The following is a summary of the Plenary Address to be delivered by Michael Rost to the JALT Fukuoka Bookfair to be held on Sunday, January 26, 1997 from 10:00 am to 5:00 pm at the Fukuoka International School, 18-50 Momochi 3-chome, Sawara-ku, Fukuoka.
Like most language teachers and language education researchers, I have continuously searched for metaphors to help me better understand communication and the ways that second language communication can be taught. Perhaps the most powerful metaphor for me has been the notion of "intervening" when the learner is at the point of noticing something new or making a decision about what to do.
For me, the key to understanding the importance of intervention in oral communication is the notion of "real time" language processing. What a learner can do with a second language "in real time" - in face-to-face interaction with another speaker - is usually dramatically different from what the same learner can do "off line" - often with reference materials in hand and with opportunities for private analysis and revision. In "real time," the learner must utilize knowledge strategically in order to maximize available memory resources and the learner must solve problems as they emerge.
I was recently reminded of this real-time vs. off-line performance disparity with a group of Japanese university students in a conversation course at the University of California. I had asked the students before each class to write out a 50-word paragraph informally stating their views about a chosen topic. (This method allows the students time to think about their point of view and plan what to say, and, equally importantly, it also commits them to information or an opinion that they can not easily abandon under the pressure of the conversation.)
For one class, the topic was:
- Who had a greater influence on you - your mother or your father? Why?
One student, a Hiroko S., had written:
My mother had a greater influence to me. Why? Because she is so bright-eyed and wonders many things. Sometimes she asks many questions, like she is a little child, and she doesn't care that she is adult. I like this. Yes, she influenced me this way.
The conversation task was to read your partner's paragraph, ask for elaboration and examples, then summarize orally what your partner said. Since Hiroko had no partner, I worked with her. The first part of our conversation (which I tape recorded) went like this:
S: (7 seconds silence) Um . . . mother.
T: Right, your mother. You say she's bright-eyed. That's interesting. Can you explain that a bit?
S: (5 seconds silence) My mother?
T: Yes. What do you mean when you say she's bright-eyed?
S: (7 seconds silence, looks confused)
T: Here, in your paper (showing paper), you say, "She is so bright-eyed and wonders many things."
S: (5 seconds silence) Yes.
T: Can you give me an example?
S: Example?
T: Yeah. Yeah. Can you give me an example to show me what your mother's like.
S: Like? Oh, she likes many things.
We went on a little longer and it became clear that I was not going to find out anything more from Hiroko than what she had written. Indeed, it seemed as if the longer the conversation went on, the less I understood about Hiroko's ideas. I think Hiroko was just as frustrated as I was that she could not manage the conversation, that she could not respond to me the way she wanted, and that she could not get her ideas across effectively.
Why is there such a gap between what Hiroko can communicate in writing on her own (given ample time) and what she can communicate orally (in "real time")? Although we could argue that she "just needs more practice, "a more pointed explanation is that she lacks "procedural knowledge." Although she "knows" English well enough to communicate and exchange ideas, she is unable to process language quickly enough to manage the conversation socially and to accomplish her communication goals. She needs to learn procedures - to enact strategies - to help her manage her conversations more proactively and effectively.
The "real time" communication problems that Hiroko faces are common for all learners. Most learners, unfortunately, never get proper help in making choices and trying out strategies that can assist them consistently in face-to-face conversations. Instead, they feel they need to (or are told to) "study" more vocabulary and grammar, "memorize" more conversation models, and "practice" speaking faster in order to avoid these difficulties in the future.
Of course, there is an important role for study, memorizing, and practice in language learning. But I have come to believe that one of the key purposes of communicative language instruction is to help learners anticipate and deal with conversation management problems, not to prevent them or avoid them.
Based on the work of Bialystok (1990), Rost and Ross (1991), and Bremer, Broeder, Roberts, Simonot, and Vasseur (1995), I have compiled for my students some of the strategies that are generally recognized to assist most learners at different levels of proficiency. These strategies can be classified by purpose:
Message strategies - to help the learner control and understand the messages in the conversation:
- clarify unfamiliar words and concepts (preferably words and concepts that are judged to be key ones); clarify the procedures and purpose of the conversation; ask questions (preferably specific questions) about unclear ideas in the conversation; rephrase ideas of the other speakers.
Response strategies - to help the learner express his/her emotions satisfactorily:
- respond to the speaker personally, try to "connect with" the speaker, show hesitation and misunderstanding when necessary, express an opinion, give honest, emotional responses as feedback to the speaker; agree or disagree when appropriate.
Initiation strategies - to help the learner get his or her ideas across effectively:
- get the floor, keep your speaking turn, interrupt when necessary, change the topic when necessary, backtrack when necessary, introduce new information and ideas, expand the conversation; confirm that other speakers understand our information and ideas.
What I have tried to do in oral communication classes is to introduce these three classes of strategies, demonstrate them (with both positive and negative examples), help students observe and recognize them, and help students realize when they can use them. My techniques and terminology for introducing communication strategies, demonstrating and practicing them vary considerably, but the principles remain fairly constant. In any oral communication class, I try to do the following:
- Contextualize: In the context of communication tasks, I allow the students to experience a conversation which does not work well (e.g., the conversation between Hiroko and me above).
- Observe: I ask the students what went wrong - was it a problem of "controlling the messages," "responding," or "initiating"?
- Demonstrate: I attempt to recreate the problem conversation with the students - with all the problems intact - and let the students identify the strategy choices the speaker or listener made (or could have made).
- Retry: I ask the students to re-try the conversation, thinking about their choices for "message," "response," and "initiation."
One of my goals for this kind of class is to get the learners to think strategically while they are having a conversation. What can I do to "manage" the message? How can I "respond" better? How can I "initiate" what I want to say? As students gain more conscious control over their choices, they become better at managing and understanding conversations.
Certainly, communication involves more than thinking strategically. The purpose of helping learners develop communication strategies is not to supplant the role of building vocabulary, grammar, and discourse knowledge, but to supplement that knowledge in a way that makes learners feel more satisfied, and more in control of their own communication and learning.
References
- Bialystok, E. (1990). Communication strategies: A psychological analysis of second language use. London: Blackwell.
-
Bremer, K., Broeder, P., Roberts, C., Simonot, M. and Vasseur, M. (1995). Achieving Understanding. London: Longman.
- Rost, M., & Ross, S. (1991). Learner strategies in interaction: Typology and teachability. Language Learning, 41 (2), 235-273.
Michael Rost, Ph.D. Linguistics, M.A. TESOL, has varied experience as language teacher, university professor, researcher, author, and teacher trainer. He is the author of books and articles in Applied Linguistics, including Introducing Listening (Penguin, 1995). He has also authored ELT books, including the "Real Time English" series (Longman, 1994-95), and has been developmental editor for other successful series, including "Impact" (Lingual House, 1996).