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.
