Aspects of Impoverished Discourse in Academic Speaking: Implications for Pedagogy from a Mini-Corpus
The literature indicates that it is sociopragmatic or discourse failure rather than linguistic deficiency per se which tends to prevent NNSs participating fully and appropriately in discussions (James, 1983; Weir, 1982; Lynes & Woods, 1984; Boyd, 1991). Literature comparing the discourse of NSs and NNSs in academic discussions has been concerned mainly with turn taking and findings here have been inconclusive. For example, Micheau and Billmyer (1987) found that NNSs have difficulty in turn taking in discussion, but Furneaux et al. (1991) found that few NNSs who expressed dissatisfaction with their performance in seminars reported any difficulty in getting to speak. Micheau and Billmyer also found that NNSs made more violative attempts (interruptions) than NSs to take the floor. Lynch and Anderson (1991), however, found that NNSs made comparatively few interruptions.
General interlanguage studies of the speaking of advanced NNSs produced in various contexts provide further insights. Trosberg (1989), investigating apology strategies, found that unlike NSs, NNSs did not add explanations or accounts to their apologies. Thomas (1984) showed that NNSs unknowingly use pragmatic acts associated with dominance in encounters. The overly-direct and abrupt speech of even highly-proficient NNSs is noted by Preston (1989), who argues that NNSs tend to choose directness and under-utilize indirect speech acts.
The need for instructional materials to be based on data-driven description of language used in target situations has been argued (McKenna, 1987; Williams, 1988). A related need is for those materials to target areas of language problematic for NNSs. Textbooks concerned with academic speaking (e.g., James, 1984; Lynch & Anderson, 1992) typically offer practice speaking activities and guidance for structuring and signposting presentations. For discussion skills, the language focus generally centers on conversational functions and formulaic exponents for them. Two such functions highlighted in James (1984) are "recognizing a breakdown in communication" (I think we may be at cross purposes here...) and "emphasizing a point" (The crux of the matter is...). Lynch and Anderson (1992), highlight the functions of "avoiding an answer" (It's too early to say whether...) and "following up a question" (Perhaps I didn't make myself clear...). Thus, the language presented in instructional materials focuses on fairly formal politeness formulas for starting turns and marking intent. Such formulas have been variously termed in language description. For example, Edmondson (1981) uses the term gambits, McKenna (1987) talks of metalinguistic phrases, and Burton (1981) uses the term metastatements for devices which forewarn the listener of the purpose of entries.
However, is it mainly the use of metastatements which impairs the discourse of NNSs in academic discussion? The study reported in this paper considered the use of metastatements but looked at the more general question of how NNS students initiate exchanges in discussion. Observation of texts produced by two groups of students: one group of predominantly NSs in a UK university and the other of NNSs in an English medium university in Turkey indicated a general problem of the abruptness of NNS discourse. The next section describes the texts on which observations were made; that is followed by a section that illustrates and discusses the aspects of language use seen to differ in NS and NNS discourse.
For the observations, two recordings of seminars held in UK at Aston University, and two of recordings of seminars in Turkey at Bilkent University were used. The recordings were taken from archives collected by the university faculties themselves. The recordings from both sites were of seminars from MBA programs and involved a presentation by a distinguished business person from the local community which was followed by a discussion session. The students contributing to the discussion in the UK seminars were predominantly NSs of English. Students in the seminars in Turkey were native speakers of Turkish minimally having an intermediate level of English. (Entrance to the University is conditional on passing an exam validated as equivalent to Cambridge First Certificate).
Texts of the post-presentation discussion were transcribed and the following transcription symbols used:
| P | presenter |
| S | student speaker |
| S1 S2 S3, etc. | first, second, third student speaker |
| \\ | beginning of overlapping speech |
| ( ) | inserted turn, i.e., the turn of another speaker which does not interrupt the turn in process |
Exchanges initiated by the students were identified and the exchange-initiating turns (EITs) analyzed. An EIT was defined as an unsolicited turn made by a speaker to solicit response from another speaker. An EIT may be related topically to a preceding exchange, but the exchange it sets up involves a different configuration of one or more of the interlocutors. In extract 1, S1's first turn constitutes an EIT. The second turn of S1 is a continuation of the exchange. It does not constitute an EIT as the ensuing exchange involves the same configuration of speakers as the preceding text.
Extract 1 (text from Turkey)
end of presentation
S1 What was the competition doing in it advertising policy was that taking in exactly the same stance as you were taking P I don't think I mean to be honest I've not been that close to the adver-tising certainly going back 3 or 4 years but I don't think this pan European approach is really very common in the motor industry at the the moment S1 Well who would you identify as your competition who one competitor that you would identify in Europe P Well it would be...
The total number of EITs was 27 (15 from UK texts and 12 from the Turkish texts).
Extract 2 (text from Turkey)
we had to have our marketing systems and our documentation being customized localized to accommodate the Turkish character system I mean...
S Did you do anything special to sell your computers in Turkey compared to the European situation? P No like voltage and cycles like // S // I mean like market-wise I mean // P // Market-wise
The remainder of this section of the paper considers three aspects of the discourse of NNSs in seminar discussion which made it abrupt and overly-direct.
The speakers in texts from Turkey differed noticeably from their counterparts in UK in the amount they reformulated their elicits (see Table 1). The value of reformulating elicits can be explained in various ways: as fine-tuning to reflect more precisely the intention of the questioner, as a discourse strategy giving the interlocutors wait time or clues to facilitate them in making a response, or as a strategy enabling speakers to proffer responses to their own elicits.
| Text Source | No. EITs | No. EITs with Multiple Elicits |
|---|---|---|
| UK | 15 | 7 |
| Turkey | 12 | 2 |
In extract 3, the student's first abrupt elicit fails to give the interlocutor enough to go on. Although at first sight it may appear that the problem is one of hearing, we then see S6 in his second turn not simply repeating his first elicit but extending it, offering options until a response seems forthcoming.
Extract 3 (text from Turkey)
S6 Are you free in decision making P Speak up S6 Are you free in decision making or are you responsible to another center for example Greece or
In contrast, none of the exchange initiations in the UK texts comprised a simple one act elicit. Extract 4 shows the speaker reformulating elicits. The elicits have been numbered.
Extract 4 (text from UK)
S Yes eh your pan European advertising policy then 1) has it been to say to take say a video shot in UK and then dub it into various languages 2) is that it or 3) how is your strategy been 4) what have you actually done P Right if we shot a film in UK and then tried to dub it into European languages that's what...
| Text Source | No. EITs | No. EITs with Hypothetical Structures | No. EITs with Displays of Reasoning |
|---|---|---|---|
| UK | 15 | 5 | 6 |
| Turkey | 12 | 0 | 2 |
Hypothesizing. Expert-users situated their elicits in hypothetical situations and used hypothetical structures, such as, if..., whether..., etc. The value of structuring elicits in this way lies in the fact that the turn is extended to provide the listener with background information with which to interact. For example, in extract 5, S3 shows the reasoning (does not the process of consulting the shareholders diminish confidentiality?) behind the otherwise open question, i.e., how do you secure confidentially?
Extract 5 (text from UK)
S3 How can you do some of these things confidentially if you've got to go to the shareholders for agreement?
Extract 6 shows the proffering of a number of hypothetical propositions (numbered) with which the interlocutor can interact and base response on.
Extract 6 (text from UK)
S1 Were you not re-inventing the wheel 1) if you'd looked at what they were doing 2) presumably you did look at what the opposition was doing (P Hm) how they were operating on a European basis (P Hm) and 3) if they were doing it on a European bias would that not have saved you some leg work 4) said they're successful
Displaying Reasons. Turns at exchange initiation were also seen to involve the giving of reasons in support of elicits. This aspect of discourse would seem to fulfill a need for interactants to appear as informed and considered in the public arena. Although in the seminar discussion script, one side has the primary role of seeking information; underlying this is another role, that of contributor to the discourse, a supplier of ideas and information.
In extract 7, S6 shows the reasoning behind her suggestion that differences between countries in Europe will not disappear. It is marked with an asterisk (*):
Extract 7 (text from UK)
S6 I was going to ask you something about the similarities and differences you pointed out toward the end don't you think you're falling into the danger of assuming that in the future similarities are going to be a lot more and differences are going to nullify themselves *I mean Europe 1992 is here but that's politics and economics but when it comes down to the culture that's still going to be very different across Europe
| Text Source | No. EITs | No. EITs with Metastatements |
|---|---|---|
| UK | 15 | 5 |
| Turkey | 12 | 4 |
The relatively low levels of occurrence show that metastatements were not greatly used in the discourse of either groups of students. The specific uses of them were: Can I ask, it seems to a lay person such as myself, I was going to ask you something about, it strikes me that, I wonder if (texts from UK); and I want to talk a little about, I want to ask something, as far as I know (2 times) (texts from Turkey).
Not only were metastatements limited in frequency of use, but they were also limited in function to announcing questions or giving opinions. There was little evidence of the types of formal, overt metastatements with a range of functions that tend to be presented in instructional materials. From the very limited sample of metastatements observed, it was seen that the NNS group opted for less direct language than the more expert users, for example, I want to ask as opposed to Can I ask, I was going to ask, and I wonder if.
Those designing English for Academic Purposes (EAP) syllabuses can target language areas by looking to see how the discourse of NNSs differs from that of more expert language users in specific situations. The present study indicated that hypothetical questions, displays of reasoning in questions, and a limited range of fairly informal conversational metastatements could usefully be targeted when teaching discussion genres in the university since these were areas in which NNS discourse differed.
Much of our description of language is at present based on the grammar of written language rather than informal, spoken interaction (Carter & McCarthey, 1995). Too often the description of language in speaking syllabuses is derived from conjecture rather than observation of language in use. This in turn can lead to the presentation of unrealistic language. One question the present study sought to answer was whether the focus on metastatements for teaching the language of academic discourse is really merited. The data in our sample indicated limited use of metastatements in both NS and NNS discourse and calls into question the need for instruction to focus predominantly on this aspect. The data indicated other areas of discourse that could usefully be focused on for pedagogical purposes, such as reformulating elicits. More data-driven description of language in spoken academic genres is needed to feed into the design of instructional materials.
Meanwhile, teachers and learners themselves can become observers of discourse, an idea propounded by Riggenbach (1990). Teachers can collect texts from academic genres that their students will use. And by observing them together with their students, teachers can help them identity recurrent patterns and features of the discourse.
Basturkmen, H. (1995). The discourse of academic seminars: Structures and strategies of interaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Aston in Birmingham.
Boyd, F. A. (1991). Business English and the case method: A reassessment. TESOL Quarterly 25(4), 72-74.
Burton, D. (1981). Analyzing spoken discourse. In M. Coulthard & M. Montgomery (Eds.), Studies in discourse analysis (pp. 61-81). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Carter, R., & McCarthey, M. (1995). Grammar and the spoken language. Applied Linguistics 16(2), 141-158.
Edmondson, W. (1981). Spoken discourse: A model for analysis. London: Longman.
Furneaux, C., Locke, C., Robinson, P. & Tonkyn, A. (1991). Talking heads and shifting bottoms: The ethnography of academic seminars. In P. Adams, B. Heaton, & P. Howarth (Eds.), Socio-cultural issues in English for specific purposes (pp. 75-88). London: Modern English Publications.
James, K. (1983). The teaching of spoken English to overseas students in a British university. In R. R. Jordan, (Ed.), Case studies in ELT (pp. 56-63). London: Collins ELT.
James, K. (1984). Speak to learn: Oral English for academic purposes. London: Collins ELT.
Lynch, T., & Anderson, K. (1991). Do you mind if I come in here? -- A comparison of EAP seminar/discussion materials and the characteristics of real academic interaction. In P. Adams, B. Heaton & P. Howarth (Eds.), Socio- cultural issues in English for specific purposes (pp. 88-99). London: Modern English Publications.
Lynch, T., & Anderson, K. (1992). Study speaking: A course in spoken English for academic purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lynes, C., & Woods, L. (1984). Teaching seminar skills. British Journal of Language Teaching, 22(3), 157-159.
Mauranen, A. (1994). Two discourse worlds: Study genres in Britain and Finland. Finnish Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13, 1-40.
McKenna, E. (1987). Preparing foreign students to enter discourse communities in the US. English for Specific Purposes, 6, 187-202.
Micheau, C., & Billmyer, K. (1987). Discourse strategies for foreign business students: Preliminary research findings. English for Specific Purposes, 16, 87-97.
Preston, D. (1989). Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Riggenbach, H. (1990). Discourse analysis and spoken language instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 2, 152-163.
Shaw, P. A., & Bailey, K. M. (1990). Cultural differences in academic settings. In R. Scarcella et al. (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in L2. New York: Newbury House.
Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, R. M. (1992). Towards an analysis of discourse. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in spoken discourse analysis (pp. 1-34). London: Routledge.
Tapper, J. (1992). Oral academic discourse of international college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona.
Thomas, J. (1984). Cross-cultural discourse as "unequal encounter": Towards a pragmatic analysis. Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 226-235.
Trosberg, A. (1989). Apology strategies in native/non-natives. Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 147-167.
Weir, C. (1982). The problems for overseas students and the institutions where they study. In J. Wright (Ed.), Learning to learn in higher education (pp. 89-105). London: Croom Helm.
Williams, M. (1988). Language taught for meetings and language used in meetings: Is there anything in common? Applied Linguistics, 9, 45-58.
Helen Basturkmen teaches on the Masters and Diploma program in language teaching at the University of Auckland. Current interests are spoken discourse and curriculum development.
|
|
|
|
|