Direct speaking instruction (and the mora-bound, focal-stress blues)

Writer(s): 
William Acton, Nagoya University of Commerce

Why do you all act so mora-bound this morning students?
Don't tell me now, let me guess.
Why do you all act so moribund this afternoon students?
Don't tell me now, let me guess.
Is it 'cause you keep on doin' that syllable-timed thing on me,
'stead of good ole American English--focal stress?
You're a mess . . .

If you have a musical instrument handy, try singing or saying those seven lines as in a blues style. The boldface indicates sentence/focal stress. In blues, there can often be sentences with stress patterns like those above: just one heavily stressed word, those on either side of that word being said or sung very rapidly, slurred together, reduced in form and with much less volume.

For the Japanese EFL student, the experience of trying to grasp the flow of English sentence rhythm, let alone produce it, must be quite analogous to the problem a native speaker may have on a first hearing of some blues classics: Sometimes about all that comes through clearly are the stressed words and the emotion. But, hey, that is probably enough!

There are, of course, many reasons why second language learners' spontaneous speech may not provide credible evidence of what they have learned in class, but one reason which will be addressed in this paper is that they were never directly taught structure or process in the first place. In a recent article, Celce-Murcia, Dornyei, & Thurrell (1997) suggest that there is mounting evidence of a return to more of what Richards (1990) refers to as "direct instruction" in second language teaching.

Direct instruction, as opposed to "indirect" (with little or no explicit reference to form), emphasizes systematic, conscious attention to form, grammatical consciousness raising, and explicit practice of target structures, phrases, and strategies. Although all methods have some degree of direct instruction, this current concern with form is said to be largely in response to the shortcomings of the communicative language teaching paradigm (Williams, 1995).

Perhaps. For most experienced language teachers, direct instruction in grammar, pronunciation, and learning strategies, for example, has always been, and continues to be, at or near the core of what they do (Nunan, 1995; Todeva, in press). It is good, indeed, to see theorists getting back to "basics" again (cf. Thompson, 1996).

In this article, we will first consider how this shift in second language teaching methods and theory could be reflected in speaking instruction in general. Next we will briefly explore an example of how such direct instructional techniques can be applied in discourse pronunciation work with Japanese EFL students, namely, in teaching focal stress (sentence stress) assignment.

The "You're-on-your-own-from-here school"

One of the comforts of being a teacher is that, ultimately, students are responsible for their learning. In some teaching fields, the conceptual boundary between instructor and student liability for failure is relatively clear; in language teaching, it seldom is. In so-called "survival language courses," or English for specific purposes, for instance, there may be more of an illusion of a fixed set of steps and materials to be learned--that is, phrases and structures to be mastered. In speaking instruction, perhaps more than any other language skill area, however, the problem of managing and facilitating the transition from controlled to spontaneous speaking is even more of a mystery.

Since we do not have a generally recognized theoretical model of how language competence emerges in speech performance (Ellis, 1994; Leather & James, 1991; Dickerson, 1989), it seems that everybody involved can be safely let off the hook--at least for the time being. The role of instruction, as Schmidt (1995) notes, is still too often seen as essentially providing a context, tasks, and words (Lynch, 1996; Thompson, 1996).

As teachers in any good intensive program know, given just enough input, interaction, and sociolinguistically and pragmatically appropriate material to work through, most learners eventually speak reasonably well. But whether they reach the appropriate level of competence in all critical language skill areas and accomplish the teacher's goals effectively is the issue.

In indirect instruction, there can be a wonderful array of interactions, activities, and good "affect" (e.g. Krashen & Terrell, 1983), but learners are still left to self-select most of what to take along and what to leave--until that first fateful encounter with standardized testing. Can we best facilitate that transition from indirect classroom interaction to more formal uses of language as found in the testing system by more overt, guided speaking practice, or is it better to concentrate more on providing learners with relevant input and occasions for communicative practice?

What we are seeing in this shift within second language teaching is a natural consequence of the nearly thirty-year maturation process of the communicative language teaching movement (CLT). Many phenomena, earlier assumed to be outside the domain of the CLT pedagogical model, have now been analyzed and operationalized in method and integrated into everyday practice. A good example of this which shows the impact of CLT on speaking instruction is the increasingly widespread inclusion of conversational interaction and sociolinguistic variability into student materials. The same is happening with conscious treatment (awareness) of grammar today (Schmidt, 1995).

According to Celce-Murcia, Dornyei, and Thurrell (1997), we are approaching a point where instructional design will inevitably become more explicitly form driven but no less process-based (Todeva, in press) and (probably) less individualized. As research and practice have developed in contemporary second language instruction, the pedagogically tolerable gap between conscious knowledge/practice and spontaneous performance continues to narrow (Celce-Murcia, 1991). Instruction is being held more and more responsible for assisting the learner to achieve fluency.

Contemporary methods in speaking instruction: Interaction is not enough

Currently there are a variety of techniques used to facilitate speaking in the classroom. Educators must sift through the smorgasbord of ideas and make decisions based on their own teaching methodologies and preferences and on current research. Issues such as the effectiveness of certain techniques and the degree to which language skills can be treated as discrete entities are being considered and pointing us in new directions.

Speaking instruction is at the same time potentially both the easiest and the most demanding "skill" in second language instruction. To lead an informal conversation group in an integrated language program may only take relatively little training and supervision, a good conversation topic book, and a person who likes people. At the other end of the scale, to work well with pronunciation and conversational interaction with upper intermediate or advanced students requires a highly competent instructor with a breadth of experience and formal training.

In the last decade alone, the development and publication of language teaching techniques, including speaking, listening, and conversation methods, has been phenomenal (e.g., Nunan & Miller, 1995; Bailey & Savage, 1994). It would be fair to say that, with the possible exception of language teaching technology (especially computers and the Internet) the technique for whatever one needs to teach is now probably available somewhere "out there" (a week or so "lurking" on the TESL-L or Internet mailing lists should convince anyone on that score--especially the readiness of list participants to help desperate newcomers with teaching tips). Of course, how to apply that technique to our teaching is another matter entirely.

A question which has been with us continually for nearly a century is to what extent speaking (or listening, reading, or writing) is a discrete skill which can be taught independently and hence, more directly? The research literature on the question is ambiguous at best (Ellis, 1994; Lynch, 1996). In some contexts there is a strong relationship between speaking, vocabulary and grammar, for instance; in other settings, there may be relatively less correlation.

Likewise, the place of speaking in an overall teaching method depends upon what the instructor sees as the key facilitator of speaking development and performance, whether it is: structured, guided, practice (Bailey Savage, 1994; Celce-Murcia, Brinton & Goodwin, 1996); lexical readiness (Lewis, 1993); relevance of the topic (Acton, in press); motivation of the speaker (Brown, 1994); the general affective climate of the moment (Brown, 1994); the communication of new information (Lynch, 1996; Thompson, 1996); strategic knowledge about the conversation (Rost, 1996); communicative tasks (Lynch, 1996); or student-student interaction (Pica, 1995; Long, 1983).

That last potential facilitator, conversational communicative interaction, has come under close scrutiny of late. In communicative language teaching, interaction resulting in negotiation of meaning between students during an information gap activity was for some time proposed as the almost ideal context for speaking and learning (Long, 1995). What classroom-based research now seems to suggest is that although information gap activities do generate a great deal of talk and interaction, it is not clear what is learned in the process (Pica, 1995). In other words, interaction, no matter how active and engaging, may not necessarily teach or practice anything that counts (or can be counted) at that particular developmental point. It may, however, still be a good indirect vehicle for practicing what has been taught directly at an earlier stage.

Direct speaking instruction

If research is showing that indirect instruction alone is not enough, and that opportunities for interaction won't insure fluency, what can teachers add to their conversation or speaking classes to help students attain a higher level of fluency? Some examples of more "direct" procedures or processes typically used in speaking instruction are outlined below. These have been chosen because each could probably (a) be employed to at least offer the possibility of more carry over into "spontaneous" speech or practice conversation, (b) be taught effectively using relatively deductive, conscious techniques, and (c) be regarded as theoretically consistent with the expanded model of CLT outlined earlier (Celce-Murcia, Dornyei & Thurrell, 1997).

 

  • incorporating discourse, sociolinguistic, cultural, and pragmatic norms as key material in guided instruction
  • conscious awareness and training in conversational strategies
  • conversation replays (possibly with audio or video feedback and then a second, third, or fourth try at the same interaction)
  • conversational maintenance practice and analysis
  • "partial" conversations: openings, closings, greetings
  • formulaic material, chit chat, etc. practice
  • directed, open-ended role plays with direct attention to structure and strategies involved
  • oral reading performance (especially high relevance, functional language)
  • speaking style considerations and coaching (pitch, speed, posture)
  • performance preparation (a context for practice): drama, reports, speeches, and debate where a relatively higher percentage of the language to be used is prepared for accuracy.
  • focused pronunciation (such as the discussion of "focal stress" below), where the purpose, applicability, and formal characteristics of the phonological process are directly (and clearly) represented to the learner, practiced, and then attended to in some way in less controlled conversational exercises.

Next, we will consider one example, focal stress, in more detail.

Stress timing, syllable timing, and focal timing

English is often said to be a stress-timed language, meaning that it is spoken with evenly spaced "beats" on stressed elements, but, in principle, any number of syllables can come between those beats/stressed elements, depending on what is being highlighted in the discourse. That is actually stretching it some. The principle certainly does apply in poetry, song, and prepared speech, for example, but in daily interaction, the rhythmic structure is anything but as regular as the overly general term "stress-timed" would imply. In other words, unstressed (and therefore, shortened) syllables do tend to collapse and compress around stressed syllables in spontaneous conversational speaking, but there is rarely a long string of regular beats between focal stresses (Bolinger, 1986). In the sample song at the beginning of this paper, we read this sentence, "Don't tell me now, let me guess." The words between the two focal stresses, 'tell' and 'guess', when read naturally, would be compressed and reduced.

Japanese, on the other hand, is often referred to as a syllable-timed language, where, at least on a superficial level, every syllable may at first seem to receive "even" stress. The reality of Japanese is also more complex. The rhythm of speech centers around "mora," which are syllables that basically for nonsemantic reasons may have more emphasis. In other words, rhythm in English is more closely tied to discourse meaning. In Japanese, rhythm is more a function of the sound structure of the sentence itself, although not entirely.

Gilbert (1994) and others use the term "focal stress" or "focus" (that is, sentence stress or phrasal stress) to identify the word in the phrase or sentence that carries the greatest stress and is generally the point where the speaker indicates the key information is located. For example, in a sentence such as: "I am going to the store tonight," we would expect the focal stress to be on "store." It would also sound quite natural if there were a second stress on "going" as well, of course. If the discourse context entails some other presupposition, the focal stress could conceivably be on any other word--or under extreme conditions one could even imagine a context where the speaker might put relatively even, vehement stress on all nine syllables.

The assumption here is that at a developmental stage where students are actively working to understand English stress and rhythm, it is not all that difficult to identify for them in a printed text where focal stress will probably occur. This foregrounding (highlighting) (e.g., Bolinger, 1986; Gilbert, 1994) may be done in many ways (the opposite process being "backgrounding"). Information may be foregrounded grammatically, as when a word or phrase is brought to the beginning of a sentence; or lexically, as when a more striking word or phrase is substituted in to a text to make it "stand out" to the reader or listener; or graphically, as when we use boldfacing to create emphasis; or phonologically, as in focal stress assignment.

Given the typical sentence length and lexical complexity of the material learners are working with, teaching them to listen for, and try to use focal stress in their classroom speaking is manageable. Following Gilbert (1994), the reason for the term focal stress, as opposed to "sentence stress," is to emphasize the fact that sentence stress placement in English is ultimately determined by the discourse context.

Focal stress is perceptually very important in identifying key information. What emphasizing focal stress, as opposed to phrasal or word stress, also does is to somewhat downplay the importance (and pressure on the learner) of being able to immediately speak rhythmically in conversation, because learners can learn to put stress on key words only as opposed to trying to manage the more variable sentence-level rhythm and stress. Attempting to bring learners too rapidly to the point where they can consciously generate spontaneous, rhythmic speech is a questionable practice, at best; teaching rhythmic speech is basically a good idea, but for all but the most kinesthetic learner, semantic coherence drives rhythm, not the other way around. Thus, focal stress is not only more manageable as a first step toward fluency than rhythmic speech, but also provides the semantic cues necessary to help students develop a more natural rhythm.

Even for native speakers, regular rhythm in speech has implications of preparedness or mastery of the topic at hand that the learner probably doesn't want to convey too soon (Bolinger, 1986). Unlike focal stress, rhythm is best taught indirectly, for instance in songs, poetry, and jazz chants. As an indirect process, general rhythm instruction is enormously valuable; however, we should not be surprised before long to see the emergence of methodology for better integrating rhythm into speaking curricula, teaching it more directly (Acton, 1994; Celce-Murcia, Brinton & Goodwin, 1996).

 

The mora-bound, focal stress blues

In the blues lines below, if one were to try and perform it like a blues artist, there might be only one focal stress as in the first line:

"Why do you all act so mora-bound this morning, students?"

There could, of course, be more stressed words in that line, but the point is to show students how focal stress works in English, using a somewhat extreme example, and give them extensive practice working with that process. (By the way, that line is not one I use with students. Something like "Why do you all seem so tired this morning?" would be a typical, more useful example.)

Singing or talking through blues (or blues-like texts) that are marked for focal stress is potentially a good direct practice vehicle for teaching Japanese students how to speak in a more stress-timed/focal stress manner, as opposed to the Japanese "mora" or syllable-timed patterning. As students begin using focal stress for foregrounding, they become more intelligible, as at least a semblance of stress-timing comes through (Gilbert, 1994).

Playing a guitar or some other instrument as you do blues patterns with students is nice but not essential. (Recordings of blues artists, with transcripts are perhaps helpful from an indirect perspective--as is that student who plays guitar in a rock band in almost every class!)

With a little practice you can turn virtually any text, any exercise in any student book--even the telephone book, into a blues-like exercise that assists students in learning and practicing how syllables get "jammed together" so brutally in English. (In fact, I refer to it in class as "jamming.") In actual practice, a student may only try to speak one line or one phrase from a dialogue in that style, not an entire verse of blues.

Directed instruction in focal stress timing

The basic direct techniques involved in teaching focal stress are straightforward.

Begin by identifying and marking focal stress in materials that students will be reading aloud or using in controlled speaking. (I often do that as a quick dictation before we begin working on a text or dialogue.) Whenever anything is read aloud or practiced in pairs or teams, see that the focal stress is being marked vocally, at least with increased loudness. One method (my favorite for the past 15 years) for accomplishing that is to require that there is some kind of body motion or non-iconic gesture accompanying every focal stress (Acton, 1984; Acton, 1997). It is sufficient at first, however, that the speaker just make the focal the loudest stress in the phrase or sentence.

Once students can at least read focal stress into their prepared speaking, have them begin trying to identify typical focal stress locations in their textbook materials. (Be sure to check their guesses before continuing with the lesson until you are satisfied that they are within range on about 75% of the locations.)

There are at least three principles here: (1) Do not go more than 6 words without a focal stress; (2) The more emotional, the more focal stresses; and vice versa, the more academic-sounding, the fewer focal stresses in the text. As long as students can understand the basic story of the text, they can learn to place focal stress quite appropriately; and (3) There can, of course, be more than one acceptable focal stress location in a phrase or sentence. It is not too difficult for even the least proficient learner to identify places that would probably not hold focal stress, e.g., function words, except in the weirdest of contexts.

A next step is to gradually give students more complex tasks where they can try to speak with focal stress. I have found that anything from simple chitchat, to formulaic greetings, to information gapping works fine. Some students are able to apply the focal stress overlay strategy quite readily in more spontaneous speaking; others can only turn on the "focal stress" switch when given a very simple task, reminded frequently, and allowed to replay the interaction a few times.

Final focus

Explicit direct instruction on focal stress shows promise of producing relatively immediate, discernible transfer into spontaneous speech practice. The same applies with many "traditional" procedures which have been discarded because they were born too soon, children of the wrong method. In our search for ways to help students bring into play important speech production mechanisms or strategies, it is time we go back and reassess the applicability of many direct techniques in the context of our new, broader understanding of communication and how to manage it. After all, with but a bit of systematic direct instruction to focal stress, intelligibility of Japanese EFL learner speech performance can be enhanced considerably . . . "mora-less."

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Elka Todeva, Phil Goertzen, Linda Grant, Bryn Holmes and Steve McGuire for comments and council on earlier drafts of this article.

 

References

Acton, W. (in press). Cooperative attending skills training for ESL students. in JALT Applied Materials series volume, Kluge, D., & McGuire, S. (Eds.). Cooperative language teaching in Japan.

Acton, W. (1997 [March]). Teaching stress. (pre-conference institute presentation) at the 1997 TESOL convention (Orlando).

Acton, W. (1994). Directed movement in language instruction. Journal of Communication and International Studies (Nagoya University of Commerce), 1, 43-52.

Acton, W. (1984). Changing fossilized pronunciation. TESOL Quarterly, 18 (1), 71-85.

Bailey, K. & Savage, L. (Eds). (1994). New ways in teaching speaking. Alexandria, VA.: TESOL.

Bolinger, D. (1986). Intonation and its parts. Palo Alto, CA.: Standford University Press.

Brown, H.D. (1994). Teaching by principles. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Language and communication: A time for equilibrium and integration. In J. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics 1991 (pp. 223-237), Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Celce-Murcia, M., Dornyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1997). Direct approaches in L2 instruction: A turning point in Communicaive Language Teaching? TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 141-152.

Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. & Goodwin, J. (1996). Teaching pronunciation: A reference for teachers of English to speakers of other languages. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Dickerson, W. (1989). Stress in the speech stream: The rhythm of spoken English, Student text. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Dornyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1994). Teaching conversational skills intensively: Course content and rationale. ELT Journal, 48 , 40-49.

Ellis, N. (1996). Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking, and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 91-126.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fotos, S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 323-351.

Gilbert, J. (1994). Clear speech: Pronunciation and listening comprehension in North American English. Student's Book, 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Krashen, S. & Terrell, T. (1983).The natural approach. Hayward, CA: Alemany Press.

Leather, J., & James, A. (1991) The acquisition of second language speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 305-341.

Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach: The state of ELT and a way forward. Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications.

Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126-41.

Lynch, T. (1996). Communication in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Morley, J. (Ed.). (1994). Pronunciation pedagogy and theory: New views, new dimensions. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

Nunan, D. & Miller, L. (Eds). (1995). New ways in teaching listening. Alexandria, VA.: TESOL.

Pica, T. (1995). Questions from the language classroom: research perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 48-79.

Richards, J. (1990).The language teaching matrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rost, M. (1996). Helping learners develop communication strategies. The Language Teacher, 20 (12), 41-43.

Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.) Attention & awareness in foreign language learning. (pp. 1-64) Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.