a Second and Foreign Language 1443839736, 9781443839730

This book on applied linguistics presents new trends and improvements on the teaching of Spanish. It deals with two majo

945 76 3MB

English Pages 335 [344] Year 2012

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

Methodological Developments in Teaching Spanish as a Second and Foreign Language
 1443839736, 9781443839730

Table of contents :
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD
PART ONE
CHAPTER ONE
CHAPTER TWO
CHAPTER THREE
CHAPTER FOUR
CHAPTER FIVE
CHAPTER SIX
PART II
CHAPTER SEVEN
CHAPTER EIGHT
CONTRIBUTORS

Citation preview

Methodological Developments in Teaching Spanish as a Second and Foreign Language

Methodological Developments in Teaching Spanish as a Second and Foreign Language

Edited by

Guadalupe Ruiz Fajardo

Methodological Developments in Teaching Spanish as a Second and Foreign Language, Edited by Guadalupe Ruiz Fajardo This book first published 2012 Cambridge Scholars Publishing 12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2012 by Guadalupe Ruiz Fajardo and contributors All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-3973-6, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-3973-0

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword ................................................................................................... vii Part One: Interaction Chapter One................................................................................................. 3 Classroom Discourse and Teacher Training: One More Window Lourdes Díaz Rodríguez Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 31 Turn-Taking in Spanish Foreign Language Conversations Marta García García Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 75 Tasks for Interaction Guadalupe Ruiz Fajardo Chapter Four............................................................................................ 121 The Pragmatic and Affective Dimension in Teaching Spanish as a Second Language: A Humanistic Approach Francisco Rosales Varo Chapter Five ............................................................................................ 159 The Promotion of Interaction through Group Dynamics and Cooperative Learning Adolfo Sánchez Cuadrado Chapter Six .............................................................................................. 193 Sounding Natural in a Foreign Language Jesús Fernández González

vi

Table of Contents

Part Two: Grammar Chapter Seven.......................................................................................... 221 Perspective and Meaning in Pedagogical Descriptions of Spanish as a Foreign Language Alejandro Castañeda Castro Chapter Eight........................................................................................... 273 The Subjunctive in a Single Concept: Teaching an Operational Approach to Mood Selection in Spanish José Plácido Ruiz Campillo Contributors............................................................................................. 331

FOREWORD GUADALUPE RUIZ FAJARDO

This book on applied linguistics presents new trends and improvements on the teaching of Spanish. It deals with two major scopes in the field of linguistics that have a crucial role in the development of language teaching in general and of the teaching of Spanish in particular: Interaction and Grammar. The topics chosen coincide with the areas in which the communicative approach to language teaching dominant in European and American colleges and universities since the 1970s and 80s has been the object of most revision. On the first hand, the communicative approach has failed in fostering the development of communicative competence in students, for its intention to generate language output in the classroom has not appropriately taken into account the pragmatic component of language, the specific characteristics of interaction in Spanish and its explicit instruction. The book appeals both to pragmatics and to discourse analysis to research the specifics of classroom discourse and classroom interaction, as well as the differences between interactions among Spanish native speakers and interaction among non natives, in order to develop methodologies for the effective reincorporation of these aspects to the Spanish language classroom, such as tasks to teach interaction or techniques to implement learner-centered interactive class dynamics and cooperative learning. On the other hand, the communicative approach’s emphasis on interaction generated the large-scale relegation of explicit instruction on forms, especially grammar, to a secondary plane in the teaching of foreign languages. Although the Focus on Form approach has tried to rescue grammar from its exile, among teachers of Spanish it is still a platitude that “grammar is to be studied at home” rather than addressed in the classroom. When learning a language with such as complicated grammar as Spanish, this is not a minor problem. Its exclusion from the language class has prompted periodical waves of research, the last one drawing from advances in cognitive linguistics and meaningful learning. This book

viii

Foreword

reviews the pedagogical advantages of language description based on Cognitive Grammar theory and explains different aspects of the Spanish grammar. The main purpose of our contribution is to show how taking into account different dimensions of construal and perspective in linguistic representations helps teachers to elucidate idiosyncratic and subtle contrasts of Spanish structure that other views and approaches cannot clarify on a meaningful base, such as the aspectual opposition between preterits or the modal opposition between indicative and subjunctive, both of high importance for the English speaking student. The work selected for this book, done by experts from Columbia University and from several universities in Spain, represents the most current lines of inquiry in this “post-communicative” approach as applied specifically to the teaching of Spanish. Because they are all active teachers of the language and teacher trainers as well as theoretical researchers, their findings are explicitly geared to an immediate practical application to the classroom, a fact that makes them of utmost usefulness to our intended audience, which consists of teachers of Spanish as a second and foreign language at all levels of instruction (primary, secondary and college education), future teachers of Spanish, currently in Masters and other teaching-oriented degree programs, and graduate students of Latin American and Spanish Studies. Spanish is the most studied foreign language in the United States, the second in Europe, and continues to grow. This book seeks to be a “must-read” for present and future. It tackles unexplored territory, for journals and applied linguistics collections have mainly addressed these problems in relation to English language and instruction. Every chapter has been designed to deal with theoretical issues as well as practical applications to the Spanish language classroom. It is the way applied linguistics should be, it is its essence. The title of this book corresponds to the title of an ongoing series of workshops I have been organizing since 2008. These events have been sponsored by the Institute of Latin American Studies at Columbia University (ILAS) and supported by Columbia’s Department of Latin American and Iberian Cultures, as well as the Department of Spanish and Latin American Cultures at Barnard College. The Education Office of the Consulate of Spain in New York has also contributed to their realization. To all of them, my gratitude and the gratitude of many teachers of Spanish who have the opportunity of gathering physically and intellectually every

Methodological Developments in Teaching Spanish as a Second and Foreign Language

ix

year in the comfortable halls of Barnard College, to listen and talk about works in progress in our field. I am confident that the future will bring more events and more volumes that reflect the broad interest in researching the teaching and learning of Spanish as a second and foreign language.

PART ONE: INTERACTION

CHAPTER ONE CLASSROOM DISCOURSE AND TEACHER TRAINING: ONE MORE WINDOW LOURDES DÍAZ RODRÍGUEZ

0. Introduction One may argue that discourse as a tool may be a minor topic, relevant only to certain subjects taught. To the contrary, in the last ten years literature has frequently addressed this issue and claimed for its centrality. The core issues however remain: what is the real dimension of this discourse knowledge and its bridging power, when dealing with foreign language teachers? and if this approach is so relevant, how can we specifically address discourse’s role in a foreign language teacher training program? In any L2/FL context, language is a plus in classroom managing and content focusing, since all interaction is carried out in the target L2, which implies an added difficulty. Difficulties increase, needless to say, when you are a non- expert or a nonexperienced teacher, a non-native student or when your competence in a particular a foreign language is less than perfect. In such context, language quality, language functionality, and interaction verisimilitude become of absolute relevance in order to make class room communication and performance possible. Managing difficulties in interaction means the managing of all the dimensions underlying the concept of discourse. Nevertheless, this is not just a matter of knowledge or expertise that can be covered by a couple of subjects (such as Methodology and Discourse analysis) in a university program, nor by a practical seminar for in-service teacher-training.

4

Chapter One

In spite of this, not much attention has been devoted so far to how to manage classroom discourse in teacher training. In a quick survey conducted over 12 M.A programs on Spanish L2 teacher training in Spain1, only 2 of them have over 15% of ects credits2 on this issue (either through subjects as “Classroom observation”, “Classroom discourse”, “Practicum on Teaching Spanish” or “ Developing a Professional profile”. The Instituto Cervantes and the Universidad Internacional Menéndez Pelayo joint master program (MELE UIMP-IC) remains an exception, being so far the only one is Spain devoting 33% of its credits to address this issue. The outcome has resulted in a higher rate of employment of its students.

0.1. Why analyse discourse in teacher training? Becoming aware of how discourse flows in the classroom is crucial in teacher training. Knowing how to improve message delivery, interaction and comprehension will help teachers to develop awareness of classroom discourse. Knowing one's routines, identifying strengths and weaknesses and their degree of effectiveness will have a positive impact on the teacher's performance. This is the reason for promoting classroom observation in teacher training. It helps us to bridge the gap between the students´ expectations and what we in fact deliver. Such analytic task is an endeavour which demands certain strength. Sometimes the task is more demanding than expected, especially for non-expert trainees. Sometimes the picture we get from our practice does not fit in our intended goals. Having a colleague observing us may become uneasy sometimes. Then again, learning to share views does have a positive impact on teachers' empowerment.

1. How to become curious about the backstage of teaching Classroom is the meeting point for at least two people to learn. There, one participant plays the role of teacher and the rest the role of learners. Teachers, irrespectively of their training, know to a greater or lesser degree their role, and how to play it. This perception may vary according

1

Namely: UCM, USal, UPF, ULPGC, U. Nebrija, UC, UJ, UB, UBV, UNED, UIMP, UEX . (Information obtained from their webpages). 2 Ects stands for European Credit Transfer System.

Classroom Discourse and Teacher Training: One More Window

5

to cultures and disciplines, but also according to time and experience. Indeed, becoming aware of all this is not easy. Writing diaries or journals does reveal the teacher's view across practice and training. This is tool frequently used in classroom discourse analyses and teacher training. We will start this section with an excerpt from Tsui (1995), whose Classroom interaction has a revealing opening most relevant to our point. Notice the way this teacher presents his view about his task: …I felt… that I spoke too much in the classroom, and that my students did not participate enough. I am now more aware of why this was so: subconsciously, I felt that as I am the teacher, I should dominate the lesson; in fact, I didn’t trust the students’ ability to think for themselves…

This teacher is a good example of how sometimes we follow our own script. We believe that our role is to conduct, to control discourse, to guide interaction. Most times these are not original believes. They are imprinted on us by our own community by way of culture. Their origin may be an observed, or a passively learnt routine. Irrespective of our willingness to learn these roles or attitudes, they will act modelling our view of learning scenarios in the future. They may even affect the way we ask questions, the way we approach students (depending on gender or age), the amount of talk, interaction, etc.

1.1. How do we analyse discourse in teacher training? Among the goals of any teacher training program -namely motivating students, making things interesting, transmitting and negotiating contentsinsight on language at work is required. In their everyday activity, teachers get involved in talking: be it by asking questions, answering questions, explaining, giving feedback, assessing, illustrating, reinforcing, etc. This explains why language is an important issue in foreign language teacher training. Each of the above mentioned –ings counts in a classroom. And this is so, irrespective of our being aware of them, of their being well formed, adequate, adjusted to student’s comprehension or familiarity, etc.3 3

Example borrowed from Aymerich, M. and Díaz, L. (1990). “El discurso del profesor: repeticiones y reformulaciones en el discurso del profesor” Madrid: Cable 3. Reprinted in Marco ELE (2007); and Díaz, L. (1989) “Discurso de profesor”, Las Navas del Marqués, Ministerio de Educación (also reprinted in MarcoELE, Monográficos).

6

Chapter One

Being able to convey a simple message like an instruction may be difficult enough for inexperienced teachers, as can be seen in (1a) and (1b) below. Examples show differences in the use of strategies such as redundancy, repetition, and simplification, all present in expert L2 teachers and fully functional, but scarce in a large variety in non-experts4. Null functionality on repetition (echolalia) or lack of assistance to non-natives under an array of forms5 arises on the side of non–experts. Inside or outside classrooms input facilitation or input negotiation is not evenly achieved by native speakers by means of interaction in spontaneous discourse. Classroom discourse is not an exception. It is a subset of the continuum found in the real world. Teacher training improves the skilled assistance expected of teachers. Implementing the right strategies and tactics, modelling turns, sequences, exchanges or moves make interaction to be 100% meaningful. As a way of illustrating this, we propose to the reader a short task: try to identify the expert teacher in the two examples provided next. In both situations students are Anglophones, and the teacher is a Spanish native speaker6. (1.a) Teacher A7: teaches Spanish L2 to a beginner group at the university in Barcelona. She proposes an activity to the group: they have to relate information from two lists by drawing an arrow. (Propone un ejercicio. Hay que relacionar información de dos columnas trazando una flecha).

4

Misunderstanding due to lack of skills can be found in street casual encounters, public services, post offices, etc. 5 For instance: low or no paraphrase, low or lack of simplification, no expansion, or just recast or correction without responding. 6 In our workshop presentations, we produce trainees a “clean” version of classroom interactions. Later, we provide them with several grids to capture and categorize “acts” according to pedagogical purposes of communication (Fanselow 1977, 1985, etc.) or according to the FLINT system (G. Moskowitz 1978). 7 A is an inexperienced teacher. She takes for granted that students are familiar with techniques of questioning and instructions. The experienced teachers draw an arrow while illustrating its parts and function, using two codes at once (linguistic and iconic).

Classroom Discourse and Teacher Training: One More Window

7

Teacher: Vamos a hacer el ejercicio 3 [ACT: Structure / solicit] Teacher: Relaciona con una flecha. Hay que unir (gesto señalando las dos columnas del libro) las palabras relacionadas de cada columna con una flecha, ¿sí? [ACT: Amplificate /solicit] Student 1: What is “flecha”? Teacher: ¿Flecha? Esto [dibuja en la pizarra]. ¡Flecha! ¿Sí? [ACT: Respond /React / illustrate/ change of code] Student 1: Arrow? Teacher: “Arrow”, sí. Venga. (1.b.) Teacher B8: teaches Spanish FL to a beginner group at a Professional School in Johannesburg. He sets up a new task: after listeningcomprehension exercise (CD), focusing sentence-completion, the teacher asks students to listen again in order to fill in blanks. (Tras hacer un ejercicio de comprensión auditiva (CD), pide que vuelvan a escuchar el audio y completen la información que falta). Student: ….rubio [“blond”] [ACT:Respond] Teacher: Muy bien. [“Very good”] [ACT: Evaluate / Assess] Color rubio [ACT: assess- complete/ expand] Teacher: ¿sí? [ACT: check all group] Teacher: Vale. [ACT: confirm] Teacher: Escuchamos, escuchamos otra vez. Repito. Escucha el CD. Repito, ¿sí? Escucha otra vez. Y atención. Atención. [Gestos para “oír” y para “otra vez”] [ACT: giving instructions. Repeat. Warning]. The reason for inexperienced teachers to react in the way (1.A) may correspond to the teaching view described in Tsui’s (1995) opening example in section 3 above. Chunking what happens together with the words said is the first step for getting to know why some exchanges are felicitous and when does input facilitation work. Next step is labelling sequences and functions, always keeping in mind context, and paying attention to each act’s purpose. This task allows for identifying dysfunctional acts, and opens subsequent “editing” work.

8

B is an experienced teacher. He takes nothing for granted. His video recording shows overlapping of codes (mimics, language).

8

Chapter One

Most inexperienced teachers confronted with a discourse sequence (just observed or tape-recorded) fail to grasp its structure, or to describe it in detail. Most times, they are even unable to assess its functionality. Many can provide some isolate details, often biased by criticism, but most tend to fail in providing correctly edited versions. These are skills that come with practice. Needless to say that teaching context of interactions (Spanish immersion vs. Spanish Foreign Language context) does make a difference in classroom discourse. Factors such as lexical complexity and speech delivery rate may affect comprehension differently, being immersion an enriched context that increases foreigner student’s comprehension9. By the same token, the amount of experience of the trainee is also a variable when assessing discourse in classroom observation. As a piece of evidence, I will take our observations at the UIMP-ICE MELE students’ samples. In a random sample of registrations collected from expert and inexpert teachers in Santander, sequences containing different kind of input modulation where 60% higher in experienced teachers than in trainees. Being aware of the importance of input facilitation is not enough10. The role-play conducted at the workshop we held at Columbia University was also a good example of the role these variables play in teachers discourse. Since the workshop was attended by mixed-profile participants -native and non-native, language experts and content-teachers-, different approaches to discourse strategies were put forward. Diverse opinions came up on assessing self- and others-observation. Comments on adequacy or un-adequacy of supplied, or lacking, forms were extremely illustrative of differing perspectives. Considering that strategies, tactics or mixed categories (Long 1990) constitute the backbone of input facilitation and negotiation expected in any didactic exchange (caregiver talk, teacher talk, etc.) relevance of task and need for a methodology for analysis became out of question. Reflect on transcripts and “editing” the samples from observation tasks are complex and comprehensive training-tasks resulting in awareness. Providing repair and assessing options, according to the context variables, 9

This is the rationale behind examples (1.a) and (1.b). The degree of difficulty does not equate both situations, as teachers facilitation show. 10 Díaz, L. (Data from ongoing research).

Classroom Discourse and Teacher Training: One More Window

9

are powerful tools to make us aware of the difficulties linked to rephrasing, restructuring, or providing similar strategies. These strategies do not occur, nor derive spontaneously from observation, but require intensive training. When confronted with spontaneous speech, skill differences in classroom become evident -planning being a key feature. This can be seen in the next example on “giving directions / instructions”. Ex. 1 Native speaker in the street, answering a request for directions: Where is Plaza del Sol11? Ex1 mmmm. Podéis ir hacia abajo y encontraréis... // lo más que podáis y…y…y antes de Travesera hay una calle que se llama Ros de Olano, la seguís hacia la derecha y enton/…, veréis una calle que se llama Virtud y hacia abajo y ya está ahí, ahí... Ex.2 (ídem) Eeeeemmmmmmmm, (( )) Sí, a ver, (( )) esta calle de ahí, bajas (5”) hummm creo que son dos o tres calles y giras a la derecha y ahí te encontrarás con la plaza, bajando un par de calles o tres a la derecha. Ex.3 A non- expert teacher in a language classroom, giving instructions before reviewing a grammar point (clitic “se”): P- Voy a explicaros los usos del pronombre SE. Algunos ya los habéis visto. Algunos ya los sabéis. El libro en la página 86, en este cuadro. Voy aexplicaros algunos casos…En el caso del 1, vamos a ver algo que ya habéis visto con Piedad, lo visteis ayer con Piedad. Es cuando SE sustituye a lo, les, cuando aparece junto a lo, la, los, las. Tenéis aquí un ejemplo. “SE lo he dado”. Se lo he dado ¿de dónde puede venir?¿Podemos sustituir le y lo? ¿Podéis poner un ejemplo? A- A él, a ella; también a ellos. A las niñas, los niños…eh también…. también a mi madre, a mi padre… P- Muy bien..Y también al coche. Ja, ja… 11

Samples extracted from a set of 5 interviews to adult native speakers in Barcelona. The question asked in Spanish was:” Por favor, ¿para ir a la Plaza del Sol?. Plaza del Sol is a small square in Gràcia district, Barcelona.

10

Chapter One

Ex.4. Experienced teacher delivering instructions to students after a vocabulary retrieving activity (university group in Spain) A.: “Sciencia Ficción”. P.: Ajá. Es lo que llamamos películas de Ciencia ficción. También las llamamos cine, cine fantástico. Son las que están ambientadas un poquito en el futuro ¿sí? Estos son los tipos más habituales. ¿Recordáis que los habíamos visto en aquella fotocopia que os había entregado? ¿Sí? ¿Recordáis un poquito la fotocopia aquella? ¿no recordáis la fotocopia? ¿Os acordáis? ¿Sí? Bueno…. No, pero ahora no la saquéis… Os voy a pedir, os voy a dar… [la profesora cuenta: 2, 4, 6, 7] Os voy a pedir que os pongáis, que os agrupéis en grupos de 4-5 personas… Nos ponemos en grupitos de tres personas. [Ruido de sillas que se mueven para agruparse] [Ruido de carpetas que caen al suelo] Guardamos las cosas, no necesitamos nada….y aquí os paso doce definiciones de aquel vocabulario que habíamos visto en la fotocopia. Tres aquí, 3 más aquí, 3 aquí…¿vale?[REPARTE FOTOCOPIAS mientras habla] Aquí tenemos estas 12 definiciones y tenemos dos minutos para ver qué palabra es la que están definiendo, dos minutos ¿vale? Si no, os paso yo la definición. Es para ver si recordamos ¿vale? As can be seen, planning and use of repetition, paraphrase, synonyms, etc. do make a difference in discourse. It is not just a matter of the native vs. non-native asymmetry. Some coincidences may be found (Chaudron 1988:55). Isolating and observing features on functional chunks, like those above, need some training. Becoming familiar with some basic instruments (observation grids for assessing trainees of in-service teachers) helps to actively follow what happens in a short classroom sequence, and is key to provide a personal assessment (including self-assessment). The above mentioned and illustrated acts, language acts12, do bridge language activity and knowledge from both parties -students and teachersin an unequal, asymmetrical way. Each participant co-constructs discourse (and knowledge) in a process that aims at narrowing this asymmetry due 12

See: Searle, J. Speech Acts, (1969), and for Spanish L2 and FL catalogue of speech acts: Plan Curricular del Instituto Cervantes (2006) and Díaz, Martínez, Redó (2011).

Classroom Discourse and Teacher Training: One More Window

11

to role and language proficiency as well13. Learning to see any of these acts as discrete units does help to track functional failures, to reflect on their nature and on the ways to improve them. The critical approach provides insight and empowers users in the long run. Learning to use grids as a classroom compass makes it possible for trainees to grasp moves, acts, etc. and analyse their degree of functionality or felicity, nurturing insight before and during practice.

2. Bridging and facilitating: towards “step 1” We have mentioned asymmetry as one of the characteristics of classroom discourse in a language course. In L1 acquisition it has been postulated the existence of a simplified discourse adapted to child: the caregiver talk or caregiver dialect. Facilitating, tuning (Ellis 1985) or interactively adapting discourse to the actual needs or expectation of children helps them in the task of language comprehension and language acquisition. Facilitating is not a simple process though (Feez 1995:9, Gibbons 2006:19). Tuning, in turn, is not as widely accepted in L2 (adult) acquisition as interaction (namely interactional adjustments). For the later, Long (1981), Pica (1988) and Pienemann (1988), provide wide evidence, pointing out that native /non-native interaction favours situations where repetitions, corrections and recalling provide students with PAS (potentially acquisitional sequences). Initially proposed by De Pietro, Matthey and Py 13 Wilkinson (1975), Britton (1970), Barnes (1976), and Tough (1977, 1979) brought to attention the role of spoken language across all areas of the curriculum, which until then had prestiged almost exclusively the written form. Attitudes to student talk changed,and talking was encouraged at all costs. From the sociocognitive side came also some broadening of perspective on classroom discourse. Developing Vygotsky’s views, the role of language as a cultural tool in social interaction, and the use of language as a psychological tool providing the resources for individual thinking was stressed (Cazden 1988; Edwards and Mercer 1987; Hammond and Gibbons 2005; Hall 1998; Mercer 1995; Wells 1999, 2000; Wells and Claxton 2002). Learning is seen as situated within certain forms of social coparticipation. Learners acquire skills and knowledge from engaging and participating in these “socially embedded” practices with an expert (the teacher). Student´s participation is initially limited, increases responsibility as she/he becomes more proficient. In Vygotsky’s framework, development, and in particular the learning of a second language, results from specific interactions within a particular sociocultural setting. Facilitation plays an important role. Teacher’s main job is to foster a spirit of enquiry and to provide the right materials to create an environment which stimulates learners’ curiosity and interest (Feez 1995).

Chapter One

12

(1989), PAS are structuring instances (self or hetero-structuring) which involve extra work on output (output repair) and are of interest since they are evidence of linguistic or metalinguistic work or activity in the ZPD (zone of proximal development) . Cambra (2002:132) reflects it as follows:

In adult language classroom context, teachers do use also input facilitation. In this case, multiple purposes and fields can be addressed by means of strategies, tactics and tactic-strategies (Long 1983:19).

3. Categorising discourse sequences: ”step 2” We have used so far labels such as “sequence”, “language act”. We may be also familiar with some others: “adjacent pairs”, “moves”, “cycles”. These are different attempts to capture the structured nature of classroom discourse and classroom practices. Experts from ethnography and ethnomethodology approached conversational analysis and provided new units of analyses since late 60s: “speech events” (as greetings, story-time, sharing-time, etc.), “moves” (soliciting, responding, reacting, structuring, evaluation). They all show that practice is subject to routines and patterns, with visible marks. Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) made their best known contribution: the IRF move. Linking ethnography and linguistics, they captured a minimal, fully functional pattern. IRF stands for: Initiation, Response, Feedback. Later refined by Mehan (1979) in IRE (Initiation, Response, Evaluation move), it still remains a classic, being contingency and/or responsiveness, more than adjacency, the core feature. (I) Teacher: What time is it? (R)Student: It’s ten o’clock. (E)Teacher: Ok.

Classroom Discourse and Teacher Training: One More Window

13

It has been argued by researchers both in first and second language learning that responsiveness to the particular needs of the learner and the meanings they are attempting to construct is also a particular quality of interaction (Hatch 1978; Ellis and Wells 1980; Snow 1986; van Lier 1996, 2001; Wells 1986). Wells has termed this quality “contingent responsiveness”, while Snow refers to it as “semantically contingent speech”. Van Lier characterizes it as “speech which typically has links to previous utterances and to the shared world of the participants so that inter-subjectivity is maintained”. Whenever the expert participant (teacher) takes part in an interaction, this speech becomes asymmetrical and opens responsibilities. Expert, then, checks that she has understood non-experts correctly. Misunderstandings are negotiated when relevant. Input characteristics do vary favouring certain adjustment strategies to appear: expansions, acknowledgements and recasts (Ellis and Wells 1980). Following Ellis (1994) comprehensible input is not simply the result of a list of adjustments made by competent speakers, but the result of the interactions themselves. Both learner and native speaker adjust their speech in the light of feedback that they give each other. This is contingency's power and the nurture of interaction. Therefore, simply noting native speaker adjustments does not provide a full picture of how input is made comprehensible or how language develops. Nor how do participants negotiate meaning. Discourse, then, appears as the frame where organising, structuring and understanding experience takes place. Using grids helps to spot and describe common efforts made, and to assess them.

3.1 Beyond IRE In a language classroom teacher is focusing on both content and language. Therefore, a more specific range of feedback strategies is required. Explicit focus applies on the negotiation of form, rather than simply on meaning. Strategies such as: elicitation (how do we say this in Spanish?), metalinguistic clues (we don’t say it that way); clarification requests (I do not follow) and recasts or reformulations/repairs are frequent14. 14

Ellis (1994) and Long (1996:434) have noted the importance of recast: utterances that rephrase student’s utterance by changing one or more components while still referring to its central meanings”. Their role is concerned with negative evidence, that is, information given explicitly or implicitly to the learner about what is incorrect in a language (be it on the grammatical domain or on the contextually appropriateness’). See also Lyster and Ranta (1997), Lyster (1998).

14

Chapter One

As we have mentioned above, in a sample of trainees’ production of classroom discourse, differences in the use of strategies relevant to input facilitation and meaning negotiation were found. The amount of echolalia (empty repetition) among inexpert teachers was 20% of their feedback while recasts were really rare. Experienced teachers, in turn, used at least 30% of recasts whereas no instances of echolalia were found. Functionality in input modelling increases with practice. It may be the same concerning setting frames or macrostructures, introducing concepts or entities in a context, linking new information to old information. Important enough are also recalling information, introducing meta-language, back channelling, focusing, confirmation questions, self-repetition, repetition, etc. All of them may be difficult to manage for inexperienced teachers, and deserve research and attention when training. We will approach all this through real examples. In excerpts under (1) we will see two instances of eliciting sequences around a functional objective: “buying”. Inexpert teachers conduct a session with university students of Spanish L2 in Barcelona. Observation is carried out at their first semester of professional practice. She agreed on (audio) recording. In all examples, P stands for Profesor (Teacher); A stands for Alumno (Student). (1) 1.1. Centrar el tema de clase. Objetivo funcional: comprar P.- ¿Y si compráis verdura, patatas ¿cómo las pedís? A.- ¿Verdura? P.- ¿Verdura? ¿Qué es verdura? A.- ¿Vegetables? P.- Ajá. Verdura. Zanahorias, las acelgas, las espinacas. Lo verde ¿sí? P.- ¿Cómo lo pedís? A.- What are you saying by “cómo”? P.- How do you ask for them? A.- How do you ask for vegetables?// Oh, Oh!!! Medio quilo. P.- Ajá. Medio quilo. Un quilo… ¿Y si es menos?..¿Tú te comes un quilo de patatas? A.- ¿? P._ Sí, lo compras un quilo. Pero, las acelgas… ¡puedes pedir menos!

Classroom Discourse and Teacher Training: One More Window

15

A.- Un cuarto. P.- Un cuarto de quilo. A.- Un bolsa pequeña…. Y números. P.- Los números. ¿Cómo lo haces? (escribe) 200 gramos de…jamón dulce, o jamón salado. No pido un quilo de jamón salado. Es muy caro. A.- Ja, ja, ja. P.- Nunca me comería un quilo entero ¿sí? Pido cien gramos, ciento cincuenta gramos…. 1.2. Centrar el tema de clase. Objetivo funcional: Comprar P.- … sabíais comprar pan ¿sí? ¿Más o menos? ¿Cómo lo pides?¿Cómo pides el pan? ¿Has ido a comprar pan? ¿Qué me dices? Yo te vendo el pan. ¿Qué me dices? A..- Asking for bread! ¡Ah! ¡Oh! P.- Ajá. Ajá. Venga. A.- Ja, ja. ¿Tienes pan, por favor? P.- Sí, ¿Cuánto quiere? A.- Ah. Uh. ¿Cuánto?....// ¿Cómo se llama?...Una barra. P.- Ajá. Una barra. ¿De cuánto? ¿De medio? ¿De cuarto? (Escribe 1/2 y 1/4 en la pizarra). A.- Ah, Oh…. (…) A. You cannot say small, big…? P.- (nada) A.- Pequeña, grande. P.- También puedes decir: quiero una barra pequeña, una barra pequeña, Pero normalmente están por peso ¿eh? Peso, Barras de medio quilo, de quilo, o de un cuarto de quilo. Entonces pedimos una barra. O…tú has dicho un paquete. Se puede decir. Aquí hay un pan de molde ¿eh? Pan cuadrado. Se vende en paquete. Entonces puedo decir… una bolsa de…. Normalmente, es pan comercializado con marcas: es “pan Bimbo”, (…). Example (2) illustrates comparison, a grammar point (same context, different teacher).

16

Chapter One

2. Conseguir centrar el tema del día anterior. Objetivo gramatical: comparativas. P.- Bueno, recordamos. Acabamos el viernes. El último día. No sé. A.- Miércoles. P.- Sí, exacto, miércoles. Estábamos haciendo los comparativos. ¿Sí? ¿Estábamos haciendo los comparativos? ¿Eh?¿Tú no estabas?¿no? Bien. Pues vamos a seguir haciendo comparaciones. ¿Sí? Vamos a practicar. Que también os servirá. El libro de ejercicios. Coged el libro de ejercicios en la página 82. Bueno, recordad los esquemas. Cuando es para “más” o “menos” …”que”; y con“como”…Esto sí que lo habéis hecho ¿sí? El martes hicimos esto ¿no?¿sí o no? A.- (…) P.- ¿no? Bueno, vamos a ver qué pasa con el ejercicio. Si lo habéis hecho bien es que sí lo habéis hecho. Si no, malo….En un momento, llenadlo y después veremos qué pasa. A.- ¿Llenarlo? P.- Llenar. (Gesto) Entre el espacio en blanco (gesto) hay que poner la solución. A.- ¿?? P.- To fill in. A.- Aaah. P.- Usando “más” o bien “menos que” o bien “tanto como”. El ejemplo dice: “en Sevilla llueve poco. Hay que relacionar estas dos frases con la comparación. ¿Verdad que sí que lo hicimos? A.- Sí. P.- Ajá. A.- (pregunta algo sobre “relacionar”) P.- ¿Flecha? Es esta flecha (dibuja). (Silencio. Hacen los ejercicios) A.- ¿Pesa…tan…? ¿tan? P.- Pesa es un verbo. A.- Sí, but, “pesa”…. P.- ¿El adjetivo? Es “pesado”…. (Sigue la clase) P.- Rafa y Antonio…. A.- Peso. P.- ¿Peso? Es el nombre para “pesar”. ¿Sí? A.- Rafa es más peso que Antonio.

Classroom Discourse and Teacher Training: One More Window

17

P.- ¿¿¿¿Más???? 56 quilos y 56 quilos. It is the same weight. Rafa y Antonio, so… Venga. A.- ¿no? P.- No. Tienes que emplear un adjetivo. A. “Rafa es tan pesado como Antonio”. What happens when the teacher is an expert? The following examples (3) and (4) are somehow different. In (3) we will see a code- switching case in a Spanish L3/FL class in a bilingual context in Ottawa conducted by an expert teacher highly proficient in English and French. He taught Translation too. He agreed on being observed and recorded for research purposes in 1990 (as a control subject). Although he is an expert, the sequence he is involved in is the only not allowing for negotiation to occur. (3) Meaning -difference across structures. Using code-switching strategy in a French-English bilingual-context (Canada) A. - ¿Qué es la diferencia entre “tener prisa” y “darse prisa”? P.- La diferencia entre tener prisa y darse prisa: tener prisa, -yo tengo prisa- je suis pressé. I am in a hurry; me doy prisa, je me dépéche, I hurry up. A.- OK. Example (4) was produced by an expert native teacher in Zaragoza, Spain, and non- linguistic (miming /onomatopoeic) strategy applies15: (4) Student’s attendance control. En clase se pregunta por un alumno ausente (Spain) P: John no está, ¿alguien sabe si le ha pasado algo? A: Yo creo que es enfermo en casa, hoy no va en clase… P: ¿catarro? A: No sé “catarro”. P: (El profesor estornuda) ¿Tiene catarro? A: Sí, sí, catarro. P: Bueno, esperemos que pueda venir mañana.

15

Example supplied by Alicia Clavel (2006), personal communication.

Chapter One

18

Now, let us practice labelling and functional analyses where the above mentioned concepts apply. A short description of context and functional objectives of examples follows. In Section 4 above, we did provide an example of move-based analysis (Sinclair and Coulthard 1975). Example (6) below supplies a detailed analysis based on (5), a model by (Fanselow 1977, 1985). (5) Model of analysis proposed by Fanselow (1977) 1. Quién comunica

2. Cuál es la función pedagógica de la comunicación

3. Qué medio se usa para la comunicación

4. Cómo se usan los medios para comunicar los contenidos

5. Qué áreas de contenidos se comunican

profesor

Estructurar

Lingüístico

Atender Caracterizar Diferenciar Evaluar

Sistema lingüístico

Auditivo Visual

Contextual Gramatical

estudiante

Solicitar

Ideogramas Transcrito Escrito Otros

Un grupo de estudiantes

Responder

Toda la clase

Reaccionar

No lingüístico Esquemático

Ilustrar Etiquetar Presentar Palabrasclave Cambio de medio Preguntar Afirmar Relacionar Explicar Interpretar Re-presentar

Simbólico real

Literario Significado

Mecanismos Escritura Sonidos o rasgos Suprasegmen -tales producción oral

Combinar Imitar Parafrasear Reconstruir con cambios

no clasificado vida

Classroom Discourse and Teacher Training: One More Window

19

Transformar fórmulas imaginativas personales/ público temas sociales administración propio de una asignatura Comportamiento social Procedimiento social Figura 1 (De FANSELOW 34-35)

(6) Implementing Fanselow’s model to a sequence observed From Díaz (1990:345) A) A partir de los análisis, podemos detectar “fallos (en la negociación, por parte del profesor)/ After analysing classroomdiscourse, teacher’s failures can be better approached to improve performance QUIÉN

FIN

MEDIO

USO

CONTENIDO

Profe sor

Estructu rar, solicitar

oral

preguntar

vida

Apren diz





FINALIDAD

TRANSCRIPCIÓN

¿Y…si compráis verdurapatatascómo los pedís? ¿Verdura?

Chapter One

20 Profe sor

Solicitar

Apren diz Profe sor



Preguntar Sub & change



Respon der







2.2. Evaluar





Solicitar



Repetición parcial de la pregunta, Aislando el elemento desconocido (foco) Se devuelve la pregunta del aprendiz

3.3. Preguntar

Lingüístico

¿Verdura? ¿Qué es “verdura”?

Vegetables ? “

Ajá, verdura.

Expansión ilustrativa con exposición de elementos del ámbito (hipónimos) Repetición retrospec tiva, idéntica, de la pregunta consigna

Zanahorias, las acelgas, las espinacas, lo verde ¿sí?

¿Cómo lo pedís?

Classroom Discourse and Teacher Training: One More Window Apren diz





Profe sor

Reaccionar



3.3. Preguntar



Respon der



3.3. Preguntar



Apren diz

Ling.

Repetición “eco”. Función “confirm ation check” Repetición de la pregunta inicial con cambio de código (traduc ción total)

vida

21

What are you saying by “cómo”? ¿Cómo?

How do you ask for them?

How do you ask for vegetables? Oh! Medio quilo!

4. Talking about it: “step 3” The third step left is learning to talk about patterns detected, strategies provided, and transcripts analysed. More specifically, reflect on transcripts assessed and “edited” makes observation tasks a complex comprehensive training resulting in nurturing awareness and activating metalinguistic approach. Parallel to it, repair providing and option’s assessing derive form explicit reflection that take into account the contextual variables and individual options made by teachers in managing classroom process. Discussing labels applying to each move and act, and their appropriateness, is also a powerful tool to make trainees conscious of difficulty involved in tuning input, student‘s output reuse and modelling negotiation and repair. Categorising repetition or any other strategy helps to gain insight on functionality across instances and target groups (level, teaching context, L1, etc.).

22

Chapter One

The case made in this work is that focusing on classroom discourse (interaction, negotiation, asymmetry exploration, scaffolding, etc.) plays a central role in teacher development. Much can be learnt from the scrutiny of skilled practitioners. Trainees may compare skills along sequences, assessing their own performance, increasing insight and challenge. Much can be done with their own recordings and transcripts. Becoming aware of classroom complexity and of the possibilities of managing it through deeper discourse insight are a way of empower teachers. Becoming familiar with discourse analysis’ methodology remains a hard task, though.

4.1. Implementing training practice in a postgraduate program UIMP’s MA students take compulsory a seminar on classroom observation before joining their tutors. They agree on a unit of work which comprises covering certain aspects of the language course or syllabus in the Language Center in Santander. Their units are extremely detailed and they work together to include headings such as: topics, concepts and understandings, skills (functionally worded), lexical items, and even detailed in terms of objectives, materials, etc. Nevertheless, they all have reported a feeling of unease when undergoing supervision. The same read for peer-observation. Similarly, teachers enrolled in long-life-learning workshops also at the University, show different degrees of motivation. Some are skeptic; others are curious about scrutinizing their own interactions and skills. All are genuinely interested in finding out possible ways of extending their teaching skills. These are some of the benefits reported by both groups about observationtasks16:

16

Translation: 1) It is a realistic picture of your teaching. 2) It is a useful error – detecting procedure which provides an extra eye on your performance. 3) It is a useful tool for routine-detection, overcoming intuition. 4) It allows you to improve minor errors or unattended aspects remaining after classroom preparation.

Classroom Discourse and Teacher Training: One More Window

23

- Es una visión real de uno mismo como profesor. - Es una forma eficaz de detectar aciertos y errores que no ves tú solo. - Es una forma de descubrir rutinas y procedimientos que antes eran solo intuitivos. - Te permite mejorar cosas a las que no prestas atención cuando preparas la clase: cómo lo dices. - Así ves el uso de las estrategias de forma práctica. Ves cuáles funcionan y cuáles no por la reacción de los alumnos. - Te permite ver tus tics y qué cosas debes variar. - Al comentar en grupo tu práctica, no te enfrentas a ella solo. - Es una tarea constructiva cuando se hace bien en grupo (los demás ven más aciertos en ti que tú mismo).

Nevertheless, when faced to micro-observation tasks, participants also reported feeling extremely unease during them, due to lack of previous relationship with partners, lack of meta-language, and lack of observation skills. I use to address these feelings in an explicit way in my seminars. Bridging self and others' perception and practices is an issue to address. It requires time, compromise and effort, but needs a trigger to activate it. A seminar or a course may act as such a trigger. As a technique to keep the experience in mind, I ask participants to summarize their feelings in a short text to be shared in small groups. It is amazing to see how despite the long list of benefits we had agreed upon along the observation-tasks carried out, teachers (especially inexpert) do keep a feeling of unease, as shown in examples A and B. A) En mi opinión, la observación tiene partes buenas y partes malas. (BIVALENCIA) La parte mala es que, personalmente, me creaba nerviosismo, más del que es normal. La idea de estar expuesta (PUDOR) a tanta gente, cuando sabes que todavía te queda para llegar a tener soltura también crea incomodidad. Además, cuando estás dando clase, tener a una persona (INTRUSO) que entra y sale y te está grabando produce un nerviosismo inusual y, hasta pensarlo, me violentaba(…) La parte buena es que se puede aprender mucho viéndote en una grabación. Es una experiencia que, bien enfocada, puede resultar útil y motivadora. En mi caso, hubiera necesitado más prácticas (FACTOR TIEMPO).

24

Chapter One

Creo que también hubiera sido más útil si la grabación me la hubiera hecho alguien que conociera más (INTRUSO AMIGO) y con quien tuviera más confianza [M.P.]17.

B) Nunca había realizado una práctica de evaluación de mi capacidad docente. (RECHAZO). En su contra, puedo argumentar algunos aspectos. Altera mi forma de exponer (…). Me produce ansiedad (…) No da una idea global de mis clases, sino solo de un momento más o menos largo de la acción, descontextualizado (…). No obstante, me gustaría hacer una reflexión en positivo de la práctica (REFLEXIÓN CRÍTICA). 1. Constato, en mi grabación y en la de mis compañeros que es necesaria una reflexión y preparación previas, (DESCUBRIMIENTO DE PROCESO) para no caer en dudas, silencios, situaciones embarazosas (EVALUACIÓN DE LA INTERACCIÓN) 2. Es interesante ver el lenguaje no verbal que uno utiliza. La interacción no solamente oral sino gestual. 3. (PERSPECTIVA). La respuesta de los alumnos: es interesante porque piensas que siempre entienden. He visto en el vídeo sus caras de perplejidad ante “falsas” explicaciones, vacíos de información, incapacidad para explicar algo… [A.S.]

Once trainees reach this point, it is useful to go a step further and ask them to switch perspective for reversing emotions. Instead of keeping in mind the report of the anguishing experience drawn from observation, we use that emotional charge in a constructive way. I ask them to persuade future trainees about the benefits of such observation, summarizing them in a written Decalogue (or better a shorter text, a “pentalogue”). They work in small groups and present their versions to undergo election. The winner text is circulated across the group or posted later in moodle as a reminder. Two examples follow, to illustrate it. Translations are provided below18. 17

[A.S] and the other capitals stand for student’s identification, which have not been removed in order to signal different participants. 18 Pentalogue A: the most relevant aspects of classroom observation. 1) It has an unavoidable touch of stress. Get ready to face it! 2) Time constraints in recording task can bias global picture: do not care too much. 3) Recording is a quick procedure for error-detection when self-assessing your teaching. Just take advantage of it! 4) Use it for self-assessing your actual performance in teacher training. Take the challenge! 5) Enroll in such a constructive experience: you will always learn a lot. Get used to it! Pentalogue B: Descriptive. 1) Class observation offers you a real picture of your teaching. 2) Time constraints in recording may bias the global picture from your performance. 3) It is a quick way to depict your strong points and your minus.4) It hurts a little, and it is by all means stressing.5) It is profitable (though).

Classroom Discourse and Teacher Training: One More Window

25

Interestingly, this final task stresses the potential of the researcher-teacher profile they had almost forgotten across the process, and which constitutes the rationale behind. Linking individual to generic, and theory and practice to reflection is an adequate ending, especially relevant in a post-graduate environment. As reflected in Alderez- Bodoczky (1999):

26

Chapter One

In the end, more figures and agents start to emerge from the peeping experience over the process of teacher training. Additionally, trainees discover that there are still some other raising voices emerging from classroom discourse analyses. The trainee may then become substantial part of the chain. Opening of the humanistic approach window may be the next step.

References Aymerich, Marta and Lourdes Díaz. “Repeticiones y reformulaciones. Estrategias del discurso del profesor”. Madrid: Cable 3 Abril (1989): 39-44. Web. Barnes, D. From communication to curriculum, Harmonsworth: Penguin, 1976. Print. Barnes, D. and F. Tod. Communication and learning in small groups. London: Routledge, 1977. Print. Bellack, A. A., et al. The language of the classroom. New York: Teachers’ College Press, 1966. Print. Bernstein, B. Ed. Class, codes and control. vol. 2. Applied Studies towards a Sociology of Language. London: Routledge, 1973. Print. Bernstein, B. Ed. Class, codes and control. vol. 4. The structuring of Pedagogic discourse. London and New York: Routledge, 1990. Print. Briton, J. Language and learning, London: Allen Lane, 1970. Print. Cambra Giné, Margarida. Une approche ethnographique de la classe de langue. Paris: Didier, 2003. Print.

Classroom Discourse and Teacher Training: One More Window

27

Cazden, C. Classroom discourse: the language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NJ: Heinemann, 1988. Print. Chaudron, C. Second language classrooms: research on talking and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Print. Chouliaraki, L. and N. Fairclough. Discourse in Late Modernity. Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999. Print. Christie, F. Ed. Pedagogy and the Shapping of Consciousness. London and New York: Cassell, 1999. Print. Christie, F. Classroom Discourse Analysis. A Functional Perspective. London: Continuum, 2002. Print. Crookes, G. A Practicum in TESOL. Professional Development through teaching practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Print. Cummins, J. “Knowledge, Power and Identity in teaching English as a Second Language.” Educating Second Language Children. F. Genesee. Ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Print. Díaz, Lourdes. “El discurso del profesor.” Actas de las I Jornadas Internacionales de las Navas del Marqués. Miquel Llobera and Neus Sans. eds. Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura, 1989. Web.

Díaz, Lourdes, Roser Martínez and Juan Antonio Redó. Guía de contenidos lingüísticos por niveles del español. Según el Marco Común Europeo de Referencia para ELE. Barcelona: Octaedro, 2011. Print. Edwards, A. D. and D. P. Westgate. Investigating Classroom Talk. London and Washington, DC: Falmer Press, 1994. Print. Donato, R. “Collective Scaffolding in second language learning”. Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Learning. J. Lantolf, J. and G. Appel. eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Print. Ellis, R. “Classroom interaction and its relation to Second Language Learning”, RELC Journal 11 (1980): 29-48. Print. —. “The interaction Hypothesis: a critical evaluation.” Language Acquisition and the Second/Foreign Language Classroom. E. Sadtano Ed. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language centre, 1991. Print. —. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Print. Ellis, R. and G. Wells. “Enabling factors in adult-child discourse”, First Language, 1 (1980): 46-82. Print. Fanselow, J. F. Breaking rules. London: Longman, 1987. Print.

28

Chapter One

—. “What kind of flower is that? An alternative model for discussing lessons.” Second language discourse advances in discourse processes. J. Fine. Ed. London: Longman, 1988. Print. Feez, S. ”Systemic functional linguistics and its applications in Australian Language Education: a short history”. Interchange, 27 (1995):8-11. Print. Flanders, N. A. Analysing Teaching behaviour. Reading, MA: Addison and Wesley, 1970. Print. Gee, J. P. The Social Mind: language, ideology and social practice. New York: Bergin and Garvey, 1992. Print. Genesee, F. Ed. Educating Second Language Children. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Print. Genesee, F. Learning through two languages: studies on Immersion and Bilingual education. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House, 1987. Print. Gibbons, P. “Mediating language learning: teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom”. TESOL Quarterly, 37.2 (2003): 247-73. Print. —. Bridging discourses in the ESL classroom. London: Continuum, 2006. Print. Goffman, E. Forms of Talk. Oxford: Blackwell, 1981. Print. Gumperz, J. J. and D. Hymes Directions in Sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972. Print. Halliday, M. A. K. “Categories of the theory of Grammar”. Word 17 (1961): 241-92. Print. —. Language as Social Semiotic. London: Arnold, 1978. Print. Halliday, M. A. K and R. Hasan Language, context and text. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press, 1985. Print. Hatch, E. “Discourse Analysis in Second Language acquisition”. Second Language Acquisition. E. Hatch. Ed. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1978. Print. Instituto Cervantes. Plan curricular del Instituto Cervantes. Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva, 2006. Print. Long, M. H. “Input, interaction and Second Language acquisition.” Native language and Foreign language acquisition. H. Winitz, Ed. New York, 1981. Print. —. “Native speaker / nonnative speaker conversations and the negotiation of comprehensible input”. Applied Linguistics, 4 (1983): 126-41. Print. Long, M. H. and P. Porter. “Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition”, TESOL Quarterly, 19 (1986): 207-8. Print.

Classroom Discourse and Teacher Training: One More Window

29

Lyster, “Recasts, repetition and ambiguity in a second language classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20.1 (1998): 51-8. Print. Lyster and Ranta. “Corrective feedback and learner uptake: negotiation of form in communicative classrooms.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition,19 (1997): 37-66. Print. Malderez, Angi and Caroline Bodóczky. Mentor courses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Print. Mehan, H. Learning Lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979. Print. Mercer, N. The guided construction of knowledge. Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters, 1995. Print. —. “Intermental zones and discourse zones: explaining how dialogue supports development”, Proceedings of Scaffolding in Language and Learning in Educational Contexts: Sociocultural Approaches to Theory and Practice, Conference at the University of Technology, Sydney, 6-8 Dec. 2000. Print. Ochs, E. “Transcription as theory.” Developmental Pragmatics. E. Ochs and B. Schieffelin. eds. London: Academic Press, 1979. Print. Parrot, M. Tasks for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Print. Pica, T. “Interlanguage adjustments as an outcome of NS-NNS negotiated interaction.” Language Learning, 38 (1988): 45-73. Randall, M. and B. Thornton. Advising and supporting teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Print. Pienemann, M. Language Processing and Second-Language Development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1998. Print. Sacks, H. Lectures on Conversation. G. Jefferson. Ed. London and Cambrige, MA: Blackwell, 1992. Print. Searle, J. Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Print. Sharpe, M. “Unpacking scaffolding: identifying discourse and multimodal strategies that support learning”. Language and Education, 20.3 (2006). Print. Sinclair, J. and M. Coulthard. Towards an Analysis of Discourse: the English Used by Teachers and Pupils. London: Oxford University Press, 1975. Print. Sinclair, J. and D. Brazil. Teacher talk. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982. Print.

30

Chapter One

Snow, C. “Conversations with children.” Language Acquisition: Studies in First language development. Fletcher, P. and M. Garman. eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Print. Stubbs, M. Language, Schools and classrooms. London: Methuen, 1976. Print. Tough, J. Talking and learning, Schools Council Communication Skills in Early childhood project. London: Ward, Lock and Drake Educational Associates, 1977. Print. —. Talking and learning, Schools Council Communication Skills: project 7-13. London: Ward, Lock and Drake Educational Associates, 1979. Print. Tsui, A. B. M. Introducing Classroom interaction, London: Penguin, 1995. Print. Van Lier, L. Introducing language awareness. London: Penguin English Applied Linguistics, 1995. Print. —. Interaction in the language curriculum: awareness, autonomy and authenticity. London: Longman, 1996. Print. —. “Constraints and resources in classroom talk: issues of equality and symmetry.”. English Language Teaching in its Social Context. C. Candlin and N. Mercer, eds. London: Open University and Routledge, 2001. 90-107. Print. Wells, G. The meaning makers: Children learning language and using language to learn. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1986. Print. —. “Language and education: reconceptualising education as a dialogue”. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19 (1999): 135-155. Print. —. “Dialogic inquiry in the classroom: building on the legacy of Vygotsky”. Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research. C. Lee, C. and P. Smagorinsky. eds. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Print. Wells, G. and Claxton. Learning for life in the 21st Century. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002. Print. Wong-Fillmore, Lily. “When does teacher talk work as input?”. Input in SLA, S. Gass and C. Madden eds. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1985. Print.

CHAPTER TWO TURN-TAKING IN SPANISH FOREIGN LANGUAGE CONVERSATIONS MARTA GARCÍA GARCÍA

0. Introduction Grammatical competence, understood as “the ability to understand and express meaning by producing and recognising well-formed phrases and sentences in accordance with these principles” (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages… 113), occupies a place of privilege in language instruction. It is taken for granted that it is very difficult (though not impossible) to learn grammatical rules simply through “osmosis” or exposure to the meta language, and that learning those rules requires a more or less lengthy period of instruction that includes explanations of morphological and syntactical phenomena. Yet with regard to learners’ ability to take part in foreign language conversations—that is, conversational competence—the thinking is quite different. It is generally assumed that since fully socialized adults know how to converse in their mother tongues, they simply need opportunities to put into practice those abilities they’ve already acquired, while making use of the lexicon and structures of the target language (e.g., Thornbury 83). Nevertheless, there are many indications that this transfer of abilities is no easy task, but rather poses a great challenge to the student. On the one hand, mastering the art of speaking is considered the pinnacle of language learning (Nunan 39), as it is there that students make “the most adequate direct demonstration of general oral proficiency” (van Lier 494). On the other, as Ruiz Fajardo indicates in this volume, language students and their teachers alike complain with some frequency that it is possible to reach a high level of grammatical competence and still have problems when it

32

Chapter Two

comes to participating in communicative exchanges with native speakers (NSs). But if it is not an inability to construct correct and suitable sentences that hampers Spanish learners in their attempts to converse, what is it? In other words, what is it that makes conversation so desirable and at the same time so difficult? First of all, it is now practically a cliché to cite the importance of conversation in our social lives. As Gardner notes, “ordinary conversation is important because it is the most basic form of spoken interaction, it is all pervasive, and it is the form of talk that all other forms of talk are derived from, and it is the main vehicle for our lives as social beings” (100). It is therefore critical that foreign students feel comfortable when it comes time to participate in conversational interactions in the meta language “so they can have access to the target language community and become social participants in that community” (Barraja-Rohan 65). On the other hand, most scholars (e.g., Briz; Cestero, El intercambio; Eggins and Slade; van Lier) agree in identifying the following traits as being characteristic of conversation, as opposed to other types of oral communication: 

It is a dynamic, contingent interaction; that is, a) the participants take turns in their contributions (a necessary element in order to be able to talk about interaction), b) these contributions follow each other either simultaneously or successively, and c) the links between them are twofold: every contribution, on the one hand, refers to what has come before it and, on the other, in some sense foreshadows what will be said (or can be said) next.  This balance between what precedes and what follows is maintained, keeping in mind that conversation is an unplanned activity: there is no script or pre-established outline for what will be said, when it will be said, or who will say it. Such a thing is possible because the participants have no roles to play or objectives to complete (or if they do, as in situations where information or goods and services are being exchanged, those roles or objectives are not tangible). The only goal of conversation is to establish or reaffirm social relationships. It is, therefore, unpredictable in its progress.  Conversation is symmetrical: there is an equal distribution of rights and obligations among the participants. Everyone can participate at any

Turn-Taking in Spanish Foreign Language Conversations

33

time, but at the same time, everyone is obligated to contribute to the conversation and to respect others’ contributions.  Conversation is therefore the result of a constant collaboration between speaker and listener, between conversational partners. Apparent in this collaboration is a characteristic that Tannen calls “joint production”: conversation is less a matter of two (or more) people alternating between the roles of speakers and listener, but rather that both speaking and listening include elements and traces of the other. … Not only is the audience a co-author, but the speaker is also a co-listener. (28)

 The co-construction is embodied in the duality of the turn-taking system (Cestero, El intercambio 21), which consists of two types of turns: those that transmit semantic content and those that communicate signs of active listening (yes, of course, right, hmm),1 “whose function is not to communicate new content but to comply with the norms of cooperation on which the interactive ritual is based” (Cots 99). But even though the above characteristics are most likely universal, they manifest themselves differently in each language and in each society. This variation arises because of the close link between conversation and society: given that its very purpose is the establishment of social relationships, conversation creates society; yet at the same time, society is what shapes conversation and gives it some of its particular characteristics. The various possible ways of taking turns, interrupting, or indicating active listening; the duration of individual turns; the frequency and length of pauses—these phenomena are culturally regulated and together establish a typical conversation pattern (Agliati, Vescovo, and Anolli 225; Barraja-Rohan 146; Jung 6–7; Cheng 17 ff). For peninsular Spanish in particular, Cestero notes that conversation is characterized by a high frequency of interruptions, which, despite what one might guess, does not indicate a lack of cooperation. To the contrary, Spanish speakers are shown to highly active participants in conversation and have a marked tendency to construct messages cooperatively instead of exchanging them in a successive back-and-forth; they engage in a recurring series of conversational backchannels, and their conversations are characterized by the frequent alternation of short turns, resulting in a balanced distribution of turns and amount of talk. (El intercambio 253) 1 Cestero calls these two kinds of turns “speaking turns” and “backchannel turns,” respectively (El intercambio 21).

34

Chapter Two

We can surmise, then, that at least part of the communication difficulties of Spanish learners lies in the very nature of conversation as a cooperative activity in general and in the Spanish language in particular. The present article takes this notion as its starting hypothesis, analyzing the feature of turn-taking, the interactive characteristic par excellence (Cestero, El intercambio 14; Eggins and Slade 7), in conversations in Spanish as a foreign language (SFL). These conversations take place exclusively among Spanish students; that is, without the intervention of an NS. This decision was made for two reasons. First, for students in non-immersion contexts, the classroom is the place where they have all (or at least the vast majority) of their conversations in Spanish. It is the characteristics of these conversations that will most likely be transferred to their interactions with NSs; that is, it is in the classroom that their problems originate. And while there are a few empirical studies on the subject (Brooks; Hall), we know hardly anything about how Spanish students talk among themselves when they are not limited by the parameters of a particular task or by teacher instructions. Second, I want the findings of this analysis to serve as a starting point for the development of new approaches for the classroom, which can be more easily achieved if data is collected in a context similar to that in which the didactic intervention will take place. The purpose of this article, then, is to answer the following question: In what ways does conversational turn-taking among students differ from what is typical in a conversation in peninsular Spanish and thus could cause problems and difficulties in conversations with NSs?

1. Description of the Study 1.1.Methodology The 10 recordings that serve as the foundation for this research were made at the universities of Hamburg (conversations 1–9) and Bayreuth (conversation 10) between January 2003 and June 2005. They run a total of 276 minutes in length. Participating in each conversation were three classmates from the university Spanish classes, as follows: six participants from level A2, nine from level B1-, nine from level B1+, and six from level B2.2 The majority have German as their first language, although, given the 2

A description of the levels can be found in the Common European Framework…, Ch. 3.

Turn-Taking in Spanish Foreign Language Conversations

35

multicultural nature of German society, which is particularly marked in cities such as Hamburg, some participants have other languages as their mother tongues. Seven of the participants are bilingual; German is the first language for five of them, while for the other two, German is their second language. The conversations were arranged as follows: Conversation / Level

Participants (Sex: m=male; f=female)

Languages G=German, A=Arabic, T=Turkish, R=Russian, SB=Serbo-Croatian, B=Bosnian, F=French, D=Dutch

1 / A2 2 / A2

Felix (m), Julia (f), Katja (f) Andreas (m), Esther (f), Martin (m)

G, G, G R+G, G+T, G+SB

3 / B14 / B15 / B1-

Nele (f), Sebastian (m), Ella (f) Claudia (f), Axel (m), Indra (f) Bettina (f), Susann (f), Bianca (f)

G+A, G, G G, G, G G, G, G

6 / B1+ 7 / B1+ 8 / B1+

Jennifer (f), Zaida (f) Melanie (f) Charlotte (f), Viktor (m), Sandra (f) Sofia (f), Andrea (f), Josephine (f)

G, B+G, G G, G, G G, G+D, G

9 / B2 10 / B2

Angela (f), Julie (f), Karoline (f) Peter (m), David (m), Markus (m)

G, G+F, G G, G, G

Table 1. Configuration of the conversations The conversations were recorded in a university classroom just before Spanish class began. To get the conversation started, the students had a text3 they’d been given a week earlier. They were given no concrete instructions: they were only told that they could talk about the contents of 3 The text in question tells of the identity problems of a young truck driver, Paco, who was born in Germany to Spanish parents. It appears in Appendix II.

Chapter Two

36

the text or about their own personal experiences similar to the one described therein, but that they did not have to limit themselves to the text for the whole conversation, or even mention it at all. They were not informed of the object of study until the recording was over. This elicited conversation format might seem better suited to obtaining data on pedagogical, rather than conversational discourse (Seedhouse 7677), but after only a few moments, the participants forget what has brought them together and the interaction becomes conversation. In most of the recordings, this happens within the first minute, either immediately or after a brief negotiation,4 as in the following example: (1) ZM: Zaida, JF: Jennifer, MG: Melanie (Conversation 6 - B1+)

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

ZM ¿qué pensáis del texto? (4.0) JF (e:) (4.0) (hm) ¿cómo decir? (risa) (2.0) ZM ¿o vamos discutir de- del partido de ayer5? / primero y después JF (risa) MG (risa) JF ¡del fútbol! ZM de fútbol sí JF sí claro ZM y después podemos hablar deMG pobres españoles JF

ZM

JF nunca ganan / nada (risa)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

ZM what do you guys think about the text? (4.0) JF (uh:) (4.0) (hm) how can I say? (laughter) (2.0) ZM or are we going to discuss ab- about the game yesterday? / first and afterward JF (laughter) MG (laughter) JF about soccer! ZM about soccer yes

In conversations 5 and 7, however, the discussion of the proffered text goes on for several minutes, which have been excluded from the analysis. 5 The recording was made the day after the 2004 European Football Championship game between Spain and Portugal. Things have changed a lot since then.

Turn-Taking in Spanish Foreign Language Conversations 11 12 13 14 15 16

JF ZM MG JF ZM JF

37

yes of course and afterward we can talk aboutpoor Spain

they never win / anything (laughter)6

We can assert, then, that the interactions in the corpus are not part of classroom or pedagogical discourse. They are real, not directed, and are characteristic of a specific conversational genre: identifying.7 In order to characterize the turn-taking system in the conversations of the corpus, I have selected three specific aspects of the conversations for their potential intercultural and didactic interest and because my initial analyses showed them to be significant:   

the number and type of interruptions,8 the length of the turns and the distribution of talk, and the relationship between turns.9

These phenomena were first identified and quantified10 in the corpus, then examined in detail, taking into account the context in which they are produced and the reactions they provoke in the other participants.

6

The translations of the conversational excerpts attempt to recreate the speech of the NNSs and their hesitations and mistakes—the latter only when it was possible to find a similar error in English. 7 We take this term from the classification of conversational genres established by Carter and McCarthy (10). 8 An interruption is any attempt at turn-taking that occurs before the message of the current turn has been completed. 9 For all of these phenomena, only instances of turn-taking in speech have been taken into account; that is, feedback tokens have been excluded. 10 The quantification was carried out with tools provided by the CHILDES (Child Language Data Exchange System) project, directed by Brian MacWhinney and Catherine Snow (MacWhinney and Snow; MacWhinney).

Chapter Two

38

2. Results and Discussion 2.1. Turn-Taking and Interruptions11 The first piece of data obtained from the analysis of turn-taking in this corpus of conversations between nonnative speakers (NNSs) is itself rather striking: only 26% of speaker changes result from interruptions, much lower than the 46% in conversations in peninsular Spanish (Cestero, El intercambio 153). This, combined with the high number of pauses between turns,12 shows that NNSs opt to wait for a naturally occurring pause as their main turn-taking strategy. As we see in the following exchange, the conversation is characterized not so much by alternating turns as by alternating turns and pauses: (2) SL: Sandra, VM: Viktor (Conversation 7 - B1+) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 11

SL (2.0) SL (1.0) VM (0.5) SL VM (1.0) SL VM (0.5) SL VM SL (1.0) VM

¿y cuándo (e:) // tu // examen (e:) // no gusta al profesor? ¿es mal para / tu- // para ti? ¿si mi examen? sí / (e:) // la cosa que escribesĹ

y cuando no le gusta al profesorĹ pero es (e:) es el examen de Estado / del Estado / no de la universidad

es /// de // sí

pero si mi examen no gustará (risa) los

To analyze the phenomenon of speaker change, a total of 500 examples of turntaking were selected from the corpus, 50 from each conversation, taken from those sections where the three speakers exhibit a similar (measured in terms of the number of turns taken) level of participation. This “judgement sampling” (Milroy 26-28) was carried out with the goal of including a representative sample from all of the speakers. 12 In 76% of turns taken, there is a wordless pause longer than 0.1 seconds (perceptive boundary). In Cestero’s corpus (El intercambio 113), this number is 55%.

Turn-Taking in Spanish Foreign Language Conversations 20 21 SL 22 VM 23 24 (4.0) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

SL (2.0) SL (1.0) VM (0.5) SL VM (1.0) SL VM (0.5) SL VM SL (1.0) VM SL VM

39

(risa) (risa) ((riendo)) es mal para mí sí (risa) muy mal and what if (uh:) // your // professor (uh:) // doesn’t like your exam? is it bad for / your- // for you? if my exam? yes / (uh:) // the thing you writeĹ

and when the professor doesn’t like itĹ but it’s (uh:) it’s the national exam / the national one / not the university

it’s /// the // yes

but if he will not like my exam (laughter) the (laughter) (laughter) ((laughing)) it is bad for me yes (laughter) very bad

(4.0)

When they interrupt, the speakers in the corpus do so in a way that can be described as not very aggressive. The most common type of interruption (41%) is what Cestero calls neutral interruptions (El intercambio 146), which tend to appear in the corpus in question-answer pairs. The conversational partner, foreseeing the content of the question, answers it before the asker has finished. A neutral interruption is really only a brief, temporary leap forward in the turn-taking system. This type of turn-taking is a significant cognitive challenge for NNSs (Liddicoat and Crozet 142), since it requires processing the ongoing turn and simultaneously making predictions about the possibilities for how it will progress. There is no competition, since the current speaker either finishes his or her turn within a few seconds and the overlap is thus quite brief, or he or she suspends the

Chapter Two

40

turn entirely to give way to the interrupting speaker, as we see in examples (3) and (4): (3) EE: Esther, AS: Andreas (Conversation 2 - A2) 1 2 3 4

EE

1 2 3 4

EE

AS

AS

¡ah! ¿cómo es para tu padres por ejemplo? porque para mi padres es muy difícil vivir aquí también también§ oh! what is it like for your parents for example? because for me parents it's very hard to live here too too§

(4) VM: Viktor, CF: Charlotte (Conversation 7 - B1+) 1 2 3 4 5

VM

1 2 3 4 5

VM

CF

¿y: (e:) sobre qué tema en- en especial / ¿sobre TODO el Etiopía o la cultura o:? es la cultura: la lengua: la historia: // religio:sa

and: (uh:) on what topic spe- specifically / about ALL of Ethiopia or the culture or:? CF it's the culture: the language: the history // religi:ous

The second most frequent type of interruption in the corpus, at 27%, is those that Cestero calls acceptable (El intercambio 149): the interrupter’s intention is not to speak out of turn but to “complete his or her own interrupted message.” That is, these interruptions follow other, previous interruptions, which we can see clearly in the following examples:

Turn-Taking in Spanish Foreign Language Conversations

41

(5) SB: Sebastian, EG: Ella, NH: Nele (Conversation 3 - B1-) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

SB EG NH SB EG SB SB EG NH SB EG SB

porque normalmente la / la- la gente con / dinero son lo- la gente // de:- de- de extranjeroĹ

y claro (e:)

ellos viven e- ellos viven en las ciudades because usually the / the- the people with / money are th- the people // from:- fromfrom abroadĹ

and of course (uh:)