Monday, July 22, 2013

Teacher-Talk : A Sociolinguistic Variable

A Review of an article by Deborah Osborne
A. Summary :
Communicative competence can be generally defined as the ability to use linguistic forms appropriately in any circumstances. Indeed, it consists of four components: grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence, and strategic competence. The first one refers to the  ability to produce and understand correct syntactic, lexical and phonological forms in a language. The second one is the ability to use a language appropriately in sociocultural contexts. The discourse competence is defined as the combination of grammatical forms and meaning to achieve a unified spoken or written text in different genres. Finally, strategic competence refers to strategies to enhance or facilitate communication.
Obviously, it is not sufficient to teach just one of the above components. Teachers of English should encourage their students to develop all these components of communicative competence. Osborne’s article (1999) focuses on the sociolinguistic competence, especially “ language variability and how teachers often deal with it ”  (1999 : 10): one aspect of teaching process that confuses the learners is its inconsistency. That is, teachers teach their students one form of saying something in the classroom, and in a natural setting they hear native speakers use a different version. This phenomenon is called a linguistic variable in linguistics, and its use is sensitive to social contexts, it is termed sociolinguistic variable.
To illustrate the point, Osborne provides the example of “ be going to + infinitive”. This verb tense has two norms or conventions : one   is “the going form”, and the second is “ the gonna form”. The two constitute a linguistic variable, and each occurrence is sensitive to a social  context. For example, “gonna form” is used in informal setting, and more precisely in American culture while the second form that is, “ be + going ” is used by educated people in formal contexts. The second form is well – mastered by so many non-native speakers in comparison to the gonna form. Two reasons are behind this : First it’s due to the difficulty of learning English rhythm, and secondly, it is triggered by the way teachers deliver their language input. Osborne states:
When teachers show their rate of speech and enunciate, gonna is impossible to say” ( Osborne 1999 : 11 )
Osborne raises also the issue of teacher talk. It is defined as speech used by teachers, it is more simplified and shorter than normal speech. Teacher talk is characterised by four adjustments occurring at different levels:
1) Lexis: It restricts the diversity of vocabulary by avoiding colloquial expressions and slang words.   
2) Phonological: It is characterised by exaggerated articulation, extended pauses and slower rate of speech.
3) Syntactic: The use of fewer subordinate / embedded clauses and short utterances.
4 Discourse: The dominance of the first person and the use of repetition to make things clear.
Two aspects of teachers talk have been investigated by researchers, that is, the rate of speech and syntactic complexity. According to Osborne, The slow rate of speech do help students to perform well, however, it’s has one drawback. She points out :
The consequence is that without working on the the pronunciation of English ( notably the rhythm ) and exposure to more usual pronunciation of variables,  learners of English learn and retain a relatively formal and sometimes hypercorrect form of  English (1999 : 11 ).
A practical solution, according to Osborne, is to allow students to hear both formal and informal speech, in this case “ gonna ” and “ going to ” forms. At the outset, the formal form is presented with careful pronunciation and students are asked to use it. Next, the teacher introduces the informal form, gonna, and explains its use and constraints. Finally, practice of the reduced form is provided through drills and role – play. In doing so, students are exposed to authentic speech of the natural setting and to teacher talk related to the classroom context.
B. Evaluation:
The article has tackled two related issues in teaching / learning process, namely sociolinguistic competence and teacher talk. Concerning the former, it is believed that the use of appropriate language in an appropriate sociocultural context is highly advisable (                    ). This context can vary according to factors such as status of participants, purposes of the interaction, and norms or conventions of the interactions. Osborne insists on the uses and constraints of both formal and informal form of “ to be going to”.
According to Osborne, students should be exposed to all varieties of English so as to be “ acting more English ” ( P. 12 ). Since there is no unique and pure English, ESL teachers opt for the use of formal English in the classroom setting. From time to time teachers do expose their students to authentic speech through listening to taped-conversations. It’s the teacher’s role thus to make their students aware of the appropriateness of utterances, both in terms of meaning and form. By appropriateness of meaning, it is meant that the extent to which particular communicative functions, attitudes, and ideas are judged to be proper in a given context. The appropriateness of form, on the other hand, concerns the extent to which a given meaning is represented in a verbal or non-verbal form that is related to a particular sociolinguistic situation. It’s important to mention that Osborne has discussed the second one, but she doesn’t deal with meaning. A further remark is that she restricts herself to one example of this phenomenon, that is, “ be going to ” form and “ gonna ” form. The distinction between the two forms doesn’t create problems for the learners, and it doesn’t really hinder the ongoing of communication.
Concerning teacher talk, many researchers have pointed to its effects on students’ learning because it is one important source of language input (Saiz1990:24 ). The common characteristic of teacher talk is simplification which can be defined as the adjustments intended to make utterances easier to understand. Osborne has pointed to one of its negative effects. That is, because of the language classroom, a student retains “hypercorrect” form of English. The effectiveness of teacher talk, however, can not be denied, The effectiveness of teacher talk depends on a variety of factors among which are : The point in the lesson in which talking occurs, and the value of teacher talk itself whether it is useful for acquisition or not. Fontana stipulates:
Teachers who can talk interestingly  and relevantly, and who can stimulate children’s imagination and thinking are  for a better aid to learning than any amount of misguided and rather desultory project work.
  “ Fontana : 1981 : 351 ).
Osborne ignores another important aspect in teacher talk, that is, teacher talking ratio. In fact, her  “ practical ” solution encourages teachers to talk too much. But a question may be raised here: Who is in need to talk, students or teachers? The communicative approach has readjusted the balance in the teaching learning process. It is the learner who is encouraged to test his communicative competence through putting it into practice. The teacher’s involvement, especially teacher talk, is kept to the minimum. Indeed, to introduce the formal form and use of  “ be going to ”, and to expose students “ aurally ” to the use and constraints of  “ gonna ” will certainly maximise teacher talking time.
The solution, however, is to let students discover the informal form by themselves in a natural setting or to provide them with authentic materials such as audio-tapes and films that include real-life speech; but without dwelling on the uses and constraints of informal speech as Osborne suggested. The more familiar they are with these materials, the more able they are to understand and use informal speech. Added to this would be the assumption that ESL teachers are guided by many factors, for instance, the programme studied, the level of students and time. Osborne seems to forget these factors that oblige teachers to stick to formal English. In addition, of course, to the fact that formal English is used at an international level. Duff (1997) Contends:
“ ‘ELT English’ could be described as a kind  of ‘dialect’ adopted by ELT and taught as the world auxiliary language. It has, in fact, become what Ogden set out to create artificially with Basic English (1930): an international communication system with no real community of origin outside ELT itself .” (Duff 1997 : 266-267)
C. Conclusion :
Osborne’s article is insightful for teacher trainees who need to master sociolinguistic skills of English in order to expose their students to different varieties. This should be done through bringing authentic conversations to the classroom. In short, listening to audio-tapes and watching English films will make students familiar with both formal and informal speeches. However, teacher talking time should be used appropriately and effectively.  
              
References :
                             
    • Duff, T. “Comment : raise high the standard !”. ELT Journal. Vol. 51/3. July 1997.
    • Fontana, D. (1981). Psychology for Teachers. London: Macmillan Press LTD.
    • Osborne, D. 1999. “Teacher Talk: A Sociolinguistic Variable”. English Teaching Forum. Vol37, N°2, Apr- Jun 1999.
Saiz, M. (1990) “Communication Strategies” English Teaching Form. October 1990. 

No comments:

Post a Comment