|
The Language Teacher | |
The Fundamental Importance of Spoken GrammarLanguage scholars and teachers alike have long been aware of differences between spoken and written English. Unfortunately, awareness of this dichotomy has often resulted in spoken forms being looked upon as poor cousins of the written, aberrations from canonical "correct" forms as it were. Teaching the vagaries of the spoken language has thus often manifested itself in the offhand insertion of a few slang phrases, idioms, and points of register, largely as a supplement or addendum to presumably more central teaching points. Carter & McCarthy (1994) and McCarthy & Carter (1995) have been at the forefront of dispelling such attitudes and practices. Their research into spoken grammar (SG) forms has lead them to conclude that spoken language is not merely a variant of "correct" written forms. Rather, the spoken language, particularly the interactive discourse of native speakers, incorporates forms that are widespread and consistent in usage, and most importantly, meaningful. Due to the dynamic interactive nature of the spoken language, many of these features are not or cannot be realized in more standardized written forms. The choice of subject or theme, the structure of information, and which elements are to be emphasized or omitted, all illuminate various attitudinal, rhetorical, or relational factors above and beyond those of the core message. These features represent clear choices, either consciously or unconsciously, wherein language is being manipulated to reach the desired communicative ends of the speaker(s). As such, they should be treated with the utmost importance. If one is purporting to teach "conversation," it is therefore necessary that written forms not be used as models of the spoken language. To do so would be simply out of place, since spoken forms often employ unique and distinct means of realizing various interpersonal functions of real-time discourse (attitudes, highlighting, evaluative markers, personal relations, repair, etc.) or allow one to more accurately identify or utilize a specific genre (narrative, language-in-action, etc.) of speech. It is not as if spoken and written forms are parallel systems separated only by degrees of register. One Source of DifficultyIt is my contention that the difficulties that Japanese learners of English have in adequately employing the spoken language is not only due to the fact that the teaching of spoken forms has been reduced to a peripheral role in most English language teaching in Japan, but also results from the faulty practice of teaching written forms as if they were "conversational." Unfortunately, since many teachers and teaching materials attempt to represent conversation via the norms of the written language (Carter & McCarthy, 1994), learners invariably fail to absorb the nuances of spoken forms with the result that learners often converse as if they were walking textbooks. Thus, although one may instinctively use the interactive and interpersonal nuances of speech in one's own language (albeit largely unconsciously), if such strategies are not taught in L2, that languagto show ll be made to appear as a wholly logical and technical system, in which proficiency is best achieved via a formulaic construction of discrete grammatical elements (often referred to as the slot-and-filler method). The forms that I have regularly noted in spoken English by Japanese such as transformations of "the dog chased the cat" to "the cat was chased by the dog," suggest that this perspective has been unwittingly propagated by teachers and absorbed by learners. Such a faulty schema surely increases the sense of distance between L1 and L2, which in turn may increase psychological barriers to acquisition. In my own research (Guest, 1996), numerous instances of native English speaker to native English speaker SG forms were noted, classified, and then compared to native speaker-nonnative speaker (Japanese) conversations. Not only did there appear a vast number of SG forms used by native speakers that have hitherto gone unnoticed by Carter & McCarthy, but the discrepancies between forms commonly used by native speakers and the sentence-based written language models regularly employed in speech by many of the Japanese subjects became even more pronounced. I will later highlight these discrepancies by focusing upon one common, recurring central form of SG, ellipsis. Benefits of Teaching Spoken Grammar: Two Points of Language TransitionSpoken vs. written language: The role of ellipsis One criticism that could be applied to Carter & McCarthy's (1994) emphasis upon the importance of SG is that any teaching of a new, or alternate, grammar system puts too much of a strain on both teacher and learner. After all, teachers already face time and content limitations which naturally restrict the scope of any syllabus. Moreover, learners are often overwhelmed by simply attempting to acquire standard forms. Wouldn't teaching spoken grammar as a separate entity simply increase the workload? My answer is no. Most germane to my argument here, is the fact that spoken forms are invariably less formally complex than written forms. As we shall see, the degree of situational ellipsis where surrounding interpersonal contexts demand the ellipsis (i.e., it is not retrievable from the text) is far greater in the spoken language than in the written (where most ellipsis is textual) due to the participantsı heightened mutual understanding of surrounding contexts and environment. Furthermore, such a decrease in formal complexity can have interpersonal and cross-cultural benefits too. Japanese learners often feel that in real-time spoken English, when deliberating over the often complex "correct" grammatical form, the safe, default option is to simply avoid responding. Such behaviour can make Japanese learners of English appear standoffish, distant, uncommunicative, even cliquish. Another strategy is to verbalize all of the various grammatical possibilities. Freeing students from unnecessarily complex grammatical deliberation by focusing on the common shortcuts and interpersonal features of English that are manifest in SG can serve to lessen possible resultant cross-cultural misunderstandings and interpersonal friction. Moreover, since spoken forms tend to utilize these simple elliptical shortcuts, the transition from the written word to the spoken would be made much smoother for the learner than most such transitions between differing language systems typically are. Convergence of forms in speech (English-Japanese) From a pedagogical standpoint, more significant perhaps is the fact that due to the widespread utilization of ellipsis in SG, spoken English begins to structurally resemble much spoken Japanese. Halliday's (1990) observation that different languages tend to converge in speech, since speech lies closer to the ideational bone of language, was clearly evident in my findings. Therefore, one of the key subtexts of this paper is the fact that the examples provide support for the argument that Japanese and English, so linguistically divergent in the standardized written plane, converge significantly in spoken forms. This, in turn, would appear to make a second element of language transfer, that from L1 to L2, easier for Japanese learners of English. If learners are made aware of this convergence of L1 and L2 and of the similar interpersonal and sociolinguistic strategies that they entail, the sense of psychological distance would likely be radically reduced as a more human perspective of L2 would be engendered. Furthermore, such authentic spoken forms often serve to meet the wants and needs of learners who clamour to be taught "natural English," realizing that a gulf exists between most language presented in the classroom and that which they hear in the real-life discourse of native speakers. This is a complaint that most teachers in Japan seem to have heard. Many however, are often unsure as to how this may be rectified or addressed in the classroom, particularly if one views such language as a mere amalgam of slang and idioms. But because its norms are based upon the actual utterances of native speakers, teaching spoken grammar can fulfil this demand in a much more practical and constructive way. Samples of Ellipsis in SpeechMy research into native English speakers' spoken grammar forms involved monitoring the speech habits of twelve native speakers, male and female, from five different countries, with a mixture of educational and working backgrounds, from a variety of language events including many exchanges with nonnative speakers. Following are some significant forms which were regularly noted. These have been categorized under two separate headings. Ellipsis in Simple Adjacency Pair ResponsesThis is a type of textual ellipsis which was most frequently noted in the second turns in simple adjacency pairs of native speakers, such as getting-to-know-you Q and A introductions. Although textual ellipsis is also common in written English, the interactive nature of conversation makes it even more salient, to the extent that a failure to employ ellipsis can unwittingly mark the speakerıs utterance. Below is a very typical case in which the Japanese participant is not using any type of ellipsis at all. These mundane examples are perhaps the most representative of a failure to apply SG norms: Native English Speaker (NS): What's your name? Japanese (J): My name is Hideki Fukushima. NS: Which class are you in, Hideki? J: I am in Mr. Boyd's class. Hideki is likely using full and complete sentence forms in his responses here because at some point during his secondary school education he has been taught that these are somehow "correct" (which would be true if it were a first turn or, possibly, if it were written). Here we can see the unfortunate legacy of teaching by using citation forms, in which language content is manipulated by a teacher or textbook in order to practice a grammatical form superimposed upon the discourse. Note that while Hideki's language is grammatically "correct," it is nonetheless still not the choice that native speakers made when responding in similar circumstances. Even if Hideki's choice of form is the result of an attempt to be polite (as many Japanese subjects later characterized their responses) it does not negate the fact Hideki comes across as something of a stick-in-the-mud. Choosing full forms as a sign of politeness is simply one more misapplication of SG norms. This becomes more apparent if contrasted with a role reversal that occurred turned later in the same conversation: J: And what's your name? NS: Robin Potts. J: Which class are you teaching? NS: B. [referring to the name of the class] Halliday's (1985) treatment of the interplay between the thematic choice of a clause and the order (or even the existence) of given and new information sheds light on such exchanges. Applying Halliday's model, we see that the respondent is repeating the given information (My name is..., I am in...) when the linguistic environment (i.e., the previous turn: What is your name?) requires that the given information be elided. By failing to accept these norms of interactive spoken language, the default form used by native speakers, Hideki has inadvertently marked his response. This puts the original interlocutor in the position of having to interpret the reason for the marked response. Because the full and complete grammatical forms that Hideki used display a heavily regimented overload of information structure, had he been in a foreign milieu (foreign nationals in Japan are naturally apt to dismiss Hideki's awkwardness as nothing more than the mark of being a second language learner) his response may well be interpreted as stiff, standoffish or distant. Such full responses could also mark the speaker as caustic or sarcastic. Here we can begin to see how an inappropriate application of spoken forms can lead to interpersonal or even intercultural friction. Also notable were the number of instances in second-turn responses in which Japanese speakers verbalized the entire range of possible grammatical choices available to them. Typical were exchanges such as- NS: Where are you from? Japanese: I am...come...came ...from Yamaguchi prefecture. By using ellipsis however, the respondent can easily avoid externalizing these grammatical deliberations and instead focus upon the task at hand, providing the requested, new information. In doing so, a more acceptable, harmonious sense of interaction can be maintained between the participants, as well as a less stressful one for the Japanese participant. It is interesting to note that in Japanese also, the full grammatical response is the marked form, not only of highly stylized politeness but also distance or coldness (Hori, 1995). So, unless the speaker wishes to deliberately display these characteristics, spoken Japanese in similar types of speech events demands ellipsis of given information. Thus, since the pragmatic force of the L2 utterance matches that which the learner already intuitively understands in L1, transition to similar usage in L2 would not seem to be such a daunting process. Ellipsis in Lexical PhrasesSituational ellipsis Situational ellipsis is ubiquitous in the "chunks" of language that Nattinger & DeCarrico (1992) refer to as "lexical phrases" (also referred to as "set" or "semi-preconstructed" phrases by others). These include: collocations (Ladies and Gentlemen); evaluative phrases and set responses (No wonder or So be it); colloquialisms (Get a load of this); adjunct or modifying phrases (after all...); loose proverbs (You can't always get what you want); rhetorical signals and strategies (The point is...); and specific functional forms (i.e., on the telephone, It's for you). Since these set forms straddle the categorical border of lexis and grammar they are not found in most dictionaries and are thus unlikely to be used by learners simply as a result of slotting in the correct grammatical constituents. As a result most learners of English are unfamiliar with their patterns of usage except for the most formulaic, fixed type of phrases (i.e., Nice to meet you.). The centrality and import of such lexical phrases is further underscored by lexical corpus studies which reveal that an inordinate amount of speech is made up of such phrases (Carter, 1987; Nattinger & DeCarrico, 1992; Sinclair, 1991). But the crucial SG feature endemic to many such phrases is not their propensity for ellipsis but their pervasive interpersonal and social applications. For some examples, contrast the set of grammatically constructed utterances below made by Japanese colleagues in English, with the later set of lexical phrases culled from native speakers in similar circumstances: (a) Do you understand me? (Checking my comprehension of what the speaker has said.) (b) May I help you? (Seeing me carrying a load and thus struggling to open a door.) (c) I want to talk with you! (Appearing suddenly at my office door.) Native speakers of English and other competent speakers of the language would instinctively realize that something is amiss in these utterances. The layman might be apt to state that "they speak funny" or even that the speaker seems cold, or possibly angry. While all these utterances are grammatically correct and the basic meanings can be readily inferred, because the speaker has failed to utilize the common lexical phrases that are necessitated here the perception of the listener may well be negative. In the three cases cited above, how would the perception have been if the speaker had instead said: (a) Know what I mean? (b) Need a hand? (c) Got a second? Thus, to resort to an invented utterance constructed entirely from piecemeal grammatical constituents when a suitable lexical phrase can be readily used is to ignore their psychological or social resonance. Such set phrases carry a social function so weighty that ignorance of their existence, role or function is likely to inadvertently lead to a strained or awkward interaction. Lexical phrases: Genre and pragmatic considerations The astute reader may note two common problems in each of the earlier nonnative speaker responses. The first is pragmatic, with (c) being the most poignant. I want to talk to you, is simply not a socially acceptable approach to initiating a conversation, particularly one in which the speaker is in the position of making the request. The tone is marked as unremittingly reproachful. Are we then to categorize this as a cultural misunderstanding based on differing pragmatic strategies between Japanese and English? Not at all! Anyone with even the most fundamental knowledge of Japanese canıt help but be aware how Japanese social functions are reflected linguistically with ubiquitous amounts of presequencing, hedging and an almost legendary degree of indirectness. Thus, if the speaker in (c) above were to look at parallel strategies in his own language he would find a direct translation of his utterance totally inappropriate (i.e., Anata to shaberitai.). The problem is that the speaker seems content with merely having constructed a correct grammatical sentence likely because at sometime he has learned that in English, correct written grammatical forms somehow equals correct language use. The second problem is that of genre suitability and this is reflected in example (b). By using a form more suitable to a service encounter the speaker, by making this perfectly "correct" utterance, has linguistically marked the nature of the encounter. Such an utterance may not exacerbate relations in the way that (c) above might but would still likely be the cause of some mirth at the speakers' expense. Utterance (a) is similarly marked, as the language of intimate psychological introspection (a literal Japanese translation might render it as watashi no koto...) rather than evoking the checking function that it was meant to convey. Again, although it is lexically and grammatically correct, it nonetheless strikes a native speaker of English as inappropriate. While these nonnative speaker examples are clear cases of sociolinguistic misapplication of SG, this alone is not the entire point. Perhaps more poignant from a pedagogical standpoint is the fact that the speakers have chosen to construct perfectly correct pieces of sentence grammar either because they feel that this is necessary and/or sufficient for communicative success or because they are not aware of any other options or strategies. To avoid the type of miscues presented above, learners must develop some awareness of authentic and functionally appropriate strategies and forms. In English these are more often than not realized in such lexical phrases. As Nattinger & DeCarrico (1992) note, the social functions that the use of such phrases underline are among the first items learned iLILACown language. If so, why then are they so often omitted in second-language curricula? ConclusionResearch into spoken grammar forms, with particular reference to the unique forms of ellipsis evident in simple information transactions and lexical phrases, indicates that such forms are grammatical choices which realize unique and distinctive interpersonal, pragmatic, and generic language strategies that are crucial to successful two-way communication. Since these elided forms are invariably structurally less complex than equivalent written forms, the transition from written forms to the spoken language would be made easier for the learner if such SG features were regularly and widely taught. Finally, because ellipsis in speech tends to pare utterances down to their "ideational bones," languages as formally diverse as English and Japanese begin to display strong structural similarities in SG. If learners are made aware of such features, the psychological and linguistic distance between L1 and L2 can be lessened. For these reasons, the author advocates an increase in the explicit teaching of spoken grammar forms in the language learning classroom.
| |
