Dr. Sandra J. Savignon, whose name for many is synonymous with Communicative Competence, relocated to The Pennsylvania State University after a long stint at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. She is presently Professor of Speech Communication and Director of the Graduate ESL Program. I met Dr. Savignon two years ago when she was featured on the "Four Corners Japan Tour" for the 1995 Nagoya Conference. Like many of you, I was influenced by the first edition of her book, Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice. I recently received the second edition now available through McGraw-Hill, Singapore, 1997. (Tokyo JALT's own Kiyoko Hubbell is taking on the arduous task of translating it into Japanese.) I interviewed Dr Savignon concerning her views on communicative language learning as it relates to teaching English in Japan, and her newly published text.
Your years at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign represented a fairly long working relationship. Exactly what were the circumstances that led to this move to Penn State University?
Well, you probably know that the University of Illinois. along with Penn State University is part of the American university system that's referred to as the Big Ten. Fortunately, they recruited me. I had been at the University of Illinois. since undergraduate school, so when I left, the time represented there was almost 35 years of teaching. Career wise I suppose that I was a plant that needed a bigger pot.
So you weren't on your way to retirement?
No , you were probably told that, but I had been looking around for somewhere else to go. Japan was even among the possibilities.
You are presently a Professor in the Speech Communications Department and Director of the Graduate ESL Program. What is your department's relationship with the Linguistics Department?
There is no Linguistics Department here at Penn State; not a bad thing, in fact, for those of us interested in applied linguistics. There are many linguists on campus, but they hold positions in a range of departments. Not that I don't like linguists. To the contrary, some of my best friends are linguists. But as an organized academic unit they can sometimes stand in the way of progress. I'm delighted to be in the department of Speech Communications with colleagues who share an interest in communicative strategies and events. They view me and my colleagues in the ESL program as bringing a cross-cultural dimension to their interests.
Your second edition was printed this year and represents a 15 year gap in time, from 1983 to 1997. Any reasons for the gap in time?
At the strong urging of my publisher at McGraw-Hill and Bill Van Patten I began work on a second edition. The consensus was, and I agreed, that it was time for a second edition. Which I found quite funny because as you know when the first edition was published in 1983, it was considered avant garde and even controversial.
For many Native English teachers Communicative Competence may take on a Dell Hymes slant. We may be concerned with teaching our students the social rules of English rather than simply linguistic interaction in the target language. Would you define "communicative competence" as you know it?
Communication involves the negotiation of meaning. And the development of skills comes with participation in communicative events. The appropriacy of given norms, including so-called "social rules," depends on the context and the participants. The widespread use of English as an international language in the world today obliges us to reflect on the content as well as the method of English language teaching. Teachers frequently come with an agenda, including the promotion of a particular variety of English, say, British English or American English. Teachers must constantly stop and check and make sure that this isn't done.
In Japan, the testing issue is a hotly debated topic. Of course it naturally follows that if we are using communicative activities in class, we will have to construct a valid test that actually measures communicative language ability. With regards to your past dissatisfaction with the American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Language (ACTFL) and the current debate that rages in Japan, what are the implications for communicative teachers of English in Japan?
Well, the past ten years have seen many new initiatives in testing. The widely used TOEFL has seen the addition of the Test of Written English and Test of Spoken English components. Discussion has also broadened concerning the valid use of this and other large-scale tests. The promotion of the ACTFL test and rating scale as a universally valid evaluation of language "proficiency" was unfortunate, and served to confuse many important issues in the minds of teachers (and even some researchers).
From time to time, we are graced with J. D. Brown, who has shared his feelings concerning test administration in Japan. There are many native English teachers who question his right to dictate the changes he feels are needed. Recently, minute changes have been instituted, but I'm sure that substantial changes will only be implemented when those is authority recognize that change is needed.
I can understand the reactions to an outside expert. Japanese teachers and public policy makers are the ones to decide what is appropriate for their setting. But in Japan, as throughout the world, global economic and social forces are at work that will ultimately influence these decisions.
Your first edition was seen by many as a clarion call to pick up the communicative competence banner. My first experience with your text was with a program director on a plane returning from a TESOL conference in Vancouver. He considered it "must reading" for his staff and had ordered a large quantity for them. It also was instrumental in my decision to use experiential learning activities in the classroom. In your opinion why was the book so popular with those of us in the English teaching community?
Brenda, that's a question you may be in a better position to answer than I. Perhaps the experiences and insights I had to offer simply made sense to many teachers.
You mentioned that you were strongly urged to undertake the second edition. Are there any marked differences between the first and second editions? Kiyoko Hubbell said you had eliminated the chapter on you and your son's language learning?
No. Daniel still appears in the second edition in the chapters on second language acquisition research (SLA). (It may be, however, that since this section includes a conversation in French, it will not be included in the Japanese translation). In addition, I have been able to greatly expand this chapter to include discussion of the many studies that have begun to focus on classroom learners and classroom learning strategies. So much research is available now that wasn't available in 1983 when the first edition appeared. The chapter on testing has been substantially revised as well, to reflect the best current thinking on this most important topic. As with the first edition, I include a list of related suggested readings by distinguished scholars, some theoretical and others quite practical in nature.
Let's touch on research. Our students come from an educational background both secondary and tertiary which is reflected in their distinctive learning styles. In many classrooms, traditional methods and materials. . .
Be careful with the use of the word 'traditional'. That word is used to refer to so many different approaches to language teaching, typically those the speaker/writer perceives as undesirable or "outdated." There is a fascinating new book by Diane Musumeci, "Breaking Tradition" (McGraw-Hill, 1997). It looks at language teaching from an historical perspective, going way back to the time when Latin was the language of widespread communication. Proponents of a new approach have most often dismissed "traditional" methods, regardless of what those methods were. We have been caught up of late in SLA research with its references to "monitor," "input," and "processing" that we have lost touch with what the long history of language teaching (the second oldest profession, no doubt) can tell us about reform and implementation.
I understand, but for many of us here, when you say traditional methods and materials the inference is pejorative. Teacher-centered classrooms, passive students, and rote learning would be fine if we weren't trying to teach communicatively.
Right. Well, the solutions to these problems have to come from Japanese scholars like Professor Minoru Wada (who'll be providing a preface in the Japanese translation of the second edition) and others like him. These same concerns are best addressed at the Ministry of Education level. This is where there must be discussion of appropriate changes, what it takes to change, and how these changes will evolve. But the same is true in the United States. You have lots of teachers who aren't happy with the system as it is. That's what I mean when I say traditional teaching. . . impatient with change coming to slowly. There are people who study educational change, how it happens and why it doesn't happen, trying to understand the process. It's not just a question of "we're going to do this now, here it is. . . voila!" It doesn't happen that way. Education is part of a much larger social setting.
When the translated second edition becomes available, there might be skepticism as to it fully being appreciated by many of our Japanese colleagues. It sounds as if you believe there's an audience for the second edition?
Oh, I think so. The more ideas are put forward, the more people start talking and becoming familiar with them, the more likelihood for change. It'll take time, but I liken it to political change. Don't you think that the vast interest that exist in English as an international language is really going to push programs the world over? Look at the success of private language schools, who try to produce more and better results because students are not getting what they need in public school settings. It's going to happen, it is happening, because it has to happen. It'll break out. Where there's a global economy, there are global pressures, particularly for learning English that make change imperative. You have far more of a variety now in opportunities to teach English. And even as frustrated as you are it's still be best place to be.
I think so, and so do many of my fellow native English teachers. That's why many of us came here.
Sure, and you talk to each other, tell each other to keep the faith. You just have to keep working on it, and keep telling people don't expect that just because you tell someone once, and it's obvious to you, that people are going to understand and accept. It takes time.
Well, for many of us there lies the rub, and the source of our frustrations.
Sure. Well I'd be delighted if these concerns could be posed to Kiyoko or Professor Wada and see what they say. As I stated earlier, he'll be writing a preface in the translated text which I'm sure is a way of tying it all in.
Your often cited 1971 doctoral dissertation makes a strong case for the relevance of research in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) as well as Foreign Language Learning (FLL). For many teachers there exists an air of skepticism about research and its relevance for the classroom. Please remind us of the relevance of theory to practice.
Sure, I think that whether you acknowledge it or not, what you do is based on certain assumptions you have about language learning. And the task of research is to examine those assumptions and make them explicit. Why are we doing this? What is the assumption underlying this particular practice? Then we can look systematically to see if in fact that assumption is valid. Is this a good practice? This makes infinitely better sense than saying, "I do this," or "I do this because it works." Well, how do you know? Theory in no way denigrates practice. If a practice appears to be successful, let's look at it. Then we can say, "Well, okay, what exactly is that practice?" "How can it be replicated?" "What does it mean?" Can it fit into the theory of language learning? Research goes from theory to practice, practice to theory. I think that what so often happens is that teachers fear theorists (when going from theory to practice) coming in the classroom telling them how to teach something. Teachers have enough to do, they really don't need to be researchers. The idea is good, and you always need to be aware of the setting, what you're teaching, how the materials are collected. But "research project" can sound so intimidating or overwhelming. This doesn't mean that practitioners shouldn't be involved in research. Collaboration between researchers and practitioners is essential. There is a forthcoming special issue of TESOL Quarterly edited by Donald Freeman and Karen Johnson, with a collection of international papers addressing issues of teacher preparation, including the relationship of theory and practice. The discussion is much needed.
In a past issue of the TESOL Quarterly you spoke on the importance of grammar in communicative materials. Where is grammatical proficiency's place in CC?
Let me say that I think it's at the very center of communicative ability; without grammar, you can't communicate. But "grammar" here means a system that's mutually intelligible, and accepted by all participants. Here again it doesn't mean that you have to use it just like the native speaker does. So if grammar really means "rule," in that sense you can have not only grammatical but social rules as well.
We have language learners who know grammar but can't communicate well, despite their feelings to the contrary.
But, you see, that's another use of the word "grammar." That's not really knowing it, but knowing the grammar. Being able to describe things about a language is not the same as being able to use it. So there's that problem as well. What do you mean by grammar and what do you mean by knowing grammar? So when you talk about grammatical competence within CC you're talking about structural ability at the sentence level. The ability to make use of grammar in expressing yourself, not just knowing about certain rules of analysis because obviously a lot of native speakers are not very capable of giving you a rule about anything, but they use them. They know grammar in the sense of being able to use the language, whereas a lot of teachers and linguists know about grammar structure and they teach grammatical structure. And learners learn about grammatical structure, but that's not at all the same thing as being able to use the grammar to express ideas. It has to develop through practice and use. Not just reflection and theory. So it comes with practice. How do you acquire the rules? This ability has to develop through practice and use before you actually know the grammar.
Many of our colleagues, though committed, work under less than propitious conditions. Any words of encouragement for those of us, novice and veteran alike, determined to persevere?
Don't feel that you need to take the world on your shoulders. You need to understand the context in which you're working. Take all of those forces and ingredients and use them aptly. You have to say, "what can I do, and how can I fit into this?" Don't expect to change everything, or be the one responsible for countering these various problems or stumbling blocks. Remain humble.
Well, there are instructors out there who would assure you that tasting humility on a daily basis is a reality for many of us.
Sure, well take satisfaction in your small successes, and again don't expect to change anything. That's why I think it's often unfair to talk about teachers having to motivate students. Teachers shouldn't have to motivate students, they should always provide learners with opportunities. Learners have to motivate themselves. You can provide for them opportunities to think of things that they might not have considered otherwise. Also, don't expect that your influence or success will appear immediately. There might not be any indication of success until years down the road. Which in itself is a large frustration for teachers, and parents as well. I'm also a parent, and you wait until your children are 30, 40, or 50 before they realize what you've done for them or that you made a big contribution. So, as a parent I take satisfaction in that I did the same thing as a child, and the cycle is repeated, so to speak. As teachers, we can't expect immediate gratification, which makes the occasion when a student approaches you and thanks you for the contribution you made on their lives so rewarding.
Thank you very much, Dr. Savignon
References
Hymes, D. (1967). The anthropology of communication: Human communication theory. New York: Holt, Rheinhart, and Winston.
Musumeci, D. (1997). Breaking tradition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Savignon, S. (1971). Study of the effect of training in communicative skills as part of a beginning college French course on student attitude and achievement in linguistics and communicative competence. Ph.D dissertation, University of Illinois
Savignon, S. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Savignon, S. (1991). Communicative language teaching: State of the art. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 261-277.
Savignon, S. (1997). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill
Dr. Sandra J. Savignon. Program in ESL, College of the Liberal Arts, The Pennsylvania State University, 305 Sparks Bldg.,University Park, PA l6802-5202. E-mail: sjs25@psu.edu
Brenda Fay Harris. E-mail: PXQ01056@niftyserve.or.jp